Earlier this month, I got another letter from R. M. Owens, identical to the one sent in July threatening collection action. This letter seems to appear sometime after the “additional 45 days” expire which the IRS keeps asking for to respond to my original inquiry.
The last time the IRS asked for 45 more days was in mid-October. Their “complete response” to my questions never showed up around December.
Below is the letter I sent today, addressed to Ms. Zulager (“45 days”) and to R. M. Owens (“we’re going to take your stuff”).
_______________________
January 27, 2010
Kurt Henning
(address)
SSN: (provided in IRS copy only)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
ATTN: Ms. Retha Zulager and R. M. Owens
ACS Support – STOP 813G
PO Box 145566
Cincinnati, OH 45250-5566
Dear Ms. Zulager and R. M. Owens,
This letter is in reply to two letters from the ACS Support office in Cincinnati.
The first letter I am replying to is from Ms. Zulager, dated October 14, 2009, ref: 0266204457. It states, in relevant part:
“We previously sent you a letter concerning your inquiry received Aug. 25, 2009. Although we try to respond quickly, extensive research is often required. At this time we are unable to provide a complete response because:
“Due to heavy workload, we have not yet completed our research to resolve your inquiry…Please allow an additional 45 days for us to obtain the information we need and to let you know what action we are taking.” (By the way, I have noticed that the “additional 45 days” asked for in the letter of October 14, 2009, have long since passed.)
The inquiry your office received August 25 was my follow-up to my original letter and inquiry dated January 26, 2009, and received in your office on February 9, 2009 (after first appearing at an office in Covington, Kentucky, on January 30, 2009). I will reference the January 26 letter in more detail momentarily.
The second letter I am replying to is from R. M. Owens, dated January 12, 2010, ref: 1715927504. It is a copy of the same letter I received July 17, 2009. Here is its opening paragraph:
“We have no record that you responded to our previous notices. As a result, your account has been assigned to this office for enforcement action, which could include seizing your wages or property. It’s important that we hear from you within 10 days from the date of this letter.”
My letter received by Ms. Zulager on August 25, 2009, questioned the reasoning of that original enforcement letter by Owens based on the following:
1. From my original inquiry letter of January 26, 2009: “As you have been kindly doing with me, I will allow 30 days from the date of this letter for a response. In the meantime, kindly take no action against myself or my property until I have had a chance to review and respond to your answers.” (emphasis added)
2. Of the four letters so far received from Ms. Zulager in response to my original inquiry, two of them have stated that the IRS has not completed its research, and two of them have stated that I “don’t need to do anything further now on this matter” as the IRS has not “completed all the processing necessary for a complete response.” All four letters have asked for an additional 45 days from their dates so the IRS can process a “complete response” to my inquiry.
It has now been over a year since my original inquiry, and I still have not received a “complete response” from the IRS. So, once again, while I am waiting for that complete response, I have to question the reasoning of another enforcement letter from R. M. Owens.
It might be helpful here to revisit the questions from my original inquiry. This way, Ms. Zulager can check to be sure the ongoing research is still on point, and R. M. Owens, rather than proceeding with enforcement actions in light of 1 and 2 above, can perhaps shed some light on the subject if the IRS researchers are at a loss. The questions were, and are:
1. How does the laying of a direct tax on our income (where the failure to pay or file the paperwork means fines, confiscation of private property, and/or imprisonment) NOT reduce our fundamental right to work to that of a privilege? And if, in fact, our right to work has been reduced to a privilege by the income tax, how is this NOT unconstitutional?
2. How does the requirement that we submit information to the government which can be used against us in court NOT infringe on our rights as enumerated in the 5th Amendment? And if, in fact, this requirement does infringe on our 5th Amendment rights, how is this NOT unconstitutional?
And here is the final paragraph of that letter:
“If, after 30 days, I have not received responsible, thoughtful, and sincere answers to my questions, I will take that to mean that our business has been founded on unconstitutional premises, and that our business as it relates to the income tax has come to an end. I look forward to your reply.”
One must admit that I am a patient man. Where I have given the IRS 30 days to answer my questions, the IRS has taken over 365, and still no answers – only research. And I don’t need to do anything further on this matter but wait for the research to end and for the answers to be presented.
I am guessing that your response, after over a year of research, will be of some length. If it isn’t asking too much, I prefer hardbound to paperback – I think it will look better in my library.
As always, I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Kurt Henning
Cc:
President Barack Obama
US Senator Richard Durbin
US Senator Roland Burris
US Representative Judy Biggert
Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times
Other private citizens
Comments