Bob
This is Lindsey Springer Update #5 in which he discusses the Tax Division’s assertion that the phrase “tax forms” was subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), but “tax return” was not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:gnute…@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 9:55 PM
To: lindsey springer
Subject: Springers clarification on term “return” v. “form”

Lindsey Springer here and in response to those of you wondering how I am doing, thank you for your prayers and your concern.

Many times I’ve wondered which would be better for me and my family and my mission-a not guilty verdict, which was certain to have been the result without Judge Friot threatening the jury.  He had previously found certain “facts” in regard to the PRA and Form 1040 “I have found the From 1040 does not and did not violate the PRA”; or a ruling by the 10th Circuit finally unequivocally telling the public Form 1040 violates the PRA and must comply to the PRA.  The 10th Circuit has repeatedly stated both without ever finding what the violations were.  In Lewis, the 10th circuit 2008 allowed the unchallenged non-accompanying instruction booklet to save the Form 1040 violations.  And in passing stated Mr. Lewis did not challenge the instructions.

The Tax Division told the 10th Circuit last Wednesday that their argument of the PRA protection against all charges against me was that I was wrong because the phrase “tax forms” as announced by the Supreme Court in Dole v. United Steelworkers(1990) was subject to the PRA while a “tax return” was not.  So, to put this into perspective the requirement to file a tax form is subject to the PRA while the requirement to file a tax return is not protected by the PRA.??

After trying each of these phrases over and over again, I have come to the conclusion the TAX Division has gone simply nuts.  Ask yourself why would they tell the 10th Circuit something preposterous intentionally.  If they are correct, then how would anyone have ever known that the requirement to file a tax return was different than a requirement to file a tax form.  The “Form 1040 us individual income tax return” uses both terms in it’s heading.  The reason the tax Division made this erroneous claim was because their other 3 previous intentions failed miserably.

First, the statutory mandate theory ran into the PRA mandate by the law, which is not a theory.  Second, the Form 1040 was argued to purportedly comply and is clearly false simply making the comparison between the Form 1040 and the law and regulations.  Third, the instruction accompanying Form 1040 purportedly satisfies the PRA mandate is simply not sustainable.  These three now aborted propositions that the tax division dismissed have given birth to their latest position that somehow a requirement to file a tax return is not subject to the PRA protection while the requirement to file a tax form is subject to the PRA.

Besides the obvious problem that the face of the Form 1040 contains both the term Form and return, it creates even greater problem created by this new song and dance.

If return is not defined, and it’s not, then how would anyone know what that term means in Federal law?  Congress settled this problem by directing the Secretary by regulation to provide the form and made it the duty of every person to use that specified form.  The Tax Division think tank certainly was aware that the supreme court in commissioner v. Lane wells,321 US 219(1944), and 26 CFR 601.105, and even in the tax Divisions bill of particulars which they provided Title 26 Section 6011 and 26 CFR 1.6011 and 1.6012.  They also admit the return is to be “filed” and that such filing requires a form to satisfy.

I understand many of you are just now starting to realize to put the dots together regarding why the PRA is not only so important but has caused the United States Tax Division to make Federal law look like it is only designed to ensnare or entrap citizens by being made so complicated no one could understand it.  Fortunately for each of us, under criminal statutes the law is to be strictly construed and the Tax Division has virtually no hope that strictly construing the word “return” will exclude the term “form” from it’s meaning.  I just thought I would clarify this for you since those who do not want you to understand it and their continued attempt to.

I appreciate all those who have supported me and I hope at this time you will be able to continue as I greatly need you help.  I can receive support through Paypal at lind…@mindspring.com or gnute…@mindspring.com.

My mailing address is 5147 S. Harvard Ave #116 Tulsa, OK 74135.

Thank you very much for all of your help,

Lindsey Springer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 Sunday, June 27th, 2010 at 6:32 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