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