Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Illegitimacy of The Income Tax System

Regarding the issue of Social Security, Attorney Larry Becraft discussed its constitutionality, as well as that of Obamacare, in a recent lengthy interview of him and former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister titled “The Illegitimacy of The Income Tax System”:

The Illegitimacy of The Income Tax System
At 13:30 in the video, Attorney Becraft pointed to a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1935 ruling on the constitutionality of a precursor to Social Security (the Railroad Retirement Act) limited to workers in interstate commerce (railway workers) in which the Court ruled the Act unconstitutional as a violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment and a breaching of the limited power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
He goes on to explain that Congress ignored this decision when it implemented Social Security, and in two later cases in 1937 (Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Co v. Davis) the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
Attorney Becraft makes the point that the first case was never overturned, and stands as a precedential ruling. Accordingly, the Supreme decisions in 1935 and 1937 respectively as to the constitutionality of Social Security are in irreconcilable conflict, and both cannot be correct. Furthermore, the preponderance of the constitutional arguments are overwhelming in favor of the court’s reasoning in the first case in 1935 (Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton RR Co.).
Attorney Becraft suggests that since the Court has ruled that the constitutionality of a federal retirement income scheme in interstate commerce where Congress has the greatest measure of constitutional latitude cannot be sustained, how can it be constitutional in the rest of the economy where Congress has no such latitude?
Therefore, while the Court has created some unfortunate ambiguity, at the very least one can reasonably assert that the constitutionality of the Social Security system is in serious doubt.
Here are some key excerpts from the Supreme Court decision in the Alton RR case:
The federal government is one of enumerated powers; those not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.
The Constitution is not a statute, but the supreme law of the land to which all statutes must conform, and the powers conferred upon the federal government are to be reasonably and fairly construed, with a view to effectuating their purposes. But recognition of this principle cannot justify attempted exercise of a power clearly beyond the true purpose of the grant.
All agree that the pertinent provision of the Constitution is article 1, 8, cl. 3, which confers power on the Congress 'to regulate Commerce ... among the several States; ...' and that this power must be exercised in subjection to the guarantee of due process of law found in the Fifth Amendment. 4  
The petitioners (Railroad Retirement Board) assert that the questioned act, fairly considered, is a proper and necessary regulation of interstate commerce; its various provisions have reasonable relation to the main and controlling purposes of the enactment, the promotion of efficiency, economy, and safety; consequently it falls within the power conferred by the commerce clause and does not offend the principle of due process.
The respondents (Alton RR Co.) insist that numerous features of the act contravene the due process guaranty, and further that the requirement of pensions for employees of railroads is not a regulation of interstate commerce within the meaning of the Constitution.
These conflicting views open two fields of inquiry which to some extent overlap. 5  If we assume that under the power to regulate commerce between the states Congress may require the carriage to make some provision for retiring and pensioning their employees, then the contention that various provisions of the act are arbitrary and unreasonable and bear no proper relation to that end must be considered. If any are found which deprive the railroads of their property without due process, we must determine whether the remainder may nevertheless stand.
Broadly, the record presents the question whether a statutory requirement that retired employees shall be paid pensions is regulation of commerce between the states within article 1, 8…
The act is invalid because several of its inseparable provisions contravene the due process of law clause of the Fifth Amendment.

We are of opinion that it is also bad for another reason which goes to the heart of the law, even if it could survive the loss of the unconstitutional features which we have discussed.

The act is not in purpose or effect a regulation of interstate commerce within the meaning of the Constitution.”
- U.S. Supreme Court, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

I hope you find this information helpful in understanding my concerns about the state of our nation.

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: How to Beat the IRS - (Response to your comments)

Sorry for the delay in replying to your comments.

Article I of the Constitution provides adequate means of funding for all authorized government activities, but it needs to be done as specified by the Constitution.

Interest is becoming a problem because of the enormous accumulated debt growing out of the wildly irresponsible deficit spending in recent years, most conspicuously in the Bush and Obama administrations. Bush’s support for the Medicare Part D drug benefit program was unwise and clearly a fiscal debt bomb from the time of its adoption. It has turned out to be far more expensive than the original projections, as has happened with virtually all government spending programs.

As to Social Security and Medicare, whatever “moral argument” there might be is not relevant if these programs are in conflict with the Constitution and unsustainable as well. The Constitution provides no authority for income redistribution schemes. This concept was anathema to the Founders, as was demonstrated by an early proposal in Congress to authorize payment of a special benefit to the widow of a veteran. I believe it was either Thomas Jefferson or John Adams who refused to consider such a proposal, arguing that the Congress had no authority to spend governmental funds in such a manner.

