UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MARILYN PATRIOT ) CASE NO: ____________________
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR ILLEGAL
VS ) TAX COLLETION UNDER §7433
) (Jury Trial Requested)
UNITED SATES OF AMERICA )
The IRS has admitted twice that the levy was illegal.
Plaintiff Marilyn Patriot complains of Defendant United States of Americaand seeks damages for Illegal Tax Collections under IRC §7433.
- This is an action brought under 26 USC §7433 for minimum statutory damages of $1000,000 plus fees and cost for an illegal Internal Revenue Service levy on her pension.
Further, Plaintiff request trial by jury, pursuant to FRCivP 38.
- This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC Section 1331 as this action involves federal statues and a defendant federal agency, plus IRC §7433, FRCivP 65, 28 USC §§ 451, 1331,1357,1631,and 1391(c)
- Marilyn Patriot is a citizen and resident of the state of Wyoming. Defendant United States is classified as a resident of this district.
- Marilyn Patriot is sole supporter of herself and main financial supporter of her husband. The illegal levy consisted of 55% of her pension and caused immense financial hardship.
- On September 25, 2001 the IRS levied her Michigan State Teacher’s Pension in the amount of $945.54. This continued until June 2006. A total of $53,895.78 was illegally removed.
- Patriot had a tax debt of approximately $10,000 which was listed at that time as approximately $30,000. Approximately $43,000 was illegally taken but the IRS only admits that $20,000 was excessive. In any event, any amount of more than $1.00 would be an excessive levy. Much of this was removed from her pension well after the correct amount had already been levied.
- Monies taken out of her pension after the levy was satisfied would be classified as excessive, illegal and unwarranted. This happens frequently and Congress has repeatedly ordered the IRS to stop it. According to the Governmental Accounting Agency three out of four IRS liens and levies are incorrect, unauthorized or illegal.
- Patriot made numerous phone calls, wrote numerous letters, etc to numerous collection officers informing them clearly and distinctly that the amount they claimed she owed had already been removed from her pension check. Even if she owed the amount the IRS claimed, that amount had long been satisfied, ended, completed, finished, over with and levied upon before the levy was finally stopped.
- The amount of excessive levy was approximately $40,000.
- Mrs. Patriot met with IRS Agent Thomas Bentley on May 25, 2006 in Billings, MT. Thereupon he immediately ended the levy. This also was the IRS admission that the levy was in excess of $1.00 or more.
- On March 16, 2007 the IRS sent her two checks totaling $10,954.18 This is clearly an unmistakable acknowledgment by the IRS that the levy was excessive or unauthorized in that amount. Plaintiff’s figures show the excessive amount was well over $11,000.
- The IRS also levied her social security retirement benefit in the amount of $3449.10. Further, they levied her husband’s social security check for the joint tax returns for $3074.09 for a grand total of all the three pensions of $60,418.97.
III EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
- Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies:
A. On the July 5, 2006 Plaintiff filed her ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FOR UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION ACTIONS UNDER IRS 7433 & 26 CFR 301.7433-1, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein.
B. On the August 28, 2006 Plaintiff filed her ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FOR UNAUTHORIZED COLLECTION ACTIONS UNDER IRS 7433 & 26 CFR 301.7433-1, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Tax Service has not denied either of these and more than six months has expired since she filed.
- Plaintiff and her husband were denied the necessities of life due to the levies on their three pensions. Further, due to the excessive levy, the recalcitrance of the IRS and also the shoddy treatment from the IRS agents whom she contacted with her well-founded complaints, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, anxiety, emotional distress, which resulted in physical health problems.
Plaintiff and her husband are elderly, unable to work and live in an isolated area far from relatives and friends. To stop the robbery of her pensions, Plaintiff had to hire expensive tax professionals to assist her in writing letters and to advise her.
- The damages include $50,000 for excessive levies on their pensions, plus interest and $100,000 for statutory damages which includes cost and actual damages.
- In conclusion, the Congress of the United States enacted the Unauthorized Tax Collection Act as part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II. The elected representatives of the people were appalled over the meanness of the tax service and the appalling actions of the tax collectors. The collection agents made no effort to obey the laws of Congress, the agency regulations or their own policies. The agency supervisors who were aware of these travesties against the people of this country and the inspection division of the IRS looked the other way.
The congressman who are all experts in public opinion believe that the tax system had to have the support of the populous; that the tax boys brutality was undermining the public support of a complex and confusing tax code. Therefore to make the agents obey the law, which would cause the people to favor the income tax, the Congress passed remedial legislation to protect the system and the vast amounts of money it generated.
In order to encourage citizens like plaintiff who were aggrieved, Congress made this a self-help enactment with ample provisions for attorney fees and minimum statutory damage, similar to other federal bounty hunter statutes.
Consequently, to affect the will of Congress and to assist the tax service in the collection of even more money, this court should maximize the damages awarded to the tax victim.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff request that This Honorable Court do grant the relief herein requested, grant fees, cost and out-of-pocket cost another appropriate relief.
___________________________ Date: April 20, 2007
Richard Nosier, Attorney at Law