Wnuck v CIR - TP not entitled to refutation of friv argument

[jcolvin2]

In Wnuck v CIR, 136 T.C. No. 24, a taxpayer moved for reconsideration of his case on the grounds that the Tax Court did not address in any detail his argument that wages were not taxable. In a full TC opinion, the Tax Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and upped the sanctions under section 6673 from $1,000 to $5,000, on the grounds that the request for reconsideration was "primarily for delay."

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Wnuck.TC.WPD.pdf

Edited 6/1/2011 to revise link to Tax Court opinion.

[LPC]

The opinion is long but is recommended reading for it's detailed explanation of *why* the Tax Court will not address tax protester arguments in detail.

I'm impressed by reason #1:

Discussion

I. Why we usually decline to refute frivolous anti-tax
arguments

The reasons that courts decline “to refute these [frivolous] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent”, Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d at 1417, include the following.

A. The number of potential frivolous anti-tax arguments is unlimited.

If one is genuinely seeking the truth, if he focuses on what is relevant, and if he confines himself to good sense and logic, then the number of serious arguments he can make on a given point is limited. However, if one is already committed to a position regardless of its truth, if he is willing to say anything, if he is willing to ignore relevance, good sense, and logic, and if he is simply looking for subjects and predicates to put together into sentences in ostensible support of a given point, then the number of frivolous arguments that he can make on that point is effectively limitless. When each frivolous argument is answered, there is always another, as long as there are words to be uttered. Such arguments are without number. Consequently, a Court that decides cases brought by persons willing to make frivolous arguments--such as “tax protesters” or “tax defiers”--would by definition never be finished with the task of answering those frivolous arguments.

(Footnote omitted]

[.]

Looney Mooney made the footnotes.

Number 7 on page 11.

Great opinion. Too bad none of the TP losers will read it and/or allow it to penetrate their thick skulls. For exactly the reasons that the court lays out in detail.

[Dr. Caligari]

This sounds like it was a "CTC-Educated" return-- he had "pay for work" instead of "wages," thought "includes" means "includes only," and so on.

[LPC]

This sounds like it was a "CTC-Educated" return-- he had "pay for work" instead of "wages," thought "includes" means "includes only," and so on.

You're right. His 2003 Pennsylvania income tax refund was posted on Lost Horizons.

As I've mentioned before, the Pennsylvania income tax system is completely independent of the federal income tax, and very different from the federal income tax, so nothing in any of Hendrickson's writings has any relevance to the Pennsylvania income tax, but that wouldn't stop the whackos from claiming refunds anyway.

[LPC]

Looney Mooney made the footnotes.

Number 7 on page 11.

As an example of a fanatic who doesn't learn anything from the first kick of a mule. Here's the sentence to which footnote 7 is attached:

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.

The footnote is a collection of citations to litigants who got sanctioned for making the same frivolous argument twice, and Mooney qualifies.

[notorial dissent]

What's really entertaining, and probably very confusing to the taxing authorities, is when they try and use the CTC stuff up in Canada against the CTA. Almost as entertaining when they try the UCC nonsense up there.

[.]

Will even one Crackhead find it at all significant (or even the least bit ironic) that the cases of one sanctioned CtC loser get cited in the case of another sanctioned CtC loser?

Too bad the TC missed the opportunity to mention PH in their discussion of criminal convictions for filings based on equivalent frivolity in footnote 4. That would have made it a CtC oh-fer three-fer.

[Famspear]

The opinion also quotes from an earlier bench opinion, and the quote in turn includes a citation to Ulloa v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-68 (2010). I believe Richard Enrique Ulloa, the taxpayer in that case, is another of Hendrickson's Heroes.

[Famspear]

More on Richard Ulloa:

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5688

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=6797

[Pottapaug1938]

I believe that we now have the term "wnucklehead" to describe someone who persists in advancing a TD argument after it's been repeately shot full of holes in a prior proceeding.

[Famspear]

For future reference, the link to the Tax Court opinion in this case has been changed.

Scott F. Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. No. 24, docket # 26068-09 (May 31, 2011):

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Wnuck.TC.WPD.pdf

and, for an Order amending the May 31st opinion (a few technical corrections), see:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5520640

[LPC]

I've been pointed to some "commentary" on the Wnuck decision here:

http://taxcourthelp.net/definition-of-u ... enue-code/

After regurgitating the usual "analysis" of why the "United States" does not include any of the states:

I will leave it to you to make your own conclusions about this issue. And I will warn you that the U.S. Tax Court will declare frivolous any argument that the definition of United States in IRC 7701(a) does not include the “States of the Union.” See for example the Supplemental Opinion in Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. No. 24, sup. Op. (2011).

This is one of the rare occasions where the Tax Court actually addressed an argument it labeled as ‘frivolous.’

The Wnuck decision reveals why the Tax Court generally dismisses troublesome statutory language with the 5th Circuit’s Crain v. Commissioner[1] exemption to “somber reasoning” and “copious citation to authority.”

To mutilate the accepted rules of statutory construction the Wnuck Court resorts to misstatement of the law,[2] athletic leaps to false conclusions,[3] logical fallacy,[4] and judiciously reserved, though none the less gleeful, name calling[5] . Misinterpreting the plain language of the learned and honorable men who sat on the Supreme Court for the Helvering v. Morgan’s[6] and Slodov[7] decisions is heavy legal lifting indeed.

The Wnuck Court quotes the Helvering v. Morgan’s footnote that appears above and absurdly places emphasis on the word some in order to leap to the flawless non-sequitur that because only some instances of the defined class are included in the definition we may ignore the clearly stated limits of the class and include any possible meaning of the original English word.[8] The Court completely ignores the characteristics of the class as they appear in the definition. The Wnuck Court works the language like a hustler working three cups and a pea. Or perhaps like a tenacious advocate who knows how very much is at stake for his client.

The U.S. Tax Court started back in the 1920s as part of the collection apparatus of the IRS. Although it is now a full Article I Court, it’s relationship with the Service is essentially the same as it has always been. Any petition that suggests the Service is exceeding its authority will be shouted down as frivolous and the petitioner fined. Be aware of it if you plan to take a case to the Tax Court.

[1] Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 at 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)

[2] Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. No. 24, slip op. at 13, subhead a. (2011).

[3] Wnuck v. Commissioner, supra, at 15, where the Court “includes” the unstated 50 states in the definition at §7701(a)(10) “(and the others of which are obviously the 50 States)” even though no union state is mentioned in that definition. There’s nothing obvious about it. The Court here is shamelessly ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153: “But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used.”

[4] Wnuck, supra, specifically at pg. 4, and throughout the opinion the Court relies on the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority, wherein the Court attacks Mr. Wnuck’s lack of formal legal training and summons its own authority to advance an argument not supportable by the facts.

[5] Wnuck, supra, pg. 6, n. 2.

[6] Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc. 239 U.S. 121, 79 L.Ed. 232, 55 S.Ct. 60, (1934)

[7] Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 249, 98 S.Ct. 1778, (1978)

[8] Wnuck, supra, at 15.

I've always wanted to ask these clowns these simple questions:

If you pick up a map of the "United States," what do you see? The District of Columbia? Or the 50 states?

[webhick]

I've always wanted to ask these clowns these simple questions:

If you pick up a map of the "United States," what do you see? The District of Columbia? Or the 50 states?

It doesn't matter - Rand McNally is in on the conspiracy.

[AndyK]

TaxCourtHelp.net contains some interesting reading.

The author, as usual, starts from legitimate quotations and citations and then bends everything with an application of his own, unique version of logic to arrive at his predetermined conclusion.

In summary, the web site states "I know everything about Tax Court -- buy my book."

It warrants an entry in the Wiki under the general index category "NOT"

[Pottapaug1938]

I love the part at the end where, after inviting replies to his legal tome, Lysander asks
"[p]lease leave a real e-mail address so that I can contact you."

I guess he expects that his likely clientele are used to having to hide something or other....

[grixit]

Someone needs to tell him that in a legal decision, "appeal to authority" is not a fallacy.

[Famspear]

Someone needs to tell him that in a legal decision, "appeal to authority" is not a fallacy.

Yeah, and I've run into other tax protesters who have make that mistake.