Notice Of Levy - IRS Liable

[ezrhythm]

Posted in the files section on; lawfulremedies@yahoogroups.com


You might be able to sue the IRS for violating the privacy laws. When the IRS sends out a Notice of Lien or Levy they violate privacy laws by giving out unauthorized tax information to the public. For example, when the IRS files a Notice of Federal Tax Lien in the county recorder's office anybody in the world can go look at it, right? They could see everything on that Notice, including your name, social security number and the dollar amount of what the IRS claims you owe, etc.

However, according to 26 USC 6103, it says that the IRS cannot disclose confidential information to the public unless they have your permission. In the procedural regulations under 26 CFR 301.6103 which relate to Section 6103 of the tax code, it tells how the IRS must have your written permission before they can disclose anything.

For example, one provision says, "Generally, information of a confidential nature can only be disclosed upon a taxpayer's written authorization. IRM-1272 Disclosure of Official Information Handbook contains instructions relating to disclosure matters."

Even the IRS' criminal handbook talks about the same thing, that the IRS must have your permission. It says the agency cannot disclose a person's confidential information to any third party unless that person completes a Form 2848 or Form 8821. For reference, Form 2848 is the IRS' Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative form.

Form 8821, entitled Tax Information Authorization, is the IRS' designated form for a person to authorize disclosure of their confidential information.

Based upon this knowledge, Mr. Standring's organization, V.I.P. uses the strategy of an administrative action whenever the IRS issues a Notice of Lien or Levy. They declare that the IRS is in violation of Section 6103 of the tax code.

There is a court case in Florida, US. vs. Reddy, where this was an issue. A doctor sued the U.S. for unauthorized disclosure of information to his clients by an IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID) agent.

Dr. Reddy won the case. The only thing the IRS disclosed when questioning his clients was his name, identification number and that Dr. Reddy was under investigation. Furthermore, they included a return envelope addressed to the CID in West Palm Beach, Florida. That was enough to cause a violation of Section 6103.

When you look at the definition of "return information”, investigations and taxpayer identity are included as things the IRS cannot disclose. Yet they did with Dr. Reddy.

The CID asked Dr. Reddy's clients questions of course, but that's not unauthorized disclosure. The unauthorized disclosure happened when they gave information to his clients.

After Dr. Reddy's attorney filed the complaint, the US. attorney immediately capitulated. He admitted that what the IRS did was wrong without any resistance. Dr. Reddy didn't have to fight for it at all. Then the U.S. attorney put in a Rule 68 or 69 saying that the IRS was willing to settle for $1,000 per 126 clients involved, plus court costs and attorneys fees. That's all there was to it.

With a Notice of Lien or Levy, the IRS always shows your name, ID number, alleged date of assessment, how much you supposedly owe, interest and penalties, etc.; All of that is tax return information that you never authorized them to disclose. If the IRS puts that information in the county records, then potentially everybody could see it. If there are one million people in the county, then that could mean an awful lot of money to you at $1,000 per person.

It’s always best to do an administrative procedure first to seek a remedy, then if the IRS doesn't respond, you do a notarial protest to get an administrative judgment from the notary. If they still won't budge after that, then you could go into court where you will have an even stronger position. At that point, your judicial judgment against the IRS will be just a matter of form because you will already have the notary's administrative judgment.

If the IRS filed a Notice of Lien on you in the county recorder's office and you get a default judgment, then what would happen to that Notice of Lien? It would have to disappear form the county records. The county recorder would have to remove it because the default judgment would show that there was no basis for the IRS to disclose your confidential information. Therefore, the IRS had no authority to make that information available to the public since there was no court action.

If there was court action involved, however, then all of your information could and would be public record. Yet, they didn't, so there is nothing that gives the IRS the right to disclose your private information without your consent.

The only issue in question is that you didn't give the IRS the required written authorization to release your private information to the public. Even when the IRS sends out a Notice of Levy on someone, who do they send it to? They send it to a person's employer or bank, which is the public.

Yet the public doesn't have a right to see your confidential information contained on it without a court action being initiated. Actually, the IRS is supposed to have a court ordered judgment before they can ever seize a person's property via a Notice of Levy.

Bottom line is, there are two ways in which you can go after the IRS when they disclose your confidential information without your consent. You can go after them civilly and/or criminally. 26 USC 7431 shows us that the IRS is subject to civil penalties if they disclose your confidential information without your consent. The criminal penalties are listed under 26 USC 7213 and 18 USC 1905. Then when you look at the Privacy Act it also says that you can go after them civilly and criminally. The criminal penalty is a misdemeanor count and a $5,000 fine for each offense. Therefore, there is nothing that we know of that would prevent a person from pursuing the IRS both civilly and criminally.

