Re: When is it a 'loophole'?
- From: "BoyntonStu" <stu@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Jun 2006 04:50:55 -0700
The issue is soley punishment, not filing, not paying, etc..
FOF (from another forum):
"The papers filed with the court by Mr. Lawerence's attorney included
the following which made the DOJ and the IRS back off;
"The forms (1040) the United States claimed Defendant was required by
law to file, but allegedly did not file as "required by law" fail to
comply with the PRA of 1995 for many reasons, including but not limited
to the following:
1) The forms do not inform the public of the legal right for the IRS to
ask the public for the information sought on form 1040;
2) The forms do not inform the public why the IRS is asking for the
3) The forms do not inform the public how the IRS intends to use the
4) The forms do not tell the public what could happen if the IRS does
not receive the information;
5) The forms do not inform the public their response is voluntary;
6) The forms do not inform the public their response is required to
obtain a benefit;
7) The forms do not inform the public their response is mandatory under
The forms do not inform the public of the statute giving the IRS the
legal right to ask for the information;
9) The forms do not inform the public the IRS's legal right to ask for
the information under any specific regulations or revenue procedures;
10) The forms do not contend that the IRS's legal right to ask for the
information is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The 1040 forms relevant to this case are clearly forms subject to the
PRA of 1995. They do not claim otherwise. However, they also on their
face fail to comply with the clear mandates of the PRA of 1995. The
government's disdain for the requirements of the PRA of 1995 are
nowhere made more clear than by the appearance of the OMB # 1545-0074
in January 2006 on the 1040A, 1040ES, 1040EZ, 1040NR, 2555 and W-4
Whatever legal precedent, the fin al issue is "May any punishment
If the answer is "NO", everything else is mute.
Imagine if there was a law that said all traffic tickets were null and
void if the ink used is other than violet.
You go into Court with a blue ink summons. Case closed.
In article <1150814904.270945.316460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"BoyntonStu" <stu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are in court and you claim that the 1040 Form is valid.
Would you stipulate that according to the PRA regulations, a form may
not be valid for more than 3 years without a new application? (Simple
When was the last application for a 1040 submitted to OMB?
You're missing the issue. The question is whether you have to pay
taxes. The answer is that EVEN IF the form is invalid, you are not
excused from filing a tax return. The law is clear.
See Salberg v. US, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992); US v. Holden, 963 F.2d
1114 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958 (1992); US v. Neff, 954 F.2d
698, (11th Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991);
Lonsdale v. US, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990); US v. Wunder, 919 F.2d
34 (6th Cir. 1990).
- Re: When is it a 'loophole'?
- From: Larry
- Re: When is it a 'loophole'?
- Prev by Date: Re: Civil Rights Question
- Next by Date: Re: Severance Pay ?
- Previous by thread: Re: When is it a 'loophole'?
- Next by thread: Re: When is it a 'loophole'?