Conference back40::soapbox

    There was a time when politicians could fool us by pledging to cut
    taxes without specifying what budget cuts would be made to compensate.
    This time the Republicans (as the Democrats before them) have pledged
    not to touch Social Security.  Further, they have pledged to
    significantly increase defense spending.  (In a previous note, I have
    mentioned that they actually plan to freeze spending, but in any case,
    they have pledged not to cut it.)  Interest payments on the national
    debt are a legal obligation.
    
    The US budget has now grown so out of whack that when you take Social
    Security, defense, and debt service off the table, what's left -- *all
    of what's left* -- is no longer enough to make up for balancing the
    budget (balanced-budget amendment, remember?) and cutting taxes.  On
    today's morning news shows, Republican legislators  (Senator Dole and
    the incoming head of the House Ways and Means Committee) didn't even
    try to answer the question of how they could make it add up.
    
    On a personal note, I have no love for either the tax code or the IRS. 
    But the crusade to reform taxes by getting rid of the IRS seems utterly
    misguided.  If it's not the IRS collecting income taxes, it'll be the
    VAT Agency or the National Sales Tax Board or some damn thing. Dumping
    the income tax because you hate the IRS is like voting Republican
    because you hate politicians.

>    One of the ten pieces of legislation the Republican Party has pledged
>    to bring to a House vote in the first 100 days of the new Congress is
>    to reform the tax codes and to do away with the Internal Revenue
>    Service.

So, is this "One" thing or "two" things? What is it that you think is going
to happen in the 1st hundred days?

I know it's Sunday, but your revisions seem somehwat lax today.

    Two things, and the new House Ways and Means chairman, whose idea it is
    to do away with the IRS, is not expecting to get it done right away.

IRS consists of a multitude of petty bureaucrats and their attack-dog minions
mucking about in people's private affairs in the search for a few more pathetic
bucks to feed the avaricious appetite of an out-of-control spending thing called
Washington.  Their interests lie only in "producing" more revenue, as that's the
way to be noticed and promoted.

IRS agents have turned legal procedures on their head, and routinely violate
Constitutional rights.  Tax Court too is tilted against the people.  IRC
occupies something like twelve feet of shelf space, and Congress continually
tinkers with the Code.  How can anyone understand it, much less comply?

Any revenoo-er who crashes into my house without a proper warrant had better
have his estate planning in order.

Need two barrels on this shotgun: one for the IRS, another for the IRC.
While we're at it, how about repealing the worst mistake this country ever
made: Sixteenth Amendment.

-Jerry

    The IRS is one of the many government agencies that depends on coersion
    and force in order to usurp power. They are destructive to human life,
    productivity, prosperity and happiness. The destructiveness of the
    government is implemented mainly through force-backed bureaucracies
    like the IRS. The fact that tax evasion is a criminal instead of a
    civil matter proves this point.
    
    ...Tom

    re: .4
    
    It may not even have been properly ratified...thus a crime in itself.  
    
    
    The federal gov. will never allow the IRS to be done away with.  This
    is one of their key bullying agencies.
    
    -steve

    Do away with the IRS!!!!
    
    Not while there's a tax loop for their PAC buddies to use.  
    
    When a politician want's to do away with something that takes power
    away from them, and puts money in my pocket I tend not to believe them. 
    You expect them to do away with the IRS within the next 100 days? 
    Don't hold your breath.

    What's most amazing about these promises of what the Republicans think
    they can do in a little over three months is that these people are
    supposed to have brains, but insist on treating their consituents as
    though they have none!  There probably aren't too many work-a-day folks
    out there who believe a word of what any politician says anymore, let
    alone that the House and Senate can accomplish extensive reform in a
    matter of weeks.
    
    It'll take more than 100 days just to write the initial bill to reform
    the tax code, never mind negotiate all the special interest changes and
    get the thing passed.  And this middle-income American is pretty darned
    sure that whatever is passed will not be advantageous to me and mine,
    but will make the higher tax bracket-eers Gates very happy campers.
    
    My 22 cents on the dollar.
    
    M.
    

Note 75.8 by SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA
    
    >What's most amazing about these promises of what the Republicans think
    >they can do in a little over three months is that these people are
    >supposed to have brains, but insist on treating their consituents as
    >though they have none!  There probably aren't too many work-a-day folks
    >out there who believe a word of what any politician says anymore, let
    >alone that the House and Senate can accomplish extensive reform in a
    >matter of weeks.
    
    another sore loser.

    
    we should reward people for becoming rich.
    
    natural selection and all that..

    Ah, what an ironic topic for my first note here...
    
    Loverly trip, tank yew...
    
    But, re: the IRS, doing away with them ain't no big deal.  Basically,
    the easy way is to turn them into something else.  I've known for a
    while that the IRS would be abolished within a short period of time,
    mainly because their win/lose ratio in court is gone from piss poor to
    catastrophic, and far too many agents are ending up in jail.
    
    We need to be diligent in observing where the feds are going to place
    these particular mad dogs.  My suggestion is to send them to live with
    AlGore in Antarctica.

    > It'll take more than 100 days just to write the initial bill to reform
    > the tax code, never mind negotiate all the special interest changes and
    > get the thing passed. 
    
    That's why they aren't starting from scratch.  They're starting with
    several bills written but buried under democratic committee leadership
    in the last several sessions.  Time to write bills and negotiate with
    special interests is not what they're lacking.
    
    DougO

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  
  Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to
produce his record to irs agents...Who would believe the ironic truth that
the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies
upon his constitutional rights? Supreme Court in U.S. vs Dickerson  

    re: .9, etc.
    
    Well, here we are, March 30, 1995, and the end of the first 100 days is
    approaching.  Guess what?  They aren't close to fulfilling the tax
    code reform and/or IRS-elimination promises yet, are they.  And by
    "they", I mean *all* of them, Dems, Repubs, Prez, Senate, Congress --
    all of them.  Politicians in general assume that their constituents
    will believe almost anything, as long as it's what we *want* to hear.
    
    So, am I still sore loser, :HAAG?  Or perhaps just a reasonably cynical
    voter and taxpayer?
    
    M.
    

    	I think your "cynical voter" mask is blinding you to all the
    	things that have been (and are being) done by this congress.

    I used to work for the IRS on a co-op job during college {embarrased
    blush}. The previous note reminded me of a situation I became privy to
    in the Audit Department one day.
    
    Taxpayer is told to show up with all his receipts for {some kind of
    expense -- I can't remember} for the Fiscal year 1968. He and his kid
    (about 14) show up, both carrying a sizeable box.
    
    They call the Taxpayer's name. Everyone waiting watches as he and the
    kid go to the agent's office with their boxes.
    
    Conversation with the agent went something like:
    
    Agent:  So Mr. Smith, I'd like to review your {expenses} for 1968. Can
    I see them please?
    
    Taxpayer: You certainly can Ms. Johnson. They're right here in one of
    these boxes.
    
    Agent: Will you get them out please.
    
    Taxpayer: No. 
    
    Agent: Excuse me?
    
    Taxpayer: No ... they're in the box. If you would like to review them,
    that's where they are. I brought them in like I was told to. 
    
    Agent peers into the boxes which are CRAMMED full of every receipt
    imaginable ... no order, no nothin' ... just receipts in a big box.
    
    Agent: Oh no, sir. You have to get them out and give them to me so I
    can review them against your return. I'm not going through all this.
    
    Taxpayer: Well either am I. What this order says (referring to the
    "GREETINGS" letter he got in the mail) is for me to show up on this
    date and at this time and to "bring with you all receipts related to"
    ... Now, I'm here. It's the right day. I came here at the right time,
    and I brought the receipts with me. That's all this letter says, and
    that's exactly what I did.
    
    Agent: Don't get cute with me Mr. Smith. You are obliged by law to keep
    orderly records. We'll just schedule another appointment and you can
    come back with the receipts.
    
    Taxpayer: No way. I did what the letter said. I'm NOT coming back here.
    I'm here with the recipts now. You want them? Fine. You don't? Fine.
    But I'm not coming back.
    
    Agent: I'm calling my boss.
    
    Taxpayer: Fine. 
    
    Boss arrives and they go thru the same set of events. Boss tells the
    guy he'll have to come back at another time.
    
    Taxpayer walks out into the waiting area to the first woman he sees:
    "Excuse me, will you sign this piece of paper that says I was here on
    this date at this time with my receipts?"  Woman smiles, "sure".
    
    "Excuse me, sir. Will you sign this piece of paper .... 
    
    He got to about the 5th person in the waiting area and by then the IRS
    Regional Director had been called. 
    
    He dragged the guy back into the agents office and listened to his
    story. 
    
    It ended with the Regional Director deciding that the amount of money
    in question probably wasn't worth the aggravation. He gave the taxpayer
    a firm lecture about keeping accurate records, and ended the
    conversation by saying "Now you leave here, Mr. Smith. And you consider
    yourself very lucky. And, Mr. Smith ... don't try this again. Next time
    we expect you to provide the records in an orderly fashion. If you come
    in here with a box again, we WILL go through the box and you'd better
    hope everything is in order."
    
    A rare individual indeed. Not very bright, definitely very gutsy.
    
    /se
    
    
    

Great story.

> You are obliged by law to keep orderly records.

Does anyone know if there is any actual substance to that?

    
    MadMike should know....
    
    
    
    
     Well???????
    
    :)

    
    
    	I would just like for someone to reinstate the IRS code 127 so
    	I don't have to pay taxes on the $$ that Digital gives me
    	for my classes.  Granted I shouldn't be greedy but I haven't
    	had to dish any $$ out of my own pocket thus far...doing so now
    	is going to delay getting my degree because I don't have the $$.
    
    	JJ
    
    

    
    What's all this I hear about teflon-suited tax-killer bullets?
    
    I'm opposed to that sort of thing!
    

    re: Note 75.17 by MOLAR::DELBALSO
    
    > Does anyone know if there is any actual substance to that?
    
    According to the supreme Court, no.  According to tax code it
    probably says "Please be a nice person and have nice organized
    records for your convinience."  So, while it may be nice, and
    the IRS recommends it, it's not "law" per se.  See how the
    previous conversation went?  The IRS is very scarey and works
    on intimidation, much like the gestapo did.  The "not very bright"
    person probably knew this, and essentially challenged them in such
    a way that he didn't need to go to court but still "won".  He could 
    have demanded to speak to the regional director, and asked the regional 
    director to personally accuse him of being a screw up.  The taxpayer 
    would have been out of that office so fast it would make your head spin.
    Also, notice how the taxpayer started obtaining written proof that
    he did in fact answer the irs's ucc challenge.  Failure to answer
    a challenge is sufficient proof that you have no claim (the IRS
    wins by default).  The IRS is on shaky ground to begin with, especially 
    when they get before A JURY OF YOUR PEER's, and they know it.  They 
    know exactly how hard to push someone.
           
    They're a paper tiger.  You should still place common law liens
    on all your "big stuff", just to be safe. ;^)
    
    MadMike                                      
    

    	I would just like for someone to reinstate the IRS code 127 so
    	I don't have to pay taxes on the $$ that Digital gives me
    	for my classes.  Granted I shouldn't be greedy but I haven't
    	had to dish any $$ out of my own pocket thus far...doing so now
    	is going to delay getting my degree because I don't have the $$.
    
    ----
    JJ:
    
    I wonder what is going on here then?  I just got the full amount for my
    tuition for the class I'm taking right now.  I checked off the two
    boxes on the form, and they sent me ALL the money for my class.
    
    Hey, maybe I should keep it a secret huh?
    
    Rob

    
    
    	Rob...
    
    	What did you check off in the boxes?
    
    	If it's Career Related, then yes to either of the other two,
    	either your payroll dept isn't up to date or I"m getting
    	the shaft.  If both of those are no, then your classes aren't
    	taxable anyway.
    
    	JJ
    

    reg .22
    
    Mike,
    
      The reason you are not required to show the irs any of your recepts
    is due to the 5th amendment which states that you do not have to
    incriminate yourself.
    
