Summons for Information

[David Merrill]

The courts have consistently ruled that a typical IRS summons for financial information has no authority.

Click Here.

have no force or effect

and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order.

However, this reaction by the bank president is atypical. So one might set up an evidence repository wrapping the Summons, Refused for Cause inside a Libel of Review

[LearnTheLaw]

IRS Summons Has No OMB Control NumberTITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS

CHAPTER 35 - COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
Section 3512 - Public protection

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this chapter if -

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.


U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS Cannot Apply Force Against a Tax Payer Without A Court Order Taxpayers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons Queensbury, NYSchulz v. IRS, case number 04-0196-cv),

[LearnTheLaw]

The Internal Revenue Service is well aware of these amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For example, many persons are incorrect to believe that the IRS has authority to force disclosure of private books and records. Even though the IRS may have authority to issue a summons in certain circumstances, it has absolutely no authority to compel disclosure of private books and records. This means that you must bring your books and records to an audit, if lawfully summoned to do so, but you are under no obligation to open those books and records, or to submit them to the Internal Revenue Service. As amazing as this may seem, this restraint is documented in the official IRS Tax Audit Guidelines (IR Manual MT 9900-26, 1-29-75), as follows:

242.12 Books and Records of An Individual

(1) An individual taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the ground that compelling him to do so might violate his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and constitute an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. However, in the absence of such claims, it is not error for a court to charge the jury that it may consider the refusal to produce books and records, in determining willfulness.

(2) The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a taxpayer to refuse to obey a summons issued under IRC 7602 or a court order directing his appearance. He is required to appear and cannot use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so, although he may exercise it in connection with specific questions. He cannot refuse to bring his records, but may decline to submit them for inspection on Constitutional grounds. In the Vader case [U.S. v. Vader, 119 F.Supp. 330], the Government moved to hold a taxpayer in contempt of court for refusal to obey a court order to produce his books and records. He refused to submit them for inspection by the Government, basing his refusal on the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion to hold him in contempt, holding that disclosure of his assets would provide a starting point for a tax evasion case.



Note, in particular, where this IR Manual uses the phrase "in the absence of such claims". In general if you do not assert your rights, explicitly and in a timely fashion, then you can be presumed to have waived them. There's the "law of presumption" again. You can, therefore, assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, by refusing to submit your books and records for inspection, even though you cannot refuse to bring those books and records to an audit. This may seem like splitting hairs. However, if the federal government could compel your submission of books and records to IRS agents, then the federal government could compel persons to be witnesses against themselves. This would violate the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, the federal government could compel the search and seizure of books and records without a warrant issued upon probable cause and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This would violate the Fourth Amendment. Agencies of the federal government are constrained by law to avoid infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr10.htm

[David Merrill]

PRA is an interesting topic indeed. I have only seen one or two people confident in it as a legal argument and they put a twist on it that caused it to fail. Lindsey Kent SPRINGER and his acolyte Robert LAWRENCE. I studied Robert very closely as that was before Lindsey was being prosecuted.

Robert held that the 1995 PRA was worth standing on but the Instructions for the 1040 Form cite the 1980 PRA. Now one should assume that the more recent PRA is the current law, right? So did Robert but the 10th Circuit justices told Robert otherwise - that the Notice was the substance - and without Robert ever realizing why his appeal failed. Interestingly Robert was pressing an appeal when he had already won in the trial court! He was doing it apparently to learn (research) and as far as I could tell he was so influenced by Lindsey's misconceptions that he never got the same message I am conveying attached.

Careful as you listen to the snippet from the justices. She speaks of the STRASSBURG case and LAWRENCE's attorney agrees that it is the 1980 Case - and the 1040 Form cites the 1980 PRA! It does not sound like either Robert or his attorney caught what happened there.



Lindsey Kent is convicted and sentenced I suppose from the docket.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-5037.pdf

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-5055.pdf

[David Merrill]

That snippet is from about the 1:15 Mark of Part 2:

[Goldi]

Lindsey Springer's indictment references "individual income tax" this or that perhaps 15 times. You know what that means? It means a SUBTITLE A TAX. Not subtitle B, C, D or any other subtitle. So now that we're straight on that, we can now identify that Subtitle A taxes are "withheld" by "withholding agents". The definition of withholding agents is located within 26 USC 7701 ( a)(16). From that reference we can determine WHO withholding agents can withhold from. It says it right there in the statute. GUESS WHAT? IT IS ONLY FROM FOREIGN PERSONS OR ORGS/CORPS. You still don't want to believe it? Provide me any indictment from anyone under a 7201 evade or a 7203 willful failure to file charge and lets see, as the language is gonna be the same with a man/woman who lives here in the USA.

[David Merrill]

Goldi;


I have learned (heard) it many times that the Primary Withholding Agent signed last year's 1040.