Another Hendrickson Hero claims a loss in Court

[Famspear]

Crackhead "legaltender" claims that he/she has lost (another) case in U.S. Tax Court:

I lost a case in Tax Court, and will be appealing to the 9th Circuit, due Dec. 25.

I claimed the definition of "compensation" was provided by the Classification Act of 1923; neither the TC nor the IRS at any point in the entire case even mentioned this Act, only stating that my arguments were frivolous....

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 452#p29537

Yeah, well maybe your arguments were not mentioned for the simple reason that your arguments were not worthy of serious attention, Einstein. By definition:

Frivolous. Unworthy of serious attention [ . . .]

--American Heritage Dictionary, p. 535, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2d Coll. Ed. 1985).

"Legaltender" continues:

....The IRS acquired invoices from my employer's accounting manager showing the pay I received, which validated the 1099-MISC. I acquired from the very same accounting manager, an email letter stating that, pursuant to the definition of compensation provided by the Classification Act of 1923 (which I provided her), I did not receive compensation, and the company did not do any federal work at that location. I therefore have a factual letter contradicting the 1099-MISC assertion that I received compensation.

The IRS invoices were allowed into evidence under FRE 803(6) hearsay exemption. My letter contradicting that evidence should have been allowed into evidence under FRE 106 related writings, since my document was related to and part of the IRS's invoice documents, and should share the same hearsay exemption. The court did not allow my letter into evidence, affirming IRS's objection that it was hearsay (which it was, but it had an exemption as did the IRS's documents). This is an error for the Appellate Court to consider.

I said in my brief:

The payment and invoice information reported pay; it was not classified as "compensation" until the moment it was entered on the Form 1099-MISC which reported "compensation", not wages, not pay, not income, at which moment the statutory definition of "compensation" also attached. The Court does not have discretion to use the ordinary meaning of "compensation", but must use the statutory definition because that is what the Form 1099-MISC asks for. The Court erred by not addressing the definition of "compensation" in its opinion since this definition determines whether or not petitioner's pay was "compensation" as statutorily defined.

I think I have a strong case, but the main weakness in my argument is that the Classification Act of 1923 was repealed, replaced by the Act of 1949, and later 5 USC 5102. In the process, the definition of "compensation" was removed. The question is: Does the definition of "compensation" continue on in spite of the repeal of the 1923 Act? The argument I provided in my brief is this:

Regarding repeal by implication: “the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue to speak, so far as the two acts are the same, from the time of the first enactment.” Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 US 497, 503 (1936).

CtC only covers this issue briefly on p. 53. I need some authority that confirms that the proper construction is that "compensation" does continue its existence since it was not mentioned in later versions.

We need to win the argument on the definition of "compensation", otherwise the whole theory will be dismantled. Pete please check in on this one.

Thanks for your help.

And thank you for playing!

[fortinbras]

And the reply is nonsense; that if he puts his flakey spin into an affidavit that somehow it becomes law, even against a ton of precedent decisions to the contrary.

Proposed punishment for Hendrickson: Either 20 years in prison or 20 minutes in a roomful of his former followers.

[Jeffrey]

That seems to be a common situation. I would suggest that in writing responses or decisions to TP/SC that they be written in plain language. If they only call them frivolous or erroneous you get the same response, "oh they ignored my argument" or "I'm right but I wrote a comma in the wrong place".

[.]

Alex, I'll take "dismantled" for $500.

[AndyK]

It's almost astonishing that they can put so much effort into researching the roots and current definition of "compensation" yet somehow manage to completely overlook the concept of "all income."

I'd accuse Pete of brainwashing these poor morons, but THEY all came to Pete.

They all had a single, common goal: stop paying income tax.

Unfortunately (and most of them still have yet to realize it) a twice-convicted tax evader is probably NOT the best source of advice.

One edit to correct MAJOR omission.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Talking of not living in the real world:

I lost a case in Tax Court, and will be appealing to the 9th Circuit, due Dec. 25.

I look forward to the appellant putting in his appeal at the last possible minute. Then complaining that the court was closed for some unforeseen reason just to thwart him.

[LPC]

I think I have a strong case, but the main weakness in my argument is that the Classification Act of 1923 was repealed,

Damn! And *SO* close.

Still, relying on an irrelevant statute that was repealed is a better argument than those that rely on statutes that were never enacted, or court cases that were never decided.

[wserra]

Damn! And *SO* close.

Not that close.

The Classification Act of 1923 was repealed by the Classification Act of 1949, which was itself repealed by what is now 5 USC Chap. 51 and replaced by that Chapter and Subchapter III of 5 USC Chap. 53. And none of it - not the 1923 Act, nor the 1949 Act, nor the present statutes - has anything to do with taxation.

I know you were being sarcastic, Dan, but it's another continent.

Unfortunately (and most of them still have yet to realize it) a twice-convicted tax evader is probably the best source of advice.

I don't think I agree with that, AndyK. Something seems to be missing.

[Famspear]

Unfortunately (and most of them still have yet to realize it) a twice-convicted tax evader is probably the best source of advice.

I don't think I agree with that, AndyK. Something seems to be missing.

Andy was being sarcastic -- or perhaps he was commenting from a temporary position somewhere in an Alternative Universe, such as one described in one of those old Star Trek episodes.

You know: a Universe where the Evil Captain Kirk resides; a Universe where, for example, all my limericks are actually funny, etc.

[Pottapaug1938]

I don't think that these people would catch on to the truth about the income tax, even if the courts started writing their opinions in language suited to the comprehension of a third-grader. Given that this loser has taken a definition of "compensation" out of context and tacked onto it an irrelevant quote from a random court case, it's clear that they only care about using Real Legal Language to justify their claims (just like real lawyers do, right?), and will ignore anything to the contrary.

[AndyK]

Unfortunately (and most of them still have yet to realize it) a twice-convicted tax evader is probably the best source of advice.

I don't think I agree with that, AndyK. Something seems to be missing.

Oopsie

My keyboard is still recovering from yet another Quatloos-induced beverage dump and skipped over the word 'not'.

Original post has been amended.

[ArthurWankspittle]

My keyboard is still recovering from yet another Quatloos-induced beverage dump and skipped over the word 'not'.

That or the Quatloosian Not Virus is being tested again. (Designed to mess up filings and pleadings the English speaking world over, it was found unnecessary to deploy it with Birther and Sovereign filings. The later versions can be quite nasty as they can take the word "not" surreptitiously out of any sentence. e.g. "I did not have sex with that woman" and "Not guilty".)

[notorial dissent]

Pottapaug, the problem, is that even using one to two syllable words, they don't seem to get it, or don't want to more to the point. I mean, if after smacking them up the side of the head(repeatedly) with a clue by four doesn't get through to them, I really doubt that anything will. After all, they used magic words, so it should have worked.

I do think the courts do deserve a lot of blame for this though in that many of them are too fond of the sound of their own voice when delivering an opinion, and in being grandiloquent, they seriously muddle the message. I think a little more plain speaking and a lot less erudition on things that really don't rate it would do all a great deal of service.

[jg]

For posterity thought I would add a link with an order to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted found at

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5063422

In considering the petitioner's position the court stated that "Petitioner acknowledges having an employer, but his ultimate denial of compensation rests upon specious arguments. "

Perhaps "wrong", or at least "meritless" would have delivered the message better than "specious".

The linked document may not be the same petitioner as the subject of the thread but there are certain similarities in the position of the petitioner and the subject.

[operabuff]

Talking of not living in the real world:

I lost a case in Tax Court, and will be appealing to the 9th Circuit, due Dec. 25.

I look forward to the appellant putting in his appeal at the last possible minute. Then complaining that the court was closed for some unforeseen reason just to thwart him.

Legaltender will have problems, but this probably won't be one of them. Assuming he has calculated 90 days from the date of the decision correctly, his appeal will be timely by virtue of section 7503 (and section 7502) so long as it is mailed to the Tax Court by December 26. He may have even more time if the president decides to give federal workers the day off because the 26th is a Friday. I'd say the odds of that are pretty good given that Obama won't be facing voters again and the 2014 election will be in the books.

[notorial dissent]

Assuming he has calculated 90 days from the date of the decision correctly...

Assuming an awful lot. He hasn't done anything right so far that I can tell. If he's indeed one of Pompous Peter's Hapless, they to a man show no aptitude or capability for reading for comprehension, calculation, or following instructions, and near as I can tell when to come in out of the rain, or what day it is.

[AndyK]

Talking of not living in the real world:

I lost a case in Tax Court, and will be appealing to the 9th Circuit, due Dec. 25.

I look forward to the appellant putting in his appeal at the last possible minute. Then complaining that the court was closed for some unforeseen reason just to thwart him.

Legaltender will have problems, but this probably won't be one of them. Assuming he has calculated 90 days from the date of the decision correctly, his appeal will be timely by virtue of section 7503 (and section 7502) so long as it is mailed to the Tax Court by December 26. He may have even more time if the president decides to give federal workers the day off because the 26th is a Friday. I'd say the odds of that are pretty good given that Obama won't be facing voters again and the 2014 election will be in the books.

Interesting. Since the Tax Court (If I'm not mistaken.) is NOT an Executive Branch agency, does the President giving HIS federal workers a day off have any impact on the courts?

If I recall, the various government shutdowns over the past few years did NOT impact court deadlines, etc.

[operabuff]

Fair point. If you examine section 7503, the question actually revolves around whether the 26th turns out to be a legal holiday in the District of Columbia.

And you're right, the federal shutdowns have had nothing to do with it. Usually, Chief Counsel will have some attorneys and clerical staff designated as essential personnel during a shutdown to make sure that documents are filed timely with the court.

[JamesVincent]

Fair point. If you examine section 7503, the question actually revolves around whether the 26th turns out to be a legal holiday in the District of Columbia.

Does that affect Federal offices other then DC's?

[operabuff]

What we're talking about here is the date by which you have to perform "acts under the Internal Revenue Code." Filing a notice of appeal in the Tax Court is one such act. Filing your return is another. Under 7503, if the due date is a holiday in the District of Columbia, a Saturday or a Sunday, you have until the next day that is not a holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday to perform the act. So holidays in the District of Columbia have this delaying effect for the entire nation.

Also, under section 7503, if the act is required to be performed in some state outside of DC, and the due date is a state holiday in that state, then the state holiday also counts. So, if you're required to file your return with the Andover Service Center, and Patriots' Day (the third Monday in April, a state holiday in Massachusetts) turns out to be April 15, 16, or 17, you'll have an extra day to file your return. But Patriots' Day will have no effect on the due date for notices of appeal because they must be filed in the Tax Court in DC.

Now, DC has its own holiday that isn't a holiday in the rest of the US, namely Emancipation Day, which is April 16. So when April 16 turns out to be a Saturday, Sunday or Monday, all taxpayers have until April 18 to file their returns (or to file notices of appeal due on April 15). http://www.irs.gov/irb/2011-10_IRB/ar09.html