My continued investigation of the redemption plan has revealed a very interesting pattern and curious phenomenon in relation to discharge of public taxing agencies (IRS and (California) FTB assesments).

For a number of months now I have been comparing experiences and sharing information with a number of others who are involved in and researching the mechanics of the UCC filings and the Redemption plan. One of the common experiences has been we have received reports and documentation that assessments were made by public agencies (even county tax assessors). When the patriot processed the necessary paperwork through the Dept. of the Treasury and then some weeks later called for a printout were told that the assessment was now "0."

However, we have had others who were receiving subsequent notices which showed that the original amount of assessment had been changed either to "0" or to a lesser amount. Looking at the supporting detail presented often the recipient was confused because the book-keeping did not make sense.

Now I personally observed several instances where the original assessment accepted for value has been reduced to "0" but not with any open acknowledgement of "discharge". Instead the accounting has been very creative by the IRS or the FTB to reduce the amount to either "0" or to a much lesser figure than originally assessed.

We think we are beginning to understand what is going on here. The public taxing agencies (IRS, FTB, etc.) apparantly are accepting the Accepted for Value and Discharge process through the Federal Window, but do not want it to be openly known. Let me give just four examples :

1) Mr, Forbes is retired. He Accepted for Value an IRS assessment for 1999. This came some months ago. Then recently he received a Notice that the IRS had changed his account. They stated that Mr. Forbes had miscalculated his Social Security figure on his return and thus (through their creative book-keeping) the IRS now actually showed a credit owed to Mr. Forbes. However, they did not send a refund. , but noticed him that credit was being applied to another year!

2) Mr. Holland is a chiropractor in Southern California. Around July 2000, he received a number of assessments from the FTB. They were coming to him at the rate of about two per week. He accepted them for value at that time. Well, in October Dr. Holland contacted me and wanted to know if it would be allright to call the FTB and get a printout of everything they might claim he owed. So he called and the gal brought up his name and SS# in her computer. Dr. Holland owed NOTHING! So he asked for a printout. She said they generally do not provide printouts and especially not when there is nothing due. So he got her name which he has in his file in case in case the FTB changes hteir mind.

3) Paul works with the agriculture industry in the San Joaquin Valley. He is close to retirement age. Recently the IRS sent him a Notice of Deficiency for several thousands of dollars. He responded by notifying the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court that he was accepting that Deficiency for value. Just before the end of November 2000, he received a Notice that the IRS had changed his account. At first he was upset because he thought they were continuing to assess him for the Deficiency. However, upon closer examination, we discovered some very creative book-keeping which reduced the amount of Deficiency to "0". But they now claimed that Mr. Young had neglected to include a Self-Employment Tax assessment. So they were now charging him with that, plus a penalty for not timely reporting that. So now he is accepting that for value and we will see how they crunch the numbers on this one!

4) Ken lives in Northern California. Last year the local county assessor had sent a claim for unsecured past due Property Taxes. Ken accepted the taxes for value and also included a Notice of Defect of Process form with the notification. Shortly, thereafter, Mr. Lake received a letter from the County stating the assessment had been reduced to "0". However, now things get very interesting. An associate of mine called the County Assessor's office and inquired about the discharge. He was quickly referred to a superior who told him that they had rejected the Accepted For Value and that Mr. Lake had satisfied the obligation in another way. So we contacted Ken Lake and Ken assured us he had taken no other action to satisfy the assessment in any other manner.

For some reason, these public taxing agencies are doing everything they can to keep from openly admitting or acknowledging that the Accepted For Value discharge process is being accepted by them. We continue to investigate this to see if we can come up with answers as to why.

One other observation : If you have an assessment that has gone to a Notice of Lien, Levy or Order to Withhold the public agency will not necessarily rescind the action when the original assessment is accepted for value. Our evaluation of that reluctance seems to be that they are getting their money from the employer or the bank and are not willing to acknowledge that the discharge is valid. When the employer or the bank cooperates with the employee or depositor we have found that the taxing agency will quickly back off. So on we go working our way through the labyrinth of deception continually dished out by these taxing agencies. If more and more would hold them accountable and discharge these assessments I believe we would force them to openly acknowledge the validity of the UCC filing and discharge process.

For a copy of my latest investigative report on the Redemption Plan send a donation to Truth Radio.

CLICK HERE for California Franchise Tax Board Internal Procedure Manuals.