Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site voder.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!pesnta!hplabs!nsc!voder!kathy From: kathy@voder.UUCP (Kathy Hale) Newsgroups: net.taxes Subject: Re: Things IRS Won't Tell You #4 Message-ID: <537@voder.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 13:25:33 EST Article-I.D.: voder.537 Posted: Fri Nov 30 13:25:33 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 04:39:58 EST References: The data for this note is drawn primarily from the <4072@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Lines: 390 > *** Things the IRS won't tell you ******************************* #4 *** > > NOTE: As the material covered here is purely defensive in nature, > no disclaimer here. This is a new area of research into the > Code, further updates will be reported as I receive them. > Also be aware that there is a lot of ground to cover here. > I have highly condensed the material in this note and it is > still over 360 lines long! > > References: The data for this note is drawn primarily from the > Schiff Report, Vol. 2 (1984), nos. 4 and 5. The Schiff Report > is published by Freedom Books, P.O. Box 5303, Hamden, CT > 06518. > > Some sections of the Code referenced have been abbreviated > to save space. > > > >>>>>>> FLAME ON! <<<<<< > > ***** HOW THE IRS ILLEGALLY SEIZES PROPERTY ***** > > No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, > or property, without due process of law... > > -- U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment > > The above extract from the Constitution clearly demonstrates the > principle that a person's posessions may not be confiscated without > "due process of law", in short, a trial or hearing. Yet, everyone > "knows" that the IRS freely deprives citizens of their homes, property, > bank accounts, and whatever else happens to strike their fancy. Please note: The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, was suspended in 1933 with HJR 192! We were at that time put into Admiralty Jursidiction -- YOU DO OWE THE TAX if you are enfranchised! > In this note we will examine the actual laws pertaining to the > confiscation of property and the mechanisms the IRS uses to get > away with breaking the law. > > > Section 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject property > to payment of tax. > (a) Filing. > > In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay > any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, > whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his > delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct A CIVIL > ACTION TO BE FILED IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO > ENFORCE THE LIEN OF the United States under this title WITH > RESPECT TO SUCH TAX OR LIABILITY or to subject any property, > of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any > right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or > liability... > > > Section 7401. Authorization. > > No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, > or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced > unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings > AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS DELEGATE DIRECTS THAT THE > ACTION BE COMMENCED. They DO have authority under Admiralty Jurisdiction! > What do the above statutes tell us? That prior to confiscation of > any property the government is required to institute a civil action > in a court of law (specifically, a District Court of the U.S.), and > that such action requires the authorization of the Attorney General > or his delegate! This is perfectly in keeping with the provisions > of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, section 7403(c) goes on to say > that the court shall "proceed to adjudicate all matters" pertaining > to such action and that the disposition of property involved is to > be determined "according to the findings of the court"! > > These provisions for "due process" are explicitly placed in the IRS > code so as to make the Code completely in accord with the Constitution. > This is a matter which many people confuse -- it is NOT the tax > laws that are unconstitutional, it is the IRS's violation of these > laws! This is NOT a guarantee of Constitutional due process -- it is civil and statutory privilege. > So, believe it or not, by both the Constitution and the IRS's own > Code, they are legally REQUIRED to prove in a court of law that you > are liable for unpaid taxes, and it is the COURT'S decision that > determines the disposition of any property in question! So, how WRONG! You're required to prove YOU DON'T OWE the tax. 95% do. > is it that the IRS manages to descend storm-trooper like and confiscate > wages, homes, cars, and anything they can lay their hands on? A large > part of the answer, of course, is the tried and true method of Fear > and use of the Big Lie. Since everyone "knows" the IRS strikes as the > whim suits them, everyone "knows" they must have the legal authority > to do so (not true as we have just seen!). Let us examine more closely > the deceptive mechanisms the agency utilizes to perform these outrages... > > The following section of the Code is quite lengthy, so we shall examine > only the salient points: > > Code Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint. > > (a) Authority of Secretary > If any person LIABLE to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay > the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be > lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax...by LEVY...belonging > to such person... LEVY MAY BE MADE UPON THE ACCRUED SALARY OR WAGES > OF ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL, OF THE UNITED STATES, > THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR ANY AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE > UNITED STATES OR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY SERVING A NOTICE OF LEVY > ON THE EMPLOYER...OF SUCH OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL... > > (b) Seizure and Sale of Property. > The term "LEVY" as used in this title INCLUDES THE POWER OF DISTRAINT > AND SEIZURE BY ANY MEANS...a LEVY shall extend only to property > posessed and obligations existing at the time