Answer to IRS Notice CP 71C

Department of Treasury

Internal Revenue

P.O. Box 480

Holtsville, NY    11742-0480

Re: CP 71C

Tax Form 1040A

Tax year  2000, 2001, 2002

Form CVL PEN

Tax year 2003

The following is a repeat of the letter sent to your office December 16, 2011 and in response to your letters currently received concerning the above information.  Having studied the tax laws and the limited authority of the federal government, under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the United States Constitution, which includes your agency, and knowing my status as a resident and citizen of the State of Utah, I am under no legal obligation to file the Form 1040A or pay any penalties associated with such forms.

I have informed several Internal Revenue offices and officers, that I am not an employee for the United States government in any capacity.  I do not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States federal government.  I receive no privileges from the United States federal government that are considered “taxable” activities.  I have never applied for or received any licenses from the United States federal government.

Let me restate that my conclusions are based upon decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore incorporate the admonition contained therein.  Also certain definitions found in Title 26 laws and regulations.  Internal Revenue Rulings by IR Handbook 4.2, Chapter 7: 7.2.9.8 (1)(05-14-99); “Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”

“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court … takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.” (Internal Revenue Service (www.irs.gov/bus_info/tax_pro/)

“The lawful right (natural right, not a privilege) “to pursue any ‘lawful’ (not legal) business or vocation, . . .”  Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 757, confirmed by Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589

Adair v. U.S., 208 U.S. 161,172

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 471

Lucas v. Forty-forth Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 736-737 [1964]

Adair v. U.S., 208 U.S. 161,173 [1907]

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 545 [1922]

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 [1896]

Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453 at 456

The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 [1825]

“There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free government; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations.” Loan Associates v. Topeka, 20 Wallace 655; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487; United States v. Lopez, S. Ct., No. 93-1260

For Internal Revenue and withholding purposes, an “employee” is defined under the following:

26 CFR part 31 §3121(d)-1

26 CFR Part 31 § 3401(c)-1

Federal Register 1943 at page 12267, § 404.104

Each of these sections confirm that the relationship must be a “legal” one, that is one that is “created by law”.  (See Black’s Law Dictionary)

Under the principle of “delegation of authority”,which is fundamental to the United States Constitution and this Republic, there has been NO delegation of authority from the genesis to any Internal Revenue employee to ask for or take my property.

“The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is coextensive with sovereignty.” [Curry vs. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357; See also, 26 R.C.L., Taxation (1920), 12. Power of Taxation Inherent in Sovereignty]

“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission. . . .  All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.” [M'Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 429 [1819]; reaffirmed in Shaffer vs. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 51 [1919]; Reaffirmed and expanded in, State Tax Commission of Utah vs. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 [1942]; Hale vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 74,75 (1906)]

For purposes of “liability” and therefore being “subject to” the income tax, Title 26 imposes an income tax upon 14th Amendment “citizens”.  Those are “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”  Section 1.1-1 of the Treasury Regulations “. . . imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States . . .” and section 1.1-c of the Treasury Regulations defines a “citizen” as:  “Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.”

A fundamental principle of our Republic is that by birth, all are sovereigns.  They are “sovereigns without subjects.”   In the Constitution the word “subject” appears only once and with it the identifier “foreigners”. The title of “subject” can also be attached to people who by their own consent or agreement (contract) enter into a “privileged” occupation (by election or employment) or reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the government. (Resident of D.C. or territory controlled by the United States government.

There is also the principle of federal “territorial” jurisdiction, this is found in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the United States Constitution which in part states;  “To exercise exclusive Legislation … over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State …”, to which the Court said;  `The principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue through today. If jurisdiction is not vested in the United States pursuant to statute, their is no jurisdiction.”  Adams v. US, 319 US 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122 (1943)

“Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.”  Title 40 Section 255  (See the complete Interdepartmental report to Congress on federal jurisdiction within the States 1956 – 1957.)

See also:

New Orleans v United States, 35 US (10 Peters) 662 (1836)

Pollard v Hagan, 44 US (3 How) 212 (1845)

17 Johns 225, at 233 (N. Y, 1819)

“The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means for Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction–by State consent under Article 1, Section 8. Clause 17…. [T]he Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this model is not pursued. no transfer of jurisdiction can take place.” (p. 41)

“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1)pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent. or (2) unless the Federal government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal function.” (p. 45)

“The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State.” (p. 46)  (Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States. Part II)

I affirm that the preceding information and facts are to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate.

By mailing your notices via the United States Postal Service, you have stated that you have facts to support a different conclusion than presented here.  So if you have “facts” to the contrary, I would welcome this information.  I am not interested in opinions, only facts.  Under the rules of the Freedom of Information Act I am requesting those facts.  They must show that I am [1] subject to the “sovereign” authority of the federal United States government. [2] That my occupation during the years in question was a “privilege” granted by the federal United States government. [3] That my residence was within the “jurisdiction” of the federal United States government. [4] That I am a “14th Amendment citizen” subject to the jurisdiction of the federal United States government.  The failure to produce said evidence in support of the attempts of the Department of Treasury to force payment alleged accounts listed here, would be considered fraud by using the Postal Service. (See 18 USC § 1341 – Frauds and swindles)

Under the FOIA, I affirm that I am entitled to this information because that it applies to me.  Any expense in gathering this information, over and above that exempted by law, will be met by me.  I have included a copy of my State drivers license for identification purposes only.  Sent this 7th day of December, 2012 by registered mail, No. 7002 2410 0005 9117 4337

Respectfully,

Loral Glazier

About these ads
Gallery | This entry was posted in Delegation of Authority, Federal Jurisdiction, form letter cp71c, government authority, Letters to IRS, Sovereignty and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s