Michael Ellis — IRS Fraud Used to Enter Substitute for Return against Non-Filers

Michael Ellis Letter to IRS re: Transcript Fraud Used

to Enter SFRs in Non-Filers’ IRS Tax Files

Table of Contents

Dear Ms. Green. 1

Part 1.  The 6020(b) in the IMF claims TDO 182 as authority. 2

Part 2.  The “SFR 150” in my IMF was created by computer fraud. 3

Details: 4

Background. 4

Here’s the process in detail: 4

This provides three important results favoring the Service. 6

How the ASFR “SFR 150” Computer Scheme Worked in My Case. 6

We find the following: 6

The Upshot?. 7

Summary. 8

Afterword. 9

Glenn’s Notes. 11

Excerpts from Transcripts Article. 12

Court Cases on Value of IRS Transcripts. 13

 

Ms. Maureen Green

1973 North Rulon White Blvd.

Mail Stop 4388

Ogden, Utah 34201-0040

Re:  Your Letter Dated January 9, 2012 concerning “Tax Year 201012”            February 7, 2012

Dear Ms. Green,[1]

As an initial matter, I would like you to know I am always seeking to learn the law, from those more knowledgeable than I.   When I understand it, I am dedicated to obeying the law.  I simply seek the truth and want to know my duty.  To that end, I have been diligently seeking information from the Service regarding the Individual Master File (“IMF”) account assigned to me by IRS.

It turns out that you, Ms. Green, have already sent me almost precisely similar letters regarding the years 2007 and 2008.[2]  After receiving various transcripts and documents via FOIA/Privacy Act, and by studying various IRS manuals and other sources, there are two issues which MUST be brought to your immediate attention regarding all the years for which you have corresponded with me.  I believe the info I have discovered proves that not only have I have been victimized by IRS employees, but that you may have been deceived in some ways, too.

And as a result of this letter, I will be very interested to hear from you, Ms. Green, that you are either withdrawing your letters, or that you are so kind as to help me understand any flaws in my analysis of the information presented herein.  I think you may find this valuable.

My letter focuses on two issues:  1.) the “6020(b)” and 2.) the “SFR 150” in the IMF which the Service keeps concerning me.

Part 1.  The 6020(b) in the IMF claims TDO 182 as authority

Although your current letter addresses 2010 but you did not include the 6020(b) you hold in your computer regarding me for that taxable year, let’s look at “Doc. A” which forms the basis of the Service’s claim against me for 2007.[3]   (The procedure outlined here is exactly the same for any SFR created for any taxable year for any “non-filer’ in the nation, since I have observed the same steps in records of other “non-filers”.)  Doc. A. is the “6020(b) Certification” on a standard Form 13496 you, Ms. Green, supposedly created for me regarding 200712.

A substitute for return (“SFR 150”) generated for a 1040 “non-filer”, (as the Service has labeled me),[4] is based upon a correctly prepared 6020(b)[5] with a standard set of accompanying documents.[6]   The 6020(b) form is the basic accounting document concerning any taxable year for any “non-filer”, and if you look closely it (as always) specifies “Treasury Delegation Order 182” as the purported source of authority to create an SFR.   However, it turns out that TDO 182 does not now grant, nor has it ever granted, authority to complete a “substitute 1040”.

I have discovered that the list of returns an IRS agent is empowered to complete does not include a 1040 form.  Here is the relevant section from the IRS Manual discussing the 6020(b):

“5.1.11.6.7 (03-01-2007) IRC 6020(b) Authority

The following returns may be prepared, signed and executed by revenue officers under the authority of IRC 6020(b),

A. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return

B. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return

C. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees

D. Form 944, Employer’s Annual Federal Tax Return

E.  Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return

F.  Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return

G. Form CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return

H. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income

Pursuant to IRM 1.2.44.3 Delegation Order 5–2 (formerly DO-182, Rev 7) dated 5/5/1997, revenue officers GS-09 and above, and Collection Support Function managers GS-09 and above, have the authority to prepare and execute returns under IRC 6020(b).”

Anyone can see there is no mention of authority to create a ‘substitute for a 1040 income tax return”.

[Link here: www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-001-011r-cont01.html]

I have also recently discovered that Revenue Officers have been, or should have been, trained to realize there is no authority to perform a 6020(b) for income tax non-filers:

“The IRM restricts the broad delegation shown in figure 23-2 to employment, excise and partnership tax returns because of constitutional issues. You have already studied audit referrals as a means to enforce compliance[7]on income tax returns.”  See Doc. D. Attached, Revenue Officer Training Manual, Lesson 23 Re: IRC Section 6020(B).[8] *** [http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/c10/misc/Lesson23-3.pdf] 

Accordingly, I believe you know or should have known that no authority exists requiring an individual to file an ‘income tax’ return, (see Footnote 8 above), nor allowing anyone in the Service to create a substitute for return for income tax “non-filers”.   And I believe you can now see that your Letter 1862 [http://taxhelplaw.com/Nonfiler-IRS_Letter_1862.html] was issued wholly without authority.  But there is more.

Part 2.  The “SFR 150” in my IMF was created by computer fraud

Because no one is authorized to create a 1040 substitute for return, no OMB-approved form exists upon which an IRS employee can create such a “Substitute for 1040 return”, hence no “transaction code” exists which could be entered into the IMF software to reflect existence of an SFR 1040.  It appears that IRS personnel resort to using the “4549 Income Tax Examination Change” form upon which to record their INITIAL assessment, (as you did in my case, as shown below).  Thus the Master File software must be ‘fooled’ by creating the appearance that an initial return was made in order to get MF to accept later “changes” via the standard “Additional Tax” change form: which is always entered into an IMF as a “Transaction Code 300”, a.k.a. “TC300”.[9]  [Afterwards, for purposes of court cases, an IRS employee will falsely certify that numbers derived from the 6020(b) “Change” exam were supposedly created as part of the original “SFR 150” procedure entered into every non-filer’s IMF.]  So, the “ASFR”-generated “SFR 150” turns out to be a mere placeholder imported into my IMF from a non-master file data base, and has no supporting documentation whatsoever.

Based on various IRS manuals, my IMF and the documents Disclosure provided, I can now prove that someone created the “SFR 150” in my IMF by first requisitioning/opening a skeletal record in the Audit Information Management System (“AIMS”) data base, then imported that record into my IMF using a “Push Code”, and finally removed the evidence by using a “TC AM424D”.  This creates the appearance that a substitute for return was created via the ASFR process, when in fact no original SFR was ever done, that there exists no actual SFR to “change”, and that all TC 300 ‘changes’ were made to a non-existent ghost record.

 Details:

Background

There are two principal databases used in this discussion.  One is called the Audit Information Management System (“AIMS”); the other is the Individual Master File, (“IMF”).[10]  The AIMS data base is “used by Appeals, Examination Division and TE/GE to control returns, input assessment/adjustments to the Master File and provide management reports. And while the return is charged to Examination, the AIMS data base tracks its location, age, and status.” [11] [http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html]  “A non-master file account established on AIMS is not subject to many of the same computer checks to which a master file account is subjected.”  (AIMS Reference Guide 4.4.1-1 (05-19-2009), Definition under “Non-Master File (NMF)”).   [Link to the AIMS Reference Guide: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html#d0e10.]

However, inputs to the AIMS system can cause substantive changes to a Master File.[12]   My research into the IRS documentation and training manuals shows that a non-master file account created on the AIMS data base can be used to create the appearance in a Master File that an initial “substitute for return” (“SFR 150”) was made when it wasn’t, without any IRS employee thus being liable for creating a “1040 substitute return” which no one has authority to make.

 Here’s the process in detail:

In the “AIMS Reference Guide 4.4.1-1”, (2009), we read:

Skeletal Accounts: -AIMS creates a skeletal record when a Command Code AM424 is input, showing the requisition and limited taxpayer information.  Once the request goes to Master File and is matched, Master File sends an opening record to AIMS and the account becomes fully established.  Once fully established, AIMS sends a TC 420 back to Master File.” [http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html] 

Translation:  The AIMS system queries IMF for matching data and if found, (taxpayer information), sends other details back to AIMS to create a complete AIMS record.

