PJ 94

CHAPTER 15

AMERICANS TAKE ON THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

BULLETIN!!!            PRESS RELEASE          BULLETIN!!!

On April 21, 1994, a Class Action Complaint
representative of all Americans was filed in:

The United States District Court

District of Utah, Central Division

Case No 94-C-427-S

by Paul J. Young, Attorney at Law
And is known as

Albert Carter Et Al.
Vs
The Internal Revenue Service Et Al.

Over Four-Hundred Americans from all fifty States who are representative of all the people who have been injured, filed the Class Action for Declaratory relief contesting the fraudulent acts, behavioral misconduct, and the misuse of procedure in vi­olation of Americans' statutory Constitutional rights by Agents of the IRS.

ALL AMERICANS who feel they have been injured or suffered economic loss in any way by the acts of any agents or the IRS are invited to take part. You may join this class action law suit by sending your name and a minimum legal fee contribution of $100 to the American Institute for the Republic (Make your check out to AIR) and mail to:

AIR
60 East 100 South, Suite 201
Provo, Utah 84606
For more information, please call:
801-377-0570

Paul J. Young, #4701

Attorney At Law

197 South Main Street

Springville, UT 84663

(801) 489-6925

FAX (801)489-1116

In the United States District Court
District of Utah, Central Division

Complaint--Class Action
(Declaratory Relief)
Case No. 94-C-427-S

Several hundred Plaintiffs listed (not included here),

Vs.

The Internal Revenue Service, Commissioner of the IRS,

District Directors,

and all other delegated agents,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs, for themselves and all other members of the class hereinafter described or persons similarly situated, allege:

I.

The jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 USC Sections 1331, 1332(a)(1), 1346(a), 5 USC Section 702, Article III Sec­tion 2 of the United States Constitution.

II.

The named plaintiffs are residents of the following Cities and States:

California: El Cajon, Rock Valley, Long Beach, San Jose, Ar­royo Grande, Clayton, Marina Del Rey, Sacramento, Los An­geles, Fullerton, San Diego, Castro Valley, Riverside, Visalia, Oceanside, Ventura, Chula Vista, Santa Barbara, Big Sur, La­guna Beach, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Hemet, Gardena, Jamul, Redwood City, Paradise, Bethel, Borrego Springs, Castro Val­ley, Bella Vista; Indiana: Franklin, South Bend, Ft. Wayne, Goshen, Elkhart, Idianapolis, Geneva, Chesterfield, Kendal­lville, Marion; Ohio: Woster, North Royalton, Cuy. Falls, Orrville, Westchester, Hamilton, Richmond Heights, Badfield, Bedford Hts., Maple Hts., Ironton, Tallmadge, Cincinatti, Lo­gan, Gambler, Toledo, Columbus, Pioneer, Youngstown, Mt. Vernon, Cedarville, Royalton, Marysville, Lancaster, Canal Winchester, Wapakoneta; Utah: Orem, Provo, Riverton, Salt Lake City, American Fork, Spanish Fork, Pleasant Grove, Hyrum, Sandy, Roosevelt, St. George, Springville, West Valley City, Manti, Miner, Midvale, Price, Bountiful, Vernal, Wellington, Ogden, Hooper; Michigan: Rodney, Bellaire, Belding, Clare, Bryon, Saginaw, Gailsburg, Clarkston, Bridge­port, Pigeon, Temperance; Colorado: Colorado Springs, Denver, Evergreen, Englewood, Boulder, Westmore, Littleton; Pennsylvania: Bulger, Meadville, Pittsburg, Claysville, Monongahela, Allentown, Hermitage, Library; North Car­olina: Greensboro, Yodkinville, Apex, Fairview, Oakridge, New Hill, Garner, Cory, Rosman, Gastonia, Charlotte, Win­ston-Salem, Indian Trail, Taylors, Brown Summit, Morresville; Alabama: North Port, Tuscaloosa, Birmingham; Tennessee: Antioch, Hermitage, Nashville, Bristol; Texas: Conroe, Odessa, Tijerina Odessa, Houston, Leander, McAllen, Abilene, Garland, Austin, Mathis, Midland, Forth Worth, Fredericksburg, El Paso, Ft. Worth; South Carolina: Leesville, Greer, Columbia; Iowa: Rigsby, Whitmore, Hyden Lakes; Nebraska: Lincoln; Florida: Jupiter, Tampa, Atlantic Beach, Orlando, Punta Gorda, Taverner, Royal Palm Beach, Coral Springs, Valrico, Jensen Beach, South Miami, St. Petersburg, Palm Harbor, Boynton Beach, Islamorada; Arizona: Chandler, Apache Junc­tion, Phoenix; Washington: Yelm, Spokane, Tacoma; Vir­ginia: Annandale, Powhatan, Ports Mouth, Norfolk; Okla­homa: Dewey, Edmond, Ponca City, Tulsa; Kentucky: Cov­ington, Ft. Mitchell, Versailles, Lexington, Ashland; Massachusetts: Sheffield, No. Hampton, Westfield, West Springs; New Hampshire: Merrimack; Illinois: Breese, Godfrey; Wyoming: Rawlings, Big Piney; Kansas: Bucyrus, Oris, Ness City, South Haven; New Mexico, Fairview; New Jersey: Pt. Murray, Ft. Wayne, Sommerville, Lincroft; Alaska: Houston, Sterling, Anchorage, Douglas; Montana: Fairview, Chester, Great Falls; Wisconsin: Neosho, Birnamwood, Nelsonville, Amherst; West Virginia: Bridgeport; North Carolina: Asheville, Charlotte; Georgia: Atlanta, Alpharetta, Calhoun; New York: Rochester, East Northport; Oregon: Ontario, Rose­burg; Minnesota: Maplewood, Hopkins, Maple Grove; Nevada: Fallon; Maine: Westbrook, Fryeburg, Old Orchard Beach; New Mexico: Farmington, Santa Fe; Missouri: Rayton, Kansas City.

III.

The Defendants are those whose duty it is to manage and direct the tax laws of the United States of America and whose actions are controlled by statute and the United States Constitution and include, the agency itself the Internal Revenue Service, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, District Direc­tors, and all delegated agents with authority under the Internal Revenue Code to officiate in the proper administration of the laws of the United States.

IV.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs as a class action, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, under the provisions of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(I),(2), and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for declaratory relief pursuant to 5 USC 702 under which no monetary relief is sought however the case in controversy could impact on millions of dollars, and relief incident and subordinate thereto, including costs and attorneys' fees. This action seeks declaratory relief in the form of a declaration by this court as to the proper adminis­tration of specific statutes so as to cause the defendants, who for lack of communication with the plaintiff, have in many cases re­fused to obey and have ignored the strict guidelines of the statutes and the Constitution.

V.

The class so represented by plaintiffs in this action, and of which plaintiffs are themselves members, consists of any and all Americans who have experienced abuse by the Internal Revenue Service and/or its agents. More particularly from actions which have been inconsistent with the strict letter of the law and its fair and just operation as indicated by the intent of Congress and the record of their proceedings. This is not a case against the fair collection of taxes and the honoring of the laws as established, This is not a suit to prohibit the collection of taxes as prohibited under 26 USC 7421 (Anti-Injunction Act). This is not an action regarding taxes thus precluding 28 USC Section 2201 which does not apply. It is a non-monetary action (5 USC 702) to seek declaratory relief from the District Court with regards to the procedure, conduct and behavior of the IRS, its Commissioner, Directors and delegated agents.

VI.

The exact number of members of the class, as herein above identified and described, is not known, but is estimated that there are not less than 20,000 members and could number in the millions. The class is so numerous that joinder of individual members herein is impracticable.

VII.

There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and affect the rights of each member of the class and the relief sought which are common to the entire class, namely, that to deprive, seize, levy, distraint, take away, without notice or adequate notice and a right to be heard, by administrative appeal, such property, assets and freedom from individuals with­out consideration to Due Process and Equal Protection found in the Constitution of the United States and those safeguards built into the statutes and Constitution of the United States, is contrary to the authority extended under those statutes.

VIII.

The claims of plaintiffs, whose representatives of the class herein are typical of the claims of the class, in that the claims of all members of the class, including plaintiffs, depend on a showing of the acts and omissions of defendants giving rise to the right of plaintiffs to the relief sought herein. There is no conflict as between any individual named plaintiff and other members of the class with respect to this action, or with respect to claims for relief herein set forth.

IX.

The named plaintiffs are the representative parties for the class, and are able to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the inter­ests of the class. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are experienced and capable in litigation in the field of Constitutional law, taxa­tion and civil rights and have successfully represented claimants in other litigations of this nature. Of the attorneys designed as counsel for plaintiffs Paul J. Young will actively conduct and be responsible for plaintiffs' case herein.

X.

This action is properly maintained as a class action inasmuch as the defendants herein, all of whom oppose the class, have acted or refused to act, as hereinafter more specifically alleged, on grounds which are applicable to the class, and have by reason of such conduct, made appropriate final injunctive relief or corre­sponding declaratory relief with respect to the entire class, as sought in this action.

FIRST COUNT

In 1993 the Government Accounting Office (hereinafter GAO) concluded its own audit of the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter IRS). The results of that audit were published to Congress and made a part of the record thereof. Pursuant to that record it was discovered that the audit was not complete. The reason given was that the systems of the IRS were not fully operational and for that reason only approximately one-third of the actual records could be reviewed. Even though it was only a portion of the records the audit revealed a great deal about how much the IRS was having problems with its own accounting practices and principals. The plaintiffs wish to present to this court substantial evidence that will show that the behavior dis­covered by the GAO is not inconsistent with the behavior of the IRS personnel in the field as they administer the guidelines. Plaintiffs allege that the GAO audit was necessary and that the people of the United States as a right should have the audit repeated and the results published and available for scrutiny by the general public at large.

SECOND COUNT

The IRS is charged and authorized to administer the tax laws of this country. However, Congress has given guidelines and safe­guards which have been upheld by the judiciary to insure that Constitutional rights, such as the right to privacy, right to due process, and right to equal protection under the laws are hon­ored and respected. There has developed a certain frustration between the body of taxpayers as represented by the plaintiffs and the agency which is charged with collecting the taxes. This suit does not attack the rightness or fairness of any tax nor the right of the government to collect it. What it does attack how­ever is the behavior and conduct of the IRS and its agents in how this collection is being accomplished. In the subsequent counts the plaintiffs will refer to specific incidents where com­munications and conduct between the IRS and plaintiffs has bro­ken down. This has resulted in abuses by the IRS, which under the color of law and the authority which its agents control, has been able to extract revenues in ways which plaintiffs allege were not intended by Congress. As such, upon presentation of specific facts and evidence, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judg­ment from this court that the law is to be followed as it appears on its face and that deviations are unauthorized.

THIRD COUNT

That pursuant to 26 USC Section 6331 there is a correct method to levy against property and that to do so according to paragraph (d) of that section requires proper notice to be given. The notice required prior to levy must meet the requirements of (d) (2) through (4) including in particular subparts (4) (A) through (F). Among other things prior to property being levied upon the property owner/taxpayer must be given the notice that he could execute an installment agreement under 26 USC Section 6159. Also under subpart (C) an administrative appeals may be made available to the taxpayer "with respect to such levy and sale". Plaintiffs allege that rarely are such notices given with the com­plete information on them and that violation, of this rule has be­come so wide spread that it has become standard procedure to obviate the necessary elements of due process and strike directly at the home. Plaintiffs ask only that the court declare, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that regardless of the present situation between agents and Americans that they placed under declaratory judgment the true procedures, as outlined in the statutes, the United States Constitution, and approved by Congress.

FOURTH COUNT

That pursuant to 26 USC 6334 (a)(13) and (e) there is a correct procedure in seizing someones home for taxes owing and that the procedure set forth has certain exemptions. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have not been following such a procedure. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment so as to assert the proper procedure and to insure that all parties correctly observe the safeguards.

FIFTH COUNT

That the powers entrusted with the IRS which are contained un­der Title 26 of the Code and the 16th Amendment of the Con­stitution have not been the only powers used by the IRS in ac­complishing its collection objectives. Plaintiffs allege that the IRS in its collection activities has illegally used sections of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms portion of the United States Code under Title 27, amongst others, as though they were with the same authority as granted under Title 26 and subject to some discretionary power yet to be attained through any proper delegation from Congress. Plaintiffs will present evidence and testimony pursuant to the allegations under this count the substance of which is to demonstrate an inappropriate use of the statues and law contrary to the original intent of Congress and which in fact will demonstrate a use which is beyond the origi­nal intent of Congress. Plaintiffs will ask the court to issue a declaratory judgment that will confine of each title to the extent that it is shown and that it appears that Congress intended and restrict any such application which goes beyond the reasonable interpretation of those statutes and laws. Plaintiffs will show by evidence and testimony where such deviations exist.

SIXTH COUNT

The IRS has also seized 100% of the wages and property of certain Americans in a practice which affects all plaintiffs whereas under 26 USC 6334 (a)(9) and (d)(1)-(3) there is pro­vided a standard deduction which allows a minimum of funds to be available to support and feed the family during periods in which the IRS is seeking to collect unpaid taxes and/or penalties. The plaintiffs would ask this court to issue a declaratory judgment in that the law is clear, and that the taxpayer has a right to at the very least an existence.

SEVENTH COUNT

Plaintiffs ask for declaratory judgment that the IRS not be permitted to compel citizens to perform services and give up resources without just compensation. The completion of tax forms and keeping of payroll records and accounts on behalf of em­ployees after a business has been closed by the IRS is tanta­mount to peonage or inequitable servitude.

EIGHTH COUNT

There have been numerous reports of the IRS not responding to reasonable inquiries by the plaintiffs. Questions regarding the law and which statues are specifically involved, when and if an administrative hearing is appropriate, how an assessment has been derived, where does the information for the assessment come from, whether or not the figures are based on the Depart­ment of Labor Statistics and not really on the actual income of the "taxpayers", all of which have not been answered or have been responded to with simple form letters containing no sub­stance. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment based on the statutes and the law as to the responsibility of the IRS to be open and honest with taxpayers and to be responsible for giving true, correct, and straight forward information.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray, for themselves and all other members of the class:

            1. That the rights of class members to having the procedures of the law declared by this court to be correct and the proper function of those rules specified based on a review of the statutes and United States Constitution and as such the rights be adjudicated and declared;

            2. That the defendants be restrained and enjoined from any collection activities which are contrary to the guidelines set forth in the statutes;

            3. That plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorneys fees.

            4. That declaratory judgments be issued where appropriate to identify the proper behavior and conduct of the IRS and its dele­gated authorities with regards to the interests and rights of Americans.

            5. That plaintiffs have such other relief as to the court may seem appropriate, including costs and expenses.

Dated: April 21, 1994                                                                                  /s/ Paul J. Young