Another TP told he is wrong about the word includes

[rogfulton]

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

In which our hero, Edward E. Slingsby of Illinois, argues that Form W-2 is invalid because, well, I'll just let the opinion continue the tale:

Before this Court, Slingsby continues to argue that the
Forms W-2 were invalid. Slingsby reasons that the companies that
issued the Forms W-2 were not required to do so because they are
“private enterprises incorporated under the laws of the several
states party to the U.S. Constitution”. The idea that private
enterprises are exempt from wage reporting is based upon
Slingsby’s misconstruction of sections 6051(a), 3401(d),
7701(a)(26), and 3121(e) and (h). For example, section
7701(a)(26) provides: “The term ‘trade or business’ includes the
performance of the functions of a public office.” Slingsby
argues that this provision means that a “trade or business” includes only a public office. This argument is baseless.
Slingsby’s other arguments regarding these Code provisions make
so little sense that we find it difficult even to explain them.
We agree with the Appeals Office that Slingsby’s arguments are
frivolous.

Footnote references removed by me. The opinion barely made it to the fifth page (including footnotes)

[Quixote]

And even if the W-2s were invalid, Slingsby would still have lost because his income tax is determined by his gross income, not just that portion of his gross income properly reported. This particular bit of magical thinking is not unique to TPs.

[LPC]

Slingsby’s other arguments regarding these Code provisions make
so little sense that we find it difficult even to explain them.

I know the feeling. One of the problems I had writing the Tax Protester FAQ was stating tax denial arguments coherently enough to refute them.

The "trade or business" argument appears in CtC and in the LH forums. Even more telling, the bench opinion in the earlier Slingsby case, No. 027943-07, refers to Forms 4852 at pages 4-5:

Respondent received petitioner's 2003 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Tax Return, on November 22, 2005. On his return, petitioner reported $0 in wages. In attached Forms 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, Etc., Petitioner stated that he received "No response from company to issue forms correctly listing payments of 'wages' as defined in [sections] 3401(a) [and] 3121(a)."

So it's a pretty sure bet that this guy is one of Hendrickson's Heroes.

And we will probably be seeing more of him, because he's got two more Tax Court cases pending, Nos. 030935-09 and 011031-10.

[Nikki]

Slingsby's been busy

Tax Court cases (in addition to the one above):

11031-10 -- pending -- CtC arguments
30935-09 -- pending -- CtC arguments
27943-07 -- decided adversely

Despite earlier losses, he seems to be clinging to CtC as authorative.

Most interestingly, the case cited in the initial post -- 23613-08L -- has a sufix of "L", which designates the appeal of a Collections Due Process determination.

Highly summarized, Slingsby (surprisingly) lost his appeal of an adverse determination regarding

a lien to collect the federal income-tax liabilities of petitioner Edward E. Slingsby for the years 1999, 2001, and 2002 and to collect penalties for filing frivolous returns for 2002, 2003, and 2004.

We'll be hearing more from the Court about him.

[Pantherphil]

And yet here it is January of 2011 and the TP has apparently not paid his taxes since at least 1999. Further, he can presumably take an appeal of the TC decision and run the clock some more. And even if the Court of Appeals sustains the lien and other enforced collections activity, is there any indication that this TP has any assets or income from which the taxes can be collected?

[LPC]

A search of PACER turns up nothing on Slingsby.

[Pottapaug1938]

Slingsby's been busy

Tax Court cases (in addition to the one above):

11031-10 -- pending -- CtC arguments
30935-09 -- pending -- CtC arguments
27943-07 -- decided adversely

Despite earlier losses, he seems to be clinging to CtC as authorative.

Of COURSE! Don't you know that CtC IS authoritative, and that the courts are corrupt because the judges derive their pay from the government which tries to convince us that they can tax our incomes... or something like that?