Return to index
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:51:23 -0700
To: RD@Syninfo.COM
From: RD@Syninfo.COM
Subject: 32 Questions: Stopping an IRS Audit

Return-path:
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 23:02:27 -0700
From: Harold Thomas
Subject: piml] Confucius say,
"Man who ride in rocket sled wise to wear asbestos pants!"
To: Jus Dare
Errors-to: piml-owner@mars.galstar.com
X-bmw: Black Marble Wombat Version 5.1 Galstar Secure Hack

This was emailed to me 5/22/97. It is excellent. However, as I'm in
this "Confucius" mood tonight, Confucius also say, "When facing bull,
never wave red cape unless sword wrapped in it!" Bill Drexler is a
seasoned bull fighter. When he waves the red cape, the IR BUll not only
knows there's a sword, it knows Bill can wield the thing pretty well.

Confucius' final advice, "Second man to dive into muddy water more
foolish than first!"

Harold

"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment,
not upon distraint" Flora v. U.S.
362 US 145 [unless, of course, you neglect to "volunteer". HT]

Notice: The following is presented to you via Bill Drexler's newsletter,
with permission. Before, and
if, you use it , be sure the case cites are correct. [and you understand
and can EXPLAIN them. HT]

32 Questions: Stopping an IRS Audit

[date}

Certified Mail:

To: IRS Representative/Agent:

It is required of you in your official capacity, and requested of you as
an individual person acting
under color of law, that you answer the following list of questions, 32
in number, WHICH
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER under the provisions of the
Privacy Act, the
Freedom of Information Act, and various court decisions. Under each
question the pertinent
authorities have been cited which mandate a complete answer from you
upon this request. Thank
you for your cooperation.

1) State the authority, giving the specific section of the IRC for the
solicitation of the information
that you desire (Freedom of Information Act; Privacy Act; US v. Newman,
441 F2d 170; Treasury
Form Letter L-423 with Publication 876 - same authorities cited for #1
thru #5).

2) State whether the disclosure of the requested information is
mandatory or voluntary. If
mandatory, what penalties may/will result from non-compliance in
furnishing the data you
requested?

3) State the principal and specific purposes for which the information
requested is to be used in
any and all capacities.

4) State the routine uses which may be made of the requested
information, or any other use to be
made of the requested information.

5) State the effects upon this person of whom you have requested
information, specifically the
taxpayer, for not providing to you the information requested.

6) Explain and show that the investigation involved is of the kind
authorized by federal statute
(Martin v. Chandid, 128 F2d 731; Pacific Mills v. Kenefick, 99 F2d 188).

7) Explain how and why the demand for information is not too vague
and/or broad in scope (US v.
Newman, 441 F2d 170; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; First National
Bank of Mobile v. US, 160
F2d 532; US v. Coopers and Lybrand, FSupp 942; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d
35).

8) Explain and show that the information sought is relevant or material
as a lawful subject of
inquiry (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; International Brotherhood of Teamsters
v. US, 240 F2d 387; US
v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; May v. Davis, 7 F Supp
596; US v. Brown, 536 F2d
117).

9) Explain why and how the investigation is pursuant to legitimate
purpose(s) (same authorities
as #6 thru #8).

10) Explain why and how the inquiry for information may be relevant to
the purpose(s) (same
authorities as #6 thru #8).

11) Show and prove that the information is not already in your
possession or can not be obtained
from other sources (same authorities as #6 thru #8).

12) Show and prove that the Secretary or his delegate has determined
that this further
examination is necessary (IRC Section 7605[b]).

13) Show and prove that all other administrative steps required by the
Internal Revenue Code
(IRC) have been followed to the letter of the law (Martin v. Chandis,
128 F2d 731; US v. Powell,
379 US 48).

14) Show and prove that after initial investigation, the Secretary or
his delegate has determined
that further examination is necessary and warranted (US v. Powell, 379
US 48; US v. Cooppers &
Lybrand, F Supp 942; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; Sherar v. Cullen,
481 F2d 945).

15) Show and prove that the taxpayer has been properly notified that
further examination is
necessary (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; IRC Section 7605[b]).

16) State the exact reason(s), in detail, for the examination of each
year specific information is
requested (US v. Third Northwestern National Bank, 102 F Supp 879;
FOIA).

17) State whether there is a misconception and/or mistake in the tax
return for each year that
information is requested (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor
Co., 536 F2d 1090).

18) State exactly wherein the mistake lies, or if in fact one exists (US
v. London Insurance Agency,
Inc. 72-2 T.C.; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35).

19) Specify exactly which item(s) of income or expense item(s) is (are)
in question on the tax
return(s), if any. (same as # 18).

20) State why the specific income and/or expense item is in question, or
is being examined (same
as # 18).

21) Explain why and what issue in law or in fact is questioned, if any
(FOIA; US v. McCarthy, 514
F2d 368).

22) State the name, address, and telephone number of any person or
persons informing you of
any questions or concern involved in any item or any tax return or any
activity of the taxpayer
(Sixth Amendment; US v. Zack, D.C. Nev 4/20/74; Favre v. Henderson, 409
US 942; FOIA).

23) State exactly what was said, either verbal and/or written concerning
any item, tax return or
activity of the taxpayer by any person(s) informing or directing you to
conduct an examination,
directly, and/or indirectly (Same as # 22).

24) State and prove that the taxpayer is not being subjected to an
examination based on or for
any political, ideological, harassment, pressure tactic, or bad-faith
purpose, and is not being
singled out for prosecution as an example to other taxpayers for any
reason (US v. Powell, 379 US
48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368;
US v. Roundtree, 420
F2d 845; Chaukin v. Alexander, 401 F Supp 817; FOIA).

25) State and explain why the examination can not and will not amount to
an inquisition or
arbitrary inquiry on the part of the examiner (Local 174 International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. McKay, 372 F2d 174; US v. Powell, 379 US 48;
US v. Michigan Bell
Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; US v. Third Northwestern Bank, 102 F Supp
879).

26) State and explain why IRC Section 7605 [b] does not apply to any
examination where "...No
taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or
investigation..." (Pacific Mills v.
Kenefick, 99 F2d 188).

27) State the exact methods used, either past and/or present to gather
information concerning
this taxpayer, and whether information was gathered through the use of
surveillance, telephone
wire-tapping, mail coverage, interviews, illegal entry, informers,
spies, or otherwise (FOIA; US v.
Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F3d 945).

28) State whether the verification of specific deductions would be the
limited scope of the
examination (US v. Powell, 379 US 48).

29) State and explain any objection to the use of electronic recorder(s)
during the pursuit of this
examination (IRS Manual MT 9900-26, 1/29/75, paragraph 241.5).

30) State whether the examiner would be prejudiced against a taxpayer
who arranges his affairs
to minimize his taxes as the law permits( Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US
465; Knetsch v. US, 361).

31) Show and prove to this Citizen how the IRS Commissioner has
jurisdiction over any subject
matter concerning this Citizen (Hale v. Hinkle, 201 US 43; Murdock v.
Pa, 319 US 105; US v.
LaSalle Bank, 437 US 298; 26 USC Section 6011).

32) Unless otherwise shown, this Citizen hereby pleads and does give
public notice that the IRS
Commissioner has an absence of jurisdiction over this Citizen's person
(Same as # 31)

________________________________

NAME

________________________________

ADDRESS

________________________________

CITY, STATE, ZIP


Synergy HyperMail (c) 1996 Steve Moyer