*Can You Even Be Required To Admit That Such Records Exist?
(Not intended as legal advice.)
For the purposes of this article, I will mainly be concentrating on the natural individual who has not filed 1040 forms for the years in question, has not had a third party (such as an accountant) keep his books and records, and who is not holding the records of a collective group such as a corporation or a partnership.
Also this article will concentrate on the issue of a summons to produce books and records, and not on the issue as to how one might handle a defense to criminal charges of violating section 7201, 7203 and/or 7205 of the Code. These are two different forums and one might handle one differently than the other.
An individual cannot claim constitutional protection in refusing to disclose records of a collective group even if such records might incriminate the individual holding the records. It also appears that constitutional protection is lacking if the records are those prepared by, a third party. This seems to be on the basis that the information was given voluntarily to the third party. While the case of U S v. Doe, 465 U S 605 (1984) discussed below may provide some protection for these situations, the efforts of this article will be to concentrate on the average patriot who may be receiving W-2 forms, 1099 forms or just working for himself, and in each case, personally keeping whatever records he may want for his own personal purposes.
If an individual gives records to a third party, such as his attorney or accountant, these records do not have the protection under the Fifth Amendment. This is because the Fifth Amendment is limited to "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the privilege. (See Fisher v. U S, 425 U S 391 at 397.) According to Fisher, the attorney-client relationship (regarding so-called "privileged information") only applies under certain circumstance, and I personally would not count on it. Also, according to Fisher, the Fifth Amendment protects a person only against being incriminated by his own *compelled* testimonial communications.
One fact is that unless an individual is *liable* for a tax or *required* to perform an act, the IRS has no authority to issue a summons. Another fact is that if the IRS is already in possession of the information sought (such as W-2 forms and 1099 forms), they have no authority to issue the summons in the first place.
Assuming that the IRS people manage to meet all the legal requirements to issue a summons (or at least conspire with a federal judge to make it appear that they have met such requirements); the next question is whether an individual can actually be forced to admit the existence of the records.
Over the years, one "patriot" procedure has been for the individual to bundle up some records, take them to the IRS and ask if he could be forced to produce the records without violating his constitutional rights. Regardless of the answer provided by the IRS, the individual then refused to produce his books and records on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds. This approach met with varying degrees of success. But the fact that the records were brought is testimony that records exist. Can an individual be forced to even show that records exist?
The IRS has known for years that a "taxpayer" (as defined) may refuse to exhibit his books and records. A section from an old IR Manual states:
An individual taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the ground that compelling him to do so might violate his right against self-incrimination under Fifth Amendment and constitute an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. However, in absence of such claims, it is not error for a court to charge the jury that it may consider the refusal to produce books and records in determining willfulness. MT 9900-26 (1-29-75) IR Manual 242.12.
The manual then references the cases of Boyd v. U S, 116 U S 616; Internal Revenue Agent v. Sullivan, 287 F 138 (W.D. N.Y. 1923); U.S. v. . Vadner, 119 F. Supp. 330 (E.D. Pa.) regarding the first sentence of the above paragraph, and Louis C. Smith v. U S, 236 F.2d 260 (CA 8) regarding the second sentence.
Isn't that sneaky? If you do not claim you're Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights regarding a summons to produce books and records, the judge can tell the jury in a criminal case it can consider such refusal in determining willfulness. But if you do claim these specific rights, the judge cannot "charge" the jury with such instructions.
We can see from the above that if an individual does not want to exhibit his books and records, and does not want to risk adverse jury instructions regarding his refusal in the event of a criminal trial, he must refuse to exhibit each such record on the specific constitutional grounds.
But we are still back to the question as to whether or not the individual even has to admit that such records exist. The case of U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), helps us answer this question, but be forewarned that this is not an easy case to read and understand.
I am going to spend a bit of time on the Doe case because I am aware that a number of patriots are relying on this case.
First off, remember that this case is not about a summons by the IRS to produce books and records. U.S. v. Doe involves an individual who is the owner of several proprietorships. Because of an investigation of corruption in the awarding of county and municipal contracts, a grand jury served subpoenas on the individual demanding the production of certain business records.
The Doe case started out in a federal district court in New Jersey (Matter of Grand Jury Impaneled March 19, 1980, 541 F.Supp. 1 (1981)). The individual (respondent) filed a motion in Federal District Court seeking to quash the subpoenas. The District Court for the District of New Jersey granted his motion except with respect to those documents and records required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency. (You can now see why I want to point out some specifics about this case for those patriots who are relying on an excerpt or two from the case.) At page 3, the district court states:
There are a number of items requested by the grand jury for which the Fifth Amendment does not offer protection. Records and documents which are required by law to be kept, or to be disclosed to a public agency, are outside the scope of constitutional protection. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d. 162, 168 (5th Cir. 1979) Therefore, insofar as the subpoenas demand the production of documents falling into this category, e.g. tax returns and W-2 statements, Mr. Reid must comply. The motion to quash in all other respects is granted.
If an individual patriot is up against a district court judge and a U S Attorney, and if he gets hit with the above statement or the 5th Circuit case referred to in the above statement, he is not going to know what to do and may immediately lose faith in his position. So to try to prevent this from happening, let's take a closer look at the 5th Circuit case upon which the federal district court of New Jersey relied.
The federal district court of New Jersey misplaces their reliance on the 5th Circuit case which had nothing to do with W-2 forms or an individual's tax returns. The 5th Circuit case involved a former customhouse broker, an accountant, and a grand jury subpoena for the customhouse business records. The "records required by law to be kept" were those required of customhouses. The 5th Circuit stated: hese obligations to keep and produce records are in a sense consented to as a condition of being able to carry on the regulated activity.
Those of you who have been involved in or studied various court cases know it is not unusual for the judges, and the government, to misuse and misapply case law. It appears that the 5th Circuit case was misused and misapplied against the sole proprietor in New Jersey. Also, you will see below that the sole proprietor did not challenge the "records required by law to be kept" aspect of the district court's opinion.
Nevertheless, the 5th Circuit did hold that private papers still had constitutional protection, and made a distinction between private papers and the records required by law to be kept by the customhouse.
The government appealed the New Jersey case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. (Matter of Grand Jury Impaneled March 19, 1980, 680 F.2d 327 (3rd Cir. 1982).) At page 330, the appellate court cites from Bellis v. U S , 417 U S 85.
It has long been established, of course, that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination protects an individual from compelled production of his personal papers as well as compelled oral testimony.... The privilege applies to the business records of a sole proprietor as well as to personal documents containing more intimate information about the individual's private life.
