California FTB (franchise theft board)

rushpat · #1 03-29-2004, 08:23 PM

Hello all,

Long story short:
- Lived in CA in 1999 for 1 year, moved back to Georgia
- Summer 2003, received standard request for tax return for CA (form 540NR)
- Conditionally accepted to file upon proof of claim (10 conditions), negative averment, 15 days to respond, warning of monetary damages sought if they continued to harass without meeting conditions
- After 15 days, started what we called then a Notarial Protest... basically a 1-2-3-default method, fronted by a knowlegable public notary in California
- He sent notice of dishonor, 10 days to cure, copies of original paperwork
- He then sent notice of protest, final 10 days to cure
- Issued us both (Gerald Goldberg, director FTB and myself) a Notice of Protest in my favor
- Have not filed it in the public record yet (looking into this)
- Now, 4 months later, received Notice of Proposed Assessment. Monetary listing and a note that they disagree with my position, cites useless court decisions about their power to tax, blah, blah, blah

Hmm... could this be an attempt to get me to recontract with them?

Having just received it today, I'm already preparing paperwork to send back within 72 hours (listening to Rice Mcleod lately... 3days=contract, 7days=default, 10days=summary judgement... could it apply here?)

I am currently going by some of the info in the Commercial Toolbox release 3.0 (response to IRS notice of Proposed assessment).

In it, they state that the 30day limit in an IRS letter is indicative of a presentment in accordance with the FDCPA. The FTB note I received today is 60 days. Any thoughts?

Also, does anyone know of the California rule or regulation that states that the FTB must conform to portions of the FDCPA like the IRM does for the IRS?

I'm also thinking that it might be good to reference the previous Conditional Acceptance with the Certificate of protest (photocopy) as an additional attachment and notice in the affidavit in support.

Also, I know that nralien has been battling them as well. I heard that the FTB is like a steamroller that just doesn't stop. They've liened his bank account. I'm wondering what they'd do to someone outside of California like me.

Thanks for any thoughts.

rushpat · #2 03-29-2004, 08:46 PM

Would it just be simpler just to send a modified VOD with CN and CPN, rather than the letter to get them to adhere to the FDCPA?

#3 03-29-2004, 09:58 PM

& 8O

rushpat · #4 03-29-2004, 10:15 PM

Actually, just before I started the Conditional Acceptance letter, I did send a letter mentioning that I had fulfilled my obligations to the best of my knowledge, but if I'd missed anything then they must notify me of what obligation I still had which I hadn't fulfilled, the state and federal statute or regulation supporting this and that someone in authority sign these letters and to make that note part of any permanent record.

Since it was in honor that I wrote this, I considered it the preliminary part of my conditional acceptance. In my official Conditional Acceptance letter, I referenced the fact that I'd required this authorite cite in the initial response, and they just ignored it.

The 2nd letter was only slightly more personalized as it just listed my former workplace and the amount of moneis paid to me in that time. Still no signature, no cite of statute or regulation.

My Conditional Acceptance was directly to Gerald Goldberg as no one at the FTB has any balls to sign their forms (please forgive my french... those FTB guys are really annoying). I thought they wouldn't be afraid of signing, since the California legislature has given them personal immunity to prosecution (which even IRS agents don't have). Boy am I glad I left that state. It has nice weather but the gov't out there is too oppresive. No wonder people and companies were leaving in droves during Gray Davis's regime.

Before I started any of this, I was told that the FTB employs only trained monkeys that don't think, but just push ahead, regardless of letters, calls, etc. We'll see.

I will mention this in my affidavit that is going out in the next 48 hours though. I will mention everything they didn't do during the original Conditional Acceptance (including no authority cite), along with their default, dishonor and now trying to collect on an unverified debt (fraud) and use of the mail to do it (mail fraud), along with a copyright notice.

Thanks for any thoughts.

rushpat · #5 03-29-2004, 10:18 PM

Oh, and I also included all sorts of stuff in my original negative averment about not having documentation proving that I was:

- a corporation
- had entered into private contract with STATE OF CALIFORNIA
- etc

My paper trail is getting longer and longer...

rushpat · #6 03-29-2004, 11:19 PM

Hey Tora,

Could you repost your original comment about the Privacy Act? It seems to have gone blank.

