Time: Fri Nov 08 04:56:59 1996 To: oyishea@teleport.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Audit Experience? Cc: Bcc: At 02:36 AM 11/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >A whil ago you wrote: > >>How about a nationwide boycott of the IRS >>wherein all taxpayers start writing their >>checks PAY TO: United States Department >>of the Treasury, as opposed to PAY TO THE >>ORDER OF? Schweitzer has documented >>the important difference. > >Would the difference be that PAY TO: restricts it to one payee and PAY TO >THE ORDER OF: allows payee to pass to another with no say from payer? You got it! :-) See U.S. Postal Money Orders, for example. > >>We need to break >>their lock on withholding, then the boycott will >>succeed. Taxpayers also need to start sending >>in their payments and returns via Registered >>U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and >>Restricted Delivery Requested, to "Secretary >>of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, >>Washington, D.C. [zip code exempt]". If >>"Department of Treasury" returns the checks, >>the "obligation" is discharged and we have >>proof of mail fraud. > >What do you mean by 'returned'? Do you mean 'returned' as in processed >through a bank or 'returned' as in returned via mail as undeliverable? Checks are returned uncashed. > >I have a cancelled check that my mom's company wrote to US DEPARTMENT OF >TREASURY as payee for withholding and taxes. The payee is rubber stamped >INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE in red. Right, because such checks are PAY TO THE ORDER OF. Stamped on the back is bank stamp 'Credit >to the acccount of the IRS'. It even has their account number (#121000358 >Bank of America, SF CA hehehe) on it. Applicable to above? Yes, it is unlawful conversion if the check was made out to a party different from the one which deposited it, but without the payee's endorsement. > >Sorry for the late reply. Got lost in my in box. No problem. > >In Liberty, > >Richard William, Olivas >Portland, Oregon
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail