Continued
SECTION 7701. Definitions(a)(11) Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary,--
(A) Secretary of the Treasury--The term "secretary of the Treasury" means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally, and shall not include any delegate of his.
(B) Secretary--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.
Thus, "Secretary" means "The Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate." Basically, the only property the Secretary (or his delegate) would already have in his possession would be accrued salaries or wages of federal or District of Columbia employees which has not yet been paid out of the federal coffers. Such accrued salaries or wages would be the only property upon which the Secretary could levy, by issuing a notice of levy, without having to effectuate a seizure.
And, this is confirmed within section 6331(a) itself:
Section 6331(a) states that a levy can be made on accrued salaries or wages by serving a "notice of levy" on the employer of an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia. This confirms what was said before since the accrued salaries or wages of such officers, employees, or elected officials represents an obligation of the Secretary existing at the time the levy is made. Since these described individuals are paid from the Federal Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury already has possession of the funds which would be used to pay the obligation and the "notice of levy" is simply the Secretary's notice that said funds are being applied to unpaid taxes instead of being paid to the officer, employee, or elected official. No seizure is necessary, and thus, no "notice of seizure" (explained later) is ever issued. The notice of levy is usually served on the head of the Federal (or District of Columbia) agency (or the agent designated by him who is charged with payroll duties).
When the IRS must bring property into the possession of the Secretary by seizure we have to refer to section 6335, as follows:
SECTION 6335, Sale of seized property.
(a) Notice of seizure--As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property (or, in the case of personal property, the possessor thereof), or shall be left at his usual place of abode or business if he has such within the internal revenue district where the seizure is made. If the owner cannot be readily located, or has no dwelling or place of business within such district, the notice may be mailed to his last known address. Such notice shall specify the sum demanded and shall contain, in the case of personal property, an account of the property seized and, in the case of real property, a description with reasonable certainty of the property seized.
So, you see that whenever the IRS makes a seizure, they are required by law to issue a "Notice of Seizure" (Form 2433). This notice also has another effect. Remember, at the start of this letter I stated that a "levy" was not a single act, but rather the whole process by which money was raised and applied to an unpaid tax. The levy process includes seizure and sale of the property along with the actual application of the proceeds. However, a levy must be made within six years (see Section 6502(a) after the tax is assessed and there may come a time when a levy proceeding occurs near the end of the six year period.
So, for the purpose of determining the exact point in time when the law would consider that the levy was made, section 6502(a) states:
SECTION 6502, Collection after assessment.
(b) Date when levy is considered made--The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section 6335(a) is given.
The IRS levies on accrued salaries or wages by serving a "notice of levy" (Form 668-A or 668-W) on the employer of a Federal or District of Columbia officer, employee, or elected official. This is the only time the Internal Revenue Code states that the service of a "Notice of Levy" makes a levy. In other cases, section 6502(b) tells us that a levy is considered made only when the "Notice of Seizure" is given.
Now, after reading all this, it should occur to you that the IRS' power to levy must be strictly followed. Only property already possessed by the Secretary is subject to levy, and only property subject to forfeiture can be seized and brought into the possession of the Secretary if that property is not already possessed by the Secretary. So, to summarize, seizure is limited by statute to certain specific items. Sections 7321 and 7608(b)(2)(C) strictly limits seizure authority to "property subject to forfeiture." Such property is described in sections 7301 and 7304. Property not subject to forfeiture cannot be seized legally, and a levy on any other property must be made on items already in possession of the government. Section 6331(b) further states that a levy extends only to "property possessed."
However, this regulation clearly outlines on whom a "notice of levy" may issue which states:
301.6331-1(a)(4) Certain Types of Compensation; "Levy may be made upon the salary or wages of any officer or employee (including members of the Armed Forces), or elected or appointed official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of either, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of the delinquent taxpayer. As used in this subdivision, the term "employer" means
(a) the officer or employer or employee of the United States, the District of Columbia, or of the agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, who has control of the payment of the wages, or
(b) any other officer or employee designated by the head of the branch, department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or of the District of Columbia as the party upon whom service of the notice of levy may be made. If the head of such branch, department, agency or instrumentality designates an officer or employee other than one who has control of the payment of the wages, as the party upon whom service of the notice of levy may be made, such head shall promptly notify the Commissioner of the name and address of each officer or employee so designated and the scope or extent of his authority as such designee."
This makes it very clear on what and on whom a notice of levy may be issued. A "Notice of Levy" can only be made on accrued salaries or wages when the "Notice of Levy" is served on the employer of federal or District of Columbia employees. In the case of any other property already possessed by the Secretary the "Notice of Levy" is served on the person who has such property. This is a proper procedure for the IRS to adopt since section 6331(b) provides for a levy on any other property already possessed, but does not specifically state how much levy is to be carried out. In the case of a seizure, section 6502(b) already told us that the levy is made when the "Notice of Seizure" is given.
Now, the average person reading this regulation doesn't know what "property subject to levy" is and, when the "Notice of Levy" is served on him, he is led to believe that the law requires him to turn over to the IRS any property he has which belongs to the delinquent taxpayer. The main reason for this is that the IRS is serving a "notice of levy" has deleted paragraph (a) of section 6331 in notifying the employer or bank.
This continues when the IRS cites Code 6332, as follows:
SECTION 6332, Surrender of property subject to levy.
(a) Requirement--Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of the Secretary, surrender such property or rights (or discharge such obligation) to the Secretary, except such part of the property or rights as is, at the time of such demand, subject to an attachment or execution under any judicial process.
(b) (Not produced here. Deals only with life insurance and endowment contracts.)
(c) Special rule for banks--Any bank (as defined in section 408(n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.
(d) Enforcement of Levy
(1) Extent of personal liability--Any person who fails or refuses to surrender any property
Or rights to property, subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary, shall be liable
in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the value of the
property or rights no so surrendered, but not exceeding the amount of taxes for the
collection of which such levy has been made, together with costs and interest on such
sum at the underpayment rate established under section 6621 from the date of such
levy (or, in the case of a levy described in section 6331(d)(3), from the date such
person would otherwise have been obligated to pay over such amounts to the taxpayer.)
Any amount (other than costs) recovered under this paragraph shall be credited
against the tax liability for the collection of such levy was made.
(2) Penalty for violation--In addition to the persona liability imposed by paragraph (1),
if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to
shall be liable for a penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount recoverable under
paragraph (1). No part of such penalty shall be credited against the tax liability for the
collection of which such levy was made.
Again, we see that the law requires the surrender of "property subject to levy" upon which a levy "has been made." And again, the average person doesn't know exactly what all this means. You now know, from reading the above, that a levy "has been made" when a "Notice of Levy" is given to some other delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury who has such property in his possession (or, in the case of accrued salaries or wages, to the head (or designated payroll agent) of a Federal or District of Columbia agency or instrumentality). Now it becomes clear that this Code section was directed to other Treasury Secretary Delegates or heads of Federal or District of Columbia agencies or instrumentalities who may have possession of property, rights to property, or accrued salaries or wages belonging to the delinquent taxpayer. And the law requires them to surrender such property when the "Notice of Levy" is served on them.
Of course, the IRS likes to intimidate people into turning property over to them by serving "Notices of Levy" on them; as if this "makes" a levy and as if the person must surrender to the IRS any property he has belonging to the alleged delinquent taxpayer. This is not the case, but, as long as enough people fall to this fear tactic, the IRS is going to continue using this ploy since it is far less expensive and far more efficient than having to go to court.
So the question comes down to this: What to do if you are ever served with a "Notice of Levy?" Ask questions. We need not be intimidated by the IRS, even though you will be. Further, if you ask questions, you will no doubt be audited and harassed. This is the intimidation you, and all of us, face. When will we stand up for what is right? And, if the government wants to compel you to surrender any property belonging to the delinquent taxpayer, then go to court and get an order just like any other garnishment proceedings.
A "Notice of Levy" is not a "levy," you need to get this straight. Congress never authorized such an action and Congress never authorized an agent/officer with such authority over private citizens. Again read section 7608 and unless you fit in one of those categories there is no authority for the agents actions. The IRS agents/officers have been taking property without authority or judicial process for so long now that, now, nobody questions their actions.
Section 6332(d) also states there are penalties for failure to turn over property after a "Levy" has been served. In most cases the person is in possession of a "notice of levy" not a "levy." You now know that this penalty would only apply if you have "property subject to levy" and you fail to surrender it upon demand by the Secretary. This was all discussed earlier and, unless you're a person having such property in your possession or control, this penalty cannot apply. There are no penalties for asking questions. The IRS agent will get upset and probably threaten you, but this is their normal procedure. Please not that there would be penalties if you do not comply with a lawful levy that is issued by an authorized agent/officer.
A person may think they can avoid being sued by complying with a "Notice of Levy" and turning over the property to the IRS. It is true that you would avoid being sued by the Department of Justice, but you would then expose yourself to being sued by the person whose property you turned over. His cause of action would be against the person taking the property since they turned the property over without a court order, without his consent or permission, and without being required to surrender the property under any statute. He would have a cause of action against the IRS for acting outside their Congressionally mandated authority and against you for turning over to the IRS without judicial process.
No protection is offered by section 6332(e), as follows:
SECTION 6332(e) Effect of honoring levy--Any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made who, upon demand by the Secretary, surrenders such property or rights to property (or discharges such obligation) to the Secretary (or who pays a liability under subsection(d)(1)) shall be discharged from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer and any other
person with respect to such property or rights to property arising from such surrender or payment.
This section relies on 6331, and both sections require a levy on property, not a notice of levy. Because there is no judicial process and no levy has been made, the person taking property based on a "Notice of Levy" is not relieved from liability to the person owning the property. This section is what is referred to as the immunity section for turning over property. And it would provide immunity if the person followed the law, but did he? Did he receive a levy or a notice of levy? Lease note the title of this sub-section; it reads "effect of honoring levy." It does not say "effect of honoring a notice of levy."
The IRS will attempt to make you believe they have the authority pursuant to section 6331, however, the Federal Register proves them wrong. The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules reads as follows: "Entries in the table are taken directly from the rule making authority citation provided by Federal agencies in their regulations." Regulations are binding on the agency, not on you. As a matter of law this section is to enforce taxes in CFR 27 Part 70.
27 CFR Part 70 is exclusively for the enforcement pf Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms*. Unless you are providing services or are involved in this type of activity, the taking of money on a Notice of Levy is simply theft. I must again insist that you carefully read IRC sections 7321 and 7608 to determine if the person issuing the "notice of levy" or "levy" is authorized to perform such an act against a private citizen.
This is a direct quote from Congressional documents I have in my possession and in fact, spoke with Dwight Avis, Jr (his father who made the following statement is now deceased) late last year.
"Let me point this out now. This is where the structure of the income tax and Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tax differs: Your income tax is 100% voluntary and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules will not apply." February 3, 1953, pg. 13, Congressional Record, Statement of Dwight E. Avis, Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Investigation of the IRS and It's Laws in from of the House, Ways Means Committee.)
When receiving a "Notice of Levy" ask questions. My suggestion would be to write a letter to the IRS agent who signed the notice and ask him the following questions:
1. Are you the agent authorized to issue the "notice of levy," "notice of seizure" or "levy?" As him/her about 7321 and 7608 and explain what these sections mean and whether they are relative to the person on the notice.
2. What property is "subject to levy" as used in section 6332? And, is the property you are demanding property "subject to levy upon which a levy has been made?" Please note that I am aware of section 6502(b) which states that a levy is made on the date the section 6335(a) "Notice of Seizure" is given. Has the "Notice of Seizure" been issued?
3. Please explain the indemnification process under section 6332(d) if I turn the property over to you and the owner of the property sues me.
4. Is this "Notice of Levy" the result of a judgment entered by a court? Since it does not appear to be a court order, and does not have a case number or a judge's signature, what will happen to me if I do not turn this property over to you?
5. Is a notice of levy the same thing as a levy? And, is section 6332(e) reliable when it specifically states "effect of honoring levy," not "effect of honoring notice of levy."
All of these are legitimate questions which anyone would have about the whole levy procedure. Of course, the agent will tell you that you should turn the property over in order to avoid any penalties and court proceedings, and they will probably audit you. But when they answer question #4, they will be forced to tell you that they will simply have to go to court in order to reach the alleged "Levied" property. Also, ask the agent why he didn't include section (a) of 6331 which tells you who is required to respond to a "notice of levy."
This letter is a result of my research to date. I must agree we have allowed the IRS to bulldoze us for so long it is easier to just give them the property so we can avoid a confrontation with them. Our freedoms are disappearing fast because we do not hold the IRS in this case, to the law.
Please use the check sheet that I have attached to help you. If you receive a Notice of Levy, ask questions. Please check the Internal Revenue Code to see if my research is correct. Further, the courts have not been favorable in these cases because we have not given them the correct codes and regulations. And, of course, they are also subject to audit and intimidation. To this I, and many others, are attempting to get Congress to immunize judges from the IRS which will allow the judiciary to at least respond to the law without fear of retaliation. Please contact your Congress person. Do not be afraid to stand up for the truth.
I certify that the information contained in this research letter is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I stand ready to testify to the truthfulness of these statements.
Respectfully,
John J. Schlaback
*End*
http://www.devvy.com/abra_19991021.html
7. "The law itself does not require individuals to file a Form 1040. However, Section 6001 of the Code states that every person liable for a tax imposed by the Code shall make returns and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may from time to time prescribe. Section 1.6012(a)(6) of the Income Tax Regulations states that Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under Section 6012 of the Code."
There's no law that requires you to file a Form 1040. They just said so. However! Yo! Whoops! The code says that "every person liable shall make returns and that Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return." Wait - didn't they just say the law doesn't require anyone to file a Form 1040 but now someplace else, this form is "prescribed for general use?" Hmm. I think this is more government lie-speak.
8. "Section 6331 of the Code states that if any person liable to pay tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the secretary to collect such tax by levy upon all property and rights to property belonging to such person. The levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official."
Wait just a minute, here! Let me get out my magnifying glass so I can type here exactly what Section 6331 says from Volume 2 of the Internal Revenue Code:
Subchapter D - Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes
Section 6331 Levy and Distraint.
Refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334 (9)) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of such officer, employee or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
Or, does that cover the man down the street working for IBM or is it a teller at the local bank? They certainly aren't officers, employees or elected officials of the U.S. or District of Criminals or any agency or instrumentality of the U.S., etc. They work for private industry, yet the IRS, through lies, deception and brute force, will levy their wages and steal their property. Do you see anywhere in that language that covers private sector employees, officers or elected officials? I don't. Perhaps it's more abracadabra! Perhaps it even has something to do with the 14th Amendment......
If you haven't taken the time to read the information on the non-ratification of the 14th Amendment on this web site, please do so. It will go a long way in clarifying the insidious and nefarious intent to strip you of your sovereign citizenship rights and rope you into the clutches of the federal criminals. When I say the people have been bamboozled, it isn't just some silly talk or murky conspiracy, the game plan schematics are laid right out in front of our faces if people just take the time to do the research. As for Section 6331(a) Authority of Secretary from the Internal Robbing Service's Code, I fall under no part of their qualifying definitions and intent to fight."
How much longer is Congress going to get away with allowing this thievery of the people to continue? Remember: In all but a hand full of states, you are only required to file a state personal income tax return if you're required to file a federal return. Think about it and then raise hell with your state legislator, state senator and governor. Tell them we've had it with this fraud.
