24
Apr

Ram 2 ~ IRS 0

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu said “To win without fighting is best.”   That is what happened in Federal Court on April 24, 2008.

Here are the details.

As discussed in my March 12th blog, I received an “Order to Show Cause” from Judge David Hittner, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Order, signed March 5th, 2008, stated the following:

On the petition of the United States, under 26 U.S.C. §§7402(b) and 7604(a) for an order requiring the respondent, Robert A. McNeil, to show cause why the respondent should not be compelled to obey an Internal Revenue Service summonses served upon the respondent on July 25, 2007 and September 19, 2007.”

The Order required that I appear in person before Judge Hittner, at 9:00am on April 24, 2008. I arrived at the courthouse in Houston, Texas around 8:30am, in plenty of time for the hearing.

I took a seat on one of the long, wooden benches in the hallway, just outside of Courtroom 8A, opened one of my 3-ring binders of Exhibits, and began doing some last minute reading.

To my left, on another bench, was Roger Caris, I.R.S. Revenue Officer, sitting with a nicely dressed woman, who I guessed was an attorney. My suspicions were confirmed when the woman got up, walked over to me, and introduced herself as Kathryn Bellis, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, representing the United States of America.

She told me that she and Mr. Caris had been discussing the September 19, 2007 summons (for 2002 information), agreed that I had complied with its requirements, and were going to dismiss the enforcement of that summons.

I told her “Thank you.”, and she walked away.

I went back to reading my Exhibits, in preparation for defending myself against the remaining summons, dated July 25, 2007 (for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 information).

About ten minutes later, Ms. Bellis walked back to where I was sitting, and told me that, she had been talking to Mr. Caris about the remaining summons, and they agreed that I had complied with its requirements, as well, and were going to dismiss the enforcement of that summons, too.

With that said, she produced two copies of a freshly printed “MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE”, which states the following:

“TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:

The United States of America files this Motion to Dismiss for the reason that the respondent has complied with the summonses.

WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully requests that this court enter an order discharging the order to show cause and dismissing this action with prejudice.”

“With prejudice” is a legal term that means the United States of America cannot issue summonses for my records again for tax years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

I confess that I was a little confused about why the U.S. Attorney changed her mind and decided not to pursue enforcement action in federal court, because I never gave the Government one document required by the summonses.

I can only assume that there was something in my 74 page response to the Petition that she did not want to argue in court.

Whatever the case, Ms. Bellis signed and dated both copies of the Motion, handed me one copy, and said I could go. She said she was going to file the copy with the court and there would be no hearing.

So, I packed up my briefcases and left with signed Motion in hand.

The United States of America backed down in the face of a challenge.

Sometimes, the good guys DO win!

Click on the following link for information relevant to this blog:
089 DOJ Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice 20080424

No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Knowledge is power. Educate yourselves.

Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 3:06 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.

3 comments so far

TonyDogs
 1 

It appears that you’re wrong. The issue was whether or not you complied with the summons issued. Bellis and Caris looked at the information at hand and decided that you, in fact, did comply.

Dismissed with prejudice means they cannot go after you for failure to comply on this particular summons. That’s it. They can still request your tax records for the years in question.

July 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Bob McNeil
 2 

Wrong about what?

Here are the indisputable facts.

The IRS’ summons for 2002, dated October 5, 2007, required me to appear before Roger Caris and bring for examination “all documents and records you possess or control regarding assets, liabilities, or accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or for the taxpayer’s benefit….. These records and documents include but are not limited to: all bank statements, checkbooks, canceled checks, saving account passbooks, records or certificate of deposits…. Also include all current vehicle registration certificates, deeds or contracts regarding real property, stocks and bonds, accounts, notes and judgments receivable, and all life or health insurance policies.”

So, it was Roger Caris’ belief at that time that he did NOT have the necessary information to determine my tax liability for 2002.

The same is true for the summons for information related to tax years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, dated August 10, 2007, in which I was required to appear before Mr. Caris and provide documents similar to those required in the 2002 summons.

So, based on this belief, Mr. Caris filed two Declarations with the Department of Justice stating that I had NOT complied with the two summonses.

These Declarations formed the basis for the DOJ’s “Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summonses”, which led to the issuance of the District Court’s “Order to Show Cause”.

So, up until 8:30am on April 24, 2008, the IRS and DOJ believed that I had NOT complied with the two summonses and were hell bent on arguing before the Court for granting the Petition to enforce them.

An important thing to remember is that, since this ordeal started in 2005, I haven’t handed over one document to the IRS.

So, what additional information did the IRS and DOJ miraculously find at 8:30am on April 24th, 2008 to reach the conclusion that I had complied with the summonses?

Nothing.

So, on what basis did the IRS and DOJ conclude that I had complied?

I don’t know for sure, but I think it had something to do with the content in my Response to the Petition.

I just know that this Pro Se litigant was successful in defending himself against an out-of-control IRS Officer and the U.S. Department of Justice.

I also know that, if I provided no documents to the IRS, yet, the IRS and DOJ, after examining all documentation in hand, reached the conclusion that I had complied with the summonses, then the following is true:

• IRS Revenue Office Roger Caris issued two false Declarations to the DOJ saying that I had not complied, and;
• The DOJ, based on Caris’ false Declaration, filed a false “Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summonses”, which led to the issuance of the District Court’s “Order to Show Cause”.

Filing false documents in Federal Court is a serious crime and carries stiff penalties.

In the meantime, the IRS can “request” my records all they want. I stand firm in my position, supported by the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rulings, that I have no legal duty to provide those documents.

And, to date, neither the IRS, nor the DOJ, has provided sufficient, legal documentation supporting their position that I am required to do so.

July 27th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Jake Blanton
 3 

I have recently had the misfortune of having to also deal with the IRS in the form of Roger A. Caris. My misfortune started after I had made various internet postings critical of the IRS and the Congress-Idiots that had created our convoluted tax code. After that, they claimed that I had never filed tax returns for 2003 through 2009. Of course, I have no proof that I filed them, but they have no proof that I didn’t either. What they can’t deny though (since I have the canceled checks) is that I did send them in tax payments for those years. They are CLAIMING that I owe them around $430K from those tax years (more than I even *made* back then). In fact, my current balance with them is that they OWE ME around $12K or so. They are punishing me for exercising my 1st Amendment rights. By CLAIMING that I did not file any tax returns, they can say that the basis for all of the stock transactions that I made during that period is zero and thus the entire stock sale price was profit. The fact is though, once you factor in the basis for the stock (i.e. what I paid for it), the profits were minimal (and in some cases, even sold as a loss). My CPA has tried to explain this to Roger Caris, but he seems to be taking my various internet postings personal. Interestingly, the internet postings were done under names / handles that are not my real name, but it didn’t stop them from finding out who I really am and proceeding to harass me about them.

I have attempted to contact Roger Caris about this via email, but no response. I believe that his email address is “[email protected]”.

Good luck in your fight…

March 15th, 2011 at 1:36 pm

Leave a reply

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