Sec. 911 Exclusion For Antarctica?

[Anti-861]

I was scanning the headlines of Tax Notes and noticed the same trend yesterday. Have you guys seen these cases, like this one: 2007 TNT 140-17 WAGES EARNED IN ANTARCTICA NOT EXCLUDABLE FROM INCOME. (Jennifer C. Shaw v. Commissioner) (T.C. Memo. 2007-195)?

Is there somebody out there shilling this?

[The Observer]

Yes, I have seen a ton of these cases being reported on over the last couple of weeks. This isn't the first time this has been litigated, however. In fact, I posted a couple of similar cases a year or so ago and with tongue planted firmly in cheek, floated the theory that this could be the new "861" for tax protestors.

I suspect that this issue may have been seized on by either a tax lawyer looking for business or fame in finding a loophole or a group of employees doing business in the Antarctic that banded together hoping to exempt their wages.

[LPC]

Yes, I have seen a ton of these cases being reported on over the last couple of weeks.

I first saw this issue over a year ago, and was intrigued by the idea that Antarctica is not a foreign country within the meaning of of section 911, but it makes sense when you consider that there is no government of Antarctica and so no danger of double taxation (which is what 911 is designed to prevent).

But there have been 11 more decisions on this issue this month. Given the small numbers of Americans working in Antarctica, and the rather well-settled nature of the law, those Americans are looking rather lemming-like.

[Nikki]

The attorney for the plaintiffs (Larry D. Harvey) http://www.thearapahoproject.net/the_ar ... ct_023.htm lost the precedential case on this issue both in Tax Court Arnett v. Commissioner 8866-03

This is the lead case in an unconsolidated group of approximately 150 cases of similarly situated taxpayers who earned wage income in Antarctica and who make similar arguments.

and on appeal Arnett v. Comm’r, No. 06-1934 (7th Cir. 2007)

A contemporary report which appeared in Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel included the following

In the meantime, Arnett said he has no intention of paying the money "until they ask for it. Maybe I'll just make them come and get it."

[The Observer]

In the meantime, Arnett said he has no intention of paying the money "until they ask for it. Maybe I'll just make them come and get it."

Seems he has been sipping from Ed Brown's kool-ade glass.

[LPC]

But there have been 11 more decisions on this issue this month. Given the small numbers of Americans working in Antarctica, and the rather well-settled nature of the law, those Americans are looking rather lemming-like.

There were three more yesterday, bringing the total so far this year to 25.

As near as I can tell, all of the taxpayers are represented by someone named Larry D. Harvey, who seems to be a slow learner.

Any chance of sanctions in his future?

[wserra]

As near as I can tell, all of the taxpayers are represented by someone named Larry D. Harvey, who seems to be a slow learner.

A Colorado lawyer who has had both success (e.g., 03-cv-00972, CO) and failure (e.g., 03-cv-01562, OR) against the IRS.

[.]

total so far this year to 25

When he runs out of people there's always the penguins. They're not much for payment but at least they don't whine when you lose repeatedly.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Antarctican research stations also employ private contractors to do the general tasks such as cooking and maintenance, so there are private sector jobs there.

Interesting case... but I don't expect the normal TP to move there.

[Dr. Caligari]

Any chance of sanctions in his future?

If I were the judge (fat chance!), I wouldn't sanction him. The argument is not frivolous on its face, and he has a right to take it up on appeal (which requires litigating each client's case in the Tax Court, even in the face of the Tax Court's precedential ruling against him).[/code]