alpert@nanook.DEC (11/15/84)
Sorry to be posting a separate note to reply to these, but with the gateway arrangement I am using, there is no known way for me to post a reply which will be attached to an existing note. RE: IRS note #3: > So you don't have to give the IRS any records if they try to audit you. > So what. This is about as silly as the first message about how you don't > have to file forms, and you go into it an great and ponderous length. > These tid bits are of some interest, but if you look at the income tax > statute, it imposes taxes at the maximum rate on income. Then it lets > you take some deductions, etc., if you can prove it. If you won't submit > your records for audit, you can expect to get deductions you are refusing > to prove disallowed, etc., and eventually have the IRS, with the force > of law, seize what it thinks your taxes are. You seem to be missing the point -- the IRS does NOT have the "force of law" behind them. Nearly all of their standard operating procedures are blatantly illegal. If you disagree, please point out the statutes which: 1) Make anyone liable for "income" taxes at the "maximum rates" 2) Give the IRS the legal right to seize any and all property at their slightest whim 3) Gives the IRS the legal right to interfere with employee withholding statements 4) Exempt the IRS from the provisions of the United States Constitution (This is not a smart-*ss remark, I am genuinely interested in anyone who can point out such statutes. The IRS code has been under intense scrutiny for over a decade by Schiff's group and others, and no one has been able to find such statutes as of this date.) What the IRS does have, of course, is the force of FEAR, which is something quite different from "force of law" (though it largely produces similar results). Also note that numerous court cases, some of which have been cited in these notes, show that the worst thing you can do in an audit is cooperate with the IRS -- once you waive your Constitutional rights, they *really* have you! RE: IRS note #4: > This mostly sounds like garbage to me. It is not clear that the > regulartions of any government body that are as voluminous as the IRS > regulations would be found to be totally consistent on microscopic > examination. Although I suppose such regulations are technically not > laws, the enabling statues typically give then "the force of law". Of > course they can't violate the Constitution but the Constitution is a > document of non-trivial complexity that is also subject to > interpretation. Many of the observations in the note referenced are currently being put to the test in cases that are currently in litigation. Time will tell whether this is "garbage" or not. (I have alread posted a lengthy list of recent wins over the IRS, so don't tell me that it is *impossible* to defeat them in court). IRS regulations do not have "the force of law" behind them when they contradict existing laws. Also note that the Supreme Court, as shown in previous notes, has already upheld many of the "interpretations" of the Constitution that are espoused by the tax movement. Also, for a legal document, the Constitution is written in a remarkably clear manner. I suspect that when it was drawn up we had not yet given our fate over to the attorneys in the wholesale manner that we do today. Possibly you can tell us how the IRS turns Code section 6331, which gives them authority to "notice of levy" on their own employess into regulation 301.6331(a)-1, which clearly takes liberties far beyond what the IRS Code permits, let alone the Constitution. I suspect part of the problem here is that while people obviously dislike the way the IRS operates, they feel better about it if they think that the law permits them to do so! No one like the idea of a fascistic government agency which has grown in power to the point where they can disregard nearly all law and get away with it. However, this is precisely the situation we are faced with. Bob Alpert ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert
ables@cyb-eng.UUCP (King Ables) (11/19/84)
> What the IRS does have, of course, is the force of FEAR, which is something > quite different from "force of law" (though it largely produces similar > results). Actually, it probably produces BETTER results! -King (note new address) ARPA: ables%cyb-eng.UUCP@ut-sally.ARPA UUCP: ...{ctvax,gatech,ihnp4,nbires,seismo,ucb-vax}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!ables