TRAINING USE ONLY

Month dd, yyyy Name Address City, State nnnnn-nnnn SSN: nnn-nn-nnnn Internal Revenue Service Ogden, UT 84201-0040 ATTN: Ms. Green, 29-12033, and Henry Slaughter Re: Reconsideration for the Automated Substitute for Return / Notice of Deficiency for yyyy NOTICE This is a timely response to your proposed Automated Substitute for Return (ASFR) / Notice of Deficiency (NOD), Letter Number 3219(SC/SG) dated Month dd, yyyy, which was signed with a computer-generated signature. My protest is based on the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) § 8.2.1.2. I formally protest the NOD in writing under penalties of perjury. In addition, I am trying to accurately ascertain “that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority.” Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947). Grounds for Protesting the ASFR / NOD • Fraudulently Filed 3rd Party Return. The amounts of income summarized on Form 4549 and explained on Form 886-A are based on 3rd party information returns that were fraudulently filed with the Secretary. • Formal Claim for Refund. I filed a formal claim for refund which the Commissioner has acknowledged receiving and which he has failed to process. • Individual Master File. The Individual Master File (IMF) contains significant false, inaccurate, and possibly fraudulent information about me, creating false presumptions that the Commissioner is acting upon. • Denial of Administrative Due Process. The Commissioner has failed to give me any due process to contest the underlying purported frivolous return penalty. • Limits of Examination Authority. The Commissioner is attempting to exercise his examination authority outside the seat of government. • No Basis for the ASFR or NOD. The Commissioner has not identified any statute or regulation, if any such statute or regulation exists, under which I have purportedly failed to file. • Unsupported Naked Assessment. Because the information returns are fraudulently filed, and the Commissioner hasn’t provided any underlying support, he has created an unsupported naked assessment.

Page 1 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
• Procedural Violations. According to the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) and
the Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA), the IRS is violating its own procedures in creating the Automated Substitute for Return (ASFR) and Notice of Deficiency (NOD). • No Authority to Impute an Income Tax Liability. The Commissioner exceeds his Congressional, Constitutional, and Regulatory authority in using the definitions and purported authority from 26 U.S.C. Subtitle C (Employment Taxes) to impute an income tax liability under 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A. PROPOSED TAKING WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS Based on all the foregoing, the IRS is proceeding in a manner that will deprive me of my property and/or rights to property without Constitutional due process of law, deny me my Constitutional right to be heard, and do all this under color of law. I further claim all other rights enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America and all other rights not enumerated as expressed in the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

FRAUDULENTLY FILED 3RD PARTY RETURNS Fraudulently Filed 3rd Party Information Returns The amount of the proposed assessment is erroneous because it is based on 3 rd party information returns that have been fraudulently filed with the Secretary. I wrote to the Commissioner providing proof that these 3rd party information reports were fraudulently filed which makes the payer information inaccurate and unreliable. Failure to Follow I.R.M. Procedures Pursuant to the Internal Revenue Manual, § 4.19.17.6.1, my letters and claims for refund provided the “other circumstances” that suggest the IRP payer information is inaccurate and unreliable. According to the I.R.M., the Commissioner must remove the income from his non-filer proposal and reevaluate my requirement to file. If the amount falls below the threshold requirement to file, he is required to close my case — but he has failed to do so. NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF Based on this NOTICE, my prior letters, and claims for refund, the Commissioner knew or had reason to know that he has been relying on fraudulently issued 3rd party returns. Nevertheless, he has continued to proceed with inaccurate and unreliable information. Thus the Commissioner has no basis in fact or law to reasonably believe he can continue with his proposed assessment or procedures.

Page 2 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY

FORMAL CLAIM FOR REFUND Background of the ASFR and NOD • Month dd, yyyy – the Commissioner sent a Letter CP59 claiming that I had not filed for yyyy. • Month dd, yyyy – I responded with proof that I had filed for yyyy.