Anyway, here is something to look over concerning silence from the taxing agencies when we ask for authority or verification. Found this one in another forum:

"Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to
speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our
revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers
should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and
collection activities."
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021,
1032;

"`Silence' is specious of conduct, and constitutes an implied
representation of the existence of facts, in question... When silence
is of such character and under such circumstances that it would
become a fraud...it will operate as an estoppel."
Carmen V Bowen 64 AT.932 or 64 A. 932 ???????????

I suspect this last one is the Atlantic Reporter, but not sure.

#7 03-29-2004, 11:21 PM

&I did send a letter mentioning that I had fulfilled my obligations to the best of my knowledge,

But you have no obligation to them, so there's no need to&tell them&you "had fulfilled your obligations"...you have none. 

but if I'd missed anything then they must notify me of what obligation I still had which I hadn't fulfilled, the state and federal statute or regulation supporting this and that someone in authority sign these letters and to make that note part of any permanent record.

Again, the only&obligation you have is to ask them for the statute&that requires them to& solicit you for a tax return.&It's in the Privacy Act.&They&are relying on your ignorance.&Quote them Privacy Act and see if they don't stop.&Ask them&for their authority.That is your right!!

&

&

&

rushpat · #8 03-29-2004, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tora

&Again, the only&obligation you have is to ask them for the statute&that requires them to& solicit you for a tax return.&It's in the Privacy Act.&They&are relying on your ignorance.&Quote them Privacy Act and see if they don't stop.&Ask them&for their authority.That is your right!!

&

&

Can you repost that Privacy Act quote again?& As I look back on your previous post, it is now blank.

Thanks!

#9 03-29-2004, 11:35 PM

<TT>Rushpat:</TT>
<TT></TT>&
<TT>Feel free to edit&the letter below to fit your needs. You should probably enclose copies of the Privacy Act sections that are quoted.& </TT>
<TT></TT>&
<TT>Also, I wouldn't&mention&anything about your previous correspondence to them. You can&tell them that you will be happy to provide them with a tax return upon proof of their authority. </TT>
<TT></TT>&
<TT></TT><TT></TT>&
<TT>FRANCHISE TAX BOARD<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

></TT>
<TT>INC BUSINESS SECTION J40<o

></o

></TT>
<TT>P. O. BOX 942840<o

></o

></TT>
<TT>SACRAMENTO, CA 94240<o

></o

></TT>
<TT></TT>&
<TT>&Re:& Demand for Tax Return and Notice Of Proposed Assessment<o></o></TT>
<TT>&<o

></o

></TT>
<TT>Dear Sir/Madam:</TT>
<TT></TT><o

></o

>&
On 12/23/03 I received from your agency a Notice entitled “Demand for Tax Return” which states that you had no record of my 2002 California Tax Return.& Please accept this letter in good faith, as I seek all parties to be in full compliance with the California Revenue Code. 
&
Privacy Act of 1974 (e) (3)(A)& and<TT>, Title 31 1.35(b) (2), states that your agency is required to:& “inform each individual whom it asks to supply information on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form which can be retained by the individual, the authority (whether granted by statute, or by Executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary.” (Emphasis added). </TT>
<TT><o

></o

></TT>&
For the protection of person’s commercial well being, please provide me with the authority by which your agency is authorized to solicit a 2002 California tax return from me and whether disclosure of such tax information is mandatory or voluntary.& 
<o

></o

>&
This request is made in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 5 U.S.C. section 552a (e)(3)(A) and <TT>Title 31 1.35(b) (2).</TT><o

></o

>
&
Thank you.& I look forward to your timely response. <o

></o

>
<TT><o

></o

></TT>&

#10 03-29-2004, 11:45 PM

If you still have a copy of the Demand for Tax Return you should probably enclose a copy of it, pointing out&that the Demand does not meet the requirements of the Privacy Act, and&until it does meet the PA requirements, you have no obligation to them.&