US v. Hendrickson-- status of appeal?

[Nikki]

Another big win for Pete:

PETER E. HENDRICKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D.C. No. CV-06-80094-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2007**

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Peter E. Hendrickson appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his petition to quash a summons directed at the EBAY/PayPal fraud investigation team in connection with an investigation into Hendrickson's internet tax evasion business, Lost Horizons. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court's decision to enforce an IRS summons will not be disturbed unless its finding that the summons was issued for a proper purpose was clearly erroneous. Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1985). We affirm.

The district court's determination upholding the summons was not clearly erroneous. The IRS submitted a declaration establishing a prima facie case that the summons was issued in good faith as part of a legitimate investigation into Hendrickson's tax liabilities and his role in assisting others in evading federal income tax laws. See Fortney v. United States, 59 F.3d 117, 119-20 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Hendrickson did not establish that the investigation was motivated by bad faith. See id. at 120 ("Once a prima facie case is made a heavy burden is placed on the taxpayer to show an abuse of process or the lack of institutional good faith.") (internal quotations omitted).

Hendrickson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
END OF FOOTNOTES

[.]

his petition to quash a summons directed at the EBAY/PayPal fraud investigation team in connection with an investigation into Hendrickson's internet tax evasion business, Lost Horizons.

Can't recall any previous court being quite so explicit. Perhaps they're finally getting tired of his BS.

[LPC]

his petition to quash a summons directed at the EBAY/PayPal fraud investigation team in connection with an investigation into Hendrickson's internet tax evasion business, Lost Horizons.

Can't recall any previous court being quite so explicit. Perhaps they're finally getting tired of his BS.

And yet the court also referred to his arguments as "unpersuasive," which I thought was rather gentle of them.

[Dr. Caligari]

The Ninth Circuit's decision is now up at LostHopes. The general consensus there seems to be that Pete lost only because he forgot to argue that he isn't in an "internal revenue district."

[notorial dissent]

I particularly like the part where the 9th lays it out in plain English.

...with an investigation into Hendrickson's internet tax evasion business, Lost Horizons...

AFFIRMED.

Now could they have said it any plainer than that?

I would say the excuses are getting progressively lamer as the ground gets nibbled away under them. I’m surprised that JJ Blather hasn’t come up with some off the wall excuse as to how this is really a win yet. The "internal revenue district" is really scraping the bottom of the excuse barrel, and it never has even been a starter. I'm really disappointed in John, I thought he would have come up with at least one good explanation by now.

[Nikki]

it's astonishing how far the LoserHeads will go to twist things to mean what THEY want them to mean. For example

The court did not complete the passage in the 16th Amendment. It says: "Congress has the power to tax incomes from whatever source derved, without apportionment among the several States.

Among the several States is interstate commerce. Do you have sources of income from among (three or more) the several States, or from one of the several States (intrastate)?

I suppose that the basic rules of grammar are subject to reinterpretation when it is necessary to twist the meaning of a sentence to fit the desired result.

Fortunately, standinpeace and his ilk are not the final arbiters or constructors of the law.

[Famspear]

Nikki wrote:

it's astonishing how far the LoserHeads will go to twist things to mean what THEY want them to mean.

Absolutely. Another example: In losthorizons.com, in the thread entitled "Mandatory Evidence, Rfuselier wrote on 24 August 2007:

Ref:The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property -- partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.

[Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)]

Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner vs. Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sec. 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain there is no income . . . Congress has taxed income, not compensation [wages]." (Connor vs. U.S. 303 F. Supp. 1187)

"Income means only gain and profits, not wages." (So Pacific vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330; Stratton vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 309)

"It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries wages or compensation for personal service that are to be include in gross income." (Lucas vs. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 1930)

[ . . . ]

"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation [wages] for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law." (Oliver vs. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858)

[ . . . ]

That post seem to provide some fairly good "evidence" that something is not taxable.

Wow. Just to take a sample of the cases cited for Rfuselier's ridiculous argument (including material adapted from comments I made in another forum quite a while back):

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915). This was a criminal case involving a defendant convicted, under a Kansas statute, of firing an employee for refusing to resign as a member of a labor union. No issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" is not found in the text of the Court's decision. Really on point, there Rfuselier!

Only a tax protester could try to cite the leading case on the Anticipatory Assignment of Income Doctrine for the laughable argument that "something is not taxable." The Lucas v. Earl verbiage is not from the Court’s opinion in Lucas v. Earl, as many here in Quatloos probably already know. Protesters have been falsely attributing this quote to the Supreme Court for years. The language is a quote or paraphrase from the losing taxpayer's brief filed in response to the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the taxpayer-respondent. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. The brief is available on the University of Cincinnati Law School web site, if I recall correctly. In some versions of the case as reported, various statements from the Respondent’s brief are re-printed as a summary ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself by Justice Holmes. In the case reprints that include this (and many of them don't even show it), these excerpts are not clearly identified as being from the brief, so a non-lawyer could easily miss the point that this verbiage, like any summary, headnote, or syllabus, is not part of the Court’s opinion. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case.

Oliver v. Halstead of course was not only not a Federal income tax case, it was not a Federal tax case, it was not even a Federal case at all. No issues regarding the validity of Federal income taxes were presented to or decided by the court.

Now, about Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). The Conner case ("Congress has taxed income, not compensation") had nothing to do with wages or the taxability of wages. Conner was about the taxability of compensation paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the '''costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down''' -- under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying "wages." The compensation was for the loss of a home by fire. Notice that tax protester Rfuselier inserted the word "wages" in brackets right after the word "compensation" to leave the false impression that the Conner court ruled "wages" to be non-taxable. More deception by tax protesters.

Regarding the fake quote from Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918) - the Supreme Court ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913, the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114 (Oct. 3, 1913). No issues regarding the constitutionality of the Federal income tax were presented to or decided by the Court. The verbiage ("Income means only gain and profits, not wages") is simply not found in the text; it's Rfuselier's complete fake.