posted November 25, 2013 03:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You'd prefer I be vacuous like yourself unable to articulate my thoughts or my research?

---

PS To the stealth quoter-- vacuous is an insult.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 25, 2013 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catalina:
PS to Ami
Calling AG Edster is an insult. If you care to engage the discussion instead of pronouncing on people's brainpower who knows, we might be impressed with yours.

---

From the Queen of insults

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 25, 2013 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

An Affidavit is used all the time by tax attorneys when their clients don't have supporting documentation or have lost it. It does not perjure the taxpayer. It supports the claims on the return.

---

I'd like you to prove this one to me. It's not logical.
What's logical is that there are two requirements to setting up a truthful context: the assertion, and the documentation of the assertion. You can't mimic the assertion, and claim you've established a truthful context. Either I can illustrate for you, or you can imagine yourself how well that would play out. The only way it works is if it's true, and the receipt-bearing entity gives up your receipt. If you're testifying to true things, though, why wouldn't you just get the process over with, and produce the receipt yourself?

quote:

---

You shouldn't give answers when you don't understand the question.

---

Are you going to follow this advice as an attorney? I am certain that you know less of this law than you're trying to put forth here. You can be arrogant here, responding to a layperson. You won't get by with a less-than-sufficient argument in front of a judge.

quote:

---

I haven't looked up your cases yet, but I'm well-versed in Katz as I did a legal brief on it for a class this year, and I fail to see what it has to do with the matters of this thread. It's about reasonable expectation of privacy in a phone both.

---

That was part of a section from Wikipedia regarding one of the cases cited by your reference: Boyd vs. The United States. The point of my putting it there was to say that the assumption put forth in reference to the Boyd v. The United States case is not unequivocal; the case law doesn't end there, and no one should make assertions only citing Boyd v. United States when other cases may be in play. The protection against unreasonable searches goes away once there's merit for a reasonable search. If you're already down that path, then it's already being treated as a criminal matter; the taxpayer has already escalated his/her audit by being uncooperative.

posted November 25, 2013 07:59 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 26, 2013 11:46 AM            

quote:

---

Are you finally conceding that submitting to an audit is voluntary? And if so, why do you think it's voluntary?

---

It's voluntary, but with a huge caveat.
It's not "voluntary" in the end for me. Eating is voluntary, but if you don't do it there are consequences. Same here. It's an impractical idea.
In the same way you think I should cede the point, I think you should cede the point that it doesn't benefit a person at all whatsoever to follow your ideas about taxes.

quote:

---

As to my knowledge there had been no need to update the Handbook for Special Agents. This is further confirmed by it being digitized In 2011.

---

I doubt that. Digitizing it doesn't make it relevant to modern times. Lots of old materials have been digitized.

quote:

---

It is an internal set of procedural guidelines, so no, you shouldn't he able to find it on the IRS website, as that would be counterproductive to the IRS' mission, don't you think?

---

posted November 26, 2013 10:20 PM            

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1181309.html

posted November 27, 2013 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Got it! The name slightly changed. The last update was 2003, and it now has 396 pages. http://books.google.com/books/about/Criminal_Investigation.html?id=SoPOOQAACAAJ

---

Great work! I think the important part here is the title, which includes very specifically "Criminal Investigation." These are the people your case gets handed to if there's any whiff of illegality.

quote:

---

I found an FOIA request of all of the IRS' internal procedural manuals. If you scroll down a few pages, you will see a 1984 edition of it. Look for 1984 and the handbook code of 9900. So, it is being updated. They do a good job of keeping it offline. Government publications are not copyrighted, so someone should upload it to a website. http://www.governmentattic.org/5docs/IRS-IRM-HistInvs_2011.pdf

---

I see it, and some other handbooks that might be equally instructive.

quote:

---

In light of this, we view ourselves today as completing a task begun forty years ago and hold that, absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order.

---

My only concern here is that the IRS will look into more of your returns as a result as they now suspect something is being hidden intentionally.

quote:

---

I wonder why you don't see this info on the IRS' website, AG? You seem to defer to the IRS' website for your information, so I'm just wondering why the IRS doesn't tell taxpayers that they can ignore IRS summonses and there can be no legal ramifications for doing so? Any ideas why the IRS wouldn't be openly forthcoming about this fact?

---

I don't really appreciate the winky smiley here.
I've already told you why several times. Your refusal to submit to an audit can [and likely will] lead a more severe audit followed by criminal proceedings. The premise that the freedom from audit is preferable to a day in court for questioning on as many as six years of filing sounds reversed. You rather pay for some combination of an attorney, an accountant, and/or an enrolled agent rather than submit to having one year's records poured over?

quote:

---

They are a complete bluff and have no legal force and effect. These are signed by an agent. In truth, no such summons need be obeyed unless signed by a federal judge. Shock Shock!

---

You're acting as if the IRS can't get a judge to sign off on something like this.

quote:

---

Wonder why you don't see on the IRS website that if they hand your bank a summons, they are free to ignore it? Any idea why the IRS wouldn't share that fact with us?

---

They do:

7. ATAT (Abusive Tax Avoidance Transactions) taxpayers may raise a defense against an issued summons citing their rights against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This defense is not necessarily applicable in every case and when raised, the revenue officer should contact Area Counsel through Technical Services Advisory (Advisory) for guidance on the application of the constitutional argument to a specific situation. See IRM 5.17.6.11, Constitutional Defenses, for additional discussion of constitutional defenses.

8. Taxpayers may raise other privilege defenses against an issued summons. Contact Area Counsel through Advisory on the application of such privilege claims. See IRM 5.17.6.13 through IRM 5.17.6.17. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-020-004.html

They go to Area Counsel who likely goes to the judge to obtain the warrant.

quote:

---

Could it be that it would adversely affect voluntary compliance if the IRS readily admitted that taxpayers are not legally required to submit to audits and can even ignore IRS summonses?

---