Crack-a-dooster "BrainySmurf76" at losthorizons dot com is offering his own cogent analysis of the most recent Steve Waltner case, Waltner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-35, docket no. 21953-12L (Feb. 27, 2014) (the case containing the decision where, in a 63 page opinion, Tax Court Judge Ronald L. Buch ripped Peter Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" nonsense apart):
I was drawn to search for them based on research about frivolous tax arguments I found by Paul L. Caron Pepperdine University School of Law. This "expert" is still harping their situation as his proof CtC is incorrect. [link not reproduced]
Here's a brief section from that site. Notice the indoctrination in bold to influence public opinion.
"Judicial opinions serve many purposes: they assist attorneys in advising clients and preparing cases; they provide the lower court’s rationale when the appellate court must evaluate its decision; they inform the public of the court’s analysis;"
So I went to look at the case and the first thing I noticed is based on a contention that going to Tax Court makes one liable regardless of your truths. This would explain why most lose in TC unless all TC judges are corrupt. Here's the part,
"BUCH, Judge: This case began as a collection proceeding in which Steven Waltner challenged the Internal Revenue Service’s efforts to collect a frivolous tax submissions penalty. That issue is no longer before us. On November 23, 2013, Mr. Waltner mailed full payment of the underlying liability plus interest to the IRS, thus rendering the issues relating to the collection of that liability moot".
Anyone want to read the case it is on the above link by the "expert".
Notice that our Cracking the Code legal "expert", Crack-a-dooster "BrainySmurf76", uses "scare quotes" for the word "expert" to describe law professor Paul Caron. In Brainy's world, of course, Pete Hendrickson, also known as Video Arcade Manager Man, also known as "Apartment Complex Maintenance Man," is an "expert" on federal tax law -- but Professor Paul Caron, who actually is a lawyer and who actually teaches federal tax law at a real law school, is somehow possibly not in the same league with legal luminaries like Video Arcade Manager Man and BrainySmurf76.
Brainy continues:
I briefly read through it and it's a mess of TC [Tax Court] arguments. I can't confirm or deny if the Waltners [Steven & Sarah Waltner] cases are frivolous but [they] do appear to be out of the CtC [Cracking the Code] realm. Or extra-CtC. I'll leave that for those curious to determine....
Oh, so Brainy isn't sure whether the Waltners "correctly" used Video Arcade Manager Man's Cracking the Code method (oh excuse me, his "non-method") correctly?
Oh, we're curious! We're curious! We note that Sarah Waltner was actually sitting at the table with Doreen Hendrickson on December 15, 2010 in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, at a hearing on contempt, when this exchange took place (in the introductions as the hearing began):
MR. APPLEGATE: Dan Applegate on behalf of the plaintiff, United States.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: Doreen Hendrickson.
THE COURT: And who is with you at counsel table?
MS. WALTNER: Your Honor, I'm Sarah Waltner. I'm a friend of the Hendricksons, here for moral support.
THE COURT: You're not a lawyer?
MS. WALTNER: No.
MRS. HENDRICKSON: She's a paralegal.
MS. WALTNER: I'm a paralegal working on the team. I'm not representing, I'm just here for moral support.
THE COURT: Okay. But you can't sit in front of the bar, then, if you're not a lawyer. Sorry.
The Hendricksons apparently were of the opinion that Sarah Waltner's understanding of Peter Hendrickson's scheme was strong enough to have Sarah Waltner --the "paralegal" working on Doreen's team -- sitting right there at the table with Doreen, in open court.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
But, of course, the puny tax law knowledge of law professors, CPAs and enrolled agents pales in comparison to the understanding of such legal luminaries as Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson and Crack-a-dooster "BrainySmurf76".
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
For those who want to read the Tax Court decision in Steven T. WALTNER v. C.I.R. (Tax Ct 2/27/2014) T.C. Memo 2014-35, here is a much more compact (not double-spaced) version:
Now, BrainySmurf76 tries to wade into deeper water. In a discussion about the meaning of the word "voluntary," he writes:
....based upon the IRS's own policies and procedures set out in its Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), inferior court cases are binding only on the parties and even then only for the years in question. Thus all of these cases can be disregarded as not binding on either the IRS or the citizen. According to the IRM only Supreme Court cases have the effect of law, “equivalent to the code” and lower court decisions are not binding on either the IRS or the citizen. So where is the Supreme Court case saying “voluntary” does not mean “voluntary”?
No, "Brainy." Unfortunately, there are some confusing statements in various IRS publications (which, by the way, are not the law) that are leading you on the wrong track. I believe that we may have already covered this point in Quatloos. A better explanation -- from IRS attorneys -- is as follows:
AODs [IRS Actions on Decisions, a set of internal IRS pronouncements regarding court decisions] and subsequent announcements generally do not affect the application of stare decisis or the rule of precedent. The Service will recognize these principles and generally concede issues accordingly during administrative proceedings. Furthermore, the Service generally adheres to the controlling precedent of a given circuit when litigating a case bound by that circuit’s precedent, per Golsen v. Commissioner [the court case establishing the legal doctrine that in the absence of a United States Supreme Court ruling on a given issue, the U.S. Tax Court follows the precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for that circuit applicable to that case (assuming of course that the applicable Court of Appeals has made a ruling on that matter)].
Nevertheless, in very rare circumstances, nonacquiescence to a circuit court case will not necessarily imply an intention on the part of the Service to comply with the precedent within the same circuit issuing the opinion. This [an IRS intention to continue to take a position in a given circuit that might be contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals for that circuit] may occur if the Service intends to continue to litigate the matter in the deciding circuit or if the case does not establish controlling circuit court precedent because the holding can be limited to its unique facts. In such cases, the AOD will provide explicit guidance concerning how to handle the matter within the issuing circuit.
--from Mitchell Rogovin & Donald L. Korb, "The Four R’s Revisited: Regulations, Rulings, Reliance, and Retroactivity in the 21st Century: A View From Within", 46 Duquesne Law Review 323 (2008); re-printed in CCH’s Taxes – The Tax Magazine, August 2009 (CCH).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
As far as "BrainySmurf76's" misunderstanding of the word "voluntary" as used in federal income tax law, this is my response:
When tax protesters argue that there is no legal obligation to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income tax based on the use of the word "voluntary" in some court decisions and other publications, the protesters are engaging in a fallacy sometimes called "whole word equivocation." Essentially, the government is using the word "voluntary" in one sense and the tax protesters are using the word "voluntary" in another sense and at the same time falsely claiming that the government is using the term the way the tax protesters are using it.
The tax protesters are arguing that the government is using the term "voluntary" as an adjective to mean: "acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation" (per Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1312, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976)) or "Acting or performed without external persuasion or compulsion" (The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1355, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd ed. 1985)), or "Without legal obligation...." The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1355, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd ed. 1985).
But that's not what the government means by "voluntary" in this situation.
Instead, the government is using the term in the sense of "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1312, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976)) or "done by design or intention" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1312, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976)) or "Acting one one's own initiative" (The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1355, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd ed. 1985)).
Clearly, a person can consent to do something which he is also legally obligated to do. The term "voluntary" in the context of filing a federal income tax return and paying the tax means that the individual consents to doing what he is legally obligated to do: To file his tax return by the due date and to pay his tax by the due date. As one commentator has pointed out, this is consent in the same sense that many (but not all) motorists voluntarily drive within posted speed limits and voluntarily stop where a stop sign is posted -- even when there is no other traffic nearby, and even when no policeman is nearby.
--from something I wrote "in another place."
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
So where is the Supreme Court case saying “voluntary” does not mean “voluntary”?
.... brings this response:
So where is the U.S. Supreme Court case (or any other federal court case) where a litigant argued that "voluntary" means that paying federal income tax is not a legally binding requirement -- and the court then ruled that the litigant was correct?
Come on, Brainy! Go look for a court case -- or even an IRS statement somewhere -- that says that "voluntary" means that you're not legally required to file federal income tax returns or pay the tax.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Hey, BrainySmurf! If you have trouble finding a federal court case where the court ruled that "voluntary" means that paying federal income tax is not a legally binding requirement, go ask legal luminary Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson for help.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The govt speaks of "voluntary compliance" with the tax laws, which, in this instance, means that the govt allows people to structure their financial transactions to minimize their tax liabilities, and to report their income and expenses themselves, and distinguished from a great many other countries where the govt calculates and imposes the tax amount. It's also distinguished from the days of Robin Hood, when the sheriff's men would kick in the door, give a glance around to assess the family's financial situation, and grab the silverware and a couple of chickerns as tax payment.
