| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Jan 2004 : 14:41:10
|
Lewis,
Thanks for clarification.
Peace.. |
 |
|
|
Jaywood216
Occasional Poster
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2004 : 20:16:58
|
| Thanks Lewis from Jim |
|
|
|
spyboy
Occasional Poster
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2004 : 18:41:13
|
Greetings, and mant blessings!
re; Notice of Federal Tax Lien
I have enjoyed the information presented to date, but as usual the tendency (human nature?) seems to be to have things be more complicated then needed. I personally believe (omly a belief, subject to amendment) that this satisfies an innate ego fulfilling need (this is Not directed at anyone in particular and is NOT intended to be taken personally!)
I suspect many here have heard of the statutory reqirement that all administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to seeking any judicial action (lets leave aside for the moment the apparent fact that even what is now calling itself "judicial" is in effect administrative in its nature)
The tendendency seems to be an evolution towards a continual refining and fine tuning of those administrative remedies (they are becoming narrow and specific, and that is a common law trait)
So, as far as Notices of Federal Tax Leins, what is the immediate administrative remedy (the first procedural avenue of recourse)? It seems to me to be contained and articulated in a document as noted here. (I do not have the website, anyone who wishes can find it reletivly easy. It totals four pages))
(4830-01-p)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
(TD 8951) (this means treasury directive 8951)
RIN 1545-AVOO
Withdrawal of Notice of Federal Tax Lein in Certian Circumstances (this is what I would search at google, in quotes, to find it)
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury
ACTION: Final Regulations
Summary: (my comments; I include here selected portions I feel are inportant for the purpose at hand. Any comments of mine henceforth will be in parentheses. I will abbreviate for efficency.) This notice contains final regulations relating to the withdrawal of federal tax leins in certain circumstances. The final regs. reflect changes made to section 6323 of the IRCode of 1986 by the taxpyr. bill of rights (I realize many here my not have the legal status of "taxpayer", but I believe using the admin. remedy proscribed for those folks is in harmony with the objective, which is after all, getting the notice of lein removed in the simplest and most peaceful method. They are not going to publicly declare a seperate and specific procedure for non-taxpayers. It would not make sense and it would be a danger to thier ends, their very existence)
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin B. Connelly 202-622-3630
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this notice contains amendments to the Procedure and Admin. REGS. (26 CFR part 301) frlating to the withdrawal of NFTL under section 6323 0f IRC section 501a of taxpyrs. bill of rights (TBOR2) Public Law 104-108, 110 stst. 1452 (1996),section 2 amended section 6323 to authorize the Secretary (the designated party ACCORDING TO Taxpayer bill of rights statute) ) to withdraw a NFTL in certian limited circumstances (the terms and conditions, be on the watch, we will show you what they are) ... The final regs. are adopted with minor changes ( be on the watch, we will tell you what those changes are)... these regs. implement section 501a (501a was of no force and effect prior to this implementation)...
Explanations of provisions... the proposed regs. (prior to these changes, eg; it used to be this way) provided that the District Director had authority to withdraw NFTL if the dist. direct. determined that one of the four conditions enumerated in para. (b) of regs existed... Because of the reorganization of IRS, which eliminated the Dist. Dir. position (whoops, Elvis has left the building) the final regs. provide that COMMISSIONER OR HIS DELEGATE may withdraw NFTL (this is to WHO, remember when it comes to admin. procedure and remedy it is WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE WHY, HOW, but not necessarily in the prder)...
The NFTL is withdrawn by (this is the procedure HE, NOT YOU, is to to follow) filing a notice of withdrawal in the office in which the NFTL is filed (county recorder or sec. of state) and providing the txpyr. with a "3 copy" (?) of the notice. Following the withdrawal..., chap 64 0f subtitle F, relating to collection, is applied AS IF THE IRS HAD NEVER FILED A NFTL. ... (?)
The withdrawal does NOT affect the underlying lein (there is no underlying tax lein, there was never a lein created, it was never anything more than a notice of intention to create a lein, but you are not intended to realize that!) The withdrawal simply relinquishes any LEIN PRIORITY the IRS had obtained under sec. 6323 of IRCode when IRS had filed notice of being withdrawn (there is no longer any record of the IRS having a cloud on the title)...
Para.(b) of regs. provides (articulates) that the Commissioner has authority (can, but is not required to; a discretionary action) to withdraw NFTL IF one of the following conditions exist;
(I am just going to articulate the ones of importance for my purposes here)
1) the filing of the NFTL was PREMATURE OR OTHERWISE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMIN. PROCEDURES OF THE SECRETARY. (one would need to know what those admin. procedures are to compel them to determine if such procedures were IN FACT followed. No proper assessment? See last paragraph.)
4) the withdrawal is in the BEST INTERESTS of the txpyr. AND THE UNITED STATES (would it be in the best interests of the United States to avoid potential prosecution for a violation of their own procedure in a tort action?)... It was suggested the the terms "facilitate collection" and "in the best interest of the U.S." be expressly defined but said terms are NOT defined in the final regs...
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A LEIN MAY BE WITHDRAWN ARE INHERANTLY FACTUAL.( I emphasize the importance of understanding this statement, for the purposes of this particular remedy the LAW is not at all relevant! It is ADMINISTRATIVE) Further refinement of the statutory terms (actually defining them, dont you just love that wordplay) may unnecessarily limit the IRS ability to withdraw a NFTL where appropriate...
The final regs. provide that a person (yeah, I know that YOU are not a "person", just as you may not be a "taxpayer", so what) MAY REQUEST (its up to you, the "onus" is yours, will you accept it to accomplish your goal?) the withdrawal of NFTL BY WRITING TO THE COMMISSIONER ( this is WHAT one is to do, and to WHERE) A written request MUST INCLUDE (if its not a proper presentment, offer, it does not get consideration, there is nothing to consider)
(1) name current address, taxpyr. identification # (this may be a little tricky if one does not THINK they have such a number, but they most likely PRESUME that one does have a number. Decide for oneself how one feels comfortable dealing with that particular)
(2) a copy of the notice
(3) the (remember, FACTUAL) grounds upon which the withdrawal is being requested (like for example, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE the IRS failed to follow the articulated procedure for filing, or whatever the factual reason might be IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE. Factual situations such as this are fact specific to the matter at hand, NOT GENERAL STATEMENTS OF FACT. It is up to the one requesting to know and state the particular violation, reason)
(4,and 5 not pertinent for our purposes)...
The Commissioner MUST (a mandatory duty) consider each (properly presented and articulated) request... and DETERMINE whether any of the conditions authorizing withdrawal exist AND whether to issue a withdrawal...( ministerial duty, if A then B. A= do it right, B= consideration of offer and determination of fact, AND whether he will issue the withdrawal. The decision as to whether he will issue is ministeral, he Must make the decision, BUT the actual content of the decision, the yes or no,is discretionary. Such is the world of limited liability and legal magic.) The Commissioner also MAY (can but is NOT required to) issue a notice of withdrawal based on information recieved from a source other than the taxpyr.... (hum, a representative maybe, or even a friend?)
It has been determined (it is not articulated where) that this final regulation is NOT a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866.(?) Therefore, a regulatory assessment (?) is not required. It has also been determined that section 553b of the Administrative Procedure Act (5USC, ch. 5) does not apply to these regs., and because the collection of information in the regs. is exempt pursuant to 5USC 601 7 B, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5USC, ch. 6) does NOT apply. ( This is as far as I have gotten in my study of this directive, pg. 2 of 4. I have not researched the above para., and if anyone is interested, it would be of value and much appreciated if one(s) would "pick up the ball" here and check this out. I believe the above statement refering to assessments is important to understand as it is my understanding that there are rarely, if ever, lawful assessments perfected by the IRS. It is imperative that anyone who intends to use this procedure to effect thier own remedy do thier "due diligence" and study this and related information carefully! All are responsible for thier own actions)
I hope this information is useful and I appreciate the opportunity to offer it in this forum. May the blessing be. SpyBoy
PS There is a site run by a man named Jim Shaver that has much information of these NFTL, their true nature and the "fradulent conversion" process the occurs in the County Recorders office in their filing, as well as possible remedies to the whole scheme on a county level and larger scale. To find it search "jim shaver" at google.
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 12 Feb 2004 : 19:16:06
|
This article is very good:
http://freedomnews.com/docs/HJR192-Law-Money-Choice.doc
Sever the contract by commencing an action in the state court and disclaim clauses 1 & 2 of Section 1 to the 14th Amendment; 15 U.S.C; Article IV Section 3 clause 2. The state court is the only place you have the common law option of obtaining jurisdiction without the use of a statute or Roman civil law. You fight the IRS in state court using federal law. You should never be in federal court unless in the Supreme Court. If defending in a federal court action, you must challenge service of process and subject matter jurisdiction. And simply remember this, HJR 192 is only prima facie evidence of the law. To overcome it you invoke your right to contract under Article I Section 10.
|
|
|
|
HenryBowman
Regular Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2004 : 01:29:28
|
WOW Two days to work my way through this post and all of the rabbit trails it has. I agree with a previous poster. My mind is mush...
Thank you all for very helpful information. I am looking into CLS (Commercial Lein Strategy) as well. Anyone have any pointers about that? (Not asking for legal advice, just information)
Thanks, and Blessings of Jehova Jireh on you all!
HB
ATFOTRAF |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 18:06:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
....Now, in regards to Mr. Adask, I am afraid he has no clue as to what Roger Elvick or Jack Smith or Victoria Joy are talking about when they say they plead guilts to the facts. The facts are not the charges. The facts are carefully hidden among the charges. The charges are conclusions of law and can not be used to convict unless they are argued. By not allowing for argument, there is no where for the judge to proceed, and thus the matter is at end.
Lewis
The reverse is the procedure in New South Wales, Australia, for Domestic Violence allegations. The court practically begs the alleged offender (Defendant) to CONSENT TO THE APPREHENDED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER WITHOUT ADMITTING THE FACTS!
s 562BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
UCC "Redemption" Scheme
