The IRS has long defended itself with the declaration of “frivolous” arguments. In many cases, these arguments are truly frivolous, however, they have never said why. In other cases, the government will simply declare that an argument was frivolous, even if it was not.
When sharing the information that I have verified and know to be true of the income tax, many people often bring up these frivolous arguments in support of or to deny my claims. The purpose of this article is to clear the article on what is truly frivolous.
In 2006, section 6702 was amended to the tax code to include the following:
(c)Listing of frivolous positions
The Secretary shall prescribe (and periodically revise) a list of positions which the Secretary has identified as being frivolous for purposes of this subsection. The Secretary shall not include in such list any position that the Secretary determines meets the requirement of section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II).
With this, congress required the secretary to publish an official list of frivolous arguments. I’m not sure of the intent, but it might have been to give the courts a way to differentiate between what is truly frivolous or not.
The IRS (the collection arm working for the Secretary of the Treasury) has published the official list here. This is from April 26, 2010, but appears to be the latest version. If you find a more recent version, please let me know.
Then in their employee manual, they published another, slightly different version.
One major diference, as noted by Peter Hendrickson on his website Lost Horizons, is that point number 44 has been completely changed from the official treasury publication to something that resembles the “Cracking the Code” method of filing returns.
Below, I will go through all these frivolous arguments and explain why they are truly frivolous, but I would first like to point out the difference in #44.
First, the Secretary of the Treasury’s version:
(44) A taxpayer’s income is not taxable if the taxpayer assigns or attributes the income to a religious organization (a “corporation sole” or ministerial trust) claimed to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–27, 2004–1 C.B. 625
Notice that this largely has to do with religious freedom and non-profit organizations. But the one published in the IRS employee manual is completely different.
ARG 44 – Zero Wages on a Substitute Form
ar. Zero Wages on a Substitute Form: Taxpayer generally attaches either a substitute Form W-2, Form 1099, or Form 4852 that shows “$0” wages or no wage information. A statement may be included indicating the taxpayer is rebutting information submitted to the IRS by the payer. Entries are usually for Federal Income Tax Withheld, Social Security Tax Withheld, and/or Medicare Tax Withheld. An explanation on the Form 4852 may cite “statutory language behind IRC 3401 and IRC 3121” , or may include some reference to the company refusing to issue a corrected Form W-2 for fear of IRS retaliation.
The correlation is a little confusing because it has “ARG 44” listed in one place with “Zero Wages on a Substitute Form” and later enumerated in an outline as “ar.”. ARG 44 has the same number as the bulletin and ar. has the same title. The original #44 may be found in some modified way in the manual, but the new #44 can not be found at all in the official publication.
Keep in mind, the IRS admits that the bulletin is the official publication of Treasury Decisions, and that anything else posted on their site is not to be relied on.
Also note that, even if you take all this lawful tax avoidance as complete nonsense, the position listed at ar. could absolutely be true. Imagine someone steals your SSN and applies for a job. They work and their boss sends w2 and 1099 information to the IRS. You didn’t earn anything at all – taxable or not. In this case, if you did nothing, the IRS would likely assume you owe them money. The correct procedure, according to them, would be to do exactly what’s described in “ar.” It’s also important to point out that the entire list of frivolous arguments are, in fact, arguments. “ar.” is simply a list of actions. There is no argument as to why it is or isn’t legal or valid.
On to the list!
I’ll use the official treasury bulletin, since this is the official position of the treasury.
Positions that are the same as or similar to the following are frivolous.
(1) Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law, including arguments that:
(a) Filing a Federal tax or information return or paying tax is purely voluntary under the law, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007–20, 2007–1 C.B. 863.
Frivolous. If you receive taxable income, you are absolutely required to pay tax on it under the law. But that does not include money that is not taxable income.
(b) Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code imposes a requirement to file a return or pay tax, or that a person is not required to file a tax return or pay a tax unless the Internal Revenue Service responds to the person’s questions, correspondence, or a request to identify a provision in the Code requiring the filing of a return or the payment of tax.
Frivolous. The IRS does not need to prove to you that you need to pay. They only need to prove it to a court, if it gets that far.
(c) There is no legal requirement to file a Federal income tax return because the instructions to Forms 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ or the Treasury regulations associated with the filing of the forms do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006–21, 2006–1 C.B. 745.
Frivolous. This is just silly.
(d) Because filing a tax return is not required by law, the Service must prepare a return for a taxpayer who does not file one in order to assess and collect tax.
Frivolous. Filing a return is not required by law, unless you meet the threshold of taxable income. If you do not file, they may file for you. If they do it, you will be at a disadvantage. You can still be charged with failure to file if you are a person who was required to file or they believe was required to file. That’s not everyone.
(e) A taxpayer has an option under the law to file a document or set of documents in lieu of a return or elect to file a tax return reporting zero taxable income and zero tax liability even if the taxpayer received taxable income during the taxable period for which the return is filed, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–34, 2004–1 C.B. 619.
Frivolous, but misleading. Notice that they specifically say “reporting zero taxable income and zero liability even if the taxpayer received taxable income“. This is an important detail. Of course, if your income is taxable and you fill out those forms saying it’s not, then you are clearly lying. But not all income is taxable.
(f) An employer is not legally obligated to withhold income or employment taxes on employees’ wages.
Frivolous, but misleading. An employer IS legally obligated to withhold. But not everyone that you hires people if an employer.
(g) Only persons who have contracted with the government by applying for a governmental privilege or benefit, such as holding a Social Security number, are subject to tax, and those who have contracted with the government may choose to revoke the contract at will.
Frivolous, but misleading. Holding a SSN is not a privilege which subjects you to a tax. Making a contract with the government can not always be revoked. What good is a contract if anyone can cancel at any time? But the tax does only apply to a privilege like working for the government, being elected to one of their offices, using their ports, producing something that would otherwise be illegal (alcohol, tobacco, firearms), etc. Why didn’t they list any of those?
(h) A taxpayer may lawfully decline to pay taxes if the taxpayer disagrees with the government’s use of tax revenues, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005–20, 2005–1 C.B. 821.
Frivolous. There is one group that does this as an anti war protest, but they openly acknowledge that this is contrary to law and they are at risk of going to jail over it.
(i) An administrative summons issued by the Service is per se invalid and compliance with a summons is not legally required.
Partially frivolous. Employees of the government must comply by law, and possibly a few other classes of people. Everyone else still has a right to due process and can refuse. However, if you refuse, the IRS can petition the court for a summons. This likely requires that they show probable cause (though the bar for this is just showing 1099s) to the court. Refusing the court summons would result in arrest. However, even if you appear for a summons, you still have your 4th and 5th amendment rights to refuse to give them any documents or testimony.
(2) The Internal Revenue Code is not law (or “positive law”) or its provisions are ineffective or inoperative, including the sections imposing an income tax or requiring the filing of tax returns, because the provisions have not been implemented by regulations even though the provisions in question either (a) do not expressly require the Secretary to issue implementing regulations to become effective or (b) expressly require implementing regulations which have been issued.
Frivolous. The law is the law. There don’t need to be any regulations to enforce the tax code.
(3) A taxpayer’s income is excluded from taxation when the taxpayer rejects or renounces United States citizenship because the taxpayer is a citizen exclusively of a State (sometimes characterized as a “natural-born citizen” of a “sovereign state”), that is claimed to be a separate country or otherwise not subject to the laws of the United States. This position includes the argument that the United States does not include all or a part of the physical territory of the 50 States and instead consists of only places such as the District of Columbia, Commonwealths and Territories (e.g., Puerto Rico), and Federal enclaves (e.g., Native American reservations and military installations), or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–28, 2004–1 C.B. 624, or Rev. Rul. 2007–22, 2007–1 C.B. 866.
Frivolous. While the definition of the US absolutely varies from place to place in the code by various definitions in different parts of the code, citizenship is irrelevant. The tax is not on a person, but on an activity. For example, a person born in Canada might not pay any income tax in the US until they have “US source income”. In this case, a person who was never a citizen would still have to pay the tax. Citizenship matters but claiming to not be a citizen doesn’t magically make it all go away.
(4) Wages, tips, and other compensation received for the performance of personal services are not taxable income or are offset by an equivalent deduction for the personal services rendered, including
an argument that a taxpayer has a “claim of right” to exclude the cost or value of the taxpayer’s labor from income or that taxpayers have a basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–29, 2004–1 C.B. 627, or Rev. Rul. 2007–19, 2007–1 C.B. 843.
Frivolous. First, wages tips and compensation are taxable, but they have special meanings. Notice they keep using their own language. Second, the claim that you can deduct your labor in exchange for the money is frivolous, as the code does not allow such a deduction. But that doesn’t mean that every time you trade your labor that it fits into one of those taxable categories listed. In fact, some of those words like wages and tips are defined in different places in the code, limiting them to different activities in each definition.
(5) United States citizens and residents are not subject to tax on their wages or other income derived from sources within the United States, as only foreign-based income or income received by nonresident aliens and foreign corporations from sources within the United States is taxable, and similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–30, 2004–1 C.B. 622.
Frivolous. Again, they specifically mention wages and US source income. These words have very specific meanings and are limited to privileged activities. Income is not “everything that comes in”.
(6) A taxpayer has been untaxed, detaxed, or removed or redeemed from the Federal tax system though the taxpayer remains a United States citizen or resident, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–31, 2004–1 C.B. 617.
Frivolous. Again, citizenship doesn’t matter. The tax is on the privileged activity, not the person.
(7) Only certain types of taxpayers are subject to income and employment taxes, such as employees of the Federal government, corporations, nonresident aliens, or residents of the District of Columbia or the Federal territories, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006–18, 2006–1 C.B. 743.
Frivolous. Now they are really getting crafty with their language. “only certain types of taxpayers.” The premise here is that all the people they are talking about are taxpayers. They are attemping to discredit the claim that only the exercise of a privilege is taxable, but have instead transformed it to a qualification of a person. Employees of the federal government are not subject to the tax because they are employees of the federal government. Their income is subject to the tax because it comes from the federal government. This is an important distinction.
(8) Only certain types of income are taxable, for example, income that results from the sale of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms or from transactions or activities that take place in interstate commerce.
Frivolous. The taxes on those items are usually on the production and importation, but not the sale of those items. Sale of those items is usually imposed by local taxes. These are separate taxes listed in the Internal Revenue Code, but are not related to the income tax at all.
(9) Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or a taxpayer has a constitutional right not to comply with the Federal tax laws for one of the following reasons:
(a) The First Amendment permits a taxpayer to refuse to pay taxes based on religious or moral beliefs.
Frivolous. If you do the privileged activity, you have to pay the tax.
(b) A taxpayer may withhold payment of taxes or the filing of a tax return until the Service or other government entity responds to a First Amendment petition for redress of grievances.
Frivolous. The law does not allow for this.
(c) Mandatory compliance with, or enforcement of, the tax laws invades a taxpayer’s right to privacy under the Fourth
Amendment.
Frivolous. If you are engaged in a taxable activity, you are giving up certain rights. When you join the army, you are not allowed to speak to the press about the army. You lose your first amendment rights. But not everything you do in life, even to earn a living, is a privileged or taxable activity.
(d) The requirement to file a tax return is an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to the Fourth Amendment.
Frivolous. If someone calls the cops and tells them you’re doing something illegal in your home, they can get a warrant and enter. In the same way, when people tell the IRS that you have taxable income (through W2s and 1099s), then they have legal power to collect a tax. It’s an unfortunate burden, but if someone lies to the police about you, or lies to the IRS about you, it is your responsibility to clear things up or face the consequences.
(e) Income taxation, tax withholding, or the assessment or collection of tax is a “taking” of property without due process of law or just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Frivolous. If you work for the government, they have a right to withhold. It’s part of the agreement when you work for them. However, most of your bosses are mistakenly withholding because they believe that they fit the description of an “employer”. This is not done by the government, and therefore is not a violation of your constitutional rights.
(f) The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination grants taxpayers the right not to file returns or the right to withhold all financial information from the Service.
Frivolous, but loaded. You absolutely have the right not to incriminate yourself with testimony or evidence, until you participate in a privileged activity. For example, you don’t have to take a lie detector test for the CIA, unless you are applying for a job at the CIA. If you have taxable income, which is derived from a privileged activity, you are obligated to disclose it and file a return. Not every way of earning money is a privilege. Many ways are misreported as a privilege when they are not.
(g) The Ninth Amendment exempts those with religious or other objections to military spending from paying taxes to the extent the taxes will be used for military spending.
Frivolous. This was mentioned before as a first amendment right.
(h) Mandatory or compelled compliance with the internal revenue laws is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Frivolous. That would be true if it were obligated for every citizen, but it is not. Only those who are engaged in privileged activities.
(i) Individuals may not be taxed unless they are “citizens” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Frivolous. Citizenship is largely irrelevant.
(j) The Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a nonapportioned, direct income tax.
Frivolous. While I agree the sixteenth amendment has not been ratified properly, that is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has ruled that the sixteenth amendment gave congress no new power of taxation in several cases, including Bushaber, which states that the income tax is an excise tax that could have been created before the sixteenth was ratified.
(k) Taxation of income attributed to a trust, which is a form of contract, violates the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.
Frivolous. Again, the tax is not on the type of person, it’s on the activity. If a trust buys something from a store, it will still pay sales tax. If a trust owns real estate, it will still pay property tax.
(l) Similar constitutional arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005–19,
2005–1 C.B. 819.
(10) A taxpayer is not a “person” within the meaning of section 7701(a)(14) or other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007–22, 2007–1 C.B. 866.
Frivolous. This statement is silly if you read it. It states “The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” I’m not sure what they are getting at here, but the important statement is that it says any person subject to any internal revenue tax. Being a taxpayer is a conclusion, not a premise. If you are subject to the tax, you are a tax payer. The only way to not be a taxpayer is to not be subject to the tax.
(11) Only fiduciaries are taxpayers, or only persons with a fiduciary relationship to the United States are obligated to pay taxes, and the United States or the Service must prove the fiduciary status or relationship.
Frivolous. There are many ways one can participate in a taxable activity, though they are far fewer than most people believe.
(12) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver.
Frivolous. If you are engaged in a taxable activity, it doesn’t matter what medium is used for payment.
(13) In a transaction using gold and silver coins, the value of the coins is excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is the face value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of determining taxable income.
Frivolous, but loaded. They lumped two things together. The value of the coins is not excluded if it is payment for a taxable activity. US minted coins are legal tender at face value, however there is more to this than what can be seen. If you received a $50 gold coin as payment for $2,000 on a taxable activity, the the remitter will report to the IRS that you were paid $2,000 on a 1099. If the agreement was for $50 in gold, and the 1099 reports $50, then you will pay tax on the $50. The IRS tried to charge someone for doing this before and failed because both parties were reporting the transaction as the face value of the gold, not the paper value. Unfortunately, the IRS is a sore loser. The people who beat the IRS in that case were charged with money laundering. The business owner would buy the coins at a pawn shop with cash, and the employees would redeem the coins for cash. While money laundering is the crime of concealing the source or money, which this wasn’t doing, it is also a crime of which a ham sandwich could be convicted.
(14) A taxpayer who is employed on board a ship that provides meals at no cost to the taxpayer as part of the employment may claim a so-called “Mariner’s Tax Deduction” (or the like) allowing the taxpayer to deduct from gross income the cost of the meals as an employee business expense.
Frivolous. It’s part of the compensation and does not receive a special tax exemption like some other benefits do.
(15) A taxpayer may purport to operate a home-based business as a basis to deduct as business expenses the taxpayer’s personal expenses or the costs of maintaining the taxpayer’s household when the maintenance items or amounts as reported do not correspond to a bona fide home business, such as when they are grossly excessive in relation to the conceivable costs for some portion of the home being used exclusively and regularly as a business, or similar arguments described as frivolous by Rev. Rul. 2004–32, 2004–1 C.B. 621.
Frivolous. There are very specific rules for calculating this in the law.
