If you have recently received a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, Notice of Intent to Levy (i.e., CP504 letter) or Final Notice of Intent to Levy (i.e., Letter LT11 or Letter 1058), you have a 30-day window from the date of the letter to challenge the notice.

The application of the federal income tax regulations and statutes are only permissible within Federal Jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories. The following regulation and statutes within Title 26 at 26 CFR 1.0-1, 26 USC 7851 (a)(1)(A) and 26 USC 7851 (a)(6)(A) show that there is no authority to impose any enforcement actions to those born in the Constitutional Republic or naturalized therein. The assessment, deficiency, attempt at lien, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, attempt to use a Notice of Intent to Levy, or Notice of Levy can be defeated or corrected via the U.S. Tax Court due to the limited nature of the jurisdiction authorized for the application of the federal income tax.

The federal income tax is a “gift or bequest” as stated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury per 31 USC 321 (d)(1) and (d)(2). A gift or bequest is not a mandatory obligation. The restrictions for the application of the federal income tax within the now 50 states of the Union (the Constitutional Republic) is further documented by 26 CFR 1.871-1 (a). Furthermore, the admission of such limited jurisdiction by former President William H. Taft was made in his letter to the U.S. Congress regarding the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment being restricted to only federal territory due to the lack of inclusion of the Rule of Apportionment in the wording of the 16th Amendment.

As you can see from this reference, there are 2 separate types of IRS enforcement actions. They are again: a lien and levy.

A lien is a claim (usually placed on a piece of real estate) that directs proceeds from its sale to be applied to a purported debt. A levy is an action to immediately take liquid assets (like cash in a bank account, investment account or retirement account). Though both are important to challenge and defeat, the nature of a levy brings much more immediacy of a financial loss than a lien.

We realize that this may be confusing to some individuals, especially those who have perhaps been successful with our NOD process regarding the Federal Tax Lien enforcement. If the tax lien has been successfully defeated, the IRS may choose to use the levy enforcement action for the same year in question that you addressed the NOD with us. If that occurs, just understand that the IRS only has these 2 enforcement options for any IRS tax year. So to be clear, you may have to defeat both a lien and levy with our administrative processes through the U.S. Tax Court.

Once the government has your money, you have close to a 0% chance of ever seeing that money again. So it is vital that you consider taking your money out of the bank, etc., or run the risk of losing it.

Either way, both were brought because a Substitute for Return (SFR) was created. And as you already know by reading our website, regardless of whether you choose to be in the U.S. Tax Club or not, the IRS has NO AUTHORITY to create an SFR for a Form 1040. If the lien (or levy) was created from the premise of an obligation to file a Form 1040 (or variant), then the IRS has broken the law by exceeding its authority. This bureau has likely broken the law millions of times in this fashion.

The lien (or levy) must be released, and the government employees should be punished for their illegal acts. The release can be achieved by the Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction by the U.S. Tax Court. Any decision by the Tax Court in your favor (i.e., your receiving a Court Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction) has a 90-day window for the IRS to appeal. We have yet to experience any such appeal for lack of jurisdiction in the hundreds of such cases.

After the 90-day period, the Court Order cannot be altered, and the IRS is required by federal law, and by requirements published in the Internal Revenue Manual, to adhere to the U.S. Tax Court decision for the year(s) stated on the IRS Notice of Deficiency/Notice of Intent to Levy.

If you recently received a Notice of Intent to Levy or Notice of Federal Tax Lien, you have a small window of to challenge the notice for lien or levy. We need via email a PDF copy of the entire document or letter for review.

The challenge process begins with seeking a Collection Due Process Hearing from the IRS, and the form for that is in another article on our site, along with instructions on how to fill it out given your specific circumstance.

Once you obtain a CDP Hearing, the IRS must provide you with a Notice of Determination, explaining the grounds for creating the Lien or Levy. From there, you may take the Notice of Determination to the U.S. Tax Court, where the process is very similar (but not exactly the same) as how we deal with a Notice of Deficiency.

A Notice of Federal Tax Lien is the step following the presentation of a Notice of Deficiency but before the Government actually starts seizing your assets. As an American National, you should have already cut the Government off at the pass by taking the Notice of Deficiency to the U.S. Tax Court, and defeating it there. But by not doing so, the mountain you must climb is now a bit more difficult. It is NOT, however, insurmountable.

Expect IRS attorneys to present motions to the U.S. Tax Court (that we can counter with our bank of written correspondence). This is considerably more work than a simple Notice of Deficiency. If you reply within the stated time period of 30 days from the date of the Notice of Intent to Levy letter, the IRS must grant your request for a CDP Hearing.

At this point, a short discussion of Jurisdiction needs to be addressed. Please read our section on Jurisdiction after you complete this discussion as related to the United States Tax Court [USTC].

Since the USTC is a territorial or tribunal federal court, as expressed in the United States Supreme Court decision of Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), then every American National needs to understand that there are two distinct legal jurisdictions in the geographical context of what is commonly referred to as the United States of America.

There is first of all the jurisdiction of the 50 states of the Union — the Constitutional Republic. This is the land mass where the Constitution is in full force and effect and the National Government only has, or at least was intended by the foundation of the Republic, limited legislative jurisdiction here. As such, the National Government is completely restricted from creating a federal state within any of the sovereign states of the Union [again, the Constitutional Republic]. The federal courts such i.e., United States District Courts and the USTC have no geographical jurisdiction over those 50 states of the Union.

The second jurisdiction is that of the District of Columbia [Washington, D.C.]. This is where the territorial or tribunal jurisdiction of the United States District courts or the USTC indeed has full and lawful jurisdiction to hear issues related to the needs and concerns of the National Government. As strange as it might seem at first glance, the Constitution has NO FULL FORCE and effect of law within the exclusive sovereign municipal/monarchial jurisdiction of the National Government. That is correct! The Constitution has no lawful impact over the National Government and its legislative Acts of Congress WITHIN the District of Columbia.

My guess is that you were never taught this fact in your high school Government classes. I am not certain it is even being offered as part of the curriculum today. All the more reason to pay close attention, if that is your background, as you are about to see something new.

Now that you have a better understanding of Jurisdiction for the Federal Courts being outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Republic, you must realize that for those courts to gain jurisdiction over the average American National [meaning one who does not work for the National Government or has no nexus to it by a sub silentio voluntary election], it takes some work on their part. The USTC must devise a method of getting you to submit yourself to their jurisdiction or else they can have no impact on your legal status in that court.

Jurisdiction is indeed the key to properly dealing with the IRS enforcement actions via the USTC. As you can now see, the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia is very limited, both geographically and legislatively. The National Government is free to operate as it chooses within the District of Columbia [which is interestingly also referred to as “the United States”]. Most significantly, the government does not have to comply with the Constitution as American Nationals may think. Within the exclusive monarchial/municipal jurisdiction which was provided, it operates independently from the Constitution.

For some years now, we have discussed with clients that the USTC can only gain jurisdiction over American Nationals if they: (1) file an Amended Petition with the USTC and (2) pay the USTC their requested filing fee.

Due to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [FRCP], when the question of Jurisdiction by Rule 12(b)(2) “lack of personal jurisdiction” is raised — by either the Plaintiff or Defendant in a case — the Court cannot proceed until this question of the court having proper jurisdiction is settled.

If it is determined that any Federal Court, such as the USTC in this discussion, actually does not have jurisdiction then the USTC must dismiss the action for reason of lack of jurisdiction. The party seeking the solution for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is the winner in this outcome and the other party is blocked from proceeding with their claim of cause, such as the IRS with their attempted enforcement action(s) against the American National.

For those of you with a basic understanding of elementary mathematics, you will recognize this simple formula: A + B = C . So now we can apply this formula in the context to Jurisdiction by the laws.
Let A = Filing an Amended Petition with the USTC
Let B = Submission of payment of a filing fee to the USTC
Let C = Jurisdiction is achieved

Thus, if the above equation is related to the USTC seeking jurisdiction, it is vital that the USTC first gain jurisdiction over the American National by its suggestion in the form of what appears to be a “Court Order” when requesting a docket number. If the U.S. Supreme Court in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico is indeed correct, then the USTC must achieve that willful submission by the American National in order to claim territorial jurisdiction over the American National by the USTC. Without jurisdiction, the USTC cannot proceed with the IRS intention of enforcement claims against the American National.

If one multiplies the formula above by “X” which represents the fact of not being subject to that jurisdiction, then one sees there is no requirement to file an Amended Petition or pay a filing fee to the USTC.

(A + B = C) * X produces AX + BX = CX
No Amended Petition filed + No filing fee paid = No subjection to USTC Jurisdiction

As stated repeatedly, American Nationals do not have to submit to the jurisdiction of the National Government or the USTC if they recognize the negative impact of doing such to the finances. So when any American National informs the USTC properly that it does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the USTC, that court must issue a Dismissal for reason of Lack of Jurisdiction.

Stated another way: The USTC seeking the solution found in “C” of the above equation [Jurisdiction] can only be achieved in the presence of “A” [Filing an Amended Petition with the USTC ] and “B” [Submission of payment of a filing fee to the USTC ] both being presented to the USTC.

The USTC has routinely issued COURT ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION in every case that has been properly presented to the USTC in behalf of our clients. Of concern to some is the narrative the USTC judge states below the Court Order. The narrative is somewhat obtuse for those without an legal background at first reading.

Weiss+Associates has repeatedly told clients that this narrative was only describing the fact that the USTC [and thus the IRS] has no jurisdiction over American Nationals when they do not provide the USTC with an Amended Petition nor when they do not send in a filing fee.

Just recently, and for the first time, the USTC Chief Judge, Michael B. Thornton, stated the following in his narrative below the COURT ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:

“… this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for failure to file
an amended petition and pay the filing fee as directed [meaning requested] …”

The USTC will ‘request’ by use of the term “Order” for any American National seeking a docket number to resolve the IRS enforcement claim that is initiated by an IRS-created Substitute for Return [SFR] for a Form 1040 via 26 USC section 6020(b). There is no reference to any such authority for the IRS to create an SFR for a Form 1040 in this subsection nor in the Internal Revenue Manual at 5.1.11.6.7 . Thus, the USTC has no jurisdiction over the American National and the use of the term “Order” is actually nothing more than a mere ‘request’ for the American National to submit to the jurisdiction of the USTC.

If one is not subject to the limited and exclusive jurisdiction of the National Government, then any statement from that Court — prior to the issuance of the COURT ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION — is nothing more than a mere request. This is an attempt by the USTC to make a sub silentio ‘request’ because it has no jurisdiction for making any demand of any American National who is effectively without the statutory United States jurisdiction.

This “Golden Statement of Admission” by the USTC Chief Judge is the most direct and clearly expressed statement of all the former narratives provided to date from the USTC, but they were all meant to express [and indeed do express that jurisdiction was never achieved by the USTC] in the context of a clearer expression that has now been presented. For anyone who has perhaps doubted the substance of our position in this issue, all doubts can now be laid to rest.

A copy of the USTC Court Order is now available for those who still might want to see this “Golden Statement of Admission” by the USTC Chief Judge, Michael B. Thornton. One can find the statement in the last sentence of the narrative of the COURT ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See the Court Order above.

Without legal jurisdiction achieved by the USTC and due to the FRCP, the USTC [and the IRS] can go no further. Thus, as we have repeatedly stated, without proper legal jurisdiction the USTC and the IRS claims of enforcement actions against American Nationals for the Year(s) in Question [YIQ] being addressed are determined to be null and void toward that American National for those YIQ.

Once the client understands this foundational precept, the YIQ that the IRS attempted to impose their enforcement actions which are only lawful within the geographical and legislative jurisdiction of the District of Columbia are defeated for all time.

This is the significance of the COURT ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICITON against the IRS by the USTC and in favor of the American National.

We stand behind our proven track record with a 100% Money Back Guarantee if you meet all our strict criteria and follow the instructions to the letter. Please review our Terms of Use page for additional information on our guarantee.

So you can then expect to receive a U.S. Tax Court Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction, which expressly indicates that the IRS has lost its claim against you. You will then prevail for reason of lack of jurisdiction.

If you haven’t read the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment available at our Resource Center, please do so now. Also, please familiarize yourself with the important aspect of jurisdiction by visiting our Jurisdiction page.

As a precaution, it is recommended you remove all liquid assets out of any bank with your name (and SSN) attached to it, at least until the U.S. Tax Court has rendered its decision. We have more detailed information about how you can protect your assets. We will hand that out at the appropriate time.

NOTICE: If you have completed the Revocation on Election process, that means you have left the U.S. Tax Club for the current tax year and all future years. But a word of caution: Don’t drop your guard, as the IRS will likely use these enforcement actions for any year prior to the ROE. For example: you completed the ROE in 2013. You have terminated your membership in the U.S. Tax Club for 2013 and all future years. However, you have not filed Form 1040s since 2006, which means the IRS may use the lien/levy actions for the 2006-2012 tax years. Realizing you are no longer a participant, they will try to get as many assets as possible for past years. The lien/levy actions are inevitable, regardless of the ROE, as they are enforcement actions brought about by your lack of filing a Form 1040 return.