• Month dd, yyyy – the Commissioner issued a proposed SFR claiming I had not
filed for yyyy. • Month dd, yyyy – I responded with proof that I had filed for yyyy! • Month dd, yyyy – the Commissioner issued a NOD claiming I had not filed for yyyy. My Testimony about Filing for yyyy I formally declare that I have filed for yyyy, and further, that my claims for refund are based on established case law as outlined in the Pennoni1 and Patridge2 cases. NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF Based on my testimony, the Commissioner is deprived of any basis in fact or law to reasonably believe that I did not file for yyyy. Thus, his ASFR and the resulting NOD are defective and completely contrary to the established facts.

INFORMATION MASTER FILE (IMF) Since the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, the IRS’ business records and processes have been given a presumption of correctness and accuracy. I have a copy of my IMF for yyyy, Obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. My testimony below demonstrates that the Commissioner’s business records about me contain a large number of false, inaccurate, and possibly fraudulent details in my IMF, only some of which are listed below:

1 A plaintiff may satisfy the timeliness component of the claim requirement by filing a formal claim, in accordance with Treasury Regulation (“Treas. Reg.”) § 301.6402-2 (2000), or by filing an informal claim of which the formal defects are later remedied by amendment of the claim. See Kales v. United States, 314 U.S. 186, 194 (1942). Pennoni v. US 06-861T (USCFC 2009) 2 One reason for this is that §7203 requires a “return” but does not define that word or require that anyone use Form 1040, or any “official” form at all. All that is required is a complete and candid report of income. United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 11/14/2007) Page 3 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
Incorrect Address The IMF states that I live in {State}. This flies in the face of the fact that all my filings and correspondence since yyyy have initiated from my home address in listed at the top of this letter. VAL3, 4 A value of “1” in my IMF and a lack of any related transaction codes, it means that I am not using my true SSN and that Criminal Investigative Division (CID) should have conducted an investigation.

1.1.

False or fraudulent SSN: If I were using a false or fraudulent SSN, I could be charged with a felony, punishable by a large fine and time in jail. I am confident the Commissioner knows or has reason to know that this is a complete fabrication – that this is an entry the IRS creates to allow it to pursue me under color of law. CID Investigation: A false or fraudulent SSN should have initiated an investigation by CID requiring that the IRS freeze my IMF while the investigation was on-going, and preventing any changes to the contents of my IMF until the investigation was complete, the results known, and the VAL code verified or removed. However, since the VAL code existed at the moment of creating the IMF for yyyy, all entries made after that point without an investigation have tainted my IMF, preventing the CID from performing an accurate investigation and closing my case. Since the IRS continued to make entries into my IMF after the VAL code was issued and before CID completed its investigation, my IMF contains tainted information that cannot be relied upon for accuracy or completeness and has actually inhibited the CID in the performance of its duties.

1.2.

Q. Under what authority did the Commissioner allow entries to be made to my IMF and collection activities begin against me when the IRS’ business records concerning me should have been frozen pending the outcome of a CID investigation? Q. What was the outcome of the CID investigation?

