Now if you would like to rebut that one simple point please do so by all means.
On review of the statutes and the purpose of Notice of Levy, and In regard to Form 8519 the taxpayers copy of Notice of Levy.
In not properly responding to the prior Notices, a person is in default at the point of receiving the 8159.
At that stage it is no longer an issue as to whether or not you are required to pay the tax. At that point you are liable by consequence of not contesting under the due possess that was afforded you in prior notices. You have waived due possess procedures by not acting.
The only steps left is for you is "appeal" process or "offer in compromise". That's it.
The Subsection(a) of 26 USC 6331 "any person liable" is you by default. You didn't contest it when the opportunity was there for you to do so, only Subsections(b) & (c) apply (a) is no longer an issue, default settled any question that might otherwise have been raised.
That is the bottom line, as to why subsection(a) is not quoted in the taxpayer's copy of the Notice of Levey form 8519. Subsection(a) is for Notice of Intent to Levy. (b) & Apply to actual levy since person liable and amount has been determined.
Just to let you know, your round of question conserning Notice of Intent to Levy & Notice of Intent. Has caused me to spend several hours in intense research on the subject.
You have just added one more refutation to failing arguments and why they don't work.
The bottom line answers and how I get to them goes into the database I have built over the last two years debating this junk with people just like you who figured they had the stumper question.
The TP legal rationalizations fall to pieces everytime, simply because Congress has had 140+ years to refine the Income Tax code to the state it is in.
If a rationale has been tried and even comes close to being an effective in letting a potential taxpayer of the hook, Congress modifies the statutes to remove any weakeness.
My purposes in all this are to find the real answers on how to end the Income/Payroll tax system in this nation. So far the legal wrangling method show's no promise, only an opportunity for the unwary to end up broke and/or provided an all expense paid fed holiday gratis the IRS & DOJ.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a "person" under the tax code.
KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
Read:
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
If you really want to know where my head is at on the income tax law.
Also a bankruptcy filing.