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.
Long haired and dope smoking? Well that's certainly enough of a reason to go after someone. Thanks for clarifying the assement procedures of federal agents. After all, we wouldn't ant you to go after someone in a buisiness suit and short hair, that would be unthinkable.
Oh and by the way, nobody has "tried" using §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) and lost. What happens if you invoke these statutes is that your case is dismissed, and no record is kept of it. Because they show that the law simply does not apply to a person not so listed.
And this is not a "tax protest" argument, so you can keep your nasty little knee-jerk villification terms of art to yourself, thank you very much. And if you mean that people deserve to get the full meaning of the law, then we agree. Because these statutes are not the general definition found in § 7701 (a) (1).
They are the specific applications of the meaning of that general definition, for the enforcement authority of Title 26. Is that okay with you?
And they have not been used as an "argument" on the web - anywhere. Except, of course, where I pointed them out in One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America. If you have a problem with the actual words found in the actual laws cited by the Chief Justice, you can always take it up with him. I'm sure he'll be interested in your attitude.
As a CPA, and as a (former, or current?) IRS agent, I presume you are familiar with Title 26? Because §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) are awfully specific - and awfully limiting.
And you wouldn't want to go around breaking the law.
Right?
If this is an example of your logic and arguments it's no wonder you're so screwed up.
IRC 6671 defines which "persons" are subject to the penalty imposed under 6672 for failure to pay taxes withheld from others. It is not a general definition of who is defined as a person for the purposes of being subject to income taxes in general. I frequently used Secs 6671 and 6672 in my former job. My job was CIVIL enforcement, not criminal. I was successful in applying the term "person" as defined in 6671 to a bank and its employees who directed corporate officers not to pay their federal payroll taxes in preference to payments on the corporation's outstanding loans at that bank.
You ARE making the same arguments tax protestors have unsuccessfully used for years to evade payment of income taxes.
I also used Sec 6332 to force banks to pay taxes subject to a Notice of Levy I served, when they offset those funds to loans owed by the delinquent taxpayer. The context which you attempt to apply to Secs 6671, 7343 and 6332 simply does not apply to the circumstances I mentioned in my earlier post.
If you are so confident your arguments are sound I encourage you to cite them when you deliberately fail to file a tax return or deliberately fail to pay the tax legally due thereon. Make sure you tell your local newspaper and TV station to make your case known to the IRS.