[TIElniff]

Why not?

[nothingnew]

At the same time, it's altogether right for citizens in a free society to call on Caesar to tell us the truth about our obligations, and to do so in a civil manner.

If the judge was simply saying, "Make your law clear, sir, and maybe the lady will obey," I think he had a pretty good point.

Bump and Bump-Bump.

FMCDH

[MACVSOG68]

Why not?

I don't think the lady won as as result of her contention that she did not owe taxes, but because the jury was somehow convinced that her letter to the IRS years ago placed the obligation of answering it on the IRS.

Title 26 of the US Code identifies who must report and pay, how income is defined, and how much to pay in taxes. That is further defined in the IRS regualtions. Assuming the US Code is legitimately the law of the land, then I fail to see the issue other than the silly verdict rendered somehow indicating she did not act out of anything but legitimate confusion. As for the W-4 with 99 exemptions, she clearly filed a false official statement knowing she did not have 99 exemptions. I can't conceivably understand why that did not put her in the slammer, never mind no tax filings.

As others have indicated, she will pay her taxes together with interest and penalties, and I certainly believe they are owed if she had income.

Occasionally a frivolous argument gets through, but considering all of the tax litigations each year, not often.

[TheCPA]

Code Sec. 1 (of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended also known as Title 26 of the United States Code) imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual and gives the rate schedule applicable to each filing status. Code Sec. 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus allowable deductions. Code Sec. 61 defines gross income as all income except for exclusions listed in the Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law.

[steplock]

I found a source of his book (used) here!:

The Federal Mafia

[Kay Soze]

Bump

[VRWC_minion]

Why not?<>False premise

Go here to IRS.gov for answers

[VRWC_minion]

United States Tax Court
VERNICE B. KUGLIN,
Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent


Docket No. 2657-00L
Date of Decision: February 25, 2002
Judge: Foley, Maurice B.

Tax Analysts Citation: 2002 TNT 38-20
Parallel Citations: T.C. Memo. 2002-51
Principal Code Reference: Section 6330
Section 6673

Summary
Provided by Tax Analysts. Copyright 2003 Tax Analysts. All rights reserved.
IRS TRANSCRIPTS ARE ENOUGH TO VERIFY ASSESSMENTS.
The Tax Court has held that an IRS appeals officer's reliance on
IRS transcripts to initiate a collection action against a tax-
delinquent individual met the requirements for assessment
verification.
The IRS made assessments for Vernice Kuglin's 1994-1995 taxes and
issued a hearing and levy notice. Kuglin requested a due process
hearing and contended that there was no "valid summary record of
assessment." The appeals officer printed out computer transcripts of
IRS records and held a telephone hearing with Kuglin. The IRS, relying
on the transcripts to verify the assessments, issued a determination
notice sustaining the proposed collection action against Kuglin. The
IRS didn't give Kuglin copies of the transcripts or Forms 4340 before
making the determination but did so a month before trial.
Tax Court Judge Maurice B. Foley, sustaining the IRS's
determination, held that the appeals officer didn't abuse his
discretion by relying on the transcripts to verify the assessments.
The court noted that the transcripts had the requisite information and
that the officer wasn't required by section 6330(c)(1) to produce Form
23C for assessment verification. The court concluded that Kuglin
wasn't prejudiced when the IRS provided the transcript copies after
the hearing but before the trial, and it found that Kuglin failed to
show any irregularity in the assessment procedure. The court declined
to impose damages for delay against Kuglin.
Full Text
Provided by Tax Analysts. Copyright 2003 Tax Analysts. All rights reserved.
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Filed February 25, 2002

Joyce Griggs, for petitioner.
Ross M. Greenberg, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

[1] FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether respondent has met the requirements of section 6330.1
Background

