Home Page


An American Inhabitant
Living and Working in
One of the Fifty States

Certified Mail Receipt No. Z 048 413 751

Gary Comnick, Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
3020 Rucker Ave., Suite 303
Everett, WA 98201

February 19, 1996

Dear Mr. Comnick:

Recently you sent me copies of two notices of levy, one to a Capital Preservation Fund and one to a Seafirst Bank. On the back of these copies are excerpts from the Internal Revenue Code which apparently offer legal support for the "Notice of Levy". For some reason, the excerpts from 26 USC 6331 begin with subsection (b), omitting subsection (a). This is not a good practice when citing law because the first subsection or paragraph typically describes the scope of authority for what is to follow -- in other words, who it may apply to. If you will read 26 USC 6331(a), you will find that under Section 6331 "Levy may be made upon ... any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia ... ."  Mr. Comnick, as I am not such an "officer, employee or elected official", it does not appear that this form and procedure would apply to me. Would you please assist me by explaining your use of these particular "Notice of Levy" forms?

When we spoke on Dec. 7, I appreciated your sincerity and your feeling perturbed by my "playing games". Undoubtedly, you sincerely believe that I owe the IRS some money.  Certainly there are many people who "cheat on their taxes" or otherwise try to avoid paying what they themselves know, or believe, the law requires them to pay. I have no respect and little sympathy for such people and would encourage you to do everything lawfully within your power to collect their alleged liabilities. Undoubtedly, yours is a thankless, difficult, and emotionally stressful job, and, believe it or not, I do respect your honest efforts to do what is right within the context of that job. Please allow me a few moments of your time that I might explain how my actions in respect to the Internal Revenue Service are hardly a game!

Mr. Comnick, back in 1988 or 1989, I had cause to assist a friend with a tax problem. This led to a long and detailed study of the federal income tax laws and regulations -- literally thousands of hours of reading, phone calls, meetings, and letter writing. The facts, as I now understand them, are so upsetting and outrageous that I simply cannot fail to stand. By the IRS's own figures, there are from 10 to 20 million of us out there -- and growing at a staggering rate. Why? Are we all just tax cheats?

If you will look at the upper right hand corner of any page of my Individual Master File you will see a TC 148. This code indicates that the IRS has classified me as a "tax protester".  Yet, if you will consult the  Internal Revenue Manual 5431.4 (this section number may have been changed in your latest IRM), not a single one of the IRS definitions of "tax protester" could reasonably be applied to me.  So, then, upon what legal or procedural basis am I so classified?  Am I simply classified as a "tax protester" arbitrarily, perhaps because the points I am raising are politically sensitive or unpopular?  If there is a legal basis upon which I should be classified as a "tax protester," Mr. Comnick, please communicate that to me.

Mr. Comnick, I would guess that you know some really fine people who work for the government, some who may work right there with you at the IRS.  I would like you to know that some of the most honest, hard working, intelligent, and highly principled people I have met in my fifty years of living are classified by the federal government as "tax protesters".  This is an American tragedy, Mr. Comnick.  Good Americans are being pitted against -- in fact, directed to attack and destroy -- other good Americans.  This has been justified for several decades by something known as "tax law," allegedly Title 26 United States Code.  As former IRS Commissioner Shirley Peterson has publicly stated, the tax code is "incomprehensible, even to professionals in the field ... ."  It was a decade or two after World War II before sufficient numbers of Americans were motivated to investigate Title 26 and IRS misapplications of same.  What has come out, and continues to come out, is understandably controversial and confusing.  How could it be anything else, resulting, after all, from an analysis of laws which are "incomprehensible."

The truth about Title 26 is another American tragedy and I refuse to pass it on to future generations!  I profoundly understand how difficult it must be for you to even consider what I have to say to you.  Indeed, your livelihood, self-respect, sense of decency and even your world view may seem threatened by the facts in this matter.  Nonetheless, you are a man, a husband, a father and an American far ahead of being a government employee.  Some argue that the law is too sophisticated and complex to be considered, analyzed or even understood by "average" people.  I disagree, but if this were true, who would we "average" people be left at the mercy of -- lawyers, politicians and government agencies?  Mr. Comnick, I will cite just a few points of law and procedure for you to consider.  One does not need to be Harvard educated to grasp the significance of these points and their critical and disturbing nature.

In the middle ages, people were imprisoned or executed for publicly contending that the earth was round.  In the 1950's, I can vividly remember my father telling me that man would never walk on the moon because God didn't want him to.  So, it is not the least surprising that people would generally believe there just has to be a code section which imposes a liability for the payment of "income taxes" and the filing of "1040 returns" upon Americans living and working in the fifty states.  If there were not, the millions of C.P.A.'s and tax attorneys in this country (who, by the way, earn their substantial livelihoods from the tax code) certainly would have long ago exposed the truth, right?  Hardly.

That is the key word, Mr. Comnick -- "truth."  The only reason I am taking all this time to communicate with you is my continued belief that you, and others who may read this letter, may be quite decent and willing to accept and act upon the truth once it is clearly communicated.  It is extremely difficult to consider, much less accept, information which threatens or invalidates ideas taken for granted since childhood.  Because of this, I have gone to great lengths to communicate with the government at many levels, hoping to receive answers to these horrible questions. I have written dozens of letters to people who should have the answers -- the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of the IRS, two presidents, three congressmen, two senators, many IRS personnel, and others.  I have met personally with several accountants, tax attorneys, and other legal professionals.  Mr. Comnick, none of these people have been able or willing to answer the profoundly disturbing questions I have put to them.  Many of these people were not even willing to make an effort to answer in any form whatsoever.  Why is this?  Would you be kind enough to respond?

Mr. Comnick, I rely upon my own extensive study of the tax laws, the opinions of many professionals in the field, as well as the stonewalling lack of response from representatives of the United States government, whom all reasonable people would expect to have the answers at their fingertips, when I tell you that I am absolutely not a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in 26 USC.  The alleged liabilities which you are seeking to collect from me have been concocted through gross misapplication of internal revenue laws.  I simply have no such liabilities, Mr. Comnick, as hard as that may seem to believe.  If you are interested in why I hold this view, I will be happy to arrange to meet with you and spend as much time as it takes to show you the proof.  It is voluminous, staggering and, I would even say, revolting.

The Seattle District Office was kind enough to provide to me, pursuant to Title 5 CFR 293.311 (Code of Federal Regulations), your name, job title and an extensive position description.  It indicates that you are classified as a GS-1169-12 Revenue Officer.  It further informs me on page 2, in the last paragraph of Section 1, that you are required to possess a "broad, in-depth knowledge of applicable portions of the Internal Revenue Code ... ." On page 3, Section 5, paragraph 2, I am notified that you are "responsible for providing courteous, fair, prompt, accurate and thorough service ... ."  I notice the words "lawfully correct" are not included, but perhaps these are inferred in the use of the words "accurate and thorough." [p 4]  One would hope so, and I am sure you personally would be very reluctant to carry out activities which you suspected as being in violation of law or lacking authority of law.

Now, with regard to your own conduct in investigating me and my personal affairs, I would refer you to 26 USC 7608(a). It is clear from this section that Revenue Enforcement Officers have authority for enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco and firearms.  Is it your contention that I have tax liabilities pertaining to 26 USC, Subtitle E?  If so, please provide me with evidence of my involvement with revenue taxable activities pertaining to liquor, tobacco or firearms.  I have, on more than one occasion, informed the IRS that I have never had any such involvement.  Other than 7608(a), I can find no code section that would authorize you, as a Revenue Officer, to investigate alleged tax liabilities pertaining to myself or anyone else.  Based upon your in-depth knowledge of the applicable portions of the Internal Revenue Code, can you provide me with such a section from 26 USC?  I would appreciate a prompt and thorough response to these questions.

