In this youtube video, Joe Banister exhibits his wild conspiracy outlook.
Bannister: Unfortunately, the U.S. government supports all sorts of eugenics type activities. It's really sickening that our own government would be supporting programs and activities.
Bannister: I've seen quite a bit of evidence that clearly there are programs to dump all of these chemicals on us. I'm not sure what the purpose is yet.
In fact, at the end of the video, he states:
Bannister: Well, I don't believe in that. But, the fact of the matter is that if people would just look into actual income tax laws, they would find that most Americans are not required to pay it the first place.
Makes it a whole lot clearer why he's no longer an IRS employee. He went whacko.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry over the prospect that my income tax return may be scrutinized by someone this delusional.
It reminds me of my last dealings with FINRA. I submitted a seminar I planned to give to a general audience and it was rejected. When I asked why, I was told that I'd mentioned "a specific security" without any acknowledgment that I would provide a prospectus at the time of such mention.
"What 'specific security' did I mention?", I asked.
The young man (he sounded young, anyway) resplied "The S&P500"!
JOSEPH R. BANISTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Release Date: MARCH 04, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Tax Ct. No. 1356-06
MEMORANDUM/*/
Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court
Submitted February 15, 2011/**/
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Joseph R. Banister appeals pro se from the tax court's decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination of a deficiency and an addition to tax in connection with unreported income for tax year 2002. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the tax court's legal conclusions, and for clear error its findings of fact. Hardy v. Comm'r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The tax court properly upheld the tax determination because the Commissioner presented the "minimal factual foundation" necessary to link Banister to the receipt of unreported income, Palmer v. IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997), and Banister failed to submit any evidence "showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous," Hardy, 181 F.3d at 1005.
The tax court properly upheld the late-filing addition to tax because Banister did not file a tax return for 2002 or provide any evidence suggesting reasonable cause for his failure to do so. See 26 U.S.C. section 6651(a)(1).
Banister's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
//*//
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
//**//
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
The 9th Circuit is affirming T.C. Memo. 2008-201, No. 1356-06 (8/27/2008).
So Banister failed to file a return for 2002, files a Tax Court petition in 2006, the Tax Court issues a decision in 2008, Banister appeals in 2009, and the 9th Circuit finally decides the case in 2011.
Say, five years from the notice of deficiency to the final judgment of the 9th Circuit (assuming no petition for cert.).
Banister has delayed the inevitable for several years, but he's also extended the statute of limitations for collections until 2021.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Banister throws himself onto the ash-heap of TP history.
Without reading the pleadings, I'll guess that "Banister's remaining contentions are unpersuasive" means that his many pages of garbage got laughed at by everyone who read them.
It must suck to be an ex-IRS agent, disbarred from tax practice before the IRS, not to mention having had his CPA ticket yanked by California, who then loses repeatedly in court.
That's a tough resume to sell. His only hope for guru-dom is a long stretch in prison.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
So Banister failed to file a return for 2002, files a Tax Court petition in 2006, the Tax Court issues a decision in 2008, Banister appeals in 2009, and the 9th Circuit finally decides the case in 2011.
Say, five years from the notice of deficiency to the final judgment of the 9th Circuit (assuming no petition for cert.).
Banister has delayed the inevitable for several years, but he's also extended the statute of limitations for collections until 2021.
The filing of an appeal of the Tax Court decision does not require the IRS to delay the entry of an assessment. If I recall correctly, the IRS has 60 days after the entry of the Tax Court decision to make an assessment. The tax was likely assessed in the 2008-2009 time frame (shortly after the Tax Court entered its decision). The IRS can proceed with enforced collection during the pendency of the appeal.
From the TC opinion, it appears that Banister argued that the notice of deficiency (NOD) was invalid because it did not take Banister's allowable deductions into account. The NOD did not ake the deductions into account because Banister never informed the IRS of the nature and amount of those deductions. The Tax Court noted that Banister did not present any evidence at trial of any deductions. Banister expected the NOD to reflect not only the information known to the Commissioner, but also information the Commissioner could have obtained through extrasensory perception.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
jcolvin2 wrote:The filing of an appeal of the Tax Court decision does not require the IRS to delay the entry of an assessment. If I recall correctly, the IRS has 60 days after the entry of the Tax Court decision to make an assessment. The tax was likely assessed in the 2008-2009 time frame (shortly after the Tax Court entered its decision). The IRS can proceed with enforced collection during the pendency of the appeal.
So Banister didn't actually delay anything, and the entire appeal process was a complete waste of everyone's time?
How unsurprising.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