So the US tax system is not quite as "voluntary" as some of us would wish.
“A tax, in its essential characteristics, ... is not a debt nor in the nature of a debt. A tax is an impost levied by authority of the govt upon its citizens or subjects for the support of the State. It is not founded on contract or agreement. It operates in invitum {= against an unwilling person}. A debt is a sum of money due by certain and express agreement; it originates and is founded upon contracts express or implied.” Lane County v. Oregon (1869) 74 US (7 Wall.) 71 at 80, 19 L.Ed. 101 at 106 (citation omitted, emphasis added). Similarly, Meriwether v. Garrett (1880) 102 US (12 Otto) 472 at 513-514, 26 L.Ed. 197; and N.J. v. Anderson (1906) 203 US 483 at 492, 51 L.Ed. 284, 27 S.Ct 137; quoted in ACLU of Tennessee v. Bredesen (6th Cir 2006) 441 F3d 370 at 373-374 cert.den 548 US 906. “Taxes are not debts, they are not founded on contract, but stand on a higher plane. They are ‘charges imposed upon the taxpayers, in invitum by the exercises of the sovereign power of the state.” Brown v. American Gas Coal Co. (1924) 95 W.Va 658, 123 SE 412; similarly Hinchman v. Morris (1887) 29 W.Va 673, 2 SE 863; similarly US v. McHatton (D.Mont 1920) 266 Fed 602; similarly Tri-State Transit Co. v. Stone (1943) 196 Miss 23, 6 So.2d 35, 151 ALR 976; similarly St. Joseph Land Co. v. MacLean (8th Cir 1929) 32 F2d 984 at 987. “Taxes do not arise out of contract. They are imposed in invitum. The taxpayer does not agree to pay, but is forced to pay ....” City of Covington v. First National Bank of Covington (1905) 198 US 100 at 108, 49 L.Ed 963, 25 S.Ct 562; quoting City of Newport v. Commonwealth (1899) 106 Ky 434, 50 SW 845, 45 LRA 518; and in turn quoted in Board of Supervisors v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co. (1937) 223 Iowa 1066, 274 NW 17. “A tax is a forced charge levied by the State upon persons or property. It operates in invitum and is in no way dependent upon the will or contract, expressed or implied, of the persons taxed.” Central Savings Bank v. City of New York (1938) 279 NY 266 at 280, 18 NE2d 151 at 156, 121 ALR 607 cert.den 306 US 661.
....based upon the IRS's own policies and procedures set out in its Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), inferior court cases are binding only on the parties and even then only for the years in question. Thus all of these cases can be disregarded as not binding on either the IRS or the citizen. According to the IRM only Supreme Court cases have the effect of law, “equivalent to the code” and lower court decisions are not binding on either the IRS or the citizen.
However, Brainy can be forgiven to some degree for his misunderstanding, as the explanation in the Internal Revenue Manual on this point is not exactly the best. The IRM states:
4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006)
Importance of Court Decisions
1. [. . . . ]
2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.
3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.
Paragraph 3 is the real problem. I believe we've discussed this before in Quatloos.
First, the real IRS position on this is, I think, more artfully described in the Rogovin-Korb material quoted earlier in this thread. Paragraph 3 should be read in light of the Rogovin-Korb material.
Second, the Internal Revenue Manual itself is not the law. The general rule is that neither the taxpayer nor the IRS is bound by the Internal Revenue Manual. See, e.g., United States v. Horne, 714 F.2d 206 (1st Cir. 1983) (per curiam); First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Goldman, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9624 (W.D. Pa. 1986). Ironically, the IRS is not even bound by its own statement that "[d]ecisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated".
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The following excerpt is found on Peter Eric (“Video Arcade Manager Man”) Hendrickson’s web site, and it apparently has been there for quite a while. It was quoted by “BrainySmurf76” in the lost horizons forum the other day:
The scene comes into focus on an IRS auditor’s office. The auditor is behind his desk and a ‘tax professional’ is on the other side. A thick file folder lies on the desk and a few forms and other papers are spread out.
Hendrickson presents the term tax professional in scare quotes. That’s a clue that Hendrickson is bitter. Blowhard Hendrickson is bitter in part because, on some deep and perhaps subconscious level, he realizes that his hilarious, bombastic description of his tax evasion scam materials (as being “the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and ‘case’ law related to the American tax system in general and the ‘income’ tax in particular ever conducted”) is not taken seriously by anyone other than his Crack-a-dooster followers. He realizes that he is not recognized as Tax Expert Man and that he will never be recognized as Tax Expert Man.
