OMB Control Numbers
Tax Scholar
IRS Form 1040 states in part:
You are not required to provide the information
requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB
control number.
The fact that such a warning is printed on the IRS Form 1040
instructions indicates that the IRS is required to comply with the
commands of Title 44 USC, Chapter 35, sections 3506, 3507, and 3512,
shown following.
TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 35 - COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
SUBCHAPTER I - FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
-HEAD-
Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities
-STATUTE-
(c) With respect to the collection of information and the control
of paperwork, each agency shall -
(1) establish a process within the office headed by the Chief
Information Officer designated under subsection (a), that is
sufficiently independent of program responsibility to evaluate
fairly whether proposed collections of information should be
approved under this subchapter, to -
(B) ensure that each information collection -
(iii) informs the person receiving the collection of
information of -
(I) the reasons the information is being collected;
(II) the way such information is to be used;
(III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the
burden of the collection;
(IV) whether responses to the collection of information
are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory;
and
(V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a VALID control number; and
In other words:
With respect to the collection of information, each agency shall ensure
that the person required to submit the information is notified that "the
fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
VALID control number."
Here's the instant replay from a different angle.
TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 35 - COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
SUBCHAPTER I - FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
-HEAD-
Sec. 3507. Public information collection activities; submission to
Director; approval and delegation
-STATUTE-
(a) An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of
information unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the
collection of information -
(3) the agency has obtained from the Director a control number
to be displayed upon the collection of information.
The IRS is required to have an OMB control number, and that number is
required to be "VALID".
TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 35 - COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
SUBCHAPTER I - FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
-HEAD-
Sec. 3512. Public protection
-STATUTE-
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall
be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection
of information that is subject to this subchapter if -
(1) the collection of information does not display a VALID
control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this
subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to
the collection of information that such person is not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a
VALID control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the
form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during
the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable
thereto.
The statute is VERY CLEAR on this point: NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER
PROVISION OF LAW; In other words NO OTHER LAW SHALL PENALIZE a person
for failing to comply (fill out and file) a Form 1040 that does not
display a VALID control number.
The statute is also VERY CLEAR on this point: THE PROTECTION PROVIDED by
this section IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE, IS A COMPLETE BAR against penalizing
a person for failing to comply (fill out and file) a Form 1040 that does
not display a VALID control number.
The statute is also VERY CLEAR on this point: The COMPLETE BAR may be
RAISED AT ANY TIME during administrative process or judicial action.
The corresponding regulation echo's the same points.
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 5, Volume 3]
[Revised as of January 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 5CFR1320.6]
[Page 166-167]
TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--Table of Contents
Sec. 1320.6 Public protection.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information that is subject to the requirements of this part if:
(1) The collection of information does not display, in accordance
with Sec. 1320.3(f) and Sec. 1320.5(b)(1), a currently valid OMB
control number assigned by the Director in accordance with the Act; or
(2) The agency fails to inform the potential person who is to
respond to the collection of information, in accordance with Sec.
1320.5(b)(2), that such person is not required to respond to the
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
(b) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section may be
raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise to the
imposition of such penalty at any time during the agency administrative
process in which such penalty may be imposed or in any judicial action
applicable thereto.
Somebody ping Mr. Macdonald on this one. It's his favorite argument.
Regulations outside the purview of the statute.
(e) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does
not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to
comply with a collection of information that is imposed on the person by
statute--e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011(a) (statutory requirement for person
to file a tax return), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6938(c) (statutory requirement
for person to provide notification before exporting hazardous waste).
The Supreme Court opines:
In addition, the Act institutes a second layer of
review by OMB for new paperwork requirements. After an
agency has satisfied itself that an instrument for
collecting information - termed an "information
collection request" - is needed, the agency must submit
the request to OMB for approval. See 44 U.S.C.
3507(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. V). If OMB disapproves the
request, the agency may not collect the information.
See 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) (3) (1982 ed.).
Typical information collection requests include tax
forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job
applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and
tax or business records.
If a request does not receive OMB approval, it is not
issued a control number and the agency is prohibited
from collecting the information. See 44 U.S.C.
3504(c)(3)(A), 3507(f) (1982 ed.). In addition, if the
agency nevertheless promulgates the paperwork
requirement, members of the public may ignore it
without risk of penalty. See 44 U.S.C. 3512 (1982
ed.). 6 However, this protection of the public is
applicable only to information-gathering rules. Section
3512 provides that "no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to maintain or provide information
to any agency if the information collection request
involved . . . does not display a current control
number assigned by the [OMB] . . . ." Ibid. (emphasis
added).
While the grammar of this text can be faulted, its
meaning is clear: the public is protected under the
Paperwork Reduction Act from paperwork regulations not
issued in compliance with the Act, only when those
regulations dictate that a person maintain information
for an agency or provide information to an agency.
The case was about requirements to provide safety information such as
MSDS (material safety data sheets).
[ Footnote 6 ] See id., at 20 (The Act "allow[s] the
public, by refusing to answer these [information
collection requests], to help control `outlaw forms'").
DOLE v. STEELWORKERS, 494 U.S. 26 (1990)
Is the IRS Form 1040 an "outlaw form"?
Click these two links and look at the OMB control number on these forms.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf
OMB control #1545-0074 is affixed to the Form 1040 AND the Form W4.
That's like having the same license plate numbers on two different cars.
Is the IRS Form 1040 an "outlaw form"?
Paul Thomas
> The fact that such a warning is printed on the IRS Form 1040
> instructions indicates that the IRS is required to comply with the
> commands of Title 44 USC,
Dale, none of your huffing and puffing will get you out of paying taxes on
your income at your $6 an hour job as a truck driver.
Jackney Sneeb
AllYou!
been validated? Because as you know, the law also says that the
courts are the final arbiter of what the law is.
In news:w_-dnXayXI89FcrU...@earthlink.com,
Tax Scholar <StudiesThe...@YourAnnoyance.info> mused:
Tax Scholar
attempt to distract, deflect, and obfuscate.)
Mr. Trudel's assumption that every law needs judicial interpretation is
noted. (Mr. Trudel obviously doesn't think the law requiring one to stop
at a stop sign is a valid law because a judge hasn't interpreted the law
to command one to stop at a stop sign.)
Mr. Trudel's assumption that the WRITTEN words of law posted below need
judicial interpretation is noted. (Dear Reader, Mr. Trudel thinks you
are too stupid to comprehend what the WRITTEN words of law posted
below say.)
Mr. Trudel's failure to accept that the WRITTEN words of law posted
below say what they say is noted.
Paul Thomas, CPA
> (Mr. Trudel obviously doesn't think the law requiring one to
> stop at a stop sign is a valid law because a judge hasn't
> interpreted the law to command one to stop at a stop sign.)
Actually Judges make that very interpretation every day.
Now, try your crap on your own tax return and talk to a judge about it in
court.
Jackney Sneeb
Tax Scholar
> X-No-archive: yes
> In news:7JmdnZ-zxfRnScXU...@earthlink.com,
> Tax Scholar <StudiesThe...@YourAnnoyance.info> mused:
>> Mr. Trudel's failure to address the topic is noted. (Typical IRS
>> drone attempt to distract, deflect, and obfuscate.)
>>
>> Mr. Trudel's assumption that every law needs judicial
>> interpretation is noted. (Mr. Trudel obviously doesn't think the
>> law requiring one to stop at a stop sign is a valid law because
>> a judge hasn't interpreted the law to command one to stop at a
>> stop sign.)
>
> judicial interpretation is noted. The question which you snipped
> assumes no such thing. It simply asks *if* you know of any court
> decsions which would validate your position.
"The question which you snipped..."
>> Mr. Trudel's failure to accept that the WRITTEN words of law
>> posted below say what they say is noted.
>
> I accept that they say what they say, no matter whether anyone else
> accepts it or not. I simply do not accept your conclusions that
> they mean what you say they mean.
