RIGHT click here for the Word 97 version of this document

This form is to be sent following a tax examination meeting with the IRS in which rules of administrative procedure were violated.


                                                                       <<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>



Alleged SSN ***-**-****

Certified Mail # * *** *** ***

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the Commissioner

Attn: Charles Rossotti
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20224


Commissioner ____________:

We have learned of the fact that you have commissioned a national survey that is administered out of Hopkins, Minnesota, by Dr. Peter H. Webb. We also understand that the survey is seeking information from the people as to what they thought of their due process of law as provided by the Examination Division, in their recent case.

Since you are the head of the IRS under the Secretary of the Treasury, and have shown interest in discovering what the people are experiencing at the hands of the Examination Division, we are providing to you the following information and follow up.

On or about August 11, 1999 we provided to your office a copy of a letter to Tax Examiner Julia Mathews, where we confronted her with her failure and refusal to comply with the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury at 26 CFR 601.105:

Sec. 601.105 Examination of returns and claims for refund, credit or abatement; determination of correct tax liability.

(b) Examination of returns--

(5) Technical advice from the National Office—

(d) If the taxpayer initiates the action to request advice, and his statement of the facts and point or points at issue are not wholly acceptable to the district officials, the taxpayer will be advised in writing as to the areas of disagreement. The taxpayer will be given 10 calendar days after receipt of the written notice to reply to the district official's letter. An extension of time must be justified by the taxpayer in writing and approved by the Chief, Examination Division. If agreement cannot be reached, both the statements of the taxpayer and the district official will be forwarded to the National Office.

Ms. Mathews has sent us a recent letter dated September 27, 1999 where it is that she does not respond to the charges that we levied that she has failed and refused to comply with the requirement of the Secretary. The regulatory direction of the Secretary was that our file be forwarded to the National Office for examination, even if the IRS disagreed with our demand for meaningful administrative due process of law, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).

In case your staff has not been briefing you about the battle that is brewing over Due Process of Law in the Examination Division, the Goldberg case is where the high court outlined what constitutes meaningful administrative due process of law:

"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard". Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385,394 (1914).

The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552(1965).

"…the decision maker’s conclusion…must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing. Ohio Bell Tel. Co, v. PUC, 301 U.S. 292 (1937); United States v. Abilene & S.R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288-289 (1924)."

"And, of course, an impartial decision maker is essential. Cf In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Wong Yang Sang v. McGrath, 399 U.S. 33,45-46 (1950). We agree with the District Court that prior involvement in some aspects of a case will not necessarily bar a… official from action as a decision-maker. He should not, however, have participated in making the determination." Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254 (1970)

"In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. E.g., ICC v. Lousiville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94 (1913) 503 US L.Ed 2nd 391(1992), Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 474,496-497 (1959)" (emphasis added)

"In the present context these principles require…timely and adequate notice detailing reasons…, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting arguments and evidenceThese rights are important in cases...challenged…as resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises or on misapplication of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases."

Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254 (1970)

"Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While it is important in the case of documentary evidence, it is more important where the evidence consists of testimony of individuals…"

"We have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination"

"This court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out…in all types of cases where administrative...actions were under scrutiny."

Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474. 496-497 (1959)

Examiner Mathews also failed to inform us of our Administrative Appeal rights before the Appeals Division, as set forth in 26 CFR 601.106, in violation of the published procedures of the IRS, Publications 1 & 5, the TAMRA of 1988, and 26 CFR 601.105:

Sec. 601.105 Examination of returns and claims for refund, credit or abatement; determination of correct tax liability.

(b) Examination of returns--

(4) Conclusion of examination.

At the conclusion of an office or field examination, the taxpayer is given an opportunity to agree with the findings of the examiner. If the taxpayer does not agree, the examiner will inform the taxpayer of the appeal rights.

Why are the IRS Examination Offices keeping the question of our rudimentary due process rights as, set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), from going to the National Examination Office?

Is the IRS contending that the question of our rights to:

presentment of copies of all prima facie evidence used by the government against us;

a meaningful, true, and complete hearing of all of the facts of this case;

c.) notification of procedure, forms, or opportunity to refute the evidence against us (which is also the making of contentions of factual nature); and;

d.) opportunity to confront and cross-examine all adverse witnesses, for the creation of a complete defense and administrative record to support any subsequent appeal.

in the Examination Process is not a unique question, nor a question of national importance to be worthy of a determination of the National Office to handle our question of our rights as set forth in Goldberg once and for all?

Please correct us if we are wrong, but we are certain that these rights exist within the Examination Process as:

the federal Courts have long held that we must make every effort to resolve any matter with the IRS at the lowest level of contact with the IRS;

the Congress has barred us from seeking judicial due process and remedy prior to collections due to the Anti-Injunction Act of 1863, and since the 5th Amendment was not repealed, the IRS must provide meaningful administrative due process of law in the Administrative process to make up for this Act of the Congress;

the Examination Division has authority to summons adverse witnesses pursuant to 26 USC 7602 and National Delegation Order #4;

we would be the petitioners in U.S. Tax Court, and not the Accused, and thus we would not have a right to face our accusers (the government witnesses) as the IRS would have the option to bring witnesses forward or not;

the U.S. Tax Court is a Judicial body, and it cannot be petitioned until all administrative due process and remedy is exhausted; and;

the U.S. Tax Court is of limited jurisdiction and has no authority over questions of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory administrative due process of law.

By now, after almost a year, you, your Office, the Offices of the TIGTA, Assistant Commissioner Dolan, and the General Counsel for the IRS have all received dozens and dozens of copies of letters informing local IRS offices and officials of, and demanding, the administrative due process rights of individuals, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In consideration of this, why is it that you, your Office, the General Counsel’s Office, the TIGTA, and the Assistant Commissioner have all been silent regarding the growing question of our administrative due process rights as set forth by the High Court?

If the General Counsel answered the question of our administrative due process rights to:

timely presentment of the prima facie evidence against us so that we could construct a defense;

notification of the procedure and forms needed to make contentions of factual nature;

confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses; and;

other rights as set forth by the High Court;

we would not be seeking a determination by National Office as to whether or not these rights are required in the Examination Process.

Why is it that neither the Local District Offices nor the General Counsel are willing to answer our questions regarding these rights once and for all?

Why is it that Julia Mathews and the Manager of the Santa Rosa Examination Office refuse to forward our file to the National Office, just as the Chicago District Director Robert Brazzil has directly defied the regulations and direct order of the Secretary by refusing to forward the file of Ms. June Harrison to the National Office, and the Wisconsin Office has achieved the same noncompliance with the law one Member's case by sending his File to the Regional Office in Austin, Texas, in direct defiance of the regulations of the Secretary?

Why is it that the Examination Divisions fear a ruling on this question and demand for a determination regarding Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)?

We think we know why the IRS fears this question and the surrounding points of law and facts.

Although the IRS and the Courts will not be able to handle the result of an affirmative determination on our due process rights by the National Offices or the General Counsel, it can hardly be said that the Nation will be able to endure the struggle that will ensue from a naked and admitted condition of denial of due process of law.

The way we see this situation Commissioner is that the Economic Stabilization Program which the IRS administers by means of the Income Tax has been like a freight train securing the goods of society by the method of currency stabilization. It has been judicially victorious against the individual for the past 50 years because the Judiciary was not going to be responsible for destroying an economic system which directly effected and provided for the needs of the People of this Nation, and beyond.

Things are different now. The argument that we present and will be forced to present is no longer reaching and complex, it is simply about Due Process of Law, that which upholds the foundation of Just and Human Civilization. It seems that the legal Freight Train like argument, known as the need to preserve the economic system of the People, will now collide with the Passenger Train of Due Process of Law, which is not only the foundation of human Society, but American Jurisprudence says without which there can hardly be said to be private property and any need of laws.

Please note that without private property there is no corporate property, and then no commerce.

Without Due Process of law there is no need for any laws, any Congress, any Executive Branch, Lawyers, Law Schools, Courts or Judges.

It was just a matter of time Commissioner Rossotti before the people would learn how to argue against the denial of due process of the IRS. Now the argument is so simple that we are easily prepared to bring it to court and force the Judicial branch to either dislocate the Economic Stabilization Program or rule that there is no due process of law, and thus violate the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

For almost a year your office has been copied on many situations such as ours. For almost a year now your office has had the opportunity to pull the switch that would avert the collision of the trains of the Economic Stabilization Program with the inalienable right of the People to Meaningful Due Process of Law.

Are you ready to throw the switch now and avert the eventual collision of this matter in the Judiciary?

We think that you should consider informing the Santa Rosa and Oakland Offices to end this Inquisition immediately and avert this collision, or you will have to entrust it to the District Court who can throw the switch or defer to the 9th Circuit, who can avert the collision or defer it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Keep in mind, if the Courts send this matter to the higher level by blocking justice, this will be sold to the People by propagandists as a naked denial of due process of law and the Courts aiding the Executive Branch in refusing to assure fair procedure, not allowing persons to respond to charges against them, and failing to promote a sense of legitimacy of official government behavior.

"The central aim of due process doctrine is to assure fair procedure when the government imposes a burden on an individual. The doctrine seeks to prevent arbitrary government, avoid mistaken deprivations, allow persons to know about and respond to charges against them, and promote a sense of the legitimacy of official behavior. (The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States/ Edited by K. Hall, p. 236)(emphasis added)


We are certain that the right-wing radicals will make hay out of this, as they have other things of lesser substance, but in this case it will be a naked and clearly exhibited denial of due process of law that can be clearly communicated to all people of all racial and economic classes

Is this the future that you wish to make?

Do you think that this nation can handle this naked and unmasked reality?

Personally, we would just like to have the money taken from us returned, no more money taken from us anymore under the guise of income taxation, so that we will have nothing to claim against the IRS, and then to be left alone.

Otherwise, in this time of great and overwhelming public outrage towards IRS actions and activities, as well as the public questioning of the legitimacy of its actions, Due Process of Law is the only solution to regaining public trust, and quelling the general public outrage towards the IRS.

Should you and your office not be interested in verifying or responding to these issues, it will be apparent that the Administration is not interested in carrying out its mandate to perform its official functions and explain its behavior, seemingly outside of its own published procedures, that would have promoted a sense and appearance of legitimacy in the public eye.

Such behavior is not only in rebellion against the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury and his Boss the President of the United States of America, but is an affront to the U.S. Congress and the People by whose pleasure, they all govern.

Make no mistake about it. We demand an immediate account of all actions under the law and the IRM, or we demand due process of law pursuant to it and the determination of the High Court.

The IRS has a choice, this matter can cost this nation everything (Public Peace, Economic Stabilization, Public Trust, the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branches of Government, and the Commerce), or it can cost it very little (the little bit that it has taken from us).

Commissioner, we hope that you see the wisdom in having this matter handled quietly and to our personal satisfaction.

Please take notice that by the time that you have read this letter it will have already been disseminated and posted to thousands of people. So, we look forward to a most prompt, on point, civilized, and good faith response from you and your delegates.

Failure to properly comply will make you a party to this future action, that you can avert, and we will most certainly seek the million-dollar penalty against you for personally and willfully disregard of the internal revenue laws.

We hope that this will either settle this matter of our rights pursuant to the Goldberg case, or that this matter be quietly settled.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

_________________________ _________________________


CC'd to:

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Examination Group 2426
Attn: Julia Mathews, Examiner ID# 94-07079
777 Sonoma Avenue
Room 112
Santa Rosa, California 95404

The Honorable Senator Diane Feinstein Certified Mail #
U. S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
U.S. Representative ____________ ____ Certified Mail #
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Senator Barbara Boxer
Certified Mail #
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Certified Mail #
Internal Revenue Service
Office of District Director
Attn: Robert AhNee, District Director
777 Sonoma Avenue
Room 112
Santa Rosa, California 95404

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the District Counsel
777 Sonoma Avenue
Room 112
Santa Rosa, California 95404

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the Taxpayer Advocate
777 Sonoma Avenue
Room 112
Santa Rosa, California 95404

Department of the Treasury
Office of the Secretary
Attn: Secretary of the Treasury
15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220

Department of the Treasury
Office of the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration
Attn: Inspector General
P. O. Box 589
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20244-0589

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the Assistant Commissioner
Attn: Michael Dolan
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20224
Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service
Office of the General Counsel
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20224

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
National Tax Payer Advocate Office
Attn: Mary E. Thompson
Room 3017 C:TA:SFA
Washington, D.C. 20224

President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
Attn: Administrative/Executive Oversight
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, North
Washington, D.C. 20501

The Honorable William Roth
Chairman, Joint Committee on Taxation
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Trent Lott
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20210

The Honorable Fred Thompson
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20210

The Honorable Orin Hatch
Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20210