Friday, March 02, 2007

IRS is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB

According to a recent FOIA request, the IRS is subject to the Paperwork Redution Act, see 44 USC 3512 - Public Protection. This goes to the heart of the IRS demanding/compelling one to respond to a VOLUNTARY request for information, such as their administrative Summons 2039 and Collection Information Statement Form 433 series.

Read more here.


Blogger Joey Smith said...

Wrong, again. The courts have uniformly rejected this argument on different grounds. Some courts have simply noted that the PRA applies to the forms themselves, not to the instruction booklets, and because the Form 1040 does have a control number, there is no PRA viola­tion.

Other courts have held that Congress created the duty to file returns in section 6012(a) and "Congress did not enact the PRA’s public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress." United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992). Also, the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2006-21, 2006-15 I.R.B. 745, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990) – the court rejected Wunder’s claim of a PRA violation, affirming his conviction for failing to file a return.

Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992) – the court affirmed Salberg’s conviction for tax evasion and failing to file a return, rejecting his claims under the PRA.

United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958 (1992) – the court affirmed Holden’s conviction for failing to file a return and rejected his contention that he should have been acquitted because tax instruction booklets fail to comply with the PRA.

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9th Cir. 1991) – the court affirmed Hicks’ conviction for failing to file a return, finding that the requirement to provide information is required by law, not by the IRS. “This is a legislative command, not an administrative request. The PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch.”

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1445 (10th Cir. 1990) – the court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act was not enacted "to create a loophole in the taxcode."

Saxon v. United States, T.C. Memo. 2006-52, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 914 (2006) - the court, in imposing $5,000 sanctions against Saxon, found claims that violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act excuses a taxpayer from filing returns or paying taxes have been universally rejected as meritless.

7:42 PM  
Blogger MrTideman said...

I won on this OMB# tactic back in 1983 against the IRS (M.83-50-D US Dist. Ct., Concord, N.H.) after reading Red Beckman's book, and have read of these U.S. District Court losses after-wards, but although the 1040 form may have the number, we have got to educate the banks that get a request on a different form to turn over $x,xxx, that they/the bank can declare such a request "bootleg" or illegal withOUT the OMB#. I tried to get the Bank of N.H. to pre-scribe this consumer-friendly policy in writing, but that they refused to issue a blanket-letter saying verbally from their Maine headquarters to me over the phone #x years ago (now they are BankNorth), that they take it on a case-by-case basis, relying on their customers being too stupid to assert their rights. Yours truly, - - P.S. In Ed's case the IRS letter from WHERE(?) withOUT the OMB# stealing $x,xxx from his bank account, him NOT contesting at the time(?), if from any of the IRS in-state offices, then THEFT, since they have none of the RSA 123:1 papers on file! Update: of almost $5,000 but over three years ago, and so the statute of limitations to sue has gone by?, and from the Portsmouth office. But somebody keeps telling me that fraud has no such limitations. Any attorney here willing to take this on a contingent fee basis? Plus I have a $100 bill to get it started, +/or for another case I know about witHIN the three years.

8:22 PM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

Wrong JOEY, The supreme court has ruled in all case except a few tax case where 3rd party collection was used that government forms must have valid OMB numbers. The question is, is the IRS a government office? NO. However new regulations say even 3rd party collection agencies must have a valid OMB number if it is collecting from the public.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 5, Volume 3]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 5CFR1320.12]

[Page 159-161]



8:32 PM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

Whenever the case is about income tax or the IRS we all know the courts have failed to uphold lawful process as is afforded to the most violent criminal cases such as murders and rape. Stop using tax caselaw to refute claims against Americans. If you want to know how the due process works you must look to criminal and civil case law and not any tax or IRS case law because the process has become corrupted by communists like JOEY.

8:36 PM  
Blogger albanyNY said...

I would have to respectfully disagree with Joe Smith's arguement that the PRA is not a valid defense for not filing a 1040. Just last year on May 12, 2006 in Perioa, Illinois Robert Lawerence was able to get charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning he can never be charged for not paying an income tax or not filing a 1040 for the rest of his life)using the paper reduction act defense properly. Yes the 1040 has an OMB number but it is not a VALID OMB number. For more information goto this link and do theresearch.
I followed this case when it was happening and it was beautiful to see Oscar Schilling (Lawerence's lawyer)toss a Truth Gernade at the IRS just before the trial was about to begin and watch the IRS scramble to beg the Judge to dismiss the charges because the IRS knew there 1040 would be exposed for the fraud that it is. Happy reasearching.

8:38 PM  
Blogger KOSMIC said...

Tell me Why is it that our constitutional rights are protected everywhere except when it comes to income tax on labor? Your answer will show how evil you are or it will open your eyes to the sunshine.

8:38 PM  
Blogger Joey Smith said...

"Robert Lawerence was able to get charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning he can never be charged for not paying an income tax or not filing a 1040 for the rest of his life)"

Wrong. Only that particular CASE was dismissed. The U.S. Attorney has since refiled. This is another totally bogus, worthless argument followed by the stupid and championed by paytriot snake-oil sellers.

9:17 PM  
Blogger Nameless said...

The case was dismissed because th e IRS agent made a significant math error on the indictment. The OMB number argument is a paytriot scam.

10:12 PM  
Blogger MrTideman said...

Whether the case against Rbt. Lawrence was re-started or not, I read he's at the CAlif. conference this weekend to explain his winning the battle and how we can use it to win the war. According to former IRS agent, "timedrifter" over at www.abovetopsecret dot com/forum/thread266181/pg1 (of 4 pages on 7Feb07 @ 9:41 AM) found by Google for: "Ed Brown" OMB @ p. 1 #1, the OMB must use a "VALID control number", and somehow Robert found it IN-valid! by 44 USC 3512 = The Public Protection Act. Yours truly, - -

11:17 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

If the OMB Numbers are not Valid... There can be NO PENALTY. It's written right in the Laws regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act!

Joey... does not know what He's talking about, as usual.

11:57 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Joey said:

Also, the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2006-21, 2006-15 I.R.B. 745, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

- End

According to LAW Joey... No Claim can be labeled bt the Court as Frivolous, as long as a valid Argument can be made regarding a Statute of Law! In addition... The IRS is NOT... A Court of LAW Joey... and can call anything the want "frivolous". The fact is... The IRS Claiming something to be Frivolous, Hold absolutely no water!


In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence’s criminal trial).

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number.

Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.

Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect.

Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DOJ and IRS decided not to let the Lawrence case proceed because it would reveal one critical and damning fact:

The PRA law protects those that fail to file IRS bootleg Form 1040.

The DOJ knew that it stood a significant chance of losing the case, and if that happened, the press and others would quickly spread the word, and leave only fools to ever file a 1040 again. Oscar Stilley’s pleadings and documents made these points quite clear:

· IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.

· Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.

· The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

· The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.
We The People Foundation has researched the facts, law and circumstances surrounding this case, and has determined that:

· A public trial would have opened a “Pandora’s Box” of legal evidence and government testimony under oath that would establish the IRS 1040 form as both fraudulent and counterfeit.

· Oscar Stilley’s PRA defense “checkmated” the DOJ and IRS

· The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit requirements of those statutes

Are you taking NOTES Joey?

12:07 AM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

I need a new Keyboard! Staples... Here I come!

12:08 AM  
Blogger albanyNY said...

I would just like to point out that this Joey Smith Character is totally clueless to what he is saying and his blog is filled with nothing but lies and half truths. His mind has been brainwashed and I think he believes his own lies. Anyone that believes his crap needs to have his head examined. A heavy or progressive income tax. Do you know what that is Joey? Its the 2nd plank to the communist manifesto. Are you a communist Joey? If you want to pay a volutary income tax more power to you. pay it till your hearts content. But don't try to convince me with your lies that It is madatory to pay. You picking up what I'm putting down? You are CLUELESS and are totally wrong. Your should rename yourself "slave" because it sounds to me you champion your slave masters' lies. Do you think Ed Brown is risking everything he has on a pack of lies? He is standing on the rock of truth because he is a man of integrity and principal not like you. Ed brown has more integrity in his fingernail clippings then you have in you whole body. enough said.

1:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home