|
|
Post by Spartacus on Dec 19, 2004 20:16:04 GMT -5
Back in Sept. of this year, I received an IRS "notice of intent to levy," along with a form to request a "collection due process (so called) hearing." So I requested the hearing. Well, this last week in the mail, I got a letter from a local IRS "Appeals" Office telling me that my "case" had been transferred to them and that they would be contacting me soon to set up the "hearing." I'd prefer to stall the CDPH for as long as possible because, as is no surprise to anyone here, the IRS' "determination" from these hearings is always against you and the Tax Kourt always "affirms" their "determination." Marc, or anyone, any suggestions on a fact-based letter approach that I can send to the IRS "Appeals" Office in response to their first letter (before they send me another letter to schedule the CDPH) so that they either a) will never re-contact me for the CDPH (because they can't answer the questions in the letter) or b) would have to admit that there is no "obligation?" I'm thinking of the sort of letter that would be worded something like, "before I can participate in a meaningful CDPH, I would like to know the facts upon which this alleged tax liability/obligation is based. Please supply me with the facts detailing how I became/have become obligated to pay." Well, you get the idea. Thanks to all.  |
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 19, 2004 22:54:37 GMT -5
Have you received the Notice of Deficiency yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spartacus on Dec 20, 2004 10:18:24 GMT -5
weis,
Yes, this "case" has gone through the NOD stage. The IRS prepared "returns" for me since I hadn't filed. I wrote back saying that I wanted an in-person meeting; they ignored that of course, and generated the NOD's. I chose not to file in Tax Kourt, so it eventually ended up in the "intent to levy" phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 20, 2004 11:46:26 GMT -5
I like to meet them in person and put them on the spot. If I put the questions in writing and they ignore it they can claim as an appeals officer they are not required to answer the questions because they are not witnesses.
I would tell them I am happy to settle the matter I just want the facts the opinions are based. I would like to bring a court reporter so a record can be made.
|
|
|
|
Post by weishaupt1776 on Dec 21, 2004 17:31:11 GMT -5
Spartacus, are you a member yet? Sign up, man. Anyway, you and I have alot in common. Marc has in his possession some proprietary, intellectual property not to be construed as legal advice in dealing with how to question agents.
If push comes to shove, and they don't grant me a hearing, I am bringing in a notary to the local office. If they still deny me, then I have a witness who is a notary that can affirm the lack of "due process". If they do grant me a hearing, I can have the notary ask questions and speak for me as I direct him. This is because the agent could be in trouble for lying to a notary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spartacus on Dec 22, 2004 12:58:58 GMT -5
weishaupt,
You referred to intellectual property that Marc has; are you referring to one of his scripts for questioning IRS agents?
|
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 22, 2004 22:05:38 GMT -5
It is based on the all of the principles in the AILL book in a certain order, nothing extraterrestrial..
Spartacus, How far along in the book are you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spartacus on Dec 23, 2004 12:16:24 GMT -5
weis,
I've read the book three times already. I bought a script from Marc a few months ago; I haven't used it yet but I can see its value. I just wanted to know if what you were referring to was something different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Dec 23, 2004 12:44:47 GMT -5
weis, I've read the book three times already. I bought a script from Marc a few months ago; I haven't used it yet but I can see its value. I just wanted to know if what you were referring to was something different. I'm curious based on the existence of Marc's I.P. what kind of situations he has "planned" for... Also especially, question for you Marc or anyone else: What are the significant differences in Canada, i.e. does the prosecutor represent "The Province of Moose" or "The Crown" or even "The Queen"? What kind of rules does the judge have to follow, i.e. can't testify on behalf of either side, etc. I'm just curious for now, no curent case or anything  |
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 23, 2004 20:08:45 GMT -5
Spartacus, I'm just fixin' to start lap 3. I was not referring to anything different. I need to figure out that instant message deal so we can chat. If you had a member link, I'd be able to click your user name & email you at least. If the Lord so wills, I should be getting an undue processing hearing.
|
|