If you are alleging that I have tax liabilities relating to Internal Revenue laws other than Subtitle E, refer to 7608(b).  According to this section entitled "Enforcement of Laws Relating to Internal Revenue Other Than Subtitle E": "Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division ... is, in the performance of his duties, authorized ... ," and so forth.  Mr. Comnick, is the position description provided by the District Office in error?  Are you a "criminal investigator?"  If you are a criminal investigator, I would refer you to Internal Revenue Manual 1132.75 (12-21-87) (You may need to find this under an updated section in your latest IRM.)  According to this section of the Internal Revenue Manual, "The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute ... involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements ... ."  If you are a criminal investigator, is it your contention that I am a U.S. citizen living abroad or a nonresident alien having a filing requirement?  If so, may I please hear from you as soon as possible.

26 USC 7214(a) clearly imposes substantial penalties (up to $10,000.00 or up to 5 years in prison) upon any Revenue Officer who "is guilty of willful oppression under color of law," "knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law," or "attempts to collect ... except as expressly authorized by law so to do."  Thus, it appears that you are operating under extremely strict and serious legal constraints.  To misunderstand and thereby abuse your lawful authority would be to subject yourself to devastating repercussions.  In the event you feel that I am citing this for the purpose of intimidating you, allow me to reassure you that such is not the case.  Are you aware of any IRS employees who have been fined or prosecuted under 7214(a)?  I'll bet not.  In fact, some of the more "seasoned" agents and RO's may reassure you to just "do what you're told ... do what it takes and you'll have no problem ... let the IRS Counsel, the U.S. Attorney and the courts worry about the law ... these 'tax protesters' lose all the time," etc.  If such an irresponsible and arrogant attitude is exhibited, how could it come to be and what would support it?

Attached to this letter is an excerpt from Treasury/IRS 46.002, Privacy Act of 1974 Resource Document #6372. According to this document the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS maintains files on all U.S. District Court Judges.  This appears to be a flagrant Constitutional violation in that the Executive Branch of government is clearly seeking to intimidate the Judicial Branch.  What could possibly justify this?  How could this possibly be seen as helpful in the honest application and execution of the law?

What we have here is a combination of government employees such as yourself, having a very stressful and difficult job to do, a body of law that a former IRS Commissioner has described as "incomprehensible," millions of people who find themselves victimized by that incomprehensible law, startling revelations of unauthorized and even unlawful actions by the IRS, and a court system which is provably compromised and demonstrably corrupted, largely through political intimidation.  Mr. Comnick, would you not agree that this is a formula for disaster?  Do you suppose this has any bearing on the fact that the majority of this year's contenders for the Presidency are calling for the abolition of the IRS, if not the entire so-called "income tax."  The cat is out of the bag, Mr. Comnick, and, may God help us all, it is ugly!  You can rest assured the politicians are trying desperately to shove this cat back into the bag before the American people get a good look at it.

Meanwhile, Mr. Comnick, let's look just a bit further ourselves.  A logical place to search for suspected legal obligations or liabilities would be the United States Code Annotated.  Go to the index and look up "Citizenship," a logical place to reference laws that would apply to citizens.  This entire section contains only one code section from Title 26 -- 26 USC 2501, Gift Tax.  This is odd.  Well, insofar as most people assume themselves to be "United States citizens" who are liable for the payment of the "income tax", let us next look under the heading "Income Tax" and go through that section until we come to the subheading "Citizens."  Again, this appears to be confusing as the only code sections listed for "Income Tax - Citizens" are 26 USC 6851 (About to depart U.S. ...) and 26 USC 911 (Living abroad ...).  Why are the code sections which would impose liabilities for the payment of "income taxes" and requirements for the filing of "1040 Returns" not to be found in the United States Code Annotated?  Could I have your comments, Mr. Comnick?

Of great interest is the entry under "Income Tax Aliens."  It says, "this index."  So, we look up "Aliens" in the index, and, lo and behold, what do we find but almost nine full pages of code sections under the subheading "Income Tax," covering such topics as "Deductions," "Exemptions," "Gross Income," "Joint Returns," and "Withholding of Tax."  Good grief, Mr. Comnick!  Now it would appear that the United States government is either very zealous in apprising aliens of their legal duties or negligent in doing the same for its citizens.  Or, ... someone has given reams of bad information to the IRS, which it has been diligently printing in its publications and circulars for several decades.  If you have an explanation for this, please do share it with me.

In my study of the tax code, I find the word "liable" used clearly and specifically in Sections 4401(c), 5505(a), 5703(a) and 1461, which create unmistakable liabilities for wagering tax, distilled spirits tax, tobacco tax, and "income" tax, respectively.  Section 1461 is the only section in the IR Code imposing a liability for payment of "income" tax.  That section applies to withholding agents only (those required by 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments of "income" owed to foreign persons).  Mr. Comnick, based upon your in-depth knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code, are you able to provide me with the code section that clearly and unequivocally imposes upon me a liability for payment of certain taxes, such liability having been alleged by you both on the telephone and on the "Notice of Levy" Forms which you executed?  If you cannot provide an answer to this question, then, just man to man, can you give me any justification for your continued attempts to "collect" my "alleged liabilities?"  Do you understand the importance of this question, in light of the foregoing remarks about 7214 and the tragic consequences when indifference to the law is fostered, even encouraged.  In this case, oddly enough, all that is required is to read the law, do what it says and do not do what it does not say!

Mr. Comnick, I would like to quote for you from Notice 609, which I have received from the Internal Revenue Service on more than one occasion.  It reads, in pertinent part, "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a), and their regulations.  They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for."(emphasis mine).  The United States Supreme Court has clearly ruled that one may rely on official representations by the government with respect to the law.  Mr. Comnick, I have repeatedly asked United States government officials, including the Internal Revenue Service, to simply provide for me some evidence of "any tax [I am] liable for."  They have failed to provide such evidence; hence, I cannot possibly have any legal duty to file any returns or statements.

In the same vein, a carefully study and comparison of 26 USC 441(a) & (b), 6012(a)(1) and 7701(a)(14) will easily reveal that without a specific law which would make a "person" "subject to" or "liable for the payment of" a particular internal revenue tax, it is virtually impossible to be a "Taxpayer," have "Taxable Income" or a "Taxable Year."  One can, of course, voluntarily or ignorantly file a return and make therein, under penalties of perjury, what amounts to a declaration of "taxpayer" status.  At that point, the IRS may argue that it is simply relying on the "taxpayer's" own representation as to his or her status, and proceed accordingly.  However, moral decency, if not legal duty, would seem to compel any public servant charged with the responsibility of possessing a "broad, in-depth knowledge ... of the Internal Revenue Code" to notify a member of the public who apparently had improperly identified himself as a "taxpayer," would you not agree?  Mr. Comnick, based upon your recent activities, it appears you are acting on the assumption that I am a "taxpayer" who has "delinquent tax liabilities."  I hereby request that you provide for me a legal basis, from Title 26, United States Code and its implementing regulations, for this assumption on your part.  Absent such legal basis, your attempts at collection amount to little more than extortion under color of law -- indeed, a flagrant violation of 26 USC 7214.  If you are unmoved by this line of thought, then would you please explain to me, man to man, how you justify your behavior before the law, before God, or for that matter, before your own conscience?

As another point of interest I would invite you to investigate the definition of "STATE" and "UNITED STATES" as found in 26 USC 7701(a).  This is the definition which must apply in Subtitle A, Part 1 - Income Tax, as no other definition for "STATE" or "UNITED STATES" is offered in Subtitle A, Part 1.  Compare this definition to what is offered in 26 USC 4612(a) Subtitle D - Excise Taxes -- Tax on Petroleum.  Why are the definitions different?  Why are "the 50 States" not mentioned in the definition of "STATE" or "UNITED STATES" which would apply to the "Income Tax?"

How does anyone determine to whom the law applies when it is unclear of which "United States," a "person," is a "citizen?"  How do you make that determination, Mr. Comnick?

As the Internal Revenue Service has assisted you in obtaining your broad, in-depth knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code, were you shown the definition of "income" as it evolved from the 1939 Code to the 1954 Code to the 1980 Code to the present day Code?  As you are aware, the Code provides "footnotes" which chronicle the additions, deletions, and changes in each new Code.  It is interesting to look back and see how the writers of the 1980 Code, having cleverly twisted the meaning of "income," then conveniently deleted the 1954 Code reference to the 1939 Code which stated that the definition was "substantially unchanged."  You see, Mr. Comnick, the 1939 Code makes it quite clear that "income" is not salaries, wages, etc., but, instead, is derived from those sources.  In fact, "income" was, and continues to be, what the U.S. Supreme Court last ruled it to be and what several U.S. District Courts continue to rule to this day -- a corporate profit, the tool for measuring the excise tax liabilities of persons (artificial entities) engaged in occupations or activities under privilege granted by the government.  It is, of course, absurd to argue that the common man's right to live and support himself amounts to a government privilege.  Study the case of Mr. Lloyd Long of Tennessee whose jury seems to have agreed with this analysis.  For your convenience, I have attached an article about his case.

To prove my point about the "income tax" being an excise tax, you can simply access the AIMS or AMDIS files for any number of alleged "taxpayers."  You will find that the IRS has, in many instances, fraudulently coded people as being involved in "revenue taxable activities" such as firearms or alcohol production, agriculture, manufacture of tobacco, certain insurance activities, and other activities subject to an excise -- all with no basis in reality whatsoever!  Some people are even coded as "no return required."  After checking the coding in the AIMS and AMDIS files, cross-check the tax returns of the individuals to prove to yourself that the reported "income" of these people is rarely, if ever, related to the activities coded in their files!  After a number of brave and diligent Americans discovered and exposed this situation, the IRS has suddenly begun refusing to provide certain people with copies of AIMS or AMDIS files lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act, apparently choosing instead to dare these people to sue the IRS in Federal District Court -- a futile waste of time, as explained previously.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Comnick, I am one of the people whose lawful request for an AIMS/AMDIS printout has repeatedly been ignored.  I might recommend that you study my AIMS and AMDIS files yourself to assist you in a proper understanding of this matter.  If you are not in a position to provide me with copies of my AIMS/AMDIS files, would you please tell me in which revenue taxable activity the  IRS alleges me to be involved.  Believe me, I will let you know immediately if the IRS is correct!

The acquittal of Mr. Lloyd Long in his "willful failure to file" case is not unique at all in the last decade.  You might look up cases involving Ray and Dixie Powell of the Puget Sound area, the Hardy brothers as well as a Danny Hashimoto in Hawaii, Franklin Sanders and 17 other people in a huge case in Tennessee, and Gabe Scott of Alaska.  In Mr. Scott's trial, the jury was so outraged by what Mr. Scott presented in his defense, ten of the twelve jurors swore they would never file another tax return!  The other two were appalled but would continue to file out of fear of the IRS.  Then there is the case of the IRS attempt to smash the "Save A Patriot Fellowship" in Maryland and indict its fiduciary, Mr. John Kotmair.  After Mr. Kotmair's presentation to the Grand Jury, the U.S. Attorney was so humiliated by the devastating evidence presented by Mr. Kotmair with respect to misapplication of the law by the Internal Revenue Service that he personally apologized to Mr. Kotmair.

Mr. Comnick, I have no way of knowing the extent of your personal knowledge in these matters.  It is my hope that you simply are unaware, and that, as you become aware, you will do all in your power to resist that which is corrupt and unlawful.  In the meantime, I have abundant knowledge and evidence of misapplication of law, indefensible abuses of due process, and, in some cases, outright criminal behavior on the part of the IRS, the U.S. Justice Department and both the state and federal courts.  The fruits of this government tyranny include nervous breakdowns, divorces, broken families, suicides, ruined careers and businesses, and even the incarceration of the most patriotic, honest and hard working Americans -- including elderly folks, war veterans and women.  Americans are destroying each other in the name of a law which a former Commissioner of the IRS has branded "incomprehensible."

Mr. Comnick, I believe that law should be plain and easily understood by the people to whom it applies. I also believe that government must obey the laws according to such intent as is clearly expressed by the framers of the law -- the representatives of the people.  To allow government agencies to just "do what it takes," in spite of the clear intent of the law or because the law itself has been made incomprehensible, is to abandon honesty, to act cowardly, and to betray future generations into a state of helplessness and hopelessness at the mercy of unrestrained government and a system of law which is arbitrary, incomprehensible, and largely misapplied or ignored.   I would not be taking the time to express these things to you if I did not respect you as a fellow human being who must, as I, also live by some set of values.  If you do not agree with any of what I have just expressed, then I have at least made yet another good faith attempt to communicate with the government, and you will simply be added to the list of people whom I will need to subpoena should the government ever damage me and draw me into any civil or criminal action.  If, on the other hand, you find yourself in some agreement with portions of what I have expressed, then I would implore you to suspend your disbelief just long enough to diligently investigate these matters.  I can assure you that I will give careful consideration to any sincere response you would communicate to me.

In the past, Mr. Comnick, representatives of the IRS have tried to dismiss or evade communications such as this by accusing me of wanting to "debate the law" and informing me that the IRS does not engage in such debates because "all these issues have been decided by the courts" -- or some such reasoning.  All of that, of course, is irresponsible nonsense and pure evasion.  I have offered observations about the law and commented upon what appear to me to be misapplications of the law.  I have also asked questions which I believe should seem reasonable and relatively simple for those people occupying positions which require a "broad, in-depth knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code."  This hardly constitutes "debating."  Neither does it constitute "playing games," as, by now, I hope you are aware, Mr. Comnick.

Finally, Mr. Comnick, I would like to make another small request of you, which has been courteously complied with by other IRS employees in the past.  In the future, when you need to contact me, please use my correct mailing address, which is shown at the top of this letter.  The address on your recent envelope is not a good address for me and may delay or prevent my responding to your communication.  As I assured you by telephone on Dec. 7, 1995, I will be happy to respond appropriately to your concerns, in a timely manner, providing I receive such communications at the proper address where I receive my mail.  Your courteous consideration will be appreciated.


[An American Inhabitant]

Congressman Rick White
Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn
Congresswoman Linda Smith
Congressman James Trafficant
IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson
IRS District Director Paul Beene

Note: As of March 24, 2002 -- over six years since the sending of this letter -- there has not been so much as an acknowledgement, much less any substantive response, from either Revenue Officer Comnick or from any of the men or women who were sent copies of this letter.  In the six years this letter has been posted on the "ICE" Web site and circulated around the nation via Internet and email, there has not been so much as one response from anyone in the government or the tax or legal profession that has provided an answer to so much as one question raised by this letter.  Can you imagine that?

Interestingly, several months after this letter was sent, through the Freedom of Information Act, I obtained a copy of the IRS's computer file (IMF - "Individual Master File") used to keep track of its actions with regard to myself.  Three weeks after Mr. Comnick would have received the above letter, the IRS coded the entire file as "uncollectible."  I have not heard a peep from the IRS since.  That is very curious, is it not?  If I were the typical American who believes the income tax is legitimate and everyone should "pay their fair share," I would be outraged by the government's inability or reluctance to openly and publicly clear up something like this -- if for no other reason than to reassure the rest of the American people that they are not scammed by the government!  On the other hand, the apparent "results" of this letter really prove very little.  If you are in trouble with the IRS, do not send a letter such as this one and expect to be suddenly left alone.




Home Page