Challenge to IRS: Does OMB apply? US V Springer case.

US V Springer. 2010.


On May 2nd, Lindsey Springer wrote:
" I realize there are many people who simply do not have time to understand the issues I am raising. I will herein provide a more simple understanding of the issues.

"For most of you, only 2 issues I am raising matter. The first has to do with Form 1040 and whether that form or any other tax form are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Subsidiary to this question is whether the Form 1040 complies. If it does not, then you cannot be penalized for anything that involves a failure to file such forms.

"The Tax Division has been propagandizing everything it can to convince the public that the Form 1040 and the requirement to same is not subject to the PRA. Every United States Circuit Court who has addressed the issue has repeatedly said Form 1040 MUST comply. There are a few cases in passing that said the law which requires use of the Secretary’s tax forms withstands the public protection provision at Title 44 Section 3512.

"Section 3512 begins "Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty...". Those few cases referenced above are completely in opposition to the Supreme Court and 10th Circuit holdings on the subject of the PRA.

"At my trial, for example, the Tax Division argued before the jury that although the Dole decision in 1990 by the Supreme Court said "tax forms" were "typical" information collection requests subject to the PRA, and that no where in the Dole decision was the Form 1040 ever specifically mentioned. That argument will not withstand scrutiny at the 10th Circuit,. The 10th Circuit has repeatedly told the Tax Division that Form 1040 is subject to the PRA. The Tax Division continues to tell the public my PRA claims are "legalistic gibberish".

"The Tax Division told judge Friot on May 6 2010 that I have been repeatedly told numerous times that my specific PRA claims are frivolous and meritless. The last time Tax Division made that argument in the 10th Circuit, they were told by the 10th Circuit for the 1st time ever, they were making a frivolous argument to that court. The frivolous argument found by the 10th Circuit, that Tax Division maintains, was that they(10th Circuit) had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims. Again, the 10th circuit told the Tax Division that their claim was false.

"The reason why the Tax Divisions continues to maintain the argument they made in Springer v. the Commissioner, 08-9004 is because at the time I was indicted, the 10th Circuit had not entered it’s published decision extending from 08-9004. That decision came out 8-31-09. Recently, the 10th Circuit ordered the Tax Division to address each issue in my motion for release from jail pending appeal on or before May 19,2010.

"In particular, the 3rd issue I raised in the 10th Circuit demands that they explain why they told Judge Friot the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return withstands Section 3512 and PRA. The 10th Circuit has held for over 19 years that the Form 1040 MUST comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act or no person can be subject to any penalty including criminal for any claim inexorably linked to failing to file a Form 1040 tax return. If there is any doubt at this point by anyone as to whether the requirement to pay a tax to the Secretary has any independent basis than from a Form 1040, the Tax Division in it’s Bill of Particulars left no room to question this proposition. While describing the requirement by law to file the Form 1040 tax return, they informed the Court and me that Title 26 Section 6151 was their basis and theory for my failure to pay a tax. Anyone who reads Section 6151 will no doubt recognize that you are only required to pay a tax that you show is owed UPON the requirement to file a Form 1040 tax return.

"I have tried to get this relief under the Paperwork Reduction Act for many years. Each time I get closer to getting it as in 2007, the 10th Circuit told me I can only raise the PRA as a defense and not on the offense. If the Form 1004 was not subject to the PRA, they would have affirmed Judge Eagan on her erroneous claim the requirement to file was not subject to the PRA. In 2009, the 10th Circuit said in a published opinion, I raise difficult issues between the tax code and the PRA. They also said the Tax division made a frivolous argument when they argued to the 10th Circuit that the 10th circuit had ruled on the merits of my PRA claims which they informed the Tax Division again, they had not EVER made any such ruling.

"I know it has been a long and difficult time to get these PRA issues ruled upon on their merits by the 10th Circuit and I believe that time is now here.

"The second issue is what the impact should be on the revelation by the Tax Division that since 2000, there has been no delegates of the Secretary of Treasury authorized by law to act outside of the District of Columbia in the enforcement for administration for the Internal Revenue laws.

"In my case the Tax Division admits those offices or districts simply no longer exist. There are now 4 cases in the 10th Circuit to which I am prosecuting or defending. "


Many times I’ve wondered which would be better for me and my family and my mission-a not guilty verdict, which was certain to have been the result without Judge Friot threatening the jury. He had previously found certain "facts" in regard to the PRA and Form 1040 "I have found the From 1040 does not and did not violate the PRA"; or a ruling by the 10th Circuit finally unequivocally telling the public Form 1040 violates the PRA and must comply to the PRA. The 10th Circuit has repeatedly stated both without ever finding what the violations were. In Lewis, the 10th circuit 2008 allowed the unchallenged non-accompanying instruction booklet to save the Form 1040 violations. And in passing stated Mr. Lewis did not challenge the instructions.

The Tax Division told the 10th Circuit last Wednesday that their argument of the PRA protection against all charges against me was that I was wrong because the phrase "tax forms" as announced by the Supreme Court in Dole v. United Steelworkers(1990) was subject to the PRA while a "tax return" was not. So, to put this into perspective the requirement to file a tax form is subject to the PRA while the requirement to file a tax return is not protected by the PRA.??

After trying each of these phrases over and over again, I have come to the conclusion the TAX Division has gone simply nuts. Ask yourself why would they tell the 10th Circuit something preposterous intentionally. If they are correct, then how would anyone have ever known that the requirement to file a tax return was different than a requirement to file a tax form. The "Form 1040 us individual income tax return" uses both terms in it’s heading. The reason the tax Division made this erroneous claim was because their other 3 previous intentions failed miserably. First, the statutory mandate theory ran into the PRA mandate by the law, which is not a theory. Second, the Form 1040 was argued to purportedly comply and is clearly false simply making the comparison between the Form 1040 and the law and regulations. Third, the instruction accompanying Form 1040 purportedly satisfies the PRA mandate is simply not sustainable. These three now aborted propositions that the tax division dismissed have given birth to their latest position that somehow a requirement to file a tax return is not subject to the PRA protection while the requirement to file a tax form is subject to the PRA.

Besides the obvious problem that the face of the Form 1040 contains both the term Form and return, it creates even greater problem created by this new song and dance.

If return is not defined, and it’s not, then how would anyone know what that term means in Federal law? Congress settled this problem by directing the Secretary by regulation to provide the form and made it the duty of every person to use that specified form. The Tax Division think tank certainly was aware that the supreme court in commissioner v. Lane wells,321 US 219(1944), and 26 CFR 601.105, and even in the tax Divisions bill of particulars which they provided Title 26 Section 6011 and 26 CFR 1.6011 and 1.6012. They also admit the return is to be "filed" and that such filing requires a form to satisfy.

I understand many of you are just now starting to realize to put the dots together regarding why the PRA is not only so important but has caused the United States Tax Division to make Federal law look like it is only designed to ensnare or entrap citizens by being made so complicated no one could understand it. Fortunately for each of us, under criminal statutes the law is to be strictly construed and the Tax Division has virtually no hope that strictly construing the word "return" will exclude the term "form" from it’s meaning. I just thought I would clarify this for you since those who do not want you to understand it and their continued attempt to