[2] On June 16 and July 16, 1997, respondent issued notices of deficiency relating to Vernice Kuglin's 1994 and 1995 Federal income taxes, respectively, but petitioner did not seek redetermination of the deficiencies.
[3] On December 4, 1997, petitioner's counsel requested a copy of the assessments relating to petitioner's 1994 and 1995 income taxes. On June 28, 1999, respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing. On July 15, 1999, petitioner filed a Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (i.e., Form 12153) and contended that there was no "valid summary record of assessment". On September 16, 1999, respondent's Appeals officer printed out computer transcripts (transcripts) of respondent's records. The transcripts contained petitioner's Social Security number and the first four letters of her last name; monetary figures representing amounts assessed, identified by respondent's transaction codes; and petitioner's adjusted gross and taxable income. In a letter dated December 13, 1999, the Appeals officer responded to petitioner's request for a hearing and scheduled a telephone hearing, which was held on January 25, 2000.
[4] On February 16, 2000, respondent issued a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination), sustaining the proposed collection action. In making the determination, respondent relied on the transcripts to verify the assessments. Respondent, before making his determination, did not give petitioner copies of these transcripts or Forms 4340, Certificates of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters (Forms 4340).
[5] On March 7, 2000, petitioner, who was residing in Memphis, Tennessee, filed her petition for review of the determination with the Court. Respondent provided petitioner with copies of Forms 4340 on December 4, 2000. At trial, on January 8, 2001, respondent moved for the imposition of a section 6673(a)(1) penalty.
Discussion

[6] Section 6330(b)(1) provides that if a taxpayer requests a hearing, "such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals." Section 6330(c)(1) provides: "The appeals officer shall at the hearing obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met." Section 6330(d) provides for Tax Court review of the Commissioner's determination relating to the section 6330 hearing.
[7] Petitioner contends that the Appeals officer abused his discretion by relying on the transcripts to verify the assessment, and that section 6330(c)(1) requires the production of Form 23C. Respondent contends that an Appeals officer, in verifying the assessments, may rely on computer transcripts that contain the requisite information.
[8] We agree with respondent. Section 6203 authorizes the Secretary to make assessments. The assessment officer, appointed by the Secretary, makes the assessment by signing the summary record of assessment. Sec. 301.6203-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. The summary record of assessment must "provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment." Id. Section 6330(c)(1), however, does not require that the Commissioner verify the information by using a particular source (i.e., the summary record itself rather than a computer transcript). The transcripts respondent used for the verification contained the requisite information. Respondent's reliance on such transcripts was not an abuse of discretion.
[9] Where the Commissioner provides the taxpayer with Forms 4340 (i.e., proof of assessment) after the hearing and before trial, and the taxpayer does not "show at trial any irregularity in the assessment procedure that would raise a question about the validity of the assessments", the taxpayer is not prejudiced. Nestor v. Commissioner , 118 T.C. ___, ___ (2002) (slip op. at 9). At trial, petitioner did not show any irregularity in the assessment procedure. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination.
[10] Respondent contends that petitioner's position is frivolous and instituted primarily for delay and that, pursuant to section 6673(a)(1), the Court should impose a penalty on petitioner. We decline, however, to impose such a penalty in this case. Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
[11] To reflect the foregoing,
[12] An appropriate order and decision will be entered
FOOTNOTE
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended.
END OF FOOTNOTE

[Sir Gawain]

I wonder what would happen if a vast majority of Americans just decided to stop paying taxes all at once.

[Jim Noble]

Interesting concept.

Suppose a court were to rule unambiguously that there is no legal duty to pay income tax.

Do you doubt that Congress would assemble within an hour and pass an unambiguous law obliging payment of income tax?

[philetus]

Why don't Americans just shut down the IRS?

[LurkerNoMore!]

Who exactly are you people?

[paulklenk]

This is a rather dumb (and old) tactic used by those who engage in "Tax Avoision." You're supposed to write a letter to the IRS, asking them to please tell you where in the law it says you're supposed to pay taxes.

Assuming this story is true, this lady was lucky to get a judge to go along with her. But passing off this gambit to naive citizens and encouraging them to not pay taxes until the IRS points out the law, is irresponsible and will get those people in trouble.

FReepers, I know we don't like big government, or the IRS, or most of the things our federal government spends money on. But we need to keep our heads and not fall for the charlatans who encourage us to become tax evaders.

[lodwick]

Outstanding article - thanks for the post.

Show us the law, for crying out loud.

[VRW Conspirator]

bump