He realizes that he is really Video Arcade Manager Man.
He realizes that he is really Apartment Complex Maintenance Man.
He realizes that he is an ex-con with two federal prison terms under his belt.
More:
The auditor is saying, “I’ll want $2500 from your client. I’m going to disallow these deductions and add $1000 in penalties and interest”.
“No, give them the home office expenses and waive the interest on the rest," the professional responds. "You’ll still nick ‘em for $1800-- which’ll make your supervisor happy-- and they’ll have just enough left to pay my bill”.
“Yeah, OK,” the auditor replies, “But you owe me. I’ll get it out of that Smith fellow we’ll be meeting about next Tuesday. His wallet’s fat.”
They both laugh.
This is Prevaricatin’ Pete’s Projection: “No, it is not I, Peter, who is corrupt. It is the IRS and the tax professionals -- who expose my tax evasion scheme – who are corrupt. Because the lawyers and the CPAs expose me, I must pretend that they, too, are my enemies, and that they are in cahoots with the IRS. I must believe that I’m right, and that they just won’t admit it in public.”
The professional gathers up the loose papers from the desk and slips them into his briefcase, then rises and puts on an expensive overcoat. He stops for a moment with his hand on the doorknob and asks, with a twinkle in his eye, “Do you ever wonder what they would all do if they found out the truth?”
The auditor’s eyes narrow. “What, about the real meaning of 'income'? Bite your tongue! We’d both be ridden out of town on a rail. Or worse.” He tugs nervously at his collar, which suddenly seems disturbingly tight.
This is Pete’s expression of his self-delusion, Somewhere in his subconscious, he is thinking: “I, Preposterous Pete, want to believe that the mean old, bad old IRS employees and the mean old, bad old tax lawyers and CPAs secretly agree with me. I feel guilt and shame at my lack of life accomplishments, but I want to push that feeling away from me, and to replace that feeling with the thought that it is THOSE OTHER PEOPLE who should feel guilt and shame, and not I.”
The professional waves off the other’s concern. “It’d never come to that,” he says dismissively, “This is a civilized country. Besides, they’d all have so much money to spend, they wouldn’t have time for recriminations.” Both men chuckle. As the professional opens the door and walks out into the hallway, the auditor says, “OK, you’re right. Necktie parties are unlikely. But we’d both be in the poorhouse.”
The professional stops and turns. "Well, don’t even worry about that,” he replies. “After all, who do they ask when they want to know what the law says?” Both men laugh again. “Right you are,” agrees the auditor, “See you Tuesday.”
Video Arcade Manager Man has not overcome a central problem of his life: the psychopathology of his narcissism. He has infantile, delusional beliefs about himself. He is his own worst enemy. Because of his personality flaws and his consistently poor life choices, he has needlessly and pointlessly made life miserable for himself and his family, and for the gullible Crack-a-doosters who have used his tax evasion scam.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
A bit off topic, but it comes to me every time I see this topic listed.
How can anyone with at least a few functioning braincells take someone who calls themselves "BrainySmurf76" seriously? I mean really, the next thing someone is going to come up with is that Prattlin' Pete is going to win the Nobel Prize or something.
Now back to the regularly scheduled comedy program.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote:A bit off topic, but it comes to me every time I see this topic listed.
How can anyone with at least a few functioning braincells take someone who calls themselves "BrainySmurf76" seriously?
Good point.
And the same Crack-a-doosters who take "BrainySmurf76" seriously also take Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson seriously as an expert on federal income tax law.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Ignorant and stupid (not necessarily mutually exclusive) people do a lot of ignorant and stupid things.
If they didn't, this board wouldn't be any fun.
Here's to all of the BrainySmurf76es of the world.
Long may they persevere in the excruciatingly tough (although not well-researched) process of concocting logic pretzels and making total fools out of themselves at the same time.
It's hard work being both ignorant and stupid. Incantations of magic words ain't no easy thing to come up with. Give them some credit. They're doing the best that they can.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
I think lumping those two in with Witch Doctors is a vile calumny. Some of whom actually provide real and useful services, which is more than can ever have been said about Peter Eric ("Video Arcade Manager Man") Hendrickson.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
North has another article today with an interesting analysis:
The Theology of the Tax Protest Movement
Gary North - June 11, 2014
Printer-Friendly Format
On June 10, I received an email from someone who claimed that he had been the attorney who represented Peter Hendrickson's appeal. Hendrickson is a leader in what is sometimes called the tax protest movement.
I quote from the letter, because it is one of the best statements I have ever seen of what I call the religion of tax protesting.
The leaders of this movement function as priests. They use strange liturgical language. People outside the inner circle of the tax protest movement don't know what this language means. This especially includes judges, who dismiss the protests as frivolous, and then tell the jury to convict the protesters, which the jury usually does.
Before I begin the analysis, you need to understand that Hendrickson is an ex-convict. He has been convicted repeatedly. In all cases, his legal justification for protesting the taxes has been thrown out of court. Once thrown out of court, he gets thrown into jail. This is happened more than once.
He also declared bankruptcy.
Yet he has disciples.
The email said this:
I represented Pete on his appeal after he lost his trial. Pete's interpretation of the Code and its history is much more accurate than federal judges'.
First, whether or not this is true is irrelevant in a court of law. If you think you are smarter than the judge, you are walking into that court with an enormous liability against you. The judge may be smart. He may be just average. But he has the law behind them. He can use the law to achieve pretty much what he wants in front of a jury, assuming that the jury is not intrinsically on the side of the accused.
In cases of tax resistance, the jury is never on the side of the accused. Jury members pay taxes. They think they are wise to pay taxes. They think they owe it to the government. They now confront somebody who, using arcane language that nobody understands, including the judge, is trying to get out of paying his taxes. Jurors begin with this thought: "Who does he think he is, anyway? He thinks he's smarter than I am." Pretty soon, it becomes obvious that he thinks he is smarter than the judge.
In this case, a man claiming to be Hendrickson's attorney says exactly the same thing. With this attitude on the part of both the defendant and his lawyer, the defendant was virtually certain to be convicted.
Although Pete is MENSA-smart, something like a 160 IQ, Pete's fundamental problem is his faith in man and lack of faith in God. Incorrect, due-process-violating interpretations of the Code were baked in the cake in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. The decision made federal judges our high priests and made their decisions unassailable. Pete won't acknowledge that fact.
Let me put it in language you can understand: Peter Hendickson is dumber than dirt when it comes to street smarts."
American law is still overwhelmingly common law. It is not administrative law yet. Common law is based on precedents. Here, a man claiming to be a lawyer understands the fact that for over 200 years, a particular approach to the federal law has been dominant in federal courts. That approach was established by John Marshall, who, when it comes to the centralization of federal power, laid down the foundations of what became the messianic state. I am speaking about the power of the courts to shape American history, which the court has done increasingly since the 1940s.
Nevertheless, the trial was a travesty. If you want to really see how a tax trial works in federal court--no right to confront accuser, no real right to jury trial--you should read my brief. In all humility, it is a very powerful dissection of the BS that is tax enforcement in the US.
He lost the case. That is the famous bottom line.
The entire Code is based on bearing false witness against your neighbor.
He has things confused. The commandment against false witness comes after the law against theft. The IRS is based on this principle: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote." The violation of the law against false witness is a side effect of the more fundamental violation.
If this assessment is accurate, which I cannot say for a fact that it is, then Hendrickson does not understand the nature of the law. He does not understand the nature of the court system. He thinks through his massive brain he is going to be defeat the court system. So, he keeps going to jail.
Hendrickson is not the main problem here. Hendrickson has written a book which ought to be called You Can Go to Jail, Too. The question is: "Why would any portion of in his right mind take the book seriously, when the guy wrote the book has repeatedly served the time?"
There is a reason: the religion of the tax protest movement. These people don't care about the logic of the arguments. If one set of arguments loses, they go looking for another set of arguments. They don't care about the detailed issues of the law. They care about challenging the IRS. They care about challenging the IRS in their particular way, which is suicidal. They are martyr-seeking people. They want to destroy their lives. They are good at this.
I have known some of these people. Some of them are smart, but they spend their whole lives in a currency only economy, earning less than the minimum wage, and bartering in a division of labor society. They are poverty-stricken. The only thing they can sell are skills that ceased being bartered some time in the 1820s.
