© 1994 - 2007
Against the Grain

Site Design, Hosting and Logo
by DNA Web Media

Len J. Lauer
President and Chief Operating Officer
President-Sprint Consumer Solutions
Sprint Corporation
6200 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66251

Dear Mr Lauer,
      Since 1998 when I instituted my suit against Sprint for all the legal taxes collected by Sprint and having taken it to the courts, which refused to hear it and did not ever make a ruling, I am now asking just for the federal excise tax info.

     I have preserved my rights in paying in protest and rebuked arbitration with each and every payment since 1998, enclosed is one such bill.. I find that if you cannot produce what I want in 20 days you will have defaulted in your actions in collecting a repealed federal excise tax. Therefore, I do not have to pay Sprint the federal Excise tax and I want a refund at least all the way back to 1998 when I initiated my suit. Yes I have kept an accurate account each and every month of all the illegal charges Sprint has collected from me. My suit had asked for a refund back to 1965 when the federal Excise tax was repealed by House Ways and Means Chairman, Wilber Mills. I also want Sprint to stop billing me for this federal excise tax.

     Here in plain English is what I want from YOU (Sprint), since by Law I am to file the federal excise tax form not Sprint according to the old law when it was in effect. If sprint files it as Sprint claims then please produce for me the following:

#1      The current Statute at Large,. not the code section in IRC, but the Congressional Statute that establishes the right to collect the federal excise tax from me by Sprint.

#2      The Regulations that apply to the statute at large which the IRS says Sprint is to abide by in collecting this excise tax and without it the Statute stands mute. See my complaint that I always put with paying Sprint's bill every month under protest under extortion at http://www.atgpress.com/phonecase/toc.html

#3      The current Form for collecting this federal Excise tax that explicitly states in the instructions that the payer is to file. That payer is me, not Sprint as I am not a corporation yet Sprint insist that I, not them, pay this repealed tax.

#4      The Office of Management and Budget number assigned to this current Form as required by law.

     Now I do not have to do this but I will. Go to 26 C.F.R. 602.101, titled "Sec. 602.101 OMB Control Numbers".
     Find the regulation of interest, which was 26 C.F.R. 49.4251-1 and 49.4251-2 that applies to me in the left column of the table in subsection (b), and note the Current OMB Control Number(s) in the right column. Do you see these two Regulations or Form with an OMB number?

     Now supply what I want in paragraphs numbered 1 through 4 within twenty days or "Your company" will be in default; and I will "file" said default in court; even if that means starting our litigation all over again ! There is no valid replacement for the old Form 1545-1075 and if there was there would be a valid OMB # assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act and it would appear in 26 CFR 602.101. Otherwise it is a bootstrap for no regulation exists and the U.S. Courts have ruled that laws passed by Congress are not self-executing [U.S. v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. (1987)]; that forms are not legally recognizable unless promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury [U S. v. Reinis, 794 f.2d 506, 508 (9th Cir. 1986)]; and that, where regulations are controlling, "the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone ... Since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation issued by the Secretary and not the broad authorizing language of the statute which is to be tested". [California Bankers Assoc. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 26 (1974)]
And also;

" If a statute does not satisfy the due-process requirement of giving decent advance notice of what it is which, if happening, will be visited with punishment, so that men may presumably have an opportunity to avoid the happening (see International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 , 34 S.Ct. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634 , 34 S. Ct. 924; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 , 41 S.Ct. 298, 14 A.L.R. 1045; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 , 47 S.Ct. 681), then 'willfully' bringing to pass such an undefined and too uncertain event cannot make it sufficiently definite and ascertainable. 'Willfully' doing something that is forbidden, when that something is not sufficiently defined according to the general conceptions of requisite certainty in our criminal law, is not rendered sufficiently definite by that unknowable having been done 'willfully'. It is true also of a statute that it cannot lift itself up by its bootstraps. "
U.S. Supreme Court SCREWS v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945)

     Since I am not a corporation I am not required to file Form 720 Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return, which the IRS says Sprint has to file, therefore the tax does not apply to me but to Sprint.. Therefore, if Sprint wants to pay this then it cannot collect from me as I have no part in this process and I am excluded under the Maxim of law expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Also the OMB stated that the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service agency form 8806, Computation of Communication Taxes expired in 1991 so that is no longer a valid defense on Sprint's part to charge and collect.

From this court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -vs- WILLIAM R. BARNES, NO. 91-3350, Third Circuit Court of Appeals

The bill ... [r]equires all information requests of the public to display a control number .... Requests which do not reflect a current OMB control number or fail to state why not, are "bootleg" requests and may be ignored by the public.
1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 6242. [Emphasis added.]
Section 3507(f) declares no agency shall engage in a collection of information without obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the information collection request. This requirement complements the provisions of section 3512 on public protection.
1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 6288. [Emphasis added.]

Also Internal Revenue Manual IRM 35 (44) 1.6, and the Paperwork Reduction Act Pub L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. S.3512 - public protection - "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981 and does not display a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is not subject to this chapter." This Mr. Lauer is Sprint's protection from the IRS telling you that you have to collect. They can't enforce because there are no regulations in place, ergo no Form can exist either, for OMB to assign a number .

     Mr Lauer, I am a legal researcher and not your typical phone customer as you will see when reading the website I sent you. I am tired of fooling around with the local attorneys in Raleigh and your regional manager who are listed on the website in #2 above. The next step is to reopen a case that has never been decided back into the US supreme court under appeal and default and not Cert. You have 20 days from receipt of this certified mail to supply me with the above documents and if you can't then remove from my phone bill any federal excise tax, post haste.

Sincerely, at arms length

Albert Coombs