Love for America
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:07:09 EDT From: ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com Subject: Help Me Stop Irwin Schiff Before He Harms AGAIN!!! To: ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com Hi! I received the letter following this e-mail (separated for your convenience) yesterday from a gentleman who once thought that Irwin Schiff was the truth and the light on all matters respecting the federal income tax. My reply to him will be sent to you in a follow-up e-mail. Fortunately, I and other former Schiff followers were able to dissuade him from this false view before he was totally immersed in Schiff's foolishness. As it is, however, Irwin Schiff has so distorted the facts about the federal income tax that many individuals are now completely confused as to how to combat the assessment and collection activities of the IRS! I cannot tell you how many individuals, ones who I say have been "Shafted by Schiff," have been so harmed by following Irwin Schiff's totally worthless procedures (received, ironically, at a very high price), that they have had no recourse but to wave the white flag of surrender to the IRS and submit Offers in Compromise and Installment Agreement Requests just to take some of the intense IRS pressure off of them. Even the best efforts of we former "Schiffies" sometimes is not enough to save those "Shafted by Schiff." Irwin Schiff is a master showman, even an amateur magician. He can make someone following his procedures feel as if he has the IRS on the run--even while that person is calling in to his show totally bewildered about why the IRS is now getting his paycheck, hitting him with several $500.00 "frivolous return" penalties, and issuing him summones to appear before them. I would urge you and urge you again: DO NOT FOLLOW, OR PERMIT OTHERS TO FOLLOW WITHOUT A FIGHT, THE FOOLISH INCOME TAX PROCEDURES ENUNCIATED BY IRWIN SCHIFF!!! The truth in what I say about Irwin Schiff can be easily seen from these four facts: 1. Irwin Schiff has admitted on his radio show that the IRS is seizing his Social Security benefits, but claims he "doesn't have the time" to personally put his procedures to the test and attempt to have his benefits restored; 2. Irwin Schiff, although he has litigated several times in the federal courts since then, has not won a case against the federal government since 1979; 3. NOT ONE follower of Irwin Schiff has ever paid a $500 "frivolous return" penalty imposed upon him, sued for a refund in district court, and been awarded a refund of the penalty so paid; and 4. NOT ONE follower of Irwin Schiff has, after filing a "zero income" return and requesting a refund of all taxes withheld during the prior year has, after having his refund claim denied by the IRS, sued for a refund in district court and been awarded the amount of the refund he had claimed. What other proof is needed to see that Irwin Schiff is a fraud and a danger to those of us in the anti-tax movement? Please do your part. Spread the word around your inner circle: Shut out Schiff!!! =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 21:26:12 EDT From: ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com Subject: Former Irwin Schiff Disciple Set Right To: ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com DEAR CONFUSED FORMER IRWIN SCHIFF FOLLOWER: I received your e-mail on Sunday. Unfortunately, Irwin Schiff has so muddied the income tax waters with his nonsensical procedures, one of which is his use of the "no legislative regulation" gambit, that it has totally confused individuals who sincerely desire to battle the IRS with law and truth. As you know, there are three types of regulations which are drafted by the Department of the Treasury in order to implement the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code: legislative, interpretative, and procedural. It is Irwin Schiff's position that only those regulations which are termed "legislative regulations" need be paid attention to by any individual because only legislative regulations have the "force AND (not "in") effect of law," while interpretative and procedural regulations do not have such force and effect. On the basis of a letter which he received from the Department of the Treasury, which delineated the three types of implementing regulations and which stated that legislative regulations have the force and effect of law, Irwin Schiff has drawn the conclusion that (even though they exist in a ratio of about 10-1 over legislative regulations) both interpretative and procedural regulations can be safely ignored by every individual. This conclusion of Irwin Schiff's is not only completely false, but it is potentially dangerous to anyone who should take action based upon it. Legislative regulations are said to have the "force and effect of law" solely because in a given statute words such as, "The Secretary may, by regulation, provide for...." or "In accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary....," or words to that