thereof. > > (d) Requirement of notice before LEVY > (1) In general. LEVY may be made under subsection (a)...only > after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of his > intention to make such a LEVY. > > In all, section 6331 of the Code makes 23 references to "LEVY" and only > one to "NOTICE OF LEVY". This is an important distinction, as we shall > soon see. Levies are legal -- you should read Supreme Court Decisions instead of trying to interpret the law. Agreed, the IRC is a sham and a mish mash and should be challenged constitutionally for vagueness but that's a different issue. > JUST WHAT IS AN IRS "LEVY"? > > The public at large, banks, law enforcement officers, and > employers are all under the impression that the word "LEVY" denotes > an act or document resulting from a court order or other legitimate > legal proceeding. As used in the IRS Code, it means no such thing! > The Code never explains the following items: 1) how a "levy" comes > into being, 2) who creates it. As used in the Code, "levy" is not > a noun (i.e., document) at all; it is used as a verb, meaning "to > sieze by any means". There can be no "levy" until the actual seizure > takes place, and the Constitution bars the seizure of property "by > any means". So, while the Code provides for such a "levy", it also > contains statutes that bar the IRS from being able to legally carry > out such actions! > > If we examine subsection (b) of section 6502 (not completely reproduced due > to space limitations), we find that it states: > > "The date on which a levy on property or right to property > IS MADE shall be the date on which the NOTICE OF SEIZURE... > IS GIVEN" > > In other words, THERE CANNOT BE A LAWFUL LEVY UNTIL AFTER A "NOTICE > OF SEIZURE" IS GIVEN. However, section 6335 (f) provides: > > "As soon as practicable AFTER SEIZURE OF PROPERTY notice in > writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the > property..." > > So, a "Notice of Seizure" cannot be given until AFTER property is > taken, but a "levy" ("seizure by any means") cannot be made until > AFTER a "Notice of Seizure" is given! The Code is basically stating > (giving its use of the word "levy") that property cannot be > seized until AFTER such property is seized!! > > Section 6332 (a) further states that: > > "...any person in posession of...property or rights to > property subject to levy upon which a levy HAS BEEN MADE > shall...surrender such property..." > > Citizens, therefore, are only required to surrender property upon > which levy HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. However, the IRS Code requires > that prior to "levy" being made that the property must have already > been seized! > > According to section 6332, it is impossible for the government > to LAWFULLY seize property without a "levy being made". > > Because it is impossible to LAWFULLY make a "levy" without first seizing > the property, it is NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE TO EVER MAKE A "LEVY"! > > And, because it is not LEGALLY possible to make a "LEVY", it is not > LEGALLY possible for the IRS to seize property by "any means" (even > ignoring Constitutional considerations). > > And since the government cannot LEGALLY seize property, they cannot > LEGALLY issue a "Notice of Seizure" (Section 6335)! And to complete > this ludicrous circle, since the government cannot issue a "Notice > of Seizure", a "LEVY" can NEVER be made persuant to "law". > > I know this seems terribly confusing... that's because the Code is > deliberately designed that way! Careful analysis shows that these > interdependent sections of the code are carefully crafted to balance > each other out, giving the APPEARANCE that the IRS has the authority > to perform such seizures, but in reality making them ILLEGAL so as > not to confilict with the Constitution. The laws APPEAR to give the > IRS the right to "levy" property, but NEVER ACTUALLY GIVE THEM THE > POWER TO DO SO. > > Because the IRS is rendered powerless both by the Constitution and > its own Code to take property by "levy", a totally illegal scheme > has been devised to allow the use of the "Notice of Levy" rather > than an actual "levy". > > > THE FRAUDULENT "NOTICE OF LEVY" > > The provision creating the document "Notice of Levy" is contained in > Section 6331(a) in a manner that renders it inconspicuous... > > "Levy may be made upon the ... wages of any ... officer, employee, > or elected official of the United States ... by serving a NOTICE > OF LEVY on the employer..." > > Note that a "Notice of Levy" as used in the Code is completely different > from a "levy" and is limited to persons employed by the Federal government > and can only be served on the Federal government ("the employer") itself! > Also notice that the scope of this "Notice of Levy" is limited to the > "accrued salary or wages" of the Federal employee, and not applicable > to other property. NOWHERE does the Internal Revenue Code authorize the > IRS to use these "Notices of Levy" to take property or wages of non-Federal > employees, take anything BUT the accrued wages of Federal employees, or > to serve such notices on any employer but the Federal government! (After > all, who IS the employer of a Federal employee?) > > Any other use of the "Notice of Levy" is blatantly illegal. Yet, in > every case, this document is what the government has used to illegally > seize property. Why?... > > First, why does this document apply only to Federal employees? Simple; > if someone works for you and owes you money, you would not have to > "levy" (seize) anything at all; just withhold his/her salary, notifying > the employee of your intention to do so until the debt is paid. There > is no need to "levy" or "seize" that which is already in your posession! > In this situation the government does not even need a court order because > they are not seizing anything that they do not already have! There is > no "levy" in this situation at all! > > So, why is this document called "Notice of Levy", if it and an actual > "levy" are completely different beasts? Why not call it "Intention Not > to Pay Wages" instead? Simply, this would draw a distinction between > an actual "levy" and a simple notice of withholding wages to pay a debt > owed