Help in understanding California taxation practices - Protest.

This document should be self-explanatory. My base premise is that the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD is reduced to using commercial, not legal, process.
The absurd part of all this is that if you do not automatically agree with the FTB, you have to file a 'protest', thereby becoming a 'tax protester'. Cute little Catch-22, huh?


From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755, U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, u.s.A.
no telephone service maintained
September 22, 2000.

To: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
MAIL STOP F-200 PFE
[PHANTOM] PO BOX 942867
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 94267-0021

NOTICE OF PROTEST and PROTEST,
NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCOVERY and DEMAND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCOVERY,
NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR HEARING and DEMAND FOR HEARING.

Dear FRANCHISE TAX BOARD:

1. To all interested Parties: Please take Notice that I, Thomas Murrell Thornhill III, an adult white Man, do hereby:
a. enter before the California FRANCHISE TAX BOARD a formal Protest to the California FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (hereafter FTB) "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" (dated 09/19/2000 and identified by the number 582000311098) attached hereto.
b. make Demand for Administrative Discovery by means of disclosure and delivery to me at the mailing location set out above by the FTB of the specific documents mentioned below.
c. make Demand for a formal face-to-face Hearing before the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD at the earliest mutually convenient time to completely resolve this matter.

2.a. On September 20, 2000, I was delivered an unsigned FTB "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" (dated 09/19/2000 and identified by the number 582000311098). I am returning said "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" marked "Refused for Cause: Invalid Instrument" for reasons I will discuss below.

2.b. I really, really dislike trying to communicate with persons who seem not have the common courtesy or courage to sign their own letters (especially when they claim to be acting as an agent or representative of a purported government entity), so I demand that the FTB disclose, deliver, and enter into the record competent evidence of:
(1) the True and complete currently-valid Charter/Articles of Incorporation of the purported California FRANCHISE TAX BOARD;
(2) the True full legal name of each and every person who generated/produced the "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" identified by the number 582000311098;
(3) the valid subscribed Oath of Office for each and every said person;
(4) the written Delegation of Authority from the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD to each nad every said person to act in this matter; and
(5) the specific written assignment to this matter of each and every said person .

3.a. The first paragraph of said "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" reads, in part:

"Within 30 days of the prior notice, you were required to do one of the following: ..."
3.b. I am not knowingly the withholding agent (as defined in 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(16) (2000)) for the entity THOMAS M THORNHILL III.
"(16) Withholding agent
The term "withholding agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461."
I have no known obligation to make any STATE OF CALIFORNIA tax return on its behalf for the year 1998.

3.c. I am not aware of any STATE OF CALIFORNIA Statute(s) or Regulation(s) which "requires" that I perform any such task.

3.d. Since it is legally impossible for me to prove a negative, I Demand that the FTB disclose, deliver, and enter into the record each and every valid STATE OF CALIFORNIA Statute(s) and/or Regulation(s) which actually "requires" that I perform any such task.

4.a. The second paragraph of said "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" reads:

"To date, we have no record of receiving the required tax return or information showing that you do not have a filing requirement."
4.b. Said statement is demonstrably False as is proven by the attached Exhibit 1 (consisting of (1) a copy of my two page letter [dated December 21, 2000, sent via Certified Mail # Z 388 350 940], (2) a copy of the original of FTB document 460000311198 [dated 12/13/99) which I returned, and (3) a document entitled "Administrative Notice of Proof of Service" containing photocopies of the USPS Receipt for Certified Mail [dated DEC 22 1999] evidencing my mailing of said letter and the USPS Domestic Return Receipt bearing stampings which plainly show that said letter was "RECEIVED" by "FRANCHISE TAX" on or about "24 DEC 1999".

4.c. I have no way of knowing where, in-house, said letter is, but I suggest in the strongest terms that the FTB make every possible effort to find it and restore it to the record.

5.a. I was not employed and received no wages in California during 1998 under a "PROFESSIONAL LICENSE ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF SECURITY/INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES" (FTB's only claimed jurisdictional nexus (FTB letter 460000311198, paragraph "Why do we believe you should file a 1998 California tax return?")).
I understand the phrase "PROFESSIONAL LICENSE ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF SECURITY/INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES" to mean my Registration (not "LICENSE") as a Security Guard.
I received wages="$0", gross income ="$0", and taxable income="$0" during 1998 from the "privilege" of possession of a "PROFESSIONAL LICENSE ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF SECURITY/INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES".

5.b. Since it is legally impossible for me to prove a negative, I Demand that the FTB disclose, deliver, and enter into the record any material Evidence, including relevant and material BSIS records, which supports the bare, unsupported assertion that I, in fact, was employed in, or did earn income from, any activity under a "PROFESSIONAL LICENSE ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF SECURITY/INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES" within California in 1998.

6. The third paragraph of said "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" beginning "This is a proposed assessment." contains many factual errors:
a. "Your Income (as estimated)" of "$29,307.00" is False; I have corrected it to read "$0".
b. "Taxable Income" of "26,665.00" is False; I have corrected it to read "0".
c. "Your Tax" of "925" is False; I have corrected it to read "0".
d. "TAX BEFORE CREDITS" of 855.00" is False; I have corrected it to read "0". e. "Your Tax Liability" of "855.00" is False; I have corrected it to read "0".
f. "Penalty for late filing" of "213.75" is also False; I have corrected it to read "0".
g. "Interest to: 09/19/2000" of 123.58" is False; I have corrected it to read "0".
"TOTAL TAX, PENALTIES, INTEREST AND FEE" of "1,192.33" is False; I have corrected it to read "0".

5.d. I not aware of any Statute(s) or Regulation(s) which would legitimately allow the FTB to simply create-from-whole-cloth and then attribute "income" to anyone in California without stating and proving the specific facts supporting such attribution.

5.e. Since it is legally impossible for me to prove a negative, I Demand that the FTB disclose, deliver, and enter into the record, each and every Statute(s), Regulation(s), Treaty(ies), and/or Agreement(s) which allow the FTB to legitimately attribute "income" to anyone in California without stating and proving the specific facts supporting such attribution.

5.f. I am not aware of any statistical study by which "income" can be attributed to people who did not actually receive said "income".

5.g. Since it is legally impossible for me to prove a negative, I Demand that the FTB disclose, deliver, and enter into the record any statistical study(ies) upon which it relies whereby "income" can legitimately be attributed to people who did not in fact receive said "income".

6.a. I am now entitled to the presumption that the rest of the FTB "Proposed Assessment" is also False.

6.b. The FTB by its own actions has forfeited its presumption of Good Faith and of Clean Hands and is hereafter presumed to be acting in Bad Faith and with Unclean Hands.

7. I do not need to remind the FTB of the law as set out below because the FTB and each and every one of its officers, members, and employees are all presumed to know it, but I will.

WEST'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED, PENAL CODE (2000) Section 518 and 521 read as follows:

"518. Definition
"Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, ... induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right."

"521. Punishment; commission under color of official right
"Punishment of extortion committed under color of official right. Every person who commits any extortion under color of offical right, in cases for which a different punishment is not prescribed in the Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Relevant parts of Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED (2000), Sections 1341 and 1346 read as follows:
Section 1341: Whoever, having devised ... any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Section 1346: For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. (emphasis added)

8.a. I know of no reason why the said FTB "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" cannot readily be viewed as falling squarely within the four corners of 18 U.S.C.A. 1341.

8.b. I Demand that the FTB disclose, deliver and enter into the record each and every Law(s), Statute(s), Treaty(s), Regulation(s), Compact(s), and/or Agreement(s) which it claims as legal justification for producing or mailing said "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT".

9. I am returning the legally invalid, bogus, FTB "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT", identified by the number 582000311098, and a completed FTB "Quick Resolution/Protest Worksheet" with the friendly suggestion that the FTB do everything in its power to Abate and/or resolve this matter at the earliest possible time and without any further cost harassment, or annoyance to me.

I Declare and Affirm, under the penalties provided for the crime of Perjury in the Law of the united states of America and in the Law of California, that I have read the foregoing and that it is True and Accurate.

Verified by my hand, this Day, the ______________ day of___________________ in the year of Our Lord, two thousand, in _________________________city, _________________________county, ____________________________state, united states of America.

Signature: _______________________________________

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III


Legal Definitions:

Invalid. Vain; inadequate for its purpose; not of binding force or legal efficacy; lacking in authority or obligation. See also Illegal; void; Voidable.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed (13 Reprint 1998), p. 824.

Instrument. A formal or legal document in writing, such as a contract, deed, will, bond, or lease. A writing that satisfies the requisites of negotiability prescribed by U.C.C. Art. 3. A negotiable instrument (defined in U.C.C. sec. 3-104), or a security (defined in U.C.C. sec. 8-102) or any other writing which evidences a right to the payment of money and is not itself a security agreement or lease and is of a type which is in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment. U.C.C. sec. 9-105(1).
Anything reduced to writing, a document of formal or solemn character, a writing given as a means of affording evidence. A document or writing which gives formal expression to a legal act or agreement, for the purpose of creating, securing, modifying, or terminating a right. A writing executed and delivered as the evidence of an act or agreement. Moore v. Diamond Dry Goods Co., 47 Ariz. 128, 54 P.2d 553, 554. Anything which may be presented as evidence to the senses of the adjudicating tribunal.

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed (13 Reprint 1998), p. 801.

END

[BACK to My Work][Come Visit My Home Page]

E-mail me here:

1