Stopping an IRS Audit
|
|
|
This was emailed to me 5/22/97. It is excellent. However,
as I'm in this "Confucius" mood tonight, Confucius also say, "When facing
bull, never wave red cape unless sword wrapped in it!" Bill Drexler is a
seasoned bull fighter. When he waves the red cape, the IR BUll not only knows there's a sword, it knows Bill can wield the thing pretty well. Confucius' final advice, "Second man to dive into muddy water more foolish than first!" Harold "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint" Flora v. U.S. 362 US 145 [unless, of course, you neglect to "volunteer". HT] Notice: The following is presented to you via Bill Drexler's newsletter, with permission. Before, and if, you use it , be sure the case cites are correct. [and you understand and can EXPLAIN them. HT] 32 Questions: Stopping an IRS Audit [date} Certified Mail: To: IRS Representative/Agent: It is required of you in your official capacity, and requested of you as an individual person acting under color of law, that you answer the following list of questions, 32 in number, WHICH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER under the provisions of the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and various court decisions. Under each question the pertinent authorities have been cited which mandate a complete answer from you upon this request. Thank you for your cooperation. 1) State the authority, giving the specific section of the IRC for the solicitation of the information that you desire (Freedom of Information Act; Privacy Act; US v. Newman, 441 F2d 170; Treasury Form Letter L-423 with Publication 876 - same authorities cited for #1 thru #5). 2) State whether the disclosure of the requested information is mandatory or voluntary. If mandatory, what penalties may/will result from non-compliance in furnishing the data you requested? 3) State the principal and specific purposes for which the information requested is to be used in any and all capacities. 4) State the routine uses which may be made of the requested information, or any other use to be made of the requested information. 5) State the effects upon this person of whom you have requested information, specifically the taxpayer, for not providing to you the information requested. 6) Explain and show that the investigation involved is of the kind authorized by federal statute (Martin v. Chandid, 128 F2d 731; Pacific Mills v. Kenefick, 99 F2d 188). 7) Explain how and why the demand for information is not too vague and/or broad in scope (US v. Newman, 441 F2d 170; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; First National Bank of Mobile v. US, 160 F2d 532; US v. Coopers and Lybrand, FSupp 942; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35). 8) Explain and show that the information sought is relevant or material as a lawful subject of inquiry (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; May v. Davis, 7 F Supp 596; US v. Brown, 536 F2d 117). 9) Explain why and how the investigation is pursuant to legitimate purpose(s) (same authorities as #6 thru #8). 10) Explain why and how the inquiry for information may be relevant to the purpose(s) (same authorities as #6 thru #8). 11) Show and prove that the information is not already in your possession or can not be obtained from other sources (same authorities as #6 thru #8). 12) Show and prove that the Secretary or his delegate has determined that this further examination is necessary (IRC Section 7605[b]). 13) Show and prove that all other administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) have been followed to the letter of the law (Martin v. Chandis, 128 F2d 731; US v. Powell, 379 US 48). 14) Show and prove that after initial investigation, the Secretary or his delegate has determined that further examination is necessary and warranted (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Cooppers & Lybrand, F Supp 942; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 945). 15) Show and prove that the taxpayer has been properly notified that further examination is necessary (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; IRC Section 7605[b]). 16) State the exact reason(s), in detail, for the examination of each year specific information is requested (US v. Third Northwestern National Bank, 102 F Supp 879; FOIA). 17) State whether there is a misconception and/or mistake in the tax return for each year that information is requested (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090). 18) State exactly wherein the mistake lies, or if in fact one exists (US v. London Insurance Agency, Inc. 72-2 T.C.; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35). 19) Specify exactly which item(s) of income or expense item(s) is (are) in question on the tax return(s), if any. (same as # 18). 20) State why the specific income and/or expense item is in question, or is being examined (same as # 18). 21) Explain why and what issue in law or in fact is questioned, if any (FOIA; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368). 22) State the name, address, and telephone number of any person or persons informing you of any questions or concern involved in any item or any tax return or any activity of the taxpayer (Sixth Amendment; US v. Zack, D.C. Nev 4/20/74; Favre v. Henderson, 409 US 942; FOIA). 23) State exactly what was said, either verbal and/or written concerning any item, tax return or activity of the taxpayer by any person(s) informing or directing you to conduct an examination, directly, and/or indirectly (Same as # 22). 24) State and prove that the taxpayer is not being subjected to an examination based on or for any political, ideological, harassment, pressure tactic, or bad-faith purpose, and is not being singled out for prosecution as an example to other taxpayers for any reason (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368; US v. Roundtree, 420 F2d 845; Chaukin v. Alexander, 401 F Supp 817; FOIA). 25) State and explain why the examination can not and will not amount to an inquisition or arbitrary inquiry on the part of the examiner (Local 174 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. McKay, 372 F2d 174; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; US v. Third Northwestern Bank, 102 F Supp 879). 26) State and explain why IRC Section 7605 [b] does not apply to any examination where "...No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigation..." (Pacific Mills v. Kenefick, 99 F2d 188). 27) State the exact methods used, either past and/or present to gather information concerning this taxpayer, and whether information was gathered through the use of surveillance, telephone wire-tapping, mail coverage, interviews, illegal entry, informers, spies, or otherwise (FOIA; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F3d 945). 28) State whether the verification of specific deductions would be the limited scope of the examination (US v. Powell, 379 US 48). 29) State and explain any objection to the use of electronic recorder(s) during the pursuit of this examination (IRS Manual MT 9900-26, 1/29/75, paragraph 241.5). 30) State whether the examiner would be prejudiced against a taxpayer who arranges his affairs to minimize his taxes as the law permits( Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465; Knetsch v. US, 361). 31) Show and prove to this Citizen how the IRS Commissioner has jurisdiction over any subject matter concerning this Citizen (Hale v. Hinkle, 201 US 43; Murdock v. Pa, 319 US 105; US v. LaSalle Bank, 437 US 298; 26 USC Section 6011). 32) Unless otherwise shown, this Citizen hereby pleads and does give public notice that the IRS Commissioner has an absence of jurisdiction over this Citizen's person (Same as # 31)
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
|
|
New information
on accessible
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