The appellate court further states: An individual who hold records in a representative capacity for a collective entity (e.g. a corporation, union or partnership) may not assert a Fifth Amendment privilege when he is compelled to produce those records. On the other hand, a sole proprietorship has no legal existence apart from its owner, and such records may be protected from disclosure by the Fifth Amendment.
[Citations omitted] ("(T)he fifth amendment protection applicable to a sole proprietor's business records is the same as the protection applicable to the records of an individual".)
Before we proceed with the Doe case, let me point out that it is not the records that are protected by the Fifth Amendment, but the production of the records voluntarily prepared and kept by the individual. The Fifth Amendment protects the individual from being forced to produce the records. This is because the Fifth Amendment is limited to "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the privilege. (See Fisher v. U S., 425 U S 391 at 397.)
The New Jersey case moved up to the U S Supreme Court where it became the case of U.S. v. . Doe. Regarding the "records required by law to be kept", at note 3 the U S Supreme Court case states:
The District Court mentioned tax returns and W-2 statements as examples of documents falling within this category. Respondent has not challenged this aspect of the District Court's opinion. We therefore understand that this case concerns only business documents and records not required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency. We also note that our opinion addresses only the Fifth Amendment implications of the subpoenas. The subpoenas were drawn in the broadest possible terms. It may be that the breadth of the subpoenas is subject to attack on other grounds that are not before us.
What "other grounds" the Court was referring to can only be left to speculation. But two things are for certain. First, the respondent did not challenge the district court's opinion as to disclosure of records..., required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency". Second, in this case the U S Supreme Court did not specifically address the question as to whether the act of producing records "required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency" could be compelled.
In the Doe case, the U S Supreme Court relied on its ruling in the 1975 Fisher case. The Fisher case was about attorneys and accountants being forced to turn over clients records to the IRS. The Doe case was about an individual proprietor being forced to produce records not required by law to be kept. In both cases the U S Supreme Court recognized the fact that forcing an individual to produce his own records would compel him to admit that the records exist, that they are in his possession, and that they are authentic.
Also, the Court recognized the fact that compliance with subpoenas and summonses tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession and control by the individual.
With all of the above as a background for a better understanding of the forced production of records, we now come to a 1991, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case out of Florida which does involve an IRS summons regarding records that an individual (who is referred to as a "taxpayer") might have in his possession. (This individual had not filed tax returns for the years in question.) In U. S. v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991) the court relied on the rulings of Fisher, Doe, and other cases. At page 1353, the 11th Circuit stated: The central standard for the application [of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is] whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and "real", and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination. ...
There can exist a legitimate fear of criminal prosecution while an IRS investigation remains in the civil stage, before formal transfer to the criminal division.
The privilege against self-incrimination 44 may apply in the context of an IRS investigation into a civil tax liability, given the recognized potential that such investigations have for leading to criminal prosecution.
But the 11th Circuit also said, at page 1355: We stress, however, that it is the role of the district court, not the taxpayer, to evaluate the taxpayer's claim of incrimination and determine whether it is reasonable. "The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself - his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified ("Whether there is sufficient hazard of incrimination is of course a question for the courts asked to enforce the privilege.")
In this case, the district court did opine that Argomaniz would have a legitimate fear of criminal indictment if he complied with the IRS summons. In its order granting Argomaniz's motion for a stay of enforcement of the summons pending this appeal, the district court stated that Argomaniz had "shown more than a generalized fear of criminal prosecution' and had "good reason to believe that his answers may tend to incriminate him..."
*Editor's Note: *Amazingly, with this background, the district court still issued an order for Argomaniz to comply with the summons, but stayed enforcement pending this appeal. But see the 11th Circuit's discussion below.
Although this finding does suggest that Argomaniz was entitled to raise his Fifth Amendment privilege, it does not sufficiently determine the applicability of Argomaniz's privilege against self-incrimination to the summons at issue in this case. "A court must make a particular inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the questioning party wishes to explore, whether or not the privilege is well founded."
The district court must review Argomaniz's assertion of the privilege on a question-by-question basis. This will best be accomplished in an in camera proceeding wherein Argomaniz is given the opportunity to substantiate his claims of the privilege and the district court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested by the summons. ... ("The district court may then determine by reviewing ... [the taxpayer's] records and by considering each question whether, in each case instance, the claim of self-incrimination is well-founded.") The district court already has determined that Argomaniz does face a real and substantial hazard of incrimination. However, we must remand this case to the district court, to enable that court to conduct an in camera proceeding, on a question-by-question basis, to determine the actual extent to which Argomaniz may rely on his Fifth Amendment privileged to avoid compliance with the IRS summons. Stated differently, the district court must ascertain: first, whether the taxpayer has the records sought and, second, whether under the existing circumstances they are incriminatory.
The "summons" "required" Argomaniz to produce all documents and records he possessed or controlled that reflected his income for several years including, but not limited to, Forms W-2, Forms 1099, and records of deposits with financial institutions.
At page 1356, the 11th Circuit stated: By producing documents in compliance with the IRS summons, Argomaniz would be establishing the existence and authenticity of the documents listed in the summons, as well as verifying that these documents were in his possession. Doe v. United States, 487 U S 201, 209 (1987). He would actually be informing the government that he had income in the years in question yet failed to file income tax returns. This act of production would be sufficiently testimonial and incriminating to activate Argomaniz's Fifth Amendment privilege.
Since the IRS was looking for information that would reflect Argomaniz's income for the years in question, and any answer he could give or document he could provide that would reflect that information "would be sufficiently testimonial and incriminating", it seems to me to be absolutely tyrannical to require him to provide a district court judge in camera with any answers or documents reflecting this information which he could not be required to provide to the IRS. What is the point, other than to harass the individual?
And what did Argomaniz have to go through just to have his case remanded to the district court for an in camera inspection of his records? On June 20, 1988 Argomaniz had been served an administrative summons ordering him to appear before an IRS officer. Taking his records, he appeared twice before an IRS officer, but refused to produce any of the summonsed documents, claiming that the production of the documents would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. On April 18, 1989, at a show cause hearing at federal district court, he again raised his Fifth Amendment rights claim.
A magistrate ordered him to comply with the summons and told him that he could raise his "fifth amendment privilege on a question-by-question basis. He again appeared before the IRS officer and answered questions as to his name, social security number, home address including street, city and zip code. To each question regarding employers, employees, W-2 forms, bank deposits, interest income, any other income, and any payments to taxes, he gave the following answer: "Based upon my Constitutional rights, I refuse to answer that question." He also refused to produce any of the summonsed documents, claiming that the production of the documents would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. The IRS then got the federal district court to issue an order for Argomaniz to comply with the summons or he had 20 days to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.
On August 22, 1989, Argomaniz appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which, on March 11, 1991 reversed the district court's order and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to determine, through in camera inspection, the existence of Argomaniz's "fifth amendment privilege" in this case.
*Good Grief!! *Look at all the time this took out of an individual's life!! Let's see if we can find a way so that individuals do not have to jump through all of those hoops.
One of these days if I ever get "a round tuit" and dig out my notes, I might report on the Georgia "country boy" who called me about three years ago about a summons. I gave him the case names and numbers from the old IR manual and I think the Doe case. He took care of matters at district court level. He gave his position had no in camera proceeding, and told the judge if it went any farther than that point, he demanded assistance of counsel. The IRS backed down. It can be done.
Let's take it from the top. If you are issued a summons to appear before an IRS person to exhibit your books and records and "fail" to do so, the IRS can petition the federal district court to issue an order for you to show cause why the court should not enforce the summons. If you fail to show up at district court, a warrant can be issued for your arrest. Then there will be a hearing where you will be given the opportunity to show cause why you should not be held in contempt of court.
If you do show up (voluntarily or otherwise), you will certainly want to be prepared to show that the summons is invalid so it cannot be enforced. If you are unable to show cause why the summons should not be enforces, the court will order you to obey the summons. If you do not obey this order of the court, you can be found in contempt of court. So it is to your advantage to be able to show the court why it should not enforce the summons.
If you do get an order to show cause, be sure to get a copy of the government's petition to the court and the IRS person's affidavit which is supposed to be attached to the petition. The court can provide you with these copies. You will want to know what assertions and assumptions the IRS person makes to support the summons and the petition to enforce it.
It amazes me when I think how long and how successful the IRS has been over the years with these "summonses". The only way this could happen is for everyone to assume or presume the individual is liable for or subject to a tax, or required to perform an act.
The authority the IRS has and relies upon to issue a summons is 26 U.S.C. §7602. But this section authorizes them to summons only *"the person liable for tax or required to perform the act"* or any person having custody or care of records relating to the business of "the person liable for tax or required to perform the act".
These are the missing ingredients in the so-called "summonses" and I submit that the IRS will be unable to show the judge a place in the Code that makes the individual *"liable for tax" or "required to perform the act".* If the IRS cannot show any such sections, it establishes that the "summons" is not valid because they had no authority under 26 U.S.C. 7602 to issue the document in the first place, and the court has no authority (jurisdiction) to enforce an invalid document. Can you think of a better issue to raise at a show cause hearing which asks you to show cause why the summons should not be enforced?
There are folks who will tell you that you should not challenge the jurisdiction of the court. But when you challenge the validity of the summons, you are essentially challenging the court's authority to enforce such a document. The court certainly has authority to determine if the summons is valid and if it is, the court has authority to enforce it. But if it is invalid, the court cannot enforce it. So it is a matter of knowing on which issues you can, and should, challenge the court's jurisdiction.
To get around your jurisdictional argument, the judge might tell you that the purpose of the summons is so that the IRS can gather information to determine your tax liability (confusing "tax liability" with "being liable for a tax"). I think it would be important to keep reminding the judge that the *IRS has no authority to issue the summons in the first place unless it can show a statute that makes you liable or required.* You might also remind the judge that he cannot merely assume or presume that you are liable for a tax or required to keep books and records, because for him to make such assumptions or presumptions is a denial of due process of law. (See that phrase in Black's Law Dictionary.)
Assume the judge assumes you are liable for a tax and/or required to perform the act (keep books and records). You tell the judge that, based on Doe, Fisher, Argomaniz and your constitutional rights, you refuse to answer any questions relating to earnings or income, and refuse to even reveal as to whether or not any such records might exist. The judge will probably tell you that you can claim your constitutional privilege before the IRS person on a question-by-question basis.
It seems important to inform the judge that the only authority the IRS has to issue a summons is to acquire information that would determine a liable person's tax liability. Questions relating to anything else are immaterial for purposes of the summons. If a question is material, it would be testimonial and incriminating, and if so, the individual cannot be forced to reveal any such information. Since the IRS has asserted that you have "failed to file tax returns", you have a legitimate and real fear of answering any questions for purposes of the summons. If the question is immaterial for purposes of the summons, the IRS has no authority to ask the question. "So, Judge, why force me to go to the IRS to be asked questions that are either immaterial, or that I can and will refuse to answer?" The judge might order you to appear before the IRS anyway. If so, you can refuse to answer each question on the basis of your constitutional rights because the question is either immaterial for purposes of the summons or your answer may tend to be incriminating. (Always take a court reporter and a witness with you to any meeting with the IRS you may be forced to attend.)
After you refuse to answer the IRS's questions on the above stated grounds, the IRS may again go to the court seeking an order to have you comply with the summons or show cause why you should not be held in contempt.
At this show cause hearing, the judge may want to follow the procedure shown in Argomaniz and hold an in camera proceeding and ask you, on a question-by-question basis (and probably even ask you to produce the records you have) in order to make a determination as to whether or not you have the records sought, and whether under the existing circumstances they are incriminating. (Such determination will be a public record accessible to the IRS.) In the case of R.J.D. in Volume 1, after questioning R.J.D., the court eventually made a determination that he did not have the records sought. But, wait a minute! That could be incriminating!
This seems to be a good time to inform the judge that 26 U.S.C. 7203 not only apply to the "failure to file required returns, but also to the "failure to keep required records. Therefore, based on your constitutional rights, you refuse to admit to or deny the possible existence of any records that relate to the summons. If you allow the judge to make a factual finding that you have not kept particular records, such a finding would tend to be incriminating regarding 7203, if you are a person required to keep records.
According to Argomaniz, if the judge determines that you have any of the records sought, that could be incriminating. If he determines that you have not kept such records required to be kept, that could be incriminating. If the questions asked are immaterial to the summons, nobody has authority to force you to answer such question.
I don't know if this has ever been done before or even attempted, but this may be a nice time to see if the judge wants to make a factual determination based on statute (not mere assumption) as to whether you are a person required to keep books and records. This is important because before the judge can determine whether an admission by you that you have not kept certain records would be incriminating for purposes of 7203, he must first make a determination as to whether or not you are a person required by statute to keep the records sought. Such an official determination might come in handy at a later date. If this issue is raised, I think the judge must make this determination.
If you check 26 U.S.C. 6001 and 6011, you will see that only persons liable or made liable are required to keep books and records. We are back to square one.
It seems to me that there are so many ways to paint the IRS and the courts into comers from which they cannot escape that a person should not be overly worried about summonses, if he understands the principles involved.
Assume, however, the judge ignores all of the above and is going to find you in contempt of court (jail time) if you do not obey the summons or answer his in camera questions on a question-by-question basis. You might do like the Georgia "country boy" did and tell the judge if it goes any further, you demand assistance of counsel. Always object to any moves the judge makes which are adverse to your position. This will give counsel more issues for appeal.
Regarding the phrase "fifth amendment privilege" that judges use, I think I would tell the judge that I do not understand what he means by "privilege", but I am demanding my Fifth Amendment right (as opposed to some sort of government provided privilege) not to witness against myself. But so that I could more adequately defend myself, I would ask him to explain to me the difference between a "fifth amendment privilege" and a "Fifth Amendment right" as guaranteed by the U S Constitution. You might have fun with this one.
Keep in mind that we have not really discussed the Fourth Amendment. If the IRS cannot force you to produce the records because of the Fifth Amendment, they can get a warrant to break into your home or place of business to search for the records. But before they can legally do that, you must first be a person who is liable or subject to a tax. The record you set regarding the Fifth Amendment may well make them think twice before they try to get such a warrant.
Setting the record is always important. You may well want to establish an administrative record based on Bob Minarik's information printed below. Bob is Club Leader of the Patriots for Liberty in Rochester, Indiana. Bob and I are pretty much in agreement on most issues. I think he is one of the most intelligent and honest people in the patriot community. He has given me permission to reprint the following material and to edit it as I see fit. I will make my comments, but will not edit out any of the contents of Bob's material.
Following Bob's material may well prevent the issuance of a summons in the first place and may well prevent an indictment. I think you are going to like this.
*An Outline Of A Winning Plan.*
"Everybody wants to win, but very few want to prepare to win", says a veteran Indiana basketball coach who has a track record as a winner for more than 20 years. The bottom line of what he espouses is that those who do prepare will win and those who don't will be consistent losers.
If you want to know how to win, study a winner. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. You just need to look at the bottom line of those who are successful winners and start building from their established foundation. Find the common thread found in all winners and adapt it for your use. For starters, take a moment to assess any good coach, or successful general, or good parent and you will find there are four basic foundational comer blocks from which they all build. These blocks are a plan, preparation, patience and discipline. Within those cornerstones are communication, faith, and perseverance.
If we understand this principle and we have the conviction to fight the good fight, we must seek out and incorporate the wisdom of those who have developed a track record and a standard as winners. We should be studying the techniques of winners like Vince Lombardi, Bobby Knight, and Bobby Fisher. If you have to ask, "Who are those guys?", then you have some homework to do as they are not just sports figures, but important role models for establishing a winning record.
A very early winner was a Chinese philosopher, by the name of Sun Tzu, who lived about 500 years before Christ. Sun Tzu's strategy for a winning plan has been used by military generals throughout history, even to this day, and his words and works have been incorporated into a book entitled, The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, (Oxford University Press, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, North Carolina - Ph. 1-800-451-7556). In my opinion, one of the most important observations he made was as follows: "If a man knows himself and knows his opponent, he need not fear a hundred battles. If a man knows himself and knows not his opponent, for every victory he will suffer a defeat. If a man knows neither himself nor his opponent, he is a fool and will suffer defeat in every battle." (Remember that the other side also is aware of The Art of War.)
As Sun Tzu points out the key to success is knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of our opponents on a one on one basis. Today, we have a reputation for losing because we are trying to recover on an individual case by case basis from the mistakes we made five or more years ago or because we totally relied on what we thought was a silver bullet.
If we have heard it once we have heard it a thousand times, "There is no such thing as a silver bullet." A fact of life, that we are going-to have to face, is that today's judges will simply deny any issue of law that could inflict any fatal injury to our present "income" taxing structure.
Although I'm well aware of the judicial tyranny we are encountering, I feel that the bottom line of the cause for our losses was lack of preparation due to a lack of knowledge, effort, and/or the lack of desire to prepare to win by each and every one of us.
In addressing any problem involving the Internal Revenue Service, we should understand that attacks by the government upon the rights of the people have take place for years and that a WAR is being conducted for control of our home, our property, our family, our minds and our bodies. If we don't understand or refuse to acknowledge and accept this fact, it would be wise to get back in the system and be "good little slaves" as the issue is not merely misuse of tax revenues, but more importantly the unlawful theft of our rights, our liberty and our property.
A successful preacher was once asked, "How is it that your congregation is so knowledgeable and enthusiastic?" The preacher responded, "First I tell them what I'm going to tell them, then I tell them, then I tell them what I told them."
In following that guideline, we'll start by telling you that our entire purpose is to lay out fundamentals for a winning position, using the IRS as an example adversary. Then we'll try to communicate to you an outline of a winning plan of action that incorporates those fundamentals and which can be adapted to any government, corporate, or individual intrusion into your life. Then we'll address some of the "dos and don'ts" and give you some workable examples as a guide.
What we won't do, is do it for you. The responsibility to put that plan into action will be yours.
One of the best approaches in dealing with any potential problem is look at the worst case scenario and then work backwards in looking for a solution.
If we're going to learn from history, we need to establish and incorporate certain fundamentals so that new participants can be winners in the future and present participants can back track on a sound basis before serious injury is done unto them.
For those involved or about to get involved in the tax patriot movement or who just personally want to claim their rights and stop the "voluntary" submission of information as subjects to the IRS, the worst case scenario is that the government wants to put you in jail, take everything you have, destroy your marriage and break up your family. And that folks is NOT an exaggeration!! Never, ever underestimate an opponent that has a track record as vile, yet as successful as the IRS!!!
In addressing this threefold scenario, it would be wise to try to rectify that most serious possibility first - the destruction of your marriage and your family. Let's look at a hypothetical, yet realistic example. The major breadwinner of the family realizes that he is being ripped off and he has been acting the part of the servant and not the master. He says, "Enough of this theft, I'm no longer going to voluntarily waive my rights and the security of my papers and effects." But before any action is taken, a physical break needs to be made from the time when one was a "subject" filer to when he starts to reclaim his status as master.
