I have a current client who had been invoved with the 1099-OID Fraud scheme. She is a victim of that in the sense that she was told it was valid and it was, obviously, invalid as indicated by the IRS position noted below. The IRS has taken an abusive position by not allowing my client to claim the benefits of the section 7122 Offer in Compromise program. This is an IRS abuse because the IRS is ignoring the 7122 statute and regulation which set forth standards that have nothing to do with being a victim of a tax scam. Instead, the IRS deems my client to have willfully filed a false tax return. That "willful" point is capritious and not supported by the facts because she relied on a tax return preparer. She should not be punished from an OIC benefit provided by law just because the IRS SPECULATES that my client knowingly tried to file a false tax return........................................................... In my case the IRS is not following its Mission Statement to apply the tax law with integrity and fairness..................................... This is just one more reason that I am trying to encourage Congress to hold "IRS abuse of conduct" hearings.................................................... Form 1099-OID Fraud Oct. 10, 2008......................................... The IRS cautions taxpayers to avoid getting caught up in a new tax fraud disguised as a debt payment option for credit cards or mortgage debt. The fraud is also marketed as a way to reduce taxes or pay outstanding tax liabilities. It involves the filing of Form 1099-OID, Original Issue Discount, and/or bogus financial instruments such as bonded promissory notes or sight drafts..................................................... This fraud has evolved from an earlier frivolous argument that a “strawman” bank account has been created at the Treasury Department for each U.S. citizen, and that individuals could use such “strawman” accounts to pay debts and claim withholding credits. The IRS addresses the “strawman” argument in Revenue Ruling 2005–21 and Revenue Ruling 2004-31, and discredits the use of this position for income tax purposes. Moreover, the courts that have reviewed the “strawman” argument and other similar arguments have found them frivolous …… Sections- 6662-6664…………………. Rev. Rul. 2005-21…………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………... PURPOSE………………………………………. ………………….. The Service is aware that some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal tax liability by taking the incorrect position that their incomes are not subject to tax based on a theory that the government has created a separate and distinct entity, or “straw man,” in place of the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is not responsible for the tax obligations of the “straw man.” Some promoters market a package, kit, or other materials that claim to show taxpayers how they can avoid paying income taxes based on these and other meritless arguments…………………………………………….... ……………………………………………… This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that a taxpayer cannot avoid income tax on the erroneous theory that the government has created a “straw man.” This argument has no merit and is frivolous. The Service is committed to identifying taxpayers who attempt to avoid their tax obligations by taking frivolous positions, including frivolous positions based on meritless “straw man” or similar arguments. The Service will take vigorous enforcement action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions. Frivolous returns and other similar documents submitted to the Service are processed through its Frivolous Return Program. As part of this program, the Service confirms whether taxpayers who take frivolous positions have filed all of their required tax returns, computes the correct amount of tax and interest due, and determines whether civil and criminal penalties 2 should apply. The Service also determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply to return preparers, promoters, and others who assist taxpayers in taking frivolous positions, and recommends whether a court injunction should be sought to halt these activities. Other information about frivolous tax positions is available on the Service website at www.irs.gov........... …… ISSUE .. Whether the government’s use of different forms of a taxpayer’s name (e.g., different capitalization formats, spellings) creates a “straw man,” which is a separate and distinct legal entity from the taxpayer to allow the taxpayer to avoid federal tax obligations?.. .. DISCUSSION OF THE “STRAW MAN” CLAIM.. .. The “straw man” claim is premised on the erroneous theory that most government documents do not actually refer to individuals. Users of the “straw man” theory falsely claim that only documents using an individual’s name with “standard” capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the individual’s name in all upper-case letters, which is common in some government documents, refers to a separate legal entity, called a “straw man.” These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation of a “straw man,” they are not liable for the debts, including the tax debts, of their “straw man,” that taxing the “straw man” is illegal because the “straw man” is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or that no tax is owed by the real individual because it 3 can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a “Treasury Direct Account” held in the name of the “straw man.”.. .. All individuals are subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 1 imposes a tax on all taxable income. Section 61 provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. Adjustments to income, deductions, and credits must be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the accompanying Treasury regulations, and other applicable federal law. Section 6011 provides that any person liable for any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code shall make a return when required by Treasury regulations, and that returns must be filed in accordance with Treasury regulations and IRS forms. Section 6012 identifies the persons who are required to file income tax returns. Section 6151 requires that taxpayers pay their tax when the return is due. Section 6311 requires payment of taxes by commercially acceptable means as prescribed by Treasury regulations………………………………………….. .. There is no authority under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable law that supports the claim that taxpayers may avoid their federal tax obligations based on “straw man” arguments, as described in this revenue ruling, or on similar arguments. The formatting of a taxpayer’s name in all upper-case letters on government documents or elsewhere has no significance whatsoever for federal tax purposes. Courts have rejected as frivolous “straw man” arguments. United States v. Furman, 168 F.Supp.2d 609 (E.D. La. 2001) (rejecting criminal defendant’s contention that he was not properly identified in federal government documents that misspelled his name or used his properly spelled name in all capital letters). In addition, courts repeatedly have rejected 4 similar arguments based on frivolous claims that purport to provide a basis for avoiding taxes, and have penalized taxpayers who have made these arguments. See, e.g., Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984) (“[A]ll individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages . . ..”); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[I]n our system of government, one is free to speak out in open opposition to the provisions of the tax laws, but such opposition does not relieve a citizen of his obligation to pay taxes.”)……………………… .. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.. .. The Service will challenge the claims of individuals who attempt to avoid or evade their federal tax liability by refusing to file returns and pay tax, and will disallow deductions or other claimed tax benefits, including the exclusion of income, based on frivolous “straw man” arguments. In addition to liability for the tax due plus statutory interest, individuals who claim tax benefits on their returns, or fail to file returns, based on these and other frivolous arguments face substantial civil and criminal penalties. Potentially applicable civil penalties include: (1) the section 6651 additions to tax for failure to file a return, failure to pay the tax owed, and fraudulent failure to file a return; (2) the section 6662 accuracy-related penalty, which is equal to 20 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have paid; (3) the section 6663 penalty for civil fraud, which is equal to 75 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have paid; (4) a $500 penalty under section 6702 for filing a frivolous return; and (5) a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in the United States Tax Court… ……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Taxpayers relying on these theories also may face criminal prosecution for: (1) attempting to evade or defeat tax under section 7201, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 5 years; (2) willful failure to file a return under section 7203, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to one year; or (3) making false statements on a return, statement, or other document under section 7206, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years. Persons, including return preparers, who promote these theories and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on these frivolous arguments may face penalties and also may be enjoined by courts pursuant to sections 7407 and 7408. Potential penalties include: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each return or claim for refund prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have known that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return or claim for refund if the return preparer’s actions were willful, intentional or reckless); (2) a penalty under section 6700 for promoting abusive tax shelters; (3) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax; and (4) criminal prosecution under section 7206, for which there is a significant fine and imprisonment for up to 3 years for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return, statement or other document under the internal revenue laws……………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. HOLDING….. ……………………………………………………………………………………… The use of different forms of a taxpayer’s name (different spellings, capitalization, etc.) does not create a “straw man” that allows taxpayers to avoid their federal tax obligations. Claims based on “straw man” arguments or on similar arguments, to avoid federal tax obligations, are frivolous and have no merit………………………………. 6 DRAFTING INFORMATION……………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………… The author of this ruling is the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. For further information regarding this ruling, contact that office at (202) 622-7950 (not a toll-free call)…………………………………………… …………… Rev. Rul. 2004-31 ………………………………………………………… …………………… PURPOSE …………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………….. The Service is aware that some individuals are attempting to reduce their federal income tax obligations by claiming that they have been “removed” or “redeemed” from the federal tax system. Although the specific arguments made by these individuals vary, some argue that the Government commits a fraud when it attempts to collect debts, including tax debts, and that this purported fraud allows individuals to “chargeback” debts that the Government purportedly owes to these individuals to eliminate any asserted tax liability. “Removal,” “redemption,” and “chargeback” schemes are referred to here collectively as “removal schemes” and “removal arguments.” Some promoters are marketing a package, kit, or other materials that claim to show individuals how they can avoid paying income taxes based on these and other meritless arguments. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. This revenue ruling emphasizes to individuals, and to promoters and return preparers who assist individuals with these schemes, that there is no authority under any U.S. law that supports the argument that an individual can be “removed” or “redeemed” from the federal tax system to avoid tax liabilities or that an individual can satisfy debts, including tax liabilities, by making “chargeback” or other similar arguments. Removal and redemption arguments have no merit and are frivolous. ………………………………………………………………………….. The Service is committed to identifying individuals who attempt to avoid or evade their tax obligations. The Service will take vigorous enforcement action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions. Frivolous returns and other similar documents submitted to the IRS are processed through the Service’s Frivolous Return Program. As part of this program, the Service confirms whether taxpayers who take frivolous positions have filed all of their required tax returns, computes the correct amount of tax and interest due, and determines whether civil and criminal penalties should apply. The Service also determines whether civil or criminal penalties should apply to return preparers, promoters, and others who assist taxpayers in taking frivolous positions, and recommends whether a court injunction should be sought to halt such activities. Other information about frivolous tax positions is available on the Service website at www.irs.gov. ………………………………………………………………………… DISCUSSION OF REMOVAL AND REDEMPTION ARGUMENTS AND SCHEMES Removal arguments and schemes are loosely related and take a variety of different forms. Proponents of removal arguments and schemes typically claim, even though they remain citizens or residents of the U.S., that they are not required to file federal tax returns and pay their tax obligations because they have been removed or redeemed from the federal tax system. As a result of participating in removal schemes, these individuals do not file required returns or pay the income tax that they owe. ……………………………………………………………………………….. In some variations of the removal argument, individuals claim that the Government commits a fraud when it attempts to collect debts, including tax debts, and that this purported fraud allows individuals to “chargeback” debts that the Government purportedly owes to these individuals to eliminate any liability to the Government. In other variations, individuals argue that Federal Reserve notes, or “paper money,” are not legal tender and that the Government has been wrongfully using taxpayers and their labor as security for the Government’s obligations. Other individuals argue that they may reclaim, or “chargeback,” their own value from the Government as a result of the Government’s wrongful conduct and then use that value to pay the individuals’ debts. Participants in removal schemes often attempt to offset, collect or “redeem” their asserted claims against the Government by using or filing liens, bills of exchange, and various Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) forms, or by relying on misinterpretations of federal laws and the Uniform Commercial Code. …………………………………. Participants in the removal schemes may rely on one or more of the following erroneous arguments, alleged facts or actions to support their frivolous claims: (a) the bankruptcy of the United States occurred contemporaneously with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the start of the Great Depression, the removal of the United States from the gold standard, or the passage of House Joint Resolution 192 (claimed to be a declaration of bankruptcy); (b) the Government’s use of birth certificates of taxpayers as registered securities; (c) the filing of documents with variations on a taxpayer’s name, (e.g., using all capital letters in some documents and standard capitalization in others) creates a “straw man” or “nom de guerre” as the debtor to the Government that replaces the individual who has removed himself from the Government’s jurisdiction; (d) the “redemption” of debts from the Government by filing UCC forms, such as the UCC-1 form; (e) the submission of documents to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to establish a fictitious bank account (sometimes referred to as a “Treasury Direct Account”) where the value of charged back debts is located; (f) the practice of “accepting for value” official Government documents and the “charging back” of those documents by responding to them with a “private notice” that may include a “Treasury Direct Account Number,” a “Memory of Account Number” or a “Posted Certified Account Number”; and (g) the use of “Bills of Exchange,” Form UCC-3 and “Sight Drafts” to discharge debts to the Government. This list is not exclusive, however. Participants in removal schemes also make other equally frivolous arguments. ……………………………………….. Instead of filing federal income tax returns with the Service, participants in removal schemes frequently send documents and other correspondence to the Service and other Government agencies. Examples of these documents include: improperly filed Forms 1040-ES, Estimated Tax for Individuals, reporting the location of the funds in a fictitious bank account from which the IRS can collect taxes; improperly filed Fiduciary Tax Returns; improperly filed Forms 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business, reporting that a person or entity has “charged back“ after “accepting for value” the Government’s documents; improperly filed Forms W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, to obtain a social security or employee identification number of a person or entity to include on the Form 8300; “commercial affidavits” in lieu of tax returns stating that the filer is a secured party and has no income for a particular year; and documents and correspondence to “accept for value” IRS notices of tax liens and levies to have the tax balances paid from the filer’s “Treasury Direct Account.” ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. There is no authority under any U.S. law that supports the claim that individuals may avoid their federal income tax obligations based on removal arguments such as those described in this revenue ruling. Similarly, there is no authority under any U.S. law that supports the claim that requiring payment of a debt owed to the Government by commercially acceptable means amounts to a fraud by the Government. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. Adjustments to income, deductions, and credits must be claimed in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury regulations thereunder and other applicable federal law. Section 6011 provides that any person liable for any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code shall make a return when required by Treasury regulations, and that returns must be in accordance with Treasury regulations and IRS forms. Section 6012 identifies the persons who are required to file income tax returns. Section 6151, except as specifically provided, requires that taxpayers pay their tax when the return is due. Section 6311 requires payment of taxes by commercially acceptable means as prescribed by Treasury Regulations. ………………………………………………….. Courts repeatedly have rejected removal arguments and other similar arguments as frivolous and have penalized taxpayers who make these types of arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7th Cir. 1991) (affirming criminal conviction for tax evasion and rejecting "wholly defective" arguments that the federal tax laws did not apply to taxpayer because he was a "freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a ‘master’ - not – ‘servant’ of his Government”); United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming criminal conviction for tax fraud and rejecting as “frivolous” the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely "debts”); United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980) (affirming criminal conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejecting the taxpayer’s argument that "the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution"). ……………………………….. Although individuals who rely on these removal arguments generally do not file federal income tax returns with the Service, some individuals also are relying on removal or similar frivolous arguments to claim that they can reduce or eliminate their tax by filing tax returns in which they report zero income and tax liability. See Rev. Rul. 2004-34, I.R.B. 2004-12 (3/22/2004), for a discussion of this frivolous position. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES ……………………………………………………………………………. The Service will challenge the claims of individuals who attempt to avoid or evade their federal tax liability by refusing to file returns and pay tax on the basis that they have been removed or redeemed from the federal tax system. In addition to liability for the tax due plus statutory interest, individuals who fail to file and pay tax or who claim refunds based on this or any other frivolous arguments face substantial civil and criminal penalties. Potential civil penalties include: (1) the section 6651(f) penalty for fraudulent failure to file, which is up to 75 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have reported on the return ; (2) the section 6651(a)(1) penalty for failure to file, which is equal to up to 25 percent of the amount of taxes the taxpayer should have reported on the return; (3) the section 6651(a)(2) penalty for failure to pay, which is equal to .5 percent of the tax for each month or fraction of a month the tax remains unpaid, not to exceed a total of 25 percent; and; (4) a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673 if the taxpayer makes frivolous arguments in the United States Tax Court. ……………………………………………………………………. Individuals relying on this scheme also may face criminal prosecution for: (1) attempting to evade or defeat tax under section 7201 for which the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years; (2) willful failure to make a return or pay tax under section 7203 for which the penalty is up to $25,000 and imprisonment of up to 1 year, or (3) making false statements under section 7206 for which the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 years. ………………………………………………………………… Persons who promote this scheme and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on this scheme also may face penalties. Potential penalties include: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each return prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have known that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return where the return preparer’s actions were willful, intentional or reckless); (2) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax; and (3) criminal prosecution under section 7206 for which the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 years for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return or other document under the internal revenue laws. Promoters and others who assist taxpayers in engaging in these schemes also may be enjoined from doing so under section 7408. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. HOLDING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Individuals may not avoid or evade their tax liability by refusing to file returns and pay tax on the basis that they have been removed or redeemed from the federal tax system or by claiming that they can “chargeback” their debts to the Government. Arguments that individuals may be removed or redeemed from the federal tax system or may “chargeback” their debts to the Government have no merit and are frivolous. Individuals who attempt to reduce their federal tax liability by taking frivolous positions based on these arguments will be liable for the actual tax due plus statutory interest. In addition, the Service will determine civil penalties against individuals where appropriate, and those individuals may also face criminal prosecution. The Service also will determine appropriate civil penalties against persons who prepare frivolous returns or promote frivolous positions, and those persons may also face criminal prosecution. Promoters and others who assist taxpayers in engaging in these schemes also may be enjoined from doing so under section 7408. …………………………………………………………………. DRAFTING INFORMATION …………………………………………………………………………………………… This revenue ruling was authored by the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. For further information regarding this revenue ruling, contact that office on (202) 622-4940 (not a toll-free call). …………………………. www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690