Another "Snow" Job

[LaVidaRoja]

Out today, TCM 2013-114 Glen Lee Snow got told his income IS taxable, and slapped with sanctions (not for the first time) of $8,000. His prior endeavor, both the Tax Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals told him his positions were frivolous and fined him a total of roughly $7,000.
So this time, he tried a different frivolous position.

[Famspear]

Looks like another one of Hendrickson's Hapless Heroes. From the text of today's Tax Court decision:

On each Form 4852 petitioner reported that his correct wages, tips, and other compensation was zero. On each Form 4852 petitioner stated: “Amounts reported on [Form] W-2, lines 1 [gross compensation reportable on Form 1040], 3 [gross Social Security compensation] & 5 [gross Medicare compensation] are INCORRECT as the private-sector Payer mischaracterized my personal Private-Sector Pay for labor, as remuneration for a federally privileged activity. The amounts reported on [Form] W-2 lines 2 [federal income tax withheld], 4 [Social Security tax withheld] & 6 [Medicare tax withheld] are CORRECT.....

Duhhhhhh........

[Famspear]

More from today's Snow decision:

At the beginning of the trial petitioner stated: “I hereby abandon all issues considered frivolous by this Court, unknowingly proffered by me.” Unfortunately, he then proceeded to claim that he was not taxable on the amounts of compensation he received during 2007 because the payors were not “Subtitle C statutory employers.” This is just another groundless argument. It is clear that all of the unreported income that petitioner received was either compensation for his personal services as a musician or gain from the sale of securities. We hold that these amounts are includable in petitioner’s income regardless of the legal status of the payors.....

(footnote omitted).

[notorial dissent]

I can't remember, but wasn't he the poster child for apologizing for having made if frivolous arguments, if he had, and then went right back and repeated them all over again like nothing had happened, or am I confusing him with someone else? Anyway, the end result was the same, he lost big time!

[LPC]

More from today's Snow decision:

At the beginning of the trial petitioner stated: “I hereby abandon all issues considered frivolous by this Court, unknowingly proffered by me.” Unfortunately, he then proceeded to claim that he was not taxable on the amounts of compensation he received during 2007 because the payors were not “Subtitle C statutory employers.” This is just another groundless argument.

(footnote omitted).

The footnote to "groundless argument" stated "This Court rejected a similar argument in Slingsby v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-3, 2011 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 2, at *4-*5."

I was hoping that the Slingsby case would address the "abandon all issues" nonsense, but it addressed the "employers" nonsense instead. (I've inserted a link to the opinion in the footnote.)

Slingsby's many losses are discussed in these two threads: Another TP told he is wrong about the word includes (which addresses TC Memo 2011-3) and Edward E. Slingsby = possible "CtCer".

[Pottapaug1938]

“I hereby abandon all issues considered frivolous by this Court, unknowingly proffered by me.”

File under "Useless Magic Words".

[notorial dissent]

Further useless words.

Particularly if you don't then do so.

[wserra]

Looks like another one of Hendrickson's Hapless Heroes.

In all likelihood, "gdude". Here's the decision. Note the "Glenn Lee Snow". And further note today's post on DMVP's board:

Well, update. I received a decision in my tax court case.

Not surprisingly, the dishonorable judge ruled against me and all this came on a document with no seal and unsigned!

Right. None of that's surprising.

The judge conveniently ignored all of my evidence, never even hinted at it.

Sure s/he did. The court noted that you argued that "amounts reported on [Form] W-2, lines 1, 3 & 5 are INCORRECT as the private-sector Payer mischaracterized my personal Private-Sector Pay for labor, as remuneration for a federally privileged activity", and noted that the position has been repeatedly held frivolous. Maybe the judge laughed at your evidence - something else unsurprising - but s/he didn't ignore it.

He made allegations that I was making frivolous arguments, without ever specifically identifying one of them. (because there were none)

What's the above then?

He made no statement of jurisdiction.

Likely because you filed the petition, otherwise you wouldn't have been there.

My question now is, can I R4C his decision?

Sure. Go for it. Keep us posted.

[notorial dissent]

Poor baby, mean ode judgey ignored all hims ebidence.

Imagine that??? Guess he'll have to go stomp his foot and have a pout now.

gdude has been one of the bright, well really, dimmer lights over at lost hopes for quite a while, and I'm not surprised he migrated over to the graveyard of the seriously delusional.

I guess these bozos idea of what constitutes "evidence" is on par with their grasp of grammar when it comes to "includes".

[AndyK]

Decision references Martha J. Weber as Counsel for Respondent.

Ms Weber is a VERY high-level Chief Counsel attorney. Looks like Chief Counsel rolled out the big guns for this one.

Perhaps they are driving all the nails into the coffins of PH's acolytes.

[Pottapaug1938]

I notice that this clown got a shortened version of the famous quote:

"We need not refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

In other words, gdimwit, your gibberish claims didn't even have enough merit to deserve review by the court.

[Dr. Caligari]

My question now is, can I R4C his decision?

Great, moving from the Hendrickson brand of frivolity into the UCC- brand of frivolity squared.

[Famspear]

My question now is, can I R4C his decision?

Great, moving from the Hendricksen brand of frivolity into the UCC- brand of frivolity squared.

Maybe we better explain -- for those readers who may not be regular visitors to this forum -- what "R4C" apparently means.

"R4C" is the Wackadoosters' abbreviation for "refused for cause." The 'Doosters (and the term "'Doosters" is my shorthand term for "Wackadoosters," which in turn is my shorthand for tax protesters-tax deniers-sovereign citizen idiots-delusional blowards, whatever) believe that by writing the words "refused for cause" (preferably in red ink, I think) on a paper copy of a court order, or on a statutory notice of deficiency, or on a notice of federal tax lien, or on a notice of intent to levy, or on a foreclosure notice, or on any other official document they don't like, they can somehow make the unwanted legal process just "poof" - go away by magic.



EDIT: Is it supposed to be written in red ink?

Or is it red crayon?

I can't keep track of all the idiocy.

[notorial dissent]

Well, it will work at least as well as Pete's nonsense, and it is part of what the wordsaladmaster peddles to the hapless and dim. I'm sure he'll eventually work savings to suitors in somehow, for a trifecta of stupid.

[LPC]

He made allegations that I was making frivolous arguments, without ever specifically identifying one of them. (because there were none)

"None" is a possible reason. "All" is another possible reason.

I think "all" is more likely than "none."

And there were pre-trial motions and orders:

Before trial petitioner filed motions that we denied as frivolous; and we warned petitioner that if he continued to advance such positions, we would be inclined to impose a section 6673 penalty.

So the judge identified arguments as "frivolous" before trial. Then:

At the conclusion of the trial we again warned petitioner about continuing to make frivolous or groundless arguments. Nevertheless, petitioner persisted in making such arguments in his post trial brief.

Given that these guys have no understanding of law and are pretty much limited to cutting-and-pasting, I'm pretty sure that the arguments in the post-trial brief were the same as the arguments in the pre-trial brief.

[notorial dissent]

One would think, at least a normally intelligent person would, that if the judge said your motions and arguments were frivolous, and dismisses them, that they weren't working, and that it would be best to move on to something else. Apparently gdude DOESN'T fit that description or take the hint at all.

[The Observer]

One would think, at least a normally intelligent person would, that if the judge said your motions and arguments were frivolous, and dismisses them, that they weren't working, and that it would be best to move on to something else. Apparently gdude DOESN'T fit that description or take the hint at all.

One would think that would occur to them - and I bet it does. But then that would mean they would realize that they are going to lose. They have already made an very heavy emotional investment into this nonsense and they are simply not going to admit they are wrong. So they sail full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and three sheets into the wind, and put their ship right onto the rocks - right along aside the other idiots who tried the same thing with the same results.

[wserra]

Apparently gdude DOESN'T fit that description or take the hint at all.

Yeah, pretty much in spades.

There are a couple of more posts on David's board following the gdude post I linked to above. Another CTCer (IIRC) who calls himself TDL ("TranscriptsDon'tLie") sympathizes and suggests a "motion for reconsideration". Yeah, that'll work. Once Judge Ruwe sees the error of his ways, he's sure to reconsider. And I can't imagine he'd add to the sanctions for repeating arguments he's already found to be frivolous.

Then gdude continues his rant, finishing with "I am just completely disgusted..." I think he should just convey his disgust to the judge. It should work as well as everything else he's done.

[notorial dissent]

Much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I have to disagree with Observer on this one. I don't doubt that at least some of the dim and bewildered actually do realize, on at least some level, that they are lying to themselves and won't admit it, but I think the greater majority of them really are that dumb, as they just keep right on proving time after time after time.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think that the people who, as notorial dissent says, know that they are lying to themselves and won't admit it, are essentially deciding to double down on stupid, because it's all that they have left. Otherwise, they will have to admit that they spent a huge amount of time and money making very expensive asses of themselves.

In any case, these people will never be satisfied unless a court 1) addresses each and every one of their claims, in exhaustive detail, 2) accepts that the legal reasoning underlying them is sound and 3) makes a decision in favor of the wackadooster. Even if a court does #1, but doesn't do #2 or #3, that is unacceptable because it means that the courts are corrupt and/or the judge/justice is incompetent.