irs letter: "critical readers" will have fun - Page 2

#11 04-25-2004, 04:40 PM

Oh, I am so pissed I could spit nails!

Just doin' some research regarding all this, and looky what I found, compliments of Internal Revenue Manual:

If correspondence indicates that the taxpayer is a frivolous filer, see 5.18.1.8.151....

Route to FRP, 1973 N. Rulon White Road, Ogden, Utah 84201, ATTN: Mail Stop 4450

Now, THAT'S where I got "dumped."

So, the determination has already been made that I'm "frivilous"?

These bastards don't know what "frivilous" is!

Randy

Jerseee · #12 04-25-2004, 08:53 PM

Randy,

You are about to come to more truths that are going to even make you angier than what you are if you keep reading and researching.

the good thing is that you are going to be enlightened and freed through knowledge and study.

I felt the same way when I found out what these bastards do to children when they are born.

Ice · #13 04-25-2004, 09:17 PM

What really gets me is how they consistently bring up the term “taxpayer” and never demonstrate how it is that we fall into the category of “taxpayer”.& Just once I would like them to PROVE that I am a “taxpayer”… offer proof of their jurisdiction.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>[/b]
One thing is certain; the winds of change are blowing all across this land.& The IRS may just be the catalyst of change… after all, don’t they “feed the fire” of discontent in the people? &And are not the people reminded of it every year at “Tax time”?<o

></o

>[/b]
<o

>&</o

>[/b]

#14 04-25-2004, 10:30 PM

Howard Beale:

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."

Read this crap (Internal Revenue Manual re "offers in compromise"):
<H3>4.18.2.2 (01-01-2000)
Considering the Liability Issue </H3>
<H3>Note:</H3>

3. A doubt as to liability offer may not be rejected solely because the Service is unable to locate the taxpayer's return or return information. The taxpayer cannot be required to submit a financial statement for a doubt as to liability offer.

What's that? Can't be "required" to "submit a financial statement"? What the **** do they think a 1040 is?&

Wait. It gets better. (I love "preaching to the choir"!)& Numbnuts agent IS going to have the following shoved smack-dab in his grimy little face!
<H3>5.19.1.3.3 (12-15-2002)
Tax Liability Determined </H3>
<H3>Reminder:</H3>

The IRS Mission — Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. 

4.14.1.7.1 (07-21-2000)
Mandatory Area Counsel Review Criteria

As outlined in the following paragraphs, certain cases must be reviewed prior to issuance. The authority to issue a notice of deficiency rests with the area directors, service center directors, and Appeals. The role of Area Counsel in this procedure is to provide advice on whether a notice of deficiency should be issued, and if so, to make recommendations concerning the issues to be asserted and the wording of the determination. Alternatively, the Area Director and Area Counsel may decide not to review any of the cases. 

11.High profile media attention cases where the appropriateness of conducting the examination may be questioned. Examples include cases where the taxpayer is famous or notorious, had a prior criminal case which was the subject of media attention, or any case involving politicians, congressional hearing witnesses, or allegations that the Service had examined the taxpayer for impermissible reasons.

Okay. So some get a little more "fair" treatment than others, right?

Ladies and Gentlemen of Sui Juris:

I will acknowledge that until now, this has been:

1) Educational (to put it mildly)
2) Frustrating, to say the least.
3) Maddening, that's for sure.

NOW, however, it's all-out WAR!

"Feel the power of the dark side, Luke...."

Randy

&

#15 04-25-2004, 10:34 PM

[quote= Jerseee]

Randy, You are about to come to more truths that are going to even make you angier than what you are if you keep reading and researching.

Damn, Jerseee, ain't that the truth. Nearly five years ago I thought learning/reading for myself that w-2's were voluntary was something. Just how deep DOES this rabbit hole really go?

(Ever see the movie They Live? It's a must-see. Same theme as The Matrix et al. My personal favorite....)

the good thing is that you are going to be enlightened and freed through knowledge and study.

Agreed. And when I have Mr. Parizek's ass stuffed and mounted and hanging over my fireplace!

I felt the same way when I found out what these bastards do to children when they are born.

Yeah. I'm from the government. I'm your friend. I'm here to help.

Randy&

#16 04-25-2004, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice

What really gets me is how they consistently bring up the term “taxpayer” and never demonstrate how it is that we fall into the category of “taxpayer”.[/b]

&
You got that right, Ice!
And their "version" of justice is, "Well, pay it first. THEN we can talk."
&
So, I think I'll just run down to the prison, have 'em lock me up for, oh, 25 years for murder, THEN let them PROVE I actually did it.
&
These bastards are SO outta control. No wonder they're allowed to use aliases, aliasesses, oh hell, phony names!
&
Randy

Ice · #17 04-25-2004, 10:38 PM

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: 'Monotype Corsiva'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Randy, I don’t believe there is a Mr. Parizek… if there is, he sure does a hell of a lot of letter writing!! 

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: 'Monotype Corsiva'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Ice

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: 'Monotype Corsiva'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">&

#18 04-27-2004, 12:26 AM

Hey, Ice....

(Damn. 0130 and I still ain't called it a day....)

Sent you an email earlier. Thinking now I should really, really, really keep all this simple. Follow THIS example:
<H2>U.S. Supreme Court </H2>
<H3>CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) </H3>

498 U.S. 192

CHEEK v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT
No. 89-658

Argued October 3, 1990
Decided January 8, 1991

Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.

Knowledge and belief are characteristically questions for the factfinder, in this case the jury.

[Footnote 10] In United States v. Murdock 290 U.S. 389 (1933), discussed supra, at 200, the defendant Murdock was summoned to appear before a revenue agent for examination. Questions were put to him, which he refused to answer for fear of self-incrimination under state law. He was indicted for refusing to give testimony and supply information contrary to the pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. This Court affirmed the reversal of Murdock's conviction, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction directing the jury to consider Murdock's asserted claim of a good-faith, actual belief that, because of the Fifth Amendment, he was privileged not to answer the questions put to him. It is thus the case that Murdock's asserted belief was grounded in the Constitution, but it was a claim of privilege not to answer, not a claim that any provision of the tax laws were unconstitutional, and not a claim for which the tax laws provided procedures to entertain and resolve. Cheek's position at trial, in contrast, was that the tax laws were unconstitutional as applied to him.

Me again: I.E., maybe I should just say:

"Look, dumbass (if you really do exist). There's this do***ent, see? And it has these 'rights' in it, see? And among those rights are:
1) I ain't gotta tell you nothin'.
2) I ain't gotta show you nothin'.
So bite me."

Oh, I need to call it a day....

Randy

#19 04-27-2004, 12:38 AM

Just did a google on Dennis L. Parizek.

Well, "he" IS quite popular--IF he exists.

Night.....

Randy

#20 04-27-2004, 12:54 AM

I was doing a search in google for construction liens and I found the following. I didn't know there was a Federal Debt Collection Act.

Delinquent federal tax debts, as all other delinquent obligations to federal government, must be adjudicated via procedure prescribed by the Federal Debt Collection Act, published in Chapter 176 of Title 28 -- see 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001, et seq., & § 3201 concerning perfection of a "judgment lien." Per relation-back doctrine, the judgment lien <TT>then relates or dates back to the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim. Collection summonses necessarily fall into the category of post-judgment procedure.</TT>