Jump to content

More drama - IRS garnishing wages


Recommended Posts

My boss told me this morning. We don't owe a whole lot, but its more than we can pay in one sum. I guess the only up side of this is that its being taken care of and it could be worse.

My question, though, is...with this summons we're about to answer to Capital One (that I posted about yesterday) will the fact that we now have this levy on my income have any kind of impact on this attorney that is suing us? Can a judgement still be placed on is for Capital One? I don't think it will come to that but is there any kind of protection against the whole freakin world coming after you? I just feel so cornered right now. My husband is worried that school will just have to be put on hold. I just need something positive to go on. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stop pushing your tax protester nonsense before someone takes you serious and tries it. I do not want someone to go to jail over that rubbish.

A popular argument currently circulating is that a mere notice of levy is not equal to a levy and thus may not be used for tax collection purposes. The courts have not accepted this idea.

1. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955)

2. Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843, 844-45 (1st Cir. 1962)

3. United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1971)

4. In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc., 495 F.2d 1283, 1285 (7th Cir. 1974)

5. Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986)

6. Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959).

These arguments can’t help you -- and most likely will do you harm -- whether or not they are true. That is, suppose for the sake of argument that these (demonstrably false) theories are true: In other words, pretend that the Internal Revenue Code has no effect, and that all actions undertaken pursuant to it are illegal.

The problem is that NO COURT HAS HELD OR WILL HOLD THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS INVALID OR THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LACKS POWER TO LEVY OR COLLECT INCOME TAXES. Literally hundreds of folks have tried these arguments over the last several years. ALL of these folks have lost, and many of these folks have been sanctioned or fined for advocating a "frivolous" theory to the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FriendInCt
Please stop pushing your tax protester nonsense before someone takes you serious and tries it. I do not want someone to go to jail over that rubbish

I am not promoting anything. Pay your taxes or go to jail, there is a criminal element running the Tax system. All I mentioned was that a Notice of Levy is not a Levy please try to prove me wrong.

You people go crazy when Credit Card Companies try to skirt due process by going to Arbitration but turn a blind eye when the IRS goes after wages without due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FriendInCt

Various Court statements about TAXABLE INCOME:

Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937): "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

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

Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

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

Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575 (1943): "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

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

Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145, (1959) never overruled: "... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT , NOT UPON DISTRAINT" [Footnote 43] If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system.

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

Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920): US Supreme court, never overruled "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

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

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113 (1916): "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

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

McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d: "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages]

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

Blatt Co. v U.S., 305 U.S. 267, 59 S.Ct. 186 (1938): "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."

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

Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada."Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

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

Commissioner of IRS v Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S. Ct. 1190 (1960):

"The exclusion of property acquired by gift from gross income under the federal income tax laws was made in the first income tax statute 4 passed under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, and has been a feature of the income tax statutes ever since. The meaning of the term "gift" as applied to particular transfers has always been a matter of contention. 5 Specific and illuminating legislative history on the point does not appear to exist. Analogies and inferences drawn from other revenue provisions, such as the estate and gift taxes, are dubious. See Lockard v. Commissioner, 166 F.2d 409. The meaning of the statutory term has been shaped largely by the decisional law."

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

Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 21 (1978): "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."

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

Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902: "Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ..."

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

Conner v US, 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston, never overruled. "..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"!!!

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

Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174 (1926): "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...."

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

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916): "The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..."

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

Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

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

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920), US Supreme court, never overruled: "...the definition of 'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."

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

Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit"

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

Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643: "Income is realized gain."

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

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883). One of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court..

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

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

Pollack v. Farmers Loan, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895): The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a 2% tax on PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS. The Supreme Court had, in POLLOCK v. FARMERS LOAN , in 1894, ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the EXACT SAME KIND OF TAX MOST AMERICANS ARE NOW PAYING! [A direct tax without apportionment.] This decision has NEVER been overturned! Both BEFORE and AFTER the sixteenth amendment passed (?), THE COURTS SAID INCOME WAS CORPORATE PROFIT! The Separation of powers doctrine says only CONGRESS can collect a tax!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FriendInCt
A popular argument currently circulating is that a mere notice of levy is not equal to a levy and thus may not be used for tax collection purposes. The courts have not accepted this idea.

1. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955)

2. Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843, 844-45 (1st Cir. 1962)

3. United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1971)

4. In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc., 495 F.2d 1283, 1285 (7th Cir. 1974)

5. Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986)

6. Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959).

Nice twist of words there. Of course Notices of Levy can be used to collect, thats not the point, they have no force, they are not court orders and can be ignored. In fact it says so in an IRS publication, and dont make me pull that up otherwise all kinds of cobwebs are going to come out as well.

I feel bad for this woman in the post, the IRS acts like a criminal racket and thats a shame. I would suggest you pay the IRS first to get them off your back and worry about the scum creditors later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, I was able to get the levy lifted before they started garnishment and have worked out a payment plan which a great relief. I'm still banging my head trying to figure out how to answer this summons though. I called the Clerk's office and asked what I needed to do and I was told "Write your answer on a piece of paper." I waited for her to elaborate. Nothing. Dead silence. *banging head*

Its not that I'm giving up, its just that that answer is so typical of the county in which I reside. (We're here for a short time while my husband finishes school). When I had to call and find out where to get my out of state tags transferred, I got the same kind of response. When I had to become a notary and called to find where I needed to go - same response.

I'm sure that appearing in person there to answer the summons will be the same treat.

I'm just really beat down about this whole thing. But I am very relieved that things with the IRS have worked out well.

Thanks for all of your help.

Jenny:confused: :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I was able to get the levy lifted before they started garnishment and have worked out a payment plan which a great relief. I'm still banging my head trying to figure out how to answer this summons though. I called the Clerk's office and asked what I needed to do and I was told "Write your answer on a piece of paper." I waited for her to elaborate. Nothing. Dead silence. *banging head*

Its not that I'm giving up, its just that that answer is so typical of the county in which I reside. (We're here for a short time while my husband finishes school). When I had to call and find out where to get my out of state tags transferred, I got the same kind of response. When I had to become a notary and called to find where I needed to go - same response.

I'm sure that appearing in person there to answer the summons will be the same treat.

I'm just really beat down about this whole thing. But I am very relieved that things with the IRS have worked out well.

Thanks for all of your help.

Jenny:confused: :evil:

I am glad to hear you have the IRS under control. After all, they can use percussion grenades and get away with it. Thankfully, the collection industry can only wish of such power.

Find out if your court has a Pro Se clerk or help desk that helps pro se defendents/plaintiffs. There are also usually groups that offer services - like retired lawyers that donate time to help people, etc. If you want to IM me what the summons says I can look at it and see if I can't give you a non-response full of nonsense. It's worth a shot!

Before I sign off, I want to provide an interesting piece of information that is mysteriously missing from the language contained on a Notice of Levy that the IRS uses. You can determine if it's "tax protestor hokum".

The penalty parts of the notice are included - starting with (B), but for some reason it leaves out (a). So here's what it says.

(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) 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, the 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 (as defined in section 3401(d)) 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.

I wonder why the IRS leaves this out? Must be it doesn't want to cause confusion. What a kind and thoughtful organization!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I was able to get the levy lifted before they started garnishment and have worked out a payment plan which a great relief. I'm still banging my head trying to figure out how to answer this summons though. I called the Clerk's office and asked what I needed to do and I was told "Write your answer on a piece of paper." I waited for her to elaborate. Nothing. Dead silence. *banging head*...

Jenny:confused: :evil:

Excellent Jenny, good work! Now, just remember-the key here is to stay persistent. With time...it works and things WILL improve. Although at times it does feel like one is pulling teeth!!!

As far as the clerk--yep, I believe it. Try going to a courthouse facilitator and asking what forms you need to file for the summons and go from there. Tell the clerk I said to go steal oxygen somewhere else...sheesh, there are people in HOSPITALS right now that would make better use of those organs!

As far as the tax thing-yes, I was shocked that they went for the throat with you like that. When we had a forgiven amount go unforeseen, the IRS simply informed us of it by letter and offered a payment plan. What I should've done though, was taken all those initial forms to my tax advisor because really, if I could prove I was insolvent I wouldn't have had to pay the 624.00 but oh well...live and learn honey, live and learn.

Elyse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.