5
Oct

New Defense For Failure To File Form 1040

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

I just received this message from Chuck Conces, Chairman of the Lawmen Committee for the Public Interest.

1040 PRA Defense – Whoopee!

Posted by: [email protected]
Thu Oct 4, 2007 7:41am (PST)

Dear Lawmen and Others Who Know How To Ride In The Right Direction:

The tenth circuit just ruled that it is a valid defense to cite the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) in regards to the filing of 1040 forms. This is BIG news!

You can have charges dismissed on the basis of the 10th circuit ruling if they ever charge you with “willful failure to file”. I doubt that the government will appeal this to the Supreme Court because they would most likely lose there too.

Unfortunately, that defense does not protect us from filing false information returns. Before you file another 1040, you should request a response from the IRS on this matter.

This is a bigger win than most people will be able to grasp. I believe that the information in this email has come from a reliable source, but if I am shown otherwise, I will make any necessary corrections.

Whoopee!

Subject: TENTH CIRCUIT RULES PRA VALID DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS ALLEGATIONS

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:52:59 -0500

Hello again and I know this can become overwhelming but I thought you should have this information. On September 25, 2007 the 10th Circuit ruled on page 12 of its decision that:

C. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The PRA, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-20, precludes the imposition of any penalty against a person for “failing to comply with a collection of information” if either (1) it “does not display a valid control number” or (2) the agency fails to alert the person that he or she “is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.” 44 U.S.C. § 3512(a). A § 3512(a) defense may be raised at any time.

See id. § 3512(b). Tax forms are covered by the PRA.

See Dole v. United Steelworkers of Am., 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990). Mr. Chisum contends that “[s]ince there was no proof that Form 1040 was a lawful form under the [PRA], the trial court erred in failing to grant [his] request [at the sentencing hearing] to dismiss the indictment.” Aplt. Br. at 29. But the PRA protects a person only “for failing to file information. It does not protect one who files information which is false.” Collins, 920 F.2d at 630 n.13 (internal quotation marks omitted). The charges against Mr. Chisum were predicated on the filing of false information, not the failure to file. He is therefore not entitled to relief.

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Knowledge is power. Educate yourselves.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 3:26 am and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment