Source: http://famguardian1.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/4.21ChallengeAllLevies.htm
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 12:28:56
Document Index: 605258526

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6532', '§6331', '§6331', '§407', '§3201', '§ 4075', 'art 3', '§3711', '§7302', '§ 403', '§ 403', '§7', '§6303', '§6304', '§6320', '§301', '§301']

Removing Federal and State Tax Liens-Dr. Eduardo Rivera
There is no statute authorizing them to do an assessment for income taxes found in Subtitles A of the Internal Revenue Code. We covered this earlier in section 5.4.2 of the Great IRS Hoax book.
There is no statute making any American Citizen liable for the payment of income taxes. We covered this in section 5.6.5 of the Great IRS Hoax book.
The only types of valid levies and liens are those issued with a judicial warrant of distraint that can only be issued and signed by a judge.
If they institute collection action absent a valid levy or lien, they can be prosecuted under 26 U.S.C. Section 7214. for unlawful taking of taxes and extortion under the color of law if they sign the assessment form. We cover this later in section 6.8.1 of the Tax Fraud Prevention Manual.
Revenue officers will therefore frequently try to issue the form without a signature. If the taxpayer isn’t aware of the law or never requests a copy of the completed 23C Certificate of Assessment form following a tax examination or final determination or prior to the commencement of collection activity, then he is often deceived into believing that an invalid assessment is actually a valid one, and is terrorized into paying a tax he doesn’t owe..
According to 26 U.S.C. §6532(a)(1), if the IRS institutes a levy, then you have up to 9 months from the date of the levy to file a suit in federal court to stop the levy.
Continuing levies can only be instituted on federal payments, not payment of private employers to their employees, according to 26 U.S.C. 6331(h)
Levies may only be instituted on “taxpayers”, who are persons “liable for” tax, according to 26 U.S.C. §6331(e). “nontaxpayers” may not be levied upon. Note that there is no statute making anyone liable for Subtitle A income taxes.
Continuing wage levies may not exceed 15 percent of a person’s salary. See 26 U.S.C. §6331(h)(1).
Social Security benefits may not be levied, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §407(a).
To collect, the IRS will first send a deficiency notice to the taxpayer, who then is requested to pay the tax bill. If the bill isn’t paid, they will issue a collection notice to the taxpayer where they must by law offer an opportunity to the taxpayer to have what is called a Collection Due Process hearing. IRS form 121523 must be submitted by the person to formally request the hearing. The request for the CDP hearing must occur no later than 30 days after receipt of the Notice and Demand for payment. The IRS likes to complicate getting a CDP by by saying that the form 12153 submitted by the taxpayer did not have a date on it and so they will then claim that it was submitted outside the window so they don't have to provide a due process hearing. This form, as a matter of fact, is the ONLY IRS FORM we have found that does not have a place to put a date! That is why we emphasize adding a date field to the IRS form 12153 before submitting it and sending it via certified mail with a proof of service.
After either the taxpayer declines the hearing or the hearings are completed, the IRS will normally issue a Notice of Levy to financial institutions who have assets of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s employer. They may also issue a lien on the real property of the taxpayer at the county courthouse.
This kind of thinking and tolerance of gross abuse by the government has to be eliminated if things will ever get better!
Any claim arising under internal revenue laws of the United States is inchoate (unperfected) until there is a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. If a claim is contested, IRS and Government of the United States must secure a judgment lien in compliance with 28 U.S.C. §3201. To that point, any notice of federal tax lien an IRS officer or agent files is an uttered instrument – it isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Nor can IRS personnel unilaterally garnish wages, bank accounts and other financial assets via notice of levy. The trick here is that IRS personnel issue notices of levy for administrative garnishment, but they forget to include a properly executed IRS Form 2159 Payroll Deduction Agreement. See § 4075.50 of Part 3, Chapter 4000 of Title 1 of the Treasury Financial Manual. The administrative offset program is authorized by 31 U.S.C. §3711; it applies only to government agencies and personnel.
Virtually all IRS seizures are predicated on 26 U.S.C. §7302, property used in violation of internal revenue laws. The seizures are governed by Delegation Order #157, 26 U.S.C. § 403, and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. IRS also enforces Title 18 money laundering statutes under Delegation Order #158. Both are based on the underlying presumption that the seized property was used in conjunction with or was the fruit of drug-related commercial crimes listed in 26 U.S.C. § 403. All federal government seizures, whether by IRS or any other government agency, are predicated on the presumption of admiralty jurisdiction and the venue of such authority is exclusively special territorial and maritime jurisdiction defined at 18 U.S.C. §7. Any seizure on land requires trial by jury for condemnation and forfeiture.
Legal authority for issuance of liens and levies by the IRS comes from 26 U.S.C. Section 6331. Typically, when the IRS issues a “Notice of Levy”, they will quote this section in the Notice of Levy. Older versions of the “Notice of Levy” were issued with a quote of the entire section. The IRS more recently eliminated 26 U.S.C. Section 6331(a) from their “Notice of Levy”. Below is a quote of that section:
Quite a scam, huh? What can we do about this? Get informed! Before you attempt to deal with an IRS collection action, we recommend reading the following IRS forms and publications, all of which are available on our website at https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr.htm:
IRS Publication 594: What You Should Know About the IRS Collection Process
IRS Publication 5: Your Appeal Rights and How to Prepare a Protest if You Don’t Agree
I.R.M. 5.1 Chapt 4 or 5.1.4
Notice: 26 U.S.C. §6303
Collection practices: 26 U.S.C. §6304
8 Secretary of Treasury issues This notice is usually accompanied by an IRS Ltr 1058 (Notice of Intent to Levy and Opportunity for Hearing) and/or IRS Ltr 3172.(Tax Lien and Opportunity for Hearing) 26 U.S.C. §6320
IRS Ltr 1058 (Notice of Intent to Levy and Opportunity for Hearing)
Lien can be instituted with not advance warning, but levy cannot be done without advanced warning.
9 If Citizen doesn’t pay, Secretary of the Treasury in 10 days after receipt of the notice and demand for tax, Secretary has authority to institute distraint/levy upon taxpayer’s wages for unpaid taxes 26 U.S.C. 6331 Levies: 26 C.F.R. §301.6331-1
Procedures and restrictions on levies: 26 C.F.R. §301.6331-2 I.R.M. 5.11 Must send a notice at least 30 days prior to garnishing or levying wages
10 Citizen requests due process hearing IN WRITING via certified express mail within 30 days after notice of intent to lien or levy is given by Secretary. Levy suspended until hearing completed. 26 U.S.C. 6330
Due process: 26 U.S.C. 6320
The illegal point in the process above, and the point where our Fourth Amendment due process protections are violated, is at steps 13 and 14. Here is what the annotated Fourth Amendment says about the seizure of property (see https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html):
The Court of Appeals understandably found it necessary to reconcile its holding with our recognition in the plain-view cases that the Fourth Amendment protects property as such. In so doing, the court did not distinguish this case on the ground that the seizure of the Soldals' home took place in a [506 U.S. 56, 67] noncriminal context. Indeed, it acknowledged what is evident from our precedents - that the Amendment's protection applies in the civil context as well. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 334 -335 (1985); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 504 -506 (1978); Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312 -313 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967). 11
The court seemingly construes the Amendment to protect only against seizures that are the outcome of a search. But our cases are to the contrary, and hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place. See, e.g., Jacobsen, 466 U.S., at 120 -125; Place, 462 U.S., at 706 -707; Cardwell, 417 U.S., at 588 -589. 13 More generally, an officer who happens to come across an individual's property in a public area could seize it only if Fourth Amendment standards are satisfied - for example, if the items are evidence of a crime or contraband. Cf. Payton v. New York, [506 U.S. 56, 69] 445 U.S., at 587 . We are also puzzled by the last sentence of the excerpt, where the court announces that the "usual rules" of the Fourth Amendment are inapplicable if the seizure is not the result of a search or any other investigative activity "precisely because there is no invasion of privacy." For the plain-view cases clearly state that, notwithstanding the absence of any interference with privacy, seizures of effects that are not authorized by a warrant are reasonable only because there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The seizure of the weapons in Horton, for example, occurred in the midst of a search, yet we emphasized that it did not "involve any invasion of privacy." 496 U.S., at 133 . In short, our statement that such seizures must satisfy the Fourth Amendment and will be deemed reasonable only if the item's incriminating character is "immediately apparent," id., at 136-137, is at odds with the Court of Appeals' approach.
Whatever its proper reading, we reaffirm today our basic understanding that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures fully applies in the civil context.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated that you are entitled to a hearing before the taking of property:
[Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 551, United States v. Illinois Central R. Co.]
“If the right to notice and a hearing is to serve its full purpose, it is clear that it must be granted at a time when the deprivation can still be prevented. At a later hearing, an individual’s possessions can be returned to him if they were unfairly or mistakenly taken in the first place. Damages may even be awarded him for wrongful deprivation. But no later hearing and no damage award can undo the fact that the arbitrary taking that was subject to the right of due process has already occurred. This Court [the Supreme Court] has not embraced the general proposition that a wrong may be done if it can be undone.”
[Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 647, 31 L.Ed.2d 551, 556,.Ct. 1208 (1972)]
Section 3.15.5 of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005 (OFFSITE LINK) book.
Section 14.5 of the FORMS section on this online version of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual.
IRS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, Form 03.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
Whenever any collection activity is instituted against you by the IRS, the best response is to do a Privacy Act Request for the “Original lien and the ‘non master file record’ under Treasury system of records 26.009 for the assessments related to all collection activity.” The following resources tell you how to do a FOIA/Privacy Act request:
Section 2.5.4.5 of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005 (OFFSITE LINK) book.
Section 4.5 of the INSTRUCTIONS section on this online version of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual.
For further very detailed legal research proving conclusively that the IRS may not legally lien or levy against the assets or wages of a private citizen, refer to the following article by Dan Meador entitled “Relation-Back Doctrine Condemns Administrative Tax Liens and Levies: