Discover more from Tax Court Help
Springer's Supreme Court Petition, Part IV, PRA and Form 1040
Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley are political prisoners serving 15 year sentences for "tax crimes." I urge you to support them both spiritually and financially. An address for donations appears at the end of this post.
VII. THE PANEL DECISION HOLDING THAT THE PRA DOES NOT APPLY TO PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH FAILING TO FILE A TAX RETURN FORM CONFLICTS WITH DOLE v. UNITED STEELWORKERS, 494 U.S. 26, 32-33 (1990)
The Panel holds Tax Return Forms are not subject to the PRA. App. A-9 In Dole, this Court explained "typical information collection requests include tax forms." Id. at 33. This Court explained "the public is protected under the [PRA] from paperwork reductions not issued in compliance with the Act." Id. at 40. The PRA "allows the public, by refusing to answer these information collection requests, to help control 'outlaw' forms." Id. at n.6. "Members of the public may ignore it without risk of penalty." Id.
The Panel held that the PRA does not apply to tax return forms. App. A-9.
The 1980 PRA at 44 U.S.C. Sec. 351 mandates:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to an agency..."
Each Count alleges Petitioner willfully failed to provide tax information to the SOTT on Form 1040. App. JJ. 1995's version reads:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information..."
The Panel's version of this section removes the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" and begins with "[N]o person...." App. A-8. The Panel's omission guts the public protection and intent of Congress. When Congress begins a law "with the words 'notwithstanding' any other provision of law", such language is a "bar" and depriving." Long Isl. R. Co. v. Aberdeen & Rock R. Co., 439 U.S. 1, 6(1978) (Congress deprived the Commission of even....limited authority...with the words 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'")
"[n]ot withstanding any other provision of law" "evinces Congressional intent to pre-empt any law Federal or State." U.S. v. Vasquex-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1999). The Panel held that §§ 6012 and 7203 withstand the public protection. App. A-8.
Many Circuits have held tax laws withstand, or are exempt from, the public protection but have arrived at varying opinions on what laws withstand the PRA. See U.S. v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990) (Sec. 6012 and 7203); U.S. v. Gross, 626 F.3d 289, 295(6th Cir. 2010) (adding Sec. 6011). Salberg v. U.S., 969 F.2d 379, 384 (7th Cir. 1992) (Sec. 7203); U.S. v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094 (7th Cir. 2007) (excluding tax evasion and holding "return" not defined); U.S. v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1359(9th Cir. 1991) (Sec. 6012 and 7203); U.S. v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699(11th Cir. 1992) (Sec. 6012 only); U.S. v. Kerwin, 945 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1992) (Per curiam)(no specified section).
In contrast, the Tenth Circuit in Collins held the PRA was applicable to Sec. 7201 tax evasion "including Federal Income Tax Returns within the category of information collection requests under the Act." 920 F.2d at 630 (n.12); cited to Gross, 626 F.3d at 295(n.5). The Tenth Circuit had previously rejected the "statutory origin theory" applying the PRA to Tax Return Forms. Dawes, 951 F.2d at 1192
In U.S. v. Chisum, the Court held "Tax Forms are covered by the PRA" citing Dole, 494 U.S. at 33. 502 F.3d 1237, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 2007). In Springer, the Tenth Circuit specifically directed Petitioner, two months before trial, that the PRA applied to Tax Return Forms like 1040. 580 F.3d at 1144. In Lewis v. CIR, the Tenth Circuit applied the PRA to both the 1980 and 1995 public protection. 523 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2008). Petitioner was even told he could only raise the PRA as a defense. Springer, 231 F.Appx. 793, 795-799 (10th Cir. 2007). Now, the Panel suggests these positions are all wrong and the PRA only applies to false returns. App. A-9. Both Collins and Chisum rejected the false return's protection from penalties. 502 F.3d at 1244 citing Collins, 920 F.2d at 630 (n.13).
The Panel's suggestion that "faulty information on a non-compliant IRS Form", App. A-9, is protected from penalties, conflicts with U.S. v. Weiss, 914 F.2d 1514, 1520-22(2nd Cir. 1990), holding the PRA does not apply to a person "who files information which is false." The Tenth Circuit in Dawes held "as long as the 1040 Form complies nothing more is required." 951 F.2d at 1192. See also U.S. v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir. 1992).
Recently, the Eighth Circuit in U.S. v. Cavins, 543 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2008), reaffirmed its commitment to Dawes:
"If the Form 1040 displays the control number required by Sec. 3512 'nothing more is required.'"
Dole included Tax Return Forms within the category of information collection requests, not exempted them. 494 U.S. at 40(n.7); See also Mackenzie Med. v. Heavitt, 506 F.3d 341, 350(4th Cir. 2007) (explaining how request is "exempt" under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3518). Tax Return Forms are not listed in Sec. 3518. GAO found Treasury Forms were not exempt. App. TT-75
(i) The Panel decision omits the phrase "issued in accordance with the [PRA]..."
The Panel replaced the words "issued in accordance with the [PRA]..." with a bare indefinite ellipsis "..." App. A-8. This is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the statute. The test is not just whether the Form 1040 displays any OMB control number, but that the number be "issued in accordance with" the PRA. The Panel's claim that Petitioner identified no defect, App. A-8, ignores the Appeal itself and the many times Petitioner has sought a merits based ruling on his PRA claims. See Motion to Dismiss, App. KK, (Form 1040 violates 44 U.S.C. Secs. 3504(c), 3507, and 3512(1980) and Secs. 3506(c)(1)(B)(i, ii, iii)(I,II, III, IV, V, VI), 3507, and 3512(a)(1) and (2). App. U-8. Besides, the public protection can be raised at "any time." See Sec. 3512(b). Chisum, 502 F.3d at 1243-44. Petitioner sought protection 3 times. See Springer, 447 F. Supp. 2d at 1238; Springer, 231 F. Appx. at 793-799; and Springer, 580 F.3d at 1143-44. Cert Denied.
The Tax Return Form 1040 does not contain any notice that response is mandatory, it indicates nothing in regard to any clearance requirements under Sec. 3507, no burden estimate appears anywhere, no citation to any provision of law requiring the collection, and there are no "accompanying instructions." There is no statement that a person is not subject to penalty for failing to provide or comply with the Tax Return Form unless it displays a "valid" OMB control number. App. LL.
The Courts have equally disqualified Form 1040 from any expiration date obligation. See Collins, infra, and Salberge, infra. The SOTT applied for approval. App. MM. But the certification and the Form do not match up. OMB requires Ten Standards. App. TT-21. None of them appear on Tax Return Form 1040. App. LL. See also 5 CFR Sec. 1320.8(b)(3) mandates. App. U-10.
VIII. THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE TAX RETURN FORM IS NOT "DIVORCED" FROM FORM 1040, AS THE PANEL HOLDS, BUT IS INEXORABLY LINKED.
The Panel’s decision that the "obligation to file a return" does not arise "out of Form 1040" in denying the merits of Petitioner's PRA good faith and complete defense claims, conflicts with the direct words of the indictment, jury instructions, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6011, 26 CFR Sec.1.6011-1(a), the PRA of 1980 and 1995, and numerous decisions on the meaning of "return." App. A-9. The Panel's conclusion "an actual Form 1040 may not even be necessary to comply with the statutory obligations", App. A-9, is contrary to the SOTT's Treas. Reg. 26 CFR Sec. 1.6011-1(a)(2000-2011) which directs:
"Every person subject to any tax...under Subtitle A of the Code, SHALL make such returns...as are REQUIRED by the regulations in this chapter. The Return...SHALL include therein the information required by the applicable REGULATIONS AND FORMS."
Not only does the SOTT "Marry" the Form 1040 to the requirement to file a Tax Return Form, the Grand Jury alleged "Form 1040" and "United States Individual Income Tax Return" as the basis in all Six Counts of the Indictment. App. JJ (alleging "required by law").
In its Two Bills of Particulars the Prosecution identified Secs. 6011 and 6012, App. PP-2, and Treas. Regs. Secs. 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-1. App. QQ-3. Section 6011 requires every person liable make a return according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the SOTT. Otte, 419 U.S. at 52; Lane-Wells, 321 U.S. at 223; Galletti, 541 U.S. at 122
26 CFR Sec. 601.103(a) requires taxpayers "file a prescribed form of return." Id. Section 601.104(a) prescribes "Returns MUST be made on the Form prescribed by the [SOTT]." App. U-16. See also Sullivan, 274 U.S. at 264 ("the form of return provided") and at 263 ("to write any word upon the government blank"). IRS certifies this to OMB. App. MM.
"The provision of information in 1040 is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes." Collins, 920 F.2d at 630 (n.13). "It’s through the Form 1040 the government obtains all the tax information it requires." Dawes, 951 F.2d at 1192-93. 26 CFR Sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6) (1990 through 2012) labeled "Form of Return" and specifically directs "Form 1040 is prescribed." App. U-12. Petitioner was told a year after June 3, 2005 institutional referral for years 2000 through 2004, "the [SOTT] and IRS have clear authority to impose criminal and civil penalties related to Form 1040." App. CC, Springer v. U.S., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1238(N.D. Ok. 2006), affirmed, 231 F. Appx. 793 (10th Cir. 2007); Cert denied 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1093 (2008).
The Trial Court instructed the Jury that Form 1040 did not violate the PRA. App. L-5. The Panel decision conflicts with the entire case, explaining:
"the obligation to file a tax return and the criminalization of willful failure to do so represent statutory mandates DIVORCED from Form 1040." App. A-9
Form 1040 is inexorably linked, not divorced from any obligation to file a tax return. App. K-15; L-7
IX. JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE LAWS RELATED TO INTERNAL REVENUE WAS FOR ONLY CALENDAR YEARS 2000 THROUGH 2004.
After LaSalle, Congress enacted the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, P.L. 77-248, 96 Stat. 324, amending 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7602 and 7609. Section 333(d)[7602(d)] provides "Justice Department referral in effect." Congress directed "each taxable period...and each tax imposed by a separate chapter of this title shall be treated separately." See 7602(d)(3), App. U-5. Other aspects of LaSalle such as "institutional commitment" and gathering evidence for some other law enforcement entity have not changed. U.S. v. Rineheart, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (W.D.Ok. 2008), citing LaSalle and Pickel v. U.S., 746 F.2d 176 (3rd Cir. 1984); see also U.S. v. Krauth, 769 F.2d 473, 479(n.3)(8th Cir. 1985).
The Panel found that the referral occurred on June 3, 2005. App. A-10. The letter clearly identifies calendar year or period "2000 through 2004". App. BB-1. Count One exceeds this time period by asserting a conspiracy from 2000 through 2009. App. JJ-2. Count four alleges for "2005". App. JJ-11. The Trial Court at sentencing expanded its jurisdiction to "assess" restitution back to 1990 through 2007. App. Q-2 See Sec. 6201(a)(4). App. U-9. The Court's adding tax liability from Stilley to Petitioner was likewise without jurisdiction as no liability of Stilley was referred. App. DD-1
Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction due to no IRDs existing, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Count One and four as both were outside "2000 through 2004" and the same holds true in regard to the restitution imposed under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6201(a)(4)(2010). The presumption is against jurisdiction. Kokkonen v Guardian Life, 511 U.S. 375, 377. No evidence contained in the June 3, 2005, letter overrides the presumption regarding years outside the institutional referral letter.
Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.
Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks): _________ Springer 5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135
Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages): Lindsey Springer, 02580-063 FCI Big Spring 1900 Simler Ave Big Spring, TX 79720
Thanks, Lindsey & Family