And so you took someone's car over 35 cents.
But in doing so, you obeyed your orders, right?
Where have I heard that before?
And of course, you invoked your Title 26 enforcement authority to carry out those orders. It's not like you operated on your own - right? Which means you made sure that this person was 1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occured, as repeated verbatim in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), which are the ONLY three three enforcement authorization statutes in Title 26. But of course you knew that, because you were a Title 26 enforcement officer.
Oh wait a minute, you were following orders, which means that you didn't needs any silly statutory authorization.
Right?
“The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly” A. Lincoln
Your tax protest arguments fall flat everywhere they’re tried, they don’t work and anyone who relies on them deserves what they get.
Of course I seized his car. He was a long-haired, dope-smoking, FM type. At least 40 years ago leftists were getting what they deserved. Obviously won’t happen now. Look at it this way, I gave the guy a chance to put his money where his mouth was. Something liberals never have to do.
I told managers “NO” many times when I was ordered to do something illegal (IRS managers think nothing is illegal for them). Seizing property for unpaid legally assessed taxes is legal—even today. Seizing a residence based on an erroneous assessment is not. After a while I got tired of being the only Officer complying with the law.