one's employer. The document is deliberately named to mislead > the public and judiciary into believing it is the same as a "levy". > Note the wording "serving a notice of levy on the employer" in section > 6331. Since the employer in this instance is the government itself, there > is no need for it to serve such a notice on itself, the wording is > deliberately contrived to confuse the distinctions between "levy" > and "Notice of Levy". > > All that the "Notice of Levy" really does is give the government the > right to do something they could do anyway... withhold the pay of > its own employees. The Code is worded in a mannner intended to hide > this fact to the extent possible. The Treasury Department then wrote > regulations which misstate "the law" as written and it is this bunko > which the IRS feeds the public. > > For example, take Treasury Regulation 301.6331(a)-1. This regulation > is supposed to reflect the IRS's interpretation of of Code section > 6331 (this is an important distinction between IRS REGULATIONS and > the tax LAWS). The wording "..levy may be made upon the accrued salary > and wages of any...officer, employee, or elected official of the United > States or the District of Columbia" becomes: > > "Levy may be made by serving a notice of levy on ANY PERSON > in posession of...property or rights to property INCLUDING > RECEIVABLES, BANK ACCOUNTS, EVIDENCE OF DEBT, SECURITIES, > AND SALARIES, WAGES, COMMISSIONS, OR OTHER COMPENSATION..." > > This is not an interpretation! It is an outright lie and a fraud!! > The LAW itself says no such thing; if it did it would be blatantly > unconstitutional! It would not be unconstitutional. > Through the use of fraudulent regulations the IRS has been able to > bypass the limitations of the actual laws pertaining to "Notices of > Levy" and "levy"; since the "Notice" allows the "levy" to be made > without a notice of seizure and it is the notice of seizure which > prevents the government from making a "levy". > > So, this is how the IRS operates: > > 1) A Code section is deliberately written to authorize the IRS > to act in a proscribed and lawful manner. > 2) The forms and paperwork are produced to allow the IRS to act > in the manner proscribed by law. > 3) Once the IRS gets the forms, they use them in a manner NOT > proscribed by the Code. > 4) Misleading and and fraudulent "regulations" (which are NOT "LAWS"!) > are fabricated which deliberately misstate the law (as in the > example above). > 5) With official-looking forms to misuse and official-sounding > "regulations" backing them, the IRS sets out to plunder and > pillage in complete disregard for the law, and almost no one > knows the difference. > > This IRS also misuses sections 6332(c) (penalizing those who do not > honor a "levy") and 6332(d) (protecting those who do honor a > "levy"). These are shown to banks and employers to intimidate and > reassure them that they should honor the fraudulent "Notice of Levy". > > > MEASURES YOU CAN TAKE TO PROTECT YOURSELF > > Upon receiving a "Final Notice" (ten-day notice), citizens should > immediately send out two letters, one to all third parties (banks, > employer, etc) and one to the government. The third party letter > should state: > > 1) That the letter's intent is to prevent the party involved > from illegally turning your property over to the government. > 2) Attach a copy of section 6331 of the IRS code pointing out > the limited scope of the "Notice of Levy". > 3) Attach a copy of 6332(a) explaining that it requires only > that property be turned over after levy has been made -- NOT > upon receipt of "Notice of Levy". > 4) Attach both a "Notice of Levy" and the form which authorizes an > actual "levy" (two separate forms!) and explain the difference > (copies of these forms can most likely be gotten from Freedom Books, > or I can provide photocopies of the documents if anyone *really* > needs them). Explain that they are under no legal obligation to > honor this "notice". > 5) Demand that "Notices of Levy" served by the IRS in violation > of Federal law be ignored. Put them on notice that it is > their responsibility to consult with you before handing over > any property to the IRS. > 6) Make it clear that you will file civil and criminal charges > if any property is illegally turned over to the government. > > Letter to IRS: > > 1) Inform them that their FINAL NOTICE was sent in error for > the following reasons: > a) Code section 6331 authorizes a "levy" on the property > of one made "liable" to pay any tax. > b) The FINAL NOTICE does not state the type of tax or > the section of the Code that establishes any such > "liability". This is false reasoning from not understanding the issues. > c) Refer them to the limited scope of the "Notice of Levy" > they are threatening to serve on your employer, referring > to section 6331. > d) Remind them that section 7401 of the Code provides that > only the Attorney General of the United States can direct > that action be taken to collect "taxes or any fine". > 2) Point out that they themselves draw a distinction between > "levy" and "Notice of Levy", as the FINAL NOTICE invariably > will speak of wages, commissions, bank accounts, etc. being > subject to LEVY. Note that they cannot be legally seized > with the "Notice" and that an actual "levy" must be made > persuant to sections 7401, 7402(e), and 7403(c). > 3) Put them on notice that they will be prosecuted to the fullest > extent of the law, as well as having civil suits filed against > them for violating federal statutes. A waste of money and time! > 4) Close the letter stating that if they have any questions to > contact you, otherwise the matter will be considered closed. > > > As this is a new area of inquiry into the Code, there will undoubtedly > be new discoveries; and more concrete methods of combatting the IRS's > illegal actions will be developed. Stay tuned. > > >>>>>>> FLAME OFF! <<<<<< > > > ******* Next time: New evidence that the government is not ******* > legally empowered to assess you, plus > sections of the Code that (grudgingly) > admit no one is made "liable" for "income" tax. > Bob Alpert Balderdash! If you are not at the Common Law, you are LIABLE. > ...!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***