macwildstar, legal scholar

[Quixote]

I have often wondered why tax deniers continue to file suit after suit using arguments every court in the country has rejected dozens of times. Apparently some of them just aren't paying attention.

macwildstar:

so, why hasn't anyone challenged the IRS's lack of compliance with the Paperwork reduction act?

[LPC]

Better titles to the thread would have been:

"macwildstar, ostrich"

Or:

"macwildstar and Korsakoff's syndrome"

[Famspear]

(insert mellifluous, baritone voice of program announcer):

"macwildstar ... is brought to by KrazyKolaKoolaid, the soft drink for Klueless Krackheads.... KrazyKolaKoolaid ..... the soft drink that induces massive delusions about tax law......

"And be sure to watch next week's episode of macwildstar, in which......

".....macwildstar learns that Dewey really did not defeat Truman.....

".....that the Dodgers have moved to LA.....

".....and that The Beatles have broken up....."

[Gregg]

and that The Beatles have broken up....."

OMG, Really?

bummer man

So, my friends, if YOU cannot tell me how to identify what is income, how do you suppose the companies do it? Their reply was the companies rely on highly trained CPA's.. So I asked them what if the CPA is like you, and relies on the IRS pamphlets, then what?

Umm, numbnuts, I just gotta say if your CPA is just relying on IRS pamphlets, get a new one. See, all the ones I know are relying on 5 years or more of college, CPE and in most cases years of practice in the real world. Before they get to say they are a CPA they have to pass a test statistically harder to pass than a Bar Exam or Medical Board and STILL have to work a few years for the certificate, and if they're dealing with real world clients unsupervised, they've done a few years indentured servitude most of the time in the research library.

Believe it or not, most CPAs don't practice accounting, but the ones who do, a lot of them spend time beating the IRS about the head and pocketbook with tax strategies that actually work.

[Famspear]

Macwildstar wrote:

So, my friends, if YOU cannot tell me how to identify what is income, how do you suppose the companies do it? Their reply was the companies rely on highly trained CPA's.. So I asked them what if the CPA is like you, and relies on the IRS pamphlets, then what?

Although CPAs use IRS publications as reference materials from time to time, I doubt that any CPA has ever been trained using those materials. CPAs generally receive their first training in tax law in a college level federal income tax course. When I took tax in college, we didn't even look at the IRS tax forms and instructions, much less IRS publications. We had a CCH text on federal tax.

In law school, it was mostly reading case law, as in most other law school courses.

Maybe once a month, I use official IRS publications as a reference to see what the IRS position is on a certain tax matter, or for general information on an area with which I'm not that familiar. IRS publications are generally reliable, but obviously they cannot provide an answer to every question. Occasionally, a statement in an IRS publication (or in the Internal Revenue Manual, which some IRS employees actually do read) will be a bit misleading (probably unintentionally).

When a CPA refers to an official IRS publication, he or she is doing so in the context of having already studied tax law in college, having already passed the CPA exam, and having (often) acquired many years of tax practice experience and continuing education courses. We don't read IRS publications as though they are Revealed Truth.

By contrast, I'm sure that some of the regular posters at losthorizons do regard Pete Hendrickson's words as the virtual equivalent of lightning bolts and thunder from the summit of Mount Sinai.



EDIT: Well, I see Gregg beat me to it on this topic....

[fortinbras]

Contrary to the message that began this thread, a LOT of tax dodgers have raised the issue of the Paperwork Reduction Act (= PRA). They have never won - either because, without researching further, the court simply holds that because the income tax is required by statute, and long predates the PRA, the PRA does not excuse in any way a failure to comply with the internal revenue code, - or, with some additional research, that yes the OMB some years ago did approve the perennial IRS forms and it is not necessary that the OMB does so repeatedly each year. In any case, the PRA argument has NEVER worked, despite many attempts.

As for income, the Internal Revenue Code identifies all sort of revenue as "gross income", then identifies the various deductions/exemptions that are used to bring down that gross amount to the measurement of "taxable income". There's no problem about what constitutes income, except for some rather uncommon and obscure transactions. Positively money received for personal work, whether physical or mental or a mix, namely salary/wages, is counted as taxable income.

A hint: the IRS and the courts have all lost whatever patience or good humor they once had about people who play obtuse about whether their incomes count for taxes.

[notorial dissent]

so, why hasn't anyone challenged the IRS's lack of compliance with the Paperwork reduction act?

The old line about those who do not read history, are doomed to repeat it, comes to mind here.

And perish forefend that any of Prattlin' Pete's crew of dullards should actually read any real cases or information not revealed from on high by the prat master himself, or they, he in this case, macwildstar, would know the answer to that and many other unsettling questions of why their divine theories don't work. Always assuming an ability to read and comprehend, a courtesy I'm not inclined to extend here.

[LPC]

yes the OMB some years ago did approve the perennial IRS forms and it is not necessary that the OMB does so repeatedly each year.

Actually, tax forms are resubmitted by the IRS to the OMB annually, instead of once every three years (which is what is required by law).

As far as I can tell, the most recent submission of Form 1040 (and its schedules) was on 4/24/2011, ICR 201103-1545-018. The most recent request for public comments on Forms 1040 was published in the Federal Register 4/25/2011 at 77 F.R. 24567.

Which leads to another tax denier argument, which is that the resubmissions are invalid (or ineffective) because the IRS and the OMB keep using the same OMB control number for Form 1040, #1545-0074, which doesn't change from year to year.

But there's no requirement in the PRA that control numbers must change when forms are updated annually.

“That this number [OMB #1545-0074] has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. Section 3507 requires periodic review, not a periodic change in control numbers.”

United States v. Denny R. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094-95, 2007 TNT 221-11, Nos. 06-3635 and 06-3785 (7th Cir. 11/14/2007), cert. den., No. 07-1045 (U.S. 3/24/2008) (conviction for tax evasion affirmed); Lewis v. Commissioner, 523 F.3d 1272, 1276-77, No. 07-9006 (10th Cir. 4/29/2008).

[fortinbras]

VERY grateful for your citations, which I ruthlessly copy into my compilation.

The citation to the Patridge case (I call attention to the spelling; this is not the bird or musical family) should show the official cite for the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari: 552 US 1280.

Besides the court recognition that the IRS forms do have OMB numbers, it has been held that, if (in theory) the OMB numbers were lacking or otherwise defective, the defect would only go to the forms published by the IRS; the statutory requirement that a report be made of income (on papers worked up by the taxpayer if necessary) and taxes paid on it would remain and be enforceable. US v. Wunder (6th Cir 1990) 919 F.2d 34. Further, if such a (theoretical) defect in the OMB numbers could possibly excuse a failure to make a tax return, it still wouldn't excuse the submission of a dishonest tax return. US v. Gross (6th Cir 2010) 626 F.3d 289.

[AndyK]

Actually, tax forms are resubmitted by the IRS to the OMB annually, instead of once every three years (which is what is required by law).

Minor quibble point: Existing forms must be recertified every so often. New forms must be certified ab ininitio.

Since the 1040 (and many other IRS forms) changes each year, it requires fresh certificition -- which becomes a major pain in the tail when the Congress Critters wait until January to enact the tax code revisions.

[Gregg]

I thought that I read somewhere that all tax forms etc.. related to the 1040 are covered by the OMB number for the 1040 and so on...

Regardless, I KNOW I have read court decisions that basically say it doesn't apply (or at least enough to negate your responsibility) as providing the information on the form is otherwise required by law.