In review of content from many calls and e-mail, we decided more information regarding IRS forms might be helpful to everyone. Our point here comes from many years of experience in watching people and organizations dealing with IRS. Quite frankly, we are confused by the entire relationship—we do not understand why anyone would tolerate complying with something they do not understand. We have heard many people fear IRS and or IRS audits; however, we have known many people that have been through audits and most of them came out of the process quite well, even getting more funds back than they originally filed for. We have heard that people are afraid to file a case in tax court because they think that no one wins there. Again, statistics show a different story; 80% of the cases filed received relief in some form over their situation before they filed their case. Tax protests have done quite poorly in tax court having under a 10% win rate. That simply seems to point out that a tax protest style of argument has a poor chance of winning in tax court.
When we talk to people regarding such matters we find one thing in common. Except for the tax protesters, they all find the tax code confusing (the tax protesters profess understanding of the code and teach others their interpretation of it). In fact, five of the last six presidents of Corp. U.S. have stated, ‘the tax code is confusing’. We find that quite interesting and we imagine any judge or jury in the country would have the exact same opinion.
Have you noticed the IRS has recently been on the attack against the tax protest industry? Now, notice that almost every time a tax protester goes into court arguing the code they loose. Arguing the code proves intent! Imagine what would have happened if they had not argued the code. Imagine what would have happened if they had instead of protesting IRS and taxes, they had simply attempted to resolve their confusion in understanding the code. At least since IRS was called before the Senate regarding unlawful collection activities (during President Clinton’s terms of office) and thus allegedly restructured into the “kinder gentler IRS”, they have apparently been unwilling to communicate in any reasonable way to answer questions from people attempting to understand the tax code. We don’t see how failing to communicate will ever eliminate confusion.
If we were in such a relationship with an agency like IRS, we would first follow the standard for review as shown in our article Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole
located at the following link: http://www.teamlawproductions.com/phpBB ... .php?t=24;
then with that understood we would go to the forms IRS alleges we should fill out. We expect the first contact we would have with such things would be at the onset of employment; when the employer gives the employee an IRS Form W-4. If we did not fully understand the form and its purpose we would seek the information necessary to understand the form. We would take nothing for granted. In law it is not enough to say someone has to do something, the ability to compel must come from a lawful authority. Therefore, it is necessary to track authority of any governmental act. Further, in law it is impossible to compel compliance to confusion. Therefore, if the tax code is so confusing that a common man cannot understand it, it cannot lawfully be compelled. The United States Supreme Court has ruled:
- Taxpayers are required to know the law.
- IRS agents are not required to know the law.
Some people think this is not fair, but the simple fact is, the court is correct. IRS is simply a private collection agent collecting debts owed to the United States Government; as such they are required to collect in accord with due process, but they are not required to know the law. On the other hand a taxpayer is bound to their debts, thus they are required to know the law.
We would never attempt to fight the tax code; however, if we found it incomprehensible we would be required to do all we could to understand it. If with all of our study of the code it simply becomes more confusing (in advance of any obligation to pay) we would go to IRS for a letter ruling of our tax status. If they refused to give one we would go to the maker of the code, Congress; and we would ask them to explain it. Our experience watching this happen shows that they would generally respond with something like you need to hire a competent tax accountant or tax attorney to explain this to us. We would respond again with the question, “Do you mean to tell us that the code is so confusing that the only people that can possibly understand the code are competent professional tax accountants and tax attorneys?” That alone makes compelled compliance impossible. Where Chief Justice Warren Burger famously stated repeatedly that 90% of all attorneys are incompetent, we expect finding such would be next to impossible as well so we would next ask them where we could find such expertise. Just before what they call tax time rolled around we would contact them and ask them what we should do considering that the code is incomprehensible and they have repeatedly refused to help us figure it out on request. To such an inquiry they typically respond with allegations that if you don’t send a proper return bad things could happen. The code also says that if you file something wrong you can be held accountable for frivolous filings or misleading the IRS. In other words at that time there is plenty code that says that you have to do whatever you do right but whatever that is, is incomprehensible and thus impossible to compel unless they show the proper law and authority. If they do not then show us—in the law—where what they recommend is found we are prevented from sending them any kind of return—ever until they do. If they could not show that then, we would demand a formal Administrative Review show cause hearing where they would have to show cause (the law as it applied to the facts) for the relationship they alleged. If they failed to so hold such a hearing (or in it failed to show cause), the first time they generated any instrument thereafter that made it appear like there was some kind of obligation to deal with them at all, we would sue the instrument, IRS and the Agent that generated the instrument in the Administrative Law side federal district court (in the Administrative Court, you can sue such parties directly without suing the United States). The results of such a suit would bind IRS to prove first that they were not collaterally estopped from their further proceedings past failing to properly show cause in the requested Administrative Review Hearing and if their cause was allowed beyond that, they would still have to prove their allegation with facts and law, not innuendo. Of course you must realize all of this would take place before there was any damage or allegation of a tax debt. If IRS were to allege any such debt existed we would pay it into an escrow account which would not disperse until IRS proved their case. If they could not prove their case the funds would return to the alleged taxpayer.
In other words, we would never argue the code (like tax protesters do). If IRS were to raise the code as if to imply it had some bearing on taxability we would simply show the confusion and ask them to resolve it. Such a response is not arguing the code, rather it displays willingness to study, learn and apply the code if any applicable authority can be shown for any compliance that would not confuse the common man. If it was confusing to you when you studied it with the intent to resolve it, it will likely be confusing to the jury as well. If it is, you have likely won.
In most cases we expect the IRS simply could not demonstrate what is required in law for them to collect. The problem with all of this is most people are more willing to read books and information from the tax protesters than they are to read the code and apply it. They say the code is confusing. That is exactly our point; you are required by law to know the law (tax code, etc.), which is apparently impossible; showing that impossibility frees the taxpayer. However, if you never take the time to do the first hand study of the code (and thus get confused) you cannot make that claim. Presenting some tax protester’s opinion of the code will prove you can loose in court as well as they did. The court can even prevent you from showing your evidence of your contrary opinion of the law. Court cases are not about the law they are about the judges and or jury’s opinion (emotions) as related to the facts as they apply to the law. In such cases challenging the code will loose the case and prove intent to violate the law. Showing your unsuccessful efforts and what you have been through attempting to resolve the confusion apparent in the law, eliminates intent and makes the evidence available to the case in court; it also involves the judge’s and jury’s emotions and agreement that the tax code is confusing.
Understanding IRS’ forms is the first step to delving into the code. We would take IRS’ own instructions to the forms and look for any reference to the code. We would also take a look at the Paperwork Reduction Act and the privacy act as basic elements prerequisite to the code. These two acts are usually referenced in IRS’ form instructions. Once we had the door open to that research we would follow it point by point (taking notes). The confusion will likely become apparent quite quickly.
Learning takes time; however, it is necessary to be free. Learning is not enough to secure freedom—Freedom requires learning and action. Team Law can help anyone learn and apply the law, thus protecting your Freedom.
We hope this information is helpful to you; if you find it so. Please tell your friends about Team Law!