COVER SHEET

 

To:                   Internal Revenue Service

Department of the Treasury

Attention: Fresno Office

Attention: Mr. Dennis Parisek, Ogden UT

 

From:               Melvin A Furtado - SS# ______________________

2428A Puunoa Place

Honolulu, HI 96816

 

Re:                   A "determination" made by unauthorized person(s) according to law

A "sanction" (frivolous penalty) issued by unauthorized person(s)

                        Both aforementioned are willful, knowing acts of extortion Under Color of Law and Office

(Title 18 United States Code - Sections 241, 242, 872, 876 and 1341)

 

CONTENTS:

 

 

 

Melvin A. Furtado

2428A Puunoa Place

Honolulu, HI 96816

 Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Fresno, CA  93888-0010

Date: 1/29/03

 

Re: Penalty Assessment / Civil Penalty, IR Code 6702

TIN# 576-80-5464

Tax Periods:            Dec. 31, 1998

Dec. 31, 1999

Dec. 31, 2000 &

Dec. 31, 2001

 

 

Mr. Parizek (or IRS personnel responsible for making numerous "frivolous" determinations, and issuing "frivolous" penalties),

 

The above list of enclosures is to provide you with a background of what has transpired in the way of my correspondence with your agency.  It provides you a comprehensive timeline to give you a sense of what, I believe,

is an ongoing attempt to delay, impede, obstruct and eventually frustrate the administrative process and the refund

of erroneously withheld property (Federal Reserve Notes) for an alleged "income tax liability."

 

The reasons for this contention is laid out in the following response to the "frivolous penalties" I have recently received, following your agencies 1 year delay, and after fraudulently claiming that all four original returns I filed had not been received, when in fact, as my Individual Master File proves, they had been.

After notifying me on two occasions that you "need more time" because, "we're still researching the issue...", you called my returns "frivolous".  This is laughable in and of itself.  Just how much "research", and how many years, does it take the average agent to decide a return if "frivolous", baseless, and without legal foundation?

 

To further exacerbate the situation, after my 1998 return was disallowed due to alleged "statute of limitations," the exact, same return was sanctioned with a $500 "frivolous return" penalty.  I was told I have appeal rights, so I have exercised those rights.  That was 11 months ago, and I have yet to have that appeal acknowledged in any way.  Is it possible that it too "was lost" in the mail?

 

Not according to the return receipt which I now hold.

 

With that said, I will now address your last correspondence.

 

This is in response to your recent, unsigned correspondence which claims that I have submitted "frivolous returns" and was therefore being penalized a $500 "frivolous return" penalty (for each).  I must assume, Mr. Perisek, dangerous as that may be, that you are indeed the sender of all seven unsigned "Notices of Penalty" because of your previous correspondence informing me that I would be penalized, for a form that I have sworn to and signed under oath of perjury, if I did not change it.

 

Your determination, that a sanction can be made, and that you are authorized to make it, is highly optimistic on your part, especially considering the fact you have no authority to do what you've done.  In legal terms, your actions can best be described as, "a knowing, willful attempt to extort under Color of Office and Law."

 

You, Mr. Parizek (provided that is the name you are going by this week), are fully aware of the effectiveness of your actions in regards to the general public.  You are also fully aware of your culpability.  This is made quite evident by your decision to choose anonymity when sending out all seven of your bogus "notices of penalty", each of which represents a different and separate attempt to extort under Color of Office.

 

 

Mr. Parisek, please read this again, carefully, so that you grasp the severity of its content.  It describes and defines exactly what it is you have done, and attempting to do.  Please be aware that numerous sections of the USC, Title 18, make this unlawful.

 

And in the event that you are unaware, an unsigned demand of any kind, by a government agency, that leaves the actual validity of such demand in question, is (quite obviously) null and void.  And in the event that it is found that these demands are made beyond the scope of authority of the person making the demand, as is such the case here, these acts are unlawful.  And direct violations of Title 18 can carry very heavy fines and stiff penalties, including imprisonment.   In other words, Mr. Parisek, you are headed towards trouble being in a far greater trouble than I could ever be!

 

Be advised, Mr. Parizek, that you are being put on formal notice.  You will be held accountable, even in the aftermath, long after all the dust has settled, like Nuremberg, for every unlawful act that denies, delays, or debilitates                                               

my Rights to my constitutionally protected property.  I will seek compensation for all property withheld.  I will also seek for damages suffered.  I will then see to it that you are held accountable, to the letter of the law, for every violation of law. 

 

Abiding by the letter of written law, Mr. Parisek, is our responsibility as Americans (assuming that you are one, of course).  But more importantly, it is your duty as a public servant. 

 

I hold my Constitutionally Protected Rights to Property most dear, as I do all my rights.  Be it God-given or government-endorsed, violation of my rights will not be tolerated.  I will meet all criminal acts by government employees or common street criminals with the same vigor and tenacity.  Theft of my property, whether it is by breaking and entering, or by IRS extortion under Color of Law, is robbery.

 

With that said, and in hopes that I have made myself perfectly clear, I'd like to now address your lack of authority.

 

As you already know, Mr. Parizek, the authority required to issue sanctions, penalties and fines has never been delegated to anyone, let alone to you.  In fact, no IRS agent, not even the commissioner, is given any authority to do anything in regards to the income tax.  The IRC doesn't mention anyone having any power to do anything, except for the Secretary of the Department of Treasury.  That being the case, all powers rest solely in the hands of the Secretary of the United States Treasury.

 

For someone who is supposed to know the IR code, you should at least be aware of Section 6671 (TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > Sec. 6671), where it reads:

 

Sec. 6671. - Rules for application of assessable penalties

(a) Penalty assessed as tax

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes.  Except as otherwise provided, any reference in this title to ''tax'' imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

 

The "subchapter" being referenced is Subchapter B, entitled "Assessable Penalties".  It covers Section 6670 through 6724, which includes Section 6702, entitled, "Frivolous income tax return".

 

So, are you the new Secretary of the United States Treasury, Mr. Parizek, and is this the "notice and demand" that only he is otherwise authorized to send?

 

Under what statute(s) and legislative regulation(s) do you pretend to derive your alleged authority to make determinations, declare sanctions, and then issue penalties?

 

The definition of "Secretary" in found in Section 7701 of the IRC.  This definition can be expanded to include the Secretary's delegate, someone given "delegated authority" by the Secretary, by way of a valid "delegation order."

 

So, are you now, or have you ever been, this "delegated authority" for the Secretary, Mr. Parisek? 

 

Mere presentment of such valid delegation would convince me that I indeed owe fines for penalties assessed.  But can you produce this valid proof of delegated authority, signed by the Secretary, Mr. Parisek?

 

My guess is you cannot, Mr. Parisek, because you do not have any such authority.  As a matter of fact, I need not even guess.  It's a fact that IRS agents have never been delegated by the Secretary to do anything in regards to the income tax, accept perhaps to collect it when it is voluntarily offered.  But how can I be so sure?

 

The Secretary certainly does not need a delegate to make determinations and to issue sanctions for a tax that is, for all intents and purposes, voluntary for Americans Citizens.

 

And that makes perfect sense.  Why would he authorize anyone to do anything for a tax that is based on "voluntary-compliance and self assessment?"

 

Also, Mr. Parizek, you should consider where the burden of proof lies in regards to the penalties that you unlawfully sent out under this subchapter?

 

Sec. 6703. - Rules applicable to penalties under sections 6700, 6701, and 6702

(a) Burden of proof

In any proceeding involving the issue of whether or not any person is liable for a penalty under section 6700, 6701, or 6702, the burden of proof with respect to such issue shall be on the Secretary.

 

Does the Secretary know you are issuing phony, unauthorized "notices of penalty", terrorizing the American public with "pretend power" that you've never had, and that he now must prove to be valid?

 

And is the new Secretary, Mr. John Snow, ready to explain and testify as to why the average Joe Blow IRS pencil pushing administrative agent is out threatening law-abiding citizens with authority he does not have?

 

And do you think, Mr. Parisek, that Secretary Snow will appreciate seeing that the IRS' idea of implementing its mission statement starts with evading, avoiding and then violating the laws of the IRC?

 

And furthermore, Mr. Parisek, EVEN IF you were so authorized to make this determination, EVEN IF YOU WERE THE SECRETARY HIMSELF (allowing your imagination to run wild for just one moment) close examination and a third grade reading level should tell you it would still be bogus and unlawful, not to mention idiotic and laughable!

 

Section 6702 (B) reads:

(b) Penalty in addition to other penalties

The penalty imposed by subsection (a) shall be in addition to any other penalty provided by law

 

Your unsigned, "bootleg" document, as explained earlier, isn't worthy of consideration outside of, "which trash bin" should be used for it.  Under whose authority are you breaking the law, Mr. Parisek?  My Individual Master File shows NO OTHER PENALTY has ever been issued.  So how can a Section 6702 (a) Frivolous Penalty be warranted when Sub-part (b) clearly states (a) can only be given "in addition to other penalty?"

 

What other penalty is there, Mr. Parisek?  Could it be that you are in violations of Section 6702(a) by not complying with the mandatory provision of section 6702(b)?  Are you breaking another law, Mr. Parisek?

 

You see, Mr. Parizek, your fraudulent claim that I owe a penalty for a Section 6702 violation (a determination you are unauthorized to make), I believe, was an IRS creation put together for the sole purpose of impeding, delaying, and eventually frustrating the administrative process that I seek to exhaust. 

 

Your claim is without merit. It is criminal in nature, and has no basis in reality, let alone law.

 

Your claim is frivolous.  Your "bill" for "payment of penalty" is hereby denied.

 

Let me state clearly that I am [and always have been] willing to file and pay any lawful and legally imposed excise tax obligation for which written law makes me liable.  Such enacted federal tax law must include (1) an enacted Statute in 26 USC, (2) an Implementing Regulation for said statute in 26 CFR, and (3) the promulgation of said Implementing Regulation in the Federal Register referenced by volume, date, and page number.

 

I am not aware of, nor do I have any knowledge of, any lawful and legal imposition of any income tax liability [like Subtitle A income tax, the 1040 tax, &/or the Subtitle C, Chapter 24 Collection of Income Tax at Source], which is legally and lawfully applicable to American Citizens.  However, I am open to any evidence or proof that you can provide that says otherwise.

 

As I was born in Hawaii, one of the 50 States of the Union, please understand that I am an American Citizen, not a "U.S. Citizen."   A "U.S. Citizen" as defined in 8 USC Section 1401, which parallels the verbiage found in the 14th Amendment referencing inferior federal statutory citizens who are those defined by the federal government to be those "born in the United States [meaning the federal area which consists of Washington, DC & US Territories and Possessions] and subject to the exclusive [sovereign] jurisdiction thereof [meaning subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress]."

 

Such acts without proof of claim to the contrary will be understood to be a fraudulent conveyance of the language for the extortion of the truth, and the extortion of my personal property.  Once again, so that there's no misunderstanding, I have never had any taxable liability for the non-enacted Subtitle A, Income tax or the Subtitle C, Chapter 24 Collection of income tax at source.

 

As a courtesy, I remind you of the enacted federal laws stated in Title 18 pertaining to actions for remedy available to me for fraudulent conveyances for the extortion of the truth and extortion of the money perpetrated by a federal employee or federal officer under Color of Office and Color of Law. 

 

 

Mr. Parizek, it is obvious that you never bothered to take the time and carefully review my returns (1998 -2001) in its entirety.  The 2-page attachment could have easily been confirmed, rebutted or refuted, because 100% of its contents are mere photocopies of your 1040 booklet's Notice 609 (Privacy and Paper Reduction Act Notices), the United States Code's Title 26, the Code of Federal Regulations, IRS Publications, and numerous Supreme court decisions available on line at the governments own web pages.

 

And if you were truly knowledgeable of the law, you could have never arrived at a "frivolous" determination for any of my returns.  The information I provided is irrefutable fact!  I merely cited the law, without spinning it, interpreting it, re-writing it, or falsely representing it.  I read it, and then do what it says to do. 

