When Will Patrick Mooney Announce His Loss At LostHeads?

[Imalawman]

Illuminati-themed BBQ-set. Perfect for those intimate al-fresco dinners at the patio. With dual grip handles that can be operated both by human and lizard hands.

Sweet!!! Just in time for Spring!!!

[Joey Smith]

And the winners are the seven of you who correctly predicted that Mooney would announce that he got his bucked kicked hard: "Within a few weeks, predicting fall of IRS". Congrats!

[Imalawman]

And the winners are the seven of you who correctly predicted that Mooney would announce that he got his bucked kicked hard: "Within a few weeks, predicting fall of IRS". Congrats!

What do I win this time? I could use something to go next to my Quatloos mug in my office.

[Gregg]

I get the very strong impression that Mooney and others remaining at LostHorizons are extremely self-absorbed, living in little worlds that go about 25.4mm past their noses, as indicated in part of a post by Libre, "In spite of all the new registrations, it appears no new forum users are being approved in Pete's absence. This forum is now just us - just the core group."

Gee Libre, couldn't have anything to do with Pete being in prison and Doreen close to joining him, and with a lot of other things on her mind than making sure you ree-tards have new playmates, could it?

And even now "just the core group" are having a little independent thought every day that inspires one or another of them to suggest another is a heretic and needs to shut up or go home.

Dear Optimus,

I'm not sure what your point is about stipulations. They are merely things that you and the other side accept as fact and agree not to spend time at trial arguing about.

In my case, that included 3 things:

1) I lived in Virginia at the time my petition was filed.
2) I received an NOD from the IRS..in my case, I even asserted that it was an alleged NOD.
3) That my original filing was indeed received by the IRS.

That's all I stipulated to. As you can see from the recent ruling against me, the major argument was that my initial filing was not frivolous within the meaning of the law.

The Tax Court dodged that issue entirely, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determinations in that matter. Bullshit!

Everything else in the decision written about me is to falsely construe my agreement with THEIR understanding of their perversion of the law. There were about 6 others Warriors in the courtroom with me that day, and I can guarantee you that they will back me up in that I never admitted to receving income of any kind and objected to almost every bit of hearsay the successfully got entered into the record.

There is no one place in the trial where I endorsed any of their fictions. That it took 11 months for them to come up with the tripe they issued about me is telling in and of itself. If it was such an easy case to decide, why wait so long to issue it? They only did so after I forced their hand by filing another motion for summary judment in my favor.

On another note, you falsely represented what Pete agrued in his trial and as such your observations about his results are also skewed. Please be more diligent in your understanding of these matters before spreading around misinformation like that.

I don't know what you mean about embracing "employment" as your protection. If your strategy is to condone the lawless behavior of our government, or to accept meekly the slave-status of the income tax scam, then perhaps you had better reconsider your participation on this forum.

That kind of attitude is certainly not helpful...and defintely not welcome.

Happy Spring to all!

[.]

Hey, I'm more inaccurate and more inarticulate, and much more frivolous than you are!

[Quixote]

Mooney has found the silver bullet. No income, no taxes.

Workers are not going to see any changes in this lawless behavior until we stand up against it.

I have been faced with a similar situation at my company. After working for a year as a freelance worker (I resigned my position as an "employee"..in common sense of the word..last February), my company is deciding to treat me as an "employee" because they are worried about an IRS audit if they don't withhold from my earnings.

My answer? I quit.

What will happen to me? Don't know...a part of that is in god's hands. But I know that I will not be a slave any more to the Federal Government, especially in regards that I have a full understanding of who they are and who they represent. (Hint: NOT the American people).

Workers are going to have to stop saying YES to these abusive practices and work to educate each other so that we can identify and stand up to these bullish tactics.

Is this a tough job...ABSOLUTELY...but that is why Peter nicknamed us "warriors".

Wishing other warriors facing a similar situation the COURAGE to stand up for yourself and the rule of law. We won't get there by sitting back and taking this lying down.

Happy Monday!

Patrick

[Joey Smith]

Cue the Judean People's Front's Crack Suicide Squadron ....

[Pottapaug1938]

Can you say "self-employed", Patrick?

[Thule]

Mooney has found the silver bullet. No income, no taxes.

My answer? I quit.

Patrick

I'm sure his ex-boss is sorry to let him go. But I suspect it went down something like;

Mooney: The Book says I don't have to pay taxes
Boss: I don't care, my company, my rules.
Mooney: Respect my authoritah!
Boss: Enough of this. You can't work here anymore.
Mooney: You can't fire me. Because I quit like two seconds before you fired me!

[jg]

Dear Optimus,

I'm not sure what your point is about stipulations. They are merely things that you and the other side accept as fact and agree not to spend time at trial arguing about.

In my case, that included 3 things:

1) I lived in Virginia at the time my petition was filed.
2) I received an NOD from the IRS..in my case, I even asserted that it was an alleged NOD.
3) That my original filing was indeed received by the IRS.

That's all I stipulated to. As you can see from the recent ruling against me, the major argument was that my initial filing was not frivolous within the meaning of the law.

Perhaps whether his filing was frivolous was not "the major argument".

The issues we must decide are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for a deficiency in income tax; (2) whether petitioner is liable for a failure to timely pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2); (3) whether petitioner is liable for a failure to pay estimated income tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654; (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for fraudulent failure to file pursuant to section 6651(f); and (5) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty pursuant to section 6673.

The Tax Court dodged that issue entirely, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determinations in that matter. Bullshit!

3 Petitioner devoted large portions of his argument at trial to the issue of whether respondent was entitled to assess a frivolous return penalty pursuant to sec. 6702. However, we lack jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to review the Commissioner’s determination to assess the frivolous return penalty under sec. 6702. Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324, 328-329 (2000).

Reading comprehension allows one to see that the assessment of the penalty was not proper in this type of proceeding, i.e. a deficiency proceeding. Also see above the issues to be decided in this case.

At trial, petitioner did not dispute that he received from Interstate Industries and the Centre the amounts shown in the deficiency notice, but he claimed, on the basis of various tax-protester arguments, that those amounts were not taxable income.
Petitioner previously advanced similar tax-protester arguments in a proceeding before this Court disputing his tax liability for his 2004 tax year. See Mooney v. Commissioner, docket No. 21647-06 (petitioner’s prior case), affd. 309 Fed. Appx. 675 (4th Cir. 2009). In petitioner’s prior case we found that petitioner’s position was frivolous and groundless and that he had instituted and maintained his case primarily for the purpose of delay. Despite our repeated admonitions that petitioner would be penalized if he did so, he continued to
advance frivolous and groundless arguments. In petitioner’s prior case we therefore imposed a penalty of $1,000 pursuant to section 6673(a)(1).
OPINION
Petitioner conceded at trial that he received the amount of compensation set out in the notice of deficiency for his 2005 tax year. However, petitioner argues that the income he received in 2005 was not taxable income within the meaning of the law. To support his assertion, petitioner offers only tax-protester arguments and Forms 4852 he prepared himself. The Forms 4852 are based on tax-protester arguments, and we do not find them
credible.
Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services. Sec. 61. Compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income. Abrams v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 407 (1984). Petitioner’s assertion that the payments he received in 2005 were not taxable income within the meaning of the law are frivolous.2 We do not address petitioner’s frivolous and groundless arguments with “somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude that the income respondent seeks to tax is taxable income under the Code. Consequently, we uphold respondent’s determination of a deficiency in petitioner’s income tax for his 2005 tax year.

Perhaps there was no such dodge or one man's dodge is another man's direct blow. Given the nature of the "the major argument", the court did not address Mooney’s frivolous and groundless arguments once they were identified as such.

2 A taxpayer’s argument is frivolous if it is “contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986).

Everything else in the decision written about me is to falsely construe my agreement with THEIR understanding of their perversion of the law. There were about 6 others Warriors in the courtroom with me that day, and I can guarantee you that they will back me up in that I never admitted to receving income of any kind and objected to almost every bit of hearsay the successfully got entered into the record.)

At trial, petitioner did not dispute that he received from Interstate Industries and the Centre the amounts shown in the deficiency notice, but he claimed, on the basis of various tax-protester arguments, that those amounts were not taxable income...
Petitioner conceded at trial that he received the amount of compensation set out in the notice of deficiency for his 2005 tax year. However, petitioner argues that the income he received in 2005 was not taxable income within the meaning of the law....

Looks to me like what Mooney has been claiming in regard to his income. Perhaps Mooney was not fully grasping (and is still not getting) that making an objection but having the evidence admitted means that his objections had no merit.

There is no one place in the trial where I endorsed any of their fictions. That it took 11 months for them to come up with the tripe they issued about me is telling in and of itself. If it was such an easy case to decide, why wait so long to issue it? They only did so after I forced their hand by filing another motion for summary judment in my favor.
On another note, <snip portion irrelevant to Mooney's case>
Happy Spring to all!

Why wait? Could be they had more important matters to take care of or no one wanted to have to wade through all of Mooney's nonsense.
The only thing I see that Mooney is forcing is hurt on himself.

To read the entire decision (and find your own differences between Mooney's and the court's version of events) see http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

[grixit]

The Tax Court dodged that issue entirely, claiming it doesn't have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determinations in that matter. Bullshit!

Perhaps there was no such dodge or one man's dodge is another man's direct blow.

You mean like the old stereotype of the drooling, palsied boxer who says "they never laid a glove on me"?

[Dr. Caligari]

Some folks never learn.

On LostHopes today:

I will be filing one [a "CTC-educated return"] next week, despite the Tax Court's admonishments that I get back in line!

Rise and Rise again, until the lamb becomes a lion!

...or until the lamb becomes kebab, in Patrick's case.

[bmielke]

Some folks never learn.

On LostHopes today:

I will be filing one [a "CTC-educated return"] next week, despite the Tax Court's admonishments that I get back in line!

Rise and Rise again, until the lamb becomes a lion!

...or until the lamb becomes kebab, in Patrick's case.

Wow it takes something (I'm not sure what) to get body slammed then then go back and say, "Please sir may I have another". Testiicular Fortitute or Mental Incapacity I leave that up to you to decide.

[Joey Smith]

The correct term is "Recidivist Stupidity".

Looks like Patrick is making reservations for an extended stay at the Greybar .....

[Famspear]

I will be filing one [a "CTC-educated return"] next week, despite the Tax Court's admonishments that I get back in line!

Rise and Rise again, until the lamb becomes a lion!

Ummm, Patrick, I know what you're thinking. And the answer is no, you will not be allowed to insist on a special reservation allowing you to "bunk with Pete" when you're admitted to the Graybar Hotel....



And Patrick, please do not send me an irate letter complaining that I'm homophobic. My best, oldest friend is gay. If you can't take a joke, you have no business being a delusional, recidivist blowhard tax evader......

[Gregg]

Hey, look at the bright side, he doesn't have to explain to his job that he needs a few years off to go to prison, because he showed all us slaves and QUIT.

VICTORY!!!

[Famspear]

In the lost horizons thread mentioned above, the question posed to Hendrickson's Haughty Heroes is:

How many of us have filed our CtC-educated returns for 2010 so far?

I like this response, from user "kae":

I haven't file since 06. Now that I'm involved with the Appeals/CDP Hearing they are requiring me to file. I asked them for my transcripts of 07-10. Not much to report. Bankruptcy is close.

(emphasis added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 528b#27357

"Bankruptcy is close"???

Just remember "kae": Any unpaid federal income tax you owe, if related to a "CtC educated return" is non-dischargeable in a bankruptcy.



EDIT: If "kae" were to file his/her 2007, 2008, and 2009 Form 1040 tax returns today, March 25, 2011, any unpaid taxes related to those would be non-dischargeable if kae filed bankruptcy tomorrow. Those returns would be filed late, which means that even if kae's returns weren't fraudulent (and even if no willful attempt to evade), kae would have to wait two years from now to file bankruptcy to have a chance at making the taxes non-dischargeable.

On the 2010 return, if it were filed today and the bankruptcy were filed tomorrow, the unpaid tax if any would be non-dischargeable (because the return is due within 3 years of the bankruptcy).

If the already-filed 2006 or prior returns were CtC returns, then those unpaid taxes (if any) would be non-dischargeable (because of fraudulent return, or willful attempt to evade).

[Famspear]

On Tuesday, in response to another poster at losthorizons, Patrick Michael ("Blowhard Junior") Mooney wrote:

I can tell you for a fact that my company behaves like you described without any IRS lock-in letter. When I started working there 7 years ago, I was presented with the "fill out the w-4 or we're witholding [sic] 30% of your pay" choice. I figured, as long as the witholding [sic] is NOT NEGOTIABLE, I'd minimize the damage and claim exempt on the W-4, and filing [sic] an attachment of protest similar to one endorsed by Peter.

When I resigned my full-time position in 2009, I kept a part time business relationship with the company as a freelance worker. Over time, they asked me to prove that I met the definition of an "independent contractor" according to IRS guidelines. I told them that I couldn't care less what the IRS thinks of our business relationship because they have no jurisdiction over the business affairs of me or the company. I clearly explained my understanding of the law to them, which they listened to politely but ultimately would not give it any deep consideration, fearing the retaliation of the IRS should they dare to stick their neck out of the sand.

Earlier this month, they notified me that they intended to begin treating me again as an employee at the beginning of April (which meant a return to withholding of my property without my consent).

After what I have seen from this Federal Government over the course of time since I first realized 9/11 was an inside job, and that they were the beneficiaries of an extortion racket that would make the Pope * with envy, there is no way I can ever knowlingly assent to having any of my property support the monstrosity that the USA has become.

I post this because I want people to know that in this fight you may have to sacrifice all that you have and all that you are if you want to win badly enough. I am willing to risk all that I have to get the word out about Peter Hendrickson and create a message that will inspire everday [sic], ordinary folks to take on this challenge of a lifetime. There is no greater cause worth living for in todays' USA than that of Cracking The Code.

Oh, please.....

And, as we hear the strains of The Battle Hymn of the Republic welling up in the background, Blowhard Junior concludes his sermon:

This is not a fight we should be running away from any longer...but running towards it...for the destiny of freedom is at the very heart of this struggle. It lives or dies with this generation.

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 7390#27390

[Pottapaug1938]

STAND SMALL, WARRIOR!

[Cpt Banjo]

What a preposterously pathetic pinheaded paranoid putz is Patrick.