That said, these programs are, as you well know, massive Ponzi schemes, and these schemes are about to collapse of their own weight.

You, as a CPA, should understand better than anyone how actuarially flawed is the financial viability of a program that pays out money to current beneficiaries from current contributions with a worsening demographic relationship of contributors to beneficiaries, and no underlying asset base to support future payments. The system has been a Democratic vote-buying scam from the beginning, and it became dramatically less stable when LBJ merged Social Security inflows with general revenues in the early 60s, and then introduced Medicare to add a huge increase in risk to the future actuarial stability of the system.

Experts have been warning for years that the longer a fix is delayed, the more drastic will be the measures needed to restore even temporary viability to the system. As it stands now the system will collapse of its own weight within the lifetimes of our children. The SSI (disability) program will be unsustainable beyond 2016 as I understand it.

So what is more moral – to infect the very core of the nation’s economy with a rot that will destroy it from within, thereby devastating the entire middle class (as is happening right before our eyes); or to protect the system that produced the U.S. economic miracle so that present and future generations will be able to maintain a system that offers a path for the poor and disadvantaged in society to rise from their condition to enjoy the benefits of education and jobs generated by a growing economy?

As to the Stanton case, (and the Brushaber case as well, to which the Court referred in the Stanton case) – it matters not whether the plaintiffs won or lost their case. Brushaber also received an unfavorable decision in his claim. What is important in relation to the Sixteenth  Amendment is what the court said about that Amendment in its rulings.

In the Brushaber case the Court said:

The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is wholly without foundation…

This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation…

The purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.”

- U.S. Supreme Court, BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

Here is what the Court had to say in the Stanton case:

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the 16th Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view…

The tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,

- U.S. Supreme Court, STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

Chuck this is not my argument, nor is it an attempt on my part to manipulate the facts to support some agenda. I only want the truth. I can see what is happening to our country, and I have learned from extensive study that the root cause of most of our problems as a nation is our failure to adhere strictly to the provisions of one of the most profound and perfect documents ever created in the history of mankind – the United States Constitution. We ignore it at our peril. The examples of this are many, but one of the most obvious is the introduction of a fiat currency in defiance of the explicit prohibition against such in the Constitution. Never in monetary history has a nation with a fiat currency ever succeeded in avoiding self-destruction.

As to the age of the Brushaber and Stanton cases – they were definitive and stand unchallenged and unchanged as to the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment. Yet they are of much more recent vintage than the historic Hylton case from 1796 – perhaps the most thorough and thoughtful analysis of the taxing clauses of the Constitution which has ever been written.

Then there is the historic case of Marbury v. Madison, a case decided in 1803 and written by Chief Justice John Marshall which has provided controlling precedent for over 200 years in several areas of jurisprudence.

Here are several excerpts from the Hylton case:

The great object of the Constitution was, to give Congress a power to lay taxes, adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to observe two rules in imposing them, namely, the rule of uniformity, when they laid duties, imposts, or excises; and the rule of apportionment, according to the census, when they laid any direct tax.
If there are any other species of taxes that are not direct, and not included within the words duties, imposts, or excises, they may be laid by the rule of uniformity, or not; as Congress shall think proper and reasonable. If the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate other taxes than direct taxes, and duties, imposts, and excises, there is great inaccuracy in their language.
If these four species of taxes were all that were meditated, the general power to lay taxes was unnecessary. If it was intended, that Congress should have authority to lay only one of the four above enumerated, to wit, direct taxes, by the rule of apportionment, and the other three by the rule of uniformity, the expressions would have run thus: 'Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes, and duties, imposts, [3 U.S. 171, 174]   and excises; the first shall be laid according to the census; and the three last shall be uniform throughout the United States.' The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposts, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. Duties, imposts, and excises, were enumerated, after the general term taxes, only for the purpose of declaring, that they were to be laid by the rule of uniformity.
I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule.
I believe some taxes may be both direct and indirect at the same time. If so, would Congress be prohibited from laying such a tax, because it is partly a direct tax?
The Constitution evidently contemplated no taxes as direct taxes, but only such as Congress could lay in proportion to the census. The rule of apportionment is only to be adopted in such cases where it can reasonably apply; and the subject taxed, must ever determine the application of the rule.
If it is proposed to tax any specific article by the rule of apportionment, and it would evidently create great inequality and injustice, it is unreasonable to say that the Constitution intended such tax should be laid by that rule…
Apportionment is an operation on states, and involves valuations and assessments, which are arbitrary, and should not be resorted to but in case of necessity.
Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states, and is at once easy, certain, and efficacious. All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes.
A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax.
Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself.
I shall close the discourse with reading a passage or two from Smith's Wealth of Nations.
“The impossibility of taxing people in proportion to their revenue, by any capitation, seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities; the state not knowing how to tax directly and proportionally the revenue of its subjects, endeavours to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which it is supposed in most cases will be neatly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out. (3 Vol. page 331).”
- U.S. Supreme Court, HYLTON v. U S, 3 U.S. 171 (1796)
As to the possibility of my prosecution for filing a correct income tax return in which I state the truth of the constitutional status of my receipts, I feel that I have a moral obligation, once knowing the truth, not to perjure myself by affixing my signature to a statement that I know to be untruthful. I am doing just that if I submit to the intimidation of the IRS tax swindle scheme by certifying that my untaxable receipts are in fact taxable. Furthermore, by participating in the preservation of this scheme by submitting to it, I become thereby complicit in the fraud upon the American people which it represents.
Chuck, I ask you - is this not a duty which our oath of office as naval officers imposes on us?
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So if I am subjected to prosecution by the IRS, I will defend myself as best I can in my own little battle to preserve what the Founders bequeathed to this nation at great sacrifice.
“Is it not a moral imperative and a responsibility of citizenship that we demand of our government and its elected officials and representatives that the government must be in compliance with the Constitution or the very rule of law itself is in jeopardy?”


Here is Pete Hendrickson on this subject:

Educated Americans know that even though it is easily-mistaken as a tax on "all that comes in" (and that such mistakes are deliberately encouraged and viciously exploited by revenue- and power-hungry governments which have designed the tax law to be confusing and to conceal its true nature), the income tax is actually a Constitutionally-harmonious tax of limited application, which has nothing to do with simply earning money and which mandates nothing at all unless one chooses to engage in a narrow class of specialized activities.

BECAUSE THEY ARE EQUIPPED WITH THIS UNIQUELY COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETE knowledge of federal tax law, CtC-educated Americans maintain control of their resources and regulate the excesses of the state. This is just as intended by the Founders, who set the federal tax structure up to encourage exactly that control-- administered by individual, grown-up Americans unilaterally looking after their own interests and the rule of law in exactly this way.

It is that knowledge and control that allows American grown-ups like James G. and Travis and Angie Scott-- whose victories upholding the rule of law against arrogant state efforts to impose inapplicable mandates on them are added this week to the mountain of others by which they have been preceded-- to effectively rebut all allegations of any federal income tax liability, Social Security and Medicare taxes included, and reclaim control over the disposition of their property:

Every single American can and should be doing the same. Contrary to the deeply-rooted mythology cluttering the minds of most Americans-- even those otherwise well-versed in understanding of original intent and of other areas of the Constitution as drafted and as amended-- there is no coercive federal tax on individual Americans.

The Founders had no tolerance for such demented, illiberal notions, and allowed no such tax.

Our grandparents' generation was no more moronic than the Founders in this regard. They, too, never allowed for such a tax-- absurd, government-promoted mythology to the contrary notwithstanding. CtC-educated Americans know all this, having studied in-depth information and authority on every aspect of the federal tax structure, and having put that knowledge into practice personally for years now.

MORE, THESE EDUCATED AMERICANS KNOW that like the income tax overall, the Obamacare "individual mandate" and penalty only apply to folks who, in any given year, receive more than the exemption amount of the specialized kind of gains that qualify as "income" within the context of the tax. Thus, CtC-educated Americans know that the mandate and penalty simply don't apply to most of them, and how to stop it from being imposed on them unless they choose to switch from their untaxed economic activities to the narrow variety subject to the tax.

From: XXXX
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: How to Beat the IRS - Supplemental Comments

This is an interesting conversation with Steve.  Assuming you are correct, how is the government going to pay for interest and military expenses which I think are mandated by the constitution.  You also have the moral argument about paying Social Security and Medicare.  Many people in old age have no other support for their daily living expenses and medical expenses.  

You cite the Stanton v Baltic Mining Case.  This case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1916, almost 100 years ago.  Stanton lost the case.  Move on.  There are times where you might not agree with the Supreme Court, but in our system of government they have the final say.  

In 2013 you would have a lot more support if you wanted Congress to limit the complexity of the current IRS regulations.  As a tax professional I deal with the complexity all the time.  

Please forward my e-mail to Steve.  I do not have his e-mail address.

FYI – Steve is a Navy squadron-mate and retired American Airlines captain who is a Republican state legislator in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: How to Beat the IRS (audio archive on Freedom's Radio)


To answer your question – CtC exposes the fact that the income tax is nothing more than an excise on government-connected receipts or on the exercise of a federal privilege. The Supreme Court (in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co;Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.; and Peck v. Lowe and other decisions) explicitly affirmed this. Look it up – it’s right there.

