ABRACADABRA MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS BY THE IRS

Devvy Kidd October 16, 1999

In late July, 1999, I went up to Seattle to speak at the Preparedness Expo. Joe Banister and I shared the stage during one speaking segment. A short time after we concluded with our speeches and went back to our table, I had an encounter with a man who was well dressed and was wearing some very expensive jewelry. He looked to be in his mid-50s and was accompanied by two friends. This is what he said to me:

"Devvy, I know what you and Joe Banister say about the IRS is true. I've studied this for a long time but, you know, I have a lot to lose by not filing. I mean, I'm pretty well off with a lot of assets so I'm not going to jeopardize any of it because I have a lot to lose, but I appreciate what you are doing."

My mind immediately leaped to a mental picture of one scene in the movie, Braveheart, and let me set the stage for that part of the movie: the patriots of Scotland had just beaten the English and William Wallace was knighted by the nobles. Then the nobles decided to scrap about politics, Wallace says a few politically incorrect things and walks out. Here's the exchange that flashed through my mind when the man at the Preparedness Expo told me how special and important he was and how much he had to risk by standing up to a tyrannical government:

Dialogue from Braveheart:

Robert the Bruce: "Wait. I respect what you said but remember, these men have lands and castles. There's much to lose."

Wallace: "And the common man that bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?"

This well-to-do noble at the expo, well, he has a lot to lose. He expects the common man to fight and lose everything, that will in the end, benefit him without the risk. He's too good to risk his assets, let someone who has less, fight for him. It's a good thing our Founding Fathers and all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence didn't think that way or we'd still be licking the bootstraps of the British. They, like Wallace and the commoners in Scotland, sacrificed considerable financial assets, their lives and the lives of their families so we, the common folk here in the United States, can live free. I would be ashamed to let someone else fight for my freedom unless I were too ill or infirm.

Apparently there are a whole lot of Americans out there who don't have the stomach for that kind of courage, not anymore, not if it means any kind of sacrifice or giving up of creature comforts. If we all follow the law, we can bring down the IRS once and for all. The minute we become a threat to that money machine called the "FED," that's the minute our mettle will be tested. The bankers won't be denied, not without a fight and I wouldn't count on Y2K to solve all of America's problems.

In the meantime, knowledge is power and I hope this piece will provide more pieces to the smoking mirrors the IRS uses to deceive the American people and hopefully will provide them with the courage to stand up to these criminals.

We have scanned three letters here for your examination. The first two letters demonstrate the lying, duplicitous actions of a renegade agency, the IRS, sanctioned by your congress critter. The third letter is from a U.S. Senator's office. I hope you remember these letters when you go to the next town hall meeting or central committee meeting and hand out my booklets. We must re- direct political dialogue to curing the cancer instead of continuing to treat the symptoms.

I have taken the time to personally verify the authenticity of these letters. Since the scanning isn't crystal clear, I have re-typed the text exactly as it appears:

Letter #1 is dated September 24, 1998. To view the scanned image, click here.

This letter is on Department of the Treasury letterhead, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. 20224 and signed by Edward ? For Harry T. Manama, National Director, Collection Field Operations. The text is as follows, emphasis added:

Dear Mr. Abel:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, dated July 7, 1998. We are pleased to provide you with the following information.

Based on our 1996 tax filing program, we estimate there are approximately 63 million taxpayers who have not filed a tax return and initially would appear(1) to have a legal requirement to file. This estimate is based on data available to the Service on the Individual Master File,(2) the Information Reporting Program, and filing status and exemptions from prior years. Data not available to the Service such as capital losses, itemized deductions, changes in filing status or exemptions would significantly lower this estimate. The vast majority of this taxpayer population are due refunds or would owe little else or no tax.(3) Since we do not have sufficient resources to work 63 million potential non-filers, the Services uses statistical methodology based on algorithms and selection code criteria to identify the population of non-filers on whom it will create a case.(4)

We believe(5) the Internal Revenue Service has sufficient statutory authority to enforce the current non-filers and regulations. The Service has the authority to summons information from taxpayers and other third party record keepers. The Service also has the authority to prepare a tax return(6) should a taxpayer neglect or refuse to voluntarily(7) file a correct return. The Internal Revenue Service has the authority to prepare a tax return using its Substitute for Return Program or the Automated Substitute for Return Program using internal information sources such as W-2 and 1099 data. There are also examination audit programs and criminal sanctions that apply in certain non-filer situations.

Each year the Service mails out millions of notices advising taxpayers of their filing requirements. In addition, each of the Service's compliance functions works non-filer cases. These functions include Customer Services, Examination, Collection and Criminal Investigation. Non filer cases are worked by correspondence, by telephone and by field contact.

We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or you may contact Mr. John Lietz of my staff at (202) 622-3296. Sincerely...

Now, this is a very interesting letter. As you can see I put some numbers next to the items of particular interest. 63 million non-filers is a whole lot of people. You can bet that the majority of them have no real understanding of the fraud foisted upon them by the U.S. Congress, they simply don't have any more blood to attach to that return. Then there are people like us who understand the problem and others who simply don't file because they're new citizens who barely speak English and haven't a clue about the 10,000 pages of carefully crafted lies in Title 26. Let's analyze some of the statements made in this letter:

1. The author of this letter states that 63 million taxpayers who have not filed a tax return would "appear" to have a legal requirement to do so. Considering that number is minuscule, I would say that using the word "appear" is just another magic trick to cover their behinds from being caught in an outright lie. This way they can use half-lies and get away with it because they believe that the recipient of the letter is stupid and will buy anything out of fear from the sending agency, America's very own Gestapo, the IRS.

