"jesse james" wants to talk tax law

[Famspear]

Yes, although "jesse james" lacks the intelligence of Blowhard Hendrickson and the courage of Harvester/johnthetaxist/Libre/Nationwide, he soldiers bravely on despite the fact that he suffers from the delusion that he somehow knows how to analyze legal texts. Like someone who believes he has found a precious jewel in the form of a plastic ring extracted from a box of Cracker Jacks, jesse (like Blowhard Hendrickson and many other amateurs) believes he has found, in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, the jewel that makes his income not be taxable.

Jesse suffers from major delusion--
A malignant "illogic contusion".
There are gigantic cracks
In his thoughts about Tax:
He has "Subtitle C Mass Confusion."

[Burnaby49]

When you fall off the wagon you do it big time.

[KickahaOta]

*sniff* It's... beautiful... *sheds single tear*

[Famspear]

When you fall off the wagon you do it big time.

I'm inspired by the clueless, impotent thrashing about of "wnuckers"* like "jesse." Gee, I guess we all have to get inspiration from somewhere.



*I guess am coining the term "wnucker" because I think it describes jesse well.

Scott F. Wnuck was a tax protester/tax denier who, like "jesse" and Blowhard Hendrickson and numerous other clowns of their ilk, are obsessed with Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, laboring under the delusion that somehow there is something there that negates federal income tax liability. Never mind, of course, that they can't do a proper analysis of Subtitle C anyway.

The wacky arguments about what Subtitle C means will vary from one Wackadooster to another, of course. Here's an excerpt from a U.S. Tax Court decision regarding Scott F. Wnuck:

With some happy exceptions, the refutation of a frivolous anti-tax argument often seems to fall on deaf ears, and the litigant persists in making the same doomed argument. Sometimes this is because the litigant, though evidently aware of the reasons that courts have rejected the argument, is simply stubborn. Sometimes this is because the litigant seems not to understand either his argument or its refutation. And sometimes the reason for the litigant's behavior remains a mystery.

For example, at trial Mr. Wnuck made his argument, discussed below, that "includes" (in the definition of "United States" in section 3121(e)(2)) means "includes only". The Court addressed Mr. Wnuck directly and explained, "the definition that you rely on to make that point is not an income tax provision. It's an employment tax provision that really doesn't apply to your 1040 income tax return." (Tr. 65.) This point evidently did not sink in, because Mr. Wnuck repeats the argument in his motion for reconsideration. He does not attempt to correct the Court's point and explain why he thinks that the provision is an income tax provision; he simply repeats the argument.

Consequently, when a litigant is willing in the first instance to take a position that is frivolous, the chances are good that he will be unmoved by explanations of why his position is frivolous. A court that undertakes such explanations is often wasting its time. We now nonetheless make that undertaking here, regretful that Mr. Wnuck may not heed the explanation, in order to illustrate what such an undertaking requires.

[ . . . ]

The Code sections he cites pertain not to income tax but rather to employment taxes (such as Social Security tax). If his argument made any sense at all, it could not affect his liability for income tax. The relevant Code section for income tax is section 61(a), which does not use the word "wages" (so critical to Mr. Wnuck's frivolous argument) but instead imposes tax on "all income from whatever source derived", including (in subsection (a)(1)) "[c]ompensation for services". When Mr. Wnuck stated, "I do not dispute that I exchanged my skilled labor and knowledge for pay", he made obvious his liability for income tax. The error of his position is flagrant.

Later in the text, the Court states:

The oft-cited opinion in Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d at 1417, observes that one reason not to refute frivolous arguments is that "to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." The observation is certainly valid. It is this Court's experience that taxpayers who take frivolous positions often have learned those positions from self-appointed anti-tax gurus with prepackaged pseudo-legal arguments that include inapposite citations from such sources as the Federal Register, inapplicable State and Federal statutes, court opinions taken out of context, and the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM). Some taxpayers seem to understand their frivolous arguments imperfectly, if at all, and seem not to understand the nature of the authorities they cite. If, as it seems, such a taxpayer has been persuaded of these positions by the mere presence of legalese, then it is entirely possible (as Crain anticipated) that a serious discussion of a frivolous position will seem to him to confer respectability on that position.