A tax on all private sector receipts would fail the constitutional test on at least three counts:

1. It would be an unapportioned direct tax;

2. It would reflect an incorrect application of the concept of “income” (revenues minus costs), particularly as related to the exchange of labor for something else;

{In other words, a direct tax on “all that comes in” implies that the time and skill employed in labor has no value, a view which has been explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court  [Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (1883) and Coppage v. Kansas (1915)]}.

3. It would interfere with the free exercise of economic and personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

For example, it is impossible to enforce an unapportioned direct tax without gross violations of the fourth and fifth amendments. The problems associated with capitations are spelled out by Adam Smith in his treatise on “capitations”in “Wealth of Nations” and that is the reason this very word was used by the Founders in Article I Section 9 of the Constitution.

Finally, as Peter Hendrickson points out in CtC, the Supreme Court underscored the essence of the distinction between direct and indirect taxes in Knowlton v. Moore (1900) as follows, “quoting the long-standing official French definitions as helpfully illustrative of the distinctions drawn in the United States Constitution” :

“Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”

So a CtC-educated return uses a Form 4852 to rebut any allegations by third parties that private sector earnings qualify as taxable income, and thereby corrects the information on these information returns implying otherwise. Any other receipts not reported by a third party which are of a private character are simply none of their business.

I believe that Social Security payments constitute federally-connected receipts, so they will be reported as income, but they will be entirely offset by allowable deductions.

A signature attesting, under penalty of perjury, to anything other than this treatment as being true and correct would, as Pete stated, be a certification of something that is not true (i.e. a false statement).

The bottom line is that the educated return is very simple to complete. No complicated schedules are required.

Does this answer your question?

I had to read CtC and its companion “Your Grandpa Was Not a Moron” three times to reach a complete grasp and level of comfort with these concepts, given a personal history of over 50 years of filing incorrect income tax returns.

The drafters of the IRC and the authors of IRS publications use custom statutorily-fixed definitions (legal “terms of art”) for words such as “employee”, “employer”, “wages”, “trade or business”, “state”, “United States” and “taxable” in an exceedingly clever scheme to create the impression that these words carry their common meanings and therefore result in tax liability when in fact no such liability exists. For example – when used in Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) the words “trade or business” mean “exercising the functions of a public office”.

This is too profoundly at variance with what we have been tricked into believing for so long to explain completely in a short message. I urge you to read CtC for a better grasp of the deception employed by the government to carry out the income tax fraud.

And don’t be misled by such luminaries as Mark Levin,  Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, or even Rand Paul. They do not understand what the Constitution says. They are all talking about a “Flat Tax” or a “Fair Tax”. None of these taxes are constitutional.

The options spelled out in Article I of the Constitution are a direct tax with apportionment (which was done several times early in our history) or indirect taxes of various types subject to the requirement of uniformity. That’s it.


From: XXXX 
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: How to Beat the IRS (audio archive on Freedom's Radio)

OK.  I'm not sure how you are "beating the IRS" but I guess, somehow, you are.  Are you sending them any less than you would without CtC?  BTW, I suggest that you also file a 2013.


On Sep 21, 2013, at 4:31 PM, David LaRocque wrote:


CtC does not recommend not filing, but rather to file correctly by rebutting false representations made by others (W-2s and 1099s) as to the taxable status of payments or gains received.

I intend to file a CtC-educated correct return for 2012 on October 15. I will also file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 to obtain refunds of taxes paid in those years.


From: XXXX 
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: How to Beat the IRS (audio archive on Freedom's Radio)

Dave —

How long have you not been filing your annual income taxes?  


On Sep 21, 2013, at 12:50 PM, David LaRocque wrote:

IRS Information Technology Does Not Meet Legal ‘Rules of Evidence’ Requirements

How to Beat the IRS
(audio archive on Freedom's Radio)

“Deficiencies remain concerning (1) material weaknesses in internal control over… information security, (2) a significant deficiency in its internal control over tax refund disbursements, (3) a noncompliance with the law concerning the timely release of tax liens, and (4) financial management systems’ lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements.”

- GAO Audit Report, IRS Fiscal Years 2010-2011

This program is worth listening to:

On the calendar, click on the program for Thursday, September 19, 2013, then click on the link in blue to activate the player. Scroll to the 30 minute point to bypass introductory stuff. The speaker is introduced as “Mr. Smith”, but he is really Red Beckman, who appears regularly on “Walls in Your Mind” on BlogTalkRadio (see below from a recent email).