3 Internal Revenue Manual, Exhibit 2.32-7 IMF Entity Data, INVALID SSN FREEZE INDICATOR, 1—Invalid SSN Freeze has been released by TC 290 or 300 or Scrambled SSN Indicator of "2" . This release is effective during the current calendar year only. 4 Law Enforcement Manual, pg. 3(27)(68)0-7 (1-1-90), LEMT III-386, SSN Validity Digit, 1 The SSN is not valid for the taxpayer using it. Page 4 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
BODC-SB5 My IMF indicates that I am a Small Business earning up to $10 million per year, as indicated by the Business Operating Division Code. Someone within the IRS has tampered with my records to make me, an individual, look like a business and does not reflect my true status as an individual. BODC-WI6 My IMF indicates that I am a Business paying wages and making investments, as indicated by the Business Operating Division Code of WI. Someone within the IRS has tampered with my records to make me, an individual, look like a business and does not reflect my true status as an individual. MFR-057 The IMF states that I, an individual, have a mailing and filing requirement to make a business return with schedules A, B, C, D, E, and F. FYM8 The Fiscal Year and Month indicates that I operate on a 12-month fiscal year basis. Nothing could further from the truth. I am an individual and do not live on a 12-month fiscal year basis. COND9 My IMFs from yyyy-yyyy have a COND code of R meaning that the IRS OWES ME MONEY. This is completely contrary to the Commissioner’s claims that I owe the IRS money. SCS10 The Scrambled SSN Indicator means that 2 or more people are reporting their income to my SSN. Because of that, the Commissioner has no possibility of knowing that the information in its files is accurate or reliable, which brings into question the amount of money the Commissioner is attempting to collect from me.
5 IRS Processing Codes and Information, 2010, pg. 7-3, WI - Wage and Investment 6 IRS Processing Codes and Information, 2010, pg. 7-3, SB - Small Business & Self Employed, (TC/150 < $10,000,000.00) 7 IRS Processing Codes and Information, 2010, pg. 8-55 & pg. 8-60, Filing Requirement - 05 1040 Business (Sch A, B, D, E, C, F) 8 Internal Revenue Manual, Exhibit 2.3.32-7, IMF Entity Data, FYM - FISCAL YEAR MONTH— from a most current First Name Line on the Master File entity. 9 Internal Revenue Manual, Exhibit 2.3.32-7, IMF Entity Data, FILING CONDITION CODE, R Refund 10 Internal Revenue Manual, § Exhibit 2.3.32-8, IRAF merged with IMF Master File 01/2005 (MFT-29), SCRAMBLED SSN INDICATOR, 1—Two taxpayers are using the same SSN. Page 5 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
Q. Who are the other entities that are falsely, fraudulently, or illegally reporting their income information to my SSN? NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF There are other errors in my IMF but given only these errors, it’s manifestly clear that the Commissioner proceeded on false, inaccurate, and potentially fraudulent information as the basis for believing he had the authority to issue a NOD against me. Thus, the basis for the ASFR and the resulting NOD is without merit and lacking a basis in fact and law depriving the Commissioner of all reasonable belief that he can continue to proceed with his proposed taking.

DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS The Commissioner claimed my original return was frivolous pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6702. My FOIA request for the penalty paperwork revealed that he failed to make any determination that I was a “person” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b) who could, in fact, be charged with a frivolous penalty. Rather, he skipped that legal requirement and focused on the secondary issues presuming I was the § 6671(b) “person.” Thus, he gave himself an administrative basis to claim that I was a nonfiler under color of law. He then proceeded with an ASFR and the resulting NOD. The Commissioner failed to provide me any venue where I could contest the underlying liability. Not only that, there has been no judicial decision supporting the Commissioner’s determination. “Person” Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b) The predicate element is in the opening words of 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) when it states that, “A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if (a) such person” (emphasis added). The term “person” is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b). The Courts have consistently determined that the “person” defined at § 6671(b) is anyone with a duty attached to his position as an employee within an organized enterprise11 or a duty connected

11 "Duty" under § 6671(b) has a much more focused meaning than the generalized duty of all taxpayers to pay taxes and is expressly limited to the duty that attaches to the position an employee holds within the corporation. US v. Burger, 717 F.Supp. 245 (SD New York, 1989) Page 6 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
with an organized enterprise12 so as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred. My Testimony I deny I had any duty with any organized enterprise so as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred. Further, I deny I had any duty attached to any position as an employee within any organized enterprise. NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF The Commissioner has the burden of proof pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6703. However, he did not provide any facts that I had a duty connected with any organized enterprise. Since he has not met his burden, his determination is not supported by the facts or my testimony. Thus, he is deprived of any basis in fact or law to reasonably believe he can claim my originally filed return was frivolous and assess a penalty against me.

