Unprepared TP Goes To Court

[The Observer]

GARY CUMMINGS,
Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Release Date: JULY 30, 2008



UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Filed July 30, 2008

Gary Cummings, pro se.

Nancy P. Klingshirn, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment.

Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns for 2002 and 2003. Respondent issued statutory notices of deficiency to petitioner determining deficiencies and additions to tax for 2002 and 2003. Petitioner received the notices of deficiency but did not petition the Court for a redetermination of the tax deficiencies and additions to tax determined in the notices of deficiency for 2002 and 2003 (notices of deficiency). After the period for timely filing a petition with the Court regarding the notices of deficiency elapsed, respondent assessed against petitioner the amounts shown on the notices of deficiency.

Respondent mailed petitioner Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (levy notice). The levy notice advised petitioner that respondent intended to levy on petitioner's property to secure payment of his outstanding tax liabilities for 2002 and 2003. The levy notice also explained that petitioner had a right to request a hearing with respondent's Office of Appeals (Appeals) to appeal the proposed collection action and to discuss payment method options by submitting a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, with respect to the proposed levy.

Respondent mailed petitioner Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, (lien notice). The lien notice advised petitioner that respondent had filed a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL) with respect to petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2002 and 2003. The lien notice also explained that petitioner had a right to request a hearing with Appeals to appeal the proposed collection action and to discuss payment method options by submitting a Form 12153 with respect to respondent's NFTL.

Petitioner timely filed two Forms 12153 -- one regarding the levy notice and one regarding the lien notice. Petitioner's explanations of disagreement on both Forms 12153 were identical: "INAPPROPRIATE COLLECTION ACTIVITY" and "INVALID ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD". Petitioner did not explain on the Form 12153 or attach any statement to the Form 12153 explaining what inappropriate collection activity had taken place or why the administrative record was invalid.

Appeals acknowledged receipt of petitioner's requests for a hearing with respect to the levy notice and the lien notice for 2002 and 2003. By letter, Appeals advised petitioner (1) that Appeals would not provide a face-to-face hearing if the only items he wished to discuss were those determined by the courts to be frivolous or groundless, (2) that he could receive a face-to-face hearing on any relevant, nonfrivolous issues if he informed Appeals in writing or by phone of such nonfrivolous issues, (3) that Appeals scheduled a telephone conference for July 19, 2006, and (4) that Appeals would not consider alternative collection methods unless petitioner filed his 2004 and 2005 income tax returns and completed collection information statements. The letter further advised petitioner:

Before you decide whether to petition a notice of determination,
you should know that the Tax Court is empowered to impose
monetary sanctions up to $ 25,000 for instituting or maintaining
an action before it primarily for delay or for taking a position
that is frivolous or groundless [Pierson v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 576 (2000); Forbes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2006-10 ($ 20,000 penalty imposed); Aston v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-128 ($ 25,000 penalty imposed)].

Petitioner responded to Appeals by letter and requested a face-to-face hearing. Petitioner wrote that the issues that he intended to raise at the hearing included:

Challenging the validity of the allegations as to amounts
allegedly owed due to the failure by the IRS to follow its own
administrative procedures, including without limitation,
violations of 26 USC 6065, pursuant to 5 USC 556(d) and the
Administrative Procedures Act;

Challenging whether or not a valid and properly completed
ASSESSMENT and DEFICIENCY exist.

As petitioner requested, Appeals provided him with a copy of his administrative file for 2002. Appeals did not send petitioner a copy of his administrative file for 2003 as he had already obtained a copy through a Freedom of Information Act request. Appeals offered to reschedule a telephone conference with petitioner to discuss any relevant, nonfrivolous issues regarding the $ 98,927.46 he owed (as of January 25, 2006) in tax, penalties, and interest for 2002 and 2003.

Petitioner replied that Appeals' assertion that the issues he raised were "frivolous" was "a lie and you should know it." Additionally, petitioner wrote:

Raising issues of IRS failure to follow its own administrative
procedures is absolutely a valid reason and evokes a requirement
for a face-to-face hearing. Be advised that I refuse to accept
your "offer" of a telephone hearing and if you continue to fail
or refuse to grant me a face-to-face hearing, and should you
attempt to proceed with collection of a disputed assessment
without providing me a face-to-face hearing to discuss your
failure to follow your own administrative procedures, then I will
bring a lawsuit against you in U.S. District Court. Under
current law, you can be fired for your failure to perform your
duties in accordance with Internal Revenue laws.

Subsequently, Appeals issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 with respect to petitioner's 2002 and 2003 taxable years (notice of determination). Appeals determined that the proposed levy and the NFTL were appropriate collection actions in petitioner's case.

Petitioner filed a petition challenging the notice of determination. At the time he filed the petition, petitioner resided in Ohio. Petitioner claimed inter alia: (1) "IRS has other irregular and interesting preconditions such as filling out forms and submitting a payment schedule. These requirements are impossible since Petitioner does not know what the IRS wants until he meets with it. Petitioner is not required to do these and did not."; (2) "The IRS illegally and wrongfully withheld a hearing and has violated his statutory rights and administrative due process rights to appear at a hearing."; (3) "IRS was notified that Petitioner challenged the validity of this alleged debt, of a related procedural deficiency (lack of required certification, per 26 USC 6065) and of Petitioner's demand for proper certification of lawful assessment."; (4) "The IRS refused to acknowledge Petitioner's demand, nor did it offer any evidence of lawful verification of their assessment at any time."; (5) "Petitioner requested a face to face hearing within the legal time period and therefore is entitled to an in-person hearing."; (6) "Under IRC 6330, Petitioner is entitled to a CDPH at a location convenient to them [sic]. Taxpayer was not given the opportunity to raise any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy at a hearing in accordance with IRC section 6330."; (7) and that the Internal Revenue Service violated petitioner's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 121(a)/1/ provides that either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Summary judgment may be granted if it is demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We conclude that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.

Determination to Proceed with Collection

Section 6320(a)(1) provides that the Secretary shall furnish the person described in section 6321 with written notice (i.e., the hearing notice) of the filing of a notice of lien under section 6323. Section 6320(a) and (b) further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a 30-day period. The hearing generally shall be conducted consistent with the procedures set forth in section 6330(c), (d), and (e). Sec. 6320(c).

Section 6330(a) provides that the Secretary shall furnish taxpayers with written notice of their right to a hearing before any property is levied upon. Section 6330 further provides that the taxpayer may request administrative review of the matter (in the form of a hearing) within a prescribed 30-day period. Sec. 6330(a) and (b).

Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(A), a taxpayer may raise at the section 6330 hearing any relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner's collection activities, including spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner's intended collection action(s), and alternative means of collection. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 180 (2000). If a taxpayer received a statutory notice of deficiency for the years in issue or otherwise had the opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability, the taxpayer is precluded from challenging the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183.

Petitioner received the notices of deficiency for 2002 and 2003. Accordingly, he cannot challenge his underlying liabilities. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611; Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 182-183. Therefore, we review respondent's determination for an abuse of discretion. See Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.

Petitioner claims that Appeals did not verify the assessments. Petitioner is wrong. Appeals verified the assessment of petitioner's taxes for 2002 and 2003, and petitioner received a copy of his administrative file for 2002 and 2003.

Petitioner also argues that he was not required to file collection information statements with Appeals, that he was entitled to a face-to-face hearing, that Appeals illegally and wrongfully withheld a hearing and violated his statutory rights and administrative due process rights, and that the Internal Revenue Service violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. These are shopworn arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225; Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986). We will not painstakingly address these assertions "with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

At the hearing petitioner stated: "I don't have collection alternatives". Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense or make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent's intended collection actions. These issues are now deemed conceded. See Rule 331(b)(4).