These people are trying to make a statement. The statement is this: "I'm smarter than you are. You pay taxes. I don't pay taxes. I know the secret code. I got it in a secret decoder ring. The government can't get me. But the government can get you, because you're not very bright, and you're not courageous. I am both."
People with this mentality are attracted to blowhards who articulate this theology, and who get publicity for doing it. The blowhards want the publicity. There have a prayer of escaping the system. There have a prayer bringing down the system. They are looking for attention. They get it.
THE CONFESSION OF FAITH
But what about the people who see the battle is a matter of principle? What about the people who believe, as the letter writer said, that they are doing God's work?
The religion of tax protesting has a confession. Here is is.
If you believe God's Word you know that that the Code will not therefore survive. The man who can communicate this will be the one who God anoints to fully and finally defeat the IRS.
Let's examine the claim. This is the messianic impulse. Whenever you see it, run for your life. Whenever you are told that one man, who takes a major stand in the name of truth, can defeat the IRS, you know you're dealing with somebody who is over the edge.
This statement partakes of the two major challenges to Christianity in the days of Christ and later. The first challenge was based on what we call legalism. The doctrine of legalism proclaims this message: salvation by law. The rival view was that of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy proclaimed this doctrine: salvation by knowledge. This soon became secret knowledge. Initiated knowledge.
Christianity announced salvation by grace, not by law. Surely salvation is not by legislation. But the doctrine of salvation by legislation is the dominant religion of our era.
The tax revolt movement rests its case on salvation by judicial reinterpretation. It proclaims the doctrine and the tactic that people with no legal training, but who can spout some arcane verbiage they do not understand, can walk into a courtroom and overturn the tax code. They can also overturn over two centuries of legal precedents that really do stretch back to Marbury versus Madison. Lawyers will not do this. Lawyers don't want to be disbarred. But their clients try to do it. Sometimes, the clients don't even hire a lawyer. They think that by reciting an arcane formula, they can escape the clutches of the IRS.
This is either salvation by law, meaning overturning a specific law, or it is word magic. Neither of them has anything to do with Christianity.
Then there is salvation by knowledge. This is one of the great heresies of the conservative movement. The belief is this: if we can just expose a conspiracy, or a false interpretation of the IRS code, the American people will rise up and throw off their oppressors. I've written about this before. The suggestion is utter nonsense. The IRS promotes what the public believes in. That is why the public continues to accept it. The public likes it. The public believes that the tax code can somehow be re-structured so as to tax the rich and benefit the middle class. Of course, this will never happen, but the middle-class likes to believe it. It likes to believe in salvation by legislation. The specific legislation is the tax code. The voters really do believe that they can stick it to the rich.
So, whenever the rich people's organizations get into financial trouble, they go to Congress, and they go to the Federal Reserve. Congress in the Federal Reserve join forces to bail out the rich people. This process keeps coming as a surprise to a handful of voters. Most voters are vaguely aware of it, but they figure nothing can be done. They are correct. There is very little that can be done today. That is because, from the very beginning of the Internal Revenue Service, most voters have favored the income tax in principle, and only complain that, as far as they can see so far, the rich are getting away with murder. But that does not persuade them to send people to Congress to repeal the Internal Revenue Code. They just want reform it. So, the politicians promise to reform it, and then of course do not reform it, but it make it even more beneficial to the super-rich.
There is not going to be salvation by law. There is not going to be salvation by legislation. There is not going to be salvation by secret decoder ring interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code. There is going to be a change of opinion at some point, based on moral principle, and reinforced by the bankruptcy of the federal government. That will become a rapid learning experience. But as long as the checks from Washington don't bounce, nobody is going to go into a court of law and persuade a jury to let him off the hook from paying taxes, when the jurors will remain on the hook for paying taxes. The jury is not to let him off the hook if they have to stay on the hook, and they know better than to go in front of another group of jurors to try to get off the hook. Then they go to the discussion chamber and convict.
We are not saved by knowledge. We are also not saved by exposure of conspirators. We are not saved by arcane mumbo-jumbo based on a secret decoder ring version of the tax code. But there will always be people who hold the tax protest religion, and they are not responsive to anything like rational argument. They have decided to risk their lives with word magic, or at least they've decided to try to persuade you to do this. This is why I keep getting letters from people who tell me that all this will work, but who do not actually follow their own guidelines. They want me to get involved in the tax protest, so that they can see what happens.
No thanks.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
