Posted on 04/01/2002 12:49:51 PM PST by Middle Man
Go here to read the bill in its entirety.
The bill, deceptively titled the “Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002”, rather than protecting taxpayers and making the IRS accountable, instead would give sweeping new powers to the rogue federal agency, while effectively gutting the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act(RRA), which was a direct outcome of the 1997 Roth Senate hearings into corruption at the nation’s tax collecting agency.
The highlight of those hearings, you’ll recall, were the appearances of 12 current IRS employees, who testified from behind protective screens, using voice scramblers, out of fear of physical retribution from their employer. The IRS, true to form, quickly retaliated by dismissing all 12 employees who testified. The agency did this by checking time logs on the days of the hearings to find out which employees were out of the office. Eventually a federal judge had to order the IRS to reinstate or compensate the fired agents. Not for nothing is it known as the “most feared federal agency”.
H.R. 3991 was just overwhelmingly endorsed by the Republican-chaired House Ways and Means Committee. The committee’s “summary” of the bill does not even hint at the sellout contained in the actual provisions of the bill.
Among the more egregious power grabs disguised by this bill (incidentally, most of the changes were recommended to Congress by the IRS) are:
"(C) LISTING OF FRIVOLOUS POSITIONS- The Secretary shall prescribe (and periodically revise) a list of positions which the Secretary has identified as being frivolous for purposes of this subsection."
Just when does an unelected Cabinet official have the power to decide what is a “frivolous” position? This alone is a blatant violation of the separation-of-powers clause of the Constitution.
"(B) SPECIFIED FRIVOLOUS SUBMISSION- The term `specified submission' means--
"(i) a request for a hearing under--
"(I) section 6320 (relating to notice and opportunity for hearing upon filing of notice of lien), or
"(II) section 6330 (relating to notice and opportunity for hearing before levy), ..."
Here’s the devil in the details of the above citation: Commissioner Rossotti and his merry men have been trying to get these sections rescinded ever since the RRA was enacted. The IRS has been choking on Sections 6320-6330 since the passage of the RRA, because the Collection Due Process Hearings(CDPH) mandated in those sections allow taxpayers to raise any relevant issue pertaining to the disputed tax, including the underlying liability for said tax. Since the IRS has no decent responses to challenges to the underlying liability – when confronted by the taxpayer, eyewitnesses and a tape recorder or better yet, a court reporter, in the CDPH – they have been on the run ever since. Illegal seizures and levies have dropped drastically in the last 5 years, mostly thanks to these sections.
More “pearls” from this sellout legislation:
"The consolidation of all cases in Tax Court": IRS is eager to have all tax disputes consolidated in the notorious “Tax Court”, because “judges” in tax court are often mere former IRS agents with no legal background and nothing but contempt for due process and the Constitution. It is no accident that Tax Court rules in the government’s favor over 90% of the time. This is another slick attempt to shear off some more of the Bill of Rights. Due process means a hearing before an impartial judge in a court with respect for the rule of law, not in front of a former hit man for Uncle Sam who puts on a bat suit and expects to be addressed as “Your Honor”. More and more, taxpayers will be forced to abide by the adverse decisions from this court or face a costly and lengthy appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals. Since very few citizens can afford to bring such litigation, this will extinguish any hope that justice will be served in the face of more criminal abuses committed by the IRS.
"Increase in ‘frivolous return’ penalty from $500 to $5,000." This fine could henceforth be imposed merely for requesting a CDPH.
H.R. 3991 is wool over the sheeple's eyes. There is no IRS accountability or taxpayer protection contained in it whatsoever.
I have done research on the cases decided by one Tax Court judge who formerly was with the Chief Counsel's office because he was the judge assigned to cases I filed on behalf of a client. I found his decisions to be fair. He applied the law strictly but fairly, including deciding one case for the taxpayer that on the surface did not look like a good case.
Most cases filed in the U.S. Tax Court are settled without a trial and are often a compromise between the taxpayer and the IRS. Except for the Bankruptcy Court, the U.S. Tax Court is the only court where a taxpayer may dispute a federal tax issue without paying the tax first. Usually, after a taxpayer files a case in the U.S. Tax Court, the taxpayer and the IRS will negotiate a settlement. Indeed, a standing order of the court requires the taxpayer and the IRS to attempt a negotiation. Before any case goes to an actual trial, the taxpayer and the IRS must stipulate to as many relevant facts to which they argee.
$64,000 question: Can you find the Miranda warning in the 1040 booklet?
As for the argument that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", that's pure hooey. The Heritage Foundation, The American Spectator, Linda Tripp, Billy Dale of the White House Travel Office and countless, nameless others all filed tax returns in good faith, but because they happened to openly criticize the government, their returns instantly triggered IRS audits and harassment.
The message from Washington is loud and clear:
"Shut up, get back to work, and pay your taxes!"
Is a $25000.00 fine for bringing up an argument you believe to be true fair?
Yes when it has been decided endless times in prior federal district court cases and fails repeatedly on appeal as every "frivolous" argument has. Belief has little to do with whether or not one is required to pay a tax debt any more than one's claimed "belief" would relieve him of the requirement to pay any other debt.
Here's IRS written positions and answers
FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861
Here's the Department of Justice's written position on 16th amendment and other common tax protest positions:
DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANUAL, Section 40 TAX PROTESTORS
And a comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:
And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above.
The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.
The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
- 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."
And the standard you must meet to have a successful court case as regards arguments of Tax Law constitutionality:
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "
And finally, for a blow by blow of the judgements of more current cases:
Study the losses, find out why they occurred then build a strategy around something new instead of repeating the same old tired and dead as a door nail tactics. Judges get bored too, and when a Judge gets bored he throws the argument out as frivolous (we heard it before and weren't impressed) and tacks on a few more $K (FRNs acceptable but they will take payment in gold if you insist) on top of whatever else has been laid on you.
Better yet, pound on Congress Critters, and get the law changed. A much more likely scenario than using the same old arguments that have failed hundreds of times.
But then there are those who insist on doing it the hard way:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.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.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
The frivolous arguments are well published, one has no excuse for not being aware of them.
I guess some folks never get the word. Answers have been clear as a bell for the last 200 years, just because TP'rs don't like the answers and do not choose to believe them does not in anyway invalidate them.
Not only is the so-called "income" tax an onerous, inefficient, next-to-impossible way for the government to collect revenue, it corrupts everyone connected with it.
Push to change the law, and get rid of the income/payroll VAT we are under. One thing is sure, people sitting on their hands or looking for change to come from the courts is going to guarantee the same ole pile.
The legislative bills exist, push for the change and educate others about the bills.
Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:
H.R.2717
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll (e.g. SS/Mediscare) taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement 23% retail sales tax:
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Other bills, moving in the proper direction are:
To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:
H.R.2714
Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.
the modification then enactment and ratification of:
H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.
(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)
And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:
H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.
Yep, It's also the party who throws around the word "deregulation"....think about the hypocrisy in that the next time you hear the 'regulators' try to sell that scam.....
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.