Accordingly, we conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion, and we will grant respondent's motion for summary judgment sustaining respondent's determination to proceed with collection.

Section 6673

Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $ 25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous or groundless positions in the proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay. A position maintained by the taxpayer is "frivolous" where 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); see also Hansen v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1464, 1470 (9th Cir. 1987) (section 6673 penalty upheld because taxpayer should have known claim was frivolous).

Petitioner's objection to respondent's motion for summary judgment, petition, Forms 12153, and correspondence with respondent contain frivolous and groundless statements and arguments. Petitioner's answers to the Court's questions at the hearing on respondent's motion for summary judgment were evasive and/or nonresponsive. At the hearing the Court inquired as to what issues petitioner wanted to raise in his section 6330 case. Petitioner stated that he wanted a face-to-face hearing. Additionally, the following colloquy took place:

THE COURT: The Court asked you what nonfrivolous arguments you
had --

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm not prepared, at this Court, for such a thing.
* * *

THE COURT: You're not offering waht [sic] those arguments were.

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm offering my nonfrivolous issues, and that's --

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm offering my nonfrivolous issues.

THE COURT: I'm asking you, what are they?

MR. CUMMINGS: Inappropriate collection activity.

THE COURT: Like what?

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm not prepared for that right now.

THE COURT: And what else?

MR. CUMMINGS: And invalid administrative record.

THE COURT: And what's your argument on that? Any specifics?

MR. CUMMINGS: I want it on the record at a collection due process
hearing. I'm not prepared to argue these matters before the Court
today.

Additionally, the Court asked petitioner what collection alternatives he wanted to raise. Petitioner tried to avoid answering the question but eventually stated that he had none.

In the notice of determination petitioner was warned that the Court is empowered to impose monetary sanctions up to $ 25,000 for instituting or maintaining an action before us that is primarily for delay, frivolous, or groundless. Respondent cited Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576 (2000), Forbes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-10 ($ 20,000 penalty imposed), and Aston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-128 ($ 25,000 penalty imposed), to petitioner, warning him of the consequences he could face for taking frivolous or groundless positions in these proceedings or instituting the proceedings primarily for delay.

We conclude petitioner's position was frivolous and groundless and that he instituted and maintained these proceedings primarily for delay. Appeals and the Court gave petitioner multiple opportunities to state any nonfrivolous issues he wished to raise at a section 6330 hearing. Petitioner repeatedly refused to state any nonfrivolous issues he would assert.

Via raising frivolous and groundless arguments and petitioning this Court, petitioner has sought to delay the collection of a total of approximately $ 83,000 of deficiencies and penalties for 2002 and 2003 (by February 2006 this amount, including interest, totaled almost $ 100,000). Accordingly, pursuant to section 6673(a) we hold petitioner is liable for a $ 2,500 penalty.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

FOOTNOTE

/1/ All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.

[Lasagna]

Poor guy. The more I read these cases, the more I'm convinced that these people understand, on a conscious level, that (1) they aren't going to win; (2) that they aren't going to be able to delay the inevitable until the IRS "gets tired" of prosecuting them or the Court gives up or the world ends and Jesus comes back or whatever it is they claim to be waiting for; and (3) that the end result is going to either be so costly that it will effectively ruin their lives or they'll end up in jail or both.

Here's a question for everyone: have you ever actually MET one of these guys? I have, once: the brother-in-law of a friend of mine from law school. Only met the cat one time, and I didn't even know what a "tax protester" was then, but he still made an impression. Completely out of his gourd, and seemed to have a lot of money.

The thing (and I heard more about this from my friend later) was that you could never tell anything for sure with this guy. He SEEMED to have a lot of money, but it wasn't all that clear. For instance, he told everyone he was a commodities trader, but he'd never really tell you where he worked - he'd just spit out a stream of doubletalk - and when one of my friends who was going for his JD/MBA tried to talk shop with him, he was evasive. He would explain - openly - that he didn't pay taxes, but when pressed on it, he veered between "there is no legal requirement to pay taxes" and "they'll never catch you if you don't pay your taxes," arguments which are, obviously, somewhat exclusive. Pointing out that he was making two different arguments completely fell on deaf ears - not even a "no I'm not" for your troubles.

He ended up fleeing the state with his wife (my friend's sister) and going to Montana, and then California, and then wherever. No idea what happened to him.

The thing that struck me the most, though, was that it was not possible to argue with him. The world through his eyes - and the proper way to react to things in that world - seemed entirely different than those of sane people (obviously I'm not basing this all on my one conversation; I thought he was fascinating, and grilled my friend for updates, impressions, etc.) His world seemed controlled by sinister cabals, and fighting and evading them was what people were supposed to do. "Staying out of jail" didn't really rate high on his list, is what I mean. I think that, to him, avoiding the IRS for two years (or whatever) WAS a clear victory. It doesn't matter if he eventually got caught.

I don't know, kind of babbling. But I'd love to hear other peoples experiences and theories. Why DO tax protestors do what they do? What do they really believe? What do they think when the compatriots are carted off to prison - does it alter their worldview in the slightest?

[The Observer]

The thing that struck me the most, though, was that it was not possible to argue with him. The world through his eyes - and the proper way to react to things in that world - seemed entirely different than those of sane people (obviously I'm not basing this all on my one conversation;...

One may almost be tempted to draw comparisons to "A Beautiful Mind" but a TP mind certainly can't be called beautiful.

Several years ago I cited an example of the TP mindset with a scenario from the book "Mountain Man" (authored by Vardis Fisher). A story is related about a pioneer and his family heading along the Oregon Trail in a wagon train. At some point our intrepid adventurer gets it into his mind that he knows more about traveling across the Rockies than the wagonmaster does. After all, he has seen a map that shows a "shortcut" that will cut at least a week from their travel time. The wagonmaster tries to explain that there is no such route, the area which this "shortcut" goes through is impassable to wagons, the rivers are unfordable, and is filled with several Indian tribes that are quite hostile. For you and me, that would be reason enough to stick to the original plan, but the dummy pioneer gets even more enraged that this wagonmaster would dare to argue with him. He packs up his wagon (as well as his family, unfortunately) and moves out to travel the "shortcut". As you can expect, the story ends tragically with the wagon broken down next to a very deep section of the Missouri River and the family massacred and scalped by a group of Blackfeet scouts.

I would offer that if the above person had been a real person and happened to live during a time that the income tax became a reality, he probably would have become a TP.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
Here's a question for everyone: have you ever actually MET one of these guys? ....

Yes, and in a couple of cases I was glad I was armed and not alone. For some of them, taxes are just a minor peripheral issue. Child support and custody cases bring out the worst in the kind of people who feel they're already being oppressed by the courts, the NWO/illuminati etc. But the most dangerous nutcase I've ever actually stood near was a leader in one of the really whacko polygamist cults. When I was young and stupid I accompanied a now-deceased MD friend on an emergency housecall to one of those compounds in his plane. I didn't know the LeBarons were dangerous at the time but some years after that the family had a falling out and they started killing people (and each other) off. The old guy (Ervil) died in prison but according to one of the MD's sons, his dad was on the list of people to be killed. The story goes he got one of the women out of Mexico in his plane allegedly to get her into a hospital and she never went back.

[Imalawman]

Here's a question for everyone: have you ever actually MET one of these guys?

You name a theory and I've met someone who's argued it. (but I do litigate the civil cases against them, so I should have met them) You'll find similar discussion on previous threads, but most that I've met are civil and down to earth. But there are the violent and arrogant pricks too. I have had armed security for me when I've litigated against one person. On the whole, they're eccentric folk who would have gotten caught up in some crazy scheme even if there were no federal income tax.

[grixit]

I've noticed that a lot of paytriot sites have not only anti income tax material, but also anti family court stuff, usually positioned as unfairness in custody and divorce issues but almost always terminating in "wimmens got too much rights, durnit!".

[Leftcoaster]

Here's a question for everyone: have you ever actually MET one of these guys?

If only it were limited to one. Fortunately the north of 49 TP crowd tends to be fairly peaceful, and unlike their southern brethern, they tend to me more "single-issue," in that they seem to concentrate solely on taxation.

Ironically, many of them cite the UCC garbage - a piece of US legislation - when discussing Canadian taxes.

The TPs I have personally met have been almost uniformly overweight, middle-aged white guys, with brow-beaten wives, estranged children, and a lifestyle I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Most of them have also suffered some manner of cranial trauma prior to adhering to the TP cause (no I'm not making that up)

[buck09]

Here's a question for everyone: have you ever actually MET one of these guys? I have, once: the brother-in-law of a friend of mine from law school. Only met the cat one time, and I didn't even know what a "tax protester" was then, but he still made an impression. Completely out of his gourd, and seemed to have a lot of money.

I know a lot of people who could be described on the spectrum of tax protesters, sovereign citizens and militia/patriot nuts. Most of them suffer from enough cognitive dissonance to protect their "everyday" lives and careers from their delusional beliefs. The rest of them fall into one or more categories: drifters, con-men, homeless, financially ruined, misfits, mentally ill, etc.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Here's a question for everyone: have you ever actually MET one of these guys? I have, once: the brother-in-law of a friend of mine from law school. Only met the cat one time, and I didn't even know what a "tax protester" was then, but he still made an impression. Completely out of his gourd, and seemed to have a lot of money.

I know a lot of people who could be described on the spectrum of tax protesters, sovereign citizens and militia/patriot nuts. Most of them suffer from enough cognitive dissonance to protect their "everyday" lives and careers from their delusional beliefs. The rest of them fall into one or more categories: drifters, con-men, homeless, financially ruined, misfits, mentally ill, Van Pelt, etc.

/Fixed

[Lasagna]

Thanks for all the replies and stories.

I'm just trying to get a handle on the whole culture - it's fascinating to me. There were some posts on this thread I wanted to follow up on:

[By Judge Roy Bean]: Yes, and in a couple of cases I was glad I was armed and not alone. For some of them, taxes are just a minor peripheral issue. Child support and custody cases bring out the worst in the kind of people who feel they're already being oppressed by the courts, the NWO/illuminati etc.

If I remember correctly, Dan Evans wrote about this in his FAQ - that the obsession with proving that the tax code is a scam, or unconstitutional, or whatever often seems to materialize when the person is feeling oppressed by the courts for unrelated reasons. Here's my question, though: I'm sure that, if I ever found myself facing difficult child support or custody issues, they would definitely leave me feeling like an oppressed punching bag and leave me pretty angry at society. However, although it's always difficult to put yourself in someone elses shoes, I feel pretty confident that if I found myself in that situation, I wouldn't respond like the TPs. I wouldn't enter a bizarre fantasy world populated by ancient cabals and governed by mystic rhetoric which I could fight via arcane rituals (I've reread that sentence four or five times, and it pretty much sums up the way I see TP arguments.)

What, then, is the common thread between TPs that makes them take up such a weird cause? How do they even meet each other? Believing that the tax code is "unconstitutional" is nuts, but once we enter the "Illuminati" stage of things, we're really talking about delusional (I don't know what "NWO" means; I assume it's "New World Order," but I don't know what that is). "Mental illness" gets thrown around a lot, but I can't believe that all these guys are bipolar. So there needs to be something.

Finally, why do you have so much contact with them, Judge? Are you actually a tax court judge?

You'll find similar discussion on previous threads, but most that I've met are civil and down to earth. But there are the violent and arrogant pricks too. I have had armed security for me when I've litigated against one person. On the whole, they're eccentric folk who would have gotten caught up in some crazy scheme even if there were no federal income tax.

Imalawman, you run into these guys a lot bringing civil suits against them? Are there really that many out there? And what sort of suits - matrimonial, child support, etc?

And is that what it boils down to? A hardwired predisposition to eccentricity that makes someone latch on to logic-defying theories, even when, in the end, they cause themselves serious trouble?

If only it were limited to one. Fortunately the north of 49 TP crowd tends to be fairly peaceful, and unlike their southern brethern, they tend to me more "single-issue," in that they seem to concentrate solely on taxation.

Ironically, many of them cite the UCC garbage - a piece of US legislation - when discussing Canadian taxes.

The TPs I have personally met have been almost uniformly overweight, middle-aged white guys, with brow-beaten wives, estranged children, and a lifestyle I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Most of them have also suffered some manner of cranial trauma prior to adhering to the TP cause (no I'm not making that up)

This is wild. I never knew that there were Canadian TPers. The makes me feel good. Sometimes you start to feel like there's something in the water in the US that makes all the world's nutcases grow up here. It's fun, but also worrisome. Out of curiosity: what do they say when you point out that they are citing to U.S. law instead of Canadian law? And they really got hit on the head before joining these movements? Were they normal beforehand?

I know a lot of people who could be described on the spectrum of tax protesters, sovereign citizens and militia/patriot nuts. Most of them suffer from enough cognitive dissonance to protect their "everyday" lives and careers from their delusional beliefs.

So they have regular jobs, where they don't broadcast their beliefs to the point that their occupation suffers? Must fall apart eventually, I guess.

Sorry, I'm just interested in the psychological aspect of this stuff. I remember reading David Starkey's report on his history with Global Prosperity (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/starkey_story.htm), and being struck by the fact that, although he realizes that Global Prosperity was a mistake and a scam, it isn't really clear that he understands that Bill Benson's arguments are nonsense, only that the courts won't let anyone argue them anymore. Even after all he went through, it's not clear that he really gets it; he calls Benson a "nice guy" and "a friend."

The most obvious sign that he may be a psychopath? After spending seven months in federal prison, he writes that "you just don’t know what is was like just to get some decent food at McDonalds." Seven months inside, and he goes the McDonalds when he gets out.

[Imalawman]

Imalawman, you run into these guys a lot bringing civil suits against them? Are there really that many out there? And what sort of suits - matrimonial, child support, etc?

I am an assistant A.G. on the state level. I litigate on the behalf of the state, mostly on the civil side.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Thanks for all the replies and stories.

I'm just trying to get a handle on the whole culture - it's fascinating to me. There were some posts on this thread I wanted to follow up on:

What, then, is the common thread between TPs that makes them take up such a weird cause? How do they even meet each other?

It used to be word-of-mouth, cheaply-printed books and cassette tapes. My introduction to it was I suppose, like most others in the fifties, by a neighbor I knew who had deeply-held religious beliefs that were reinforced by the suspicions raised about the Jews and the banking cabal. He was a good twenty years older than me and apparently a successful plumbing contractor and was the first person I ever heard utter the word 'illuminati'. Most of his conversations with me began with "Did you know....?" He could go on and on about Rockefeller, the Federal Reserve, Roosevelt, minorities beginning with the letter 'N', the 2nd amendment and any number of mysteries and 'secrets' only a few people really knew. Years later at his place he brought out and showed me a copy of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and he'd turn to pages he had dog-eared and written in. but I was never invited to his group meetings they had in his big shed/workshop, probably because I was known to drink alcohol - something that was frowned on.

If it weren't for his wife's eye-rolling, head-shaking and gentle but firm put downs ("Now you know that's nonsense, _________") he probably would have wound up tagging along with some of his friends in the posse comitatus. He'd only sort of half-heartedly try to argue with her then when she wasn't around he'd say she just refused to see the truth.