Bear in mind that a Notice of Lien or Levy is just that,
a notice, and the IRS does not follow procedure
in recording them. In addition to the violation of the
cited 26 CFR 301.6103, go after the Recorder of Deeds
for allowing an improper recording of an invalid Lien or
Levy. They will remove post haste!

Burden on them.

[Ice]

By this rule the IRS is also prohibited from disclosing information to your "employer" when they present the "notice" of levy in order to garnish your wages.

The IRS did not have your permission to disclose any of your tax information to your employer.

Think about that one folks. The "employer" is the "third party". Regardless of the fact that your "employer" has your SS# and knows your name -- your financial business is your private business, your dealings with any government agency is your private business and the IRS has no authorization to disclose any of that information unless it is backed by a "court order" (which would mean that all of that information is already a part of the public record).

Ice

[Libertarian]

Before anyone relies on this, they should read the exceptions listed in section 6103.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Before anyone relies on this, they should read the exceptions listed in section 6103.

Please point out where it says that they may disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual.
And also please show where they get the authority to disclose the private information of a non-taxpayer?

(a) Overview. Subject to such requirements and conditions as the Secretary
may prescribe by regulation, section
6103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to disclose a taxpayer’s return or
return information to such person or
persons as the taxpayer may designate
in a request for or consent to such disclosure, or to any other person at the
taxpayer’s request to the extent necessary to comply with the taxpayer’s
request to such other person for information or assistance. This regulation
contains the requirements that must
be met before, and the conditions under
which, the Internal Revenue Service
may make such disclosures. Paragraph
(b) of this section provides the requirements that are generally applicable to
designate a third party to receive the
taxpayer’s returns and return information. Paragraph (c) of this section provides requirements under which the Internal Revenue Service may disclose
information in connection with a taxpayer’s written or nonwritten request
for a third party to provide information or assistance with regard to a tax
matter, for example, a Congressional
inquiry. Paragraph (d) of this section
provides the parameters for disclosure
consents connected with electronic return filing programs and combined
Federal-State filing. Finally, paragraph (e) of this section provides definitions and general rules related to requests for or consents to disclosure.
(b) Disclosure of returns and return information to person or persons designated
in a written request or consent—(1) General requirements. Pursuant to section
6103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the Internal Revenue Service (or an
agent or contractor of the Internal
Revenue Service) may disclose a taxpayer’s return or return information
(in written or nonwritten form) to such
person or persons as the taxpayer may
42



Internal Revenue Service, Treasury

designate in a request for or consent to
such disclosure. A request for or consent to disclosure under this paragraph

(b) must be in the form of a separate
written document pertaining solely to
the authorized disclosure. (For the
meaning of separate written document,
see paragraph (e)(1) of this section.)
The separate written document must
be signed (see paragraph (e)(2) of this
section) and dated by the taxpayer who
filed the return or to whom the return
information relates. At the time it is
signed and dated by the taxpayer, the
written document must also indicate—
(i) The taxpayer’s taxpayer identity
information described in section
6103(b)(6);
(ii) The identity of the person or persons to whom the disclosure is to be
made;
(iii) The type of return (or specified
portion of the return) or return information (and the particular data) that
is to be disclosed; and
(iv) The taxable year or years covered by the return or return information.
(2) Requirement that request or consent
be received within sixty days of when
signed and dated. The disclosure of a return or return information authorized
by a written request for or written consent to the disclosure shall not be
made unless the request or consent is
received by the Internal Revenue Service (or an agent or contractor of the Internal Revenue Service) within 60 days
following the date upon which the request or consent was signed and dated
by the taxpayer. (c) Disclosure of returns and return information to designee of taxpayer to comply with a taxpayer’s request for information or assistance. If a taxpayer makes a
written or nonwritten request, directly
to another person or to the Internal
Revenue Service, that such other person (for example, a member of Congress, friend, or relative of the taxpayer) provide information or assistance relating to the taxpayer’s return
or to a transaction or other contact between the taxpayer and the Internal
Revenue Service, the Internal Revenue
Service (or an agent or contractor of
the Internal Revenue Service or a Federal government agency performing a
Federal tax administration function)
§ 301.6103(c)–1