2 & 3: The IMF or Individual Master File (6209) is an interesting creature in and of itself. May I direct your attention to the following report:

Internal Revenue Service: Results of Nonfiler Strategy and Opportunities to Improve Future Efforts (Chapter Report, 05/13/96, GAO/GGD-96-72).

GAO reviewed the results of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) nonfiler strategy and opportunities to improve any similar future efforts.

Skip down to the section on Introduction and you will find this rather amazing statement:

"In 1993, IRS received about 114 million individual income tax returns. Almost all of those returns were for tax year 1992. For that same tax year, IRS identified 59.6 million potential individual nonfilers. Of the 59.6 million, IRS took no enforcement action on 54.1 million (91 percent), primarily because IRS subsequently determined that the individual or business had no legal requirement to file."

My husband and I purchased our 6209's (IMF) from the IRS back in 1994 and had it "de-coded" which is a fancy word for analyzed. It was coded Not Required To File, which we already knew but wanted confirmation of this important little fact since we refused to volunteer in '92 & '93. Predictably, the IRS came right back and slapped us with a worthless piece of paper called a "Notice of Federal Lien" which was recorded by the County Recorder in Jeffco Cty, CO. There is no due process or enforcement behind this piece of paper, yet the Colorado State Legislature in all their ignorance and fear, incorporated into the CRS, permission for county recorders to record this non-binding "notice" as if it were a real lien. What a travesty against the citizenry of Colorado. I tried to fight it with state senators there. Three of them told me we could have hearings. They lied. No hearings.

In the GAO report above, of the 59.6 million "potential" individual non-filers, they took no action on 54.1 million of them because they determined that the individual had no legal requirement to file. This determination could not have been done manually, it had to have been done by computer search and I'll bet you even money that the computer search went through those files lickety-split, searching through the IMF for the code which identifies 99% of the American people as "not required to file."

Somebody goofed here. The blood suckers at the IRS wouldn't let 54.1 million volunteers slip through their fingers - not when they have gun-toting agents ready, willing and able to enforce this spirit of "volunteer-ism." Joe Banister has pointed out that many of them don't really know or understand the fraud that's been taught to these agents. Okay, I can buy that but I hope that more and more of these treasury boys and girls will do what Joe did and get the heck out of this rogue agency. I'm sorry to say however, it probably won't happen because freedom today is measured by a paycheck and if you think that's an off-the-cuff remark, let me give you an example:

Last month I was at the gun show at Cal-Expo here in Sacramento collecting signatures for SB 23. During a break I wandered into the building looking at potential Christmas gifts. As I approached one table, a very tall man was telling the vendor that he voted for Red Davis, our fascist governor. I was stupefied. Here we're at a gun show and this guy says he voted for this current governor who votes against the Second Amendment at every opportunity? The governor who would like to ban all guns? He votes for the guy and then attends a gun show? Guns shows are in jeopardy in this state by pea-brained politicians statewide and supported by whimps like Governor Red Davis.

I politely ask this fellow why on earth would he vote for Red Davis? This was his response: "I'm a state worker and he gave us a raise." Well, that makes it perfectly clear to me: that man will sacrifice his rights for a raise in his pay envelope. Never mind that Davis could have stiffed the state workers after he took office, never mind Davis votes anti-American, the only thing that mattered to this man is a raise in the pay envelope. He doesn't understand what I have said in so many pieces on this web site about the more you make, the more they take - it's the banking system stupid. It's the IRS stupid. Is it any wonder we're sinking fast?

Is it any wonder I continue to be saddened when I see such shallow thought processes when I know the sacrifices made to give us a Republic so that dolt can attend gun shows? He would throw it all away for a $2.25/hr raise. I understand he probably is married, has children and his paycheck just won't stretch any further. Hello? Learn the truth about the FED/IRS and you'll learn how to cure this cancer instead of sacrificing your freedom for a couple of bucks an hour.

Americans might also try living on a "cash only for purchases" for awhile instead of credit. It's amazing how far that paycheck will go once you've paid off all your bills except your house and a car. Credit cards are killing Americans and yet in a few short weeks, the pressure of "the holidays" will be rammed down everyone's throats and they will gallop over to the mall and charge, charge, charge.

I filed a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request directly to the fellow who did the GAO report I quoted from earlier. It came back with the information that he no longer worked for GAO and any further attempts on my part to find out if a computer search using IMF codes has been rebuffed by GAO. Gee, I wonder why. You may go to: http://www.gao.gov and order this report right off their web site.

4: "Since we do not have sufficient resources to work 63 million potential non-filers, the Service uses statistical methodology based on algorithms and selection code criteria to identify the population of non-filers on whom it will create a case." So, in other words, they know these people aren't required to file but they will basically pick a name out of the hat and "create a case" out of that file. This is your government, America. And your political party sanctions this kind of chicanery.

If the IRS doesn't have the resources to work 63 million non-filers, what do you suppose would happen to this rogue agency if April 2000 brought only a 10% volunteer rate for filings? The system would collapse and the boys and girls in Congress would then be forced to confront the bankers. What a delicious thought.

5. "We believe the Internal Revenue Service has sufficient statutory authority to enforce the current non-filers and regulations." Why didn't the author of this letter say, "The IRS has the statutory authority to enforce...?" Why "We believe...?" They send people to prison on "We believe...." because the people continue to support their lies.

6. "The Service also has the authority to prepare a tax return should a taxpayer neglect or refuse to voluntarily file a correct return." Really? The real question is, does the IRS really have the right to make up a return for you, what they call a "Substitute for Return?" Well, the Code says they do but an interesting admission was made by Special Agent Gary Makovski in United States of America v. William R. Lloyd: "If no information or a return is filed, the Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you...." Hmm.

7. "...should a taxpayer neglect or refuse to voluntarily file a correct return."

Here again we have the famous "voluntarily" filing a tax return. If you don't voluntarily file a return, then the federal suits will simply take it upon themselves to think up some numbers and jam them down your throat. Thank you, Congress for sanctioning what our Founding Fathers went to war with against the British Crown.

Letter #2 # is dated October 27, 1998. To view the scanned image, click here.

This letter is on letterhead which reads: Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, signed by Edward ? For Harry T. Manama, National Director, Collection Field Operations and forwarded out of the Philly office. This one is a gem.

The exact text is as follows:

Dear Mr. Baker:

Your letter dated September 26, 1998 to Mr. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, has recently been forwarded to my office for reply. Your inquiry concerned the authority by which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires an individual to file a tax return.

It is not the policy of the IRS to respond to letters such as yours on a point by point basis. Such letters almost always reflect personal opinions and frustrations with the tax system which the IRS is unable to address. However, we can supply the following general information which may concern the area of the law you are addressing. If more information is needed, you may wish to contact the Library of Congress.

Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayer's belief (1) that the laws they follow apply to everyone and that the IRS will respect and protect their rights under the law. [Ed. Note: Ask Joe Farah about that one.] We assure you that the mission of the IRS is to provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. We apologize for any actions of rude behavior or intimidation you may have encountered. [Excuse me while I get out my hankie and violin...tell that to the widow whose husband killed himself because the IRS wouldn't go away.]

The courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. See. e.g. Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1980); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68 (1975), aff'd mem., 559 F.2d 1207 (3rd Cir. 1977); and Schiff v. Commissioner, T.C.M. 1984-223, aff;d, 751 F.2d 116 (2nd Cir. 1984).

The courts have rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power to prescribe the current income tax laws, was not properly ratified.(2) Some individuals have alleged that the Sixteenth Amendment is invalid because Ohio was not a state at the time of ratification. However, the amendment was ratified by 38 states altogether, and ratification was necessary by only 36.(3) Therefore, more than enough states ratified this amendment, even without Ohio's vote.

Whether an individual is liable for income tax is determined under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), Chapter 1, Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability. Part I, Section 1, imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual. Whether an individual has taxable income is determined under Chapter 1, Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income. Part I, Section 63, defines "taxable income," generally, as gross income minus the deductions allowed by Chapter 1.(4)

The current federal tax law enacted by Congress is the Code.(5) Sections 6001 and 6011 of the Code provide, in pertinent part, that every person liable for any tax imposed by the Code shall make a return. In addition, Section 6012 of the Code provides that a federal income tax shall be made by every individual whose gross income equals or exceeds certain amounts. "Shall" as used in Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012 means "must," "must" mans "to be required to." Who is required by the Code to file a return is explained in the instruction for Form 1040 under the heading "Filing Requirements."(6)

The law itself does not require individuals to file a Form 1040. However, Section 6001 of the Code states that every person liable for a tax imposed by the Code shall make returns and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may from time to time prescribe. Section 1.6012(a)(6) of the Income Tax Regulations states that Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under Section 6012 of the Code.(7)

Section 6151 of the Code provides that, except as specifically provided otherwise, when a return of tax is required by the Code or the Regulations, the person required to make such a return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed.

Section 6331 of the Code states that if any person liable to pay tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the secretary to collect such tax by levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person. The levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official.(8)

Section 6321 of the Code provides that if any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.

Closing of letter, signature.

This is a boiler plate letter of carefully crafted lies:

1. "Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayer's belief that the laws they follow apply to everyone ...." This is 86 years of propaganda backed up by brute force. The Congress, every president since 1913 and the government's media apparatus, have bludgeoned the American people with fear and brainwashed them into a "belief" that the laws they follow apply to everyone.

2. "The courts have rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power to prescribe the current income tax laws, was not properly ratified." I would direct you to the following on my web site for an in-depth discussion on this bald-faced lie:

http://www.devvy.com/irsbroc.html

3. Covered in the article above on this web site.

4. When the government lies to you, they try to impress and confuse by listing a whole bunch of statutes and numbers and gizmos. I direct you to the lead article in the December 1996 Power Educator, which is my old newsletter. This superb article is by Steffen Bertsch, a constitutional attorney. Steffen is a wonderful guy and he debunks all the lies above:

http://www.devvy.com/9612.html#truth

5. "The current federal tax law enacted by Congress is the Code." Kinda sorta and this goes back to "positive law."

