This message posted to APFN
MESSAGE BOARD: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1075995
-------- Original Message
-------- Subject: NEW LAWSUIT PARALYZES THE IRS
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 00:52:50 -0500 From: Bill Utterback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from: http://www.sightings.com/general/suit.htm
Major Lawsuit Filed Against IRS
In US District Court In Oregon
NEW LAWSUIT PARALYZES THE IRS
If you'd like to get the IRS
off your back, please take a few moments to read the enclosed lawsuit, which
was
recently filed in Federal District Court. The information it contains is a
matter of public record and is provided to you free of charge. What you are
about to read will shock you and could dramatically change your life . . .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CASE NUMBER: CV 00-293-KI STEVEN M. BERESFORD, Ph.D., Plaintiff, v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR REFUND OF TAXES, PENALTIES AND INTEREST. REQUEST FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff alleges that he is
a British citizen who has been a resident alien in the US since 1987. Soon
after
taking residence in the US, it came to his attention that the American income tax system is based
upon voluntary
compliance. Plaintiff believes that he cannot be legally compelled to obey any
law that is voluntary, and that he
therefore has no legal obligation to file or pay income taxes.
2. At the beginning of 1996,
plaintiff received a letter from defendant requesting payment of overdue income
taxes for 1987, 1988, 1989. Plaintiff responded by writing to defendant stating
that since the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, he had
voluntarily chosen not to comply.
3. During the next year or so,
plaintiff contacted the IRS offices in Portland and Seattle by telephone and
certified
mail on numerous occasions asking for an explanation of the term `voluntary compliance' so that
he could determine his legal liability and comply with the law if required to
do so.
4. Defendant ignored these requests and issued an involuntary federal tax lien
against him on 7/12/96 for the sum of $7,256.80. Plaintiff then filed an appeal
of federal tax lien on 8/9/96 and again on 9/3/97 with the IRS offices in
Portland and Seattle. These appeals were also ignored.
5. On 2/5/98, defendant sent plaintiff a notice of intent to levy. On 3/3/98
and on 4/1/98 the IRS office in Portland
finally notified plaintiff that his appeal had been disallowed, more than 18
months after he originally filed it.
6. Plaintiff then wrote to the
IRS office in Portland on 2/15/99, 4/7/99, and 6/16/99 requesting a due process
hearing. Defendant failed to schedule a hearing and the sum of $14,609.97 was
subsequently withheld from the sale of plaintiff's home at 701 North Winchell
street, Portland on 10/14/99 under protest in satisfaction of the lien.
Finally, on 1/3/00 defendant notified plaintiff that his request for a due
process hearing had been denied.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
7. According
to the IRS Mission Statement, the Federal
Tax Regulations, the Internal Revenue Manual, the US Supreme Court, and
expert testimony given before Congress, the tax system is based on voluntary
compliance:
8. a)
"The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest
possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations and
to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the
Service." Federal Register, Volume 39, #62 (11572), March 29, 1974.
9. b)
"The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the
tax laws by Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist
taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance." Federal Tax
Regulations, Section 601.601.
10. c)
"The tax system is based on voluntary compliance." Federal Tax
Regulations, Section 601.602.
11. d)
"Taxpayers in the United States assess their tax liabilities against
themselves and pay them voluntarily.
This system of assessment and
payment is based on the principle of voluntary compliance." Internal
Revenue
Manual, Section 20:123 (7/15/96).
12. e)
"Of course, the Government can collect the tax from a District Court
suitor by exercising its power of
distraint ~ if he does not
split his action ~ but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this
extraordinary measure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent.
Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon
distraint." US Supreme Court, Flora v. United States, 362 US 179, 80 S.Ct.
630 (1960).
13. f)
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is100 percent voluntary tax,
and your liquor tax is 100
percent enforced tax. Now the
situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just
will
not apply." Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax Division of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and Means Committee on Restructuring
the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953).
14. Neither
the Federal Tax Regulations nor the Internal Revenue Code define the term
`voluntary compliance'. Hence plaintiff relies on the definitions of
`voluntary' given in Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. 92: 1029, 1030, 1031):
15.
"The word `voluntary', which connotes an agreement, implies willingness,
volition, and intent. It suggests a freedom of choice and refers to the doing
of something which a person is free to do or not to do, as he so decides.
Although for
legal purposes the word `voluntary' is considered to be so simple and in such
general use that it
need not be defined, it has
been defined variously as meaning acting by choice, acting of one's self,
without compulsion, or without being influenced by another; acting with willingness;
done by design or intention; purposed; intended; done of his or its own accord;
done of or due to one's own accord or free choice; produced by an act of
choice; proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or full consent.
`Voluntary'
is further defined as meaning free; willing; not accidental; spontaneous;
proceeding from the free
and unrestrained will of the person; proceeding from the spontaneous operation
of the party's own mind, free
from influence of any extraneous disturbing cause; of one's own will without being moved, influenced, or
impelled by others; unconstrained by external interference, influence, or
force; unimpelled by another's
influence; not compelled, prompted, persuaded, or
suggested by another; acting without constraint by
extraneous force; without compulsion.