may disclose returns or return information (in written or nonwritten form)
to such other person under the circumstances set forth in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Written request for information or
assistance. (i) The taxpayer’s request
for information or assistance may be in
the form of a letter or other written
document, which must be signed (see
paragraph (e)(2) of this section) and
dated by the taxpayer. The taxpayer
must also indicate in the written request—
(A) The taxpayer’s taxpayer identity
information described in section
6103(b)(6);
(B) The identity of the person or persons to whom disclosure is to be made;
and
(C) Sufficient facts underlying the request for information or assistance to
enable the Internal Revenue Service to
determine the nature and extent of the
information or assistance requested
and the returns or return information
to be disclosed in order to comply with
the taxpayer’s request.
(ii) A person who receives a copy of a
taxpayer’s written request for information or assistance but who is not the
addressee of the request, such as a
member of Congress who is provided
with a courtesy copy of a taxpayer’s
letter to another member of Congress
or to the Internal Revenue Service,
cannot receive returns or return information under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(2) Nonwritten request or consent. (i) A
request for information or assistance
may also be nonwritten. Disclosure of
returns and return information to a
designee pursuant to a taxpayer’s non-
written request will be made only after
the Internal Revenue Service has—
(A) Obtained from the taxpayer sufficient facts underlying the request for
information or assistance to enable the
Internal Revenue Service to determine
the nature and extent of the information or assistance requested and the return or return information to be disclosed in order to comply with the taxpayer’s request;
(B) Confirmed the identity of the taxpayer and the designee; and
43

One glaring flaw in this that I see is that any "Social Security" number does not belong to me. It (if such a thing really exists) is not mine.

How can I claim damages for something that I have no rights to?

I sure ain't a taxpayer, so I ain't about to admit to being one.

Plus, as an added bonus, I own nothing.

[Bulletproof Monk]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

One glaring flaw in this that I see is that any "Social Security" number does not belong to me. It (if such a thing really exists) is not mine.

How can I claim damages for something that I have no rights to?

I sure ain't a taxpayer, so I ain't about to admit to being one.

Plus, as an added bonus, I own nothing.

You're right Henry,

Why would you be suing anyone for displaying the public records of someone else???

I'm not the STRAWMAN, and as I didn't create it I have no copyright rights over it, so I can't go there either..

The ATO (Australian Tax Office) describes a sole trader as an "individual" or "person".

I'm not one of those either, because if you look in the corporations act you'll find that actually, a sole trader (soul?) is a member organisation of a securities exchange...

Nope...not one of those either...

So you see, all of this fictitious court mumbo jumbo/statutes/laws/rules etc only applies to PERSONS or ENTITIES or corporate soles.

Oh...and the other thing...there's no lawful money to earn anyhow, so how the hell can you pay tax on it even if you were a "taxpayer?

BULLETPROOF

[Logan]

From: Greg
To: Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com ; jacklancaster@sbcglobal.net ; jhwilson@acay.com.au ; samuelav@hotmail.com ; cajunmike@freedomcommittee.com ; truth@masteragency.com ; myprivate@masteragency.com ; VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org ; 'Melinda Pillsbury-Foster'
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: Fed Court says IRS must answer - Your help needed for what could be the court trial of the century!


Please pass this message along to all people who would like to see the IRS finally get caught in its own legal bear trap.

This is your opportunity to contribute to the demise of the IRS!

A close friend of mine needs your help ASAP with legal suggestions in his upcoming Federal District Court. My friend’s name is Steve and he asked me to not reveal his last name, because he wishes to keep this case as low profile as possible. Steve fears that too much publicity in court cases involving the IRS, causes the federal government to exert enormous pressure on federal judges to see to it that the IRS is not harmed.

In a very rare court case my friend, Steve and the IRS are being sued jointly in a civil lawsuit in Federal District Court. The IRS motioned the federal court to dismiss the IRS from the lawsuit and the Federal District Court said NO! to the IRS.

No, my friend Steve is not an IRS agent, or a federal agent, he is a private businessman and someone who has for many years been doing his best to keep the IRS from stealing his money.

Here is how this all came about, along with how you can help…

Last year my friend, Steve sold his business to larger company in the same type of business. The buyer agreed to pay Steve for his business in two equal payments, the first payment at the time of sale and the second payment in six months. Just before the buyer was scheduled to make the second and final payment, the IRS sent the buyer a Notice of Levy for Steve. The buyer says; we have no choice, we have to honor the IRS’ levy. Steve informed the buyer that the IRS’s Notice of Levy is not a real and legal levy, it is only a notice of levy and a real legal levy requires a court order, which is called a “LEVY” and not a “NOTICE OF LEVY.” Steve gave the buyer proper legal notice that, if the buyer paid the IRS the money they owed to him for the purchase of his business to the IRS, he would sue them in court. The buyer responded by filing a suit in Federal District Court against both Steve and the IRS.

