Bulten is disappointed in Quatloos

[jg]

From the discussion of issue #2:

As is made clear above, once created, it is the filer’s return that establishes the amount of income received which can and is to be assessed; imposes the tax thereon (or consents to the Secretary doing so); and asserts the filer’s uncontestable claim to any consequent surplus of what had been previously paid-in against the possibility that the process might end in showing a tax due. Once a return is filed, it is only if a filer has declared the receipt of sufficient income for a tax to be due that an appropriate portion of any amount paid in can then be characterized as “tax”, and, harmoniously, it is by the same declaration that the filer relinquishes his or her own claim to that same portion.

The reasoning seems to be that since section 7405 says "shall be received" any action that is contrary to what was reported in the filer's declaration is not permitted. There are other sections of the statutes that are being ignored or denied under this claim, of course, that do permit, and even require, actions that may be contrary to the filer's declaration to determine the amount of tax.
The fixation on the phrase "shall be received" and the denial of other sections is a prime example of the magic words that tax deniers selectively apply to their self interest.


See- it says what I declare "shall be received" ... so there, you must receive it... and then you , well, you ... must receive it cause it says you "shall receive it" but later you can .. oh no, you can't do anything else because you , you ... you "shall receive it" ... and after you receive it, well, ... you just must receive it.. i declared it so you must receive it...

[grixit]

That seems consistent with their Lily Tomlin affidavits. All they have to say is "and that's the truth. Pfft!" and everyone has to accept it.

[Joey Smith]

No, the challenge was for you to present what you thought was Pete's best argument for discussion. If you want us to presume that you pick #1, then fine: Dan Evans has done a thorough job of utterly demolishing that worthless argument.

The votes are running 26:1 as of the time of this post that Pete's brief doesn't present even a single worthy issue -- not a one! -- and you are doing nothing to dispel that.

Nor will the Court of Appeals.

[LPC]

...and I cited these statutes over at LostHorizons.

Yes, you were my inspiration.

Bulten hasn't rebutted them there either.

Of course not. How could he?

[grixit]

In the TP lexicon, "rebut" means to bash your head into the wall again.

[notorial dissent]

In the TP lexicon, "rebut" means to bash your head into the wall again.

.....repeatedly, all the while denying that you are doing so, and that the wall isn't there.

[Quixote]

From the discussion of issue #2:

As is made clear above, once created, it is the filer’s return that establishes the amount of income received which can and is to be assessed; imposes the tax thereon (or consents to the Secretary doing so); and asserts the filer’s uncontestable claim to any consequent surplus of what had been previously paid-in against the possibility that the process might end in showing a tax due. Once a return is filed, it is only if a filer has declared the receipt of sufficient income for a tax to be due that an appropriate portion of any amount paid in can then be characterized as “tax”, and, harmoniously, it is by the same declaration that the filer relinquishes his or her own claim to that same portion.

The reasoning seems to be that since section 7405 says "shall be received" any action that is contrary to what was reported in the filer's declaration is not permitted. There are other sections of the statutes that are being ignored or denied under this claim, of course, that do permit, and even require, actions that may be contrary to the filer's declaration to determine the amount of tax.
The fixation on the phrase "shall be received" and the denial of other sections is a prime example of the magic words that tax deniers selectively apply to their self interest.


See- it says what I declare "shall be received" ... so there, you must receive it... and then you , well, you ... must receive it cause it says you "shall receive it" but later you can .. oh no, you can't do anything else because you , you ... you "shall receive it" ... and after you receive it, well, ... you just must receive it.. i declared it so you must receive it...

The phrase "shall be received" does no appear in IRC §7405 or any other relevant section of the IRC. Hendrickson was quoting from, and relying on, Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862. He pretends to a delusion far deeper than you imagine.

[ASITStands]

Hendrickson places an undue emphasis on the word "final" in relation to a return filed by a taxpayer. The first sentence in his argument reads:

The law plainly says that when a return is filed the amount reported by the filer as annual income subject to tax is to be accepted as the final word on the subject.

He was challenged on that word in the thread, but JJB continues to ignore the challenge.

[Dr. Caligari]

Another of Hendrickson's claims is that the order against him violated the 7th Amendment, because he was not afforded a jury trial. Three problems with this: so far as I can tell, he never demanded a jury trial in the district court (and his appellate brief cites no such demand), which waives the right (F.R.Civ.P. 38[d]); the case was decided by summary judgment, so no jury trial was constitutionally required even if it had been demanded (I remember that rule from law school, but don't have a citation handy); and there was never a right to a jury trial on the part of the case seeking an injunction, because injunctions are equitable, not legal (something I argued at length on Lost Horizons a few weeks ago, but which Bulten has conveniently forgotten).

[Disilloosianed]

Valiant effort, Doctor, but most tax protesters I've met have no idea what the difference is between "equitable" and "legal." If you tell them it's an equitable, not a legal, remedy, they just believe that you are agreeing their rights were violated.

[Dr. Caligari]

I posted on LH that there was no right to jury trial on an injunction, and someone there (I think SubVet) started a whole thread on "equity." I had to disabuse him of a whole set of misconceptions-- that equity only applies to contracts, or to admiralty, etc., etc. I don't think they ever got it.

[LPC]

I posted on LH that there was no right to jury trial on an injunction, and someone there (I think SubVet) started a whole thread on "equity." I had to disabuse him of a whole set of misconceptions-- that equity only applies to contracts, or to admiralty, etc., etc. I don't think they ever got it.

Now try to explain to them why it is that actions in equity can be based on common law, even though an action in equity is NOT an "action at common law" within the meaning of the 7th Amendment.

As recently as 2004, Pennsylvania (which is often on the trailing edge of judicial progress and still has a fact-based pleading system) still had separate rules for actions at law (which were further subdivided into actions in assumpsit and actions in trespass) and actions in equity. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol34/34-1/3.html for the official publication of the order abolishing the rules for actions in equity, which became effective 7/1/2004.