Among my other less-interesting-to-you accomplishments, some time back I cracked the ecclesiastical code of the 16th-century Council of Trent and solved the entire Catholic-Protestant rift (for anyone who cares to listen). You may recall that that council holds the world record for anathemata, i.e., over 200 curses upon specific theological positions which the RCC regards as heretical. The Council documents are the exact historical equivalent of "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments"; except that they enumerated many more frivolous positions, were much better written, and were much more honest. Some canons are straightforward, others enigmatically casuistic, such as the exemplary 10th anathema of the 6th session (and recall that the English text is not ecclesiastic positive law, for which I must refer you to the Latin):
Such language arises because the cardinals had the difficult challenge of simultaneously agreeing with the church fathers, and disagreeing with the reformers who also claimed to agree with the fathers. Steering the narrow middle course between such heresies as Pelagianism and fatalism, while carrying the tremendous Roman burden of that era, required great craft in drafting these ecclesiastical laws.Council of Trent wrote:If anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ (Gal. 2:16), whereby He merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema.
Trent was provoked directly by the actions of reformers like Luther and Calvin, but only a few of its canons were intended to address the reformers and their imitators. And in the majority of cases, Calvin responded with surprise that the heresy anathematized was simply not his belief; in a minority (like the 10th anathema above), he held that the Council did not anathematize him because it had spoken well-nigh ambiguously. The reason Calvin could so deftly self-acquit his position from heresy was that the Council could not clearly impeach him without opening themselves to greater judgment on the same charges.
Or, for equal time, consider St. Thomas More's treatment by the nascent Anglicans. He too had to dodge official attack for his conscientious religious beliefs. At first he maintained a successful silence about, and resignation from, Henry VIII's affairs; but in the end he was executed for treason, and, in Bolt's popular depiction, only upon perjured evidence. He suffered injustice and death with clear conscience before divine and human law. But his accusers could not proceed without impeaching themselves and their interpretation of law.
Fast-forwarding, when the Service issued its real revenue ruling (2006-18), after three years of awareness of CtC, it could have easily chosen to use the language in my fictitious ruling, which would have consigned CtC unambiguously to ashes. The Counsel understood CtC well enough to quote its 4852 language verbatim in the "Dirty Dozen" last year, and to use an out-of-context sentence of it for Pete's personal case; yet in the same period (spring 2006) they could not find a single in-context position of CtC to anathematize as frivolous. They can only condemn distortions of CtC, and hope that CtC is distorted as often as possible. If they were to condemn the in-context language of CtC itself, they would expose the IRS to greater risk than Pete.
Isn't it obvious that 2006-18 is intended as a direct response to CtC, and distortions of it? And yet the IRS Counsel cannot speak plainly against CtC positions as I have done at the head of this thread. E.g., instead of "includes all workers" you get "includes workers"; instead of "expands to the 50 states" you get "is expansive"; instead of "legal relationship" you get "general relationship"; instead of "earnings are income" you get "compensation is includable in income"; and so on. The IRS must answer to its bosses, and it is permitted neither to agree with Pete, nor to contradict him. The IRS can never legally say the statements in bold italics, because it would be challengeable on Constitutional grounds and could take the whole house down. Instead it can only continue to pretend it has said these things. The difference will grow clearer and clearer to the open-eyed.
There may be two or three of you reading this who realize that, if the Service intended to condemn CtC, the difference between what it said in 2006-18, and what it should have said as above, is highly meaningful. This parody was composed for you, and you can be certain of apprehending the truth when you seek it. But the rest of you will continue to hide true distinctions, while simultaneously perpetuating the endless imaginary distinctions demanded by tax beneficiaries, so that you can all think you will get what you want. This parody was not composed for you, as you have no interest in truth.