6. "Who is required by the Code to file a return is explained in the instruction for Form 1040 under the heading "Filing Requirements." Okay, let's look at the 1998 1040 booklet, pg 14:

Filing Requirements

Do You Have To File? Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return. U.S. citizens who lived in or had income from a U.S. possession should see Pub. 570. Residents of Puerto Rico can use TeleTax topic 901 (see page 9) to see if they must file.

Tip: Even if you do not otherwise have to file a return, you should file one to get a refund of any Federal income tax withheld. You should also file if you are eligible for the earned income credit or the additional child tax credit. /End

Cool. These people steal your money every week, two weeks or once a month out of your paycheck. They pay you no interest but they want you to be sure to file to get a refund of what they stole to begin with! Wow.

Do you have to file? Use Chart A, B, or C - what do those say? Chart A - For Most People - gives your marital status, age grouping and gross income figures. There is nothing in this chart that determines liability for owing any tax. We go over to page 15 and look at Chart B, very official looking. This is for Children and Other Dependents. Nothing there about whether or not you're liable to file this alleged owed tax. Chart C disappeared.

7. "The law itself does not require individuals to file a Form 1040. However, Section 6001 of the Code states that every person liable for a tax imposed by the Code shall make returns and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may from time to time prescribe. Section 1.6012(a)(6) of the Income Tax Regulations states that Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under Section 6012 of the Code."

There's no law that requires you to file a Form 1040. They just said so. However! Yo! Whoops! The code says that "every person liable shall make returns and that Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return." Wait - didn't they just say the law doesn't require anyone to file a Form 1040 but now someplace else, this form is "prescribed for general use?" Hmm. I think this is more government lie-speak.

8. "Section 6331 of the Code states that if any person liable to pay tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the secretary to collect such tax by levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person. The levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official."

Wait just a minute, here! Let me get out my magnifying glass so I can type here exactly what Section 6331 says from Volume 2 of the Internal Revenue Code:

Subchapter D - Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes

Section 6331 Levy and Distraint.

Section 6331(a) Authority of Secretary. - If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334 (9)) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

Let me see if I have this straight: Levy shall be made upon any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official. "Any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of the United States...." Now, does that mean that any government officer, employee or elected official or the United States, District of Columbia and so forth, are the only ones subject to a levy, and of course, those exempt under 6334? That's how it reads to me.

Or, does that cover the man down the street works for IBM or is a teller at the local bank? They certainly aren't officers, employees or elected officials of the U.S. or District of Criminals or any agency or instrumentality of the U.S., etc. They work for private industry, yet the IRS, through lies, deception and brute force, will levy their wages and steal their property. Do you see anywhere in that language that covers private sector employees, officers or elected officials? I don't. Perhaps it's more abracadabra! Perhaps it even has something to do with the 14th Amendment......

If you haven't taken the time to read the information on the non-ratification of the 14th Amendment on this web site, please do so. It will go a long way in clarifying the insidious and nefarious intent to strip you of your sovereign citizenship rights and rope you into the clutches of the federal criminals. When I say the people have been bamboozled, it isn't just some silly talk or murky conspiracy, the game plan schematics are laid right out in front of our faces if people just take the time to do the research. As for Section 6331(a) Authority of Secretary from the Internal Robbing Service's Code, I fall under no part of their qualifying definitions and intent to fight.

http://www.devvy.com/amendment14-1.html

Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to an excellent web site that gives an easy, clear and concise explanation of "positive law" and why it's important to understand that Title 26, the IR Code, is not "positive law." When you get into this web site, scroll down to the bottom of the first page and you will get quite an eye opener:

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta16013.htm

9. "....except such property as is exempt under section 6334." What does Section 6334 say?

Section 6334 - Property Exempt from Levy. Among wearing apparel, school books, gas, furniture, it also includes unemployment benefits, workmen's comp, welfare and:

(6) Certain Annuity and Pension Payments. - Annuity or pension payments under the Railroad Retirement Act, benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, special pension payments received by a person whose name has been entered on the Army, Navy, air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor roll (38 U.S. C. 562), and annuities based on retired or retainer pay under Chapter 73 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

So, annuity or pension payments for folks under the Railroad Retirement Act are exempt from levy but folks who receive annuities or pension payments from the Plumbers Union, Teacher's Union or Meat Cutter's Union get screwed.

What does Chapter 73 of 10 U.S.C. have to say? Pack your lunch and a suitcase:

http://law2.house.gov/usc.htm

10 USC CHAPTER 73 - ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR

RETAINER PAY 01/05/99

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART II - PERSONNEL

CHAPTER 73 - ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY

-HEAD-

CHAPTER 73 - ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY

-MISC1-

Subchapter Sec.

I. Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan 1431

II. Survivor Benefit Plan 1447

III. Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan 1456

AMENDMENTS

1990 - Pub. L. 101-510, div. A, title VI, Sec. 631(1), title XIV, Sec. 1484(l)(4)(A), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1580, 1719, amended Pub. L. 101-189, Sec. 1404(a)(2), see 1989 Amendment note below.

1989 - Pub. L. 101-189, div. A, title XIV, Sec. 1404(a)(2), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1586, as amended by Pub. L. 101-510, div. A, title VI, Sec. 631(1), title XIV, Sec. 1484(l)(4)(A), Nov. 5, 1990,

104 Stat. 1580, 1719, added item for subchapter III, effective Apr. 1, 1992.

1980 - Pub. L. 96-513, title V, Sec. 511(54)(A), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2925, amended chapter heading to read: ''ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY''.

1972 - Pub. L. 92-425, Sec. 1(1), Sept. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 706, added subchapter analysis and amended chapter heading by inserting''; SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN'' after ''PAY'' which could not be executed as directed in view of amendment by Pub. L. 87-381.

1961 - Pub. L. 87-381, Sec. 1(1), Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 810, substituted ''RETIRED SERVICEMAN'S FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN'' for ''ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY'' in chapter heading.

-CROSS-

CROSS REFERENCES

Exclusion from gross income, see sections 72, 101, and 122 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Exemption for levy for collection of taxes, see section 6334 of Title 26.

Repayment of retired pay by beneficiary, see section 8317 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Retired pay defined, see section 8311 of Title 5. [*see end of this article]

-SECREF-

CHAPTER REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This chapter is referred to in sections 1408, 1461, 1463 of this title; title 5 sections 5531, 8311, 8317; title 26 sections 72, 122, 6334; title 33 section 857a; title 38 section 5301; title 42 section 213a.

Please note the P.L. above I put in bold: 1990 - Pub. L. 101-510

Now, go to this section on my web site: http://www.devvy.com/military.html

Our veteran's are having their military retirement, including disability allotment for having their body parts shot off for our freedom, stolen (levied) levied for not filing tax returns - even though the law prohibits such action. Wait - didn't we just read in the Internal Revenue Code that levy is confined to:

"Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official."

Retired military are not officers, employees or elected officials of the United States, District of Columbia, etc., any more than a retired bookkeeper for Hunt Foods would be an officer, employee or elected official of that company after retirement unless some sort of special agreement had been reached. Military pay offices, staffed by civilian dopes, continue to enforce these levies against our military - even when confronted with the law. When are the weenies in Congress going to stand up and stop this illegal activity? Pardon my un-ladylike language here but damn it, this makes me sick. I get phone calls, e-mails and letters all the time from veterans who are being levied by the IRS. They have taken the law to the pay officers and they refuse to do anything. These vets have gone to their congressmen/women, they refuse to do anything. God, what a disgrace.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice but if were a retired vet who had my military pay levied by these criminals, I would go after the pay officer personally using the legal remedies available. While Traficant's "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights" is a lot of smoke, vets should use it to go after these pay office personnel individually. Maybe then they will take the law seriously and it for sure would start to shake things up a bit.

If you don't file a 1040 even though "The law itself does not require individuals to file a Form 1040..." and your profession is Chef at Pierre's or a dairy farmer, these thieves at the IRS will levy you even though Section 6331 says that the levy is only made against "any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official."

There are a slew of court cases where the robes have ruled that the 16th Amendment did not confer any new powers of taxation by the Congress, yet the IRS has always relied upon the 16th Amendment as the trigger to steal your money and assets. I would like you to see more government-lie speak contained in this letter from Senator Daniel Inouye's office to Mr. Fred Ortiz.

There is only one remedy to stop this massive fraud and the increasing number of victims all across this country: The people of this nation must confront their fear of the IRS and don't volunteer next April 15th. Only a massive, lawful tax revolt will force Congress to address the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Anything else will just prolong the pain and injustice.

This IRS issue has become a thriving cottage industry and a plethora of groups and organizations out there are ripping people off or distributing false and inaccurate information that is causing too many decent, law-abiding Americans to end up in poverty or jail or both. I am sick of it. I want the problem to go away. This is not my career and it sure as hell isn't my hobby. I would like to have a life and I can barely stand to watch this government, day in and day out, continue to bald-face lie to its citizenry to protect the bankers and the shadow government yanking their strings.

People had better get it through their heads: Congress will not abolish the IRS nor will they come clean. The people have to force this issue and it can be done without violence. Let me leave you with one more quote:

September 26, 1997, La Crosse, Wisconsin in the tax case of dentist Frederick Kriemelmeyer. This is what the boy on the bench, County Circuit Judge Dennis Montabon said at sentencing: "What you're doing is just a sham," and sentenced Dr. Kriemelmeyer to nine months in jail as part of three years probation on a state tax evasion charge. Judge Montabon also said:

"My personal opinion is that you are a disgrace and an affront to every working man and woman in this state who voluntarily file and pay their taxes for the privilege of basically living in the state and the nation."

Excuse me, judge, but could you please clarify for me how you can sentence someone to jail for not volunteering to do something? Since when is it a privilege for Americans to live in our own country? I was born in this country and by damn, it's my right to live in this Republic, not a privilege. Judge Montabon: I find you, not only an affront to every working man and woman in this country, but you're a despicable human being masquerading as one who upholds our laws and administers justice fairly. If you hold an elected seat on the bench, God willing, the voter's have tossed you out of office by now.

Is what it has come down to in the "land of the free and the home of the brave?" If you don't volunteer to file tax returns, state or federal, you will be jailed or bankrupted. There is a rage blowing across this country, not just about the IRS, but against this government, the strong- arming, the completely open attempt at destroying our Republic and bringing America to her knees. The obvious espionage by Bill Clinton, who is nothing more than an agent for the Communist Chinese. The list goes on and on. But, things cannot go on the way they are, they just can't. Everyday more and more people are coming to learn what Congress and the government's media apparatus have kept from them and they don't like it, not one single bit.

