|FORMS: 0.1a Test for Federal Tax Professionals|
This document has been reviewed on the MSN Tax board. Click here to see what people had to say about is. Incidentally, the version reviewed was very old and outdated. The current version does not suffer from the defects talked about on the board.
To many people, assertions from so-called "experts" carry more weight than actual evidence. It is quite easy for some tax professionals to claim that the conclusions in this document incorrect, or even "nonsense." But it seems these so-called "experts" never have the time to actually point out a specific error in the forty-some page report. The following test narrows the issue down to the fundamental and relevant questions. The supporting citations for each question are self-explanatory, shifting the burden of proof to the tax professionals to explain why the citations don’t mean what they say, and to provide citations supporting their assertions. There must be some citation that the "experts" use to justify their blatant disregard of the numerous citations shown, right? Don’t hold your breath waiting to see it. (All emphasis in citations below has been added.)
The focus of this section is to provide a list of canned questions tailored for specific circumstances or situations you are likely to face with the IRS. These questions are carefully designed to very quickly and very succinctly bring the IRS to their senses and force them to face the truth and what the law says about our lack of liability for whatever it is that they are trying to hold us accountable for. We use the UCC and their lack of response to establish fact that immunizes us against prosecution. Because IRS revenue agents are not taught to know the law and instead are taught to follow canned procedures, we have devoted special attention to make the questions brief, relatively simple, and easy for even a busy revenue agent to verify. We also advise you, when submitting these questions to the IRS, to encourage them to seek legal advice if they aren’t sure about the correct answer, not unlike what they do when responding to some of the things we send them.
When (or if) you get the answers back, we provide at the beginning of each of the subsequent subsections, a list of sections within this document that both the questions and the answers were derived from so that you can research the IRS’ answers for yourselves if they decide to try to obfuscate or intimidate you.
The basis for the requirement for the questions in subsequent sections derives specifically from section 2.3.1 and section 184.108.40.206. Section 220.127.116.11 is where we recommended using IRS incompetency and the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) to shift the burden of proof over to the IRS to prove our specific liability. One of the guidelines appearing in that section was to submit a short list of legal questions (not moral or ethical questions, which will be ignored and called frivolous) to the IRS that address the foundation of the issues they have. Each question must containing default answers derived from specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations that we have personally researched, which is also your way of notifying them of your position on the issue. By using questions, we establish firm ground for the good faith basis of our beliefs and convictions about our lack of legal liabilities. We also establish a basis to reproach the agents we can identify by name that we are working with openly in court and in front of the jury for being ignorant, irresponsible, unresponsive, incompetent, and downright evil. The questions in this section are intended to demonstrate:
1. What our beliefs are.
2. That our beliefs are in good faith with no intent to abdicate our lawful responsibilities or deceive, but instead we want to understand and be educated if we are in error.
3. That we are not a person who is liable for the penalty or tax they claim we owe.
4. The foundation of our belief is based on detailed and disciplined study of the Internal Revenue Code, the Treasury Regulations (26 CFR), and the rulings of the federal courts.
5. We wish to comply with the law as written and expect the same out of the IRS.
6. If the agent reading the letter does not understand the law, then he is admonished to seek legal counsel just like they routinely advise us in their letters.
7. We wish to challenge the legal basis of the authority of the IRS and the agent we are in contact with to make the claims he/she is making.
8. That we insist on proper and complete identification of all persons we are dealing with in case they must be sued or criminally prosecuted for malfeasance or extortion under the color of office.
9. That all communications must be in writing and signed by a real person using their real legal name.
10. That the public trust position of the agent we are dealing with requires them to act morally and ethically and as a fiduciary in pursuit of our, not the government’s, best interests. We need to remind them that they are “public servants”: we are the “public” and they are the “servants”.
11. That good faith dealings demand a personal response from them on all issues we raise and a measure of personal responsibility and accountability on their part, rather than ignoring our communications and continuing to harass us with threatening and anonymous automated communications. To do so without justified cause would constitute fraud. This requirement is consistent with the Code of Ethics for Federal Employees we talked about earlier in section 2.1