brad.barnhill@mindspring.com
HomeSite v2.5Last Updated: Thursday, January 21, 1999 10:39:01 PM
Department of the Treasury Date of this Notice: DEC 15 1997 [1]
Internal Revenue Service Letter Number 531(DO)
District Director Taxpayer Identifying Number:
###-##-####
Form: 1040
Tax Year Ended and Deficiency:
CERTIFIED MAIL [2] See Third Page of Letter
Person to Contact:
90 Day Notice Clerk
Telephone Number:
(804) 771-2090
Brad Barnhill
109 Shale Place
Charlottesville VA 22902
-NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY-
Dear Brad Barnhill:
We have determined that you owe additional tax and other amounts, or both,
for the tax year(s) identified above. This letter is your NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY,
as required by law. The enclosed statement shows how we figured the deficiency.
If you want to contest this determination in court before making any payment,
you have 90 days from the date of this letter (150 days if addressed outside the
United States) to file a petition with the United States Tax Court for a
redetermination of the deficiency. You can get a copy of the rules for filing a
petition and a petition form you can use by writing to the address below.
United States Tax Court
400 Second Street, NW
Washington, DC 20217
Send the enclosed petition, a copy of this letter, and copies of all
statements and/or schedules you received with this letter to the Tax Court at the same
address above. The court cannot consider your case if the petition is filed late.
The petition is considered timely filed if the postmark date falls within the
prescribed 90 or 150 day period and the envelope containing the petition is properly
addressed with the correct postage.
The time you have to file a petition with the court (90 or 150 days as the case
may be) is set by law and cannot be extended or suspended. Thus, contacting the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for more information, or receiving other correspondence
from the IRS, won't change the period for filing a petition with the Tax Court.
If this letter is addressed to both a husband and wife, and both want to petition
the Tax Court, both must sign and file the petition or each must file a separate,
signed petition. If more than one year is shown above, you may file one petition form
showing all of the years you are contesting.
The Tax Court has a simplified procedure for small tax cases, when the amount
in dispute is $10,000 or less for any one tax year. You can get information about
this procedure, as well as a petition form, by writing to the Tax COurt at the address
in the paragraph above. You should write promptly if you intend to file a petition
with the Court.
400 North 8th St., Richmond VA 23240 Letter 531(DO)(Rev.9-96)
You may represent yourself before the Tax Court, or you may be represented
by anyone admitted to practice before the Tax Court.
If you decide not to file a petition with the Tax Court, please sign and
return the enclosed waiver form. This will permit us to assess the deficiency
quickly and can help limit the accumulation of interest.
If you decide not to sign and return the waiver, and you do not file a petition
with the Tax Court within the time limit, the law requires us to assess and bill you
for the deficiency after 90 days from the date of this letter (150 days if this letter
is addressed to you outside the United States).
( If you are a C-corporation, Section 6621(c) of the Internal )
( Revenue Code requires that we charge an interest rate two )
( percent higher than the normal rate on large corporate )
( underpayments of $100,000 or more. )
If you have any questions about this letter, you may write to the person whose
name and IRS address are shown on the front of the letter. If you write, please
include your telephone number, the best time for us to call you if we need more
information, and a copy of this letter to help us identify you account. Keep the
original letter for your records.
If you prefer, you may call the contact person at the telephone number on the
front page of this letter. If this number is outside your local calling area, there
will be a long distance charge to you. You may call the IRS telephone number listed
in your local directory. An IRS employee there may be able to help you, but the
person at our address shown on this letter is most familiar with your case.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Charles O. Rossotti
Commissioner by
/s/ Roger K. Burgess [3]
Roger K. Burgess CR [4]
District Director
Enclosures:
Explanation of tax changes
Waiver
mr
400 North 8th St., Richmond VA 23240 Letter 531(DO)(Rev.9-96)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Department of the Treasury
Attachment to Letter 531(DO)
Penalty Addition to Tax Under
Internal Revenue Code Section
Tax Year Increase
Ended In Tax 6651(a)(1) 6654
_________________ ___________
December 31, 1996 $##,####.## $#,###.## $ ###.##
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Department of the Treasury | Symbols
Form 4089 | Internal Revenue Service |
(Rev. January 1983) | Notice of Deficiency - Waiver | E:ESP:90D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name, SSN or EIN, and Address of Taxpayer(s)
Brad Barnhill
109 Shale Place
Charlottesville VA 22902 ###-##-####
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of Tax |() Copy to Authorized Representative
|
Income |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Year Increase
Ended In Tax 6651(a)(1) 6654
_________________ ___________
December 31, 1996 $##,####.## $#,###.## $ ###.##
See the attached explanation for the above deficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I consent to the immediate assessment and collection of the deficiencies (increase in tax and penalties) shown above, plus and interest provided by law.
Your
Signature >______________________________________________________________________
(Date Signed)
Spouse's Signature,
If Joint Return >______________________________________________________________________
(Date Signed)
Taxpayer's
Representative >______________________________________________________________________
Sign Here (Date Signed)
Corporate Name >______________________________________________________________________
Corporate Officers >______________________________________________________________________
Sign Here (Date Signed)
>______________________________________________________________________
(Date Signed)
Note: If you consent to the assessment of the amounts shown in this waiver, please sign and return it in order to limit the accumulation of interest
and expidite our bill to you. Your consent will not prevent you from filing a claim for refund (after you have paid the tax) if you later believe
you are entitled to a refund. It will not prevent us from later determining, if necessary, that you owe additional tax; nor will it extend the time
provided by law for either action. If you later file a claim and the Internal Revenue Service disallows it, you may file suit for refund in a
district court on in the United States Claims Court, but you may not file a petition with the United States Tax Court.
