Norman Douglas Diamond v. United States, et al.

The case of Peretz v. US (Fed. Cl. 2020 affd Fed. Cir. 2022) reveals a malicious pattern including cases of Peretz and petitioner Diamond. The IRS properly collects withholding without impediment. However, after collection is completed and the taxpayer timely submits a return, the IRS violates statutes by failing to credit the taxpayer, failing to issue a notice of mathematical or clerical error, and failing to verify information returns from withholding agents. The IRS assesses a penalty for a frivolous return but still disregards statutory requirements. When the IRS instructs the taxpayer on how to correct a return and the taxpayer complies, the IRS disregards existence of the timely original claim, fails to record information returns, and again disregards statutory requirements. When the taxpayer sues for refund, the DOJ "moves the goalposts" by asserting additional requirements which the IRS did not demand. When the taxpayer complies again and sues again, the court rules that after the DOJ once "moved the goalposts" the court will never accept jurisdiction no matter how much further the taxpayer complies. In Diamond's case the court received TD Ameritrade's declaration of payment of withholding. As well, the government's own documents proved the government lied to courts, damaging Diamond. Do taxpayers have a right to pay the correct amount of tax, and to be compensated for damage from illegal actions performed subsequent to the original lawful collection of withholding?

The ruling in Cook v. Tait, 265 US 47 (1924), that the benefit of US citizenship extends to the citizen and property wherever found, has now been rejected in two circuits. Should Cook v. Tait remain valid?