9/29/2016 ~ This is an extremely long letter in part because it quotes a full definition of “honor” as well as examples of how the word is used correctly in sentences. It also quotes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Margaret Milner Richardson, IRS Commissioner
12th St. and Constitution Ave. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. Richardson,
I am in receipt of a letter dated April 26,1996 from Linda Martinez of IRS, Albuquerque. In a previous letter, dated November 8,1995, she states. “This is in response to your inquiry dated August 31,1995 to Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson.”
She goes on, “Your case file has been thoroughly reviewed and it has been determined that there was a problem on your 1984 tax account that resulted with an erroneous refund being issued.”
November 11,1995 I responded, “Exactly what do you mean, “an erroneous refund? When, exactly was that supposed to have taken place, before or after 1991. Where, among the forty-two plus entires on your/IRS’s computer account of my 1984 taxes, is this supposed refund?” I specifically wondered this because in 1993 President Clinton’s then Director of Correspondence, Marsha Scott, had initiated action that resulted in a refund of one of my two payments in full of 1984.Ms. Martinez never responded.
In Ms. Martinez’s letter of November 8,1995 she goes directly on to say, “Because of this error we have removed the penalties and interest assessed on the account.”
Doesn’t that sound as if I got a refund and it was IRS’s only error, and still IRS, being the good and kind agency that it is, removed penalties and interest that had somehow gotten assessed to my account when the only problem was an erroneous refund. I mean, honestly, isn’t that how that sounds?
The fact is that Ms. Martinez fails to indicate that there were years of wrongful penalties and interest, which added up to eight hundred dollars. My original tax being a thousand. I was levied to collect taxes I had paid and penalties and interest that I did not owe. My bank account was emptied by IRS: all of my money was taken. Leaving me none.It is important for you to keep in mind that I had paid my 1984 taxes early in 1985, well before any 1985 taxes were owing, I had no taxes owing for any prior year, and that IRS put my 1984 tax money into 1985 and began charging me penalties and interest for 1984.
This would be a minor error if IRS had said, “Sorry, we’ll correct this in view of copies of your 1984 tax form, withholding, and check that you’ve sent us.” Instead, IRS demanded I pay 1984.
I think the most objectionable letter I received from IRS was one dated July 22,1993 signed by J.J. Walsh, Oklahoma, which says, “1. You feel as if the Internal Revenue Service assessed you twice for the tax due on your Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the taxable year 1984.”
Not so, I never said, “I feel as if you’ve assessed me twice for 1984.” The fact is that I paid 1984 in 1985 and was levied for 1984 in 1991.
I object to IRS taking all of my money, but I especially object when IRS is in error. And, I did not object as much in 1991, as I began to object when I was levied again, with no notice, and again, in a series of enforcements that left me with no money: not for food, medical expenses, shelter, real estate license, Realtor dues, car insurance, or anything else; thus, quite effectively putting me out of business.
Ms. Martinez, in her letter of November 8,1995, goes directly on to say, “As stated in previous letters the discrepancies have been resolved and we have tried to explain this to you.”To which I replied on November 11,1995, “When you/IRS puts me out of business, a business that it took everything I had to create and keep going, until it was first becoming a success and you/IRS destroyed it, you can not really call that a “discrepancy.”
What does she mean by, “discrepancy,” except to minimize what was done, to such a degree that it seems as if nothing was done at all. Which is not true.
If all of Ms. Martinez’s money were taken, wrongly, would she speak of that action as a “discrepancy”? Would you, if it were done to you?
By failing to recognize that my 1984 tax burden was increased eighty percent, Ms. Martinez fails to identify the real problem: I could not afford the eighty percent increase and live a healthy life. That the increase was a result of IRS error, compounds the problem.
Just when I wanted to bring my son here from England, IRS began demanding 1984 taxes, penalties, and interest. Because of the way IRS treats people, I believe I was right to be frightened by them. The worst thing, then, was that the stress detracted from the energy I needed for my son and I failed in bringing him here permanently.
Ms. Martinez, in her letter of November 8, l995, goes directly on to say, “We have even offered to meet with you on several occasions but you showed no interest in doing so.”
The fact is that in August 1994 I met for two hours with Dan Akerman, during which time he said repeatedly that I should pay my taxes, that I had to pay my taxes, that I was going to have to pay my taxes.
When I asked him to help me understand IRS’s 1984 computer accounts, so that I could send in a Form 843 for each of the years wrongly involved in 1984, so that I could request back the interest I had been charged on these years, he said IRS accounts were easy to understand and I should understand them.
I persisted in asking for (him to) help me with this, until finally he had someone find my file for him and bring it to him. He had not looked at it prior to our meeting, he said. When he opened my file and looked at 1984 he was unable to answer my questions, because 1984 is complicated. At that point he agreed that someone would help me understand the account so that I could fill in the forms and request back the interest.
He wanted me to meet with Rosemary Abascal. I said that I’d talked with her on the phone in the past and she made me very uneasy by saying she could and would take my house.
He said she was the best person for me. I asked if he said that because she’d been assigned to me and he wanted to keep up departmental moral. He said she had a lot of experience and was the best person to help me with the accounts. Again I said that she had sounded awfully aggressive to me, that her attitude had scared me. He said that she was right, that IRS has enforcement powers, and it’s a matter of form to mention this. I said I’d rather work with someone else.
He asked me who I wanted to work with. I said that I didn’t know anyone. He said a couple of names, indicating by his tone that these agents would be worse. I remember thinking that I (as a taxpayer) was paying this man to come to a meeting unprepared, so that the meeting was longer than it needed to be, and he wasn’t even able to help me with what I needed. Shouldn’t he have been able to answer my questions? especially after telling me that I shouldn’t need help in understanding IRS accounts.
When I spoke to Rosemary Abascal, I wanted to confirm that she meant to include in our meeting the 1984 accounts so that I could send in the 843 Forms, along with a note Lonnette at IRS had written after she’d corrected my 1984 account. Ms. Abascal refused, saying that since I no longer owed money for 1984 the account was closed and she wasn’t going to look at it with me.
When I pointed out that Mr. Akerman had told me that she would, she said she would not. I wrote to Ms. Abascal on 8/28/94, and to Mr. Akerman on 9/19/94. Neither responded.
If you had the meeting I did, with Mr. Akerman, having the same results that I had, would you be interested in another such meeting?
In a letter dated 11/10/94, I describe much of this to a few people. A copy is enclosed.
In a letter dated 2/2/96, to Ralph Castillo, IRS, Phoenix. I explain my reason for not wanting to attend another meeting that was offered, and I enclose a copy of that letter.
I am also enclosing a group of letters to President Clinton that tell the same story. While it’s embarrassing that I wrote him not only often, but as conversationally as if he were a friend, these letters give me an excellent record of events.
Incidentally, you will see in my letter to President Clinton, dated 11/11/93, that I mention improvements that I had noticed at IRS.
Ms. Martinez, in her letter of November 8, 1995, goes on to say, “We know we did make a mistake but the problem has been resolved. Errors that were made on your 1984 account had no effect an any other tax periods.”
I responded on November 11, “When you say, ‘Errors that were made on your 1984 account had no effect on any other tax periods,’ you are patently incorrect. Please look at your/IRS’s 1984 computer account for me, you cannot help but see a series of other years involved there, by IRS.”
To which I can only add, please look at the enclosed note from Lonnette.
I added, “To me, your letter is written to cover up the truth, not deal with it, and I do not appreciate it.”
Ms. Martinez, in her letter of November 8, 1995, goes directly on to say, “We have also determined that the Revenue Officer assigned to your case followed established procedures in the Collection of your unpaid accounts.”
As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Martinez never replied.
You will notice in my letter to Mr. Castillo, that I was still wondering why no one had asked me for the names of the people who had said R. Abascal acted as if she had a “personal vendetta.” It seemed to me that if IRS was interested in investigating the truth, that they would want to know this information, in order to check it out.
The fact is that IRS refused to meet with me about my 1984 account, saying that it was paid and they had no interest in it, so that when IRS levied my bank account, then took two commissions in a row, putting me out of business, they used wrong numbers. I should have been able to get the interest back, but was denied that money.
Though Ms. Martinez denies that there were other years involved in 1984, if you look at the accounts, you will see, within the first ten lines alone, two years besides 1984. Plus, when Lonnette had made the corrections it had generated additional bills for other years, that I had then paid.
Ms. Martinez, in her letter of November 8,1995, goes directly on to say, “We apologize for the inconvenience this matter has caused you and if you have any substantial new information you may submit it for review.” Followed by a sentence which must have been meant for you, rather than me, “If we can be of further assistance to you, please call me or a member of your staff may contact Linda Martinez, Problem Resolution Officer, at the number shown above.”
I ask, is it appropriate to speak of what was done to me as “inconvenience”?
And, ‘if none of the information that I brought to the attention of IRS was actually reviewed, why would I submit anything further? Isn’t it important that people said the IRS agent behaved as if she had a “personal vendetta”? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to speak to the people who said this? If you were going to speak to them, how would you begin? Wouldn’t you have to ask for their names?
Failing that, how could you actually investigate anything?
Which brings me to Ms. Martinez’s letter of April 26,1996, “I don’t know that we can resolve the matters. However, I would like to try.”
I imagine her meeting with me in the same manner Mr. Akerman did, only she would be saying, over and over, that the discrepancies were resolved, sorry for any inconvenience.
At this point 1RS needs to take an authentic step to make up for hurting me, else, why would I be interested. You see, though IRS has taken my money, my business, my retirement, my security, I am not giving it the precious time I have left, simply so that it can continue to maintain it’s right. In cases where I was wrong, I don’t say, I was wrong, now do as I say. Yet that is what IRS does, as if IRS being wrong makes no difference. But it does: whereas I had a business, I now have none. Whereas I had work to fill the hole in my life created by the loss of my son, I now have only the hole. And while there is no country where I would rather live, I will not live here when I am treated like this. I would prefer not to live.
I believe that IRS is a root cause of the crime and violence we see rampant among young people. Why? because, I believe, many young people’s homes are touched by IRS power, young offenders learn mindless violence by watching what IRS does to their parents.
When IRS levies 2.9 million people in a year, there has got to be a percentage of error, in terms of levying innocent people. But if those innocent people have the same experience that I am having, then a wave is being created, a current, a tide. There will be a back lash.
No, actually, we are seeing that backlash now. It is coming from the young who have been hurt at the most innocent level. Think about my son, as an example. Don’t you think he would have preferred to have come here and had me be able to concentrate on him? Don’t you think he might wish the chance he had, had been more of a chance? I know I do.
I see no reason for you to have worried me then, as you did. It is deeply distressing to be up against a power such as yours, and not be able to make oneself heard or understood.
I tried to make IRS happy: I hired an accountant, kept better and better computer records, got credit cards from which I paid IRS. But IRS responded by telling me I should get a different job, so that I could pay them more regularly. That is not an appropriate thing for IRS to say. As, indeed much of what IRS has done, has been inappropriate: as a result of IRS actions there were months when I slept three hours a day. The pain of that kind of sleep deprivation is intense. IRS caused that, and it is not an “inconvenience.” It is, equally, a fact that IRS is killing me: I cannot live without the things IRS has taken and is still causing to be taken.When Ms. Martinez writes, “I hope that you will honor my request,” I do not understand how she can use the word honor as if it were fitting in relation to IRS. When she does not respond to my letter, to my questions, how could it be appropriate for me to “honor” her, or IRS?
The American Heritage Dictionary says the following in relation to honor:
1. High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem: the honor shown to a Nobel laureate.
2a. Good name; reputation.b.A source or cause of credit: was an honor to the profession.
3a. Glory or recognition; distinction, b. A mark, token, or gesture of respect or distinction: the place of honor at the table, c. A military decoration, d. A title conferred for achievement.
4. Nobility of mind: probity.
5. High rank.
6. The dignity accorded to position: awed by the honor of his office.
7. Great privilege: I have the honor to present the governor.
8. Honor. Used with His, Her, or Your as a title and form of address for certain officials, such as judges and mayors: Her Honor the Mayor.
9a. A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms.
b. Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity, c. A woman’s chastity or reputation for chastity.
10. honors. Social courtesies offered to guests: did the honors at tea.
11. honors. a. Special recognition for unusual academic achievement: graduated with honors, b. A program of individual advanced study for exceptional students: planned to take honors in history.
12. Sports. The right of being first at the tee in golf.
13. Games, a. Any of the four or five highest cards, especially the ace, king, queen, jack, and ten of the trump suit, in card games such as bridge or whist.
b. The points allotted to these cards. Often used in the plural.
—hon or tr.v. hon ored, hon or ing, hon ors.
la. To hold in respect; esteem, b. To show respect for. c. To bow to
(another dancer) in square dancing: Honor your partner.
2. To confer distinction on: He has honored us with his presence.
3. To accept or pay as valid: honor a check; a store that honors all credit
—idiom. honor bound. Under an obligation enforced by the personal integrity of the one obliged: I was honor bound to admit that she had done the work. (Middle English, from Old French, from Latin.]
SYNONYMS: honor, homage, reverence, veneration, deference. These nouns denote admiration, respect, or esteem accorded to another as a right or as due. Honor, the most general term, is applicable both to the feeling and to the expression of such sentiments: He tried to be worthy of the honor in which he was held. Homage is an expression of high regard and respect, often in the form of a ceremonial tribute that conveys allegiance: “There is no country in which so absolute a homage is paid to wealth” (Ralph Waldo Emerson). Reverence is a feeling of deep respect and devotion: “Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man” (Ayn Rand). Veneration is both the feeling and the reverential expression of respect, love, and awe: Her veneration for traditional learning never wavered. Deference is courteous, respectful regard for another that often takes the form of yielding to his or her decisions or wishes: Have confidence in your own judgment; don’t give undue deference to the opinions and feelings of others. See also Synonyms at honesty.
I believe Ms. Martinez letter of November 8,1995, and the failure of both her and you to respond to my letter of November 10, (1995) are related to the tone of my letter to you on March 3,1996.
Do I think this can be resolved? Do I think IRS will take responsibility for its actions, for the harm it has caused? No one has told me that they think IRS will do that, and I have asked about forty-eight people. And yet, unless IRS does take responsibility, it will be responsible not just for taking all of my money to pay taxes for a year I had long since paid, for charging me an eighty percent increase in my taxes as a penalty for an error it had made, for refusing to correct its numbers before destroying my business on the basis of those numbers, for causing me the pain attendant upon the extreme stress it causes, it will also be responsible for my death.
I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t think our tax system needed to change. But more than that, I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t believe my actions would play a part in bringing about this change. I believe this, perhaps, because I remember, as a child, hearing my grandfather arguing on the radio with Ezra Taft Benson, the Secretary of Agriculture —my grandfather was president of the Farm Bureau. The idea of giving up on the system and declaring allegiance to some other country, or declaring sovereignty, while remaining here, does not resonate with my beliefs.
Here is a quote from a letter I have been sending out:
I also want to quote the following portion of a letter: “I began to see an organization to your writing that highlighted what I mean by what I’m doing, without saying, “and she’s threatening suicide.” Because the fact is, in my mind there is no “threat” involved. This is a matter of facts, and I don’t yet know what will happen. If the worst is true of my government, if it stands behind the bad things IRS does, then I don’t want to live here anymore, and there’s no place I want to live more.”
And, “If you were contrasting my protest to that which you described under the heading, Targets, you were right to do so, and I thank you for doing it.”
And, “Later when I read the whole of your article, I took in that you’d mentioned the Montana protesters, which few news people tend to do,” in relation to IRS, “and I thought that in a way it was done with respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I’d quoted parts of to you.”
The parts that I’d quoted are these:
“… freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be the rule of law,”
and Article 12, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
and Article 17, 2, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
and Article 21, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”
and 3, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government,”
and Article 22, “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality,”
and Article 23, 1, “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment,”
and Article 25,1, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
In a few letters I’ve said, “It’s when I identify with mums and kids, thinking back to the days when I was a poor mum, that I become flinty about this fight. Because, for one thing, a mum who presently has kids can’t do what I am doing.”
I wrote to an inspirational supporter, “Did you see the page U.S. News ran in January about Flat Tax negatives? When it came out, I thought the Forbes message was a good one and didn’t need dampening. Now I see that people could easily begin backing the Flat Tax without looking at the numbers as those numbers affect them. Plus, the Flat Tax doesn’t get rid of the need for IRS enforcement powers. Which leaves poor people in the same boat as now: not always being able to afford to protect themselves. For example, if someone pays thirteen thousand in taxes, and then pays an addition thousand to an accountant and lawyer, that’s a seven percent increase, but for someone whose taxes are nine hundred, an additional thousand increases their burden by one hundred eleven percent, and may be out of the question, out of reach.”
I’ve begun quoting those lines so that other people could think about their implications.
Because I don’t know what will happen, and I don’t want to leave a lot of messy work for someone, I’ve begun emptying out my house. It’s interesting how easy it is to burn boxes of papers — making me aware that if I do survive, my home won’t be as insulated next winter as it was this winter — as opposed to how hard it is to give away things that have significant meaning.
I look forward to your reply.
Copy to IRS Albuquerque, and to all the people I wrote asking for help in what to think about the letter and proposed meeting, and no doubt to others.
Little yellow card
Letter dated 1/25/96 to Senator Robert Dole
Two pages of U.S. News & World Report‘s story entitled, A messy Business
Letter dated 4/7/96 to Bill Meyers, with its enclosures:
Letter dated 12/28/95 to Alice Rivlin, Budget Director
Letter dated 1/1/96 To Donald Skadden. American Tax Policy Institute
Letter dated 2/2/96 to Ralph Castillo, IRS, Inspector, Phoenix
Letter dated 3/3/96 to Margaret Milner Richardson, IRS Commissioner, Washington D.C.
Letter dated 4/ 26/96 from Linda Martinez. IRS, Albuquerque
Letter dated 11/8/95 from Linda Martinez. IRS, Albuquerque
Letter dated 11 /10/95 to Linda Martinez, IRS, Albuquerque
Letter dated 11/10/94 to a number of people
Letter dated 8/28/94 to Rosemary Abascal, IRS, Santa Fe, misspelled Abascoe
Ultrasound Results dated 2/24/93
Letter dated 9/19/94 to Damian Akerman, IRS
Letter dated 9/30/1994, IRS to Bill Richardson,
w/margin notes I took while talking w/IRS
Letter to President Clinton: dated 11/11/93
Undated Post-it from Madelyn Marquis, IRS, an 800 number
Note dated 1/21/94 from Lonnette, IRS, Albuquerque, describing how she had corrected 1984
Letters to President Clinton: dated 2/3/95, 7/24/94, 11/9/94