(16) A “reparations” tax credit exists, including arguments that African-American taxpayers may claim a tax credit on their Federal income tax returns as reparations for slavery or other historical mistreatment, that Native Americans are entitled to an analogous credit (or are exempt from Federal income tax on the basis of a treaty), or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–33, 2004–1 C.B. 628, or Rev. Rul. 2006–20, 2006–1 C.B. 746.
Frivolous. No such thing exists in the law.
(17) A Native American or other taxpayer who is not an employer engaged in a trade or business may nevertheless claim (for example, in an amount exceeding all reported income) the Indian Employment
Credit under section 45A, which explicitly requires, among other criteria, that the taxpayer be an employer engaged in a trade or business to claim the credit.
Frivolous, but extremely interesting. Here they are saying very explicitly that in order to receive a credit, a person must be engaged in a privileged activity. The two main privileged activities upon which most of the income taxes apply are “employment” and “trade or business.” If the tax credit requires the exercise of a privilege and that privilege is not exercised, the credit can not be rewarded.
(18) A taxpayer’s wages are excluded from Social Security taxes if the taxpayer waives the right to receive Social Security benefits, or a taxpayer is entitled to a reApril 26, 2010 610 2010–17 I.R.B. fund of, or may claim a charitable-contribution deduction for, the Social Security taxes that the taxpayer has paid, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005–17, 2005–1 C.B. 823.
Frivolous. Wages are always taxable and have a very specific meaning. If you don’t want to pay Social Security, don’t get a job that pays in “wages”. (That’s not what you think it means)
(19) Taxpayers may reduce or eliminate their Federal tax liability by altering a tax return, including striking out the penaltyof-perjury declaration, or attaching documents to the return, such as a disclaimer of liability, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005–18, 2005–1 C.B. 817.
Frivolous. If you tell the IRS you aren’t liable for a tax, you have to be willing to swear to it under oath. If not, they don’t have to acknowledge your testimony and will simply fine you for clogging up the bureaucratic process. Crossing this part out is basically a red flag that you’re about to lie.
(20) A taxpayer is not obligated to pay income tax because the government has created an entity separate and distinct from the taxpayer—a “straw man”—that is distinguishable from the taxpayer by some variation of the taxpayer’s name, and any tax obligations are exclusively those of the “straw man,” or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005–21, 2005–1 C.B. 822.
Frivolous. A taxpayer is someone who has already subjected themselves to an internal revenue tax. The only way not to pay the tax is not to subject yourself to that.
(21) A taxpayer may use a Form 1099- OID, Original Issue Discount, (or another Form 1099 Series information return) as a financial or other instrument to obtain or redeem (under a theory of “redemption” or “commercial redemption”) a monetary payment out of the United States Treasury or for a refund of tax, such as by drawing on a “straw man” or similar financial account maintained by the government in the taxpayer’s name (see paragraph (20), above); a taxpayer may file a Form 56, Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, that names the Secretary of the Treasury or some other government employee as a fiduciary of the taxpayer and requires the Treasury Department to honor a Form 1099-OID as a financial or redemption instrument; or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2005–21, 2005–1 C.B. 822, and Rev. Rul. 2004–31, 2004–1 C.B. 617.
Frivolous. There is no legal foundation for these arguments, so I won’t go too in depth with this one.
(22) A taxpayer may claim on an income tax return or purported return an amount of withheld income tax or other tax that is obviously false because it exceeds the taxpayer’s income as reported on the return or is disproportionately high in comparison with the income reported on the return or information on supporting documents filed with the return (such as Form 1099 Series, Form W–2, or Form 2439, Notice to Shareholder of Undistributed Long-Term Capital Gains).
Frivolous. You can’t claim more money was withheld than actually was withheld. This would be a lie.
(23) Inserting the phrase “nunc pro tunc” on a return or other document filed with or submitted to the Service has a legal effect, such as reducing a taxpayer’s tax liability, or similar arguments described as
frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006–17, 2006–1 C.B. 748.
Frivolous. This doesn’t mean anything. Most of the forms are processed automatically and won’t even be recognized. If they are caught, they will likely be rejected.