    Paul

    My understanding is with the IRS, you are guilty until presumed
    innocent.  If that were the case, then not showing receipts would
    incriminate you!
    
    -Jack

     You only have a presumption of innocence when the IRS prosecutes you
    criminally. Civil actions by the IRS means you have to prove your
    innocence.

    	Why didn't the IRS get a clerk to take the box into his office,
    	and come back out a few minutes later saying simply, "I didn't
    	find the proper receipts in this box."
    
    	The taxpayer would then be obligated to show that the clerk was
    	mistaken, if he could...

    
    Then the taxpayer could claim that the guy took stuff and threw it away
    or shredded it.
    
    
    Mike

    	What proof would he have?

    
    
    It was there when I brought it in.  A jury trial?  Against the IRA?
    
    piece of cake.
    

    re: .15:
    
    Did I miss something?  Has this Congress passed any *major*
    legislation to move us one step closer to eliminating the IRS or
    re-vamping the IRC?  I thought they were still arguing over who's
    middle class and who's not. 
    
    I must respectfully submit that taking the "I'll believe when I see it 
    in my paycheck and on my tax return" stance does *not* constitute being
    "blinded" to all the good this Congress has done.  While some (good) 
    parts of the Contract with America have been passed, and very quickly, 
    some of the most important stuff (to me!) is bogged down at this point, 
    with just two weeks left on their 100 days (tax cut, welfare reform,
    etc.).  I said the same thing when Bill & Hillary made 100-day
    promises.  It can't be done under the current government structure --
    too many special interests, party lines and favors being called in bog
    us down every time.  
    
    Cynically yours,
    
    M.

    <<< Note 75.31 by SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA "Walking Incubator, Use Caution" >>>
    
>    Did I miss something?  Has this Congress passed any *major*
>    legislation to move us one step closer to eliminating the IRS or
>    re-vamping the IRC?  I thought they were still arguing over who's
>    middle class and who's not. 
    
    	Maybe I originally misread the intent of your entry.  I read
    	into it the implication that this congress has done nothing.
    
    	On the issue of tax reform, you are correct.  No vote has come
    	(which is the only obligation of the contract, BTW) and is
    	probably not likely by 100 days.  Would it be so terrible,
    	though, if it takes to day 130 instead of day 100 to get it 
    	done right?  A hasty vote may spell defeat.  A 130-day vote
    	might mean success.  Which is more important to you?
    
>    I must respectfully submit that taking the "I'll believe when I see it 
>    in my paycheck and on my tax return" stance does *not* constitute being
>    "blinded" to all the good this Congress has done.  
    
    	I have the gut feeling that whatever passes will not be put
    	in place until the 1996 tax year.  I hope I'm wrong.  So whether
    	it passes by day 100 or day 300, under a 1996 implementation
    	you will see the results next year.
    
>    some of the most important stuff (to me!) is bogged down at this point, 
    
    	Everybody has a different "to me".
    
    	In time, all the "to me"s will be addressed.

    re: audit.
    
    You are NOT required to give the IRS any information, until they
    *first* sign a waiver that any information you provide to them will not
    be used as evidence against you in any court of law, or that such
    information will not be used to levy any fine, penalty etc, etc,.
    
    They get pissed.  You never get audited again.  It's a fact.  Bring a
    lawyer and a tape recorder, too.
    
    The law that grants them the power of audit only grants them the right
    to REQUEST your records.  You retain the right to refuse their request,
    such right being guaranteed (not granted) by the fifth amendment.  The
    law, by the way, specifically says they may only "ask for" the records.
    
    If they have a problem, they must take you to court.  Of course, they
    can't really do that unless you give them the evidence.  This is
    assuming you did NOT break the law, of course.  It does protect you
    against accidental minor ministerial mistakes you may have made, so you
    don't get hammered because you misunderstood a deduction.
                                                                           

    Back to the base note:

    Steve, I beleive you are wrong. The contract says nothing about
    doing away with the IRS. The contract does say something about
    taxes, and all of these tax proposals are being voted on this
    week.

    					Ed



    From .77 (which contains an outline of the Contract)



4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption,
strengthening rights of parents in their children's education,
stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care
tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in
American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax
penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to
provide middle class tax relief.


7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces
seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on
Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private
long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of
what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation,
neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis,
strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded
mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

 "I" before "e" except after "C"

        
> "I" before "e" except after "C"

    
    
    > "I" before "e" except after "C" 
    
    
    or when it sounds like an 'a', as in 'reign'...and any other exception.
    
    

 Hey, I didn't make the rule!




 Thanks, raq ;-)





 Jim

    Whyizzit that so few people remember the whole rhyme?
    
    I before e except after c,
    Or when sounded like a, as in neighbor and weigh.  [and reign!]
    
    NNTTM.

	of course, then there's always "height", which blows the
	whole deal.

    Why not just make a rule for the English language and actually follow
    it?  
    
    Oh no, that's too easy. 
    
    -steve

    
    But can you explain height, being and either away?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Seinfeld.

    Minefield

Neither the weird financier nor the foreigner seizes leisure
at its height, Neil.

    Seems like the IRS keeps a datebook with your birthday, anniversary and
    other important days marked on it in order to time the arrival of
    notices and such to cause maximum distress.

    Back to the base note:

    Steve, I believe you are wrong. The contract says nothing about
    doing away with the IRS. The contract does say something about
    taxes, and all of these tax proposals are being voted on this
    week.

    					Ed



    From .77 (which contains an outline of the Contract)



4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption,
strengthening rights of parents in their children's education,
stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care
tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in
American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax
penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to
provide middle class tax relief.


7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces
seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on
Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private
long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of
what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation,
neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis,
strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded
mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

        RE: .33   ' you can refuse to give them your records'
    
    True. However, in real practice I can't remember very many situations
    (in fact I can't remember any) where this advice was given to a
    taxpayer by their attorney. Although I've seen a few taxpayers start
    with that posture ("I'm givin' you NOTHIN'!), their attorneys usually
    talk them into it, especially if it is something like ' all your
    canceled checks for the last year'.
    
    The attorney's rationale always seemed to be; if you ever get to court,
    you want to show 'total cooperation' so the attorney can demonstrate
    the taxpayer had "nothing to hide" and "no intent to defraud the
    government." They reasoned that not giving the records could be used by
    the prosecution to create doubt about your intent with the jury.
    (For criminal prosecution, the I.R.S. must prove that you willfully and
    knowingly attempted to defraud the government.)
    
    Then the final clincher is that an I.R.S. agent who works in the
    Intelligence Division (the group that investigates fraud) can walk into
    any bank and ask them for your canceled checks and any other records.
    The bank will politely refuse. Then the agent opens his/her briefcase,
    writes out a subpoena on the spot, signs it, hands it to the bank
    officer, and the bank officer then says, "I'd be happy to help you ...
    come right this way."
    
    I usually found that the attorney's would advise the client to give
    them most of the records in question because "they're gonna get them
    anyway whether you give them to them or not." 
   

     It's worse if you cooperate, because then they <reproductive epithet>
    you anyway.

    For most of us, the amount of time and effort it would take to
    determine if tax fraud was involved would be too great compared to the
    payoff the gov't would get.  Following the letter of the law is
    exactly what you are required to do, nothing more or less. 
    Volunteering additional information, helping the auditors do their job
    etc. will work against you.  If you can prove you have paid your tax
    liability that's all you need to do.  The Doctah's right. 

    .48
    
    Lawyers will (almost without fail) advise you to bring the records in. 
    Keep in mind that you are #3 on their list of priorities.
    
    re: "total cooperation"... if you do not supply the "evidence" to the
    IRS, you probably won't be going to court.  If they already have
    something on you, they do not request an audit, they send you a bill. 
    Also, excercsing your constitutionally guaranteed rights can in no way
    be interpreted as "willfully and knowingly attemp[ting] to defraud the
    government."
    
    Your "final clincher" is utter crap.  The ONLY person legally capable
    of writing out a subpoena is a judge.  Period.  If an IRS agent did
    that I'd have his fanny in the slammer faster than the IRS could fire
    him, and they would act VERY quickly.  
    
    Whoever sold you this myth is a liar.  This is exactly what they want
    you to believe.  It's called deceit, fraud, and intimidation.  None of
    these three IRS practices have any basis in law.
    
    Also, even if they got bank records, they merely record transactions,
    and are not an indicator of "taxable income" or any such thing.  Only
    through corroborating evidence (that YOU give them) can they use such
    records to prosecute you.  And YOU are not REQUIRED to GIVE them
    ANYTHING they will later use against you.
    
    And again, if you question IRS activity with your bank, the bank will
    cease to cooperate with them.  However, if you do NOT question the
    activity, the bank will not represent your interest and interpret your
    silence as aquiescence.  This is allowable.
    
    Later,
    	   Mike

    >Also, even if they got bank records, they merely record transactions,
    >and are not an indicator of "taxable income" or any such thing. 
    
     The IRS interprets all deposits as income unless you can prove to
    their satisfaction otherwise. Say you charter a fishing boat for $800
    with three other friends. They each give you $200, which you deposit in
    your account, and you write the check for $800 to the captain. You have
    to document (to the IRS satisfaction) that the $600 deposit is not
    unreported income. If you have deposits from reimbused business
    expenses, they expect you to have the receipts that you have to turn
    into your company to get the reimbursement in the first place, or some
    documentation from the company stating clearly that the money is indeed
    a reimbursement, otherwise they consider it unreported income. You
    definitely have to prove your innocence, and if you aren't prepared to
    do so (and this can happen up to 3 years after the filing deadline)
    then you can get a nice fat bill (payable in 10 days, of course.)
    
     The IRS basically interprets all non-W-2 reported deposits as
    unreported income unless you can prove otherwise. Take a look through
    your checkbook at all the deposits that are not on your w-2 statement,
    and calculate the marginal rate on that and add interest and a penalty.
    It gets expensive fast.
    
    >Only through corroborating evidence (that YOU give them) can they use
    >such records to prosecute you.
    
     You wish. They simply add up the non w-2 deposits and tell you to
    document them or you get sent a bill for the tax bite of the total.
    And that's only one of the ways they can hassle you. They have lots
    more.
    

    RE: .51
    
    >>Your "final clincher" is utter crap.  The ONLY person legally
    >>capable of writing out a subpoena is a judge.  Period.  If an IRS
    >>agent did that I'd have his fanny in the slammer faster than the
    >>IRS could fire him, and they would act VERY quickly.  
    
    I'm sorry, but unless the law has changed recently, it is most
    definitely not crap. Pretty sad, maybe, but not crap. A Special Agent
    of the Internal Revenue Service CAN walk into a bank and subpoena your
    bank records if they have have instituted a criminal case against you.
    They do NOT need a judge's signature to do it, and are the ONLY person
    other than a judge who can issue a subpoena of any kind (and can only
    do it for soliciting taxpayer records).
    
    >>    Whoever sold you this myth is a liar.  
    
    Nobody told me this. I used to work for the I.R.S. and I have watched
    it done with my own two little eyes ... more than once. The agents I
    worked with everyday even carried around a little pad of the damn
    things in their briefcases ... standard equipment. 
    
    As a result of an agent writing such a subpoena, I have been
    immediately escorted to a back room in the bank and was either given
    total access to the bank's microfilm library or handed a box full of
    microfilm that the bank pulled for me which would contain the
    taxpayer's account records (among others). Some banks only wanted you
    to get access to the rolls that taxpayer's records would show up on and
    would assign someone to pull them. Other banks just pointed to the
    vault and said, "have fun."
    
    I have spent many many long, boring hours going through reel after reel
    of microfilm making copies of a taxpayer's monthly statements, deposit
    slips, checks that were deposited and canceled checks written from
    their checking account.
      
    >>Also, even if they got bank records, they merely record transactions,
    >>and are not an indicator of "taxable income" or any such thing.  Only
    >>through corroborating evidence (that YOU give them) can they use such
    >>records to prosecute you.  And YOU are not REQUIRED to GIVE them
    >>ANYTHING they will later use against you.
    
    Those records of transactions are indeed the very weapon that they use
    in some cases. The I.R.S. uses three method to prosecute criminal cases. 
    
    	1) The net worth method 
    	2) The bank statement or checkbook method
    	3) The specific item method
    
    I could go into a lengthy dissertation of what each one entails, but to
    make it short, they build a case which details the transactions and
    prove that the inflow of cash and other assets exceeds the amount you
    have reported. Thus, if you have reported only $50,000 in earnings, yet
    deposited over $100,000 in your bank account that same year there's a
    potential problem. They then set out to prove that there is the $50,000
    in question is indeed income which the taxpaery willfully neglected to
    report. They will have copies of the checks you deposited, go to their
    source and ask why the payments were made to you to prove it was
    income. 
    
    For Example: (This is a checkbook method case)
    
    I pay a daycare provider $175/week. So do 6 other families. Total
    income for the provider would be $63,700/year. She reports income of
    $25,000. She gets audited. Auditor suspects fraud and can't get the
    woman to admit she is underreporting income. Auditor turns the case
    over to Intelligence for criminal prosecution.  Intelligence division
    investigates and asks daycare provider for canceled checks. She says,
    "Take a hike." They subpoeana the bank and get copies of every check
    that went through her account (deposits and withdrawals) They will see my
    canceled checks in among her deposits. They will surely contact me and
    ask me why I pay the woman $175 a week. They will do the same for all
    the other families. Let's say 3 families talk and tell the truth, the
    other three say, "Take a hike."
    
    The I.R.S. will walk into court with copies of $63,700 worth of checks
    and the statements of three family's -- they paid her for daycare
    services and then there's the other 3 families who refused to talk to
    them. Now the judge issues a subpoena and the 3 families who wouldn't
    talk appear in court. They will be forced to testify or get locked up
    for contempt ... can't plead the fifth. They have two choices. Tell the
    truth or commit purgery. 
    
    >And again, if you question IRS activity with your bank, the bank will
    >cease to cooperate with them.  
    
    Interesting, but I've never heard of a bank doing that ... have you?
    They can be very sympathetic to your cause (which is why most of them
    won't cooperate until they get the subpoena). They may even drag their
    feet a little, but in the end, the I.R.S. will get what they want. The
    bank can not and will not refuse to give the I.R.S. access to their
    microfilm library with all your canceled checks on it.
    
    You can scratch your head in disbelief about the subpoena thing, but
    it's true. Unless, as I said, the law has changed recently.
    
    
    
    

    It is important to remember that, quite seriously, the IRS is above the
    law.  No joke.

    
    
    No joke indeed, Dick.
    
    
    
    RE: .52  Quick question.  How did you sleep at night?  Really, I'm not
    trying to be nasty at all, I am curious how someone feels about working
    for the IRS (knowing that they rank up there with dentists :')).  Did
    they attempt to brainwash you?  Sorry if these questions sound harsh, I
    really am just curious on what the mindset is in the IRS.
    
    
    Thanks,
    
    Mike

    RE: .55
       
    >RE: .52  Quick question.  How did you sleep at night?  Really, I'm not
    >trying to be nasty at all, I am curious how someone feels about working
    >for the IRS (knowing that they rank up there with dentists :')).  Did
    >they attempt to brainwash you?  Sorry if these questions sound harsh, I
    >really am just curious on what the mindset is in the IRS.
    
    Mike:  I assume you meant "RE: .53" above, and no offense taken at your
    questions. 
    
    I slept quite well at night for the most part. First of all, this was a
    co-op job while attending college (go to school for 2 years then work
    for a quarter/go to school for a quarter/work/school .... until
    graduation). So I didn't look at it as a 'permanent assignment'.
    
    Secondly, I worked in the group that investigated fraud.
    By the time your case reached us, it was usually beyond "picking on the
    poor innocent taxpayer". We dealt with some pretty bad people,
    including organized crime figures. A friend of mine in a similar co-op
    job from college was followed home and threatened physically by some
    thugs one night ... "Lay off - we know where your kid's babysitter
    lives and where your wife works" ... and that kind of stuff.
    
    I also saw that the people I worked with had a heart. They gave
    everybody the benefit of the doubt until they caught you lying to them.
    Then it was all over. In at least one case, they could have been total
    assholes and raked somebody over the coals and had a heart-to-heart
    discussion that resulted in a second chance. I also saw them be genuinely
    heartbroken and sympathetic toward a number of black families who had
    been victimized by a scumbag tax preparer; This guy went around town
    promising "big refunds" to people who would leave their W-2 statement
    at the local barber shop (or wherever) along with a SIGNED 1040 form.
    
    He would then file a return on their behalf, claiming they had 10 kids
    (when they really had 2 or maybe none) and get them a BIG refund. He
    would take 10% of their refund (which these people readily agreed to)
    and leave town. I won't ever forget the way they tried to handle some
    of these people (who were frequently in tears since the money was long
    since gone) ... "it isn't your fault ... this guy is bad .. he's done
    it to other people". Not an easy situation to deal with.
    
    Anyway ... I digress. 
    
    What kind of people worked there? I would classify them as being 
    political conservatives, who were somewhat satisfied with "the
    benefits" and lifetime employment ("security"). They were not stupid,
    in fact, some of them were pretty smart. But they were also the
    antithesis of an entrepreneur. Even though they were sometimes
    aggressive about pursuing a case, they wouldn't think of starting their
    own business. They were also conformists. I didn't catch too much flak
    for not joining the Federal Employees Union because I was only a co-op
    student, but I caught some flak for not giving to the United Way. They
    expected 100% participation and I told them (politely, but firmly) that
    I needed every dime of the money I earned there. I screwed up their
    100% participation something wicked.
    
    It just wasn't for me. I didn't pursue a career there once I graduated
    and doubt they would have hired me if I had done so. Even though I
    think I did a good job while working for them, they probably knew I
    wasn't a conformist, and I knew that "job security" wasn't that
    important ... guess I landed in the right spot for that, eh???  :^)
    
    

    I do not have time to respond to everything posted against my reply. 
    Please note that everything in my commentary is intended to avoid
    court based on lack of evidence and/or jurisdiction, where everything
    in yours was with regard to an ongoing case (which part you didn't
    mention before).  Once you enter a plea in federal court, you are
    playing a different ball game entirely.
    
    I stand by the fact that I do not have to provide evidence against
    myself in this country, period.  
    
    Presuming that I have not knowingly committed a crime, I do not feel
    compelled to offer my life up for examination to prove my innocence. 
    It's up to them to find evidence of a crime *first*, bring me to court,
    and then convince a jury.  And I make a point to make sure that they
    obey the law as carefully as I do.
    
    The IRS is NOT above the law.  The sad fact is that most people LET
    them get away with activities that would normally be a crime.  Such as
    turning over all their records at an audit.
    
    If you were called into a police station and placed in an interrogation
    room and not advised of your rights, you would automatically assume the
    police were thugs.
    
    Why not the IRS?  What exactly is *wrong* with asserting your rights? 
    What is *wrong* with making them obey their own laws?
    
    I disagree with the myth that the IRS is above the law.  They are only
    above the law if you let them be above the law.  I DO agree that they
    will routinely commit criminal acts as a matter of course.  However,
    you can generally put a stop to it with a tape recorder, a request for
    a signature, or a witness.
    
    And the part about the bank.  A few weeks ago a local business person
    had money levied from his bank account.  He immediately asked the bank
    for the written document that authorized that funds transfer (to the
    IRS).  They provided him with the document, which he brought back to
    the bank, pointing out that the document was unsigned.  The bank said
    they would get a signed document.
    
    A week later, he received from the IRS a cashiers check drawn on his
    account to the IRS.  The bank refused to pay the check based on an
    "invalid signature".  There was a nasty letter saying that he needed to
    sign the check.  He went to the bank, and asked if the money was back
    in his account.  It was.  He returned the unsigned check to the IRS and
    politely asked what on earth they were talking about.
    
    I haven't heard the end of the story, but it illustrates several things. 
    One, the IRS will do illegal stuff, in this case seizure of property
    without legal authority.  Two, the bank would have paid the thing if
    this person had simply rolled over like most people would upon
    notification of such an act.  Three, since the person objected in a
    timely manner, the bank responsibly acted to protect this persons
    property.  Four, and most important, the IRS had to go back TO THE
    OWNER OF THE MONEY to obtain permission to draw on the account.  If
    they had this alleged power to just "take" money out of a bank, I'm
    sure they would not have demanded the owners signature.
    
    I do not know if the IRS has a case or not, but I suspect that if they
    want money from this guy, they will have to go about getting it just
    like any other creditor.  Namely, by obeying the law.
    
    Sorry for going on, but I get sick when I hear BS about how "powerful"
    the IRS is.  Thugs is thugs.  
    
    I prefer a lawful society.

    >It's up to them to find evidence of a crime *first*, bring me to court, 
    >and then convince a jury. 
    
     Not in civil court. They allege and the law says that you have to
    prove your innocence, otherwise they win. It's really that simple. This
    is one of the things that republican lawmakers are trying to change,
    and the head of the IRS is bellyaching about how horrible it would be
    to actually have to gather evidence of wrongdoing. She said "you might
    as well pass a hat." Well IMO, if they don't have any better evidence
    than that, then they oughtn't be getting judgments in their favor. It's
    that simple.

 * WSJ * April 13, 1995 *


                        WHAT A TAXING DAY!
                        ==================  
                          By David Aviel

 As tax day draws near, citizen K enters into a high bracket of anxiety
 and dread.  He disallows all nonessential activities and spends his
 entire adjusted-gross free time on one pusuit.  His den is piled high
 with forms and instruction pamphlets and his floor covered with receipts
 and canceled checks.  After auditing all expenses, examining exemptions
 and deducting the deductions, citizen K discovers that his accountant
 was right all along when she proclaimed that taxes are not just a once-
 a-year affair, but a continuous, daily and hourly endeavor.

    The Tax Schedule of Citizen K

    6:30 a.m.: Take a shower.  Pay utility taxes - two different kinds -
    for the water.

    7:00: Brush teeth.  There is a state sales tax on toothpaste (8.25% in
    California).

    7:30: Get dressed.  There is a 30% to 40% tax on imported clothing.

    7:45: Make some coffee and toast.  Pay an electricity tax.

    8:00: Drive to work.  At least $2,500 of the cost of the vehicles goes
    to taxes; if imported, add $1,000.

    8:30: Stop to get gas.  Pay 20% to 25% tax on gasoline.

    8:45: Park.  Pay a tax on the parking space, which the IRS considers 
    income.

    9:00: Place some phone calls from your office.  Pay federal and local
    taxes.  Much higher ones if you use a cellular phone.

    10:00: Hire an emploee for your company.  Now you will really be paying
    taxes through the nose.  these include Social Security, federal and
    state unemployment, Medicare, worker's compensation and COBRA.

    10:30: Sell some stock to pay your daughter's college tuition.  Pay a
    capital gains tax.

    11:00: Go over your mail.  The business tax and the license are due.

    Noon: Take a flight to a branch office.  Pay a tax on your airline
    ticket and an airport tax.

    2:00 p.m.: The branch has been losing money and cutbacks in the work-
    force are necessary.  Pay a higher unemployment tax.

    2:30: Buy a snack for your coffee break.  Pay a snack-food tax.

    2:45: Stop at the bathroom.  There's a sewer tax.

    3:00: Inspect a shipment of merchandise that just came in.  Pay an
    inventory tax.

    4:00: Attend a meeting in which it is decided that your company will
    not pay a dividend this year.  Pay a retained earnings tax.  (If you
    pay a dividend, pay a tax on the dividends.)

    5:00: Take out a client for happy hour.  Pay an alcohol tax.

    6:00: Go home.  Pay property taxes.  If you do not own a home, your
    landlord's taxes will be factored into the rent.

    7:00: Take the dog for a walk.  Pay a dog-license tax.

    8:00: You are informed that your grandfather passed away and left you
    the hardware store.  Pay inheritance taxes.

    9:00: You give some of the inheritance to your college-age daughter.
    Pay a gift tax.

