Stevens County, Wash., alters lien language

Here is the reply I recieved from Stevens County in response to this question:

"Hello, I was asked a question by members of a discussion group I belong to about how "Notices of Federal Tax Liens" are recorded here in Stevens County.



It was said that they are listed differently than an actual federal tax lien. Is this true, and is there anyone I can talk to about this?"

Here was the response:

"They are listed in an index we use to retrieve them titled “Notice of Liens by Property Owner”. This was in response to a request from some individuals that do not believe in federal income tax law. Any “Notice of Federal Tax Lien” is still recorded in the same manner as any other document that is presented for recording"

This answer was from Tim Gray, the current county auditor.

[Logan]

That was very insightful. Thanks for taking the time to check into this issue and for reporting it.

It would seem that a "notice" of levy or lien is held in no different regard that an actual "lien or levy" which must be signed by a federal judge.

So altering the lien language did nothing, I would assume unless challenged. Hmmm

thanks again

You're surely welcome logan. This whole NFTL thing is pretty much BS. It seems that the IRS has found a way to put our nuts in a vice with no real way to fight back, unless one wants to go to court, and then you have to know how to fight it, which is pretty iffy, I think. I did find a very insightful article someone wrote and I will post it here also, concerning the NFTL when I can find it again (the more I organize my stuff the harder it is to find it again). It brings up some great points that one could maybe use to fight back in court, and we do need some good court wins, hopefully mine will be one of them when I can get the dang thing finished.

Here is another link to a good read on the subject:
http://www.irx-solutions.com/files/not-a-levy.pdf

Originally Posted by Logan

That was very insightful. Thanks for taking the time to check into this issue and for reporting it.

It would seem that a "notice" of levy or lien is held in no different regard that an actual "lien or levy" which must be signed by a federal judge.

So altering the lien language did nothing, I would assume unless challenged. Hmmm

thanks again