Dr. Tom and the PRA

[Demosthenes]

From the judge's order filed on August 2, 2006:

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 3–8 for Failure to Comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act [#17]

Next Defendant moves to dismiss Counts 3–8 for failure to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) because the forms for the subject years do not contain correct OMB numbers, or otherwise have PRA defects, so the Government has failed to comply with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 3512. Defendant essentially argues that the 1995 amendment to 44 U.S.C. § 3512 so changed the Act that pre-1995 case law holding that a PRA violation does not bar a criminal prosecution for failure to file a tax return is no longer controlling. See United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92, 92 (5th Cir. 1991) (upholding conviction for willful failure to file an income tax return under § 7203 because the PRA does not apply to the statutory requirement that a taxpayer file an income tax return); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359–60 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that Congress did not intend to repeal § 7203 by enacting the PRA).

Defendant’s argument is unavailing because those courts that have examined the issue post-1995 have decided that the PRA does not invalidate the statutory requirement to file tax returns. United States v. Ouwenga, 173 F. App’x 411, 417 (6th Cir. 2006); Alford v. United States, No. 3:02-CV-1719-M, 2002 WL 31415800 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2002); United States v. Foster, No. CRIM.97-700103JMRRLE, 1997 WL 685371 (D. Minn. May 27, 1997). Additionally, the regulations implementing the PRA of 1995 explicitly provide that the PRA does not “preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute–e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 6011(a) (statutory requirement for a person to file a tax return)”). 5 C.F.R. § 1320.6(e). Accordingly, Defendants motion is denied.

[David Merrill]

I like this document so much I sent it to my archiver:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...view_cover.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...n_Review_1.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...n_Review_2.jpg

[Big Al]

David: Your shooten blanks buddy?

[Questionmark_Y]

"Defendant’s argument is unavailing because those courts that have examined the issue post-1995 have decided that the PRA does not invalidate the statutory requirement to file tax returns."

1> Statute requires the filing of tax returns. By who?

2> Statute requires the filing of PRA invalid tax returns?

3> The PRA does not invalidate the requirement to file but it does invalidate the punishment if not filed?


4> State the law that makes it lawful to require the filing of any government form not approved by the PRA?

5> What does "unavailing' mean?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Big Al

David: Your shooten blanks buddy?

That happens now and again when I forget to load up with a .jpg suffix!

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...view_cover.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...n_Review_1.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...n_Review_2.jpg


Good questions Questionmark!

[Big Al]

Thank you Sir!

[dawgwise]

The Tom Clayton case -
.... Additionally, the regulations implementing the PRA of 1995 explicitly provide that the PRA does not "preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by statute-e.g., 26 U.S.C. 601 (a)(statutory requirement for a person to file a tax return(")....

I’ve a question:

But first let me ask or better yet LET ME BEG that the answer(s) forthcoming are real and concise, something a “not to pretend to be a know it all” type person like myself can actually understand. I don’t seek words of art, or circular answers. I don’t ask for imaginative personality or psychological analysis. I don’t seek the “I’m better than you” answer from those who already know they are better AND smarter than me…
I know you are and I agree that you are – that’s why I ask the questions! I do not blend well in the Frankenstein creation world of law where one part is taken from one placed and combined with another part taken from another. I am only complex and simple enough to understand that I shouldn’t harm others and other basic humanity teachings of Jesus, Buddha and some others.

Now with that request being honored - my questions, based upon the judges statement above:

1. Where is the 1040 form statutorily established in 26 U.S.C. (the judge uses title 26 USC) as the form one is required to fill out, which in turn makes that form exempt from the PRA?

As I read what the good judge says, (though I may not understand his words), one is required by statute to file therefore the 1040 form, even if bootleg, and an exemption is established by the statutory requirement to file.

2. Is he saying one must file the 1040 no matter if bootleg, because he says that 26USC says one must file a tax return?

3. It he saying the filing requirement eliminates PRA?

4. Is he saying that IF the form is bootleg it matters not?

5. Is he saying that the form used to fulfill the filing requirement can be bootleg and one is forced to file the bootleg form because of the statue requiring one to file?

And most importantly:

6. Am I being confused that the statutory requirement for filing is one-in-the same as the form used to fulfill the filing requirement?


IS IT THE FILING REQUIRMENT THAT IS BEING LITIGATED/QUESTIONED HERE,

OR

IS IT THE FORM THEY USE TO INSTITUE OR FULFILL THE FILNG REQUIREMENT THAT IS QUESTIONED ALONG WITH THE ABILITY TO APPLY PENALTIES DUE TO THE FORM AND NOT THE STATUTE?

[David Merrill]

The entire PRA argument is moot. The notice on the 1040 Form is properly to the 1980 PRA and that is all there is to that. Lindsey Springer misdirected Lawrence into opening another Can of Worms entirely: (view attachment) Note that the IRS agent's authority to carry firearms outside the scope of BATF activity is only inferred in paragraph (b) from paragraph (a).

There is no criminal law enforcement for matters outside the scope of the territorial US and/or BATF activity.* The Dismissal is because Lawrence got the OMB#s onto the record as a point of discussion. That opened the door to the topic being discussed and that topic could easily have led to the DOJ/Treasury having to track those numbers through the Federal Register (CFR) revealing to the federal magistrate on the record the same. Then there would have been possibility that the magistrate would have to opine about the truth.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Of course with the exception of taxable events, most commonly endorsing checks (applying for and accepting private credit instead of public money) instead of stamping or writing:

Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value.

[Big Al]

You can see that we have not been looking at enough fed regs with an eye to the Territorial issues. What you are relating can open up the whole fraud in many areas, not only with the feds but all this state crap also.

[Demosthenes]

1. Where is the 1040 form statutorily established in 26 U.S.C. (the judge uses title 26 USC) as the form one is required to fill out, which in turn makes that form exempt from the PRA?

Title 26, Section 6012(a):

§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1) (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount

26 CFR 1.6012-1(a)(6):

(6) Form of return. Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph. Form 1040A is an optional short form which, in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this section, may be used by certain taxpayers. A taxpayer otherwise entitled to use Form 1040A as his return for any taxable year may not make his return on such form if he elects not to take the standard deduction provided in section 141, and in such case he must make his return on Form 1040.