Bitcoin Forum
June 24, 2024, 11:15:55 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: IRS claims it has LOST two years' worth of emails from former official Lerner  (Read 22654 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373


View Profile
August 26, 2015, 07:07:10 PM
 #361

From http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06019.htm regarding Title 26 Section 7806, the construction section of Title 26, that is, the construction definition to be applied throughout:
Quote
    Sec. 7806. Construction of Title

Sec. 7806. Construction of Title

Section 7806 - Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act, before its enactment into law.

Further from the website:
Quote
As you can see the descriptive titles have no legal effect, and the separation of chapters has no real “separating” effect.  The tax imposed on individuals in Chapter 1, Section 1 is collected at the source by the Withholding Agent under the provisions of Section 7701(a)(16), and it is the tax collectors, those Withholding Agents who are made liable under Section 1461 for the payment of the income taxes that they have collected from the subject persons identified under the provisions of Chapter 3! The actual legal authorities established by the law are the limited authorities established by the actual wording of the code section paragraphs.  Nothing can be assumed (like liability for tax under Section 1). (That is why I'm showing you actual code sections here. Can your accountant do this with his claims? How about your lawyer? I have yet to meet anyone in the country, accountant, lawyer or judge, who can rebut this presentation, which is why you need to know about these irrefutable legal facts that I am showing you.)

Title 26, the IRS Code, isn't law by its own definition of how it is constructed.

Smiley

Cure your cancer at home. Ivermectin, fenbendazole, methylene blue, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are chief among parasite drugs. Find out that all disease is based in parasites or pollution, and what you can easily do about it - https://www.huldaclark.com/, https://thedrardisshow.com/, https://thehighwire.com/.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 26, 2015, 09:37:36 PM
 #362

From http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06019.htm regarding Title 26 Section 7806, the construction section of Title 26, that is, the construction definition to be applied throughout:
Quote
    Sec. 7806. Construction of Title

Sec. 7806. Construction of Title

Section 7806 - Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act, before its enactment into law.

Further from the website:
Quote
As you can see the descriptive titles have no legal effect, and the separation of chapters has no real “separating” effect.  The tax imposed on individuals in Chapter 1, Section 1 is collected at the source by the Withholding Agent under the provisions of Section 7701(a)(16), and it is the tax collectors, those Withholding Agents who are made liable under Section 1461 for the payment of the income taxes that they have collected from the subject persons identified under the provisions of Chapter 3! The actual legal authorities established by the law are the limited authorities established by the actual wording of the code section paragraphs.  Nothing can be assumed (like liability for tax under Section 1). (That is why I'm showing you actual code sections here. Can your accountant do this with his claims? How about your lawyer? I have yet to meet anyone in the country, accountant, lawyer or judge, who can rebut this presentation, which is why you need to know about these irrefutable legal facts that I am showing you.)

Title 26, the IRS Code, isn't law by its own definition of how it is constructed.

Smiley


People love their freedom and hate to be sleeping for years behind bars, in the same bunk beds with somebody nicknamed "Pocket Rocket"...

Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:07:56 PM
 #363

From http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06019.htm regarding Title 26 Section 7806, the construction section of Title 26, that is, the construction definition to be applied throughout:
Quote
    Sec. 7806. Construction of Title

Sec. 7806. Construction of Title

Section 7806 - Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act, before its enactment into law.

Further from the website:
Quote
As you can see the descriptive titles have no legal effect, and the separation of chapters has no real “separating” effect.  The tax imposed on individuals in Chapter 1, Section 1 is collected at the source by the Withholding Agent under the provisions of Section 7701(a)(16), and it is the tax collectors, those Withholding Agents who are made liable under Section 1461 for the payment of the income taxes that they have collected from the subject persons identified under the provisions of Chapter 3! The actual legal authorities established by the law are the limited authorities established by the actual wording of the code section paragraphs.  Nothing can be assumed (like liability for tax under Section 1). (That is why I'm showing you actual code sections here. Can your accountant do this with his claims? How about your lawyer? I have yet to meet anyone in the country, accountant, lawyer or judge, who can rebut this presentation, which is why you need to know about these irrefutable legal facts that I am showing you.)

Title 26, the IRS Code, isn't law by its own definition of how it is constructed.

Smiley
No.  Don't quote sources like this and advise people if you don't know tax law and practice.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 03:38:43 PM
 #364




IRS must say if White House sought taxpayers’ information: Judge


A federal judge Friday ordered the IRS to turn over the records of any requests from the White House seeking taxpayers’ private information from the tax agency, delivering a victory to a group that for two years has been trying to pry the data loose.

It’s not clear that there were any such requests — but Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the IRS cannot just refuse to say so by citing taxpayer confidentiality laws, known as section 6103 of the tax code.

“This court questions whether section 6103 should or would shield records that indicate confidential taxpayer information was misused, or that government officials made an improper attempt to access that information,” the judge wrote in denying the IRS’s request to close out the case.

The ruling marks yet another federal judge who has ordered the Obama administration to be more transparent when responding to open-records records. The State Department is facing a barrage of orders from federal judges demanding more cooperation in releasing former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails.

White House officials and federal agencies are allowed, under very select circumstances, to ask the IRS for protected information. But the requests must be carefully cleared.

Questions about potential White House meddling in taxpayers’ private information stretch back to the beginning of the Obama administration, when the then-White House chief economist seemed to describe the tax structure of Koch Industries during a briefing with reporters.

His description was apparently incorrect, but it left some watchdog groups wondering if the White House had quietly sought information on conservatives, such as the billionaire Koch brothers.

Cause of Action sued in 2013 to get a look at whatever requests the White House, or other federal agencies, had made.

The IRS refused, saying even the existence of those requests would be protected by confidentiality laws and couldn’t be released, so there was no reason to make the search.

The judge said Friday, however, that the agency couldn’t use the privacy protection “to shield the very misconduct it was enacted to prohibit.”

“As we have said all along, this administration cannot misinterpret the law in order to potentially hide evidence of wrongdoing,” said Dan Epstein, executive director at Cause of Action. “No administration is above the law, and we are pleased that the court has sided with us on this important point.”

The IRS declined to comment since the matter is still pending in court.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/28/irs-must-say-if-wh-sought-taxpayers-info-judge/



Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
October 23, 2015, 08:58:11 PM
 #365




Justice Dept.: No criminal charges for ex-IRS official


WASHINGTON (AP) — No IRS official would face criminal charges arising from the political controversy over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status, the Justice Department announced Friday.
In a letter to members of Congress, the department said that while investigators had found "mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia," there was no evidence of a crime.
"We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution," the letter stated.
The department also announced that Lois Lerner, who headed the division that processes applications for tax-exempt status at the time, would not face any charges.
A firestorm erupted more than two years ago with the release of an inspector general's audit that said IRS agents had improperly singled out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The disclosure set off investigations by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress last year after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight Committee hearings. She has since retired.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20151023/us-irs-investigation-11e1446376.html

------------------------
NOT GUILTY. Meaning.. The White House is guilty.


Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
October 26, 2015, 03:49:46 PM
 #366




IRS possessed Stingray cellphone surveillance gear, documents reveal


Exclusive: Invoices reveal tax service, 13th federal agency to use secretive dragnet, upgraded device that pretends to be cellphone tower to gather metadata


The Internal Revenue Service is the latest in a growing list of US federal agencies known to have possessed the sophisticated cellphone dragnet equipment known as Stingray, according to documents obtained by the Guardian.

Invoices obtained following a request under the Freedom of Information Act show purchases made in 2009 and 2012 by the federal tax agency with Harris Corporation, one of a number of companies that manufacture the devices. Privacy advocates said the revelation “shows the wide proliferation of this very invasive surveillance technology”.

The 2009 IRS/Harris Corp invoice is mostly redacted under section B(4) of the Freedom of Information Act, which is intended to protect trade secrets and privileged information. However, an invoice from 2012, which is also partially redacted, reports that the agency spent $65,652 on upgrading a Stingray II to a HailStorm, a more powerful version of the same device, as well as $6,000 on training from Harris Corporation.

Stingrays are the best-known example of a type of device called an IMSI-catcher, also known as “cell-site simulators”. About the size of a briefcase, they work by pretending to be cellphone towers in order to strip metadata and in some cases even content from phones which connect to them.

Despite their extensive capabilities, they require only a low-level court order called a PEN register, also known as a “trap and trace”, to grant permission for their use.

Immense secrecy has so far surrounded these devices, but a picture is slowly emerging which shows widespread use. Various revelations by the American Civil Liberties Union and news outlets including the Guardian had shown that at least 12 federal agencies are already known to have these devices, including the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The IRS makes 13.

In November 2014, the Wall Street Journal uncovered an operation run by the US Marshals Service using a Boeing-made IMSI-catcher known as “dirtbox”. This is the first time that the IRS has been found to own the device.

The devices are also used by local and in some cases state police departments, across at least 20 states, though a culture of secrecy which surrounds Stingray devices has meant that the full scale of their use remains unknown.

Stingray spying: FBI's secret deal with police hides phone dragnet from courts
 Read more
A Guardian report in April revealed a non-disclosure agreement that local police and prosecutors were forced to sign with the FBI before using Stingrays, which mandated them to withdraw or even drop cases rather than risk revealing their use, and in September it emerged that this withholding of “discovery” evidence by police in Baltimore could lead to as many as 2,000 cases being overturned.

It remains unclear how the IRS used the Stingray devices. A spokesman for the agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Mark Matthews, a former deputy commissioner for services and enforcement at the agency who now works for the law firm Caplin and Drysdale, said that while he attends many conferences on IRS and tax law enforcement, he had not heard any “scuttlebutt” about the agency’s use of Stingray.

Matthews said there are currently between 2,000 and 3,000 “special agents” in the IRS who form the criminal investigation division (CID). They have the ability to get PEN register orders – the only authority needed to use Stingray devices.

He said the IRS on its own usually uses gentler investigation tactics. But increasingly, investigating agents from the agency are brought on board for joint operations with the FBI and other agencies when the latter need financial expertise to look at, for example, money laundering from drug organisations.

From these joint operations, he said, “the IRS had moved to drug work and had learned a lot of aggressive techniques in the money laundering and drug world, and these bad habits were leaking over into the tax world, which was supposed to be their real mission”.

Federal agencies using surveillance technology that far outstripped the limits of what a PEN register was designed to do is not new. “That used to be a worry at the FBI with their PEN register [devices],” Matthews said. “There was always a little slot where you could put in a headphone jack” – which could turn the device into a full wiretap, for which they did not have warrant clearance – “and they said, ‘Trust us.’ Not very convincing for civil liberties groups.”

Nate Wessler, a staff attorney with the speech, privacy and technology project at the ACLU, told the Guardian: “The info showing that they are using Stingrays is generally consistent with the kinds of investigative tactics that they are engaging in, and it shows the wide proliferation of this very invasive surveillance technology.”

“It’s used by dozens, perhaps hundreds, of local law enforcement, used by the usual suspects at the federal level, and if the IRS is using it, it shows just how far these devices have spread,” Wessler said.

Matthews said that he had not heard anything about Stingrays despite speaking to his contacts in the tax industry. “So this either hasn’t ripened yet in a tax case, 95% of which [end in a plea deal] so there would be no such disclosures, or this is saved more for money laundering/drug/terrorist-financing-like investigations.”

“[It] could be as silly as [they] got to the end of the year, had some extra funds, and somebody said, ‘We need some more of these devices,’” Matthews said. “It could literally be that silly. But it could be something different; it could be that they’ve decided to use them in cases where they’re the primary detective agency, and we haven’t seen it yet in the private sector.”


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/stingray-surveillance-technology-irs-cellphone-tower


Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
May 24, 2016, 05:14:27 PM
 #367



IRS employee threatens attorney representing conservative groups with harassment, targeting (LIVE on TV)



A self-identified IRS employee admitted he would go after, target and try to end conservative groups who wanted to abolish the IRS, to Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing those groups, on a Washington Journal segment on C-SPAN.

Mitchell, a political law attorney who has represented conservative groups during the IRS targeting scandal since 2010, was a guest on C-SPAN to discuss the possible impeachment of the IRS commissioner John Koskinen.

The first caller was a self-identified IRS employee who said he would go after the groups Mitchell represents if their goal was to abolish the IRS.

“I am a lowly clerk at the IRS, looking at your application for tax-free status,” said the caller, Bill, from Elizabeth, New Jersey. “I go to your web page to see the goals of your group and one of the goals of your group is to abolish the IRS.”





robbylove
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 31

minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 08:20:16 PM
 #368




Federal Judge Orders IRS to “Name Specific People” Who Directed Tea Party Targeting…



A federal judge has ordered the Internal Revenue Service to release the names of specific employees involved in targeting Tea Party groups, after years of litigation over what conservatives have long called “chilling” behavior by one of the government’s “most feared” agencies.

Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also said the IRS must provide information about which groups were targeted and why, along with a strategy to make sure such targeting doesn’t happen again.


The IRS is involved in multiple lawsuits with conservative groups related to the Tea Party targeting scandal; this particular case involves True the Vote.

“We’re thrilled the judge has taken this step and it feels good to have it recognized that they need to be held to account,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht told Fox News on Monday. “What happened to me was very personal—my name was thrown around the IRS, and the names of the people involved need to be known. What they did was criminal.”

The targeting scandal drew much attention in 2013 when the IRS, headed at the time by Lois Lerner, admitted it was applying extra scrutiny to conservative groups applying for nonprofit status.

[…]  “We are reviewing the order and will respond accordingly,” a Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News Monday. Justice Department attorneys are representing the IRS in the suit.

[…]  Engelbrecht told Fox News that “the fight” under the Trump administration has been “every bit as difficult” as it was under the Obama administration


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/judge-orders-irs-to-reveal-who-took-part-in-tea-party-targeting.html



@wilikon: minds.com - gab.com - dissenter.com
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373


View Profile
August 21, 2017, 09:11:13 PM
 #369

IRS doesn't claim anything. IRS is a company or corporation. It is paperwork. Paperwork can't make any claims. If such claims were made, they were made by a man or woman.

Cool

Cure your cancer at home. Ivermectin, fenbendazole, methylene blue, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are chief among parasite drugs. Find out that all disease is based in parasites or pollution, and what you can easily do about it - https://www.huldaclark.com/, https://thedrardisshow.com/, https://thehighwire.com/.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!