UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
JON N C., )
Petitioner, ) Case No.:MC09-008xxxx
vs. )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; ) PETITION TO QUASH IRS SUMMONS
AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, ) DIRECTED TO THIRD PARTIES
Respondents )
_____________________________)
State of Arizona )
) ss:
Maricopa county )
Affiant, Jon N C., who is competent to state to the matters included in this declaration, has knowledge of the facts, and hereby declares that to the best of Affiant’s knowledge, the statements made in this affidavit are true, correct, complete, and not meant to mislead.
1. On or around November 17th, 2008, Affiant caused to be filed Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Form 1040 tax statements for tax years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 whereby Affiant caused to be signed said tax statements and thereby attested to the jurat therein.
2. Affiant engaged a professional accounting firm and licensed CPA (hereinafter “Accountant”) to prepare aforementioned Form 1040’s, and Accountant prepared and signed the Form 1040 jurat on the Paid Preparer section located below Affiant’s signature on Form 1040 for the relevant years.
3. On or around April 10th, 2009, Affiant caused to be filed Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Form 1040 tax statement (hereinafter “Form 1040”) for tax year 2008 whereby Affiant caused to be signed said tax statements and thereby attested to the jurat therein.
4. Affiant completed and signed jurat on the Form 1040’s, under penalty of perjury, having “examined [the] return[s] and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of [Affiant’s] knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.”
5. Affiant incorporated the 1099-OID informational returns into the original Form 1040 filings for tax years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 to report to the IRS that approximately ten (10) banks and financial institutions had improperly withheld lawful funds from Affiant.
6. To recover said funds back to principle, Affiant filed both Form 1099-A and Form 1099-OID informational returns, and requested the return of the withheld funds by filing Form 1040.
7. Hundreds of thousands of United States taxpayers file the Form 1099-A and Form 1099-OID informational returns in advance of, and included therewith, the Form 1040 filing for return of refund.
8. Affiant has first and second hand knowledge of many taxpayers who have received numerous refunds based, in part, on their use of and inclusion therein of the Form 1099-A and Form 1099-OID information returns. The recipients of said refunds have never been harassed, prosecuted or questioned about the validity of their used of said informational returns in conjunction with Form 1040.
9. As it relates to the use of Form 1099-A and 1099-OID, Affiant studied relevant law, IRS publications and manuals, legal definitions and applicable terminology relating to the issuance of bonds, concept of worthless securities, fractionalization of money and modern money mechanics.
10. Affiant consulted with Accountant on use of 1099-A and Form 1099-OID, and Accountant approved and validated the same for the stated purpose of reporting the unlawful withholding of funds to the IRS.
11. Upon information and belief, Affiant is authorized to issue Form 1099-OID to the financial institutions at issue because they each failed to report and file the same.
12. Upon receipt from IRS of a letter stating that the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 returns were frivolous, Affiant requested that IRS clarify its position and identity with specificity the elements of Affiant’s Form 1040’s that IRS had determined to be “frivolous.”
13. IRS failed to respond to Affiant’s requests for clarification; without any clarification offered by the IRS to Affiant as to which completed component of Form 1040 made Affiant’s Form 1040’s “frivolous”, Affiant could not in good faith amend said returns; thus, Affiant’s Form 1040’s were accepted, subsequently modified by IRS without authorization given by Affiant, and deemed “frivolous.”
14. Any attempt made by Affiant to amend returns without guidance from IRS on the filed returns would be merely “stabbing in the dark” with no assurance that Affiant’s amended returns would be accepted and not considered frivolous.
15. Affiant’s use of the 1099-OID in preparation of tax filings is predicated on copious amount of law and fact, including information provided to taxpayers on IRS forms and publications.
16. IRS has never provided Affiant with a single response to Affiant’s queries that demonstrate that Affiant’s use of the 1099-OID is incorrect.
17. IRS has recently began targeting and prosecuting taxpayers around the country for having filed Form 1099-OID’s and claiming the return on the Form 1040, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers have filed Form 1099-OID, have received refunds in part based on said information return, and have not been selectively targeted for prosecution.
18. Affiant is now being selectively targeted for use of Form 1099-OID despite IRS’ failure and unwillingness to demonstrate to Affiant why the IRS has recently determined that the use of Form1099-OID as a valid reporting method for Affiant is incorrect and “frivolous.”
19. On information and belief, the IRS had classified, labeled and identified Affiant as a "Tax Protestor" (since the 1998 reform act “Non-Filer”), or some similar description, before Affiant had filed the Form 1040’s for tax years 2005 through 2008 which included the 1099-OID’s.
20. Affiant is an articulate and prominent leader in several various business communities; further, Affiant served the United States for nearly nine (9) years as an officer in the United States Marine Corps and as a Naval Aviator.
21. Consequently, Affiant has been selected for special handling, special procedures, and aggressive investigation so that IRS can make an example of Affiant’s case thereby suggesting to the thousands of other taxpayers that use the Form 1099-OID that the taxpayer has no basis in law for use of the Form 1099-OID.
22. On information and belief, as a result of Affiant’s use of Form 1099-OID in concert with Form 1040, the IRS has initiated an institutional commitment to pursue a criminal investigation against Affiant, in accordance with their procedure required by MS9G-93 and its subsequent and regional manuals.
23. The IRS through Summons actions almost always lead to criminal recommendation by their own information sources. MS 9G-93 is the institutional commitment to prosecute.
24. This attempt to acquire private information through the third-party Summons is therefore being used solely to waste this Courts time and circumnavigate the traditional grand jury process in an attempt to intimidate Affiant into surrendering Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights without offering use immunity grant under 18 U.S.C. § 6001.
25. Affiant has not asserted any “blanket Fifth Amendment” protection, but rather has not been granted use immunity by DOJ, so any testimony could be used as a link for prosecution against Affiant.
26. Revenue Officer Debra Vahe transmitted Financial Records Summons Form 6639 to two (2) banks and failed to notice Affiant of the contact with Affiants banking relationships under the guise that the “summons is exempt from the notice requirements of IRC 7609,” as is printed on each Form 6639.
27. IRC §7609 provides that Petitioner is “a person who is entitled to notice of a summons”, with the right to petition to quash a summons. By attempting to prevent Affiant from responding with a petition to quash the summons for lack of notice by use of a tactically engaged exemption, the true nature of this investigation and the purpose of the government to circumvent the traditional role of the grand jury and the other Constitutional protections of the Petitioner as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights becomes clear.
28. The broad and encompassing request in the summons sought to be enforced in this case, in conjunction with the attempt to prevent Affiant from timely responding to the summons for lack of notice, is highly indicative of the true direction of the case at bar.
Affiant reserves all rights.
Further Affiant sayeth Not.
________________________
Jon N C., Petitioner Pro Se
Arizona )
) ss
Maricopa county )
I, ________________________________, a Notary Public for said County and State, do hereby certify that __________________________________, personally appeared before me and signed the foregoing. Witness my hand and seal this _______ day of ____________________, 2009
I certify that on this date, copy of this pleading was sent properly to opposing counsel.
Date: _________________
JON N C.
___________________________
Petitioner pro se