    9:30: Tired of the tax burden, you sit down to watch TV.  Pay FCC and
    regulatory taxes on cable.

    10:00: You ask your high-school daughter, a math whiz, to figure out
    your real tax bracket.  "Greater than 50%" is her answer - more than
    housing, food and clothing combined.

    11:00: Before you go to bed, you check to see which taxes are due the
    next day.

    ***

 Tomorrow, as you sit down, intaxicated, to celebrate the Passover/Easter 
 holiday, reflect on the meaning of slavery and bondage, bitter herbs and
 redemption.  "And they set tax masters over them to afflict them with
 their burden and they built for Pharoh treasure cities,"  the scripture
 reads.  It also says, "This year we are bondsmen.  Next year we hope
 to be free."

    [end]

 Mr. Aviel is a professor in the department of management and finance,
 California State University, Hayward.

     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================

FWIW

	The art of taxation consists in so plucking 
	the goose as to obtain the largest amount of 
	feathers with the least possible amount of
	hissing.
				- Ascribed to
				  J. B. Colbert (1619-83),
				  c. 1665

	The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

				- Mr. Chief Justice John
				  Marshall: Decision in
				  McCulloch vs. Maryland,
				  March 6, 1819

	Of all debts, men are least willing to pay taxes.
	What a satire is this on government!

				- R. W. Emerson: Politics, 1841

	Unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation.

				- Democratic National Platform, 1884

	The immense and ever increasing sums which the state wrings
	from the people are never enough for it; it mortgages the
	income of future generations, and steers resolutely toward
	bankruptcy.

				- P. A. Kropotkin: Paroles d'un revolte,
				  1884

	Taxation is not a method by which the community corporately
	provides itself with essential services, but a fund to be
	divided between different interests with political claims
	upon the state.

				- Neville Chamberlain: Budget speech
				  in the House of Commons, 1934

	The whole world groans under the Publicani.

				- Roman writer, second century B.C.

	[end]

     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================

    re: Note 75.58 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    > Not in civil court. They allege and the law says that you have to
    > prove your innocence, otherwise they win. It's really that simple.
    
    No, you just have to answer their challenge.  If you fail to answer
    their challenge, "they win" by default. 
    
    Keep in mind, we're talking apples and oranges.  MikeC is talking
    about BEFORE (or really NEVER) getting to court.  Don't let it
    get that far.  If it does, and the IRS alledges FRAUD, then you
    go from civil to criminal law.  They must prove you intended to
    defraud the IRS.  Civil stuff, probably can best be resolved by
    simply ansering their challenge.  The IRS said I owed them $3500.
    I said "You're mistaken.  I don't owe you squat.".  Their answer
    was "OK".  Simple. and it never went to court.
    
    Now, how do you help yourself get into court?  By volunteering stuff.
    Giving documents, signing stuff, not being firm in demanding your
    rights be upheld during the initial process.  Slip up, and you'll
    be going to court.  You let them do this.  The whole issue is,
    is the IRS entitled to crawl up yer bumm?  No, unless you start
    cooperating, then they can. You've allowed or agreed to it.
                                                                    
    I don't know what to make of the Republicans trying to change the
    law so that every IRS case is a criminal case.  I don't know if I
    like that deal.  I also don't like the deal that the Republicans
    don't seem to want to legally tax folks.  Reforming a bogus system
    still leave a bogus system which can still legally be avoided.
    Of course the repubs score points with the commoners, but the fact
    remains.  The IR Code is bogus, and technically legal extortion.
    If they addressed that, and if Mr. Windbag addressed that, then I'd
    stand up and notice.
    
    MadMike

    This could also be added to TTHT Topic.
    
    I received a letter from the IRS saturday that stated that they haven't
    received my tax return for 1993. I had mailed it so I called the 800
    toll free number. I was placed on hold for 21 minutes before someone
    answered. I explained that I mailed my tax return on 7/22/94, after
    filing an extension the previous April 15th. I also explained that my
    copy of my 1993 tax return wasn't suitable for filing as it contained
    many extraneous notes (one, written in red ink said F--- the IRS). I
    requested 1993 forms so that I could refile. I asked how long I had to
    resubmit the return and was told 30 days. I asked how long before I got
    the forms from the IRS and was told 20 working day. After I explained
    to this non-thinking IRS person that 20 working days is longer that 30
    calender days I was put on hold again to speak to someone else. After
    19 more minutes of toll free taxpayer payed phone hold I spoke to the
    "Department of the Treasury, Division of Non-filers". This person said
    that he would arrange to get the forms to me within two weeks. I asked
    what would happen if I didn't make the 30 day deadline and was told
    that the IRS would fill out my tax return for me using the standard
    deduction for single with 1 dependent. Then they would charge me any
    penalties and interest for what I owed. "So", I said "what you are
    telling me is that either the IRS Office in Ogden, Utah or the United
    States Postal Service lost my tax return, then after you wait a year to
    notify me, if I don't do what is necessary to file another return
    within 30 days, even though you can't get me the forms for 2 weeks, I
    will be forced to pay a penalty and interest. Have I got that right?"
    "Yes sir" he says, "have a nice day" The entire toll free, taxpayer
    payed phone call in prime time lasted 54 minutes. 
    
    I shouldn't complain though. It is probably for my own good. :(
    
    ...Tom

    
    I know The IRS in Andover is now taking calls from all of N.E. as well
    as up state New York.  The operators are feed calls in the sequence in
    which they are received.  I had a tour last week of the Customer
    Service Center in Andover.  The operators are given 12 weeks classroom
    training, then 4 weeks fully supervised phone training.  The folks
    related the toughest part of the job is knowing most of your customers
    will be calling pissed off.  I wouldn't want the job.
    
    What happens with most returns is an area known as "under reporting" 
    reviews tax returns vs. interest statements from banks and the such.  
    The workload and backlog can be up to 3 years.
    
    I also know all employees of the IRS are subject to audit.  This is
    part of your condition of employment.
    
    Mickey
    
    
    
    
    In the past several years the average number of
    returns done in Andover has been 15-17 Million.    

    	Tom --
    
    	Did you owe them money at the end of 1993, or did they owe you?
    
    	If you owed them, did they cash the check that you sent them?
    	That should be proof that they received the return...
    
    	Why can't you just fax them a copy of your 1993 return?  You
    	have a copy still, don't you?

    This is why I send my tax returns certfied mail, return receipt
    requested and file the paperwork with my return copy.  Even if I'm
    expecting a check back, it's good insurance.
    
    Mary-Michael

    	The current Reader's Digest has an article about the
    	"inefficiencies" (to be kind) in the IRS.

    RE: .63, Joe
    
    I don't owe them money. I paid what was due when I sent in the
    extension. The reason I can't send them a copy is that I made notes all
    over it so it isn't suitable to refile. This was my fault and I have no
    problem refiling. The problem came when they demanded that I refile
    within 30 calendar days or pay penalties and interest on an amount that
    they calculate based on deductions that I haven't used in 25 years.Then 
    informed me that it would take 20 working days to get me the 1993 forms. 
    They just didn't understand that 20 working days is more than 30
    calendar days. The reply was basically "Well thems the rules yuk, yuk".
    In addition all this took about a 55 minute toll free phone call paid
    by the taxpayer. Its just enough to make a person.....wellll.....ummm
    you know!
    
    ...Tom

    find the cancelled check.  show it to them.  tell them to <r.o.> or you
    will take them to court for harrassment.  in the future, avoid writing
    naughty things on your return.  HTH.  For a useful hint, try a public
    accounting firm.  I am sure they will have the necessary forms you can
    use even if they are electronic.  They can print blank ones for you. 
    Probably do it for free as well.  
    
    Brian

    Stupid question.....
    Did someone say that they needed forms from the 1993 Federal Income Tax
    Returns.....
    
    I may have some.  Please let me know
    
    Dan
    

    RE: .68. Brian
    
    I know this. It just drives me crazy to know that more and more of my hard
    earned money is going to pay these IRS idiots who waste people's
    precious time and earned money while they produce nothing of value for
    anyone.
    
    RE: .68, Dan
    
    I have access to the forms that I need much quicker than the IRS can
    send them to me. I just want to be able to quote how long it took them
    to get the forms to me, in the nasty letter I'm going to write. It
    won't do any good. But, it will make me feel better.
    
    ...Tom

>     <<< Note 75.69 by DASHER::RALSTON "cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:)" >>>
>    
>    send them to me. I just want to be able to quote how long it took them
>    to get the forms to me, in the nasty letter I'm going to write. It
>    won't do any good. But, it will make me feel better.
>    
>    ...Tom


IMHO:  Actually it will probably make you feel much worse. If you write them a 
       nasty letter you are pretty much guaranteeing that you will get 
       auditted every year.

Geoff

    Actually I had been audited three years in a row back in the early
    80"s. I wrote a letter crying foul and claimed I was being harassed
    because the local auditor was made to look foolish the first year. I
    haven't been audited since.
    
    I write nasty letters every year for some reason or other.
    
    ...Tom

    They want you to refile?  I'm not following very carefully, but
    I'd toss the ball back to them.
    
    Greetings:
    
    Per your letter:
    You got my return
    You cashed my check
    I have done everything I was supposed to.
    If you need further assistance, or additional information, please
    feel free to have some named, individual contact me, and provide
    me with his/her Authority Order from the Treasury Department.
    Thank You for clearing this up.
    
    Me
    
    Witness 1:
    Witness 2:
    
    CC: Your Federal Rep
        
    
    Send certified mail, return reciept requested.
    
    DON'T be nasty or cute.  Just the facts.  Bang Bang bang... They're
    done.

    re: my .72
    
    I hear there's an even better response now.  Could be usefull.

    
    Thank you sir, for you r e-mail...

    Stay tuned for more.  There's something else you may want to look at
    before you drop that on 'em.  It's more of a general cya deal that
    works against many folks, not just the folks in the title.
    
    MadMike

    
    
    Here are some fun fax dealing with the IRS.
    
    
    The tax code in the US is a measily 17,000 pages.
    
    The IRS send out 33,000,000,000 letters each year telling us that we
    have made an error on our taxes.  Of those 33 million letters, 48% of
    them are in error.
    
    
    
    

    >The IRS send out 33,000,000,000 letters each year telling us that we
    >have made an error on our taxes.  Of those 33 million letters, 
    
     Either lose three zeros, or morph the m into a b.

    
    
    It's million

    .76
    
    Yes, the tax code is approx. 17,000 pages.
    
    But did you known that the IRS regulations for dealing with taxpayers
    (i.e. the rules THEY have to follow) number some 41,000 pages ?
    
    

Thought some would enjoy this, sent to be by an online acquaintance.
    
    ================================================================
    
Yes, Vanish the IRS.

Am attaching a file I thought you'd enjoy.  Publish it
where you please but I prefer anonymity.

Below is a filled-in IRS questionnaire recently mailed to me.  I've got 
nothing to hide so I

thought I'd make the whole thing pubic:
                                                               
*******************
1-Where is your permanent home?

The planet Earth.

2-Where is your family?

I don't know.

3-Where are your personal belongings and those of your family, etc.?

I don't know where they are. (I think this question must apply to someone
else 
since I don't own anything. As for my family, see question 2 above.)

4-Where are your current social, political, cultural, and religious 
organizations?  

I don't know.  I wouldn't even know where to look since I'm not associated 
with any non-profit clubs or organizations.  I'll tell you this--I've looked 
all over the house and they're not here. It took me half a day before I 
finally realized I don't even know what they look like, assholes.

5-Where do you conduct your routine personal banking activities?

Anywhere I please, worldwide. Anyway, why should it be any of your goddamn 
business?

6-Where do you conduct business activities other than those that constitute 
your tax home?

I'm not in business and I don't have a home. Occasionally I sleep in a big 
cardboard box since you guys seized my permanent home and my car. (see answer
to question 1 & 3 above then add results to the answer to question 11 below
to compute my tax) Tax home?...That concept is foreign to me.  Why do you keep 
asking the same questions? Jeez, I'm confused.