For example, when we take five paragraphs (in part I.E.2. above) to explain why 27 C.F.R. section 70.42(b)(1) has no effect on the validity of an income tax SFR, we incur a risk: A legally unsophisticated taxpayer may wrongly infer that, if it took that much reasoning and writing to defeat the argument, then the argument must have had something going for it. The inference would be wrong, of course. Mr. Wnuck's 27 C.F.R. argument is hardly a legal argument at all; and all that is there is manifestly wrong for multiple reasons. But since the actual substance of the frivolous anti-tax issue often seems to elude the litigant, and since all that affects him is the superficial appearance of legal matter, an explanation of why his argument is wrong may even be counter-productive. Perversely, the seriousness of the refutation becomes, in his mind, imputed to the frivolous argument itself. This is sometimes a good reason not to address frivolous arguments.

There is thus little advantage to be gained by addressing frivolous arguments, and there are disadvantages that may accrue from doing so. For that reason, litigants who present frivolous arguments should not expect to see them answered in opinions of this Court.

--from Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011) (footnotes omitted; font emphasis added).

[The Observer]

And here is our thread on Wnuck's tax court case. And I promise that no limericks appear in that discussion.

[Famspear]

And here is our thread on Wnuck's tax court case. And I promise that no limericks appear in that discussion.

It's kinda hard to work in words that rhyme with "Wnuck." I'm not even sure how it's pronounced......

...."wuh-NYOOK"? .........

................"wuh-NUCK" (to rhyme with "luck")? ............

[Burnaby49]

And the rules on decorum on this site preclude you from using the obvious (and in this context appropriate as in "stupid *****") one; unless, as I did, you use askerisks.

[KickahaOta]

There was a protester, Wnuck.
His taxes he ventured to duck.
Courts found him defenseless,
His arguments senseless,
And with the whole bill he was stuck.

[Quixote]

And the rules on decorum on this site preclude you from using the obvious (and in this context appropriate as in "stupid *****") one; unless, as I did, you use askerisks.

Hmmm, five asterisks. Is the missing word "cluck"?

There are still plenty of good rhymes. Duck, buck, stuck, muck, puck, chuck. There's a good limerick, or at least a bad limerick, in there somewhere.

[Burnaby49]

And the rules on decorum on this site preclude you from using the obvious (and in this context appropriate as in "stupid *****") one; unless, as I did, you use askerisks.

Hmmm, five asterisks. Is the missing word "cluck"?

There are still plenty of good rhymes. Duck, buck, stuck, muck, puck, chuck. There's a good limerick, or at least a bad limerick, in there somewhere.

No need to look for hidden meanings, I'm not that deep. I just can't count; four was correct for my obvious suggestion.

[Famspear]

There was a protester, Wnuck.
His taxes he ventured to duck.
Courts found him defenseless,
His arguments senseless,
And with the whole bill he was stuck.

Whoah! That's pretty good!

[KickahaOta]

Whoah! That's pretty good!

Well, even us amateur limericians have to do all right once in a while.

[Dr. Caligari]

If Jesse James comes here to debate us, can I change my handle to "Robert Ford"?

[Famspear]

If Jesse James comes here to debate us, can I change my handle to "Robert Ford"?

Hey, remember that jesse is quivering in the foliage at another web site because he's afraid that if he comes here, the monsters will discover his IP address. And you want to change your name to Robert Ford? Do you want him to have nightmares?

You are soooo insensitive!

[wserra]

Yes, although "jesse james" lacks the intelligence of Blowhard Hendrickson and the courage of Harvester/johnthetaxist/Libre/Nationwide, he soldiers bravely on

But I doubt "jesse james" has the identity issues that Harvey does. For example, in this single thread on Hendrickson's board Harvey posts using three sockpuppets: libre, nationwide and Noah. "Noah" even responds to "nationwide".

'Course, he's not about to provide any verifiable information about his claimed victories, under whatever name.