Robert Lawrence case

[Bees Knees]

Start with his request for a copy of the law under which he was prosecuted, a presumably public record which he claims does not exist. The court's position was that whether a law actually exists or not is a frivolous question worth a year in the slammer.

IRC Section 6673(a)(1), “Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that--(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless…. the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.”

IRC Section 7482(c)(4), “The United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court shall have the power to require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in any case where the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed and it appears that the appeal was instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless.”

Those are just the rules concerning tax law from the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Schiff’s frivolous conduct turned criminal when he influenced other taxpayers to take frivolous positions.

There is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that required the court to answer his frivolous requests. On the contrary, the law authorizes immediate punitive sanctions against such a frivolous request.

[veritas]

I'm confused

janien. You think government is resposible and should provide for the general welfare on one hand and on the other you defend a sleazeball who destroyed his life and inumerable others by not paying his fair share?

[jainen]

in Mr. Schiff's trial

>>you defend a sleazeball<<

Not at all. I have not commented on the merits of his tax positions, which I do not support. But I believe EVERYONE in EVERY case has the right to a fair trial in which he is advised of the statute he has violated and has the right to present evidence in his own defense. This was refused over and over again in Mr. Schiff's trial.

[Bees Knees]

But I believe EVERYONE in EVERY case has the right to a fair trial in which he is advised of the statute he has violated and has the right to present evidence in his own defense. This was refused over and over again in Mr. Schiff's trial.

Really?????

Try over 30 years worth of him losing court cases, each time the court giving plenty of explanation as to why his arguments were frivolous...


Schiff v. United States, KTC 1990-185 (2d Cir. 1990)

"Schiff is no stranger to this court. This is another in a series of cases involving Schiff's refusal to pay income taxes. E.g., United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272 (2 Cir. 1989); United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108 (2 Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945, (1987); Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 780 F.2d 210 (2 Cir.1985); Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 766 F.2d 61 (2 Cir. 1985) (per curiam); Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116 (2 Cir. 1984) (per curiam); United States v. Schiff, 647 F.2d 163 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 835, (1981); United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73 (2 Cir. 1979)."

United States v. Schiff, KTC 2003-238 (D.Nev. 2003)

"The Internal Revenue Service has identified nearly 5,000 zero-income federal income tax returns filed by some 3,100 customers of Schiff's organization during the past three years using Schiff's two-page attachment referenced in The Federal Mafia, supplied with its purchase, and identified by promotional materials as a requirement to the filing of the zero income tax return tutored by The Federal Mafia and other of Schiff's instructional services. Henline Decl. (hereafter "Henline"), at para. 14. In addition to that documentary evidence, during the preliminary injunction hearing, Schiff's witness Robert Wesley testified that he obtained the zero-income return that he filed from The Federal Mafia. The IRS estimated that these filings represented $56 million in attempted tax evasion."

United States v. Schiff, KTC 2004-224 (9th Cir. 2004)

"Irwin Schiff has a long history of opposition to the federal income tax laws. <<ENDNOTE 1>> For over thirty years he has maintained that the federal income tax is voluntary, although he has never been successful with that theory in court."

[Bees Knees]

As of 16 years ago, there were at least 9 circuit court cases that had to deal with his appeals from cases lost in the lower courts.

And you think his rights were abused when the courts finally decided to quit arguing with him?

What part of "NO" do you think he didn't understand?

[jainen]

Let me ask you

Let me ask you. Since he lost previously, do you think under our system it should not be necessary to prove any additional charges? Why even bother with a new trial?

[veritas]

I think those who got suckered by Irwin should now sue him in civil court.

[jainen]

how ridiculous it seems

>>sue him in civil court<<

I think quite a few of them have done that, though I'm not sure what sort of claim they can make against an obvious charlatan who feeds their own greed. You bring up a very good point about civil court. Bees Knees wrote about frivolous positions and penalties under Internal Revenue Code and penalties for tying up the courts. That is all civil law stuff. Under that system, the taxpayer has the burden of proof on his tax positions.

Criminal court proceedings are initiated by the government, which must (I mean, is supposed to) prove it's case even if the defendent offers no evidence whatsoever. Nothing the defendent does or doesn't do can change that requirement, no matter how ridiculous it seems.

[Bees Knees]

Let me ask you. Since he lost previously, do you think under our system it should not be necessary to prove any additional charges? Why even bother with a new trial?

There were no additional charges. He had a 30 year history of losing his frivolous arguments in tax court and a dozen or so circuit courts of appeal. Then he publishes a number of books advising others to do the very things the courts had been telling him were frivolous and illegal.

Then the government has to take him to court numerous times to get an injunction on his company for selling and distributing information that he had argued and lost in court.

All the while he continued to ignore the courts warnings that his opinions were frivolous and without merit. The courts had been citing code sections for over 30 years identifying the specific statutes and laws he was breaking.

So what specific rule was it he was unaware of that he was on trial for? What NEW law did he break that the government refused to inform him about during the jury trial that convicted him of conspiring to cause thousands of people to evade the federal income tax rules of this country?

[Armando Beaujolais]

In May the DOJ barred Lawrence from promoting fraudulent tax schemes and ordered him to cough up names and other personal information about people who had purchased his tax protestor material.

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv03280.htm

The DOJ didn't reverse that decision. The government dropped the charges against Lawrence involving his personal income tax return.

The characteristics of events and the timing suggests a settlement, not the government getting all scared and running away. Lawrence didn't beat the rap.

Something like this maybe? ..."You cease all promotion of fraudulent tax schemes, cough up the names and addresses of everyone to whom you have provided the information, you agree not to engage in promotion of fraudulent tax schemes ever again, and you pay the tax owed. In return, we'll drop the criminal charges against you related to filing of your individual income tax return."

I'll bet he provided all the information, and probabaly paid up his back taxes.

I think my scenario makes a lot more sense than the DOJ running away with their tail between their legs like the "news" reports would have one believe.

[Bees Knees]

ho hum.....

From this tax protestor site: http://givemeliberty.org/

"Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.

Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect.

Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments."


From the IRS site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...106508,00.html

"B. Contention: Taxpayers are not required to file a federal income tax return, because the instructions and regulations associated with the Form 1040 do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Some argue that taxpayers are not required to file tax returns because of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq. ("PRA"). The PRA was enacted to limit federal agencies' information requests that burden the public. The "public protection" provision of the PRA provides that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved does not display a current control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] Director. 44 U.S.C. § 3512. Advocates of this contention claim that they cannot be penalized for failing to file Form 1040, because the instructions and regulations associated with the Form 1040 do not display any OMB control number.

The Law: The courts have uniformly rejected this argument on different grounds. Some courts have simply noted that the PRA applies to the forms themselves, not to the instruction booklets, and because the Form 1040 does have a control number, there is no PRA violation.

Other courts have held that Congress created the duty to file returns in section 6012(a) and "Congress did not enact the PRA's public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress." United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11 th Cir. 1992).

Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6 th Cir. 1990) - The court rejected Wunder's claim of a PRA violation, affirming his conviction for failing to file a return.

Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7 th Cir. 1992) - The court affirmed Salberg's conviction for tax evasion and failing to file a return, rejecting his claims under the PRA.

United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958 (1992) - The court affirmed Holden's conviction for failing to file a return and rejected his contention that he should have been acquitted because tax instruction booklets fail to comply with the PRA.

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359 (9 th Cir. 1991) - The court affirmed Hicks' conviction for failing to file a return, finding that the requirement to provide information is required by law, not by the IRS. "This is a legislative command, not an administrative request. The PRA was not meant to provide criminals with an all-purpose escape hatch."

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1445 (10 th Cir. 1990) - The court found that the PRA "is inapplicable to 'information collection request' forms issued during an investigation against an individual to determine his or her tax liability."

[j2kp0t]

The IRS page cited by Bees Knees

The IRS page cited by Bees Knees does not address the issue raised by Robert Lawrence. In it, IRS (and the courts) reject the notion that the 1040 is invalid because the accompanying instructions do not contain an OMB number. However, it is the contention of Mr. Lawrence that even the OMB number on the form itself is invalid, as it has not been in compliance with the PRA for a long time. Nowhere on the IRS site is this contention addressed.

[Bees Knees]

IRS (and the courts) reject the notion that the 1040 is invalid because the accompanying instructions do not contain an OMB number. However, it is the contention of Mr. Lawrence that even the OMB number on the form itself is invalid, as it has not been in compliance with the PRA for a long time.

Other courts have held that Congress created the duty to file returns in section 6012(a) and "Congress did not enact the PRA's public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress." United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11 th Cir. 1992).

Maybe not the exact same situation, but what's new about it? The Court says Congress did not enact those laws to give OMB the ability to abolish the duty imposed by Congress to file a return and pay tax.

We have a law against vandalism in this country. However, there is no specific law in this country that says: "Thou shalt not throw a brick through thy neighbors window."

I guess that means I'm free to let one fly? Right?

[j2kp0t]

Maybe not the exact same situation, but what's new about it? The Court says Congress did not enact those laws to give OMB the ability to abolish the duty imposed by Congress to file a return and pay tax.

The contention of Mr. Lawrence is that the PRA specfically states that a new OMB number must be obtained with each modification made to the form, and the lack of a new OMB number causes the form to be in violation of the law, making it invalid for collecting information for the purposes of assessing tax. (And, even if no modifications are made, the number expires after 3 years). Apparently, and I haven't looked at them all, the OMB number on form 1040 has not changed in the last 24 years, despite numerous modifications.

Although, "Other courts have held that Congress created the duty to file returns in section 6012(a) and 'Congress did not enact the PRA's public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress.' United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11 th Cir. 1992)," they have not done so in relation to the contentions we're discussing today. It may be that it is easier to make such a statement when there are other grounds for the ruling; however, when presented with the clear language of the PRA statute, the court may have a harder time making such a claim.

BTW, I have not cast my vote yet, either for or against Mr. Lawrence's contentions, BUT the fact that the IRS website contains no rebuttals of this particular contention, preferring to rely instead on court cases which rebut a different situation, though similar enough to be considered misleading, has me leaning in his favor.

I appreciate you engaging me in this discussion.

[Bees Knees]

Although, "Other courts have held that Congress created the duty to file returns in section 6012(a) and 'Congress did not enact the PRA's public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress.' United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11 th Cir. 1992)," they have not done so in relation to the contentions we're discussing today. It may be that it is easier to make such a statement when there are other grounds for the ruling; however, when presented with the clear language of the PRA statute, the court may have a harder time making such a claim.

You've got to be kidding. No offense, but that is balony.

Please provide one citation where ANY court in this country since 1913 has ruled the IRS is illegally collecting tax from citizens of this country.