© 1994 - 2007
Against the Grain

Site Design, Hosting and Logo
by DNA Web Media

Response to PUC Letter of August 27, 2004

                                                                                                                                          7055 Mountain Rd.
                                                                                                                                          Oxford, North Carolina
                                                                                                                                          September 3, 2004
Rhoda Torres
Complaint Analyst
Public Staff-Consumer Services Division
4326 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

Dear Rhoda.

     I received your August 27 Letter explaining the situation. Yes I still say that any time the phone companies deal with an increase in charges it certainly does affect the rate of return. That's all I have to say on that. Further , I see no where in the Rate statute where the PUC can by-pass a public hearing simply because a new rate is considered with "offsetting" benefits in another location ? That's a new one for the Books ? Did the Legislature "authorize" such a rate making scheme?

     In your ending you say if I have any additional questions---- . Yes I do have another problem area and I am throwing it directly into the PUC's lap. It concerns the phone companies collecting of a federal excise tax that has no basis in law as I had stated in the previous case I started December of 1997, in a PUC complaint that covered much more.

     I decided to send a letter to Mr. Len Lauer, The CEO and President of Consumer Problems in Overland, Kansas. I attach that letter and it is self explanatory as Exhibit A. Lacking a response because Mr. Lauer could not produce what I demanded I proceeded to cure the default with a tacit procuration. I now attach that document as Exhibit B. His answers are agreeing with the premise of law presented and the fact Sprint has no basis whatsoever to collect the federal Excise tax, which is has continued to do since it was repealed in 1965.

     With this evidence of admissions and lack of any supporting evidence supporting Sprints claim to collect this federal tax, I wrote Sprint Billing a letter with my protest payment ever since PUC lied when it said it had no jurisdiction in the previous matter. This attachment is Exhibit C.

     Now Rhoda, PUC has complete jurisdiction over this matter. I cannot take this to federal court because the federal court has no jurisdiction when no law exists to take that jurisdiction in the first place. There is a repealing statute, there is no federal Excise tax Form and no Office of Management and Budget number (OMB#) for any collection form simply because the regulation that did exist was repealed. There is no listing in the parallel Table of authorities as of this date that would confirm the statute, the regulation and the OMB number that would go on the Form.

     So now the State has the right to prosecute the phone company and personnel for operating a R.I.C.O. operation when collecting a tax under Color of Law from every consumer of their services. Yes, they fit the criteria of R.I.C.O. to the "T" and I want this billing stopped and a return of all illegally collected money under a color of a federal excise tax that does not exist.
Since YOU now have "notice of the law " you are as well culpable if you refuse to take action on this matter.

     Yes, you got a big problem here that you don't like and can no longer protect the phone companies. Not only has Mr. Len Lauer, President and CEO of Sprint agreed, but if you look back in your records you will see that Mr. Dwight D. Allen, Sprint President on Capital Blvd. agreed on the fact there was no implementing reg, no statute, no Form and no OMB # to validate any federal excise collection Form on this phone tax. That was July 28, 1998 under confirmation Controversy No. Z 086 370 884, which was sent to PUC..

     In fact Mrs. Torres here is some of Mr Allens cogent answers to my questions way back in 1998 that PUC did nothing about. Mr. Allen's answers are bolded.

Question #39. Mr. Allen, is this a true statement of Government Document Exhibit #1, 26 CFR 49.4251-1. Note (b) "Termination of tax on general telephone service. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, no tax is imposed on amounts paid on or after July 1, 1965, for general telephone service rendered on or after such date.?"

Ans. Yes

Question #40 Mr. Allen subparagraph (2) makes no mention of a excise tax collection after July 1, 1965, is that correct?

Ans. Yes

Question #41. Mr. Allen, does Exhibit #1, 26 CFR 4251-1(a)
state, "In General. Section 4251 imposes a tax on the amounts paid for telephone service: . . ..?"

Ans. Yes

Question #42. Mr. Allen in Exhibit #2, which is Title 26 USC Sec. 4251, it states, "Imposition of tax" and then states that a tax is imposed on communications services which is defined as the telephone service. It that a correct statement found in Exhibit #2?

Ans. Yes

Question #43. Mr. Allen, on page 2 of Title 26 USC Sec. 4251 does it not state under STATAMEND, REPEAL in capitalized words?

Ans. Yes

Question #44. Is this a correct wording of the statement directly under the word REPEAL, to wit:
"This subchapter, relating to the tax on communications, was repealed by Pub. L. 90-364, Title I, Sec. 105(b)(3), June 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 266. . . ?"

Ans. Yes

Question #45. Mr. Allen, in Exhibit #3 does it not show that the only Form approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 26 CFR 602.101, which carried OMB# 1545.1075 for 49.4251- 1 & 2?

Ans. Yes

Question #46. Mr. Allen have you or Sprint ever sent Albert Coombs any such excise tax Form that contain these numbers?

Ans. No.

Question #47. Mr. Allen, is the reason these Forms have never been sent to me, Albert Coombs, is the fact they do not pertain to me?
Ans. Yes. That is correct.

Question #48. Mr. Allen, Did I send you Exhibit #4 in the Third Notice, which was the 1991 CFR Index and Finding Aids which shows the statute and the CFR section that puts the statute into effect and cited as (1986 IRC)?

Ans. Yes

Question #49. On page 814 of Exhibit #4 did it contain section 4251?

Ans. No

Question #50. Mr. Allen, in your capacity as President are you constantly informed by your staff attorneys as to the legality of Sprint's actions and apprised of the changes in the law?
Ans. Yes

Question #51. Mr. Allen, would you have to make a rational man's statement, given all the evidence in the governments own records that Sprint, AT&T and all Communications Services have been collecting a tax from Albert Coombs that was repealed in 1968?

Ans. Yes.

Question #52. Mr. Allen I have searched the State of North Carolina statutes on excise tax and cannot find one statute on the excise tax you are collecting and I had asked you to please provide me with that specific statute so I may stand corrected, is that not so?

Ans. Yes.

Question #53. And did you provide me that statute?

Ans. No.

Question #54. And, is that because that statute does not exist Mr. Allen?

Ans. Yes.

Question #55. Mr. Allen, Is this a true statement found in exhibit #5 that I sent you in the Third Notice, titled, CHAPTER 1-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Section 601.106 (f) (1) Rule I. "An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."
.
Ans. Yes

Now Mrs. Torres, why didn't any so called educated PUC attorney pick up on this and demand answers from Sprint and why did they not then call in the Attorney General on this matter of " illegal " collection of Color of law? I will tell you way. Because the PUC does not protect the consuming public, it protects the utility companies. For that is the State's bread and butter,
golden goose that gives then the golden egg after they purloin it by exaction from the consumers who are none the wiser, until an educated researcher of 50 years comes along to expose it. Also on that original case was an " Intervener" named Mr. Paul Burge , who to this very day has never received an answer from PUC on his matter when he "joined " in my case.

Now Mrs. Torres, are you going to turn this over to Sprint, the fox, who is ripping you, me, Paul and every consumer off in it's R.I.C.O. action so it can try to explain away Mr Allen's and Mr Lauer's answers and the law that is not there? When can I expect some real action on this matter? You should be turning this over to the Atty General as should be done by you on critical matters of RICO and fraud such as this. If you do not confirm this was sent to Atty. Gen. Cooper, by letter, to me in 10 days of conformation receipt # 2301 3460 0001 1385 7668, I will send Roy Cooper the entire ball of wax.

Sincerely,

Albert Coombs
Paul Burge_____________________By