effect, are used to specifically require the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate to draft regulations needed to reasonably implement the statute. In statutes containing these types of words Congress has deliberately left it up to "the Secretary" to "fill in the gaps" of the statute by crafting proper regulations. This being so, any regulation drafted by the Secretary, and reasonably implementing the statute, is said to be legislative in nature and thus endowed with "the force and effect of law," as such regulation has the prior approval of Congress. Irwin Schiff, inexplicably, ignores Internal Revenue Code section 7805(a), which gives to the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate a general authority to implement by "needful rules and regulations" the several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. It is by authority of this law that "the Secretary" promulgates interpretative and procedural regulations. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE TO US among the three types of regulations is the standard of proof we would have to meet in order to overcome the authority of any one of them in a federal civil action against the United States. If, for example, the IRS purports to act against anyone pursuant to a legislative regulation, that individual would be required to prove that the legislative regulation, as applied to him, was invalid as it was either unconstitutional or did not reasonably implement the statute in which Congress authorized such a legislative regulation. This is because the legislative regulation is deemed to be the equivalent of the law itself. If, however, the IRS purports to act against anyone pursuant to either an interpretative regulation or a procedural regulation crafted by authority of IRC section 7805(a), the individual would have a lower standard of proof to overcome the validity of such a regulation. While the individual could, as in the case of challenging the validity of a legislative regulation, challenge the validity of an interpretative or a procedural regulation as unconstitutional or as not reasonably implementing the statute, it would be necessary only to show that the interpretative or procedural regulation was not "needful" in accordance with IRC section 7805(a), and in that way invalid. The not "needful" argument could not work in the case of challenging the validity of a legislative regulation, as a legislative regulation is one because Congress has clearly called for its promulgation in a specific statute, as opposed to the "catch-all" statute of IRC 7805(a). Irwin Schiff has done the anti-tax movement a tremendous disservice by using this "distinction without a difference" among the three types of regulations as the reason why individuals can simply ignore without consequence all regulations except legislative ones. When it suits his purposes, however, Irwin Schiff stands perfectly ready to have one ignore legislative regulations if the regulation conflicts with one of his oft-stated nonsensical procedures. A case in point is Treasury Regulation 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(5)(ii) and (iii). This regulation states under what circumstances the IRS will invalidate an employee's filed Form W-4 and direct his employer to withhold taxes from his pay based on information contained in an IRS notice. Irwin Schiff for years has falsely stated that the IRS "has no authority" to direct an employer to disregard his employee's Form W-4, despite his being shown this regulation by me and by others. IRC section 3402(n), says Irwin Schiff, allows an individual to claim exempt on a Form W-4 and does not allow the IRS to say or to determine a different status. This is also false. IRC section 3402(n), in its last sentence, reads "The Secretary shall by regulations provide for the coordination of this subsection {i.e. section 3402(n)] with the provisions of subsection (f)." The implementing regulation for IRC section 3402(n) is Treasury Regulation 31.3402(n)-1. Therein is a sentence which reads, "For rules relating to invalid withholding exemption certificates, see 31.3402(f)(2)-1(e), and for rules relating to submission to the Internal Revenue Service of withholding exemption certificates claiming a complete exemption from withholding, see 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)." Normally the existence of such a regulation which so clearly and unequivocally proves the falsity of what Irwin Schiff says would be met by him with a cry of "It's not a legislative regulation! It has no force and effect of law!!" Ironically, though, Treasury Regulation 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g) IS a legislative regulation, having been specifically authorized by Congress in IRC section 3402(n)!!! Not only that (of course it is immaterial except in the nonsensical mind of Irwin Schiff and his followers) but IRC section 3402 is specifically cited as the authority for such regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations' "Parallel Tables of Authority." So, as can be clearly seen, Irwin Schiff is a complete charlatan who knows very little about the income tax system which he claims to protect individuals from. I have demonstrated, by one example alone, that much of what he says today is totally false and dangerous to those who are foolish enough to take it as gospel. I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. If so, please circulate this letter as far and as wide as you are able. Irwin Schiff and his falsehoods need to be stopped now before any more victims result from them! Sincerely, Ed Bruning (ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 06:50:31 EDT From: ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com Subject: "Shafted by Schiff": Another Victim Falls Hello, again!! I wish I did not have to bring you news of bad tidings, but so-called "tax expert" Irwin Schiff, my former mentor, has shafted another unwitting would-be patriot. Perhaps you have heard of Tom Sarnelli by now. Schiff has been talking about his case for weeks now, both on his radio show and on his web site. Mr. Sarnelli had the misfortune of being duped by Irwin Schiff into filing one of his infamous "zero income" federal income tax returns in order to get back $7000 which had been deducted as a withholding tax the previous year. When the IRS didn't issue a refund check Irwin Schiff, who claims not to have the time to file his own lawsuit to get back all the Social Security benefit checks the IRS has been taking from him each month for the last several years, cajoled and browbeat Mr. Sarnelli into filing a refund suit in United States District Court in Nevada. Well, of course, Mr. Sarnelli lost his refund lawsuit, thanks to Irwin Schiff. But where Mr. Sarnelli has lost, Schiff has gained by raking in the hard-earned cash of the unsuspecting in exchange for a seemingly endless stream of worthless video tapes, audio tapes, and "seminars." Let's examine why anyone who files one of Irwin Schiff's "zero income" returns is absolutely guaranteed to lose every single suit for an income tax refund. First let's start with a historical perspective. Irwin Schiff devised the "zero income" return in 1991 for one reason: to keep himself from being thrown back into jail for failing to follow the terms of his probation or his parole, one of which was to "file all required returns." He reasoned that if he filed a return he would be meeting the conditions of his probation or parole, and he could never again be prosecuted for willful failure to file a return when he had obviously done so. But after his criminal proceedings were at an end, Irwin Schiff was nearly a bankrupt. He had to file court papers "in forma pauperis," i.e. as a pauper, without ability to pay filing fees and costs. He hurriedly applied for Social Security benefits as soon as he was eligible for them. And yet, Irwin Schiff was accustomed to the glamour, adulation, travel and the money, which he had received before going back to jail the last time in January of 1992. It was July of 1993 and he needed cash--quickly. Yet the only way to get it was to come up with product, something he could take on the road and sell, as in his former glory days. The original idea for the "zero income" return was not bringing in that much money for Irwin. So, he hit upon an idea which literally turned his fortunes around overnight: the "zero income" return as a claim for refund. Now, Schiff had a cash cow. There were tapes and videos describing the new "zero income" return; there was the ever changing multi-page "attachment" to the return; there were sample pages of refund lawsuits; and there arose the need for yet another letter: the one needed to attack the now frequently imposed $500.00 "frivolous return" penalty. Irwin Schiff views his "zero income" return as a "heads I win, tails I still win" proposition: no matter if the individual wins, or as is much more often the case, loses, Schiff still cashes in. The sad fact is that both I and several others warned Irwin Schiff years ago that using the "zero income" return as a claim for refund was guaranteed to be a loser. While some, through pure luck, not by reason of the return itself or its attachment, have received refunds, the overwhelming majority of Schiff's "zero income" returns end up either ignored by the IRS or hit by them with $500.00 "frivolous return" penalties. In addition, NOT ONE of the over 100 "zero income" return suits for refund urged on the unwitting by Schiff has EVER been successful! And how can it be otherwise? There is no use in deluding ourselves that the courts will not continue to rule, incorrectly, that "wages are income." But, when a "mark" of Irwin Schiff's files one of these "zero income" return lawsuits, that is the very argument he is compelled to make. In order to obtain a refund in a refund lawsuit, you must first prove that you paid a tax. This is easily done, as in Mr. Sarnelli's case, as any amounts withheld the prior year are "deemed paid" on April 15 of the following year. Then, however, you have to