"Problem Resolution" interviews.

[The point of this letter was that the IRS had offered, by Notices in the local newspaper and on the Internet, a specially-scheduled Problem Resolution Day for people who were having "problems" with the IRS. The behavior of IRS personnel as described below amounts to 'bait-and-switch', or unfair business practices, or plain old fraud, but not to a good faith offer to resolve my "problem".
[To give this letter more legal 'weight', I could have sent it as a sworn affidavit.
[The legal principle involved is called estoppel by official misconduct.]

FROM: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755 U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California U.S.A.
November 3, 1998

TO: CHARLES O. ROSSOTTI, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
1111 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20224

Dear Sir:
I try to not write letters when I am angry, so I have waited a while to cool down. However this incident is so outrageous I feel I must document it.

INCIDENT REPORT
On October 9, 1998, I found the Internet announcement (copy attached) for an I.R.S. Problem Solving Day to be conducted in Sacramento, California.
On October 15, 1998, acting in good faith and with a sincere intent to resolve [incidently, my definition of "resolve" is roughly "get these people to honestly answer my questions or to stop bothering me and get them out of my pocket", not the apparent I.R.S. definition, which seems to be "get as much money as we can without any concern for the lawfulness or legality of how we do it"] my problem, I drove to Sacramento, approximately a one-hour trip each way, and arrived at the I.R.S. office at 4330 Watt Avenue at approximately 12:30 P.M.
I entered the reception area and spoke with a lady who was apparently acting as receptionist for the Problem Solving Day program. I told her I did not have an appointment, but wanted to talk to someone from the Problem Solving Program. I waited about ten minutes and then a gentleman came and did a preliminary screening interview and then he went to look up some records on the computer.
He returned, told me someone would talk with me, and I waited a little longer.
In about five minutes, I was escorted into an interview room on the same floor by one JESSIE JENKINS (I am not certain about the spelling of his name. Physically he is a N.M.A., approximately 50 years, about 5'8", approximately 200 pounds) and a gentleman who appeared to be an armed plain-clothes guard. He gave me two printed notices which appeared irrelevant at the time. I assumed he was from the Problem Solving Program.
We talked for about 50 minutes to one hour, during which time I tried to understand and explain the nature of my problem. He left the room three times to get computer hardcopy of I.R.S. records. I had the impression the entire time that he simply was not receptive to what I was saying. I expressed it as a comment about the inability of I.R.S. employees to hear or read and understand English.
After I gave him a copy of my recent most letters to the San Francisco/Sacramento District Director, (copies attached) which he refused, he told me he was actually in Collections. The really sad part is that Mr. JENKINS appeared proud of his deceptive behavior.
I demanded copies of all the information he had generated. Then he and another presumably-armed plain-clothes guard escorted me back to the reception area. I sat in the reception area for about five to ten minutes and thought about the experience. I decided I was too angry to think clearly. So I then went out to my car and smoked and thought about it some more.
I was furious because I felt I had been deliberately and knowingly tricked and intentionally misled by (1) whoever established the Problem Solving Day program, (2) the receptionist, (3) the pre-screener, and (4) Mr. JENKINS. They all knew of my intent (obviously naive) to speak with someone from the Taxpayer Advocate's Office and that that was who I assumed I was talking to.
I considered returning to the reception area and decided that that action would be pointless. My realization was that there was no way I could ever again believe that anyone else from the I.R.S. I would talk to was not also trying to deceive me. And while I would have really liked to have copies of whatever Mr. JENKINS had printed from the computer, I was too disgusted to go back to reception.
So, after about another fifteen minutes, I drove home.

COMPLAINT
I do not, and cannot, know if this particular incident is an example of "Standard Procedure" at the Sacramento I.R.S. Office or not.
If it is, it is a rude, disgusting, deceitful, and counterproductive (and probably illegal) manner to treat your Revenue Sources.
If this incident is typical, I know of no legal reason why I should continue to have any relationship with known deceitful persons.

If it is not typical, it represents the Sacramento I.R.S. at its worst: lying and evading with the obvious intent to annoy and frustrate its customers in direct violation of I.R.S policies and procedures. This is not good Customer Service.
It this incident is not typical, you personally need to come out here and take names and kick butt.

Either way, I am forced to consider dealing with the I.R.S. in the exact same spirit with which I have been treated.
Unfortunately, I cannot do that because I simply do not understand why anyone would wish to deliberately behave in such a manner.
Obviously I cannot Trust your people ever again.

What I can do is Refuse to have anything to do with anyone claiming to be or to represent the I.R.S. until such time as you personally, or a properly delegated subordinate, delivers to me any and all Laws of the United States of America which say in plain English on their faces that I have any obligation at Law, in Equity, or under Admiralty, to treat with criminals.

I formally request that you investigate this incident fully as a violation of at least the I.R.S. courtesy policies.

I have been attempting to correspond (two way communication wherein mutual satisfaction and accord is reached) with the purported I.R.S. offices in variously, Ogden, Fresno, Oakland, and Washington, D.C., for about four years now. It is just as effective or satisfying as throwing a rock into a bottomless well. Why is it that people who work for the I.R.S. cannot answer plain questions phrased in plain English? What are your people trying so hard to hide?
I can know someone got the letter(s) I sent because I use Certified Mail and have the Return Receipts, but no one yet will address the questions I have asked.

Also I find it is almost impossible to receive a return letter from the person I addressed one to.
This fact raises certain presumptions:
1. The person to whom I address a letter does not really exist.
2. The mail addressed to said person is diverted by his/her subordinates so said person never receives his/her mail.
3. Said person delegates the response to a subordinate without including a written notice of delegation with the return letter.
4. The person to whom a letter is addressed is too incompetent to write in English.
5. The person to whom a letter is addressed does not have the nerve or courtesy to answer his own mail.
6. Every I.R.S. office is behaving and has been behaving just like the Sacramento office.
7. The I.R.S. has an agenda which is completely unlawful and simply cannot be justified by any effort, so they do not try to justify it, they just evade.

Please personally tell me which one of these presumptions fits this letter.

Sincerely,

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III

END

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

E-mail me here: