4 ms·
The phrasing "requires a response" on Letter 6173 is a bit slippery. To be absolutely clear, if your lawyer thinks you shouldn't send a response, you don't have
by brianpgordon 7y ago
The phrasing "requires a response" on Letter 6173 is a bit slippery. To be absolutely clear, if your lawyer thinks you shouldn't send a response, you don't have to. And if it's not already blindingly obvious, literally nobody should even dream of sending in a signed affidavit affirming "under penalty of perjury that they are in compliance with tax laws" without first consulting legal counsel - HN pooh-poohing about the IRS just trying to get its money notwithstanding.
- H8crilA 7y ago> a signed affidavit affirming "under penalty of perjury that they are in compliance with tax laws" Can you be forced to sign anything like this? I would never sign such a document out of my free will (what's the upside?). Tax law is so complicated that I wouldn't be surprised if nearly everyone is not super 100% in compliance. I mean completely independently of this particular Bitcoin issue.
- tgb 7y agoDo you know that Letter 6173 makes such a request? I would guess that it's more likely it requires you to either simply acknowledge receiving the letter or to agree to something like the statement that you already had to sign to when submitting your taxes: > Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and accurately list all amounts and sources of income I received during the tax year. Though of course you are right that anyone should consult a professional in such a case.