Who Must Sign
If this waiver is for any year(s) for which you filed a joint return, both you and your spouse must sign the original and duplicate of this form.
Sign you name exactly as it appears on the return. If you are acting under power of attorney for your spouse, you may sign as agent for him or her.
For an agent or attorney acting under a power of attorney, a power of attorney must be sent with this form if not previously filed. For a person
acting in a fiduciary capacity (executor, administrator, trustee), file Form 56, Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, with this form if not
previously filed. For a corporation, enter the name of the corporation followed by the signature and title of the officer(s) authorized to sign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you agree, please sign one copy and return it; keep the other copy for your records.
Form 4089 (Rev. 1-83)
Adjustments to Prepayment Credits
Schedule 1(a)1
Year: December 31, 1996
Statutory Deficiency $##,###.##
Prepayment Credits per Return 0
Correct Prepayment Credits $#,###.##
Increase in Prepayment Credits $#,###.##
Net Additional Tax/Overpayment $#,###.##
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 January 1998
The Honorable John W. Warner, Jr.
Senator of Virginia
225 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Sir:
I write to appraise you of the actions of the Executive department, which are contrary to the laws passed by you and your predecessors. I have slid into the morass of the Internal Revenue Code headfirst, and have encountered no response from the IRS which would demonstrate their authority to ruin my life. As a matter of fact, I have received no direct response to any of my inquiries. Nor have I received any acknowledgment of my demand for an administrative appeals conference with the District Director in the IRS office in Richmond, Virginia, as required by the statutes which you and your predecessors have enacted.
The IRS is attempting to get me to appeal to the Tax Court a determination which they have yet to make. I am supposed to get an administrative appeals conference, in order to find out the IRS's opposition to my position, and only then appeal this determination to the Tax Court. If I am not afforded a conference, then I have no decision to appeal. The IRS will then continue this steamroller by issuing a Notice of Levy, and then a Levy against my property, all without demonstrating their authority to do so. At all junctures of this process, I have challenged the officials at the IRS to show their authority, and have yet to receive any direct response.
I am not a tax protester. I pay all taxes for which I am liable. You will notice in my attached demand to the District Director that I have a position consistent with the Internal Revenue Code, statutes which you have enacted. I have cited numerous sections of the Code and have demanded at all times for them to show me the law or regulation which allows them to take the steps which they have taken. For all of my efforts, all I get is silence. I will let my response to the District Director's Notice of Deficiency speak on this matter.
I was taught that the power belongs to the people. I was taught that Congress and the government had only those powers expressly granted in the Constitution. I was taught that government agencies had only those powers expressly delegated from the executive or from Congress. The written laws, written regulations, and written delegations of authority exist to protect the people from those who would use the government to their own ends, and for their own agrandisement. If the people cannot depend upon what is written in the laws, what is published in the regulations and the federal register, and written delegations of authority from the President through the Secretary of the Treasury, then the people have no such protection.
My father fought in the Korean and Vietnam police actions in order to preserve these principles. He earned three purple hearts for his efforts. I can do no less for my own children. We must be a nation of laws, and not a nation of men usurping power.
It appears to this Citizen, that for the Executive department, the laws enacted by Congress are irrelevant. It appears to this Citizen that the Executive department will do whatever it pleases without regard to the due process guarantees which were written into the laws by you and your predecessors. Has the time come where Congress itself is irrelevant? Has the time come where the Executive department can make law by fiat? Or do you intend to ensure that the laws enacted by Congress, the regulations promulgated under those statutes, and the administrative appeal process enacted by Congress to protect the Citizens unalienable Right to due process, is followed by the Executive?
I await your response.
Sincerely,
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill
Brad L. Barnhill
[1] FEB 04 1998
Mr. John B. Kotmair, Jr.
Post Office Box 91
Westminster, Maryland 21158
Dear Mr. Kotmair:
Your letter dated December 23, 1997, regarding the
statutory notice of deficiency mailed to Brad Barnhill on
December 15, 1997, has been forwarded to my office for reply.
Your request is written in the form and style of
correspondence I frequently receive from tax protestors. The
request raises arguments which the courts have routinely held
to be frivolous and without merit. It is not my practice to
respond to letters which to not raise matters of substance
which genuinely require my attention. Accordingly, you should
not expect a response to similar such requests in the future
and should not treat my failure to respond as an indication
that the Internal Revenue Service agrees with any of the
frivolous arguments stated in your request.
Sincerely,
[2]
Jane E. Looney
Chief, Examination Division
Virginia-West Virginia District
cc: Brad Barnhill
IRS Reference Number: ###-##-####
13 March 1998
Certified Mail # Z-361-366-852
Roger K. Burgess, District Director
Internal Revenue Service Center
400 North 8th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23240
RE: My 26 January 1998 response to
your alleged "NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY" of 15 December 1997.
Dear Mr. Burgess:
You have had over 30 days to respond to my letter demanding your authority in regard to your purported "NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY". To this date, you have failed to make any response whatsoever. You have had ample opportunity to return the signed affidavits I supplied to attest that your assessment and determination of tax liability were done pursuant to the proper authority in accordance with the laws enacted by Congress, regulations promulgated by the Secretary, and your own procedure manuals. By your silence, I must assume that you have not proceeded lawfully and are now willfully violating my Right to Due Process.
By order of the Congress of the United States of America, any NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY issued by your office, made pursuant to internal revenue law at 26 U.S.C. § 6212, must be signed under penalty of perjury as required by § 6065, unless specifically exempted from this requirement by regulation promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. Otherwise, it does not meet the statutory qualifications of an official IRS document.
Mr. Burgess, you have failed to provide to me the regulatory exemption of this statutory requirement of 26 U.S.C. § 6065, imposed by the Congress of the United States, regarding the alleged "NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY". I therefore have not been served with any document which could in any way be construed as a legally verified claim of the U.S. Government.
The 90 day limit for me to appeal an administrative decision to the Tax Court expires today. You have refused to meet my demand for an administrative Appeals Conference, as required by your own procedures. As you have refused me an administrative Appeals Conference, I cannot possibly appeal to the Tax Court an administrative decision which has not occurred. I therefore give proper and timely notice to you that I have been denied Due Process, as I have been prevented by your actions from being able to make an appeal of a verified claim to the Tax Court.
According to the regulations at 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii), all the remuneration I received in 1996 from U.S. sources is "exempt, excluded, or eliminated" for federal income tax purposes as I had no foreign earned income as a U.S. Citizen, am not a nonresident alien, officer of a foreign corporation, or involved with a foreign tax exempt organization, to then have income from a taxable source as required by statute in § 61 and listed in 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1) and –8T(d)(2)(iii), nor have I hired any nonresident aliens to then be liable for any tax under 26 U.S.C. § 1461.
Mr. Burgess, you have failed to produce copies of any evidence which either prove that I, as a U.S. Citizen, had "Gross income" from "taxable sources" as required in the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, or that I have been involved in the importation, manufacture, or licensed sale of alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms within the jurisdiction of the United States, in order for 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a) to be legally applied to me.
According to § 6012, I am only required to file a return if I have the requisite amount of "gross income". I did not have any "gross income", and so had no statutory requirement to file a return. I did not make any form of election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6014 and its regulations, for the year in question, to the Internal Revenue Service, for a "deficiency" to be determined in accordance with § 6211. Therefore, there is no foundational documentation to support the issuance of a "Notice of Deficiency" pursuant to § 6212.
Mr. Burgess, you have failed to provide to me a copy of the income tax returns in your possession, or the form used by me pursuant to §6014, or the law authorizing you to make returns for me (other than under my election pursuant to § 6014) and then claim that they are my returns so that you may make a "DEFICIENCY" claim against me and my property.
You have failed to provide me with any evidence that you, or any of your delegates of your authority, have complied with any procedure for determining I was required to file a tax return, as set forth in § 6501(c)(3), which gives you authority to make an assessment when a return was required but not filed.
Mr. Burgess, your application of 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a) within the attachments, and on the face of the alleged "NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY" is wrongfully applied, as I did not have any "Gross income" to be required to file a return pursuant to § 6012. The regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations Index, apply to 27 CFR which is related only to enforcement by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Your application of 26 U.S.C. § 6654(a) within the attachments, and on the face of the "NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY" are wrongfully applied as I did not have any "Gross income", as I earned no income from any foreign sources. The Code of Federal Regulations Index plainly displays the fact that § 6654(a) relates to 26 U.S.C. § 1, and as revealed by 26 CFR Part 600, § 602.101, the procedures of Chapter 1 relate to "Foreign earned income", in the case of U.S. Citizens.
You have failed to give any evidence that I worked outside of the States of the Union for the year cited in your alleged "NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY" to have taxable income or a taxable year, therefore, the penalty under § 6654(a) is not applicable to me, despite any erroneous claims by any payors of remuneration to me.
Mr. Burgess, you have failed to show how any of the statutory procedures and penalties which you make reference or allude to are applicable in this situation. You have failed to answer any of my questions contained in my letter of 26 January 1998. By these actions, you have denied my Right to Due Process of law.
Mr. Burgess, you have failed to respond to me in a manner pursuant to Internal Revenue Manual § 1218 "Policies of the Internal Revenue Service" at P-1-156, P-1-179, and P-1-180. You have not communicated provisions of the law in understandable terms, you have failed in your responsibility to provide all possible information to assist me in the performance of any presumed obligation I may have, and you have denied me the right to know your interpretation of the above cited tax laws and the manner in which they are administered.
Again I state for the record my protest of your wrongful assessment procedures and the fact that the Notice itself is deficient, by:
Mr. Burgess, it is quite obvious that this action taken by you, or on your behalf, and your silence in the face of my demands is a fraudulent misuse of the Internal Revenue Code deficiency/assessment procedures. Should you proceed to assessment, collection, and levy actions without first giving me an administrative Appeals Conference, you will have denied me Due Process of law as required by the Constitution, by the laws enacted by Congress, by the regulations promulgated thereto by the Secretary, and by your own procedures manuals.
Sincerely,
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill
Brad L. Barnhill
cc: Mr. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Tax Court
The Honorable Congressman Virgil Goode, Jr., 5th Congressional District of Virginia
The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Senator of Virginia
The Honorable John W. Warner, Jr., Senator of Virginia
13 March 1998
The Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr
5th Congressional District of Virginia
225 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Sir:
I wrote to you in January with regard to the Executive Department's wanton disregard for the statutes enacted by you and your predecessors, and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Enclosed please find a subscribed and notarized Privacy Act Release for your use.
As for the tax return, I did not have the requisite amount of "taxable income" and according to § 6012 was not required to file a return. My position on this is outlined in the attached followup to Mr. Burgess with regard to his alleged Notice of Deficiency.
A Citizen must be able to rely on the written laws enacted by you and the regulations promulgated thereto. I am not asking for you to decide this issue. I am asking that you convince Mr. Burgess, the District Director, that he needs to schedule an Administrative Appeals Conference before he proceeds any further. I think that together, he and I can come to a determination of this issue, before my family loses its home, or my pay is irreconcilably garnished. Any further action on his part will be outside the Due Process guarantees demanded by the Constitution and enacted into law by you and your predecessors.
Twenty years ago, I took a solemn promise to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Any loss I suffer through the unauthorized actions of Mr. Burgess is a tragedy not only for me and my family, but for all Americans who would willingly lay down their lives to protect that great Document and the Republic created by the people. If the Citizens cannot rely on the words in the laws to protect them from rogue federal agencies acting outside their authority, then no one is safe.
If you have an IRS liaison, please forward this information to that individual. I would appreciate it if you would again refer to my correspondence of 28 January 1998 and consider the changes to the Internal Revenue code as I suggested by repealing § 6404(b) and § 7421. Without these changes, abuses by the Executive branch will continue unabated and in contravention to Due Process.
Sincerely,
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill
Brad L. Barnhill
cc: The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Senator of Virginia
The Honorable John W. Warner, Jr., Senator of Virginia
Mr. Floyd L. Williams
Office of Legislative Affairs
Internal Revenue Service
Room 3241
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20224-0002
Dear Mr. Williams:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter that I received from Mr. Brad L. Barnhill, A constituent of mine in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Barnhill writes concerning a request for an Administrative Appeals Conference with Mr. Roger K. Burgess, the District Director of the Internal Revenue Service in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Barnhill asked that I forward his letter to you so that you might assist with the situation.
Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of this matter. I would appreciate you keeping me informed of any developments regarding Mr. Barnhill's requests. With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Virgil H. Goode
Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury
District Virginia-West Virginia P.O. Box 10107, Richond, VA 23240
Director District
[1] APR 2 1998
Mr. Brad L. Barnhill
XXX Xxxxx Xxxxx
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Barnhill:
Your letter dated January 28, 1998, addressed to
Senator Robb, along with a copy of your letter dated
January 16, 1998, addressed to Mr. Roger K. Burgess, District
Director, has been forwarded to my office for reply. We also
just received your letter dated March 13, 1998, address to
Mr. Roger K. Burgess, regarding your letter dated
January 26, 1998. You indicate that you are not a tax
protestor and have received no direct response to any of your
inquiries.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated February 4, 1998, we
sent to Mr. John B. Kotmair, Jr., in response to his letter
dated December 23, 1997, on your behalf. We consider his
letter and your letters to be written in the form and style of
correspondence we frrequently receive from tax protestors. As
previously stated, you should not expect a response to similar
such requests in the future and should not treat my failure to
respond as an indication that the Internal Revenue Service
agrees with any of the frivolous arguments stated in your
request.
We understand that you have petitioned the Tax Court
regarding the statutory notice of deficiency issued to you on
December 15, 1997. You can expect to hear from our Appeals
Office in the near future regarding your petition.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jane K. Looney [2]
Jane E. Looney
Chief, Examination Division
Virginia-West Virginia District
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Charles S. Robb
Thursday, 30 April 1998
Jane E. Looney
Chief, Examination Branch
Internal Revenue Service
400 North Eighth Street, Rm. 7205
Richmond, Virginia
Dear Ms Looney,
I thank you kindly for your prompt, though evasive and insubstantial reply to my letters of the 28th of January and the 13th of March, both of this year. You are correct that I have never received a direct response to any of my letters, and your current letter is no exception to this pattern.
I consider your reply, as well as your earlier reply, to be written in the form and style of law protestors. I admit that I do not expect a response to my letters, as you have no intention of following the written laws of Congress, and will continue to usurp your limited authority until I am harmed. I have written many letters in order to determine the proper application of the laws enacted by Congress. You and Mr. Burgess have the responsibility to ensure that my questions are answered completely and succinctly, so that I may be able to obey the written laws and comply with the regulations promulgated thereto. My arguments are not frivolous, as you have declined to show me where I err.
I hereby state for the record that I have every intention of complying with the letter of the laws enacted by Congress and the regulations promulgated thereto. So far, you and Mr. Burgess have been either unwilling or unable to asnwer my inquiries so that I may understand the proper application of these laws and regulations. So far, you and Mr. Burgess have refused to give me an Administrative Appeals Conference so that we can come to terms with these issues. I am still willing and able to meet with you and Mr. Burgess in such a Conference, so that we can depose Reed-Elsevier and S.O.C.A. under oath, to show that the remuneration I receive for my services is "exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes" in accordance with 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii).
You are incorrect when you state and I specifically deny that I have petitioned the Tax Court. I only requested information as to the required forms and procedures. To this date, I have received nothing from Mr. Burgess which could be construed as a verified claim of the U.S. Government. Since Mr. Burgess has declined to give me an administrative Appeals Conference as guaranteed by law and your own publications, he is in violation of Due Process of law until I receive this Appeals Conference. I cannot be forced to progress to the next level of the administrative appeals process, by petitioning the Tax Court, until he grants this Conference.