Red Beckman worked with Bill Benson in performing the research that proved that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

In this presentation on Freedom’s Radio, Red explains how the computer-generated transcripts introduced into evidence by the IRS at due process hearings or in Tax Court, do not, according to repeated  General Accounting Office reports, meet required legal standards for accuracy, trustworthiness, reliability, and data security. Accordingly, by objecting to these IRS transcripts and having them disallowed as evidence of record, a defendant will have removed the only evidence the IRS can present, thereby effectively destroying the IRS case.

Go to the 55 minute point on the recording to hear Red describe exactly how this objection should be made.

Here are several links to examples of GAO reports describing the many problems with the IRS information technology system. As Red explains, IRS computers are not capable of automatic calculation of individual income tax data. All such calculations are made by hand by IRS agents and the results manually entered into IRS computers. This brings into sharp focus the well-known observation that no two IRS agents are likely to achieve the same result on any set of input data for an individual income tax return.


FINANCIAL AUDIT – IRS’s Fiscal Years 2011 and 2010 Financial Statements

What GAO Found

“In GAO’s opinion, IRS’s fiscal years 2011 and 2010 financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects.

However, serious internal control and financial management systems deficiencies continued to make it necessary for IRS to use resource-intensive compensating processes to prepare its balance sheet. Because of these and other internal control, compliance, and system-related deficiencies, IRS did not, in GAO’s opinion, maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2011, and thus did not have reasonable assurance that losses and misstatements material to the financial statements would be prevented or detected and corrected timely.

During fiscal year 2011, IRS continued to make strides in addressing its deficiencies in internal control. For example, to address its information security
deficiencies, IRS formed cross-functional working groups to identify and remediate specific at-risk information security control areas and made  improvements in several system-level information security controls.

However, deficiencies remain concerning (1) material weaknesses in internal control over unpaid tax assessments and information security, (2) a significant deficiency in its internal control over tax refund disbursements, (3) a noncompliance with the law concerning the timely release of tax liens, and (4) financial management systems’ lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements. The continuing material weakness in internal control over unpaid tax assessments results primarily from IRS’s reliance on financial management systems that do not substantially comply with FFMIA requirements and that affect IRS’s ability to produce reliable financial statements without significant compensating procedures.

IRS’s continued material weakness in information security controls limit IRS’s ability to provide reasonable assurance that (1) the financial statements are fairly presented; (2) financial management information relied on to support day-to-day decision making is current, complete, and accurate; and (3) proprietary information processed by these automated systems is appropriately safeguarded. These issues increase the risk of inappropriate access, alteration, or abuse of proprietary IRS programs
and electronic data and taxpayer information.

Further, during fiscal year 2011, IRS continued to face management challenges in developing and institutionalizing the use of financial management information, specifically cost- and revenue-based, outcome oriented performance information, to assist it in making operational decisions and measuring the effectiveness of its programs.

Sustained management efforts will be necessary to build on the progress made to date and to fully address IRS’s remaining internal control, compliance, and systems deficiencies and remaining financial management challenges.”


“Also in fiscal year 2007, IRS continued to have a material weakness in internal control over information security. In particular, it had deficiencies in its controls over access to the automated systems and software applications it relies upon to process its financial transactions, produce its internal and external financial reports, and safeguard related sensitive infiltrations. As result, IRS was limited in its ability to provide reasonable assurance that (1) its financial statements, taken as a whole, were fairly presented; (2) the financial information IRS relied on to make decisions on a daily basis was accurate, complete, and timely, and (3) proprietary financial and taxpayer information was appropriately safeguarded.”


Information on Red Beckman:

What Matters More, The Power to Elect or
the Authority to Hold Bad Politicians Accountable?
If The People realized that the authority delegated to government is but a fraction of the authority held and reserved by The People, and they realized that The People could set up People’s Boards of Government Review to oversee ALL government activity for the purpose of holding Elected, Appointed and Commissioned government actors accountable to their Oaths of Office, then is it possible that the solution has always been in the hands of The People? 

Terry Dodd, Red Beckman and Dr. Kate
invite you to listen in, chat and call in.

Show Link for this show: (Thursday night, 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern, 7 to 9 p.m. Mountain)
CALL IN NUMBER: 347-838-9176

Sign in and Join us in the online chat tonight!


1 comment:

Dan said...

According to Larry Becraft we are based ON PAPER and ON CREDIT Today!
So THE UNITED STATES, INC. should FULLY SUPPORT each of us to go out and hand a piece of paper to the seller of items or services and a Confirmation of Credit with a Hand Shake for us doing transactions!
Thus, the IRS CAN NOT Tax us in any matter!