 

If you had taken the time, then you'd agree that issuing an "unauthorized frivolous penalty" (as will be addressed shortly) is either, an embarrassing acknowledgment to ignorance of the law, or a carefully planned conspiracy to deprive me of my constitutionally protected property.  In any event, you are forewarned that I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!

 

With that said, let me remind you, Mr. Parisek, of a couple things that I'm sure you are well aware, but apparently have forgotten (and in the event that this is "news" to you, consider yourself hereby "put on formal notice"):


 

1.       No IRS agent was ever delegated with any authority by the Secretary of Treasury to impose such a "frivolous" penalty.

 

2.       Nor has Treasury ever issued a legislative regulation implementing Code Section 6702, thereby giving it the full force and effect of law.  Without a legislative regulation for implementation, Code Section 6702 is much like parsley on your dinner plate... impressive looking but basically useless!

 

With the above-mentioned facts in mind, Code Section 6702 is totally benign, and has no force and effect of law, even if you had the authority to issue it.

 

Consequently, if you further pursue this erroneous sanction, attempting to collect it by distraint, using a fraudulent Notice of Levy, I will not only sue for recovery based upon the above information, but I will also claim violations of 5 USC 556 (d), and 558 (b), and file criminal charges against you, and others, pursuant to Code Section 7214 and 18 USC 241.

 

Frivolous?  Who is really being frivolous here?

In addition, any "frivolous" penalty is unsupported by the provisions of Section 6702 itself, and is clearly arbitrary and capricious on its face.  Section 6702 reads:

 

Section 6702
(1) any individual files what purports to be a return of the tax imposed by subtitle A but which -

(A) does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or

(B) contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect; and

 

(2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) is due to -

(A) a position which is frivolous, or

(B) a desire (which appears on the purported return) to delay or impede the administration of Federal income tax laws, then such individual shall pay a penalty of $500.

So in order to be subject to the penalty, my returns would have to fall under at least two of these four conditions, meeting at least one of two qualifiers for part (a) and (b) respectively.  However, quick analysis of my return shows that it meets none of the four pre-qualifying conditions.

 

1)  "Does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged"

 

My return does contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, since my "zero" return is based on no less than four Supreme Court cases, all of which held that the word "income," as used "in all of the income Tax Acts of Congress," has the same meaning "that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909."  And since I had no "income" that would have been taxable under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, I had no earnings that can be taxable as "income" today.

In addition, your letter makes no mention whatsoever of these Supreme Court cases I cited, let alone, any attempt to show how my reliance on them is misplaced. Therefore, your claim that my return does "not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged," is arbitrary, capricious, and flies directly in the face of these Supreme Court decisions.  (Attachment 02)

2)  "Contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect"

Based on the above, it would be equally arbitrary and capricious to claim that the information on my 1998 return, "on its face, indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect."  The figures and cases cited in my return, "indicate" that my figures are correct, and your letter offers absolutely no evidence in rebuttal. Thus, my return does not fall into any of the first two threshold paragraphs, which must be met, before the next two conditions can even apply, the first one being that my position would have to reflect "a position which is frivolous."

 

3) "A position that is frivolous"

In case you are unaware of the meaning of "frivolous," the following definition from the "New World Dictionary, Second College Edition," should help you:

 

Frivolous 1. Of little value or importance; trifling; trivial; not properly serious or sensible; silly and light minded; giddy.

 

Based on this definition, it is apparent that my returns are not frivolous.  It is supported by court decisions, rulings and direct quotations from:

   -No less than Four Supreme Court cases, and one appellate decision;

-With references to five other supporting court decisions, and

-Nine Internal Revenue Code Sections, two Treasury Regulations, and
-Supporting references to Privacy Act Notice provisions (as contained in the 1040 booklet), and

-Two OMB numbers as contained on two relevant documents.

AND NONE OF THESE REFERENCES WERE EVEN ADDRESSED, LET ALONE REFUTED, IN YOUR LETTER.  It apparently is much easier to call something "frivolous" than to actually prove it false.

 

You have offered nothing to rebut, refute or address anything specifically to justify your blanket determination of "frivolous".  Could that be because you are unable to provide anything relevant to disprove the factual nature of my evidence?