LIMITS OF EXAMINATION AUTHORITY Based on all the foregoing, it’s manifestly clear that the Commissioner is using unreliable, inaccurate, and possibly fraudulently manufactured information to sustain his belief that I had a source of income sufficient to trigger a requirement to file. However, none of the paperwork I received indicates that the Commissioner has the authority to perform an examination (26 U.S.C. 7601) outside the seat of government (4 U.S.C. § 72, 31 U.S.C. § 301, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7802, 7802) within an internal revenue district (26 U.S.C. § 7621 and 26 CFR §§ 301.7621-1, and 601.101). Further, the implementing regulation for 26 U.S.C. 7601 is 27 CFR 75, a regulation pertaining to the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Moreover, the U.S. government admitted in a criminal trial that the Secretary of the Treasury abolished internal revenue districts on October 1, 200013. Thus, there are no internal revenue districts where the internal revenue laws can be administered by district directors of
12 In support of the district court Graham here contends that he was not a "person," as defined in § 6671(b), since he was simply a member of the corporation's board of directors, was not employed by the corporation and did not serve as an executive officer.[2] This is too narrow a reading of the section. The term "person" does include officer and employee, but certainly does not exclude all others. Its scope is illustrated rather than qualified by the specified examples. In our judgment the section must be construed to include all those so connected with a corporation as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred. United States v. Graham, 309 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1962) 13 “The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts as of October l, 2000…” U.S. v. Springer and Stilley, 09-CR-00043-SPF, Document 71, Filed in USDC ND/OK, on May 29, 2009. Page 7 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
internal revenue districts outside the seat of government. For these reasons, the Commissioner lacks authority to examination me for tax purposes. And by operating outside his statutory authority and under color of law, the Commissioner is proposing to deprive me of my property, my rights to property, my right to Constitutional due process, and my Constitutional right to be heard.

NO BASIS FOR THE ASFR OR NOD The Commissioner is proceeding on an erroneous assumption or presumption that I am subject to (liable for) a tax. The Commissioner relied on 26 U.S.C. 6020(b), for his ASFR and the resulting NOD, which states, (b) Execution of return by Secretary (1) Authority of Secretary to execute return If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise. Law, Regulations, Determinations, Decisions, or Authority The Commissioner purports to have made a determination by exercising his authority to file an ASFR pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6020(b) but none of his letters, collection notices, ASFRs, or NODs state any underlying law, regulation, determination, decision, or authority, if any such exists, that levy a tax against any activity in which I was engaged making me subject to or liable for any revenue tax imposed by the national government of the United States of America. The Commissioner failed to provide any opportunity for a hearing by an impartial person who is competent to address issues of law and where all Constitutional due process of law requirements will be met. Finally, he didn’t show any law, regulation, determination, decision, or authority, if any such exists, of any of the following legal requirements to support his ASFR or the resulting NOD, including, but not limited to:

1. That I am a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in section 1313(b) and/or
7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code; 2. That I had a "taxable year" as defined in section 441(b) of the Internal Revenue Code; 3. That I had "taxable income" as defined in section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code;

Page 8 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
4. That I had "adjusted gross income" as defined in section 62 of the Internal
Revenue Code; and 5. That I am an "individual taxable" under the revenue laws of the national government of the United States of America; and 6. That I am one who is required to pay such tax or submit forms. Supporting Documents, Statutes, Regulations, or Determinations I have received nothing from the Commissioner supporting his ASFR or NOD. Due to his lack of showing, I demand that the Commissioner provide all supporting documents, statutes, regulations, and determinations, if any such exists, which show that I was required by law to make a tax return, or a report of income, and/or to pay a tax to the national government of the United States of America and/or to the Internal Revenue Service. Testimony I deny any claim of any obligation and any claim that I am one who is liable for or subject to a tax. I know of nothing that makes me subject to or liable for any internal revenue tax. Any forms or returns that I may have submitted in the past were submitted because of misinformation and disinformation that originated from the IRS which implied that some obligation existed, when in fact no obligation actually did. All such documents submitted under those false pretenses are hereby repudiated. His Privacy Act Notice confirms my determination where it specifically states that your “legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for.” I absolutely agree. Being liable for a tax is obviously a prerequisite to any requirement to make a return. Sections 6001 and 6011 clearly state that returns shall be made by persons who are "liable for" or "made liable for" a tax. Section 6012 states that returns shall be made by "every individual having for the taxable year…". The term "taxable year" is defined in section 441(b) as the "taxpayer's annual accounting period". Section 7701(a)(14) defines the term "taxpayer" to mean "any person subject to any internal revenue tax". Section 1313(b) defines the term "taxpayer" to mean "any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. Based on the above, I deny being subject to or liable for any revenue tax. I deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in sections 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14). I deny having a "taxable year" as that term is defined in section 441(b). I further find that section 63 of the Code defines "taxable income" as "adjusted gross income", and section 62 of the Code defines "adjusted gross income" as the "taxpayer's" deductions subtracted from his gross income. Therefore, I deny
Page 9 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
having "taxable income" or "adjusted gross income" as those terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code. NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF Since the Commissioner has not supported his ASFR or the resulting NOD with any laws, regulations, determinations, decisions, or authority, and based on my personal testimony, he has no basis in fact or law to support either the ASFR or the NOD. Lacking a basis in fact and law, the Commissioner is deprived of having any reasonable belief that he can proceed with his ASFR and the resulting NOD.

UNSUPPORTED NAKED ASSESSMENT The Commissioner’s Proposed Assessment Is Unsupported. According to the law, an assessment must have a foundation. The Commissioner’s proposed assessment states that it is relying on purported information returns, but I have already provided proof that the 3rd party information returns were fraudulently filed, are inaccurate, and unreliable. The Commissioner has the burden to supporting his belief that I engaged in a taxable activity. His failure to do so created a presumption that he doesn’t have any information in his possession or worse, that the information doesn’t exist. Lacking any supporting documentation or information, he has proposed a naked assessment, as the Supreme Court discussed in the Janis case, “What we have is a ‘naked’ assessment without any foundation whatsoever…” United States v. Janis, 428 US 433 (1976) at 441. The Commissioner Has the Burden of Proof. When there is a naked assessment, the burden of proof lies with the Commissioner, as the Supreme Court noted in the Helvering case, where it stated, “The determination of tax due then may be one ‘without rational foundation and excessive,’ and not properly subject to the usual rule with respect to the burden of proof in tax cases.” Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 514-515 (1935). The court provided further case law supporting this decision. [T]he debate does not extend to the situation where the assessment is shown to be naked and without any foundation. The courts then appear to apply the rule of the Taylor case. See United States v. Rexach, 482 F. 2d 10, 16-17, n. 3 (CA1), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1039 (1973); Pizzarello v. United States, 408 F. 2d 579 (CA2), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 986 (1969); Suarez v. Commisioner, 58 T. C. 792, 814-815 (1972). But cf. Compton v. United States, 334 F. 2d 212, 216 (CA4 1964). United States v. Janis, supra.

Page 10 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
The Commissioner’s Proposed Assessment is Arbitrary and Erroneous. The Commissioner is not at liberty to abuse his discretion and create an assessment without a foundation. As the Supreme Court stated, "When the tax gatherer puts his finger on the citizen, he must also put his finger on the law permitting it" United States v. Merriam, 263 U. S. 179, 188 (1923). United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States, 532 US 822 (2001). The Commissioner’s proposed assessment did not identify any facts or law for its foundation but rather relied on fraudulently filed 3rd party information returns that are inaccurate and unreliable. This is clear proof that the proposed assessment is both arbitrary and erroneous. The Supreme Court decided this issue in Janis when it stated that “[P]roof that an assessment is utterly without foundation is proof that it is arbitrary and erroneous.” United States v. Janis, 428 US 433 (1976) at 442. The Commissioner Is Operating Under Color of Law. By the Commissioner’s proposed assessment, he is determined to deprive me of my property and/or rights to property without Constitutional due process, deny me my Constitutional right to be be heard, and to do so under color of law. As a matter of fact, his proposed assessment is misleading, vague, and ambiguous in that the Commissioner knows or has reason to know it contains false or frivolous statements about me in connection with a matter of official interest concerning me, a member of the public. See 31 CFR § 0.20814. NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW TO SUPPORT HIS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT Since the Commissioner failed to support his belief that I had a requirement to file, he is proposing an unsupported naked assessment and one that is clearly arbitrary and erroneous, and determining to deprive me of my property without Constitutional due process, he must abate his assessment.

PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS The IRS has failed to follow its own internal procedures outlined in the Internal Revenue Manual, the law, the regulations, and delegations orders. Examination Changes on Form 4549 The regulations require that the ASFR be signed in practically any manner but that it relate to an individual (See 26 CFR 6330-1(b)(2)) “so long as that name or title was

14 31 CFR § 0.208 Falsification of official records. Employees shall not intentionally make false, misleading or ambiguous statements, orally or in writing, in connection with any matter of official interest. Matters of official interest include among other things: Transactions with the public... Page 11 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
placed on the document to signify that the Internal Revenue Officer or employee adopted the document as a return for the taxpayer.” The Form 4549 is not signed by a living breathing human being. Rather, it is signed, “Tax Examiner - MS 4388” with Employee ID 1000099936. Based on information from a FOIA about the employee ID, the FOIA indicated that the employee ID does not refer to an individual but instead is a Group ID, none of whose members were identified. As a result, the authority of the signer of the examination work papers cannot be identified, and his authority to sign the form cannot be established. IRM 5.1.15.6 (04-16-2010) While Delegation Order 5-2 (IRM 1.2.44.3) (formerly DO-182, Rev. 7), allows the Secretary to complete returns for non-filers, other sections of the IRM specify which requirements must be met and limit which returns can be filed. According to the IRM 5.1.15.06, the Secretary is limited to the returns he is authorized to make as quoted below (This list also completely agrees with IRM 5.18.2.3.): 1. BMF IRC 6020(b) adjustments refer to an adjustment of a return prepared and assessed under IRC 6020(b). The Service has the authority to prepare returns for any person who fails to submit a return required by Internal Revenue law or regulation at the time prescribed, or makes (willfully or otherwise), a false or fraudulent return. The following returns may be prepared, signed and executed by revenue officers under the authority of IRC 6020(b): A. Form 940, Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return; B. Form 941 , Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return; C. Form 943 , Employer's Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees; D. Form 944 , Employer's Annual Federal Tax Return; E. Form 720 , Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return; F. Form 2290 , Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return; G. Form CT-1 , Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return; and H. Form 1065 , U. S. Return of Partnership Income. The list quotes only business-related forms, not individual forms. Notably missing from the list is Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Further confirmation of this can be found in the Automated 6020(b) – Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) issued on March 29, 2010, which states: A6020(b) is a non-filer program. The A6020(b) application processes Business Master File (BMF) taxpayers who do not voluntarily file returns in a timely manner (past the due date of the return). Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 6020(b) provides the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the authority to file

Page 12 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
a tax return for a business when it does not file a required return. [emphasis added]. The PIA continues by defining who the taxpayer is: “A. Taxpayer – For purposes of this PIA, the ‘Taxpayer’ refers to a business entity.” Testimony I deny I am a business. I deny my SSN relates to a business. As such, I cannot possibly have a BMF. I further deny I am a “taxpayer” as defined in the abovementioned PIA. Evidence from the IMF and AIMS Procedures The IRS’ own software does not appear to allow the Commissioner to create Forms 1040 for individuals as part of an ASFR. As best as I can figure from the IDRS and AIMS manuals, the main codes and process seem to be as follows: • An ASFR is begun with Transaction Code (TC) 140 or TC 424, which are internal examinations, which results in a Form 13496 being generated and signed. • Once signed, a TC 150 is entered into my IMF to generate an ASFR for a given return type. • According to the AIMS Reference Guide (5-19-2009), if a TC 424 is attempted on an IMF, it will be rejected by the built-in safeguards which prohibit the requisition for an unfiled return. • The IRS overrides the built-in safeguards by using push code 36 along with TC 424. • The TC 424 must also be accompanied with a Master File Transaction (MFT) code indicating the type of return the computer will automatically generate for TC 150. • These MFT codes allowable with TC 424 are 01-12, 14, 16, 33, 40, 51, 52, 60, 63, 64, 77, and 78. What is missing are MFT codes 30 and 31 which represent Forms 1040, 1040X, 1040PR, etc. for individual filers. Thus, the Commissioner knows or has reason to know that his own software prohibits him from creating ASFR Forms 1040 for individuals. IMF Errors Given the false and possibly fraudulent information from my IMF, the Commissioner could conceivably conclude that I am a [small] business [earning up to $10M] paying wages and income with a requirement to file business returns on a 12-month fiscal basis. Despite the facts that these are false and possibly fraudulent, the IRM and PIA are very specific that ASFRs only apply to “taxpayers” with a BMF and without a doubt, none of those allows the filing of a Form 1040 for an individual.