>
>
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> Do you have any court cases to show where your position on this
>>> has been validated? Because as you know, the law also says
>>> that the courts are the final arbiter of what the law is.
Would be this one that is still here.
Since you don't bother to read what is posted, we are done.
Paul Thomas, CPA
> "The question which you snipped..."
> Since you don't bother to read what is posted, we are done.
Dale, you've "been done" ever since birth.
Tax Scholar
> Either there are
> court cases which support your position, or there are not. As
> you've noted, just because there are no court cases which support
> your position does not mean that your position isn't valid
Period.
cpt banjo
Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as
do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That
this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has
shirked its duty. Section 3507 requires periodic review, not a
periodic change in control numbers. Patridge offers us no reason to
think that the necessary review has not been conducted. The control
number on Form 1040 appears on OMB's web site as a current, valid
number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer's say-so to
establish the proposition...
...The last of the issues we address is Patridge's contention that the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-21, forecloses his
conviction. This contention is as weak as the other 18, but it has
been raised in several recent appeals -- despite the fact that it was
considered and rejected in Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th
Cir. 1992) -- so we take this occasion to hold that the 1995
amendments to the Act do not alter Salberg's conclusion.
Section 3507 provides that an agency needs the approval of the Office
of Management and Budget to collect information, and § 3512(a)(1) adds
that ‘no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply
with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter’
unless OMB's approval is evinced by a ‘valid control number’ on the
agency's demand for information. Per § 3507(g), OMB ‘may not approve a
collection of information for a period in excess of 3 years.’ Patridge
observes that the IRS's Form 1040 has displayed the same control
number since 1981 and argues that it must therefore represent an
approval lasting for more than 3 years. Moreover, he asserts that the
IRS did not obtain a new approval between the 1995 amendments and the
adoption of forms for tax years 1996 and 1997, so these forms must be
(in counsel’s words) ‘outlaw and bootleg.’ Finally, Patridge contends
that all IRS forms are invalid because they do not tell taxpayers that
the lack of a valid control number means that they need not supply any
information.
How any of this could block a conviction for tax evasion is a mystery.
Patridge evaded taxes by shuffling his income among trusts in an
attempt to conceal it from the IRS. That crime does not depend on the
contents of any form. Evading one's taxes is illegal independent of
the information one does or does not supply. Consider another example:
the Clean Air Act requires businesses to curtail certain emissions
using the best available technology, and to report on those emissions
to the EPA. An error in the EPA's forms might spare the business any
penalties for bad information but would not license it to emit
pollution without limit. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not change
any substantive obligation.
Anyway, as we held in Salberg, the obligation to file a tax return
stems from 26 U.S.C. § 7203, not from any agency's demand. The
Paperwork Reduction Act does not repeal § 7203. Repeal by implication
depends on inconsistency that makes it impossible to comply with the
newer law while still honoring the old one, [citations omitted], and
there is no such inconsistency between § 7203 and the Paperwork
Reduction Act. One reason for this is that § 7203 requires a ‘return’
but does not define that word or require anyone to use Form 1040, or
any "official" form at all. All that is required is a complete and
candid report of income.”
United States v. Denny R. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, (7th Cir. 2007),
cert. den., No. 07-1045 (U.S. 3/24/2008).
"“Petitioners have confused the imposition of the Federal income tax,
set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and in section
1.1-1 of its accompanying regulations, with the duty to file a return,
set forth in sections 6001, 6011, 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code,
together with their accompanying regulations. These latter regulations
require the ‘collection of information’ on a Federal income tax
return. They have been assigned an OMB number--1545-0074--as set forth
at 26 C.F.R. sec. 602.101, Statement of Procedural Rules, and which in
all respects appears valid. Petitioners have not shown any basis for
holding that OMB number 1545-0074 (which is displayed on the 1981 Form
1040 as well as being assigned to the above regulations) is in any way
invalid.”
Beam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-304 (footnote omitted), aff’d.
956 F.2d 1166 (9th Cir. 1992)
"“Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the statutory requirement
that a taxpayer must file a return.”