There is only one reason this repulsive state of affairs with the IRS has continued for all these years: F E A R. There is a saying used by our Marines: "I would rather die standing on two feet than live my life on my knees." Actions speak louder than words, America. This criminal operation cannot continue unless the people continue to cave in and let their fear rule them. Which will it be? Freedom or slavery? Which will you choose next April?

Do you fall in the category of exempt from levy? The IRS sure as heck won't tell you. " ....by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334." Well, just like our veterans, many Americans will fall into the categories below and just like our veterans, they have been cheated and defrauded by the Republicans and Democrats who sit in the U.S. Congress who allow this domestic terrorist organization, the IRS, to run amok. If you read through all the provisions of the section below, you'll understand why it was critical that the 14th Amendment be pushed through - even though it is apparent it was never properly ratified. Lies, upon lies, upon lies.

[Laws in effect as of January 27, 1998]

[Document affected by Public Law 105-261 Section 3154(b)]

[Document affected by Public Law 105-261 Section 3154(m),]

[CITE: 5 USC 8331]

TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART III--EMPLOYEES

Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

Sec. 8331. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter--

(1) ``employee'' means--

(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title;

(B) the Architect of the Capitol, an employee of the Architect of the Capitol, and an employee of the Botanic Garden;

(C) a Congressional employee as defined by section 2107 of this title (other than the Architect of the Capitol, an employee of the Architect of the Capitol, and an employee of the Botanic Garden), after he gives notice in writing to the official by whom he is paid of his desire to become subject to this subchapter;

(D) a temporary Congressional employee appointed at an annual rate of pay, after he gives notice in writing to the official by whom he is paid of his desire to become subject to this subchapter;

(E) a United States Commissioner whose total pay for services performed as Commissioner is not less than $3,000 in each of the last 3 consecutive calendar years ending after December 31, 1954;

(F) an individual employed by a county committee established under section 590h(b) of title 16;

(G) an individual first employed by the government of the District of Columbia before October 1, 1987;

(H) an individual employed by Gallaudet College; [Changed to Gaullaudet University, located in Washington, DC and is described as "Liberal arts "education without limits" for students who are deaf and hard of hearing."

(I) an individual appointed to a position on the office staff of a former President under section 1(b) of the Act of August 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 838);

(J) an alien (i) who was previously employed by the Government, (ii) who is employed full time by a foreign government for the purpose of protecting or furthering the interests of the United States during an interruption of diplomatic or consular relations, and (iii) for whose services reimbursement is made to the foreign government by the United States;

(K) an individual appointed to a position on the office staff of a former President, or a former Vice President under section 4 of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended (78 Stat. 153), who immediately before the date of such appointment was an employee as defined under any other subparagraph of this paragraph; and

(L) an employee described in section 2105(c) who has made an election under section 8347(q)(1) to remain covered under this subchapter;

but does not include--

(i) a justice or judge of the United States as defined by section 451 of title 28;

(ii) an employee subject to another retirement system for Government employees (besides any employee excluded by clause (x), but including any employee who has made an election under

section 8347(q)(2) to remain covered by a retirement system established for employees described in section 2105(c));

(iii) an employee or group of employees in or under an Executive agency excluded by the Office of Personnel Management under section 8347(g) of this title;

(iv) an individual or group of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia excluded by the Office under section 8347(h) of this title;

(v) an employee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, or a court named by section 610 of title 28, excluded by the Director of the Administrative Office under section 8347(o) of this title;

(vi) a construction employee or other temporary, part-time, or intermittent employee of the Tennessee Valley Authority;

(vii) an employee under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol excluded by the Architect of the Capitol under section 8347(i) of this title;

(viii) an employee under the Library of Congress excluded by the Librarian of Congress under section 8347(j) of this title;

(ix) a student-employee as defined by section 5351 of this title;

(x) an employee subject to the Federal Employees' Retirement System;

(xi) an employee under the Botanic Garden excluded by the Director or Acting Director of the Botanic Garden under section 8347(l) of this title; or

(xii) a member of the Foreign Service (as described in section 103(6) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980), appointed after December 31, 1987.

Notwithstanding this paragraph, the employment of a teacher in the recess period between two school years in a position other than a teaching position in which he served immediately before the recess period does not qualify the individual as an employee for the purpose of this subchapter. For the purpose of the preceding sentence, ``teacher'' and ``teaching position'' have the meanings

given them by section 901 of title 20;

[There is no (1) in this document. Strange, wouldn't you say?

http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/search/uscode.html

(2) ``Member'' means a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this title, after he gives notice in writing to the official by whom he is paid of his desire to become subject to this subchapter, but does not include any such Member of Congress who is subject to the Federal Employees' Retirement System or who makes an election under section 8401(20) of this title not to be subject to such System;

(3) ``basic pay'' includes--

(A) the amount a Member received from April 1, 1954, to February 28, 1955, as expense allowance under section 601(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 850), as amended; and that amount from January 3, 1953, to March 31, 1954, if deposit is made therefor as provided by section 8334 of this title;