In the IRS Processing codes and Information Manual, (the “6209 Manual”), more definition is given.  In Section 13-17, (11) “EP AIMS Push Codes” we read:

“When a request is made through AIMS to post a transaction code, TC424, to the Master File (BMF, IMF, EPMF), if the Master File does not reflect the posting of the return (TC 150), entering a Push Code… will post the TC424 and 3 digit PUSH Code on AIMS and the MF.  The Push Code will allow the skeletal AIMS account (TC424) to remain active and will hold at MF for up to 26 months…. NOTE: using a Push Code 036 will automatically generate a TC 150 and TC 420 on Master File.” [Emphasis Added]  

In AIMS Reference Guide Introduction, Exhibit 4.4.1-1  (05-19-2009) Reference Guide, under the definition of “TC 424 Code”), we see that a “TC 424 Code – Identifies whether a case was opened on AIMS using AM424. (P1-L17/A-CIS)”. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html#d0e10

In AIMS Reference Guide at Exhibit 4.4.1-14  (05-19-2009) “Push Codes”, it states that when a “036” Push Code is used for a “Non-filer,  (this code) will computer-generate a substitute for return TC 150 at Master File two cycles after input.  Can delete using AM424D 30 days after input.” http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html (“036 Non-filer – will computer generate a substitute for return TC 150 at Master File two cycles after input. Can delete using AM424D 30 days after input.”)

Thus we see that a TC 424 AIMS transaction can also be reversed and eliminated from the Master File database by use of an AM424D transaction.  (I think “D” probably stands for “Delete”.)    That procedure, however, leaves three indelible footprints.

  • First, it results in creation of the “RET RCVD DT” field in the IMF.  That field is defined thusly:

 “Return Received Date (RET-RCVD-DT) — For timely filed returns it is the due date of the return. Example: Form 1040 due April 15 will be displayed as April 15 of the appropriate year even if the return was filed before the due date. For late filed returns it is the received date stamped on the return. For SFR cases it is the date the examiner entered on the SFR 1040.” http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html (“Return Received Date (RET-RCVD-DT) – For timely filed returns it is the due date of the return. Example: Form 1040 due April 15 will be displayed as April 15 of the appropriate year even if the return was filed before the due date. For late filed returns it is the received date stamped on the return. For SFR cases (Push Code 036), it is the date of the TC 424 that contained the Push Code 036. (P1-L16/SSIVL)”) (September 10, 2013).

Hence, for SFR cases the RET RCVD Date reflects the date someone purportedly created an SFR 1040, (but which is not authorized by TDO 182, despite IRS employees’ claims to the contrary).

  • The second footprint left behind in the IMF after an AM424A creates a TC 150 in an IMF is the “TC 420”, which often is generated by the computer several days after the 424/425 transactions actually occurred.   
  • The third footprint of the scheme is the otherwise inexplicable entry “TC 425” which is computer-generated when an AM424D reverses an AM424A.  [In the 6209 Manual a “TC 425” is defined as “A TC 424 which was reversed”.  What was reversedThe deleted AM424A] 

In sum, the presence of a TC 420, a TC 425 and the RET-RCVD-DT in an IMF proves an “SFR 150” in an IMF was created using the AIMS data base and a Push Code 036 to establish it in the IMF; then an AM424D was used to reverse and conceal that process, but left behind markers which MF software won’t allow to be deleted.

So, despite the fact that there is no OMB-approved form upon which a substitute 1040 can be created, (thus no Transaction Code to memorialize it), IRS fools the Master File software to think a substitute 1040 return has been filed, which then allows the fraudulent use of a “TC 300 Additional Tax or Deficiency Assessment” (which is invariably based upon an 4549 “Income Tax Examination CHANGES” form) as the basis for prosecuting income tax “non-filers”.

Said differently, IRS Collections staff fabricates (perhaps unknowingly) the appearance that a substitute for return was accomplished on a certain date, when no return was ever created and the SFR 150 entry itself has no documentary support whatsoever.  It is a mere placeholder.  The AIMS database (which is supposed to be used by Examinations, not Collections, per AIMS Reference Guide Processing, 4.4.1.2) can be manipulated, (importing the skeletal record into an IMF using Push Code 036), then the evidence deleted via a manually-entered AM424D transaction. 

This provides three important results favoring the Service.

  • First, a victim’s IMF reflects that an SFR 1040 has supposedly been created, when it hasn’t been. 
  • Second, there will be “no documents responsive” to an IRS victim seeking, via FOIA/PA, the foundation docs used to prosecute them because the document locator numbers are computer generated.  
  • But most importantly for IRS, no IRS staffer can be held accountable for creating, without authorization, a “substitute for 1040 return” for a non-filer.  “The computer done it all!”  

How the ASFR “SFR 150” Computer Scheme Worked in My Case

Looking at my IMF, (Doc F.) or the more complete transcript TXMODA, (Doc. G.), we see the scheme unfolded exactly as laid out above.

Only eight transactions supposedly occurred in my IMF before the TC 300 (regarding your 6020(b) and related supporting documents) were filed into my IMF on November 15, 2010.[13]

That means that we only have to look at the first eight chronological entries before that date to see the evidence of my “liability”, (since logically it must have been “determined” by someone with authority to create it before the TC 300, since that type of transaction regards an “Additional Tax or Deficiency…”).

We find the following:

  1. On November 17, 2008 (“11172008”) someone in Collections entered a Transaction Code 140 (“TC 140”)[14]into my IMF, creating the appearance I had a delinquency and a “Fiscal Year”[15] which required a new ‘tax module’ for 2005. 
  2. On January 13th, 2010 (“01132010”) we see a Transaction 425, (“TC 425”).  Even though there is no TC 424 now visible in my IMF, we now know the TC 425 is evidence that an AM424D “reversed”, thus concealed, an AIMS TC AM424A, and is proof that the SFR 150 in my case for 2005 was opened on AIMS and “established” in my IMF via Push Code 036.[16]  This sequence is precisely confirmed in the TXMODA transcript of my account, Doc. G. [See TXMODA info at end of this document – Glenn]
  3. Also, on January 13, 2010, we see RET RCVD DT, (Return Received Date) “01132010”.   Since the dates of the TC 425 and RET RCVD DT match, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that a TC 424, which was first entered remotely, then deleted remotely via AIMS, was the actual source of the pretended “SFR 150” entry, made several weeks before you or someone claiming to be a “Maureen Green” completed the initial 6020(b) Certification form with the supporting documents, (which included the 4549 Income Tax Examination CHANGE form) on April 12th, 2010.  (See Docs. A and I.)
  4. On January 28th, 2007 (“01282010”), we see a “TC 420”, which is defined in the 6209 Manual thusly “Computer generated at the SC (Service Center) when an opening record is posted…” but more precisely means [AIMS Reference Guide 4.4.1-1, (2009)] “Once the request from AIMS goes to Master File and is matched, Master File sends an opening record to AIMS and the account becomes fully established.  Once fully established, AIMS sends a TC 420 back to Master File.” [See AIMS Reference Guide 4.4.1-1”, (2009)] http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-004-001.html (under “Skeletal Accounts”). This transaction is merely an un-erasable confirmation marker of the AIMS, Push Code 036 sequence.
  5. On February 8th, 2010 (“02082010”) someone entered a “TC 595”, which is a “satisfying transaction” meaning the module was “Referred to Exam”.[17] (Defining TC 595: “Referred to Examination. Satisfies this module and all subsequent modules for same MFT. Requires a two digit closing code for IDRS input. Updates FRC to zero. See Section 11 for appropriate closing codes.”) (6209 Doc).
  6. Also on February 8th, 2010 (“02082010”) someone entered a “TC 570” code, which “freezes the module from refunding or offsetting credit out”, a precaution to prevent any inadvertent refund regarding that tax year.[18] (Defining TC 570: “Indicates additional liability pending. Freezes (—R freeze) module from refunding or offsetting credit out.”) (6209 Doc)
  7. Also February 8th, 2010, someone (likely from Exams, since they also acknowledged taking the module via the TC 595 on this date) overwrote the Transaction Code “SFR 150” established by Collections via AIMS on 01132010, thus purporting that a “return was filed and tax liability was assessed”, when in fact no so-called SFR 1040 was ever created. (There was nothing, Ms. Green, which you could “change” in April 2010).
  8. Importantly, by sheer “coincidence”, (or act of God), I filed a Privacy Act request in April 2010 for my IMF.  The disclosure office responded with an IMF complete for 2007 on May 28th, 2010. [See Doc. H.] That date is AFTER the SFR 150 was entered into my IMF on February 8th, 2010, but BEFORE the TC 300 was entered on November 15th, 2010 (which TC memorialized your 6020(b) and the numbers stated on your “4549 CHANGE” form).  As you can see, as of May 28th, 2010, the “module balance”, “interest” and “penalties” fields of my 2007 IMF all show “0.00” due, despite the fact it shows a “SFR 150” Substitute for Return had supposedly already completed back on February 8th, 2010. 

The Upshot?

The documents we have received from the Disclosure Office prove that the initial, primary assessment document in my 2007 module, i.e., the 6020(b) Certificate, was created ostensibly by you (or someone labeling themselves as “Operations Manager, Examination Maureen Green”) in Ogden, Utah on April 12, 2010, (referring to an Income Tax Examination Changes Form 4549), several weeks AFTER the “SFR 150” entry was made by the Examination Division in my IMF on 02082010, and even longer after the RET RCVD DT created by Collections on 01132010 via AIMS.

[After having filed numerous PA Requests, I know that when a Document Locator Number contains a large number of eights and zeros, such as that associated with the SFR 150 for the 2007 module in my IMF (29210-888-00000-0), there will be no paper documents associated with them.  The DLN is a mere computer generated placeholder, just like the SFR 150 entry itself with which the DLN is associated.]

There are no entries in my IMF for 2007 that could “explain away” the problem that no INITIAL substitute for 1040 return exists.

The “Automated Substitute For Return program” is computer fraud, a scheme to create unsubstantiated placeholders in an IMF of a ‘non-filer’, since no one in IRS has authority to issue/create an SFR for a non-filer.   No INITIAL SFR was ever done for me.

Recently, when I sought via Privacy Act a “Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified Matters” (Form 4340) regarding the tax period ending December 2007, I received a transcript from Accounting Operations Manager Denise Bradley (See Doc. J.), referring to the 6020(b) (Doc. A) and the 4549 Change form (Doc. I.) which you, Ms. Green, created on April 12th, 2010.

But Ms. Bradley’s Certification falsely attributed the numbers you generated on April 12th, 2010 to January 13th, 2010, the date of the pretended “Return Received Date”, which in reality is the date the SFR entry was fraudulently created by IRS Collections Division staff via AIMS and Push Code 36.

In other words, for purposes of any court action, IRS produces certified documents pretending that numbers established on an Examination Change Form 4549 were supposedly determined earlier than they actually were, and supposedly as part of what we now know is the wholly fictitious “SFR 150” computer fraud.

I contend that the reason for this scheme (that there never is an initial ‘substitute for return’ created by IRS, but numbers are generated later on “Change” forms, then attributed to the earlier “SFR 150” date), is because no one has authority to issue an SFR for income tax “non-filers”, thus there is no OMB-approved form, or related transaction number.

Although you or someone using the name Maureen Green entered a 6020(b) into my IMF at one point, the first TC 300[19] entered on 11152010 in my IMF literally “changed” nothing, since no SFR 150 was ever created that could be “changed”.

Summary

A jury will be able to hear from the IRS Manuals that a “taxpayer can’t be compelled to prepare delinquent returns”,[20] [I very much doubt this statement; see fn. 20, my added info – Glenn] and that “because of constitutional issues” the delegation of authority under TDO 182 does not empower IRS employees to file an “income tax SFR” for anyone.

It can be proven, in other words, that no one is authorized, or can ever be authorized, to create a 6020(b) certification to be used as an “SFR 1040”.  DOJ attorneys know or should know that IRS computer manipulation gives the false appearance a lawful SFR 1040 was accomplished.  And now you know, Ms. Green, that no SFR 150 actually occurred on Feb 8th, 2010, thus you could not have ‘changed’ it via your 4549 Income Tax Examination Changes Form on April 12th, 2010.

Afterword

Do you see any flaws in my analysis, Ms. Green?  Does it matter to you that there is no lawful primary liability document upon which you are basing your inquiries to me, and that my “liability” has resulted from computer fraud?

It has taken painstaking research to puzzle this out, with the help of the IMF, IRS source documents and many other dedicated researchers. So I hope this information is beneficial for you, because I believe the fraud perpetrated upon me, has also been perpetrated at least in some measure on you.  (But my family and I have been put through a great deal of inconvenience for years because of it!)

Of course, I am not through analyzing and sifting; this is still a work in progress.  I am daily accumulating more data on both the SFR process and every other entry in my IMF. And after my research is complete, I will then appropriately request erroneous field code entries be removed from my IMF.[21]    But I believe you needed to know what my ongoing work with the Service has turned up, because your investigation must be built upon a validly-created documentary foundation.  I will keep you apprised from time to time of my progress.

In the meantime, would you please take time, Ms. Green, to make a written reply to this particular letter, since it appears to me that you also may be a victim of deliberate, multiple instances of fraud which should impact the course of your work on my case?    Should this matter ever become subject of a suit in federal or state court, it would obviously be important to have your written response regarding the issues I raise, and which you are now aware.

I thank you in advance for your time and your earliest return correspondence.

Sincerely Yours,

Michael Ellis

P.O. Box ???

Corsicana, Texas 75151

List of Appended Documents

Doc. A.           6020(b) Certification

Doc. B.            AMIDSA transcript labeling me “non-filer”

Doc. C.            DOJ Pretrial Memorandum prepared and filed in a Tax Court case of a ‘non-filer’

Doc. D.           Revenue Officer Training Manual, Lesson 23, IRC Section 6020(b) (1983)

Doc. E.            Revenue Officer Training Manual, Lesson 14, Summons

Doc. F.            IMF Complete regarding 2007 module

Doc. G.           TXMODA transcript for 200712

Doc. H.           IMF ‘specific’ for 2007, from PA response by Disclosure on May 28th, 2010.

Doc. I.             Form 4549 “Tax Examination Change” by “Maureen Green” on 4/12/ 2010

Doc. J.             “Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and other Specified Matters” concerning the 2007 module of my IMF by Ms. Denise Bradley on June 9th, 2011.


[1]  I do not know whether the name “Maureen Green” is a pseudonym, or whether 1000099936 is a correct IRS employee number.   But since both identifiers appear in the recent notice Ms. Green supposedly sent me, I will refer to her/your name.  It is on many other documents related to me, as noted below.

[2]  We will only focus on 2007, but the procedural scheme discussed in this letter applies to every other year as well.

[3] Every other tax year I have investigated from every other year was created in the same sequence as that of 2007, so I can assume it’s the same for 2010 and beyond and never materially varies for any module regarding a ‘non-filer’.

[4]  See Amdisa transcript for 2007, Doc B. attached.

[5] We know that a completed 6020(b) is foundational to the case IRS builds against “non-filers” because when anyone enters Tax Court the DOJ attorney involved invariably states: “Petitioner did not file a tax return for the taxable year 2005.  Respondent (the IRS) prepared a substitute for return on (petitioner’s) behalf per I.R.C. §6020(b).”  No other document is referenced by the DOJ, thus the 6020(b) alone is critical.  See Doc. C., page 2, for an example.

[6] With the 6020(b) you sent in 2010 for the year 2007, and with the “1862 Letter” you sent last month, the supporting documents consist of a “Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes or equivalent” and “Form 886-A Explanation of Items”.  The very word “Changes” in the title of the Form 4549 should tell you something is wrong.  What document is the Form 4549 proposing to “Change”?  None exists, as we will see in Part 2. which follows.

[7]  What happened to “voluntary” compliance?

[8]  In Lesson 14, TM 2280-2, Page 14-5 trainers of Revenue Officers concede that taxpayers can’t be compelled to furnish returns:  “Since the taxpayer can’t be compelled to prepare delinquent returns, it is only the information to prepare those returns that you are summonsing”.  See Doc. E, page 2.

[9]  A “TC 300” is defined as an “Additional Tax or Deficiency Assessment by Examination or Collection Division”, per 6209 Manual, page 8-15.

[10]      “IMF  System Overview  The Individual Master File (IMF) consists of a series of runs, data records and files. The IMF receives individual tax submissions in electronic format, and processes them through a pre–posting phase, posts the transactions, analyzes the transactions, and produces output in the form of Refund Data, Notice Data, Reports, and information feeds to other entities. IMF is the authoritative data source for individual tax account data. All the other IRS information system applications that process IMF data depend on output from this source. IMF is a critical component of IRS’s ability to process tax returns.”    See IRS Privacy Impact Statement link here:   http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pia/imf_pia.pdf.  IMF is now being merged with the Customer Account Data Engine, or “CADE”.

[11]   See IRM Part 4.  Examining Process, Chapter 4, “AIMS Processing”, 4.4.1.2(05-19-2009).

[12]   See IRM 4.4.1.2 “Description of AIMS”.

[13]    Please bear with my explanation following.  If you will put either Doc. F. or G. beside you, you can track my research.  The IMF version is made a bit more difficult by the fact that the dates of various transactions are not in chronological order.  This means the transactions were originally in date order, but someone has gone back and overwritten the dates and other information.

[14]   Per the 6209 Manual, a TC 140 “Establishes an Entity and/or tax module and status code 02 as a Delinquency Inquiry within the affected tax module”.

[15]  A ‘fiscal year’ implies a corporation, which I am not.  I am studying the issues related to the “BOD” field codes in the Entity Portion of my IMF, and plan to provide you data concerning that subject in future updates.

[16] As explained in preceding page 4, “Background” above.

[17]  6209 Manual Section 8-26.  Although the TC 595 is insignificant, we can guess it may have been entered by the Exam staff to acknowledge the transfer of the module to them.

[18] 6209 Manual, Section 8-24.

[19]  A “TC 300” is defined as an “Additional Tax or Deficiency Assessment by Examination or Collection Division”

[20]   For additional support for that contention, see Conklin v. United States, cite unnecessary, where a paralegal proved it impossible for a taxpayer to file a 1040 without waiving his Fifth Amendment right. [Kasey v. Commissioner, 457 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 864 (1972) (“The appellants finally argue that the record-keeping requirements and the requirement that taxpayers shall prepare and file their tax returns, as established by the Internal Revenue Code and the Internal Revenue Service, violate their privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and amount to involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. There is no merit to these arguments. United States v. Sullivan, 1927, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037; Abney v. Campbell, 5 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 836, cert. denied, 1954, 346 U.S. 924, 74 S.Ct. 311, 98 L.Ed. 417.”)]

[21]  FYI, changes to errant entries in the Entity portion of my IMF are mandatory pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 USC §552a(d)(2)(A) and (B), and (d)(3), as well as 31 CFR Part 1, Subpart C, appendix B and § 1.27, (which are regulations issued by the Office of Management and Budget).   So far I have discovered several field codes in that portion which should be amended, but my work continues…

[End of Michael Ellis Letter]

Glenn’s Notes

I wanna THANK Michael for the GREAT work he has done in the cause of Truth in so many areas of our lives. I hope each of you will find ways of supporting his eternal quest for our Freedoms.

I also wanna THANK my MENTOR of over 22 yrs in this same struggle, John William Benson, who is now very ill. John’s work was the basis of the eBook:

Taxation by Misrepresentation, the Truth about income Taxes in Plain English!

I hope each of you will, also, in your own way, support and pray for John in his hour of need!

 

424 I/B/E Examination Request Indicator 77 Return referred to Examination or Appeals Division. Generates Examination opening inventory information. Deletes record, if present, from DIF file. This transaction can also be generated for IMF when an IRP Underreported Case is referred to Exam. Generated as a result of input through PCS

036 Non-Filer: Will computer generate a substitute for return TC150 at Master File 2 cycles after input. — Will cause a TC 150 to post to Master File 1 cycle after input. Can delete using AM424D 30 days after input. [6209 Doc]

13-18

(13) EP AIMS Push Codes

020 — Delinquent Return 5330/940/941/945/1040/1041/1065

021 — Substitute 5330

025 — Inadequate Records Notice

036 — Substitute for Return

041 —Current Return Pick-up

081 — Future Year Return [6209 Doc]

Excerpts from Transcripts Article

If the transcript includes a Transaction Code 420, this indicates that a return (Forms 1120, 1120X or 1139 for corporations) has been referred to the Examination unit in the Service Center where the return or claim was processed. Transaction Code 424 also indicates that the return has been referred to Examination but generally in the field. The Taxpayer should expect to receive correspondence opening the field examination if the Account Transcript includes Transaction Code 424. If Transaction Code 420R, 421, 424R or 425 is reflected in the account, the particular examination (service center or field) has been closed.

The data included in the TXMODA is numerically coded and there are very few English descriptions of any entry in the account. The codes can be identified in the IRS Document 6209, ADP and IDRS Information, on the IRS website. The TXMODA . . . must be printed and faxed to the requester and thus, it is not delivered through the electronic Transcript Delivery System. The TXMODA contains five distinct sections.

A recent case in the Tax Court underscores the importance to the IRS in knowing what is in its own transcript records. In Rosenbloom v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2011-140, the taxpayer sought to prove that an installment agreement was in place when he signed extensions of the collection statute. If the installment agreement was in place when the statute extensions were signed, the IRS would be barred from collection activities under a policy established to correct past collection function misconduct whereby taxpayers were coerced to extend the collection statute under threat of the IRS revoking their installment agreements. The taxpayer sought review of the coerced extension at a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. The hearing officer concluded that the statute extensions were valid because IRS collection activities were consistent with a revoked installment agreement. Fn. 12 (“An over-zealous revenue officer levied on the bank account, attempted to repossess used office furniture and even attempted to seal off Mr. Rosenbloom’s office elevator on two separate occasions.”) The court reviewed the taxpayer’s transcripts and allowed expert testimony from the IRS. It determined that the installment agreement had never been terminated because a “Code 64,” which indicates a terminated or defaulted installment agreement, never appeared on the transcript. This finding supported the conclusion that the collection statute had expired and the tax liability was discharged.

The Rosenbloom case not only illustrates that transcript data can play a significant role in a court’s findings, but also the complexity of the information contained in them. Most IRS employees are not skilled in the nuances of transcript data.

Transcripts are generally presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise and courts will rely on them to make factual determinations. See Roberts v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2004-100 (“[W]e have repeatedly approved respondent’s reliance on TXMODA transcripts as verification of the information and actions reflected therein.”)

While transcripts and generally presumed to be correct, they can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. In U.S. v. Forma, 71A AFTR 2d 93-3694 (S.D. NY 1989), the court denied the governments motion for summary judgment because it found there was a genuine issue of fact in question.

Though rarely used in litigation, transcript data can make or break a party’s case. It can shine a light on account mistakes, that once corrected, can reduce or eliminate interest and penalties. It can also provide a path of documentation surrounding a taxpayer’s actions. Even though the data is coded and the codes are often difficult to parse, the Rosenbloom court said it best, “[T]ranscripts are troves of information, but they are also almost completely incomprehensible…” Rosenbloom v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2011-140.

IRS Transcripts – Essential Tool for Tax Practitioners http://bit.ly/17NowJ1 (September 10, 2013).

Court Cases on Value of IRS Transcripts

The solution to this puzzle lies in the tax transcripts that the parties produced at trial. These were the same tax transcripts that the settlement officer had access to before making her determination. These transcripts are troves of information, but they are also almost completely incomprehensible to one not skilled at interpreting the various numerical codes they use. See Roberts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-100 (admitting evidence that helped identify entries in a transcript). Whether or not our scope of review is limited to the administrative record, taking testimony to explain that record is allowed. Fn. 20 (“E.g., Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71, 82 (2d Cir. 2006) (courts may consider extrarecord evidence to illuminate agency’s record); Franklin Savings Association. v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 934 F.2d 1127, 1137 (10th Cir. 1991) (discussing exceptions to record rule); Bunker Hill Co. v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir. 1977) (courts can go beyond the administrative record to explain technical terms or complex subject matter)”). 

Rosenbloom v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2011-140 http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20TCO%2020110621C38 (September 10, 2013).