Chills on Planet Merrill (Steven Kosin)

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm somewhat surprised that it yields enough H to power a warship.

Consider the warship before committing to that statement:

You mean the flagship of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Juche Eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung and Grand Marshal Kim Jong-Il Navy?

[fortinbras]

With regard to the fuel fro seawater, it is very possible that this is not really cheaper than fossil fuels .... but it may involve less pollution and environmental damage (and maybe dependence on some unreliable foreign govts) which may make the extra cost worthwhile.

[Lambkin]

Any sovereign energy generation scheme would need to be based on hot air.

[Arthur Rubin]

Any sovereign energy generation scheme would need to be based on hot air.

There should be some use for the legislature.

[Note to moderators: I'm not specifying which legislature, which might be construed as being a political post.]

[wserra]

This morning's shocker for ya, folks: it appears that the IRS did not agree with Kosin's reduction of his income by 90% for "redeeming lawful money". It agrees that he is entitled to a refund, but reduced it by 90% from what he claimed.

But Kosin is bringing out the big guns: he's gonna write his Congressman. Oooh. He's gonna ask "Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements (part of appendix A) and outlined in USC Title 12 § 411 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ) and provided me with a return as filed?" I'll save you the time, Steve, and give you the answer: because it's complete bullshit.

Now, do you want to trade your frivpen for what's behind (barred) Door #3?

[notorial dissent]

Magic Eightball says: YES!

[AndyK]

...
But Kosin is bringing out the big guns: he's gonna write his Congressman. Oooh. He's gonna ask "Why have they not treated my "income" as "Lawful Money" as per my demand made on my paycheck's endorsements (part of appendix A) and outlined in USC Title 12 § 411 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ) and provided me with a return as filed?"
...

WONDEERFUL

The Congressperson's staffers won't (naturally) have a clue what Kosin is writing about. So, they'll forward the letter to the IRS for an explanation and a response.

That means someone at the IRS will have to drop whatever they're doing, shift into panic mode, and prepare responses to both the Congressperson and Kosin.

Then, at least one (more likely two) people in the supervisory chain will have to review the material before it goes out.

BUT, it gets even better. whoever is tasked with writing the response will probably contact IRS' Office of Chief Counsel for a legal opinion regarding the legitimacy of Kosin's claim, the actions of the examiners / adjusters. and appropriate legal wording for the response. Of course, the attorney who prepares THAT response will have to clear it through one or more levels of management before releasing it.

SO, dear Mr Kosin will be wasting the valuable time of anywhere up to SIX government employees to find out that David Merrill is totally wrong.

With any luck, one of the people involved in this is a fellow Quatloosian and will be able to short-circuit the whole process with a phone call to the Congressperson's office. THEN, Kosin should receive a letter summarizable as "You are a moron to take any advice from David Merrill who doesn't even come close to having a clue about anything. Be happy you received a refund without a $5,000 frivolous filing penalty. Go away, stop bothering us, and get a life."

[operabuff]

"With any luck, one of the people involved in this is a fellow Quatloosian and will be able to short-circuit the whole process with a phone call to the Congressperson's office. THEN, Kosin should receive a letter summarizable as "You are a moron to take any advice from David Merrill who doesn't even come close to having a clue about anything. Be happy you received a refund without a $5,000 frivolous filing penalty. Go away, stop bothering us, and get a life.""

It's nice to dream, but even a response like that (perhaps particularly a response like that) would require review and coordination, and thus waste everyone's time.

[The Observer]

With any luck, one of the people involved in this is a fellow Quatloosian and will be able to short-circuit the whole process with a phone call to the Congressperson's office

Hopefully the IRS employee is aware of the "stupid tax arguments" position and can steer the response into that avenue and reduce the amount of people involved in issuing the letter. Yes, I know "redeeming for lawful money" hasn't made it into that list (which shows how *really stupid* it is - so stupid that it is not even stupid) but they should recognize "redemption" for what it really is.

[AndyK]

That makes sense ...

BUT...

You have no appreciation for the significance of a "Congressional."

Requests from Congress to Executive agencies surpass the category of asking "after jumping, ask how high?"

Literally, they are drop everything and reply yesterday action items.

After all, the Executive agencies are funded (except for black budget items) by Congressional appropriations. There has been more than one occasion wher a p-oed Congressperson has killed a portion of an appropriation -- or passed it with a load of conditions -- just because someone at the Executive agency twisted the elected official's panties the wrong way.

[The Observer]

That makes sense ...

BUT...

You have no appreciation for the significance of a "Congressional."

Please. I have had more than my fair share of "congressionals." And the constant re-editing by countless others who are never satisfied with my written responses, even to the point of arguing whether I should use one synonym or another.

[Burnaby49]

We have something similar in the CRA called Minister's Requests. Every time an irate taxpayer complains to his Member of Parliament (our congressional equivalent) it is routinely sent to the Minister of national Revenue whose office sends it to the appropriate tax office for response. However, while they are responded to promptly, they are not given much weight or significance. When you get down to it why should they be? Why should a taxpayer whining to an elected representative get more consideration and relief than one who doesn't?

I had one, based on a taxpayer complaint, literally the first week I started working as an income tax auditor. I disallowed all the claimed "farming" expenses of a guy who claimed he was a farmer based on having a few acres of fallow field behind his rural house. No farm animals (except for a pair of pet peacocks) or crops. He had nothing to declare as farm income and actually had a full time job in town. He was writing off normal personal expenses such home property tax, insurance, mortgage interest, automobile expenses, things like that. An easy call. He sent a very irate letter to his Member of Parliament saying that it was people like me who were destroying farming in Canada. His actual words as I recall. His complaint came from the Minister of National Revenue's office to me. Given my new employee status I was quite concerned until my group head said it was no big deal. He sent the reply just saying that he had reviewed the file and all of the expenses I had disallowed were correctly handled and there was no reason to revise the assessment. That wound its way back to the taxpayer and that was the end of it.

I probably had a dozen over the course of my career and they were all handled the same way.

[JamesVincent]

This morning's shocker for ya, folks: it appears that the IRS did not agree with Kosin's reduction of his income by 90% for "redeeming lawful money". It agrees that he is entitled to a refund, but reduced it by 90% from what he claimed.

So let me get this straight. Homeslice made, what appears to be, $71k, gets a refund of $1,900, and isn't happy with it? WTH, I can remember making slightly less then that and breaking even at best, even with writing off the kids. Hell, one of the years they audited me I only made around $28k and they tried to tell me I owed $280. In his shoes I would have walked away smiling.

[notorial dissent]

Some people are just plain dumb and some just get dumber, I'd say he's one of them.

[wserra]

All is not well in Pepperland - "lawful money" return brings $5K frivpen.

[AndyK]

Note the significant lack of ANY comment from David

[notorial dissent]

I predict more frivpens in the offing since I don't see the likelihood of sanity breaking out over there. The level of flat out stupid and denial is boggling.

[Hyrion]

All is not well in Pepperland - "lawful money" return brings $5K frivpen.

This is one of them times I get a good laugh:

They can surely DENY the amended refund, but to call it frivolous and punish me for another $5000?!! I've been down this road too many times with CTC returns and I DO NOT WANT TO PAY THAT AGAIN!

As the main character in Liar Liar stated:

STOP BREAKING THE LAW!

Been down the road of paying penalties "too many times" and still willing to get his tax advice from the same sources.

[notorial dissent]

So itsmymoney just traded one crap theory for another, and he's worried about going down the same road again, yet he doesn't seem to get the idea that he's just traded one version of trouble for another. I'm still betting he'll go for double or nothing on the frivpens.

[grixit]

Of course. He's still got that lawful bunny telling him he's doing the right thing. Those who can't see the lawful bunny will never understand.