(24) A taxpayer may avoid tax on income by attributing the income to a trust, including the argument that a taxpayer can put all of the taxpayer’s assets into a trust to avoid income tax while still retaining substantial powers of ownership and control over those assets or that a taxpayer may claim an expense deduction for the income attributed to a trust, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006–19, 2006–1 C.B. 749.
Frivolous. At best, the “taxpayer” (notice it’s still referring just to taxpayers) will be liable for a tax to the IRS, but his property will be safe inside the trust. He will still owe the money. I can’t say what the IRS’ capability is for penetrating a trust and taking its property to satisfy a debt that a taxpayer owes, but it does not nullify the tax. If they can’t get to it, as if it were in an offshore account, the taxpayer would likely be charged with evasion.
(25) A taxpayer may lawfully avoid income tax by sending income offshore, including depositing income into a foreign
bank account.
Frivolous. Same as above.
(26) A taxpayer can claim the section 44 Disabled Access Credit to reduce tax or generate a refund, for example, by purportedly having purchased equipment or services for an inflated price (which may or may not have been actually paid), even though it is apparent that the taxpayer did not operate a small business that purchased the equipment or services to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Frivolous. This sounds like an obvious case of fraud, which should go without saying.
(27) A taxpayer may claim a refund of tax based on purported advance payments to employees of the Earned Income Tax Credit as reported by the taxpayer on a filed Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly
Federal Tax Return, or other employment tax return that reports an amount of purported wages, tips, or other compensation but leaves other line items on the return blank (or with a zero as the amount).
Frivolous. This sounds like a half truth. If you’re going to fill out a form under penalty of perjury, you better fill it out completely and accurately or be prepared for a fraud charge.
(28) A taxpayer may claim the section 6421 fuels tax credit (such as on Form 4136, Credit for Federal Tax Paid on Fuels; Form 8849, Claim for Refund of Excise Taxes; or Form 1040) even though the taxpayer did not buy the gasoline or the gasoline was not used for an off-highway business use during the period for which the credit is claimed. Also, if the taxpayer claims an amount of credit that is so disproportionately excessive to any (including zero) business income reported on the taxpayer’s income tax return as to be patently unallowable (e.g., a credit that is 150 percent of business income reported on Form 1040) or facially reflects an impossible quantity of gasoline given the business use, if any, as reported by the taxpayer.
Frivolous. Again, this is fraud and should go without saying.
(29) A taxpayer is allowed to buy or sell the right to claim a child as a qualifying child for purposes of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Frivolous. Fraud.
(30) An IRS Form 23C, Assessment Certificate — Summary Record of Assessments, is an invalid record of assessment for purposes of section 6203 and Treas. Reg. § 301.6203–1, the Form 23C must
be personally signed by the Secretary of the Treasury for an assessment to be valid, the Service must provide a copy of the Form 23C to a taxpayer if requested before taking collection action, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007–21, 2007–1 C.B. 865.
Frivolous. The Secretary of the Treasury is able to delegate responsibilities to his agents.
(31) A tax assessment is invalid because the assessment was made from a section 6020(b) substitute for return, which is not a valid return.
Frivolous. The assessment was made because they received information about you that you did not refute. If you do not refute that information, they can and will assume that it is correct. They will complete an assessment, which is not a return, it is an assessment.
(32) A statutory notice of deficiency is invalid because the taxpayer to whom the notice was sent did not file an income tax return reporting the deficiency or because the statutory notice of deficiency was unsigned or not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury or by someone with delegated authority.
Frivolous. A notice of deficiency on a substitute return is considered valid because it was based on evidence submitted voluntarily to the IRS by people who gave you money. If that information was incorrect, you need to correct it.
(33) A Notice of Federal Tax Lien is invalid because it is not signed by a particular official (such as by the Secretary of the Treasury), or because it was filed by someone without delegated authority.
Frivolous, but misleading. A notice is just a notice and is not enforceable. However, that doesn’t stop 3rd parties from complying voluntarily. It does not give them permission to forcefully seize property without a court order. If a 3rd party or a taxpayer refuses to comply, the IRS must get a court order. This might not be something that they pursue.
(34) The form or content of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien is controlled by or subject to a state or local law, and a Notice of Federal Tax Lien that does not comply in form or content with a state or local law is invalid.
Frivolous. Same as above.
(35) A collection due process notice under section 6320 or 6330 is invalid if it is not signed by the Secretary of the Treasury or other particular official, or if no certificate of assessment is attached.
Frivolous. Agents have the authority to sign on behalf of the Secretary. This does not mean they can just sign and start taking property.
(36) Verification under section 6330 that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met may only be based on one or more particular forms or documents (which must be in a certain format), such as a summary record of assessment, or that the particular
forms or documents or the ones on which verification was actually determined must be provided to a taxpayer at a collection due process hearing.
Frivolous. Notice is notice.
(37) A Notice and Demand is invalid because it was not signed, was not on the correct form (e.g., a Form 17), or was not accompanied by a certificate of assessment when mailed.
Frivolous. Notice is notice.
(38) The United States Tax Court is an illegitimate court or does not, for any purported constitutional or other reason, have the authority to hear and decide matters within its jurisdiction.
Frivolous. Historically this was true. The tax court was originaly an administrative department inside the IRS building. Later it moved into its own building. It is now considered to be part of the judicial branch with constitutional authority to enforce criminal and civil law.
(39) Federal courts may not enforce the internal revenue laws because their jurisdiction is limited to admiralty or maritime cases or issues.
Frivolous. This is not true at all. Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases where the US is a part or citizens from different states, as well as a few others.
(40) Revenue Officers are not authorized to issue levies or Notices of Federal Tax Lien or to seize property in satisfaction of unpaid taxes.
Frivolous, but misleading. They can not seize property without a court order. They can issue notices of levy and take property if taxpayers or 3rd parties unwittingly comply.
(41) A Service employee lacks the authority to carry out the employee’s duties because the employee does not possess a certain type of identification or credential, for example, a pocket commission or a
badge, or it is not in the correct form or on the right medium.
Frivolous. If this were the case, they would just move all the employees into another department and give them different badges. A police officer working homicide can still write a traffic ticket if he wants to. He is an agent of a bigger organization. The output of that organization (citation, or document or action) is the result of the organization itself, regardless of which agent does it. If there are internal policies and those are violated, that is up to the organization to deal with it how they like.
(42) A person may represent a taxpayer before the Service or in court proceedings even if the person does not have a power of attorney from the taxpayer, has not been enrolled to practice before the Service, or has not been admitted to practice before the court.
Frivolous. This sentence should have ended at “power of attorney.” Notice it says even if the person doesn’t have a POA, not “even if the person isn’t an attorney.” With a power of attorney, a person is an “attorney in fact”, and has the consent and the legal authority to speak on behalf of anyone else. They do not need to be a lawyer or attorney at law (assumed with the shorthand “attorney”).
(43) A civil action to collect unpaid taxes or penalties must be personally authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.
Frivolous. As mentioned above, the Secretary has authorized his agents to act on his behalf.
(44) A taxpayer’s income is not taxable if the taxpayer assigns or attributes the income to a religious organization (a “corporation sole” or ministerial trust) claimed to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004–27, 2004–1 C.B. 625.
Frivolous. This was already covered, but seems slightly different. If a “taxpayer” earns taxable income from the exercise of a privilege, he has to pay tax on it. If he is donating it to a charity, he can deduct it. He can’t say it’s the church’s income if they don’t get all of it.
(45) The Service is not an agency of the United States government but rather a private-sector corporation or an agency of a State or Territory without authority to administer the internal revenue laws.
Frivolous. The IRS is a corporation, but it is wholely owned by the United States and its agents are authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury to act on his behalf.
(46) Any position described as frivolous in any revenue ruling or other published guidance in existence when the return adopting the position is filed with or the specified submission adopting the position is submitted to the Service.
This is simply stating that there may be more published, they shall apply as frivolous, if they were published before they were made.
So there you have it. None of the claims I make about the income tax have been listed here.