United States v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1992).
“[P]etitioner's argument that the PRA may in some manner negate
statutory penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay taxes is
without merit. Because the requirement to file tax returns and the
imposition of penalties for failing to do so represents a ‘legislative
command, not an administrative request’, the PRA provides no ‘escape
hatch’ from penalties for failing to file tax returns. [Citations
omitted.] Citing dicta in the unpublished, nonprecedential opinion of
Pond v. Commissioner, 211 Fed. Appx. 749 (10th Cir. 2007), affg. T.C.
Memo. 2005-255, petitioner suggests that 1995 amendments to the PRA
call into question these well-established judicial precedents.
Petitioner has identified, however, and we have discovered nothing in
the 1995 amendments to the PRA to suggest that they had this purpose
or effect.”
Richard N. Pate v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-132, aff’d 2008 TNT
23-39, No. 07-60731 (5th Cir. 1/31/2008).
AllYou!
"Evading one's taxes is illegal independent of the information one
does or does not supply."
"Consider another example:
the Clean Air Act requires businesses to curtail certain emissions
using the best available technology, and to report on those
emissions to the EPA. An error in the EPA's forms might spare the
business any penalties for bad information but would not license it
to emit pollution without limit."
"The Paperwork Reduction Act does not change any substantive
obligation."
"Anyway, as we held in Salberg, the obligation to file a tax return
stems from 26 U.S.C. § 7203, not from any agency's demand. "
"Because the requirement to file tax returns and the imposition of
Paul Thomas, CPA
> The Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction
> Act Notice for the IRS Form 1040 states in part:
It's interesting how you skip over this part:
"Our legal right to ask you this information is Internal Revenue Code
sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a), and their regulations. They say that you
must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for.
Your response is mandatory under these sections. Code section 6019 requires
that you provide your social security number or individual taxpayer
identification number on what you file."
Jackney Sneeb
Richard Macdonald
For example, here is a very short search that took a couple of minutes:
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/WIL7LIS.TCM.WPD.pdf
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/pateopinion.TCM.WPD.pdf
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Saxon.TCM.WPD.pdf
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Holli3day.TCM.WPD.pdf
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:h9CdndgHZ-CxYcXU...@posted.choiceonecommunications...
> X-No-archive: yes
> In news:Nb6dneWZ3fEVcMXU...@earthlink.com,
> Tax Scholar <StudiesThe...@YourAnnoyance.info> mused:
>
>> Since you don't bother to read what is posted, we are done.
>
> We are done because you continue to refuse to ever answer any question
> which tends to destroy your position. Either there are court cases which
> support your position, or there are not. As you've noted, just because
> there are no court cases which support your position does not mean that
> your position isn't valid, however, if there were any court cases in
> support of your position, it would certainly mean that your position *is*
> valid.
>
> So why are you so reluctant to answer such a simple question?
>
>
> --
> "As the light repeatedly cycled from red to green to yellow and back to
> red again, I sat there thinking about life. Was it nothing more than a
> bunch of honking and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way." - Unknown
>
Richard Macdonald
Neff's claim. Congress created Neff's duty to file the
Returns in 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), and nowhere did Congress
condition this duty on any Treasury regulation. See
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir.1990).
[**3] Congress did not enact the PRA's public protection
provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed
by Congress. See Dole, 494 U.S. at 32-33, [*700]
110 S.Ct. at 933; United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356,
1359-60 (9th Cir.1991); Wunder, 919 F.2d at 38. So the
PRA provides Neff no refuge from his statutorilyimposed
duty to file income tax returns.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ted A. NEFF, Defendant-
Appellant.
No. 91-5007.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
954 F.2d 698; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2710; 69 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 788; 6 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 135
February 28, 1992, Decided
Dale, why waste your time with arguments that were trashed 16 years ago.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
"Tax Scholar" <StudiesThe...@YourAnnoyance.info> wrote in message
news:Hr-dnaW4K-xJlcTU...@earthlink.com...