7-Where do you hold a driver's license?

In my wallet.

8-Where do you vote?

Wherever I buy a product or service.  $1, franc, pound, etc=one vote. That's 
the only kind of voting I understand even though some people not receiving 
these votes want them without my freely-given consent.  There are others who 
want another aggravation--OOPS, I mean "organization"--to distribute these 
votes to themselves or someone else, again without my consent. Because of my 
attitude toward all this, I'm now considered a Stranger in a Strange Land by 
most lawyers, among others.  I sure feel strange, I'll tell ya that.  D'ya 
suppose I'm the result of an impregnation by an alien from another planet?  I
know quite a few people who might think so. Oh well, ya gotta do the best
with what ya got, right?  Sorry to take up so much space answering a simple 
question but I know you IRS guys are sticklers for detail.

9-Which country of residence have you designated on forms and documents?  
    
None.  If you'd like to send me some of these forms and documents I'd be
happy to put them next to my crapper where they'll be put to good use.

10-What have you stated on official forms and documents filed with the IRS?  
    
Well...my annual income of $120,000,000, my temporary address, foreign bank 
accounts, 30 dependents, and last year's payment of 36% of that income to
you. All lies, except for the last report: I wrote "Deceased" across my 1040 
    Form and sent it back.  An old gold prospector showed me how to spell it.  I
didn't realize it was so easy. (I fill out and send in 1040 Forms with 
    different names on them all the time.  You see, I don't think you wankers 
    have enough to do and I'd rather have you harass non-existent people.  
    These people won't mind, I'm sure.)

Name: (Last name first) Upurz, Shuvit

Permanent address:  See question 1 above, dumb@#%#^@.

Nationality: Stranger in a Strange Land

Phone: Unlisted

Wife's name: Honey

Her maiden name: Phuque

My nickname: Phuque (my wife gave me her maiden name.  It was easy for her)
Some of my favorite people, in order of preference: Me, my wife, Dirty 
Bob--the gold prospector, W.G. Hill, L. Neil Smith, Harry Browne, Benny Hill,
W. C. Fields, the Campbell's Soup family(whenever I see Campbell's soup, I
buy it.  I'm going to have to move soon. My house is full of it), and all those 
little and big people out there who have also taken my wife's maiden name and
know how to have a good time.
****************

[Gentle reader:  This epistle is declared in the pubic domain.  Feel free to 
change it or publish as is. All I ask in return is that you fill out and send
in as many phony tax forms as possible.  Feel free to use my name or my
wife's maiden name as freely as possible.  That is enough payment for us. 
    I hope you've had as much fun reading this as I did writing it.   Shuvit 
    Upurz]

"40 million Americans will have a confrontation with the IRS this year."
 	Rep. Bill Archer, Chrmn. ofthe House Ways and Means Committee. CNN 
    	International, June 7, l995.

Does anyone know if it's possible to get ahold of the tax code and
the forms from way back in 19xx when the IRS was first established?
Or is it one of those things that if they showed it to us they'd have
to kill us afterwards?

    The tax code was rewritten in 1954, but any law school worth its salt
    will likely have the 1939 and 1913 versions as well. What specifically
    are you looking for ?

> What specifically are you looking for ?

I'm curious as to the delta bewtixt "that was then and this is now" in
any number of parameters, but simple ones, like sheer word count, would
do for starters.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights would raise penalty for overzealous IRS


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Sep 13, 1995 - 02:36 EDT) -- Overzealous IRS
tax collectors thinking about crossing the line of what's proper
would have to worry about $1 million lawsuits under legislation
moving through Congress.

On a voice vote Tuesday, the House Ways and Means oversight
subcommittee endorsed a taxpayer bill of rights that would raise
the current $100,000 cap on civil suits against the Internal
Revenue Service.

The agency has opposed it, saying a higher cap would "encourage
lawsuits, consume IRS resources and disproportionately benefit
large taxpayers."

The provision is one of more than 32 aimed at putting taxpayers at
less of a disadvantage in disputes with the huge agency.

"For taxpayers who must deal with the IRS, it's too often a David
vs. Goliath fight that leaves David the taxpayer without a
slingshot," said Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., the
subcommittee's chairwoman.

Other provisions would:

--Make it easier for taxpayers who win disputes with the IRS to
be reimbursed for attorney fees, raising the limit on
reimbursement from $75 an hour to $110 an hour.

--Waive interest charged taxpayers as a result of delays that are
caused by the IRS. This is the current practice, but the rules are
written so tightly that the IRS considers almost no delays in
resolving disputes to be its fault.

--Make the IRS, not the taxpayer, responsible for verifying
information returns -- such as W-2 and 1099 forms -- submitted
by employers, mortgage lenders and interest and dividend payers.
It also would increase the civil penalties for willfully filing false
information returns and require those filing information returns to
provide their telephone numbers to taxpayers.

Two other proposals didn't make it into the bill. One would have
shifted the burden of proof in tax disputes, making the IRS prove
its case against a taxpayer as opposed to the current practice of
requiring taxpayers to prove the accuracy of their returns.

The other would have made married couples signing joint returns
"proportionately liable" for any taxes owed. Now each spouse can
be held liable for the entire tax owed even if it's due on income
attributable to the other spouse.

That means that after a divorce or separation the so-called
"innocent spouse" can be held liable for unpaid taxes uncovered
by audits.

Johnson said she believed Congress was obliged to fix the
problem but was convinced that lawmakers first should require
the Treasury Department and the General Accounting Office to
study the issue and report back in six months.

The bill would make one change designed to ease the plight of
"innocent spouses." It would require the IRS to inform each
spouse whether it was attempting to collect tax from the other
spouse.

The IRS usually tries to collect the tax from whichever spouse's
assets are more readily available and it refuses to tell the
"innocent spouse" the status of its effort to collect from the other
spouse.

The measure also would make it easier for the IRS to compromise
with taxpayers on overdue tax bills. It would require the agency to
notify taxpayers of overpayments rather than just keeping the
money without saying anything.

And it would enhance the independence of the IRS ombudsman's
office and expand its ability to issue orders protecting taxpayers
from unjust IRS actions.



    Unfortunately, the most important provision didn't make it into the
    bill; the burden of proof. As one who's been burned by this rule, I
    have a vested interest in seeing this "guilty until proven innocent"
    tenet eradicated.

    <--- It figures...vote on a bunch of "feel-good, does nothing" points
         while leaving the "burden of proof" part out.
    
    	 The Income Tax Must Die. Out, damned spot.

    >>The other would have made married couples signing joint returns
    >>"proportionately liable" for any taxes owed. Now each spouse can
    >>be held liable for the entire tax owed even if it's due on income
    >>attributable to the other spouse.
    
    Now why couldn't this have occurred two years ago :-/.......

    Question...
    
    If the vast majority, if not all, Americans want to disband the IRS,
    why can't we do it?
    
    I think the answer will help point out that "the people" no longer run
    the show.  We have a government 'by the government, for the government
    and beholdent to no one but the government'.  Changing Congressman is
    no longer good enough, it would seem- there are other powers to be
    dealt with to effect change.
    
    In order to really change things, three things need to be done.  
    
    * Repeal the federal reserve act.  
    
    * We must be brought out of a state of declared emergency.
    
    * We must rescind the treaty with the UN (see UN Participation Act of
    1945- then check Article VI of the Constitution).
    
    
    I'm sure there are many other things that need to be addressed, too,
    but these will do for starters.
    
    
    -steve (who hasn't really written a generic, ominous conspiracy note in
    a while  8^) )                             
    

>    If the vast majority, if not all, Americans want to disband the IRS,
>    why can't we do it?


Also because, even if you could get a clear majority of both houses of
congress to agree to do away with the IRS, the IRS has sufficient legal
staff to keep the attempt tied up in court, at the expense of the taxpayers,
for centuries.

    What id April 15th came and nobody filed??

>        <<< Note 75.90 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
>    What id April 15th came and nobody filed??

They'd keep all the money they withheld all year.
Why did you think they do it that way?

 ZZ   Why did you think they do it that way?
    
   Proper grammatical structure is: "Why DO you think they do it that way?"
    
    NNTTM

    
    	Jack correcting grammatical errors?
    
    	Eesh, I thought I had seen everything last week.
    

    They do it that way so everyone has to pay. Sooooo everyone could
    change their deductions to 99 (or even exempt) on their w-4 forms.
    
    Excuse me a minute someone is banging on my door with a hard object.
    Must be a neighbor or somthin....   :) 

    This looks interesting!!!
    
    		http://irs.class-action.com

    .94
    
    Gave me a good laugh. So, was it the neighbors or not !
    
    .96
    
    > why would anyone want to sue the IRS?
    
    Because it sounds like a good organization (I use "organization" is the
    loosest sense of the word) to sue ?
    
    Hmmm...be back momentarily...someone's at the door.  Looks like he's
    a martial arts instructor, in a black suit..
    
    
    
    
    
    ;
    lyujk4jko-kjjgj;h;ljl;g;jl;
    
    

    When someone is yelling through my front door "OPEN UP, OPEN UP NOW",
    is that anything for me to worry about????

>>    When someone is yelling through my front door "OPEN UP, OPEN UP NOW",
>>    is that anything for me to worry about????

	if it's not your psychiatrist, yes.

    I don't have a psychiatrist, so I guess I'm in trouble. I have a back
    door, maybe I should use it!!

    
    
    <--------
    
    
    Going to see a man about a horse???
    
    

    >Going to see a man about a horse???
    
    I decided to send my son to the door and tell them that his dad isn't
    home now.
    
    I thought it was a brave thing to do!!  :)
    
    Never mind, it's my neighbor. He thinks he's funny!!

                    COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

    The provisions of the United States Code regarding summons
enforcement proceedings, 26 U.S.C.,  7601 through 7610, have over
the last two decades been the subject of much litigation and have
been construed by the Federal Courts of Appeal as well as the
United States Supreme Court.  In Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440,
84 S.Ct. 508 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a witness or
taxpayer could challenge an I.R.S. summons on any appropriate
grounds and may assert as a defense to the proceedings the fact
that the materials sought by the I.R.S. relate solely for use as
evidence in a criminal prosecution.  In United States v. Powell,
379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248 (1964), the Court delineated the four
requisites necessary for any summons to be enforced.  In Donaldson
v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 91 S.Ct. 534 (1971), the Court held
that an I.R.S. summons could lawfully be used for a criminal
investigation provided the summons had a civil purpose.  In Couch
v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S.Ct. 611 (1973), the Court held
that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not protect
tax records in the possession of a taxpayer's accountant.  In
United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 95 S.Ct. 915 (1975), the
Court allowed the issuance of a John Doe summons for the purpose of
investigating a $40,000.00 deposit of $100.00 bills.  In Fisher v.
United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (1976), the Court held
that the Fifth Amendment did not protect tax records in the
possession of the taxpayer's attorney.  This line of cases
affirmatively shows that the Internal Revenue Service has very
broad summons authority and is lawfully entitled to secure
virtually any record or document in the possession of a third
party.

    I.R.S. summonses are issued to two separate and distinct
classes of persons, with one class representing third parties who
have possession and custody of books and records of the taxpayers
under investigation, and the other class comprising taxpayers under
investigation.  A summons enforcement action is utilized when
compliance with the summons has not been obtained, due to the
taxpayer notifying the third party not to comply, by the
institution of a suit to enjoin enforcement, or by the refusal on
the part of the taxpayer to comply when summons is directed to him.
When the Service proceeds to enforce a summons issued to either a
third party recordholder or the taxpayer himself, its burden of
proof is very minimal and amounts to nothing more than proof of
compliance with the requirements of Powell, supra; see United
States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1982).

