GAO (Government accounting office) with the PRA on the IRS forms and letters.

By William Greene

I think it is risky business to point to the fact that the IRS is breaking some law, as we continue to stand up for the constitution by saying “Show Me the Law,” so it nice to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) standing up there to do it for us for a change.

However, as I’ve tried to explain in the past, I think they need help though and believe that an answer might come from a “Citizens Grand Jury.” Yet, I suspect that there will be someone out here who will find some kind of error in my perception, and seek to set the record straight.

That being said, if you take the time to look at the GAO report, you'll find that the GAO reviewed a selection of IRS forms, and page 33, Table 4 of that report shows that, of the 474 approved forms, 0 (0%) had a “missing or incorrect” OMB number, 0 (0%) had a missing expiration date, and although the GAO reported that of the 474 forms reviewed 202 (43%) were "missing one or more notices", on page 34 the GAO report explains that "most of the agency’s noncompliance resulted from forms that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be collected. OMB regulations … state that agencies are to cite the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a benefit … or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions imposed for failure to respond).”

In fact, the issue presented in the GAO report (again page 34) is that “… the following typical PRA notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:

We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws

of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.”

The IRS’s justification for the missing “specific tax law requiring information to be reported” was give in the GAO report (again page 34) where “… the IRS Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS’s burden estimation methodology increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to include the time required to read the law.”

WOW! The IRS's Justification for not stating the law is that it would be a "burden" because we might actually be "required to read the law." Additionally, although the GAO report which IRS officials espoused the notion that “… that citing the “Internal Revenue laws of the United States” provided adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to cite a specific law authorizing the collection…”, the GAO report reported despite such espoused notion, “… Nonetheless, the regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may not know what law is associated with the information requested.”

And that being said, once again, I think it is risky business to point to the fact that the IRS is breaking some law, as we stand up for the constitution by saying “Show Me the Law,” so it nice to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) standing up there to do it for us for a change. I mean, I say this kind of tongue and cheek though, because the courts have a history of siding with the IRS, holding that "Congress did not enact the PRA’s public protection provision to allow OMB to abrogate any duty imposed by Congress." See United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992). Also, Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990).

Thus, I ask the reader to not get too excided over the fact that the GAO report indicates that the IRS is violating the law, for as noted on page 24a (United States v. Clayton, (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), cert. denied, case no. 07-904 (April 14, 2008) “… those courts that have examined the issue post-1995 have decided that the PRA does not invalidate the statutory requirement to file tax returns. Citing United States v. Ouwenga, 173 F. App’x 411, 417 (6th Cir. 2006); Alford v. United States, No. 3:02-CV-1719-M, 2002 WL 31415800 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2002); United States v. Foster, No. CRIM.97-700103JMRRLE, 1997 WL 685371 (D. Minn. May 27, 1997).

I mean, even though the courts of the past have implied that it is their duty to correctly interpret even the Acts of Congress in the context of the Constitution, as well as to enforce the Acts of the Congress that are deemed constitutional, when it comes to the IRS the modern day courts themselves also have a history of turning away from Acts passed unanimously by the Continental Congress, to kind of pick and choose, even when the People act to peaceably procure relief, as evidenced by WTP’s historic suit which was dismissed and the decision upon appeal was to treat the subject of an Acts of Congress as a “debate.” See We the People Found. v. United States, 485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007), with rehearing en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007), certiorari denied (January 7, 2008), and certiorari denied without comment on February 25, 2008.

Moreover, when it comes to the IRS, the modern day courts themselves also have a history of turning away from Acts of Congress, to kind of pick and choose even ignore Causes of Action like that of the that IRS Officials being involved in the suppression of evidence submitted to the Senate Finance Committee (Exhibit 3), following which IRS Officials publicly announced that WTP Petitions were being responded to with enforcement actions (Exhibit 4). As such, when I ask the reader to not get too excided over the fact that the GAO report indicates that the IRS is violating the law, I pray that the above will perhaps make my statement that “I think they need help though and believe that an answer might come from a “Citizens Grand Jury” a bit clearer.