prove that you "overpaid" your tax. What is an "overpayment" of tax? Simply the amount that you paid is more than the amount IMPOSED by the Internal Revenue Code. And what is the income tax "imposed" on in section 1 of the IRC? Taxable income. And what do the courts consider to be included in "taxable income?" You guessed it: wages. Irwin Schiff, though, has dragged a "red herring" across our path by continuing to bleat on about there being, as in Mr. Sarnelli's case, "no assessment." Unfortunately, Irwin Schiff's advanced age has led him to forget certain basic precepts regarding the income tax. In a suit for refund, a "proceeding in court," as the law calls it, an assessment, an administrative act, is immaterial. The burden is on the plaintiff in a refund lawsuit to prove, by a greater weight of the evidence, that he "overpaid" his tax. The overpayment is calculated, not on what may have been assessed, but on what the law purportedly imposes. Schiff attempts to con us by making the refund dependent on the difference between the amount of tax withheld and the amount of tax assessed; when the true measure of the refund is the amount of tax withheld and the amount of tax imposed by law. Thus, Schiff's approach is no more than a fool's errand. It can be successful only if a court will rule that wages are not income. So far, in 20 or so years, that ruling has not been forthcoming. In Mr. Sarnelli's case Irwin Schiff, as a broken clock is right at least twice a day, was correct on one thing. Magistrate Johnson's reference to IRC section 6151 as one reason why no refund would be forthcoming was absolutely wrong. Section 6151 clearly indicates that it is only taxes SHOWN on returns which are required to be paid without assessment. As Mr. Sarnelli showed a tax of "zero" on his return, this section was clearly inapplicable to his case. Again in a deceptive manner, however, Irwin Schiff has seized on a clearly wrong part of Magistrate Johnson's ruling in order to cover up the fact that, stripped to its essentials, the only way Sarnelli could have been awarded his refund was to have the Magistrate rule that wages are not income. Irwin Schiff knows, and knew, this simple fact yet he has chosen to keep quiet about it for fear of losing his cash cow. So, there you go. Another innocent victim "Shafted by Schiff." How long are we going to tolerate more bodies lying at the foot of "Schiff's Cliff?" I am thinking about challenging Irwin Schiff to a debate on his radio show. What do you think? Well, that is it for now. As always, I'm looking forward to receiving your comments. Take care. Sincerely, Ed Bruning (ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com) ZERO TAX RETURNS TRIGGER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one time Irwin Schiff promoted a non-filing tax strategy, however, from what I understand, Irwin was the owner of a corporation. After Schiff's conviction and incarceration for non-filing of tax returns, Irwin changed his tax strategy to the filing of "zero" returns. Ever since then, in my opinion, Irwin's opinion's and strategies have not been as accurate as they should be. If you subscribe to Lifetime Access to Love for America's Restricted Webpages for only $20, among other very important information and websites, I will introduce you to the best legal tax strategist in the country. I personally have been studying tax cases for over 16 years. The man that I trust to have the most accurate and complete tax strategy support and information has over 17 years experience. His research is unique and unsurpassed. His arguments make the most sense. People come to him for help after other "gurus" have failed them. Schiff has his opinions, my tax strategist offers considerably different opinions for your benefit. We strongly disagree with Schiff on more than 15 different strategies that are not on point and have failed patriots in the past. Shouldn't you check out all the strategies before you act? Shouldn't you correct any errors you may have made, before it is too late? Your $20 will get you LIFETIME Access to our Restricted Webpages that will give you my worthy opinion of who is the best tax strategist in the country. It will give you revealing names of which attornies actually argued certain tax strategies before the courts and LOST! It will give you instant access to probably the most complete library of websites on the web offering motions, briefs and strategies, for not only fighting income taxes, but many other sovereignty issues as well. Take advantage of my 16 years of experience and order today by sending $20.00 to: Love for America's Restricted Webpages 22 W. Bryan St., # 353 Savannah, (31401) Georgia North America Goods and services provided by No-Debts.com (GA, United States).
Sold by 2CheckOut.com Inc. (Ohio, USA).We Accept Many Forms of Payment
Click Here
Use the Liberty Dollar Online!
Use Real Money in the Real World!
Yours for Freedom and Lady Liberty, gene karl
WHERE TO?
No-Debts.com Home Page
Love for America Home Page
Love for America Products