    Whereas the burden of proof upon the Service is relatively
light in summons enforcement actions, a taxpayer opposing
enforcement of the summons has a far heavier burden to carry.
Basically, a taxpayer seeking denial of enforcement of the summons
has available three defenses:  bad faith, institutional posture and
the Fifth Amendment.  The "bad faith" defense is based upon Reisman
v. Caplin, supra, and Donaldson v. United States, supra, and
involves those situations wherein the summons has been issued for
the improper purpose of gathering evidence needed for a criminal
prosecution after referral to the Department of Justice.  The
"institutional posture" defense is based upon United States v.
LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S.Ct. 2357 (1978), and
relates to those situations when the Service has made an
institutional commitment to criminally prosecute the taxpayer under
investigation but desires to withhold referral to the Justice
Department to allow for the gathering of additional evidence needed
for a successful criminal prosecution.  These two defenses are most
often utilized by a taxpayer when intervening in a third party
summons enforcement action or commencing an action to enjoin
enforcement of the summons.

    Although a taxpayer opposing enforcement of a summons issued
to him may assert the defenses of "bad faith" and "institutional
posture," he will most likely rely upon the third defense available
to him, that of the Fifth Amendment.  The summonee under
investigation in this cause, is relying solely on this defense to
oppose enforcement of the Service summons which is the subject of
this action.  It is the Summonee's contention that the Fifth
Amendment protects him from compulsory production of books and
records concerning his "income" for the tax years under
investigation, especially where such production would provide all
the evidence needed by the Service to commence a successful
criminal prosecution against him.

    The history and development of the Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination has been one of slow but sure expansion
of the benefits of its protection.  James Madison, the prime author
of this provision in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution,
sought this provision to prevent the development in our country of
proceedings similar to or identical with Spanish Inquisitions or
Star Chamber proceedings.  A cursory examination of the William
Penn Case, 6 How. St. Tr. 951 (1670), reveals that resort to
"Spanish Inquisitions" has on many occasions been desired in order
to bring about the "efficient" operation of governmental machinery;
this is what Madison desired to avoid by inserting the Fifth
Amendment into our Constitution.  The original intent or purpose
for the Fifth Amendment was to compel the government to procure
independent evidence of the facts and proof of a crime other than
through the mouth of the accused.  Without such a requirement and
with the availability of procedures such as the Inquisition or Star
Chamber, the government could constantly harass law abiding
citizens and might on some occasion procure, through duress and
coercion, a confession.  But as is well known, such "confessions"
are highly suspect, hence we have the protection of the Fifth
Amendment.

    One of the most appropriate statements concerning the Fifth
Amendment and its operation was made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice
John Marshall in the case of United States v. Aaron Burr.  Chief
Justice Marshall, quoted in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547,
565, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892), maintained that a witness could plead the
Fifth Amendment not only in situations where his answer to a
question would directly implicate him in a crime, but also in
response to questions the answer to which would provide a link in
the chain of evidence needed to convict the witness of a crime.
Protection from compulsory testimony designed to implicate a
witness in a crime has been secured through the Fifth Amendment and
has been one of the most sacred principles known to American
jurisprudence.  This principle of the Fifth Amendment protection
from compulsory testimony, absent a grant of immunity, has seen no
erosion in its application since first expounded and requires but
few citations to support this general proposition;  see Hale v.
Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906), Blau v. United States,
340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223 (1950), and Hoffman v. United States,
341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951).

    The question of Fifth Amendment protection for the books,
records and personal documents of a witness who may be implicated
in a crime was first really considered in Boyd v. United States,
116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886), wherein the Supreme Court
expanded Fifth Amendment protection against compulsory testimony to
books and records of the witness.  In granting such protection, the
Court held as follows:

          "And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's
     oath, or compelling the production of his private books
     and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his
     property, is contrary to the principles of a free
     government.  It is abhorrent to the instincts of an
     Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an
     American.  It may suit the purposes of despotic power,
     but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political
     liberty and personal freedom,"  116 U.S., at 631, 632.

          "And we are further of opinion that a compulsory
     production of the private books and papers of the owner
     of goods sought to be forfeited in such a suit is
     compelling him to be a witness against himself, within
     the meaning of the fifth amendment to the Constitution,
     and is the equivalent of a search and seizure -- and an
     unreasonable search and seizure -- within the meaning of
     the fourth amendment," 116 U.S., at 634, 635.

     Since the rendition of the decision in Boyd, the Supreme Court
has on some occasions limited the full import of that historic
ruling.  In Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 31 S.Ct. 538
(1911), the Court held that the Boyd principle did not apply to
corporations; see also United States v. Peter, 479 F.2d 147 (6th
Cir. 1973); and In Re Grand Jury Empanelled March 8, 1983, 722 F.2d
294 (6th Cir. 1983).  Still later, application of Boyd to
partnership records was prohibited in Bellis v. United States, 417
U.S. 85, 94 S.Ct. 2179 (1974).  However, up until February 28,
1984, it still appeared that personal, non-corporate tax records of
a person with potential criminal liability were still protected by
Boyd principles.  When the Supreme Court held that Boyd protection
did not apply to partnership records in Bellis, supra, it expressly
affirmed this proposition by stating as follows:

          "The privilege applies to the business records of the
     sole proprietor or sole practitioner as well as to
     personal documents containing more intimate information
     about the individual's private life,"  417 U.S., at 87,
     88.

Likewise, Fisher, supra, did not emasculate Boyd in any respect as
the issue in that case was completely different; in fact, the Court
in Fisher definitely appeared to have sided with Boyd in the last
paragraph of its opinion, when it stated as follows:

          "Whether the Fifth Amendment would shield the taxpayer
     from producing his own tax records in his possession is
     a question not involved here; for the papers demanded
     here are not his 'private papers,' see Boyd v. United
     States," 425 U.S., at 414.

     Shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in
Fisher on April  21, 1976, it was confronted with a similar issue
in Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 2737 (1976), which
was rendered on June 29, 1976.  In Andresen, a search warrant had
been issued for the seizure of certain private books and records,
and the criminal defendant was not required to produce such records
or authenticate the same as authentication was achieved by the use
of third parties.  The Supreme Court in Andresen did not emasculate
Boyd in any way and in fact expressly affirmed Boyd by stating as
follows:

          "Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an
     individual from complying with a subpoena for the
     production of his personal records in his possession
     because the very act of production may constitute a
     compulsory authentication of incriminating information
     ..., a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement
     officers differs in a crucial respect -- the individual
     against whom the search is directed is not required to
     aid in the discovery, production or authentication of
     incriminating evidence," 427 U.S., at 473, 474.

     The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no
person shall be compelled to be a "witness" against himself in a
criminal prosecution.  Similar provisions exist in the
constitutions of the various states of our nation, with some such
constitutional provisions following the Fifth Amendment via use of
the word "witness" while other provisions offer more expansive
protection by stating that no person shall be compelled to give
"evidence" against himself in a criminal prosecution.  There exist
distinct and crucial differences in the type of protection offered
under these two different types of constitutional provisions.  The
protection against being compelled to give "evidence" against the
accused is far broader than protection only afforded to
"witnessing" and giving "evidence" arguably would include providing
to the prosecution documents incriminating to the accused.  The
protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment is only that of
proscribing testimonial compulsion and is not as all encompassing
as the provisions prohibiting compulsory production of "evidence."

     Neither Fisher nor Andresen disturbed the holding in Boyd or
Bellis and both are wholly consistent with these two other cases.
What the Supreme Court has seen fit to do is note the crucial
difference between protecting "evidence" and being a compelled
"witness"; private papers may no longer be specially protected and
in a distinct and different class from other evidence, property or
contraband.  What the Supreme Court has directed is that an accused
cannot be compelled to produce his own incriminating books and
records because such would involve to a degree an amount of
authentication of such books and records on the part of the
accused; such is tantamount to compelled testimony specifically
proscribed by the Fifth Amendment.  What the Supreme Court has
commanded is that if the government desires to obtain personal
books and records and use the same against the accused, it must be
done through witnesses other than the accused himself.  Prior to
February 28, 1984, the last known pronouncement by the Supreme
Court concerning Boyd was its decision in Bellis, and that opinion
expressly affirmed Boyd.

     Prior to February 28, 1984, a survey of the various Circuits
likewise revealed the continued vitality of the principles of Boyd
and the crucial government-citizen relationship which it protects.
In the First Circuit case of In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
(Martinez), 626 F.2d 1051 (1st Cir. 1980), the Court found that
"personal, self-created business records in the possession of a
sole proprietor or practitioner would enjoy a privilege against
subpoena," 626 F.2d, at 1056.  In the Second Circuit, the case of
United States v. O'Henry's Film Works, Inc., 598 F.2d 313 (2nd Cir.
1979), held that a corporate official's Fifth Amendment plea to
questions concerning the location of corporate records was valid;
see also United States v. Beattie, 522 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1975),
United States v. Patterson, 219 F.2d 659 (2nd Cir. 1955), In Re
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 657 F.2d 5 (2nd Cir. 1981), In Re
Grand Jury Witness (Gilboe), 699 F.2d 71 (2nd Cir. 1983), and
United States v. Bobart Travel Agency, Inc., 699 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir.
1983).  The three cases of In Re Grand Jury Empanelled March 19,
1980, 680 F.2d 327 (3rd Cir. 1982), In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
(Johanson), 632 F.2d 1033 (3rd Cir. 1980), and In Re Grand Jury
(Colucci), 597 F.2d 851 (3rd Cir. 1979), demonstrated that the
Third Circuit protects from production private books and records.
In United States v. Henry, 491 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1974), the Sixth
Circuit quashed an I.R.S. summons to a taxpayer already indicted on
a narcotics offense.  The Seventh Circuit, faced with a pro se
litigant in United States v. Awerkamp, 497 F.2d 832 (7th Cir.
1974), who was prematurely raising Fifth Amendment objections to
the enforcement of an I.R.S. summons, held that the taxpayer could
make specific Fifth Amendment pleas to questions directed at him
when he complied with the order of enforcement.

     In two other Seventh Circuit cases, Hill v. Philpott, 445 F.2d
144 (7th Cir. 1971), and United States v. Dickerson, 413 F.2d 1111
(7th Cir. 1969), that the Court held that the records of an
individual taxpayer were immune from a summons.  The Eighth
Circuit, in Isaacs v. United States, 256 F.2d 654 (8th Cir. 1958),
held a Fifth Amendment plea of a corporate official, in response to
questions relating to $99,000.00 in checks written by the
corporation, to be valid.  Another Eighth Circuit opinion in United
States v. Plesons, 560 F.2d 890 (8th Cir. 1977), would have granted
protection to the records of a doctor if he had raised his Fifth
Amendment plea to a grand jury subpoena before testifying
concerning such records.  In the Ninth Circuit, in the case of
United States v. Helina, 549 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1977), protection
of a taxpayer's records from production was upheld.  The Ninth
Circuit also has directly addressed the issue of protection of
taxpayer records in United States v. Cohen, 388 F.2d 464 (9th Cir.
1967), and has protected the same from compelled production.  The
preceding cases demonstrate that the great weight of authority in
the various Circuits is that an individual taxpayer's records are
protected from compulsory production because of the Fifth
Amendment.

     The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have apparently treated this
precise issue more often than the others and have conclusively
ruled that tax records of an individual are immune from production
on the basis of Boyd.  In the cases of Stuart v. United States, 416
F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1969), In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (McCoy), 601
F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1979), In Re Oswalt, 607 F.2d 645 (5th Cir.
1979), In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Kent), 646 F.2d 963 (5th Cir.
1981), and United States v. Meeks, 642 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1981),
this principle was upheld.  More specifically to the precise issue
as the case at bar is United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th
Cir. 1981), wherein that Court held as follows:

          "Their cumulative teaching is that any incriminating
     papers in the actual or constructive possession of an
     individual, which he holds in his individual capacity,
     ... and which he himself wrote or which were written
     under his immediate supervision, are absolutely protected
     by the Boyd principle from production by subpoena or
     equivalent process, regardless of whether they are
     business-related or more inherently personal in content,"
     636 F.2d, at 1043.