IMHO there were two seminal events that revived and expanded the movement. First was AM radio's drift into the talk format when FM stereo proliferated. Then the advent of the Internet which has done more to fuel the movement than any improvement in the theoretical content. But even with those modern influences, the arguments remain rooted in the same hysterical beliefs. As you might expect, arguing with them is useless - until they really run into trouble and need (and will accept) help.

And as I've said to others here, you would truly be surprised how many of these people are out here in fly-over country.

[LPC]

If I remember correctly, Dan Evans wrote about this in his FAQ - that the obsession with proving that the tax code is a scam, or unconstitutional, or whatever often seems to materialize when the person is feeling oppressed by the courts for unrelated reasons. Here's my question, though: I'm sure that, if I ever found myself facing difficult child support or custody issues, they would definitely leave me feeling like an oppressed punching bag and leave me pretty angry at society. However, although it's always difficult to put yourself in someone elses shoes, I feel pretty confident that if I found myself in that situation, I wouldn't respond like the TPs. I wouldn't enter a bizarre fantasy world populated by ancient cabals and governed by mystic rhetoric which I could fight via arcane rituals (I've reread that sentence four or five times, and it pretty much sums up the way I see TP arguments.)

What, then, is the common thread between TPs that makes them take up such a weird cause?

Two points to remember:

1. You're not them (and they're not you). You're different from them, which is why you're here and they're not. And:

2. The Internet. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And so when all you have is paranoia, everything looks like a conspiracy. Putting it in a slightly different way: If you want to find proof that you what you believe is true, you can find it on the Internet, whatever "what you believe" is.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

[...] And as I've said to others here, you would truly be surprised how many of these people are out here in fly-over country.

As another denizen of fly-country, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Here's the profile of the TP I know the best and avoid the most:

Former spoiled rich kid.

Handed a veritable fortune in farming and ranching.

Burned through said fortune in about 10 years due to preferring sleeping in and watching television to working.

Was forced to declare bankruptcy, which was the beginning of his anti-government pathology.

Subsequently marginally employed.

Wife works her rear off, which is probably what keeps them with food and shelter.

Currently has a large portion of his assets under IRS lien.

By his own admission, narrowly avoided federal prison a few years ago for tax evasion.

Starts every conversation with, a "Did you know..." whispered out the side of his mouth.

Now, here's the kicker: He really got kooky about all the conspiracy theories after high-speed internet access became available.

If he spent one-half the time he spends poring over CT websites working, he would probably be financially comfortable. Now, he may never crawl out of the hole he's dug.

He's a certifiable poster boy for the TP movement. Makes me want to start putting up pyramids, compasses and squares in his yard at night.

[Leftcoaster]

This is wild. I never knew that there were Canadian TPers.

And now you know.

The makes me feel good. Sometimes you start to feel like there's something in the water in the US that makes all the world's nutcases grow up here. It's fun, but also worrisome. Out of curiosity: what do they say when you point out that they are citing to U.S. law instead of Canadian law? And they really got hit on the head before joining these movements? Were they normal beforehand?

They don't exclusively cite US law, but they seem to have a soft spot in their hearts/heads for the UCC. I tend to gloss over that little inconsitency, or they go all Tril-lateral Commission on ya.

Of the TPs that I have dealt with - or know about - who aren't Dentist or Chiros, signifigantly more than half of them have suffered a head injury of some kind prior to becoming TPs.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

On another board we had regular reports on the IRS and FR from Canadian TPers. They also knew that the WTC was demolished and that the planes were just special effects.

[Famspear]

On another board we had regular reports on the IRS and FR from Canadian TPers. They also knew that the WTC was demolished and that the planes were just special effects.

Silly Canadians tax protesters. Everybody knows that the WTC is still there; it's the rest of New York that's actually a special effects illusion - a monument to the digital, virtual reality capabilities of the Freemason Illuminati Council on Foreign Relation Trilateral Commission New World Order Knights Templar Lawyer BAR Federal Reserve System Banker's Cabal.

[SteveSy]

Petitioner received the notices of deficiency for 2002 and 2003. Accordingly, he cannot challenge his underlying liabilities. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B)

Hmmm, but that's not what it says.

(B) Underlying liability
The person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.

From what I see he did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability, they ignored him. Maybe someone can clarify what "not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability" means. It seems the court is taking the position that the receipt of a statutory notice of deficiency is enough to preclude a CDP hearing and the rest of the sentence is meaningless.

(2) Issues at hearing
(A) In general
The person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including -
(i) appropriate spousal defenses;
(ii) challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions;

Where does it say that the IRS has the discretion to determine whether or not someone has a valid claim of the "appropriateness of collection actions" to deny a CDP hearing all together? That seems rather silly to let the IRS make this determination prior to the meeting without statutory support. Maybe it's there and someone can point it out to me.

Please spare me from a diatribe of how people might waste the IRS's valuable time....if its not written in the law there's no sense in wasting bandwidth.

btw, I can see why he wasn't prepared. It was a simple matter of whether or not he was denied his statutory right to a CDP hearing, not what he was going to discuss with them. As far as I can see there isn't anything written in those sections allowing the IRS to deny hearing simply because they don't think its worth their time. If someone makes a claim to the appropriateness of collection actions or has not otherwise had an opportunity to dispute their liability they get a hearing plain and simple. I'm sure one of you fine people will show me the error in my analysis. Probably by citing an opinion that makes a determination based on what a judge believes should be in the law rather than what's actually written in the law. Then again, I'm probably just being cynical.

[The Operative]

Petitioner received the notices of deficiency for 2002 and 2003. Accordingly, he cannot challenge his underlying liabilities. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B)

Hmmm, but that's not what it says.

(B) Underlying liability
The person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.

From what I see he did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability, they ignored him. Maybe someone can clarify what "not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability" means. It seems the court is taking the position that the receipt of a statutory notice of deficiency is enough to preclude a CDP hearing and the rest of the sentence is meaningless.

No, he ignored his opportunity. The opportunity to dispute his tax liability is BEFORE the notice of intent to levy is issued. He may dispute his tax liability under this section if he did not receive a notice of deficiency or if he was not given the opportunity to petition the tax court to dispute the deficiency. He was issued a notice of deficiency and he was given 90 days to petition the tax court as required under § 6212 and § 6213.

Petitioner received the notices of deficiency but did not petition the Court for a redetermination of the tax deficiencies and additions to tax determined in the notices of deficiency for 2002 and 2003 (notices of deficiency).

(2) Issues at hearing
(A) In general
The person may raise at the hearing any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy, including -
(i) appropriate spousal defenses;
(ii) challenges to the appropriateness of collection actions;

Where does it say that the IRS has the discretion to determine whether or not someone has a valid claim of the "appropriateness of collection actions" to deny a CDP hearing all together? That seems rather silly to let the IRS make this determination prior to the meeting without statutory support. Maybe it's there and someone can point it out to me.

According to the Court opinion posted in this thread...

Petitioner responded to Appeals by letter and requested a face-to-face hearing. Petitioner wrote that the issues that he intended to raise at the hearing included:

Challenging the validity of the allegations as to amounts
allegedly owed due to the failure by the IRS to follow its own
administrative procedures, including without limitation,
violations of 26 USC 6065, pursuant to 5 USC 556(d) and the
Administrative Procedures Act;

Challenging whether or not a valid and properly completed
ASSESSMENT and DEFICIENCY exist.

The above issues are not a challenge to the appropriateness of collection action. The above are challenges to the deficiency. He screwed up his primary opportunity to challenge the deficiency by failing to petition the tax court within 90 days from the notice of deficiency.

[.]

Now that all of Sybil's suppositions have been shown to be totally wrong, he will persist in flogging his totally dead horse, probably by quoting a founding father.