Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!hao!hull
From: hull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!!
Message-ID: <768@hao.UCAR.EDU>
Date: Fri, 3-Jul-87 13:24:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.768
Posted: Fri Jul  3 13:24:43 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 13:40:57 EDT
References: <2288@husc6.UUCP> <358ddfd2.3903@apollo.uucp> <2315@hoptoad.uucp> <120@jc3b21.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 103
Summary: reality is quite complex, really...

In article <120@jc3b21.UUCP>, fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes:
> 
>      So, from my observation, the Treasury Department and the Internal
> Revenue Service deal reasonably with people who refuse to pay taxes as a
> matter of conscience.  I don't know whether they would look so kindly on a 
> tax refuser who protested the chilling effect on free speech of a tax.
> Nevertheless, Howard Hull's advice is probably excessive.
> 
>      The tax collectors would like people to believe failure to pay their
> taxes will have catastrophic consequences.  But it just doesn't work out
> that way in the real world.
> 
You're right, of course, and I am excessive, of course, but it's my style :-)
But just because the T and the IRS are committed to dealing reasonably with
people, a reasonable result to their dealing may not be what really happens.
My net article was submitted as a result of a real experience.  What happend
was this:

A friend of my daughter was looking somewhat dejected one day, so I asked him
what was up.  He related that the previous Friday, after a long day at his
business (he operated a small magazine shop) he had gone to the bank to draw
some cash for the weekend.  When the teller received his counter draft and
went to the terminal, the teller developed a puzzled expression and then came
back to him and stated that there was no record of his account.  He protested.
The teller went back to the terminal and looked again, returning to say that
his signature card had been "withdrawn",  and that he would need to get an
appointment between 9AM and 3PM Monday with an officer of the bank to discuss
the matter.  But also he stated that as a teller, he could not respond either
to the request of the counter draft or to further questions about the account.
My daughter's friend decided to leave the bank rather than wait until he could
be escorted from the premises.

On the following Monday, he went early to the bank, asked for and promptly
was granted the address of one of the bank's officers.  The officer explained
that the IRS had pulled his signature card, and that there was nothing the
bank could do about it.  So he asked the officer why he had not been notified
of this.  The bank officer said that they had *mailed* him a notice right away,
just as the law requires.  My daughter's friend said that he received the bank
notice the very next day [Tuesday].  He went on to relate as to how he had
previously exchanged three or four letters with the IRS concerning some matters
he had disputed with respect to an audit of his income taxes.  IRS had not
replied to his latest mailing, which had been some three weeks previous to
all this.  However, [and this is important] he had not asked his attorney to
file a protest in an appropriate court of law, as he felt the discussion was
ongoing.  So I said, "Well, ya dummy, when they start to pick on ya, ya gotta
defend yerself."  He said "Yeah. at my investment, too.  Perhaps, if I won, I
could be reimbursed... if the case ever closed, that is.  However, for the
time being, I am financially paralyzed, and I will have to borrow money from
my family to stay in business."

So, my daughter's friend went his way, and I went mine.  The following Friday,
after work I drove to my bank's new drive-in remote facility on the way home,
and submitted a check for cash through their plastic box conveyor belt thingy.
The teller, visible through the one-inch thick glass enclosure, typed something
into her terminal, and subsequently developed a puzzeled expression.  She then
left the booth, and could be seen discussing something with a man in an ante-
room behind the booth complex.  She returned and announced to me that she
could not find any information on my account.  "It's not in the database" she
said, and "we have no record of your signature card."  My mind began to reel.

What had I done?  My taxes were up to date.  I file the world's simplest tax
return.  At this bank I have a no-interest checking account that provides
"free" service.  Was I a victim of TANSTAAFL?  On the other hand, I had also
recently done some things for my father on the basis of a limited period power
of attorney that he had granted to me, an his taxes *were* complicated.  Had
they zapped me as a result of the association?  I didn't know.  But as soon
as they returned my check (and driver's license) through the conveyor belt
thingy, I set out at warp 100 for the main branch.  I got there two minutes
before they closed.  I submitted the same check there and got prompt courteous
service.  AFTER I had the money in my pocket, I asked what the problem might
have been.  The teller did not know, but recommended that I come in and visit
with one of the bank's officers the following Monday.

The following Monday, as early as the bank's hours would allow, I went there
and was immediately addressed by one of the bank's officers.  He informed me
that, having overheard my conversation with the teller, he had investigated
the matter, and had found that it was due to an error on the part of a bank
staff member which had resulted in an incomplete update of the branch's data
base.  He extended both his personal and the bank's apology for the incident.
End Story.  So no Federal agency had (evidently) done any meddling with my
account.  But I often wonder - how would I know?  And particularly, how would
I know before it was too late?

Sorry for the length of this posting, and sorry for having to post it here.
But I felt it was necessary to clarify the situation, and to make the taste
of the experience available to the cognitive among you.  Reasonable behavior
under the law is a very complicated issue.  There can be damage, injury, and
even fatalities associated with legitimate operations of the various Federal
institutions.  The employees who carry out the actions are people like yourself
and they are reasonable and careful.  However, you should not depend on their
being reasonable and careful, as the end result may not be what was reasonably
envisioned.  The best thing to do is to avoid antagonizing the system.  Direct
your efforts toward correcting potentially bad situations through appropriate
channels - as far ahead in time as you can anticipate.

All followups BY MAIL if you please - this is the wrong news group for this,
and it is absolutely certain that I do not read the appropriate one.

						Best Regards,   Howard Hull
[If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion...
                 ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts]
	{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull
	for domain mailers: hull@hao.ucar.edu