Re: Burden of proof

[Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>]

>     >> In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on
>     >> the accuser.
> 
>     > Which explains why in the  U.S. the tax authorities take the money first
>     > and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to
>     > get his seized assets back.

   Tim, bad as the Congress is, it did _not_ give the arbitrary powers 
you describe to the IRS. It's clear that you have not studied the 
Tax Code paragraph-by-paragraph, nor are you keeping up with Tax Court and 
District Court rulings. I have (in selected sections) and I do.

The IRS does NOT have the power to "just seize"  things. There is an
Administrative sequence that they are required to follow, involving
notices to the taxpayer, opportunities to gain abatements, etc.  The
courts are unanimous on holding the IRS to these strict requirements. 

The IRS is without a doubt, the most abuse-o-genic TLA we are cursed 
with. It is not unstoppable. I have won against them a few times, acting 
_pro se_.

The IRS is very dependant upon its *image* of being not-worth-fighting. 
They cultivate this, very carefully. It is purely an image.