-
- 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 is 100 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.
-
- SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE
http://www.sightings.com
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|