The buyer’s suit seeks to recoup, the money that they have already paid Steve and to unwind the deal of the purchase of Steve’s business; claiming Steve had a contractual obligation to disclose any unpaid taxes to the IRS, plus a few other things that are completely frivolous. Steve’s counter to the buyer’s claim is; I did not at the time during the sale of my business owe the IRS money for taxes and I do not owe the IRS money for taxes now. The IRS cannot legally prove that I owe them a dime! The buyer’s legal claim against the IRS is; the IRS is attempting to extort money and illegally causing them to divert money owed to the seller by the buyer to the IRS, unless the IRS can prove in court that the Notice of Levy is a valid legal levy that can be legally enforced and that they have a legal duty to hand over Steve’s money to the IRS.

Late last week Steve received notice that the Federal District Court judge denied the IRS’ motion to be dismissed from the court suit. The court noticed Steve at the time that, he has approximately 30 days to prepare his Request for Admissions, Request for Written Signed Documents, and Interrogatories. This is our opportunity to slam the IRS by forcing the IRS to admit in court that the Notice of Levy is not a legally enforceable levy. This time the IRS is defendant and they must answer Steve’s questions, and you can help Steve to ask the questions.


Steve is requesting your help with two things.

1. Send this e-mail to everyone you know that is interested in hammering the death nail into the coffin of IRS regarding the most notoriously evil and sinister illegal collections instruments of the IRS, the Notice of Levy and the Notice of Lien! That’s right, when the Notice of Levy is proven in court not to be legally enforceable, the Notice of Lien will die along with it. The only way after that the IRS will be able to steal our money, will be by court order!

2. Steve needs your help with suggestions for things the Request for Admissions, Request for Written Signed Documents, and Interrogatories should include.

The Request for Admissions is an admit or deny type of process. For example:

A. Admit or Deny: A private employer is not legally required to honor a Notice of Levy from the IRS.

B. Admit or Deny: The Notice of Levy is not a legally enforceable without a court order.

C. Admit or Deny: Providing that the Secretary, and the Commissioner of the IRS fails to show legal proof in this court that the Notice of Levy is legally enforceable upon the party upon which it is served, the Secretary and the IRS Commission have willfully conspired to engage in a scheme of racketeering and extortion designed to steal the money and property of its victims, the American people.

D. Admit or Deny: The IRS is a federal agency of the corporate UNITED STATES and not the legitimate organic government of the united States of America as established by the Constitution for the united States of America in 1776 and ratified by the states in June, 1778.

E. Admit or Deny: All male IRS agents have tiny penises and all female IRS agents suffer from extreme penis envy. (just kidding!)


The Request for Written Signed Documents is any type of written documents that Steve might like to ask the IRS for related to the Notice of Levy and the authority of the IRS to do whatever, or anything about the IRS in general.

Interrogatories are written questions submitted to an opposing party in a law suit. For example:

A. What is the legal authority of an IRS agent to prepare a substitute return for a person?

B. Is the IRS a foreign private corporation, incorporated outside the continental united States of America?

C. What is the IRS’ authority to tax the ordinary income of state citizens within the several states of the united States of America?


Steve’s court case may very well be the court case that will take down the IRS. It does not cost you one red cent to help make this happen, unless you would like to volunteer to help Steve out with his legal expenses. Steve has not asked anyone for their financial help as of yet. Steve has a heart of gold, but he is certainly not made of gold. As of right now, the only help Steve is asking for, is for people to help with suggestions for things to include in his Request for Admissions, Request for Written Signed Documents, and Interrogatories.

I cannot express to you in strong enough terms, just how important Steve’s court trial may be to all of us battling the IRS. Steve’s case involving the IRS, as I see it, has a very great potential to bring down the IRS.

Please, please, please …pass this message along to all whom you believe should receive it.


—Greg Slaughter



TicketSlayer.com — Number One Slayer of Traffic Tickets!

[David Merrill]

Accepting private credit from the Fed has been Steve's problem. He needs to redeem his pay in lawful money. Then he needs to argue that if he had been taught so in good faith - he would have always done so from his first paycheck - his first dime earned ever.

That is the remedy to the Federal Reserve Act and its elastic currency.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Regards,

David Merrill.

[rottweiler]

The United States District Court where that suit was filed is Article IV, correct? Since the Levy is maritime in nature only a Article III court would have jurisdiction to decide if that Levy was proper. Sounds like this Federal Judge is unaware of that just like Offiler's Florida State Judge was until he was set straight. The IRS knows it, that is why they asked to be removed from the suit. There is a way for Steve to get his US Notes back.
http://www.irslevythumper.com/

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Accepting private credit from the Fed has been Steve's problem. He needs to redeem his pay in lawful money. Then he needs to argue that if he had been taught so in good faith - he would have always done so from his first paycheck - his first dime earned ever.

That is the remedy to the Federal Reserve Act and its elastic currency.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[ooak]

This is a court decision that goes directly to the situation...

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-07-04.htm