I have a set of questions to which I require answers. You are to consider this a Demand for a Bill of Particulars. If you decline to give complete and responsive answers, then you show that you have no authority. I have already sent to Mr. Rossotti and to Mr. Burgess affidavits that they may sign under penalty of perjury to show that they have the requisite authority to take the actions which have been taken thus far. Since they decline to verify their complaint against me, I have to consider that they have no such authority.
26 U.S.C. § 6065. Verification of returns
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 749; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title XIX, Sec. 1906(a)(6), (b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1824, 1834.)
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
All documents required to be made under the Internal Revenue Code must be signed under penalty of perjury, unless there is a regulatory exception. The Internal Revenue Service itself must also comply with this law, as Congress demands that IRS agents act in accordance with the principles of due process of law.
Is this true or false?
26 U.S.C. § 6212. Notice of deficiency
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 770; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85-866, title I, Sec. 76, 89(b), 72 Stat. 1661, 1665; Feb. 26, 1964, Pub. L. 88-272, title I, Sec. 112(d)(1), 78 Stat. 24; Dec. 30, 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, title I, Sec. 101(f)(2), (j)(40), (41), 83 Stat. 524, 530; Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91-614, title I, Sec. 102(d)(5), 84 Stat. 1842; Sept. 2, 1974, Pub. L. 93-406, title II, Sec. 1016(a)(10), 88 Stat. 930; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title II, Sec. 214(b), title XII, Sec. 1204(c)(5), 1206(c)(3), title XIII, Sec. 1307(d)(2)(F)(ii), (G), title XVI, Sec. 1605(b)(5), title XIX, Sec. 1901(b)(31)(C), (37)(C), 1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1549, 1698, 1704, 1728, 1754, 1800, 1803, 1834; May 23, 1977, Pub. L. 95-30, title I, Sec. 101(d)(15), 91 Stat. 134; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title IV, Sec. 405(c)(5), title VII, Sec. 701(t)(3)(C), 92 Stat. 2871, 2912; Apr. 2, 1980, Pub. L. 96-223, title I, Sec. 101(f)(1)(C), (4), (5), 94 Stat. 252, 253; Dec. 24, 1980, Pub. L. 96-589, Sec. 6(d)(2), 94 Stat. 3408; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, title IV, Sec. 442(d)(4), 95 Stat. 323; Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, title I, Sec. 104(b)(17), title XV, Sec. 1562(a), 100 Stat. 2106, 2761; Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100-203, title X, Sec. 10713(b)(2)(C), 101 Stat. 1330-470; Aug. 23, 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, title I, Sec. 1941(b)(2)(B)(iii), (E), (F), 102 Stat. 1323; Nov. 10, 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Sec. 1015(m), 102 Stat. 3572.)
(a) In general If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitles A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail.
A notice of deficiency is required under the Internal Revenue Code, so it must be verified under penalty of perjury. I have not been able to find a regulatory exemption to this, and you have refused to provide one.
Does a notice of deficiency have to be signed by the Secretary or his delegate or not?
Is there a regulatory exemption to the requirements of § 6065 for a notice of deficiency?
26 U.S.C. § 6651. Failure to file tax return or to pay tax
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 821; June 28, 1968, Pub. L. 90-364, title I, Sec. 103(e)(4), 82 Stat. 264; Dec. 30, 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, title IX, Sec. 943(a), 83 Stat. 727; Apr. 1, 1971, Pub. L. 92-9, Sec. 3(j)(1), 85 Stat. 22; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title XIX, Sec. 1904(b)(10)(A)(v), 90 Stat. 1817; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, title III, Sec. 318(a), (b), 96 Stat. 610; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98- 369, div. A, title IV, Sec. 412(b)(8), 98 Stat. 792; Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, title XV, Sec. 1502(a), (b), 100 Stat. 2741; Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100-203, title X, Sec. 10301(b)(6), 101 Stat. 1330-429; Dec. 19, 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Sec. 7741(a), 103 Stat. 2404.)
(a) Addition to the tax
In case of failure -
(1) to file any return required under authority of subchapter A of chapter 61
(other than part III thereof), subchapter A of chapter 51 (relating to distilled
spirits, wines, and beer), or of subchapter A of chapter 52 (relating to tobacco,
cigars, cigarettes, and cigarette papers and tubes), or of subchapter A of chapter
53 (relating to machine guns and certain other firearms), on the date prescribed
therefor (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing), unless it is
shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect,
there shall be added to the amount required to be shown as tax on such return 5
percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with
an additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which
such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate;
(2) to pay the amount shown on tax on any return specified in paragraph (1)
on or before the date prescribed for payment of such tax (determined with regard
to any extension of time for payment), unless it is shown that such failure is due to
reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount
shown as tax on such return 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is
for not more than 1 month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional
month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25
percent in the aggregate; or
(3) to pay any amount in respect of any tax required to be shown on a return
specified in paragraph (1) which is not so shown (including an assessment made
pursuant to section 6213(b)) within 10 days of the date of the notice and demand
therefor, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due
to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount of tax stated in such notice
and demand 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more
than 1 month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction
thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the
aggregate. In the case of a failure to file a return of tax imposed by chapter 1
within 60 days of the date prescribed for filing of such return (determined with
regard to any extensions of time for filing), unless it is shown that such failure is
due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, the addition to tax under
paragraph (1) shall not be less than the lesser of $100 or 100 percent of the
amount required to be shown as tax on such return.
I do not see where this penalty applies to the tax imposed by Chapter 1 of Subtitle A. Your addition of this penalty as shown is clearly erroneous.
Is this true or false?
26 U.S.C. § 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the
following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which
equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required
of an individual - (followed by a list of minimum amount of "taxable income" for
particular situations).
I see that I do not have to make a return of income unless I have the requisite amount of "gross income".
Is this true or false?
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the form required to be filed pursuant to 26 CFR 1.1-1 was once listed as Form 2555, foreign earned income. The regulatory authority for this form has since been removed from 26 CFR 602.101(c). The tax imposed by Chapter 1 is upon "taxable income". According to 26 CFR 1.861-8 and -8T, the only income for citizens living and working within the United States which is "not exempt, excluded, eliminated for federal income tax purposes" is foreign earned income pursuant to § 911. This is backed up by 26 CFR 602.101(c), which fails to show a requirement for Form 1040 for these regulations.
What is the form required for citizens living and working within a state of the Union for a corporation founded in a state of the Union (and not a possession)?
26 U.S.C. § 6014. Income tax return - tax not computed by taxpayer
(a) Election by taxpayer
An individual who does not itemize his deductions and who is not described in
section 6012(a)(1)(C)(i), whose gross income is less than $10,000 and includes no
income other than remuneration for services performed by him as an employee,
dividends or interest, and whose gross income other than wages, as defined in
section 3401(a), does not exceed $100, shall at his election not be required to
show on the return the tax imposed by section 1. Such election shall be made by
using the form prescribed for purposes of this section. In such case the tax shall be
computed by the Secretary who shall mail to the taxpayer a notice stating the
amount determined as payable.
Unless I make a return of income or make such an election, the Secretary (or his delegate) has no authority to compute a tax. I made no such return, nor did I make such an election.
Do you have a return that I sent to you?
Do you have a letter which shows such an election on my part?
Do you have a delegation of authority from the secretary to make a 1040?
26 U.S.C. § 6211. Definition of a deficiency
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 770; June 21, 1965, Pub. L. 89-44, title VIII, Sec. 809(d)(5)(A), 79 Stat. 168; Mar. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89-368, title I, Sec. 102(b)(4), 80 Stat. 64; Dec. 30, 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, title I, Sec. 101(f)(1), (j)(39), 83 Stat. 524, 530; Sept. 2, 1974, Pub. L. 93-406, title II, Sec. 1016(a)(9), 88 Stat. 929; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title XII, Sec. 1204(c)(4), title XIII, Sec. 1307(d)(2)(E), (F)(i), title XVI, Sec. 1605(b)(4), title XIX, Sec. 1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1698, 1728, 1754, 1834; Apr. 2, 1980, Pub. L. 96-223, title I, Sec. 101(f)(1)(A), (B), (2), (3), 94 Stat. 252; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, div. A, title IV, Sec. 474(r)(33), 98 Stat. 845; Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100-203, title X, Sec. 10713(b)(2)(B), 101 Stat. 1330-470; Aug. 23, 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, title I, Sec. 1941(b)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (C), (D), 102 Stat. 1323; Nov. 10, 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Sec. 1015(r)(2), 102 Stat. 3572.)
(a) In general
For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by
subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term
"deficiency" means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or
chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the excess of -
(1) the sum of
(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a
return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the
taxpayer thereon, plus
(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as
a deficiency, over -
(2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made.
I made no return of income, so (A) is undefined.
You have made no assessment, as I have not been sent the requisite Form 23C.
Have you made an assessment?
26 U.S.C. § 6501. Limitations on assessment and collection
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 803; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85-859, title I, Sec. 165(a), 72 Stat. 1313; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85-866, title I, Sec. 80, 81, 72 Stat. 1662; June 25, 1959, Pub. 86-69, Sec. 3(g), 73 Stat. 140; Sept. 14, 1960, Pub. L. 86-780, Sec. 3(c), 74 Stat. 1013; Oct. 11, 1962, Pub. L. 87-794, title III, Sec. 317(c), 76 Stat. 890; Oct. 16, 1962, Pub. L. 87-834, Sec. 2(e)(1), 76 Stat. 971; Oct. 23, 1962, Pub. L. 87-858, Sec. 3(b)(4), 76 Stat. 1137; Feb. 26, 1964, Pub. L. 88-272, title II, Sec. 225(k)(6), 78 Stat. 94; Sept. 2, 1964, Pub. L. 88-571, Sec. 3(b), 78 Stat. 857; June 21, 1965, Pub. L. 89-44, title VIII, Sec. 810(a), (b), 79 Stat. 169; Nov. 2, 1966, Pub. L. 89-721, Sec. 2(f), 3(a), 80 Stat. 1150, 1151; Nov. 13, 1966, Pub. L. 89-809, title I, Sec. 105(f)(3), 80 Stat. 1568; Dec. 27, 1967, Pub. L. 90-225, Sec. 2(c), 81 Stat. 731; Dec. 30, 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, title I, Sec. 101(g)(1)-(3), title V, Sec. 512(e)(1), 83 Stat. 525, 639; Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91-614, title I, Sec. 102(d)(8), 84 Stat. 1842; Dec. 10, 1971, Pub. L. 92-178, title V, Sec. 504(c), title VI, Sec. 601(d)(1), (e)(2), 85 Stat. 551, 558, 560; Sept. 2, 1974, Pub. L. 93-406, title II, Sec. 1016(a)(14), 88 Stat. 930; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1031(b)(5), 1035(d)(3), title XIII, Sec. 1302(b), 1307(d)(2)(F)(vi), title XIX, Sec. 1906(b)(13)(A), title XXI, Sec. 2107(g)(2)(A), 90 Stat. 1623, 1633, 1714, 1728, 1834, 1904; May 23, 1977, Pub. L. 95-30, title II, Sec. 202(d)(4)(A), (5)(B), 91 Stat. 149, 151; Feb. 10, 1978, Pub. L. 95-227, Sec. 4(d)(4), (5), 92 Stat. 23; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title II, Sec. 212(a), title III, Sec. 321(b)(2), title V, Sec. 504(b)(3), title VII, Sec. 701(t)(3)(A), 703(n), (p)(2), 92 Stat. 2818, 2835, 2881, 2912, 2943, 2944; Nov. 10, 1978, Pub. L. 95-628, Sec. 8(c)(1), 92 Stat. 3631; Apr. 1, 1980, Pub. L. 96-222, title I, Sec. 102(a)(2)(A), 103(a)(6)(G)(x), 94 Stat. 208, 210; Apr. 2, 1980, Pub. L. 96-223, title I, Sec. 101(g)(1), 94 Stat. 253; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, title IV, Sec. 402(c)(5), 96 Stat. 667; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, div. A, title I, Sec. 131(d)(2), 163(b)(1), title II, Sec. 211(b)(24), title III, Sec. 314(a)(3), title IV, Sec. 447(a), 474(r)(39), title VII, Sec. 714(p)(2)(F), title VIII, Sec. 801(d)(14), 98 Stat. 664, 697, 757, 787, 817, 846, 965, 997; Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, title XVIII, Sec. 1810(g)(3), 1847(b)(12)-(14), 100 Stat. 2828, 2857; Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100-203, title X, Sec. 10712(c)(2), 10714(c), 101 Stat. 1330-467, 1330- 471; Aug. 23, 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, title I, Sec. 1941(b)(2)(H), 102 Stat. 1323; Nov. 10, 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Sec. 1008(j)(1), title IV, Sec. 4008(c)(2), 102 Stat. 3445, 3653; Dec. 19, 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Sec. 7814(e)(2)(E), 103 Stat. 2414; Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, title XI, Sec. 11511(c)(2), 11602(b), 104 Stat. 1388-485, 1388-500.)
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of any tax imposed by
this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed (whether or not
such return was filed on or after the date prescribed) or, if the tax is payable by
stamp, at any time after such tax became due and before the expiration of 3 years
after the date on which any part of such tax was paid, and no proceeding in court
without assessment for the collection of such tax shall be begun after the expiration
of such period.
(b) [omitted]
(c) Exceptions
(1) and (2) [omitted]
(3) No return
In the case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a
proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without
assessment, at any time.
Unless I am required to file a return, you cannot make an assessment without a return.
Is this true or false?
What is the form required by the Paperwork Reduction Act which bears the OMB control number 1545-1241?
26 U.S.C. § 6654. Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 823; Sept. 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87-682, Sec. 1(a)(4), 76 Stat. 575; Mar. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89-368, title I, Sec. 102(b)(1)-(3), 103(a), 80 Stat. 62-64; Dec. 30, 1969, Pub. L. 91-172, title III, Sec. 301(b)(13), 83 Stat. 586; Mar. 17, 1971, Pub. L. 92-5, title II, Sec. 203(b)(7), 85 Stat. 11; July 1, 1972, Pub. L. 92-336, title II, Sec. 203(b)(7), 86 Stat. 420; July 9, 1973, Pub. L. 93-66, title II, Sec. 203(b)(7), (d), 87 Stat. 153; Dec. 31, 1973, Pub. L. 93-233, Sec. 5(b)(7), (d), 87 Stat. 954; Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 93-625, Sec. 7(c), 88 Stat. 2115; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title XIX, Sec. 1906(a)(35), (b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1829, 1834; May 23, 1977, Pub. L. 95-30, title I, Sec. 102(b)(16), 91 Stat. 139; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title IV, Sec. 421(e)(9), 92 Stat. 2877; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97-34, title VI, Sec. 601(a)(6)(A), title VII, Sec. 725(b), (c)(5), 95 Stat. 336, 346; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, title II, Sec. 207(d)(7), formerly Sec. 207(c)(7), title III, Sec. 307(a)(14), 308(a), 328(a), 96 Stat. 420, 590, 591, 618, renumbered Sec. 207(d)(7), Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97-448, title III, Sec. 306(a)(1)(A)(i), 96 Stat. 2400; Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97-448, title I, Sec. 106(a)(4)(C), 107(c)(1), title II, Sec. 201(j)(3), 96 Stat. 2390, 2391, 2396; Aug. 5, 1983, Pub. L. 98-67, title I, Sec. 102(a), 97 Stat. 369; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98- 369, div. A, title IV, Sec. 411, 98 Stat. 788; Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, title XIV, Sec. 1404(a), title XV, Sec. 1511(c)(14), 1541(a), (b), title XVIII, Sec. 1841, 100 Stat. 2713, 2745, 2751, 2852; Aug. 23, 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, title I, Sec. 1941(b)(6)(A), 102 Stat. 1324; Nov. 10, 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Sec. 1014(d)(1), (2), title IV, Sec. 4005(g)(5), 102 Stat. 3560, 3651; Dec. 19, 1989, Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Sec. 7811(j)(5), (6), 103 Stat. 2411, 2412; Nov. 15, 1991, Pub. L. 102-164, title IV, Sec. 403(a), (b), 105 Stat. 1062, 1064; Aug. 10, 1993, Pub. L. 103-66, title XIII, Sec. 13214(a), (b), 107 Stat. 475; Dec. 8, 1994, Pub. L. 103-465, title VII, Sec. 711(b), 108 Stat. 4998.)
(a) Addition to the tax
Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any underpayment of
estimated tax by an individual, there shall be added to the tax under chapter 1 and
the tax under chapter 2 for the taxable year an amount determined by applying -
(1) the underpayment rate established under section 6621,
(2) to the amount of the underpayment,
(3) for the period of the underpayment.
Again, the remuneration I, as a citizen, living and working within a state of the Union, receive for my services from a corporation founded in a state of the Union (and not a possession) is specifically excluded from "gross income" according to the regulations found in 26 CFR 1.861-8 and -8T. Therefore, the estimated tax is zero.
Is this true or false?
You and Mr. Burgess have failed to respond to me in a manner pursuant to Internal Revenue Manual § 1218 "Policies of the Internal Revenue Service" at P-1-156, P-1-179, and P-1-180. You have not communicated provisions of the law in understandable terms, you have failed in your responsibility to provide all possible information to assist me in the performance of any presumed obligation I may have, and you have denied me the right to know your interpretation of the above cited tax laws and the manner in which they are administered.
Again I state for the record my protest of your wrongful assessment procedures and the fact that the Notice itself is deficient, by:
a. the Notice failing to be signed pursuant to § 6065;
b. the alleged "DEFICIENCY" does not meet the definition of "deficiency", nor does it come
within the statutory authority of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6014, 6211, and 6212; and ;
c. your failure to provide any evidence of any "Gross income" being earned from any sources
taxable regarding U.S. Citizens has caused you to illegally and erroneously apply 26
U.S.C. § 6501(c)(3) to substantiate your assessment and subsequent deficiency.
It is quite obvious that this action taken by you and Mr. Burgess, and your silence in the face of my demands is a fraudulent misuse of the Internal Revenue Code deficiency/assessment procedures. Should you proceed to assessment, collection, and levy actions without first giving me an administrative Appeals Conference, you will have denied me Due Process of law as required by the Constitution, by the laws enacted by Congress, by the regulations promulgated thereto by the Secretary, and by your own procedures manuals.
Sincerely,
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill
Brad L. Barnhill
cc: Mr. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Mr. Roger K. Burgess, District Director of Internal Revenue, Richmond, Virginia
United States Tax Court
The Honorable Congressman Virgil Goode, Jr., 5th Congressional District of Virginia
The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Senator of Virginia
The Honorable John W. Warner, Jr., Senator of Virginia
Thursday, 30 April 1998
The Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr
5th Congressional District of Virginia
1520 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Sir:
I wrote to you in January with regard to the Executive Department's wanton disregard for the statutes enacted by you and your predecessors, and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury. I wrote to you in March and attached a Privacy Act Release for you so that you could look into this matter.
I write today, to again express my dismay for the utter lack of substantial response from the District Director on this matter.
After clearly outlining my position, he completely ignored all of my questions, and libelously labeled me as a "tax protestor". I was under the impression that a question asked in good faith should be given a responsive reply, especially since the Internal Revenue Code is so incredibly large and I must be completely appraised of its meaning so I can comply with the laws enacted by you and your predecessors.
A Citizen must be able to rely on the written laws enacted by you and the regulations promulgated thereto. I am not asking for you to decide this issue. I am asking that you convince Mr. Burgess, the District Director, that he needs to schedule an Administrative Appeals Conference before he proceeds any further. I think that together, he and I can come to a determination of this issue, before my family loses its home, or my pay is irreconcilably garnished. Any further action on his part will be outside the Due Process guarantees demanded by the Constitution and enacted into law by you and your predecessors.
Twenty years ago, I took a solemn promise to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Any loss I suffer through the unauthorized actions of Mr. Burgess is a tragedy not only for me and my family, but for all Americans who would willingly lay down their lives to protect that great Document and the Republic created by the people. If the Citizens cannot rely on the words in the laws to protect them from rogue federal agencies acting outside their authority, then no one is safe.
I would appreciate it if you would again refer to my correspondence of 28 January 1998 and consider the changes to the Internal Revenue code as I suggested by repealing § 6404(b) and § 7421. Without these changes, abuses by the Executive branch will continue unabated and in contravention to Due Process.
Sincerely,
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill
Brad L. Barnhill
cc: The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Senator of Virginia
The Honorable John W. Warner, Jr., Senator of Virginia
Mr. Brad L. Barnhill
16th Judicial Circuit
109 Shale Place
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Barnhill:
Thank you for your letter dated April 30, 1998. My office will be glad to call Mr. Burgess about your situation, but I do not think that he will change his position with regard to an administrative conference. However, we will be glad to call.
As I have indicated in the past, I am a cosponsor on the bill that would terminate the current IRS code. I hope that we could adopt something that would be thorough and simple.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,|
brad.barnhill@mindspring.comHomeSite v2.5 Last Updated: Thursday, January 21, 1999 10:39:01 PM |
Go to the main journal: Tax Freedom - A Personal Odyssey |