September 9, 2003
| <<Previous |
|
| September 9, 2003 | ||
|
|
The Report http://www.taxfreedom101.com An Internet Publication - September 9, 2003 - The Constitutional Revival Movement's News Source
If you received this email in plain text format and would like to view with all visible links please visit: http://www.taxfreedom101.com/ezines/030909.htm
|
New England Members of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship in conjunction with the Free Church Ministry present…
Event Registration Deadline Now Less Than One Week Away! Review the Recently Posted Detailed Schedule of Events!
One Hour with Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber by Jim Kerr, Save-A-Patriot Fellowship staff paralegal As a Save-A-Patriot paralegal, I find that, from time to time, the IRS will summon a person into a meeting. Frequently, the IRS will send an informal letter to the individual, but they can send a formal summons. If the individual chooses not to comply, the IRS' only recourse is to file a show cause petition with the US District Court to get a court order to enforce the summons. When this happens, the individual must comply with the court's order - nothing more, nothing less. However, a citizen can still invoke his 5th Amendment right not to be a witness against himself. Generally speaking, it is prudent to not offer information to the IRS (unless required by written law), since few people have substantial experience in recognizing and responding correctly to the tactics that seasoned agents employ. However, John Kotmair Jr.'s meeting with three IRS employees on July 23, 2003 (I attended as a witness), was an exceptional circumstance. Not once was the 5th Amendment invoked, not that it was even necessary. Nevertheless, the meeting was very instructional in that it revealed some of the IRS' most common interview tactics, and the correct way to respond thereto. Among these tactics are (1) browbeating/intimidation; (2) asking the same questions repeatedly; (3) asking leading questions; (4) asking numerous irrelevant questions; and (5) obfuscation. As the audio recording of the meeting shows, John took control from the outset. After initial introductions, he pointed out that there was no OMB control number present on the documents requesting information; nonetheless, he consented to continue the meeting. John then stated that Mr. Metcalf, the agent conducting the meeting and who signed the letters requesting information, neglected to define key terms (e.g., "tax shelter") previous to the meeting. Though Mr. Metcalf shrugged this off by saying that generic definitions would apply, we later discovered that this wasn't quite true. We went prepared with a particularized written response to each written question and request for documents/information. When Mr. Metcalf was handed a copy of this written response, he stated the alleged purpose of the meeting, and asked us to produce the records requested. John stated that his request was premature until he read our prepared answers, to which Metcalf responded, "So, then you are not going to produce the records?" Rather than answering this leading question, John again pointed out that it would be necessary for him to read our prepared answers before even asking such a question. "Okay, let's do that first," said Metcalf, after which the three agents quietly read the answers. The first barrage consisted of personal, irrelevant questions ranging from John's health and educational background to his employment history and whether he ever filed bankruptcy. Excepting carpal tunnel syndrome and a touch of arthritis, he said his health was just fine. John also reported that he graduated from the SHK and never filed for bankruptcy. Regarding his employment history since high school, John answered "I don't think you need that." Then came a barrage of leading and redundant questions. "When did you first get involved in the business of Save A Patriot and related?" Since Save A Patriot is not a business, John rephrased the question: "When did I become involved in SAP? Since 1984 - February." Q. "What education or training do you have that qualifies you to be, uh, in the field of…umm…" A. "In the field of what?" Q. "Being a member of Save A Patriot…." A. "You tell me what's needed. That's a ludicrous question! It's a fellowship!" As Metcalf continued harping on John's qualifications, John provided an example, citing the deficiency authority of IRC § 6212. John then asked, "Why does the IRS send out deficiencies involving subtitle C when it is not authorized?" [Inquiring minds want to know.] Agent Metcalf, obviously flustered, responded, "Okay, well off the top of my head, I can't answer that. * * * That is a matter of interpretation [of the law]." John pointed out that our laws are written in plain English, and needed no "interpretation"; otherwise, they would be void for vagueness. I wondered how Mr. Metcalf could even write, trembling the way he did. Truth and law can be valuable tools to gain the upper hand in such instances, if used wisely. Finally, John asked, "What does this have to do with § 6700?… Sec. 6700 has to do with tax shelters." "Your letter said § 6700, and I am not answering anything other than [questions relevant to IRC] § 6700. Metcalf responded with, "How many participants are there in SAP?" and more questions about what SAP does. This was turning into harassment. "The activity [of the Fellowship] has already been established." Indeed, our Mission Statement says it all. The senior agent interrupted, explaining that they just wanted this information for their record. "I don't care what he wants to enter into the record," John replied. "I don't have to answer that. It has nothing to do with your purpose for me to be here." "Your original letter said the purpose. Let's get it out and read it in there." Metcalf muttered, "Our original letter asked you to come in… um…yeah… to bring in the requested documents, books and records and to meet and be available, and, uh, um…" John responded, "Don't paraphrase! Let me get it out here and read it." "'We have reviewed certain materials with respect to your tax beliefs (what's a "tax belief?") and Internet promotions. We are considering possible action under Sections 6700 and 7408 of the IRC relating to penalties and an injunction action for promoting abusive tax schemes.' That's why I'm here! … And those questions have nothing to do with that …. These questions have nothing to do with § 6700." The badgering continued. Q. "What is the background of the people who attend your seminars?" A. "How would I know?" Q. "Okay. Do they have brochures, or is it strictly a video tape?" A. "There are no brochures, or anything." Q. "Okay, these brochures …." Since the same leading questions were being asked over and over, John began responding, "Asked and answered." He also had to refer them to the written answers frequently, and stated that he had answered all their questions. "I answered every one of them. Look, this is turning into harassment! * * * Look, you are beating a dead horse. This is harassment." I am glad I witnessed this meeting; I'd never seen one like it before. I saw the agents attempt to make him lose his stride with browbeating; they asked the same questions over and over, many of which were leading. They even tried to deceive Mr. Kotmair as to the purpose of the hearing, resorting to paraphrasing their letter which clearly explained the purpose of the meeting. All in all, their fishing expedition was a failure. Indeed, as John said, SAP is "clean as a hound's tooth." As John points out in our first article this month, the IRS and the globalist regime have much to be concerned about; and while it is easy to snap a single pencil, it is not so easy with a bundle, ergo your Fellowship is an effective force against tyranny. If this were not the case, the Fellowship would not be deemed such a threat. Accordingly, we should all do our part to build our Fellowship's momentum by encouraging other bona fide patriots to become members. Imagine if we had 100,000 members? That would be "end-game" for the enemies of liberty, and we could get our government back under the law peacefully; for this is what we are all about. Footnotes The next edition of the Reasonable Action newsletter will have an extensive article on the right not to be a witness against yourself, and the right to not incriminate yourself in a crime. Obfuscate 1. Obscure or confuse (a mind, topic, etc. Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Word Finder) The audio tape with exhibits is available for 10 FRNs ppd. Blank postal money orders are preferred to FRNs. Send your order to: SAPF/IRS Meeting; P.O. Box 91, Westminster, MD 21158 Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 to prevent government agencies from bothering citizens and resident aliens with requests for information that were not authorized by law. It is a principle of law that you can ask the witness a particular question only once, and is grounds for an objection in court. Wishing you a Tweedle-dumb-free day, The Tax Freedom 101 Staff
To subscribe: Simply fill in the email address you wish to receive the newsletter at in the "enter email address" below and then hit the purple "Join Now" button. A confirmation notice will be sent to you shortly afterwards asking you to confirm your subscription by reply email.
or simply send an email to: The-Tax-Freedom-101-Report-subscribe@yahoogroups.com The Tax Freedom 101 Report archives page:
| |||||||||||
|
| |||
  | |||
| |||
| DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility. | |||
 | |||
