Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cxsea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!cxsea!doc
From: doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation )
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Re: Re: IRS abuses #1
Message-ID: <634@cxsea.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 17:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: cxsea.634
Posted: Tue Feb 11 17:17:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 04:38:14 EST
References: <1002@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: Computer X Inc., Seattle, Washington.
Lines: 71



> >It's foolish to say the tax itself is unconstitutional.  If you want to
> >say that some IRS methods may be unconstitutional, that's another matter.
> 
> There are some interesting anomalies surrounding the 16th amendment.
> Some claim it was never properly ratified...

Yeah, and I wish that "some" would offer some verification, instead
of just claiming it as a fact. I've heard this before, but have yet
to see proof (which would be easy to do). Every state that claims to
have ratified the amendment should have a record of having done so,
and it shouldn't take much to figure out which states those are. They
either ratified it or they didn't.

> Possibly I should make my own position clear since I have been posting
> a variety of material.  My primary concern is the vicious Gestapo-like
> tactics used by the IRS to intimidate and harass taxpayers.  The idea
> that here in America citizens have to fear a government agency that can
> plunder at will, ignoring all rights and protections, is ludicrous.
> 
> What does private property mean if the government can confiscate 
> anything it wants at will, without so much as a hearing?  How can
> anyone be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" if the
> IRS can at will take a fishing expedition through one's bank records
> and confiscate accounts, without so much as an explanation?

I have to agree that the Alaska and Maryland incidents (if they happened
exactly as described) are pretty brutal. The way you describe the
Minnesota incident, however, makes me wonder about the other two.

In the Minnesota example, as you described it, the IRS isn't the logical
cause of the farmer's death. Look at it from the bank's point of view: when
someone borrows money from a bank to buy a combine, most banks will demand a
secured interest in the combine, which we usually call "colateral" (you
legal types will recognize it as a "purchase-money security interest"). The
farmer also must have signed a loan agreement that states quite clearly that
if he stops payments on the loan, the bank will reposess the colateral.
Would you seriously expect the bank to roll over and say "Gee, Mr. Farmer,
I guess we're wrong about letting the IRS into your account", just because
he stopped payment on the loan? Of course not. Banks don't work that way.
Instead, he might have tried a claim against the bank under the Civil Rights
Act. "Oh, hell!", you say. "A big expensive lawsuit over $40.00 will only
benefit the lawyers". Well, sure, in that case I guess it makes a lot
more sense to default on a loan and then start shooting at the reposessor.
Anything is better than paying a lawyer. Even getting killed.

Having chosen to stop payment because he was upset over their paying the
IRS, he was inviting a reposession. Given that the bank had a security
interest in the combine, it is overstating things to claim that the farmer
was defending HIS property. Yes, it was his property but he had already
agreed to the reposession when he signed the original loan. If he had a
problem with the bank, the way to solve it is to sue the bank, or whatever,
instead of defaulting on a loan. It is tragic that he got killed, but it's
not as though he wasn't looking for trouble. Shooting at a police cars tires
isn't exactly the mark of an innocent victim.

The IRS has a lot of slimy practices, I agree. But you do great harm
to your otherwise plausible argument when you use a grossly over-stated
anecdote like that. To say that the IRS "caused" this death is just
absurd.

> >You mean FORMER congressman George Hansen, who left Congress in disgrace
> >after a number of shady financial deals, and who is now connected with
> >several extreme right-wing organizations.  I don't believe a word the
> >man says.
> 
> Here I must ask for more supporting data.  What kind of shady financial
> deals?

Yeah. What kind of shady financial deals>