     The Sixth Circuit does not deviate in any respect from
comparable decisions made in other Circuits.  In Patty v.
Bordenkircher, 603 F.2d 587 (6th Cir. 1979), that Court held that
the government couldn't compel a criminal defendant to testify
concerning his previous criminal convictions where the same was
relevant to a habitual offender statute.  In United States v. Hill,
601 F.2d 253 (6th Cir. 1979), that Court acknowledged that a
"taxpayer" could raise issues by refusing to answer specific
questions.  In United States v. Doss, 563 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1977),
in a case involving an indicted defendant called before a grand
jury, that Court stated as follows:

          "However, upon the trial of the defendant in a criminal
     case, it would be a clear violation of a defendant's
     right against self-incrimination under the Fifth
     Amendment of the Constitution to compel him to take the
     stand, testify and produce his records, relating to the
     matter with which he is charged,"  563 F.2d, at 275.

In the recent case of United States v. Schlansky, 709 F.2d 1079
(6th Cir. 1983), in a case wherein the taxpayer under investigation
was compelled to surrender certain of his records which had
previously been in his accountant's possession, the Sixth Circuit
stated that the three elements of compulsion, testimonial
communication and incrimination by such communication were
requisites to a valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment.  In so
holding, that Court stated as follows:

          "Under this focus the key question is whether the
     compelled production involves compelled testimonial
     communication.  The answer to this question in turn
     depends on whether the very act of production supplies a
     necessary link in the evidentiary chain.  Does it confirm
     that which was previously unknown to the government;
     e.g., the existence or location of the materials?  Does
     it supply assurance of authenticity not available to the
     government from sources other than the person summonsed?
     Though the party seeking to avoid compliance does not
     have to show more than is required to demonstrate that
     the privilege is properly claimed, he must make some
     showing that the act of production alone would involve an
     incriminating testimonial communication,"  709 F.2d, at
     1084.

     The Third Circuit case of In Re Grand Jury Empanelled March
19, 1980, 680 F.2d 327 (3rd Cir. 1982), involved the issue of
compulsory production of books and records and that Court continued
to uphold the principles of Boyd.  Because of the government defeat
on this issue, the government sought and obtained a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which granted the
writ.  On February 28, 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the
above decision in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 104 S.Ct.
1237 (1984).  In this most recent pronouncement from that Court, it
reversed its former holding in Boyd and held that books and records
were no longer protected by the Fifth Amendment.  It reasoned that
the Fifth Amendment protected only compelled testimony and not
books and records; it relied heavily upon its rationale in Fisher,
supra.  But, while the Court decided to withdraw Fifth Amendment
protection to books and records, it held that production of such
books and records was entitled to such protection.  Compulsory
production of books and records via subpoena or summons contains
communicative, testimonial aspects, reasoned the Court, and these
testimonial communicative aspects are entitled to Fifth Amendment
protection.  The Court quoted Fisher as follows:

          "Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the
     existence of the papers by the taxpayer.  It also would
     indicate the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those
     described in the subpoena,"  104 S.Ct., at 1242.

Thus, in United States v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that
the act of producing books and records is entitled to Fifth
Amendment protection.

     The U.S. Supreme Court, in Boyd v. United States, supra,
clearly held that compulsory production via subpoena or summons of
books, records and other documents in the possession of a witness
was not permitted by the Fifth Amendment.  This holding, lasting
some 98 years, effectively prevented the government from obtaining
such written documentation from one having potential criminal
liability.  In United States v. Doe, supra, the Court made a change
in emphasis on the construction of the Fifth Amendment and held
that the Amendment did not protect such records; and by making this
change, a problem not addressed by Boyd arose.  If the records are
not protected from compulsory production by the amendment, what
protection by the Fifth Amendment is left to a witness under
process to produce documents?  In Doe, the Court analyzed this
situation and found that the mere act of producing such documents
via compulsion in effect, non-verbally, provided the following:

     (a)  Such production concedes that the requested documentation
exists;
     (b)  Such production proves that the same are in the witness'
possession;
     (c)  Such production proves that the witness believes that the
documents so   produced are those which are sought;
     (d)  The act of production authenticates the documents.

Because of these non-verbal but communicative aspects present
within any act of production, the Court held that the Fifth
Amendment applied to the act of production.  Thus, even though
there is no longer any protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment
for books and records, the Fifth Amendment's protection for the act
of production accomplishes virtually the same result as under the
Boyd doctrine.

     This has proven to be the case for various cases decided
subsequent to the opinion in Doe.  In In re Kave, 760 F.2d 343 (1st
Cir. 1985), an attorney was permitted to plead the protection of
the Fifth Amendment because the request to produce certain
documentary evidence would have in effect, under the "act of
production" rule, forced her to testify against herself.  In so
holding, this Court held:

          "The compelled production of such documents is prohibited
     only if there are testimonial aspects to the act of
     production itself. ... This rule extends to the business
     records of a sole proprietor ... In this context, the
     rule has three elements:  The Fifth Amendment protects
     against compulsory surrender of (1) personal business
     records, (2) in the possession of a sole proprietor or
     practitioner, (3) only with respect to the testimonial
     act implicit in the surrender itself,"  760 F.2d, at 355,
     356.

In the case of In Re Grand Jury Matter, 768 F.2d 525 (3rd Cir.
1985), the issue of the compulsory production of corporate records
was in issue.  While in the past such records have not been immune
from production, here the Court held that the "act of production"
rule applied and thus prevented the witness from being compelled to
authenticate the corporate records by such production.  In United
States v.(Under Seal), 745 F.2d 834 (4th Cir. 1984), a case decided
some seven (7) months after Doe, the Fourth Circuit specifically
held that personal and individual records can't be forcibly
produced by any process, over a Fifth Amendment objection; see also
United States v. Cates, 686 F.Supp. 1185 (D.Md. 1988). The Doe "act
of production" rule was followed in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings,
747 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir. 1984), to prevent the compulsory production
of corporate and partnership records.  In United States v. G & G
Advertising Company, 762 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1985), that Court held
that corporate records could be compelled from a witness by means
of a summons, but personal records could not; see also United
States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991).  And finally,
in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings on Feb. 4, 1982, 759 F.2d 1418 (9th
Cir. 1985), it was determined that records of a party under
investigation in the hand's of his attorney were entitled to the
Doe "act of production" rule.  Thus, according to the rationale of
these cases, the compulsory production of private personal records
cannot be obtained in view of a valid Fifth Amendment objection.
Therefore, it is clear that the decision in Boyd still produces a
legal result, even if from its "grave."

                                CONCLUSION

    A summons or subpoena for individual books and records, either
personal or business, can't be enforced over a Fifth Amendment
objection because of the Doe "act of production" rule.


                           THE CIVIL PROCEEDING

    The rule that a party or a witness can plead the right against
self-incrimination in civil proceedings has been well established
by an abundance of authority. In Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70,
77, 94 S.Ct. 316 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court stated the rule as
follows:

         "The Amendment not only protects the individual against
     being involuntarily called as a witness against himself
     in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to
     answer official questions put to him in any other
     proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where
     the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings."

    And subsequent decisions, examples of which are Maness v.
Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 95 S.Ct. 584 (1975), and Pillsbury Company v.
Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983), serve only to buttress
this basic principle and apply it to specific situations. And this
rule is followed by the federal appellate courts; see In re Kave,
760 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1985); National Life Ins. Co. v. Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Co., 615 F.2d 595 (3rd Cir. 1980); Wehling v.
Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1979); In Re
Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litigation, 620 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.
1980); In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161 (6th Cir. 1983); and United
States v. Jones, 703 F.2d 473 (10th Cir. 1983).

    Decisions on this point by various state courts reveal that
this rule is not a modern one. In Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala.
639, 45 So. 641, 645 (1908), that Alabama court acknowledged that
a party in a civil case could claim the right against self-incrimination. And i
n International Brotherhood of Teamsters v.
Hatas, 287 Ala. 344, 252 So.2d 7, 21 (1971), the Court stated this
principle as follows:

         "The privilege against self-incrimination afforded by
     section 6 of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama has been
     held available to a party in a civil action."

    Similar decisions have been made by courts in other States in
the Union. In State ex rel. Hudson v. Webber, 600 S.W.2d 691, 692
(Mo. App., 1980), the facts involved were virtually identical to
the facts of this case. There, a judgment debtor pleaded his right
against self-incrimination in answer to questions posed to him
regarding his financial affairs, his fear of incrimination likewise
being related to federal taxes. The court sanctioned the answers of
this party stating as follows:

         "This privilege is available to a judgment debtor in
     proceedings pursuant to sections 513.380-513.390, RSMO
     1978."

And it clearly seems that the great weight of other State
authorities holds that the right applies in civil cases; see Carson
v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188 (Fla.App. 1985); Lewis v. First American
Bank of Palm Beach, 405 So.2d 300 (Fla.App. 1981); Travis Meat &
Seafood Co. v. Ashworth, 127 Ga. App. 284, 193 S.E.2d 166 (1972);
In re Zisook, 88 Ill.2d 321, 430 N.E.2d 1037 (1982); Martincich v.
City of Hammond, 419 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. App. 1981); Whippany Paper
Board Co. v. Alfano, 176 N.J.S. 363, 423 A.2d 648 (1980); Banca v.
Town of Phillipsburg, 181 N.J.S. 109, 436 A.2d 944 (1981); People
ex rel. Anonymous v. Saribeyoglu, 131 Misc. 2d 647, 501 N.Y.S.2d
286 (1986); Byrd v. Hodges, 44 N.C.App. 509, 261 S.E.2d 269 (1980);
Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Parklawn Manor, Inc., 41 Ohio St.2d
47, 322 N.E.2d 642 (1975); Rey v. Means, 575 P.2d 116 (Okl. 1978);
Caloric Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 452
A.2d 907 (Pa. Comwlth. 1982); Ex Parte Stringer, 546 S.W.2d 837
(Tex.App. 1985); Smith v. White, 695 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.App. 1985);
Affleck v. Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, 655
P.2d 665 (Utah 1982); Eastham v. Arndt, 28 Wash. App. 524, 624 P.2d
1159 (1981); and In re Grant, 83 Wis.2d 77, 264 N.W.2d 587 (1978).

                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                     Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  November 20, 1995

				    
      Statement by President Clinton on Signing of Treasury Postal
	   Service and General Government Appropriations Act



   Last night I signed into law H.R. 2020, the "Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1996."

   The Act provides a total of $11.3 billion in discretionary budget
authority for various programs in the Department of the Treasury, the
U.S. Postal Service, the General Services Administration, the Office of
Personnel Management, the Executive Office of the President, and several
smaller agencies.  With this legislation enacted into law, over 140,000
furloughed employees were able to go back to work.

   I am pleased that a provision contained in an earlier version of the
bill, which would have limited the political advocacy rights of
non-profit organizations that receive Federal funding, was removed from
the bill.  This unacceptable provision would have presented a broad
attack on the exercise of fundamental rights protected by the First
Amendment.

   Regrettably, the Congress has not funded the Internal Revenue Service
at a sufficient level to ensure the kind of service that the taxpayers
deserve.  I am disappointed that the Congress eliminated the FY 1995
funding of $405 million for the compliance initiative as it creates
serious risks to the levels of tax compliance.  At the very least, this
action is expected to result in the loss of additional revenue over the
next five years.  Major compliance cuts send the wrong signal and reward
tax cheats.  The Internal Revenue Service's FY 1996 funding level is not
consistent with the efforts of the Administration and the Congress to
balance the Federal budget.

   Again, I urge the Congress to meet its responsibilities by sending me
the remaining regular FY 1996 appropriations bills in acceptable form.

                         WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 20, 1995.

--

    >Again, I urge the Congress to meet its responsibilities by sending me
    >the remaining regular FY 1996 appropriations bills *in*acceptable*form.*
    
     The prez is a regular comedian. 

    
    Commodian. nnttm.

    Consider that the IRS employs armed agents within their "criminal"
    Division. Using deceit they point at the money and property seized.
    Using these gun carrying agents the IRS squeezes the working assets out
    of the "underground" economy, heroic entrepreneurs, struggling
    individuals, families and small businesses. They point to the dollars
    thay have seized from those whom they have crippled, destroyed or
    jailed. A small amount of thinking reveals that these armed IRS agents
    are the real criminals who destroy our present and future economy,
    jobs, freedom, privacy and well being. IRS forced paperwork alone is
    the greatest time and life destroyer ever devised to expand
    bureaucratic jobs and power. Most destructively, the IRS smothers our
    youth. Few if any youths today can rise to become the independent
    business giants needed for the future prosperity of our society.