In order to insure at least one of the family providers is protected from a fraudulent attack, it would be wise to sever any "marital tie" for so-called "tax purposes" which had been previously established. Past "joint returns" should not be left hanging. Wisdom should prevail. At least one year of submission of a "'single return" by the homemaker or provider should be made. Instead of a potential attack being made against both family providers, one is now available to keep the family going if the other should come under criminal attack and be conscripted into the prison labor force.
Any family property held singly or jointly can and should be protected before one attempts to reclaim his master status. Attempts to transfer or sell property after an alleged "tax year" in which the government could even claim a potential tax liability, usually won't wash. Even if an after the fact transfer did wash, you are still likely to incur unnecessary hassle and expense trying to quiet title to property which they can cloud with 10 minutes of their time and an 8 FRN recording fee. There are timely and acceptable methods to transfer property before the fact. Those should be researched and appropriately implemented.
Generally today's courts will simply roll over to the government's claim of a fraudulent conveyance. Even though the courts grant most favorable status to the government, they usually won't grant such favorable status unless they can project a good reason to, at least, maintain the facade that the theft is legitimate. Don' give them that opportunity. If one is going to make a transfer of title or deed, it should be done prior to the stopping of the submission of information tax forms. You may either follow this suggestion or sell the property to a stranger and move to a different location.
Wisdom also suggests that you and your spouse get out of the banking system. And not just a partial get out, rather a complete get out. No checks period. No bank accounts period. Information held by a third party is seldom, if ever protectable. No privacy claim can be made after you voluntarily waive the right. Just read the fine print on the application you sign to open an account and you'll get the picture.
Covering yourself against the third case scenario of coming under criminal attack, will also have great benefit in protecting against an attack on the family and property. A reasonable, chronological, systematic approach should be used. In a criminal trial situation in the federal courts, you will not receive a jury of your peers. It is rare to have a juror who is not partial to the government. If they are not pre-screened before jury selection, they most certainly are after the vior dire (questioning) by the judge. When the judge asks the jurors, "Is there anyone here who has taken a position for or against the collection of taxes?", you generally end up with a bunch of wimps who won't decide a case on the merits but who will roll over because nothing plausible has been offered by the defendant that their limited thinking ability can comprehend. You'll have to overcome their presumption of your guilt and their belief that if you weren't guilty, you wouldn't be there.
In a criminal trial, you are in a situation against both the judge and the government as adversaries. Every judge will always claim that the jury is the judge of the facts but the judge is the judge of the law and he will impose an obligation on the jury to determine the facts in light of the law the way the judge instructs the jury. Error or not, this is a fact of life today, regardless of the fine efforts being made by the Fully Informed Jury Amendment Committee (FIJA, PO Box 59, Helmsville, Montana 59843) to bring awareness to the public that the jury is the rightful judge of both the law and the facts.
Judges, however, will usually try to present at least the facade of justice, but no legal issues of substance, that will affect the outcome of the verdict, will be granted. I think one of the biggest errors we, in the patriot community have made, is that we have spent so much time developing the legal arguments, that we have overlooked the factual issues.
I repeat, we have to go back to basics. Although I am not overly impressed by the recent "Cheek" decision [U S v. Cheek, 111 S.Ct. 604 (199 1)], I see this decision as giving a pretty solid foundation for a favorable jury instruction on the issue of "willfulness", which is a very important element in all federal tax offenses charged. This case should be obtained and reviewed. [See Vol. 1, No. 4. Ed.]
Every approach should be addressed from the position of what a reasonable and prudent man would do, based on today's standard of what is considered a reasonable and prudent man. Would a reasonable and prudent man stop filing forms which he has submitted annually for 20 plus years without first making a good intentioned inquiry? Personally think that approach would be understandable to the average "boobus Americanus" juror.
I believe and I think the government believes, that even today's "If I gotta pay, you gotta pay" thinking juror would have the benefit of doubt for a man who testified that before he stopped filing, he made serious inquiry and responded to every inquiry by the government before he stopped filing tax forms.
We urge the use of any response or inquiry format that shifts the burden of response back upon the government to produce substantiation and verification of their claim that you are now, and always have been, one of their subjects. The response format we are suggesting incorporates some very basic, yet simple maxims of law that are designed to overcome and bring into issue the unproven presumptions of the government.
After much testing and with growing successes, we have a basic eight point format which we can adapt to any government inquiry. The Save A Patriot Fellowship calls them "Jake Snake" letters. We simply call it "The 8 Point Response Format". It consists of 4 major points: (1) Respond, (2) Accuse, (3) Deny, and (4) Question, which was brought to our attention about 10 years ago through the old Patriot Network by the efforts of Dr. Al Steever. After much trial and error and the changing times, we added four sub points which are (5) Establish your Intent, (6) Make your Demand, (7) State your Authority, and (8) Set a time limit.
Let's take those points one at a time and comment on their purpose.
(1) Respond - With only rare exception, a response should be made to every government inquiry whether it is personally written or a computer spit out. Failure to do so, may establish whatever presumption the government wants to imply under the "doctrine of acquiescence" or "tacit procuration". If you don't understand those terms, make it a point to look them up in a good law dictionary at any law or public library.
To prevent any confusion as to your response, I believe it wise to always include, in your first paragraph, a complete description of the form or letter to which you are responding.
(2) Accuse - This doesn't mean you have to call them "no good scumsuckin' thieves". This may be true, but common courtesy should always prevail. Remember and keep foremost in your mind - you are writing a business letter to a business person, the agent, and the letter you write may be presented for a future jury. Simple statements such as "Your conclusion is in effort", or "You are proceeding on a false presumption", are some appropriate examples.
(3) Deny - Always remember these two basic maxims of law "Failure to object timely is fatal" and "That which is not denied is admitted". If someone calls you a whore and you don't deny it, you will be presumed a whore and that presumption will be established by your silence. So if someone in the IRS calls you a "taxpayer" or claims you have a "taxable period" or that you have an obligation, you need to make a specific denial.
Another sub point that could well be included is to Make Your Determination - A simple statement like: "Based on my study as per your own Code, I have determined that I do not have an obligation or a legal duty. I am a freeman who claims all of his rights. I am not one who is liable or was made liable to waive those rights or to furnish information to you. I am not one who comes within the purview of your statutes.
I admonish you to be careful, - Don't talk too much. A master does not have to "ratchet his jaw" to his servant. Keep your statements simple. Weigh your admission statements against George Gordon's three fundamental rules of legal survival which are: (1) Keep your mouth shut (2) Don't say anything and (3) Shut Up!!.
(4) Question: You want to always shift the burden of proof back upon your accuser and there is no better way than to make inquiry. Personally, I like to request hard copy documents such as a copy of the determination that states I am a "taxpayer" or I am a "person liable" or I have been classified within a "taxable class". I want the documents of fact which substantiate that determination. I want the documents that identify the law on which those facts were based. I want their specific delegation of authority document to make those determinations. I want copies of all Notices sent or served upon me to the making of those determinations.
(5) Establish Your Intent - What is your intent? Is your intent to obey all laws that apply to you? Is your action being done in "good faith?" You can establish this with a simple statement such as, "I want to obey all laws that apply to me. But I don't want to volunteer, waive my fundamental rights, and incur an obligation that otherwise would not exist." This is a good time to establish your reliance on a Supreme Court decision. In the case of U S v. Mason, Administrator, 412 U S 391 (1937), the Supreme Court said: "And if the doctrine of "stare decisis" has any meaning at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such reliance."
By establishing this reliance you can bring into the court room the basis of law which you relied upon and it can be presented to the jury as a matter of fact.
Another excellent reliance case is Guardian T & D Co. v. Fisher, 26 S.Ct. 186 (1906) where the court said at page 188: "An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do a particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it."
Also, I want to express to the agent, and to the jury whom may have final scrutiny, that I don't want to waive my rights to be secure in my papers and effects and my right to privacy. I don't want to volunteer into an obligation that otherwise would not exist but I don't want to disobey any law that applies to me. (That should be a reasonable position even to a dummy.)
(6) Make Your Demand - Tell them what you want them to do. You could say, "If you agree, with my determination, I respectfully make this timely demand that you ABATE your claim and notify me of the actions you have taken to correct your error." Remember: a "request" is made by authority of a statutory privilege; a "demand" is made as a matter of right. For the benefit of the jury, the demand should always be respectful.
(7) State Your Authority - As a master, your authority is claimed as a matter of right. You can further support your position by reliance on a Supreme Court decision. That court has stated that it is your responsibility to determine whether the agent or agency is within the bounds of his/their authority when the court stated: Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having it accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority .... and this is so even though as here the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority." Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U S 380 at 384 (1947)
So if an agent writes to you and tells you he wants to see your personal records, it is your responsibility to ask him how authority was originated to him personally in reference to you. If you voluntarily submit, you may waive your right to the security of your papers and effects. Based on the mootness doctrine, your voluntary submission may moot any challenge as to how the information can be used.
(8) Set A Time Limit - Don't give them any blank checks. If they give you 10 days, be a nice guy and give them 30 days, but always set a deadline. Many times they won't respond. Don't get upset. Remember, what you get from the IRS is not as important as what you don't get. Once you have fulfilled your responsibility to make inquiry as to their authority, the burden shifts to them. "No response" on their part enhances your position, not theirs. It establishes the presumption that the documents you requested on inquiry do not exist and that they are proceeding on unsubstantiated presumptions.
Many things are accomplished when utilizing this eight point format, such as:
(1) You don't have to reinvent the wheel for every inquiry that comes your way.
(2) You keep the issues simple and easy to understand even by an uneducated jury.
(3) You make a minimal number of admissions.
(4) You put the burden of proof on the government.
(5) You establish a hard copy physical evidentiary foundation that is set in stone for the future.
(6) You undermine the government's presumption.
(7) You establish your own presumption.
(8) You establish your good-faith intent by reliance on Supreme Court decisions.
(9) With each additional response where you have shifted the burden and where the government fails to respond to your inquiry, your shield of protection is continuously strengthened.
(10) You gain personal knowledge and personal confidence in your ability to relate your position.
(11) Each letter of inquiry can be used as a tool by yourself or an attorney in the judicial arena if you come under attack.
Consistency and perseverance are very important to any long term plan of action. Any start is better than nothing at all, but the stronger the foundation, the better. The bottom line is YOU!! A series of inquiry letters will, in themselves, be a powerful statement before any jury.
I want to interject a couple of admonitions, suggestions, and personal opinions before I lay out an example letter which incorporates these eight points. If we disagree on some point don't get upset and reject the whole premise. The fundamental concept of always responding, always denying false claims against you, and always shifting the burden to your opponent can be adapted to any theory in reference to any opponent. These are my thoughts.
(1) Be Consistent And Persevere Remember, your laying the foundation for the long term. Stick with it. Don't get discouraged and quit because you don't get a response to your inquiry or the opponents computer keeps spitting out another unsigned form letter. Consider them as opportunities to put another nail in their coffin, or another rung in your ladder they have to climb.
(2) Don't Get Cocky - And for heaven sake don't threaten anybody. Your letters should be very professional and business like. They are the servant, you are the master. Act like it. A master never needs to be obnoxious, overbearing, snotty, crude, arrogant or threatening. A master needs to be in control. A good master will be courteous and inquiring, but firm and in command.
(3) Don't Appear To Be Smarter Than You Are - Most of us aren't experts, and when we open up our mouth we prove it. Be observant of the inquiry made of you, but keep your requests simple. For example, I've seen a number of IRS computer spit outs entitled "Statement of Change to your Account" and "Notice of Intent to Levy". With those forms, a reply envelope is usually included. On the envelope is a code to assist them in delivery of your response to the office or branch for that particular processing. Most "individuals" receive an envelope coded "BMF-TDB". Now, my research tells me that means "Business Master FileTaxpayer Delinquency Branch". But I won't tell them that, instead I'll ask for the document that identifies what that "code" means. If they respond, fine. I'll make demand for an abatement or copy of the determination to classify me as a business. If they don't respond and they want to push the levy, I'll be making the accusation of error in the court room and put the pressure on them through the discovery process or with a Subpoena Duces Tecum (a subpoena for documents).
With a little thought the "Statement of Change to your Account" has a lot of other possible inquiries. Who opened that account? What is the number of that account? Who authorized a change in the account? Who granted authority to make the change in the account? Was I notified before that account was changed"? How was I notified?
These are the type of inquiries that would be made by a reasonable man. The more reasonable you come across the better your chance of success before a jury. Also, the better your success will be they won't even push the issue. These people who prosecute "tax patriots" are not dumb. They know the opponent they have to conquer and in this scenario it is not you, it is the jury. They must keep the jury convinced you are a criminal.
In the last three tax trials I've attended, the prosecutor on his final closing statement told the jury to use "common sense because everybody knows you have to file a tax return by April 15th." The jury couldn't distinguish between "common sense" and "conditioning". If they had lived in the year 1492, they wouldn't have even tried to walk off the edge of the earth, because "common sense" would have told them that the earth was flat.
If you ask the right question before they threaten prosecution, and you let the IRS know that you will create a doubt in the jurors' conception of "common sense", they will be hesitant to push the issue. Their strength is their weakness. With a present success rate of 19 victories out of 20, nobody wants to be the jerk who loses. If the case isn't airtight or at least 95% winnable, they will seldom prosecute.
There are exceptions which include patriots like Franklin Sanders or Vem Holland or Dave Mauldin. These men are such a threat to the IRS fraud, the government will use a criminal trial to impugn the patriot's integrity in the public's eye, or try to break them financially. With today's courts, you can bet that if the government gets an indictment in a criminal case, they figure they have almost a 100% chance of winning. The Assistant U S Attorneys are promoted on their victories, not on their losses. You should take it personal if you are indicted. They consider you a pushover.
(4) Defense And Fall Back Strategy Although I'm sometimes chastised for not being a purist, I like the strategy of the "defense in depth and fall back position". Example: "I am not one who is liable or was made liable or has a legal duty, but even if I was [were], you didn't issue a proper "Notice of Deficiency" or make a proper "assessment" or issue a timely "Notice and Demand" as per your own Code. I believe the hard core "not liable" issue is correct but it is not an issue "well taken" before today's courts, where as the soft core "procedural" argument is "well taken:, believe in playing the hand that you are dealt. In time, if we pound hard enough, the issue will be taken just as the "earth is round theory" is now well taken.
(5) Theories - Although you can believe any theory you want and if you maintain a good-faith belief in that theory you shouldn't be found guilty. However, some theories are so wild and far out that they are so incomprehensible or so incredulous to a jury that the odds of your success are almost zero. The odds will be much greater in your favor if you relied on more conventional theories. I don't want to tell you what to believe, but whatever it is you better be prepared to defend it with the vigor and conviction of a zealot. Don't expect to win unless you are prepared to take the stand and give the jury something to hang their hat on.
(6) Reliance & Position Letters - Position letters are fine but what make the most sense to me is your personal response to any inquiries and their failure to respond. If you're sold on position letters, go for it, but I still urge personal, one-on-one responses. My fear of "position letters" is that you make too many admissions and thereby give the opponent too many tools to stuff back in your ear during a cross examination.
(7) Government Responses - About 80% of the time you won't get a response. Generally when the IRS plugs in their computer to operate on auto pilot, you can expect unsigned computer spit outs using the same unsubstantiated presumptions. About 15% of the time, a fancy titled IRS flunky will write to tell you it is IRS policy not to respond to a letter such as yours. You need to respond. Ask for a copy of that policy and the determination which includes your letter within that policy. And then about 5% of the time, an "I think I'm real smart" agent, who believes he knows the statutes which makes you liable, will write and throw out sections of the Code that he thinks makes you liable. Definitely, that letter needs your research and articulate response. Look up those sections and address them chronologically and systematically. Don't let this slip by you. Remember the wise adage, He Who Writes Last, Wins!!
At this point, let's take a look at two example letters. The longer of the two incorporates all eight points and is as close to a position letter as we are comfortable. The shorter one is, what we call, the "busy man's response" and just hits the high points.
Any response is better than no response, so strike a happy medium according to your tastes and your needs. A winner will find the most time and cost efficient method to accomplish his objective in his personal situation. You don't want to shoot a rabbit with an elephant gun but neither do you want to hunt a lion with a sling shot.
The views presented herein are the views of the author and not necessarily the views of the publisher. The view presented are for educational and thought stimulation only and are not to be construed as "legal advice". Competent legal counsel should be consulted.
Bob Minarik, Patriots For Liberty, PO Box -'334, Rochester, Indiana 46975. Ph. 219-223-2566
Editor's Comments My comments and suggested changes will be in brackets [ ] or text boxes. I have used strikes in one area with suggested changes below.
I believe positive statements place the burden of proof on the patriot. Denials of IRS assumptions, presumptions and assertions place the burden of proof on them.
For example, if you claim you are a nontaxpayer, you have made a "bald assertion" (without proof), but if you deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the IRC, you have denied an IRS assumption or presumption which places the burden of proof on them - which is where you want it.
Bob's Eight Point Response To The IRS.
Samuel G. Adams
C/O One Patriot Plaza
Adwnsville, Indiana state 46785
October 21, 1991
Agent Iluv Tworipuoff -Examiner Department of Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
666 Fraudhaven Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46444
Dear Agent Tworipuoff.
I am in receipt of your form letter 904 (DO), dated October 15, 1991, that carries your stamped signature and which claims that you have been assigned to examine my "federal tax returns for the years shown above". Your letter also states that you have set an appointment date of November 10, 1991 for me to come to your office and bring with me a literal grocery list of personal documents. Also enclosed with your letter was your Privacy Act Notice #609.
It appears that you are proceeding on a presumption that I have some obligation to attend a meeting that you scheduled, without first confirming that I have an obligation or even that such date is convenient for me, if I did have an obligation. You are also proceeding on the presumption that I was a "person liable" or a "person made liable" for an income tax [a so-called "income" tax] and that I am one subject to your authority.
Agent Tworipuoff, if that is the case, you are in error and proceeding on an erroneous assumption. I deny any claim of any obligation and any claim that I am one who is liable or subject [liable for or subject to any so-called "income" tax] or that I have any requirement to waive my fundamental rights to be secure in my personal papers and effects. I further deny that I have any obligation to attend a meeting with you or to give personal testimony or respond to questions about my personal affairs or that you have any facts or basis of authority to make any inquiry of me.
Me, I base my denial on the following facts within my personal knowledge:
a) I am not invoked in a regulated enterprise.
b) I receive no direct benefits from any government entity.
c) I am not a transferee.
d) I am not a "withholding agent" or a fiduciary.
e) I am not a corporate or collective entity, nor an officer of a corporation or collective entity.
f) I am not an employer.
g) I am a natural born inhabitant of Indiana State and do not reside in, was not born in, nor do I exercise my rights to work within, any aspect of the territorial, maritime, or legislative jurisdiction of the "United States".
h) I have no income subject to any, tax under Subtitle A of Title 26.
