David the Non Taxpayer?

[AndyK]

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that David:

1 - Receives a 90-day letter
2 - Files a timely, paid petition with the Tax Court

Very shortly thereafter, David will receive a notice from the Tax Court judge requiring David to (1) show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or (2) file an amended petition which complies with Tax Court rules AND clearly states David's specific disagreement with each of the Commissioner's actions. In addition, David will receive a warning (as stated above) from the Court that David could be subject to a penalty of up to $25,000 for pursuing frivolous arguments.

Please note that David will not receive a jury trial since this is a civil, income tax matter and the law provides that such cases be heard and decided by a judge. Even if David appeals an adverse Tax Court decision all the way up to the US Supreme Court, there will not be a jury involved anywhere.

David should be aware that the ONLY scenario where he could receive a jury trial is the one in which he is facing criminal charges for tax evasion, failure to file, fraud, etc. AND, David should note that, even if he manages to wrest an acquittal from a jury trial, he IS STILL LIABLE for all unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.

Finally, David needs to open his eyes to all the facts and information which has been provided to him: Summarized, his theories regarding the income tax laws are wrong, frivolous, and have been thrown out by courts for years.

Unless David changes his course, he will be facing some serious consequences in the relatively near future -- the least of which will be financial impacts.

[wserra]

You can get a jury trial in a civil refund action filed in a U.S. District Court. 28 USC 2402.

Right, for those issues triable by jury. Hence my phrasing:

And, if the issue is whether you owe taxes, penalties and interest for those years you didn't file, and your only defense is your interpretation of the law, a judge will decide that too.

[Dezcad]

David's family owns a liquor store in nearby Chicopee, MA, called Winn Liquors. It appears that, until a few years ago, david had an interest in that store. He gave up that interest at just about the same time as he stopped paying taxes. Now, I admit that the documents I've seen are not definitive, but this seems the most likely explanation for them.

Perhaps david can clear it up.

This may be a little nit-picking, but no one in MA would consider Chicopee nearby Chatham (150+ miles between them). But that may be because of the relative size of MA, and us MA natives have a different definition of "nearby" than residents of other more geographically-enhanced states.

[The Observer]

But I really question whether david makes the income tax threshold.

I pointed this out as a possibility in david's "Otto Skinner" topic, that he may not have attracted the government's interest because he had low income or had otherwise structured his life as to be off the radar. But facts or possible facts rarely have impact upon the tax defier who sees more significance in form letters that do not address the issue with certainty and conclusive proof.

For all of the surmising that is happening on how David will end up in court, I would suggest they are a waste of electrons. And it will be a waste of electrons trying to convince david that he is wrong. He isn't listening.

[Pottapaug1938]

More than a few low-income people live on Cape Cod in the off-season because rents are cheap, and then move elsewhere when the summer season starts.

[Famspear]

This may be a little nit-picking, but no one in MA would consider Chicopee nearby Chatham (150+ miles between them). But that may be because of the relative size of MA, and us MA natives have a different definition of "nearby" than residents of other more geographically-enhanced states.

I can identify with that. In the place where I grew up, for example, an eight mile trip would be a trip all the way across town, from one end to the other. But, having lived in the Houston area for the past 27 years, my trip from home to work each morning (which is just under eight miles) seems almost like driving only a few blocks. Until about four years ago, my daily commute in Houston was never less than about 22 miles each way. Driving "all the way across town" in the Houston metro area can easily be 40, 50 miles, or more, depending on where you are and where you are going. The definition of "nearby" for me today is much different than it was when I lived in a smaller place -- and in a smaller state.....

"Texas!
"It's like a whole 'nother country!"



EDIT: In physical area, Texas is larger than either Germany or France.

Think about that, pardner!

[Pottapaug1938]

This reminds me of a story involving a Texas rancher who encountered a farmer from Vermont at a farmer's rally in Washington, DC.

The Texan was describing his ranch to the Vermonter; and at one point he said "It takes an entire day for me to get from one side of my ranch to the other."

The Vermonter replied "ayup -- I know exactly how you feel. I once had a truck which was just as useless as yours, and it took me all day to drive across my farm with it."

[The Observer]

Or the snooty Texan who, visiting the California State Fair, picks up a watermelon and sarcastically remarks, "How come your limes out here are so small? We grow
'em much bigger back in Texas."

The Californian manning the fruit stand replied," Sir, please put down that grape you are holding before you bruise it."

[Cpt Banjo]

Tex-Mex, the world's best barbecue, and Willie Nelson.

'Nuff said.

[Pottapaug1938]

My wife tells a story about a guy from Maine who visits Austin, Texas, and arrives during the late afternoon. His motel room is huge, as is his first meal there; and when he inquires why, he is told "well, everything is bigger in Texas." After finishing his meal, the visitor decides to head for a riverfront bar for some liquid refreshment; and when he orders a beer, the glass has a half-gallon capacity and is full almost to the brim. Again, the Mainer is told "everything is bigger in Texas."

The Mainer is partway through his beer when he decides that it's time to head for the men's room and make way for more of what's in his glass. He asks where the men's room is, and he is told "down that hall, there, and then turn left." The Mainer, who is by this time somewhat "befuddled" by all that beer, goes down the hall and, by mistake, turns right. He opens the door -- and stumbles off a small platform into the river. After surfacing, the Mainer turns in the direction of the bar's lights and yells:

"DON'T FLUSH!"

[Pottapaug1938]

Tex-Mex, the world's best barbecue, and Willie Nelson.

'Nuff said.

Yes, yes and yes!!!

[AndyK]

People, please stay on topic: David The Non-Taxpayer

Or will it be necessary to split the thread into a separate "Stupid Texas Jokes" thread?

[Famspear]

People, please stay on topic: David The Non-Taxpayer

Or will it be necessary to split the thread into a separate "Stupid Texas Jokes" thread?

Yeah, can't you people stay on topic??!!!?

Oh, wait, I'm the one who started talkin' 'bout Texas.....

[Pottapaug1938]

It will be interesting to see if David skates away because the government does not see the cost of collection and prosecution being worth the expected returns -- which will only make David crow "VICTORY!!!!!" -- or if he gets nailed no matter what. I wonder if, then, he'll try a Cheek defense or a variation thereof.

[david]

Thanks for the "" stay on topic"" although the stories yielded needed comic relief for me for a minute. I'd like to suggest that things like Chicoppee, liquor stores, miles away, coins in my pocket, particular odd occurrences, stuff like that, are also to me off topic.
You posters have been great, directing me to other relative areas I've not seen before. I've gone there with the intent to see if I can understand how you came up with what you posted and if I can comprehend and/or agree, not with "OH YEAH or Bull Poop". Currently I am fortunate to have the time to review your direction in a slow and complete manner. Plus, you have directed me to places I have been before. This has caused me to review those places in a more intense, slower, and more complete manner. For the most part, I've seen your position, comprehended it, and can agree with it. With regard to your apparent overall prevalent interpretation of the 16th Amnd., I am unable to agree. And, that no matter what I believe, you claim "YOU ARE subject to the tax law!".
For those of you who claim "You are wrong." with my interpretation of Brushaber, and, for those of you who discredit that I might be a person not subject to 26 USC 1, I direct your attention to the following, see for yourself, form your own opinions, don't let anyone else tell you what you should think. I might be wrong. Will you consider the same about yourself?
Economy Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 - Court of Claims 1972 ,,,,,,,,26 U.S. Code § 7426 - Civil actions by persons other than taxpayers.
I think in light of Economy and 7426, in the event my bank informs me my deposits have been seized, if I can not convince the bank to return my money, I just might be able to prevail in a civil case and maybe I can show the District Attorney a criminal complaint. But I might be wrong. What do you think?
I LOVE Famspear's statement: "We are not here to tell you what the law is. We are here to teach the law." In my book, that means: there it is, go look, what do you think and support it.
I'm digging some more.
David

[Quixote]

I think in light of Economy and 7426, in the event my bank informs me my deposits have been seized, if I can not convince the bank to return my money, I just might be able to prevail in a civil case and maybe I can show the District Attorney a criminal complaint. But I might be wrong. What do you think?

Now you're the one straying off topic. 7426 would apply if your bank account was levied in error for someone else's tax liability. It has no relevance to the determination of your own tax liabilty.

[david]

Quixote, apparently you didn't read Economy.
David.

[AndyK]

With regard to your apparent overall prevalent interpretation of the 16th Amnd., I am unable to agree. And, that no matter what I believe, you claim "YOU ARE subject to the tax law!".

You are confusing statements made here regarding the interpretation of the 16th Amendment and of 26USC with "our apparent overall prevalent interpretation." Our interpretation (and yours) doesn't matter. What has been repeatedly pointed out to you are the interpretations, opinions, and decisions of the PEOPLE WHO MATTER: the judges of the US Tax Court, District Courts, Appellate Courts, and the Supreme Court.

When push comes to shove, your opinion won't matter UNLESS you can convince a jury in a criminal tax matter that you are too stupid to comprehend the tax laws. That might keep you out of jail. On the civil side, you will still end up owing the taxes, interest, and penalties -- which, based on the statements and documents you have posted hers, will probably include the penalties for fraud.

I think in light of Economy and 7426, in the event my bank informs me my deposits have been seized, if I can not convince the bank to return my money, I just might be able to prevail in a civil case and maybe I can show the District Attorney a criminal complaint. But I might be wrong. What do you think?

If you were to actually to have read 26USC7426, you would not have opened this additional door into stupidity. 7426 CLEARLY states that the only people allowed to bring suits under this section are "other than the person against whom is assessed the tax out of which such levy arose"

Thus if any of your assets, deposits, whatever have been levied against and siezed as a result of you noncompliance, YOU CAN NOT INVOKE THIS SECTION IN COURT. Well, actually, you could institute a suit the results of which would be a motion by the United States to dismiss for one of several reasons immediately followed by a judge's order dismissing your suit with prejudice.

Next batter ?

[AndyK]

Quixote, apparently you didn't read Economy.
David.

Did you read it? "... the motion of plaintiffs ... is denied."

In other words, they LOST. Not a good precedent on which to rely

[david]

AndyK, of course he, plaintiff, Economy lost. He tried to claim status of "taxpayer" when in fact he was not.
With regard to 7436 (a) (1) in part,,, '(other than the person against whom is assessed the tax out of which such levy arose)', to escape suit, the bank would have to prove the levy was lawful, that in fact, I was subject to some tax statute, and to that , somebody has to show the law as fact and be examined. If you look at every single tax statute that has been upheld, I found each law was directed with regard to a specific privilege (doing business in a 'corporate' capacity), doing business under a specific license ( insurance co.'s) committing a specific act with or without license (distilling spirits), what do you see?
I see 26 USC 1 (c) mentions no specific business, trade, profession, anything. If the words aren't there, they won't be considered. Yes, as far as I can tell, 1 (c) is within the limits of the Const., it just doesn't do anything, what business, trade, profession, privilege, even death (Knowlton v Moore).
David
ps, Andy, take a breath, your spelling used to be better. dk