A lamb at LH asks to be slaughtered - & wants to pay for

[Famspear]

From a sheep called "Tony" or "almfree" at losthorizons.com, posted in the thread entitled "no case law for workplace litigation", on 23 October 2007:

Group,

Everyone talks about suing the workplace, but no one ever does.

For years I have watched others threaten to sue their 'employer' for illegal payroll deductions. But I don't know of any positive outcome (in relation to this forum)... in fact no one ever actually does litigate for fear of simply being fired/laid off. There is no case law (or any case pending that I know of) involving the truths of CTC regarding payroll deductions. If you've thought of initiating such a suit, most folks realize they will not have job.

I am in a very unique position. I can't be fired. I can only lose my job for a convicted criminal act such as rape, murder, theft, etc. That won't be happening. I can also lose my job for incompetence- but that takes a tremendous amount of time and an enormous paper trail- not to mention a '3020A' hearing that costs the 'boss' hundreds of thousands typically. I have a 15 year record of exemplary professional performance. I am a Union State school teacher. I am also in the teachers union. Say what you will about the ills of the system (and I'll probably agree), but do you see the benefit to our movement here? Note too- there are still a few of us teachers (but not many) that think within and understand the intent of our Forefathers! God Bless Ron Paul! Most of my colleagues say "Ron who?"

I have a fair amount of court experience but I am by no means an attorney or paralegal. I've been fighting the injustice and beast for six years.

I also currently have a legal controversy- the first thing needed for litigation, which continues to cause me and my family harm.
In 2002 my school district reported the payment of federal 'wages' to the IRS. I corrected the third party report and the IRS agreed, returning the pre-paid credits for 2002. I have IRS letters and account transcripts that correctly show zero 'wages' earned and a zero federal income tax liability.

In 2003 (and every year since), the district reported 'wages' (for the identical work performed in 2002) and the IRS has chosen to side with the workplace and presume the third party info report was correct.

I am in a position to sue the district on the grounds of illegal payroll dedections [sic] (and can't end up losing my job for doing so). The suit would be based upon the principles of CTC and echo the arguments of PH. In my (maybe biased and pro-ego opinion) this would be an issue of FIRST IMPRESSION before the court, and it would be against the workplace, not the Gov't., although I'm sure they'll be enjoined. IT WOULD ALSO BE A PRECIDENT [sic] SETTING CASE- THAT COULD BE USED TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH AND HOLD OUR SERVANT GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE BLACK LETTER RULE OF LAW for the rest of you Patriots.

Because- in my opionion [sic]... this CAN happen ASAP- and I believe it has strong merits not yet adjudicated; I don't want to go it alone and make technical mistakes.

I am asking for and seeking assistance. Attorney's, paralegals (within CTC) or competent folks like PH or Becraft to help- NOT to 'take the case' or do the all the work- but simply to guide and direct... through the court procedure (meeting deadlines, Petitions, reply's, briefs, etc.). I will pay the expense of the litigation.

I think this litigation (ONLY if done procedurally correct and using the merits espoused here) will benefit us all.

Are YOU that person? Can you pass the word? Does PH know that I am able and willing to do this?
For now- please contact me through this post....

Comments?
Tony

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22

(some bolding added)

Bahhhhh, bahhhhhhh.

Bahhhhhhh.

[iplawyer]

Darn it! You beat me to the punch here. He's got to be kidding right? Local schools do receive Federal funding and he doesn't want to pay tax. I just can't believe it.

[Cpt Banjo]

We can only hope that this imbecilic "Union State" teacher doesn't teach civics.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

We can only hope that this imbecilic "Union State" teacher doesn't teach civics.

Or any subject beyong rote memorization of basic facts. 2+2=4

[LPC]

I can't think of anything more appropriate than this moron should draw attention to himself and his past tax refunds and so allow the IRS to correct its past mistakes.

And so I might be willing to help him hang himself, but (a) I'm not willing to risk being sanctioned and (b) I'm not willing to have anything to do with any litigation outside of Pennsylvania (which is the only state in which I am licensed to practice.

[.]

or competent folks like PH [sic] or Becraft to help

This idiot doesn't even realize that even Becraft wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

[webhick]

I can also lose my job for incompetence- but that takes a tremendous amount of time and an enormous paper trail- not to mention a '3020A' hearing that costs the 'boss' hundreds of thousands typically.

Sounds to me like he recognizes that he could be fired for incompetence, but is banking on the fact that it's too much trouble for the system for him to actually be fired for it.

Actually, he probably thinks he's invincible because he's a member of the union.

I don't know much about unions, but generally speaking I thought (thanks to my father's hatred of unions): If you have a big unresolvable problem with your employer, you had to bring it up to the union first. There would be some kind of vote and either they would decide to back you or not. If not, you lose the protection of the union on the particular matter. Or, the union can decide to dump your ass. I'm probably very wrong on this. My father is not a source of reliable information on a lot of things.

[Agent Observer]

I am in a very unique position. I can't be fired. I can only lose my job for a convicted criminal act...

Gee, I wonder if he realizes all the "criminal acts" he's already engaged in, such as false official statements, wire fraud, and mail fraud, not to mention the host of Title 26 violations which will, or currently, apply depending on his specific situation.

[Quixote]

Is he correct that no CTC related withholding litigation has occurred? I know there are a handfull of cases in which an employee has sued his employer to prevent income tax withholding, but I don't recall if any involved CTC.

[wserra]

This moron is (I'm embarrassed to admit) a fellow New Yorker. The "3020A" (actually "3020-a") hearing which s/he mentions refers to sec. 3020-a of the Education Law, the procedure which must be followed in order to fire a tenured public school teacher.

And s/he is probably right that s/he can't be fired for bringing suit. However, should the IRS notice the self-raised profile and indict for tax evasion, before s/he gets all hubristic on us, s/he should note the holding of Green v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 17 A.D.3d 265, 793 N.Y.S.2d 405 (1st Dept. 2005). In that case, the First Department Appellate Division held that a conviction of third-degree grand larceny, with a sentence of restitution, indicated that a teacher "was not an appropriate role model for young people" and upheld her firing. Tax evasion is way too close for comfort.

[gottago]

I am just curious but it seems that the person is having all required withholding done and filing (probably) what is termed as frivilous returns. Since she is technically paying in to the system as required it is not clear to me how she is evading taxes.

Most likely she has already paid in everything she lawfully owes but has filed ctc type returns which resulted in a refund in 2002 only. I assume they (irs) could sue her to return the erroneous refund (like others, via civil court) but is this really criminal tax evasion? She wants to bring suit against her employer for the deductions being made against her wishes. I don't think it would work and she will waste a lot of $$ for nothing.

Now, in the case of the Browns I can understand the evasion thing because she was self employed and purposely structured her finances to avoid paying personal or payroll income taxes.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me...

[LPC]

Is he correct that no CTC related withholding litigation has occurred? I know there are a handfull of cases in which an employee has sued his employer to prevent income tax withholding, but I don't recall if any involved CTC.

And what is "CtC"?

Seriously. Hendrickson denies that it is a specific argument, and what is often referred to as "the CtC method" in Lost Horizons seems to be a somewhat amorphous gestalt, rather than any coherent legal theory.

If we're talking about section 3401(c) (which Hendrickson himself denies relying on), then no, I don't know of any case against an employer that makes a 3401(c)-type argument.

[LPC]

I am just curious but it seems that the person is having all required withholding done and filing (probably) what is termed as frivilous returns. Since she is technically paying in to the system as required it is not clear to me how she is evading taxes.

S/he filed false tax returns.

[Famspear]

gottago wrote:

I am just curious but it seems that the person is having all required withholding done and filing (probably) what is termed as frivilous returns. Since she is technically paying in to the system as required it is not clear to me how she is evading taxes.

Most likely she has already paid in everything she lawfully owes but has filed ctc type returns which resulted in a refund in 2002 only. I assume they (irs) could sue her to return the erroneous refund (like others, via civil court) but is this really criminal tax evasion? She wants to bring suit against her employer for the deductions being made against her wishes. I don't think it would work and she will waste a lot of $$ for nothing.

Now, in the case of the Browns I can understand the evasion thing because she was self employed and purposely structured her finances to avoid paying personal or payroll income taxes.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me...

You raise an interesting question. If you've already filed an original return (and the return was truthful), you haven't attempted to evade the assessment of tax. If you've already paid the tax, but are trying to fraudulently obtain a refund of that tax, are you attempting to evade the "payment"? (We're talking about 26 USC 7201.)

That aside, there would be some criminal problems of course. Filing an amended return under a CtC theory could constitute willfully filing a false return signed under penalty of perjury (26 USC 7206(1)). That's up to 3 years in prison or up to a $100,000 fine, or both.

The same act could also constitute the making of a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, under 18 USC 1001. That's up to 5 years in prison, plus possible monetary fines (I can't recall the maximum dollar amount).

Civil penalty for filing a frivolous return is $500 or, if the position taken is listed by the IRS after March 15, 2007 as a frivolous position and the return is filed after that date, the penalty is $5,000.

[Famspear]

Earlier, I wrote:

If you've already filed an original return (and the return was truthful), you haven't attempted to evade the assessment of tax . . . .

But, is that right? If you are fraudulently trying to get the IRS to incorrectly adjust the assessment amount downward to zero, are you willfully attempting "in any manner" to evade the assessment? I don't know whether there is case law on this or not.

[Quixote]

I am just curious but it seems that the person is having all required withholding done and filing (probably) what is termed as frivilous returns. Since she is technically paying in to the system as required it is not clear to me how she is evading taxes.

Most likely she has already paid in everything she lawfully owes but has filed ctc type returns which resulted in a refund in 2002 only. I assume they (irs) could sue her to return the erroneous refund (like others, via civil court) but is this really criminal tax evasion? She wants to bring suit against her employer for the deductions being made against her wishes. I don't think it would work and she will waste a lot of $$ for nothing.

Now, in the case of the Browns I can understand the evasion thing because she was self employed and purposely structured her finances to avoid paying personal or payroll income taxes.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me...

Tony filed an incorrect return (or amended return) for 2002, on which he falsely stated that he had no income. If he knew that statement was false when he made it, he is guilty of tax evasion. [Edited to add that I had not thought the question through as thoroughly as Famspear. On second thought, I think a court could decide that a false amended return filed after all tax was paid was not an attempt to evade assessment or collection. It is still, however, a criminal act.]

As others have noted, Tony's chances of being indicted are low, but will rise if he insists on drawing attention to himself. The erroneous refund is probably too small for IRS to file a suit to recover it. Does anyone know if New York opted out of social security for its teachers, replacing it with a separate teachers retirement system? If so, then Tony's erroneous refund for 2002 was his income tax and medicare withholding.

[Famspear]

Earlier, I wrote:

. . . willfully filing a false return signed under penalty of perjury (26 USC 7206(1)). That's up to 3 years in prison or up to a $100,000 fine, or both.

And I believe the fine could actually be up to $250,000 (felony), per 18 USC 3571(b)(3), etc., etc.

[LPC]

I am just curious but it seems that the person is having all required withholding done and filing (probably) what is termed as frivilous returns. Since she is technically paying in to the system as required it is not clear to me how she is evading taxes.

S/he filed false tax returns.

To clarify and amplify, the relevant statute (IRC section 7201) provides as follows:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

"Any manner to evade or defeat any tax" would include filing a false return.

You can argue that it wasn't "willfully" if the person believed the return was correct, but that's a different issue. If the return was willfully false, then it will support a conviction for evasion.

[LPC]

Earlier, I wrote:

If you've already filed an original return (and the return was truthful), you haven't attempted to evade the assessment of tax . . . .

But, is that right? If you are fraudulently trying to get the IRS to incorrectly adjust the assessment amount downward to zero, are you willfully attempting "in any manner" to evade the assessment?

I know that the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between evasion of assessment and evasion of payment, but the statute simply refers to evasion of "any tax" or "the payment thereof."

It seems to me to be indisputable that someone who files a false tax return and under-reports income is attempting to evade "a tax" regardless of whether you consider it to be an evasions of assessment or evasion of payment.

And it looks like the Supreme Court agrees. See Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 (1956), upholding a conviction under 26 USC 145(b) (the predecessor to section 7201, and using the same language) for filing "false and fraudulent" income tax returns, notwithstanding that a separate statute made it a misdemeanor to file a false return with the intent to evade or defeat any tax.

[gottago]

Thanks Dan for clearing that up for me. I appreciate your clear explanation.