(B) additional pay provided by--

(i) subsection (a) of section 60e-7 of title 2 and the provisions of law referred to by that subsection; and

(ii) sections 60e-8, 60e-9, 60e-10, 60e-11, 60e-12, 60e-13, and 60e-14 of title 2;

(C) premium pay under section 5545(c)(1) of this title;

(D) with respect to a law enforcement officer, premium pay under section 5545(c)(2) of this title; and

(E) with respect to a customs officer (referred to in subsection (e)(1) of section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911), compensation for overtime inspectional services provided for under subsection (a) of such section 5, but not to exceed 50 percent of any statutory maximum in overtime pay for customs officers which is in effect for the year involved; but does not include bonuses, allowances, overtime pay, military pay, pay given in addition to the base pay of the position as fixed by law or regulation except as provided by subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) of this paragraph \1\ retroactive pay under section 5344 of this title in the case of a retired or deceased employee, uniform allowances under section 5901 of this title, or lump-sum leave payments under subchapter VI of chapter 55 of this title. For an employee paid on a fee basis, the maximum amount of basic pay which may be used is $10,000;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) ``average pay'' means the largest annual rate resulting from averaging an employee's or Member's rates of basic pay in effect over any 3 consecutive years of creditable service or, in the case of an annuity under subsection (d) or (e)(1) of section 8341 of this title based on service of less than 3 years, over the total service, with each rate weighted by the time it was in effect;

(5) ``Fund'' means the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund; [(6) Repealed. Pub. L. 96-499, title IV, Sec. 403(b), Dec. 5, 1980, 94 Stat. 2606]

[There is no number 6 in this section - another coincidence?]

(7) ``Government'' means the Government of the United States, the government of the District of Columbia, Gallaudet University, and, in the case of an employee described in paragraph (1)(L), a

nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense or the Coast Guard described in section 2105(c);

(8) ``lump-sum credit'' means the unrefunded amount consisting of--

(A) retirement deductions made from the basic pay of an employee or Member;

(B) amounts deposited by an employee or Member covering earlier service, including any amounts deposited under section 8334(j) of this title; and

(C) interest on the deductions and deposits at 4 percent a year to December 31, 1947, and 3 percent a year thereafter compounded annually to December 31, 1956, or, in the case of an employee or Member separated or transferred to a position in which he does not continue subject to this subchapter before he has completed 5 years of civilian service, to the date of the separation or transfer;

but does not include interest--

(i) if the service covered thereby aggregates 1 year or less; or

(ii) for the fractional part of a month in the total

service;

(9) ``annuitant'' means a former employee or Member who, on the basis of his service, meets all requirements of this subchapter for title to annuity and files claim therefor;

(10) ``survivor'' means an individual entitled to annuity under this subchapter based on the service of a deceased employee, Member, or annuitant;

(11) ``survivor annuitant'' means a survivor who files claim for annuity;

(12) ``service'' means employment creditable under section 8332 of this title;

(13) ``military service'' means honorable active service--

(A) in the armed forces;

(B) in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service after June 30, 1960; or

(C) as a commissioned officer of the Environmental Science Services Administration after June 30, 1961; but does not include service in the National Guard except when ordered to active duty in the service of the United States or full-time National Guard duty (as such term is defined in section 101(d) of title 10) if such service interrupts creditable civilian service under this subchapter and is followed by reemployment in accordance with chapter 43 of title 38 that occurs on or after August 1, 1990;

(14) ``Member service'' means service as a Member and includes the period from the date of the beginning of the term for which elected or appointed to the date on which he takes office as a Member;

(15) ``price index'' means the Consumer Price Index (all items--United States city average) published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

(16) ``base month'' means the month for which the price index showed a percent rise forming the basis for a cost-of-living annuity increase;

(17) ``normal cost'' means the entry-age normal cost computed by the Office of Personnel Management in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practice and expressed as a level percentage of aggregate basic pay;

(18) ``Fund balance'' means the sum of--

(A) the investments of the Fund calculated at par value; and

(B) the cash balance of the Fund on the books of the Treasury; but does not include any amount attributable to--

(i) the Federal Employees' Retirement System; or

(ii) contributions made under the Federal Employees' Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983 by or on behalf of any individual who became subject to the Federal Employees' Retirement System;

(19) ``unfunded liability'' means the estimated excess of the present value of all benefits payable from the Fund to employees and Members, and former employees and Members, subject to this subchapter, and to their survivors, over the sum of--

(A) the present value of deductions to be withheld from the future basic pay of employees and Members currently subject to this subchapter and of future agency contributions to be made in their behalf; plus

-- ... (...@...com), May 10, 2000

Answers

How could I guess that a Preparedness Expo and anti-IRS bullshit would somehow be mixed together?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

>> ...Federal Employees' Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983 ...<<

Shouldn't that be 1984?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 11, 2000.

Ah, yes, the tax nuts. Tax nuts are to the law as the Chemtrailers are to meteorology. You can't argue with anyone that far out on the fringe; all you can do is chuckle as they ruin their lives (and, occasionally (and with luck) end up in jail)

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 11, 2000.

... (...@...com),

One of your mistakes is the same type of mistake that a doctor I once knew made -- failure to get the facts straight before forming ones conclusions.