    The IRS should be done away with, and so should the 16th Amendment and
    the Federal Reserve Act.
    
    Undo these three things, and there is at least a REMOTE chance that we
    can return freedom to Americans.  A tax slave does not a free man make.
    
    Of course, the likelihood of this happening is on par with the odds of
    me causing a nuclear explosion by rubbing two sticks of uranium
    together.
    
    
    -steve

    The trouble with doing away with the IRS, is what do we do with them?
    
    We have enough of a crime problem without putting professionals out
    there...

    <--- true enough, but I'm willing to take my chances.  

    So, now the IRS is a jobs program?

    What, is there any other reason for their existence?

>So, the goverment invented and extensive civil service system to hire them.
    
    I've heard it said that there are now more citizens working in federal,
    state and local government then in private industry. Can anyone confirm
    this. If it is true, less than 50% of the working poulation is
    producing for the entire country. Actually it is probably lower than
    that. One could wonder how long this can continue before economic
    destruction.

    
    
    Not in private industry, but in manufacturing (that's how I heard it).
    
    
    Mike

    Taken from http://irs.class-action.com/part1.html
    
    Have you, a family member, a friend or loved one ever been defrauded,
    looted, hurt, injured, brutalized, or destroyed by IRS agents? Do you want 
    legal justice? Do you want to alleviate the sufferings and fears
    caused by the IRS? You can now safely participate in massive, class-action-
    type lawsuits against the IRS, its armed agents of force, its paid 
    informants, and those politicians responsible for illegal tax laws,
    fraudulent assessments, regulations, penalties, liens, levies, seizures,
    and garnishments. These class-action lawsuits will be based on cruel-and-
    unusual punishment as well as involuntary servitude in violation of the
    8th and 13th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
    ...Ending those IRS cruelties and slavery is the route to everyone's 
    prosperity.
    
    Become a plaintiff and add to the expanding arsenal of legal evidence 
    simply by telling us how the IRS has harmed you or others. Email us at 
    sue@irs.class-action.com. You can also join the action on the Eliminate-
    the-IRS Newsgroup at its alt.irs.class-action address. 
    
         Note: For those not living in America, this IRS class-action
               lawsuit will serve as a model for similar actions
               against criminal-behaving tax authorities, politicians, 
               and judges in other countries. Feel free to write or email 
               us about your problems. 
    
    

    This time of year I do wish the IRS would be gone!

???

I thought this was vacation planning season for you?

    Jack:
    
    I'm about 50% ahead of last year at this time, but I'm paying for it
    with my body and these 90 hour weeks...

    this time of year i wish the IRS were more efficient.

Thanks for the reminder.  I just called 1-800-TAX-FORM to order the forms
and publications I need.

    
    I just wish they would send back my money!!
    
    
    ed

    Found this at http://www2.connectnet.com/users/henryn/1040ltr.html
    
    Very interesting!
    
    
    
Higher Truth Subscriber Receives $26,625.00 100% Refund, This $652 Interest
Paid by the IRS!
    
Following is a copy of the letter used to receive a 100% refund, plus
interest, paid by the Government! It is a modified version of the letter
which appeared in Vol. 1, Issue 3 of the Higher Truth. The subscriber
intelligently added some additional information from Vultures in Eagle's
Clothing. The names have been deleted for privacy.

This letter could be used with a 1040X also.

April 10, 1995

To: The Internal Revenue Service

This statement is being submitted as part of our 1994 income tax return,
and is an intrgral part of that return. Even though we now know that no
section of the Internal Revenue Code:
    
1. establishes an income tax "liability" as, for example, 26 USC, Code
sections 4401(c) (wagering), 5005 (distillers), 5703 (tobacco), 1461
(withholding agents "made liable" for withholding), do with respect to
other taxes.
    
2. provides that "income taxes have to be paid on the basis of a return"
as, for example, Code sections 4374, 4401(c), 5601(a) and 5703(o), 1461
provide with respect to other taxes.

We are filing this "return" because we are aware that people have been
prosecuted for the non-existent crime of failing to file a 1040 Form as
allegedly required by Code sections 7201 and 7203 of the Internal Revenue
Code. Therefore, this return, as well as those returns previously filed, is
not and were not filed voluntarily, but is being filed so as to prevent our
illegal prosecution for allegedly failing to file an income tax return for
the year 1994.

It should be noted that the courts have ruled, "A (1040) form with zeros
inserted in the space provided...qualified as a return," See U.S. vs Long,
618 F. 2d 2d 74 (9th Cir. 1980); U.S. vs Kimbal, No. 87-1392 D.C. No.
Cr.-86-00l7-ECR (9th Cir. filed 2/26/1990); and U.S. vs. Moore, 627 F. 2d
830 (7th Cir,)

It should also be noted that in the Eisner vs Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 case,
the supreme Court ruled that the actual, real meaning of the word "income"
is only, "gains and profits" derived from capital and severed from capital.
Therefore, remuneration or compensation for labor. earned by Citizens of
any of the 50 Union states, engaged in occupations of common right, in the
50 states, does not constitute "income, gross income," or "taxable income,"
for federal tax purposes.

"Congress has taxed "income" [profits and gains] and not compensation." -
Conner vs U.S. 303 F. Supp., 1187, `69.

One does not derive income [profits and gains] by rendering services and
charging for them, - Edwards vs. Keith, 23 Fed, Rep. I

It should be noted that, "with no exceptions," a Right protected by the
Constitution of the United States can never be curtailed by an Act of
Congress or by the State Legislature. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1870 pp.
622-624

Therefore our Right to labor in a lawful occupation is an inborn and
absolute prerogative and the government may not impose a charge or fee for
the exercise of such a right.

Federal income tax is an indirect excise tax authorized under Article I,
Sec. 8, Cl. 1 of the Constitution, Excise taxes are imposed upon taxable
activities and, "the requirement to pay such taxes requires the exercise of
a privilege. -Flint vs. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107

A Citizen's activities can be classified into two categories: 1. Activities
which are taxable for revenue purposes 2. Activities which only involve the
exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right, such as earning one's
living by engaging in lawful, innocent and harmless activities.

Realizing the distinction between these two types of activities is
important because the supreme Court said: "A state may not impose a charge
for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution" -Murdock
vs Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at page 113

"The individual, unlike the corporation cannot be taxed for the mere
privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes
its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual's right
to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an
EXCISE cannot be imposed." Reilfield vs Fisher, Greg. Sup. Ct. 292 at pg
819

"Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means
other than an income tax but legislature cannot name something a taxable
privilege unless it is first a privilege...The right to receive income or
earnings is a right belonging to every person and the realization and
receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed." - Jack
Cole Company v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, Tenn. [[also see West Keys -
Taxation, 53, 993.]

It should also be noted that I was not born in and did not earn income in
Washington D.C. or in any Territories over which the United States is
sovereign, therefore I am not a U.S. citizen subject to its jurisdiction. I
am not the citizen described in 26 CFR l.l-1(c).

PLEASE BE ADVISED that I am non-resident alien [Americans] in relationship
to United States income tax laws, never having lived, worked or having
income from any source within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands., Guam. American Samoa or any other Territory within the United
States, which entity has its origin and jurisdiction from Article I, Sec.
5. Cl. 17 of the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, we are
non-taxpayers outside of the venue and jurisdiction of 26 U.S.C.

Vol. 20: Corpus Juris Sec. Sec. l785, states:

"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a
state." NY vs Merriam 36 N.E. 505, 1441 5. Ct. 1973,41 L.Ed 287.

Thank you in advance for a prompt refund of my mistakenly estimated tax
payments of 1994.

Sincerely,

    Somebody set fire to the IRS building here in Colorado Springs
    yesterday. My feelings are mixed.

    
    waiting to see if your records were destroyed?
    

    
    
    	har har..:)
    
    

    I wouldn't be so lucky! I think my records are in Ogden, UT. The office
    in Colorado Springs is just a local office, used to harrass local
    citizens only.  :)

    No reports of injuries to firefighters.  
    
    Guess that is the good news, along with the "charred 'n fried" that comes
    from seeing the suffering of an adversary.  
    
    Well we do have our share of crazies here.  Must be from Newt and Bill
    Bennet breaking into Charles Duke's house so often. 
    
    meg 
    

===============================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
===============================================

The GOP's latest wacky suggestion:
The "Taxpayer Protection Agency"

        WASHINGTON, DC -- The IRS is dead! Long live the Taxpayer
Protection Agency!

        That's the plan of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) --
but his suggestion to change the name of America's most feared
government agency has Libertarians laughing out loud.

        "You can call a pig an eagle, but that won't make it fly,"
scoffed Steve Dasbach, chairman of the Libertarian Party. "And
politicians can call the IRS the Taxpayer Protection Agency, but that
won't make Americans hate it any less."

        Lott's suggestion to give the Internal Revenue Service a new,
friendlier name came during a little-noticed speech to the Economic
Club of Chicago earlier this month.

        Arguing that the income tax system is too complicated, Lott
said, "When it comes to the IRS, don't mend it, end it. My own
preference is to replace the IRS with the Taxpayer Protection Agency."

        Upon hearing that suggestion, Dasbach's first reaction was:
Didn't George Orwell think of this first?

        "We're waiting for Senator Lott to change the name of the CIA
to the Ministry of Truth; the Pentagon to the Ministry of Peace; the
Agriculture Department to the Ministry of Plenty; and the BATF to the
Ministry of Love," he quipped, referring to Orwell's classic 1984. In
that novel, the government told its citizen-slaves that "War is Peace"
and "Freedom is Slavery."

        "And in Trent Lott's America, a government agency that seizes
$629 billion annually from our paychecks and routinely terrorizes
honest Americans is called the Taxpayer Protection Agency," said
Dasbach. "It's a suggestion that would make even George Orwell blush!"

        But Senator Lott had more on his mind than just Orwellian name
changes. In the same speech, he advocated a massive tax cut for all
Americans. In fact, Lott said government should take "not just a lower
share of income, but less money, period."

        "Then, a few weeks later, Lott helped negotiate the budget
agreement with President Clinton that increased the cost of government
by $270 billion over five years!" said Dasbach. "In Trent Lott's
America, truth is falsehood and tax cuts are budget increases."

        But, ironically, that budget deal could lead to the one real
benefit from Lott's proposed IRS name change, said Dasbach.

        "Americans will be able to call the new Taxpayer Protection
Agency and tell them: Protect us! Republican and Democratic politicians
are trying to steal $270 billion more of our money!

        "Yes, taxpayers need protection -- but we need protection from
deceitful politicians like Senator Lott."

        What the Senate Majority Leader can't grasp, said Dasbach, is
that the problem with the IRS is not the name.

        "Ask any American and they'll tell you: The problem is that the
IRS is a powerful, arrogant agency that tramples our civil liberties,"
he said. For example:

        * The IRS has the power to conduct taxpayer "lifestyle audits,"
prying through personal belongings, shopping habits, and bank accounts
for evidence that their lifestyle doesn't match their tax returns. IRS
Commissioner Margaret Richardson boasted that the program allows IRS
agents to "audit the taxpayer, not just the tax return."

        * The IRS makes 10 million annual demands for additional
taxes -- but 70% of those tax assessments are overturned by the IRS's
own Appeals Office.

        * Over 800 IRS employees were caught snooping through the tax
records of friends, neighbors, and celebrities -- and a third of those
culprits received no punishment.

         "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet -- but
the IRS by any other name would still stink," said Dasbach. "It would
still be a tax-grabbing, citizen-hassling, record-snooping,
Constitution-violating bunch of bureaucratic thugs. It needs to be
abolished, not given a warm and fuzzy new name."

    Nah ... they should rename it in a way that shows us how open to
    change they are.
    
    How about OpenIRS?