In its legal
aspect, and as commonly used in law, the word `voluntary' is defined as meaning
gratuitous; without valuable consideration; acting, or done, of one's own free
will without valuable consideration; acting, or
done, without any present legal obligation to do the thing done."
SUMMARY OF
MATERIAL FACTS
16.
According to the IRS Mission Statement, the income tax system is based on
voluntary compliance.
17.
According to the Federal Tax Regulations (sections 601.601 and 601.602) the
income tax system is based on voluntary compliance.
18. The
Internal Revenue Manual (section 20:123) explicitly states that the payment of
income tax is voluntary.
19. The US
Supreme Court has ruled in Flora v. United States (supra) that the income tax
system is based upon voluntary payment, not upon distraint.
20. Dwight
E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testified
before Congress that
income tax
is 100 percent voluntary.
21.
According to Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), various courts have ruled that the
meaning of the word `voluntary' includes: "the doing of something which a
person is free to do or not to do; acting without
compulsion; acting without constraint by external interference, influence, or
force; acting without any
present legal obligation to do the thing done."
22.
Plaintiff did not voluntarily pay income taxes for the years 1987, 1988, 1989.
23. In
response to defendant's request for payment of taxes for the years 1987, 1988,
1989, plaintiff repeatedly asked defendant to explain the meaning of the term
`voluntary compliance', but defendant repeatedly failed to do so.
24.
Defendant issued an involuntary federal tax lien against plaintiff on 7/12/96
for the sum of $7,256.80. In response, plaintiff filed an appeal of federal tax
lien on 8/9/96 and again on 9/3/97, which defendant disallowed on 3/3/98.
Plaintiff then requested a due process hearing on 2/15/99, 4/7/99, and 6/16/99,
which defendant denied on 1/3/00.
25.
Defendant compelled the sum of $14,609.97 to be withheld from the sale of
plaintiff's home on 10/14/99
under
protest by means of the above-mentioned involuntary federal tax lien.
26.
Plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him by
defendant, was at all material times referred to herein a resident of the State
of Oregon, has his principle place of business in the State of Oregon, and
relies on 28 U.S.C. Section 1346 (a)(1) and Section 1391 (b) as giving the
District Court of the State of Oregon jurisdiction in this matter.
ARGUMENT
27.
Plaintiff argues that according to the true and correct usage of the word
`voluntary' in standard English and in legal English (as outlined in Corpus
Juris Secundum), he cannot ~ by definition ~ be forced or compelled to do
something that is voluntary, such as complying with a voluntary law.
28. Plaintiff
argues that since the law clearly and unambiguously states that the payment of
income tax is voluntary, defendant cannot lawfully force or compel him to pay income tax. Plaintiff argues
that his position is
supported by Tietjen v. Heberlein, 171 P. 928, 54 Mont. 486; Akio Kuwahara v.
Acheson, D.C. Cal., 96 F. Supp.
38, 42; Brown v. State, 135 S.E. 765, 766, 36 Ga. App. 84; Coker v State, 33
S.E. 2d 171, 174, 199 Ga. 20; Perryman v. State, 12 S.E. 2d 288, 391, 63 Ga.
App.819; in which the courts ruled that a voluntary action is one that is done
without compulsion or external force.
29.
Plaintiff argues that he has the freedom of choice to pay or not to pay income
tax without any legal obligation toward defendant, and that his position is
supported by Touli v. Santa Cruz County Title Co., 67 P.2d 404, 406,
20 Cal. App.
2d 495, in which the court ruled that a voluntary action is one that is done
without any legal obligation to do the thing done.
30.
Plaintiff argues that according to the IRS Mission Statement, the Federal Tax
Regulations, the Internal Revenue Manual, the US Supreme Court, and the
testimony of Dwight Avis before the House Ways and Means Committee, voluntary
compliance forms the foundation of the entire income tax system and is not a
subordinate or conditional regulation.
31.
Plaintiff argues that section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, which lays out
the rule concerning federal tax liens, does not form the foundation of the
income tax system and is therefore subordinate to and conditional upon the
principle of voluntary compliance, which always takes precedence over it.
32.
Plaintiff argues that although defendant has the legal right to issue a federal
tax lien under section 6321, such a lien must be a voluntary lien in order to
conform to the principle of voluntary compliance, and that defendant
does not have the legal right to issue an involuntary federal tax lien.
33.
Plaintiff argues that the involuntary federal tax lien issued against him by
defendant under section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code violated the
principle of voluntary compliance and was erroneous and unlawful.
34.
Plaintiff argues that defendant acted erroneously and unlawfully by compelling
money to be withheld from the sale of his home by means of an involuntary
federal tax lien, because the involuntary compliance thus obtained violated the
principle of voluntary compliance.
35.
Plaintiff argues that since the payment of income tax is voluntary, he has
never had any legal or financial obligation toward defendant and has never owed
defendant anything, and that any and all claims against him by defendant are
false and without merit.
CONCLUSION
36. The law
clearly and unambiguously states that the payment of income taxes is voluntary,
as codified in the IRS Mission Statement and in Sections 601.601 and 601.602 of
the Federal Tax Regulations, and affirmed by
Section 20:123 of the Internal Revenue Manual, by the US Supreme Court in Flora
v. US, and by the expert
testimony of Dwight E. Avis before Congress.
37. The
principle of voluntary compliance forms the foundation of the entire income tax
system, and is not a subordinate or conditional regulation.
38. Section
6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, which lays out the rule concerning federal
tax liens, does not
form the foundation of the income tax system and is therefore subordinate to
and conditional upon the principle
of voluntary compliance, which always takes precedence over it.
39.
Defendant does not have the legal right to issue an involuntary federal tax
lien under section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, because such a lien
violates the principle of voluntary compliance. Since the law clearly
states that the payment of income taxes is voluntary, defendant acted
erroneously and unlawfully by compelling the sum of $14,609.97 to be withheld
from the sale of plaintiff's home on 10/14/99 under protest by means of an
involuntary federal tax lien.
40.
According to the true and correct usage of the word `voluntary' in standard
English and in legal English plaintiff cannot be compelled to do something that
is voluntary, such as the payment of income tax ~ which is voluntary. By
compelling plaintiff to pay income tax by means of an involuntary federal tax
lien, defendant violated plaintiff's intrinsic right to freedom of choice in
the matter without compulsion or legal obligation.
THEREFORE
Plaintiff
prays that the Court will uphold the true and correct usage of the word
`voluntary', and will uphold his intrinsic legal right under the principle of
voluntary compliance to exercise freedom of choice to comply or
not to comply with the income tax laws without compulsion or legal obligation,
and prays for judgment against defendant as follows:
a) That the
Court will order defendant to refund to plaintiff the sum of $14,609.97 plus interest.
b) That the
Court will order defendant to pay plaintiff administrative and litigation costs
arising from the prosecution of this lawsuit in the sum of $11,150.
c) That in
view of plaintiff's decision not to voluntarily comply with the income tax
system, the Court will issue a permanent injunction forbidding defendant from
contacting him against his wishes and from directly or
indirectly interfering in any other aspect of his life.
Steven M.
Beresford, Ph.D. (Plaintiff in propria persona) 2/28/00
A PERSONAL
MESSAGE TO YOU FROM STEVEN BERESFORD
As a result
of this potentially devastating lawsuit, which was written by myself, the IRS
is being represented in court by Janet Reno and the Justice Department. In
order to win, I need to hire a good attorney to help me navigate
the legal minefield, so I'm asking for your support.
If you'd
like to help me beat the IRS, please mail your donation to: The Steven
Beresford Defense Fund, c/o Steven Beresford, 18803 SE 18th Street, Vancouver,
WA 98683. Whether you send $10 or $1,000, your help could force the IRS to its
knees and make them beg for your tax dollars in future. This is an important
lawsuit that could end the tyranny
of the IRS once and for all. But I sincerely need your support.
Please
forward this e-mail to as many people as possible. The more people who know the
truth about voluntary compliance, the less power the IRS will have over the
American public. Time is of the essence. Janet Reno is on the warpath, so
please do it now, before you get sidetracked and forget. Thank you for your
time and cooperation.
Steven
Beresford
P.S. If you
want to verify this lawsuit, feel free to contact Jian Grant (202-307-6422) who
is the
Department
of Justice attorney.
*******************************************************************
A few times a week, on average,
I forward messages that I consider to be worthwhile. Occasionally I may
be inspired to write a brief editorial.
If you would like to begin
receiving these messages, send me a message with SUBSCRIBE in the subject
field.
for Liberty (for all), Bill
Utterback [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
"We have the greatest
opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will
be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once
become inattentive to public
affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become
wolves." Thomas Jefferson
"It does not require a
majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush
fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams
"It is not the function of
our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function
of the citizen to keep the
Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court in American
Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442
-----
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/
We The People Foundation for
Constitutional Education http://www.givemeliberty.org
Gun Owners of America http://www.gunowners.org/
Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership http://www.JPFO.org/
Citizens of America http://www.citizensofamerica.org/
Keep and Bear Arms.org http://www.keepandbeararms.org/
COPYRIGHT NOTICE-- In accordance with
Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is
distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed
prior interest in receiving this information for nonprofit research and
educational purposes only. Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
APFN CONTENTS PAGE: APFN IS A NETWORK
OF NETWORKERS' http://www.apfn.org/apfn/apfncont.htm
See any good contrails lately?
Have a story to tell? http://members.xoom.com/xtl_ak/contrail_exs.html