Page 13 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY

NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF The Commissioner is proceeding on false and possibly fraudulent information in my IMF and appears to be treating it as a BMF for the purposes of the procedures outlined in the IRM, which are supported by the PIA. As a result, the Commissioner is without a basis in fact, law, or internal procedures to reasonably believe he can continue proceeding with his ASFR or NOD.

NO AUTHORITY TO IMPUTE AN INCOME TAX LIABILITY The Commissioner is relying on terms, definitions, and purported authorities to collect taxes pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Subtitle C, Employment Taxes. Some of the terms include, but are not limited to, “wages,” “employer,” and “employee,” all found, defined, and limited in scope to a subchapter or chapter located within Subtitle C. Yet the Commissioner appears to rely on these terms, definitions, and purported authorities to impute an income tax liability pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Income Tax. Questions about the Commissioner’s Legal Authority Please answer the following questions. What law or laws, and/or regulation or regulations, if any such exist, authorizes the Commissioner to— 1. Assess a Subtitle A tax against me pursuant to the provisions of Subtitle C? 2. Utilize the monies collected under the purported authority of Subtitle C to satisfy a purported income tax liability pursuant to Subtitle A? 3. What law or laws, and/or 4. Use the terms and definitions specific to Subtitle C and apply them to Subtitle A income tax laws and regulations? NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND NO REASONABLE BELIEF The Commissioner is proceeding on a false presumption, namely, that the monies purportedly collected under the authority of Subtitle C along with the terms and definitions defined therein, impute an income tax liability pursuant to Subtitle A. He has never shown any law or regulation granting him that authority yet he proposes an income tax liability contrary to the laws, regulations, and established facts. Thus, he clearly clearly exceeds his authority and operates under the color of law to establish a liability where he has no authority to do so.

Page 14 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
CONCLUSION As shown above, the Commissioner clearly lacks any basis in fact, law, regulations, or internal procedures to support his beliefs that the ASFR or the resulting NOD have any valid foundation or that he can continue with his [proposed] assessment. In fact, the opposite is true: the Commissioner knew or has reason to know that he is basing his ASFR and the resulting NOD on false, inaccurate, and unreliable information, some of which is possibly fraudulent to sustain his belief.

If the Commissioner continues on his current path, he will deprive me of my property and/or rights to property, deny me my Constitutional right to due process, deny me my Constitutional right to be heard, and do all this under color of law.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that I have read the foregoing letter and know its contents, and to the best of my knowledge the statements therein are true and correct,.

Executed on: Month dd, yyyy _______________________________________ Name - All rights reserved

Enclosures Revocation of Signature Notice of Fraudulently Filed 3rd Party Information Returns for yyyy-yyyy

cc. Director, Ogden Service Center/Campus Internal Revenue Service 1160 West 1200 South Street Ogden, UT 84201 Director, Ogden Service Center/Campus Internal Revenue Service 1160 West 1200 South Street Ogden, UT 84201 ATTN: Compliance Technical Support Manager Internal Revenue Service
Page 15 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
Area 11, Area Director, Denver 600 17th Street Denver, CO 80202-2490 Internal Revenue Service Area 11, Area Director, Denver 600 17th Street Denver, CO 80202-2490 ATTN: Compliance Technical Support Manager Internal Revenue Service Area n, Area Director, City Address City, State nnnnn-nnnn Internal Revenue Service Area n, Area Director, City Address City, State nnnnn-nnnn ATTN: Compliance Technical Support Manager Internal Revenue Service Area n, Area Director, City Address City, State nnnnn-nnnn Internal Revenue Service Area n, Area Director, City Address City, State nnnnn-nnnn ATTN: Compliance Technical Support Manager Director, Enterprise Computing Center Internal Revenue Service 250 Murall Drive Kearneysville, West Virginia 25430 Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20224-0001 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Ben Franklin Station PO Box 589 Washington DC 20244 ATTN: Complaint Management Division

Page 16 of 17

TRAINING USE ONLY
William H. Foster Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) 650 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20226

Page 17 of 17

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful