Posted on 02/01/2005 6:16:28 AM PST by TIElniff
Court: Taxpayers can ignore IRS summonses Ruling says action has no teeth without federal court order
A U.S. appeals court has ruled the IRS cannot compel taxpayers to turn over personal and private property without a federal court order and that taxpayers can ignore the agencies summonses until actual enforcement action is taken.
In the case Schulz v. IRS, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled:
... absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order. ? [A taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing.
Bob Schulz, the plaintiff, is head of We the People, an organization that has taken separate legal action against the federal government for its failure to answer a "petition for redress of grievances" regarding the income tax. Though the court affirmed a lower court decision in favor of the IRS, saying Schulz's motion to quash an IRS summons lacked "subject matter," it used the ruling as a means to clarify the agency's power under 26 U.S.C. Section 7604.
The appeals court decision [.pdf document ] of Jan. 25 stated the federal courts protect taxpayers from an "overreaching" IRS and that the agency must go through the federal courts before force can be applied on anyone to turn over personal and private property to the IRS. Absent a federal court order, the IRS summons amounts simply to a "request," the court ruled, which can be ignored.
A statement on the group's website went on to say: "Without declaring provisions of the code unconstitutional on their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands for personal and private property."
We the People claims the court decision will benefit the organization's class-action lawsuit against the IRS.
States the group: "The court has expressly recognized that the IRS, as has been asserted in the right-to-petition lawsuit, routinely violates people's due process rights in their day-to-day administrative practices. As such, the findings of the Second Circuit firmly establish for the District Court the substance of the causes of action put forth in our right-to-petition lawsuit."
Schulz's lawsuit stemmed from an IRS summons served on him in relation to an investigation. He claims the summons was a direct infringement on his First Amendment rights.
Activists of the "tax honesty" movement, in which WTP is a leading voice, believe the federal government lacks any legal jurisdiction to enforce the income tax, that there is no law that requires Americans to pay the tax, and that the tax is enforced in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution.
The IRS can ruin you until the courts step in. That's why we need the National Sales Tax.
Well, my wife is already preparing for that by buying everything and anything so when we have a sales tax we won't need anything :)
ping
And the IRS will care? I think not. The IRS is the American equivalent of the KGD, NKVD, SAVAK and all the other secret police orgaizations in tryannical nations. The only way to bring them to heel is to shut it down, Like that will ever happen
And the IRS will care? I think not. The IRS is the American equivalent of the KGD, NKVD, SAVAK and all the other secret police orgaizations in tryannical nations. The only way to bring them to heel is to shut it down, Like that will ever happen
Big tax planning tip - don't annoy the IRS! No matter what the court case suggests, cooperation can get better results when facing an audit. You throw out all chance of negotiation or reduction of penalties by being obstructive.
Believe me, it's a heck of a lot cheaper just to pay them than to pay an attorney!
Right now, this ruling only applies to the 2nd Circuit. Other circuits may have differing views on this issue, or they may have never decided this issue. Until and unless SCOTUS grants cert. for this case, this decision is only binding in the 2nd Circuit.
'bout time!
If you are at the stage where the IRS is trying to seize property you are in deep sh@t. Making it go through one more step is not going to be your salvation.
Nothing like wild hysterical miscatagorization to make your case. THAT will win you loads of adherents I'm sure.
That leg is about as strong as that of a jellyfish's tentacles.
Yup, I'm gonna take WND's tax advice. I'm gonna like living in a dumpster after I get out of "club fed."
LOL!!!! That laugh did me so much good! :o)
d@mn! Maybe this will be the first real step in dismantelling the IRS...
It was a serious determination by the court, not nonsense. From what I understand, the ruling by its nature, nullifed the part of the tax code that says the IRS alone has the authority to demand a judge issue an attachment warrant for someone who fails to respond to the IRS' summons. So, instead of the IRS being able to demand you respond to a summons under IRS authority, without having to show reason, the IRS must now seek a federal court order to compel compliance with a summons, which presumably would mean the agency would have to show reason for the summons.
Interesting to say the least...and it really gets folks jacked up about tax reform!
The threat of prison from an agency that has been provided with its own court system is frightening, to say the least.
That's what I'm thinking, too.
You can bet, if this report is accurate, that the IRS will appeal all the way up the line. Power is more addictive than herion.
The IRS, which won that round against Schulz after all, is now asking the court to amend its ruling, for the very reason that the court's language empowered Schulz and WND to go boasting. The IRS quoted this WorldNetDaily article in their response. This proves that they think: "The fair and effective administration and enforcement of our tax laws may thereby be significantly impaired" (USA Attorney Cihlar in the motion).
Schulz replied by asking the court instead to amend even more strongly in favor of his own point: to declare IRC enforcement section 7604(b) null and void! Watch for WND to post additional articles on this (free self-coverage).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.