The site above is where I got it from.
The author, Larry Bradshaw, is currently appealing to the 11th Circuit an adverse decision from the tax court, and the order and decision make interesting reading. An excerpt:
Instead of substantiating deductions or otherwise showing
any error in the statutory notice, petitioner embarked on a
course of frivolous motions and arguments continuing the
contentions set out in the petition . He pursued discovery based
on his frivolous contentions and attacked those who refused to
play his semantic games . He served subpoenas on Federal
employees who had no relevant factual information with respect to
the issues before the Court . His pretrial memorandum failed to
identify any factual disputes with respect to his income o r
deductions and merely repeated his frivolous claims and his
vitriolic attacks on respondent's employees and agents .
When the case was called for trial, petitioner failed to identify
any nonfrivolous issue or to present evidence .
Petitioner has concocted multiple theories, based in part on
the Internal Revenue Manual, to support his premise that the
determination of tax liability on his earnings has not been and
cannot be accomplished . In other words, he would draw a
"conjurer's circle" around his tax liability . See United States
v . Sullivan , 274 U .S . 259, 264 (1927) . The Internal Revenue
Manual, however, does not have the force of law and is not
binding against respondent in litigation ; it does not confer any
rights on the taxpayer . See, e .g ., Fargo v . Commissioner , 447
F .3d 706, 713 (9th Cir . 2006), . affg . T .C . Memo . 2004-13 ; Carlson
v . United States , 126 F .3d 915, 922 (7th Cir . 1997) ; Tavano v .
Commissioner , 986 F .2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir . 1993), affg . T .C .
Memo . 1991-237 ; Barnes v . Commissioner , 130 T .C . 248, 255-256
(2008) .
Moreover, petitioner's arguments take items out of context
and assert that inclusion of certain persons, activities or
locales as subject to taxing provisions excludes others or that
use of a particular form for one purpose means that it can only
be used for that purpose, to the exclusion of others . Such
interpretative arguments have been consistently rejected and
referred to by terms such as "inane" and "preposterous" . United
States v . Latham , 754 F .2d 747, 750 (7th Cir . '1985) . See also
United States v . Morse , 532 F .3d 1130, 1132-1133 (11th Cir .
2008) ; United States v . Ward , 833 F .2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir .
1987)(interpreting "includes" as a term of limitation is "utterly
without merit") ; United States v . Rice , 659 F .2d 524 (5th Cir .,
1980) (describing the defendant's argument as a "frivolous nonsequitur")
Challenges to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service
to enforce the tax laws have been consistently rejected for
decades, and frivolous arguments have been the basis for
sanctions by all courts that have reviewed them . See, e .g .,
United States v . Morse , supra ; Madison v . United States , 758 F .2d
573 (11th Cir . 1985) . Petitioner's contentions are merely stale
and recycled versions of unsuccessful arguments from decades
past . As the Court of Appeals described the situation in
Lonsdale v . United States , 919 F .2d 1440, 1448 (7th Cir . . 1990),
"we are confronted here with taxpayers who simply refuse to
accept the judgments of the courts . "
Petitioner's egregious conduct here has extended beyond
making frivolous arguments . He has abused the processes of the
Court and made implausible and .spurious accusations against and
attempted to intimidate Federal employees performing their
official duties . He has declined the opportunity to identify any
items that would reduce the amounts determined in the notice of
deficiency . The Court denied respondent's motion to impose a
penalty under Internal Revenue Code section 667 .3 because the only
warning in the record was set forth in respondent's pretrial
memorandum . Petitioner, however, is now on notice that any such
claims in the future may result in a penalty in an amount not in
excess of $25,000 under Internal Revenue Code section 6673 .
Larry R. Bradshaw v. Commissioner, No. 13462-09 (U.S.T.C. 4/16/2010).