 

4) "Desire to Delay or Impede..."

 

Also, my return most certainly does not reflect "A desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal income tax laws."  Instead, my return is designed to be a final statement of my position, as I am stating that, "no such laws exist," by pointing out that "no code section made me 'liable' for income taxes."  And you too must support this contention because you certainly wasted no energy trying to prove otherwise.

 

So how can it be alleged that my returns sought out to "delay or impede" laws that my return clearly contends do not even exist, and that you cannot find?

 

Simply identifying the Code Section that made me "liable" for income taxes could have easily and vehemently refuted my contention.  It's quite apparent to me now that "no code section exists."  Your silence on the issue supports the fact that even the Internal Revenue Service can't find the law either!

 

Privacy Act & Paper Reduction Act Notices - (Please see Attachment 01 - Frivolous questionnaire!)

As was pointed out in my return, your Privacy and Paper Reduction Act Notice (Notice 609) notified me that I only had to file "a return or statement" for any tax I might be "liable for."  But nowhere in that Notice was a statute identified that established such a "liability," or required me to pay such a tax, or even file a 1040 in connection with income taxes. 

 

This is in sharp contrast with the comparable Notice contained in IRS Form 730, which specifically identifies the specific form (in two places) to be used by bookmakers, who must file in connection with the federal wagering tax.  It also identifies for them code sections 412 and 4401(a) as being the code sections that make bookmakers "liable" for the wagering tax, and requiring them to pay tax on the basis of a return. 

 

If I am required to file a 1040 and pay an income tax, why doesn't the Privacy Act Notice in a 1040 booklet say so?  Why does it not identify the code sections in the same manner as it is provided for bookmakers on their Form 730?

 

Could it be because these code sections, regarding income taxes, do not exist?  Here's what the IRC says about other "imposed" taxes for which the law says you are liable:

 

Sec. 4401. Imposition of Tax. ... (c) Persons liable for tax. Each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under this subchapter on all wagers placed with him. Each person who conducts any wagering pool or lottery shall be liable for and shall pay the tax...

 

Sec. 5005. Persons liable for tax. (a) General. The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1)...

 

Sec. 5703. Liability for tax and method of payment. (a) Liability for tax. (1) Original liability. The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701.

 

Why is it that within the 5,000 pages of the January, 2002 Edition of the Internal Revenue Code's Subtitle A - Income Tax, there exists but one section making anyone "liable" for the income tax?

 

Section 1461. Liability for withheld tax

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

 

And why is it that "every person required to deduct and withhold..." refers only to Sections 1441, 1442, and 1443, which are entitled, "Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens", "Withholding of tax on foreign corporations", and "Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations" respectively?

 

Once again, could it be that like every IRS Commissioner for the past thirty years has publicly announced time and time again, "our system of taxation is based on voluntary-compliance and self-assessment"?  And could it also be that Subtitle A - Income Tax only pertains to aliens and foreign corporations, just like tax protesters have been saying for the last 30 years?

 

OMB Numbers

 

In addition, paragraph four of my statement explains why reference to 26 CFR 602.101 proves that Section 1 of the Internal Code has nothing to do with reporting income on a Form 1040, but is related to reporting foreign... earned income on Form 2555.  So whoever is responsible for imposing this $500.00 penalty on me, better be prepared to explain, under oath, why 26 CFR 602.101 refers to Form 2555 and not to Form 1040 in connection with Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Your letter made no reference (let alone a denial) of this anomaly when you notified me that my returns were "frivolous."

Furthermore, the person or persons responsible for unlawfully imposing this penalty on me had better be prepared to testify under oath, on how I can be compelled to be a witness against myself, as explained in paragraph 6 of my statement, especially since bookmakers are informed on their 730 form, that the information cannot be used against them, while the Privacy Act Notice in the 1040 booklet, notified me that all information stated on Form 1040, can be used against me, by a variety of governments and government agencies, as is more extensively spelled out in Section 6103 of the Code. Let me make note here, that you did not address this issue (let alone deny it) when you claimed my returns were determined "frivolous".

Income Definitively Defined

 

Your letter claiming that I had filed a "frivolous" income tax return made no mention at all of my statements (let alone refute them) regarding the vital facts surrounding the definition of "income" for income tax purposes.  Those facts are:

 

1. "Income" is not defined in the Code, and
2. The Supreme Court defined income as "corporate profit."

Knowing this is the true definition of income for income tax purposes, and wanting to be a law abiding citizen, if I were to swear under penalty of perjury to receiving anything other than "zero" income, I would be swearing falsely, and thus I would be committing perjury under at least two statutes.
 

Mr. Parizek, is it your wish that I lie under oath and perjure myself, claiming I made X amount of "taxable income", when I know that this would be physically impossible (I'm not a corporation so cannot produce corporate profit or gain)?

 

Mr. Parizek, after admitting that you have no delegation of authority from the Secretary at a deposition, are you prepared to explain why you feel you can violate the law and pretend to have authority only the Secretary is lawfully authorized to have?

 

And are you prepared to explain how I can be "liable" for this tax, after having to admit under oath that you can't find a law that makes me liable? 

 

And will you be able to refute or rebut even a single point made on my two-page attachment that you claim is not worthy of serious consideration, or frivolous? 

 

And lastly, if your claim of "frivolous return" is based on my "zero" income returns not being legitimate, can you explain, under oath, why you choose to arbitrarily ignore two Ninth Circuit decisions (cited and quoted in my return, along with one tax court and one 7^th circuit court) that have ruled otherwise? 

 

"A (1040) form with 'zeros' inserted in the space provided...qualified as a return," US v. Long, 618 F.2d 74 (1980) & US v. Kimball 896. 2d 1218 (1990), and U.S. v. Moore 627 F.2d 8839 (7^th Circuit 1980)

 

And a Las Vegas Bankruptcy court held that:

 

"Zeroes entered on a Form 1040 constitutes a return."  Cross v. U.S., 91-2 USTC, p.50, 318, Banker L. Rep., p.7404

 

While the IRS may be able to claim that it is not bound by appellate court decisions in other circuits, it is absolutely bound by Ninth Circuit decisions.  Therefore, Mr. Parisek, if your "frivolous" determination is based on the "zero" income return not qualifying as a legitimate return, it behooves you to look at the two citations above.  These decisions are binding on the IRS.  You may not ignore this fact with impunity.

 

And if you, by chance, believe I have sworn falsely on my 1998 return, then I challenge you to make that formal charge. 

 

I will not allow you to damage my good standing as an American Citizen with fraudulent practices that lead you to make unauthorized determinations and ultimately, unlawful sanctions.

 

Furthermore, in accordance to Section 6703, which clearly places the "burden of proof" on your organization directly or indirectly, I hereby demand that you meet the above-mentioned "burden."  Don't just say my returns are "frivolous".  Prove my returns are "frivolous!"  Failure to do so makes your "frivolous penalty" itself frivolous.

 

And as stated earlier, if you insist on disregarding the law (and all of the statutes cited herein) and arbitrarily and illegally impose a $500.00 penalty on me, and then proceed to collect it by distraint (using a bogus Notice of Levy), I will be compelled to institute a lawsuit to recover such funds.  And in such a lawsuit, I will seek punitive damages. 

 

I will also seek your removal from the agency, and from public service.  I will swear out a complaint that my Rights are, and have been, "under illegal and unjustified attack by a government agent who is operating with gross negligence, total disregard for law, and threatening to harm me with powers he neither has, nor can obtain."

 

When stacked one on top of the other, the number of unlawful acts you've initiated is quite impressive.  It should cause you great concern. 

 

My administrative efforts are exhausted.  Judicially, I will do everything possible.  I will see to it that you are held accountable to the letter of law.

 

I've not the time nor energy to waste dealing with this affair any longer.  You have my property, and I demand for its expeditious return.  Anything short of this will compel me to take action.  You will have left me no other choice.

 

I await your timely response and immediate action. 

 

I hereby swear that the aforementioned is, to the best of knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and fully supported by statutes, regulations, court decisions, as well as numerous government generated forms and publications.
 

Constitutionally Yours,

 

__________________________________

Melvin A. Furtado
Attachment 00

(My Second) Demand For A CDP Hearing or General Meeting

To Address Unlawful Sanctions and "frivolous penalty"
 

 

Attachment 01

 

To be completed by IRS personnel who determined my returns were "frivolous".

Upon completion, please send via self addressed and stamped envelope!!!

 

 

What is "frivolous" about my return?

Frivolous Questionnaire

 

Like any other imposed tax found in the IRC, "liability" is the central issue for determining who is statutorily required to pay the imposed tax.  And as shown earlier, Sections 4401, 5005 and 5703 are just a few examples of how "liability" is accomplished.  Quite plainly, it's stated, and very clearly:

 

"Each person who conducts any wagering pool or lottery shall be liable for and shall pay..."

"The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed"

"The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products ...shall be liable for the taxes"

 

Why is it that within the 5,000 pages of the January, 2002 Edition of the Internal Revenue Code's Subtitle A Income Tax, there exists but one section making anyone "liable" for the income tax, and that section applies to employers of foreigners?

 

The laws are clear.  It tells us repeatedly that we must all "pay any tax for which you are liable".

Congress obviously designed the law to be constitutional, and did so by not making it statutorily required of Americans!  It was Congressional intent to make only foreign individuals and foreign corporations operating within the U.S., liable for the income tax.  It has always been voluntary for Americans

 

I have cited statutes, regulations, court rulings and excerpts from IRS Publications, and have faithfully steered clear of use of these citations "out of context".  Apparently you disagree.  I have made no "interpretations of the law", however, at times I must make inference, but do so based solely on the content of the law and the actual words within.  Still, you have determined this frivolous.  I do not understand why.  I need to understand what is frivolous by your determination.

 

On that note, I ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.  Below you'll find a very basic and simple path that one might travel when searching for "liability" for the income tax.  It must be noted that this is but one path.  There are many.  Each and every path, however, brings you to the same conclusion:

 

"There is no law making me, an American Citizen, working within the 50 sovereign states of the union, liable for the payment of an income tax."

 

The following scenario's starting point is Paper Reduction Act Notice found in the 1040 booklet.  Please point out which parts below are "frivolous."  It is arranged in a step-by-step, point-by-point basis.  Simply check the appropriate boxes so I can pinpoint exactly where I become "frivolous" according to you determination.

 

Step 1) The only Code Sections identified in your Privacy and Paper Reduction Act Notice as allegedly applying to an income tax "liability," are Code Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012, and none of them identify any such "liability."  It is questionable whether or not they even pertain to Subtitle A - Income Tax. 

 

 

Code Section 6001, for example, merely states that "every person liable for any tax, shall..." do various things, but the section doesn't mention income taxes, nor how such a "liability" is created.  In does state, however, that "whenever in the judgment of the Secretary, he may require any person by notice served upon such person or by regulations to make such returns...." Since no such Notice was ever "served upon" me by the Secretary", Code Section 6001 actually notifies me, albeit indirectly, that I am not required to file an income tax return.  It tells me that the Secretary will send notice if filing is necessary. 

 

 

Code Section 6011 merely states that "When required by regulation.... any person made liable for any tax..." shall do certain things.  However, like Code Section 6001, Section 6011 does not mention income taxes; much less identify what section of law, or legislative regulation "made me liable" for an income tax.  Like Section 6001, 6011 makes it perfectly clear that they say nothing about "WHO IS LIABLE?"

 

 

And Code Section 6012 does not even contain the word "liability" or "liable," therefore, this section can have nothing to do with determining my liability.

 

 

None of the Code Sections (6001, 6011 or 6012) identified in the Privacy Act Notice have made me "liable" for income taxes, nor do they instruct me where to find my liability.

 

 

So as you can see, all three Code Sections mentioned in the Privacy and Paper Reduction Act Notices work in unison to firm up my contention.  They confirm, albeit indirectly, that I am not required to file a return, keep books and records, or to pay the tax.   Only those "liable" or "notified by the Secretary" are required to perform these tasks and fulfill these requirements.