For simplicity, I'll point out just one of your fact-failures and its consequences.

You quote from Section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code (and I assume that your quotation is accurate): " ... Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official. ..." Apparently, you consider this important because you refer to it multiple times in your posting.

But did you actually read that c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y? The above quotation does _not_ contain the word "only. Nor does the word "only" appear in the rest of the paragraph in which that sentence is imbedded.

Yet you follow that quotation with the question and statement, "Now, does that mean that any government officer, employee or elected official or the United States, District of Columbia and so forth, are the only ones subject to a levy, and of course, those exempt under 6334? That's how it reads to me."

Oh?

Why does it read that way to you? Where do you see the qualifier "only" in there?

Later, you write, "these thieves at the IRS will levy you even though Section 6331 says that the levy is only made against 'any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official.'" _You_ added the qualifier "only", but that qualifier is not in the part of Section 6331 to which you refer!!

Then you base part of your arguments on the false supposition that a levy may be made _only_ against certain federal or DC employees, when the law doesn't say that at all!

I hope that by this point you have taken the time to reread 6331(a) carefully. In case you still don't understand about the omission of "only", consider the following about the first two sentences of 6331(a):

"If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334 (9)) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax."

"Any person" in that first sentence means _any_ person, not just federal and DC employees.

"Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official."

That second sentence applies to federal and DC employees. It does not apply to other persons. But that does not mean that the first sentence of that paragraph is inapplicable to other persons. That first sentence applies to _any_ person, just as it says.

That second sentence is a further specification of law applicable to a subset of all persons, the subset of federal and DC employees. It specifies that the levy may be made in certain ways upon this set of people. It does not say anything about the way that a levy may be made upon other people -- it neither forbids levies upon other people nor specifies levies upon other people, because it simply does not apply to people other than federal and DC employees. Get it?

Now, some reactions to the consequences of your basic mistake:

>does that mean that any government officer, employee or elected official or the United States, District of Columbia and so forth, are the only ones subject to a levy ... ?

No.

>does that cover the man down the street works for IBM or is a teller at the local bank?

The first sentence of 6331(a) does, but the second sentence doesn't.

>Do you see anywhere in that language that covers private sector employees, officers or elected officials?

Yes. That first sentence. The one that says, "any person".

>I don't. Perhaps it's more abracadabra! Perhaps it even has something to do with the 14th Amendment......

Perhaps it's your failure to read and think carefully.

>As for Section 6331(a) Authority of Secretary from the Internal Robbing Service's Code, I fall under no part of their qualifying definitions and intent to fight.

Uhmmm ... you mean ... you are not a "person"?

... or, more mundanely and probably, you are a person, but are not a careful reader and thinker?

What do you intend to fight? Illiteracy? In your case, the fight starts at home.

>Wait - didn't we just read in the Internal Revenue Code that levy is confined to:

No, we didn't just read that. The word "confined" does not appear in the portion of the Internal Revenue Code to which you refer.

If you're going to repeat a quote so many times, it's a good idea to make sure you know what it says.

Do a string search for "confin" on your posting with a browser or text editor. The one and only occurrence is in the sentence _you_ wrote, not within any portion of law that you quote. Sheesh.

>Military pay offices, staffed by civilian dopes, continue to enforce these levies against our military - even when confronted with the law.

Uhmmm ... are you referring to civilian staffers who can _read_ the law. Would you qualify?

>They have taken the law to the pay officers and they refuse to do anything. These vets have gone to their congressmen/women, they refuse to do anything. God, what a disgrace.

You're calling those veterans' failure to understand the law a "disgrace"?

Have you considered that _you_ are part of the problem, with _your_ irresponsible blather about tax laws _you_ can't even read correctly?

_You_ should be ashamed of the part _you_ are playing in misleading those military veterans! Shame, shame, shame, on you.

>I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice

Looks to me like you _are_ giving legal advice. Incorrect legal advice. Faulty advice that could land people in jail.

>but if were a retired vet who had my military pay levied by these criminals,

Lessee ... is that slander or libel?

>While Traficant's "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights" is a lot of smoke, vets should use it to go after these pay office personnel individually.

Hmmm ... that looks a lot like (incorrect) legal advice to me. Incitement to something-or-other. But I'm not a lawyer.

>Maybe then they will take the law seriously and it for sure would start to shake things up a bit.

And if some of those pay office personnel came after you with lawsuits for your incitement of veterans to harrass them, maybe that'd shake _you_ up and make _you_ take the law seriously? Well, maybe not the latter.

>even though Section 6331 says that the levy is only

"There you go again." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980.

>This IRS issue has become a thriving cottage industry and a plethora of groups and organizations out there are ripping people off or distributing false and inaccurate information that is causing too many decent, law-abiding Americans to end up in poverty or jail or both.

In context, that's almost funny.

A Freudian confession?

Maybe you ought to stop "distributing false and inaccurate information", as you put it.

>I am sick of it. I want the problem to go away.

Then stop being part of the problem.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Gosh. The same arguments over and over again. It's a shame that no court has ever backed them.

FYI, for all you folks out there who are tired of mangled statutory intrepretation as logic, check out "http://evans- legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html". It's a truly great resouce that debunks a lot of this nonsense.

Regards.

-- jdonohue (jpdonohue@bellsouthips.com), May 11, 2000.