Editor's Suggested Changes:
In order to avoid making "bald assertions", I prefer to separately deny being a "taxpayer/TAXPAYER", having a "taxable year", "taxable income", "adjustable gross income", or a ..taxpayer's identification number" and/or a "tax period" as those terms are defined in and/or for purposes of the IRC, and to further deny being "liable" and/or a "person liable" and/or a "person made liable" for or being subject to any tax imposed by the IRC. (See Vol. 1, No 2.) I remember a judge's denial in a motion to quash a summons case. The judge stated: "Plaintiffs' bold assertion of nontaxpayer status, etc., etc." Get the picture? The plaintiffs had placed the burden of proof on themselves.
I know of nothing that makes me "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". Any forms or returns that I may have submitted in the past were submitted because of misinformation and disinformation that originated from your Service which implied that some obligation existed, when in fact no obligation actually did. All such documents submitted under those false pretenses are hereby repudiated.
I claim all of my rights to enter into any private contract and to be secure in my personal papers and effects. I also claim by right not to be a witness against myself by oral or written testimony. I further claim all other rights enumerated in the respective Constitutions for Indiana State and the United States of America and all other rights not enumerated as expressed in the 9th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.
I am not one who exists by, or was introduced by, the authority of any State and, for certain, the United States. I deny that I am subject to or come within the purview of any statute that would require the waiver of my fundamental rights.
I rely on the early landmark Supreme Court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 U S 316 at 429, where Chief Justice John Marshall stated: "All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation: but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident......
"The sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its authority, or is introduced by its permission; .... (emphasis mine)"
Chief Justice Marshal also stated in the McCulloch case, at page 431, "That the power to tax is the power to destroy." I am not one whom the United States or the State has authority to destroy. I am "exempt" [immune] from your "statutory scheme" as a matter of right and not because of any statutory privilege.
Your Privacy Act Notice #609 confirms my determination where it specifically states that you're "legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for." Those sections 6001 and 6011, state that one must be "liable" or "made liable" before any regulations come into play.
Section 601l(f) shows that Section 6012 is subservient to Sections 6001 and 6011 and that I must be "liable" or "made liable before any requirement comes into play under Section 6012. I can find no provision that makes me liable or imposes any obligation of legal duty upon me and, to date, I am unable to obtain any information from your Service to document your presumption that I am one who is liable or was made liable.
The Supreme Court has stated in a number of decisions that it is the established rule not to extend taxing statutes beyond the clear import of the language used or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. The Court further stated that in case of doubt the taxing statutes are construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor of those upon who the tax is sought to be laid. (Gould v. Gould, 245 U S 151, 153 and U S v. Merriam, 263 U S 179, 187-188.)
I have every desire to obey all laws that apply to me, but I am fearful that any participation with you or your Service will constitute a voluntary waiver of those rights and moot any future claim to those rights.
I rely on the Supreme Court case of Guardian T & D Co. v. Fisher, 26 S. Ct. 186 at 188, where the court said:
"An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do a particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it."
If you agree, I respectfully make this timely demand that you ABATE your claim, correct your error, and notify me in writing of the actions you have taken.
If you disagree, I respectfully make this timely demand that you provide me with the following documents.
1) A copy of the determination that I have a "legal duty" to furnish personal information to you or your Service.
2) A copy of the determination that I am or was a "taxpayer" as that term is defined within Title 26 Section 7701(a) (14) and 1313(b) or any other section which applies to that determination.
3) A copy of the determination that I am one who is "liable" or "made liable" for any Title 26, Subtitle A tax as per Sections 6001 and 6011 or that I am one who comes within any aspect of the purview of Title 26.
4) A copy of the determination that I am one who comes within a "taxable class" subject to your statutes.
5) A copy of any determination that anything I receive is "income" subject to tax under Title 26.
6) The specific documents of fact relied upon in the making of all the above itemized determinations which shall include any contracts or waivers of rights submitted by me.
7) The specific documents that identify the law or statutes on which those determinations were made.
8) The documents that identify the names, titles, and office addresses, of those who took part in the making of those determinations.
9) The specific Delegation Orders or Treasury Orders from the Secretary of Treasury to make those determinations.
10) All appropriate redelegations of authority documents to make those determinations issued specifically to those parties who took part in the making of those determinations.
11) The specific format and instructions to make my requests if the format for my requests do not meet your internal procedures.
12) Any documents of exemption that you rely upon if you should decide not to respond to my requests or inquiries.
13) The specific notice documents and instructions on procedure for seeking- an administrative appeal to any adverse determinations made by those within your Service.
My authority for making this timely demand for verification of your determinations and authority is a matter of right and supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America as follows:
"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority...... Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U S 380 at 384.
I will expect your response to my demand for abatement and correction of your error or for your correction of any error you claim I have made, along with the documents demanded to support your position, within 30 days of your receipt of this letter of demand and inquiry. If you need additional time, please make your request in writing and it will be granted.
If I do not hear from you in 30 days, your lack of response will establish the presumption that neither you nor those in your Service has the documentation to make or support any presumptions that I am one who comes within the purview of your statutory authority whereby you can make any claim of a requirement or obligation upon me.
Samuel G. Adams
Certified Mail 4
Agent liuv Tworipuoff
Bob's Busy Man's Response To The IRS.
(city, state, zip)
Internal Revenue Service
Department of Treasury
(city, state & zip)
I am in receipt of an unsigned form #______, which references my name, dated and which is titled _______.
In reference to me, this form is in error. You are proceeding on the false presumption that I am one who is "liable", "made liable" or obligated to comply with requirements under your Internal Revenue Code.
I DENY these presumptions and all other unsubstantiated claims or obligations implied in this letter. I am not one who has a legal duty under your Code. I have determined, as per your Privacy Act Notice #609, that I am not one who is "liable", "made liable", [or required] to give information, pay or collect any subtitle A tax, waive any of my rights, or sign any form.
If you agree, please ABATE your claim, correct your error, and notify me of the actions you have taken.
If you disagree, furnish to me a copy of the determination that I am one who is "liable" or "made liable" and have incurred a "legal duty". I further respectfully demand the documents of fact and the documents of law on which that determination was based, as well as the documents that identify the names, titles and addresses of those who made that determination. I also make specific demand for the delegations of authority, by those parties who made the determination, to make such determination.
I will expect your response within 30 days. If you need additional time, request it in writing and it will be granted.
If I do not hear from you within that time, this is your NOTICE that the presumption will be established that no obligation exists and that the above noted form was sent in error.
Certified Mail Article #
For more information see,
Schultz v. IRS, January 2005
The Art of War
How to challenge
alleged IRS agent authority