Pete & Doreen Hendrickson in Tax Court

[AndyK]

I just checked the Tax Court site.

The only available documents are orders and such from the court. If someone wants to see anything else, they'll have to go to Tax Court and review the documents on file there.

[operabuff]

This is standard Tax Court procedure. The parties can access the briefs and other documents online, but the general public is limited to viewing the court's orders in the case online. But unless the case is sealed, all documents are available to the public for review at the Tax Court building. The court wanted to balance public access with taxpayer privacy and this was the approach they took.

[Burnaby49]

This is standard Tax Court procedure. The parties can access the briefs and other documents online, but the general public is limited to viewing the court's orders in the case online. But unless the case is sealed, all documents are available to the public for review at the Tax Court building. The court wanted to balance public access with taxpayer privacy and this was the approach they took.

Same in Canada. You can review a history of the file online but you can't acess actual documents unless you go to the registry. This is the reason I'm at the Federal Court and Tax Court registries so often.

[jcolvin2]

Barring some last second reassignment or continuance, Peter and Doreen Hendrickson's Tax Court case will be heard by Judge Buch, who many of you may remember is the Tax Court Judge who wrote the opinion in the Waltner case, which analyzed Cracking the Code chapter by chapter, demonstrating the utter lack of merit to the positions espoused therein:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

Quatloos had a lengthy thread on Judge Buch's Waltner opinion about three years ago:
http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9855

The thread quoted some of Pete Hendrickson's comments about the Waltner opinion, where he made an interesting historical comparison:

"Interestingly, CtC wasn't even in evidence in the case in which this remarkable judicial agitation displays itself. The verbose judge apparently just decided to use his ruling in the case as an occasion to make a name for himself within his little special-interest world, like a 17th Century priest including a screed against Copernicus in his Sunday sermon."

Karma is a bitch.

[The Observer]

Judge Buch is the closest thing we have to a Judge Rooke here in the US. It will be interesting to see how he hands Pete's head to him during the trial.

[Famspear]

Yesterday, Wednesday, March 22, the Bloviating Blowhard -- the Crack-a-dooster in Chief -- the Fabulous Felon -- Prevaricating Peter, the Pompous, Pandering Pontificator of Preposterously Paralogistic Promulgations -- the Haughty, Haplessly, Hopelessly Humiliated Hendrickson, and Distressed, Disingenuous, Dolorous Doreen......

.....................filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction -- with an "exhibit."

[Famspear]

We don't know what Hendrickson is thinking.

Typically, however, when a tax protester does this, it means that the tax protester is confused. The tax protester in this situation typically has a false belief that if the case were to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the tax liability would somehow go away.

[Cpt Banjo]

The tax protester in this situation typically has a false belief that if the case were to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the tax liability would somehow go away.

Hey, some people pay big bucks to get someone to get their Tax Court case dismissed. It's a sure winner.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9619

[notorial dissent]

So, "Bloviating Blowhard -- the Crack-a-dooster in Chief -- the Fabulous Felon -- Prevaricating Peter, the Pompous, Pandering Pontificator of Preposterously Paralogistic Promulgations -- the Haughty, Haplessly, Hopelessly Humiliated Hendrickson, and Distressed, Disingenuous, Dolorous Doreen......" filed a magic paper, a paper claiming that the tax court, trying a tax matter, in tax court, lacked jurisdiction.......

Hendrickson...thinking.....assumption not in evidence.... Magic beans, magic paper, it's all one I thinks. What amazes me is that he's not bragging about it somewhere. Does he actually have a real lawyer for this or is he going to try pro se again?

[The Observer]

I wonder if Pete did this because he knew he would lose his case and decided to move for dismissal, then claim victory on his Losing Horizons website to attract more readers who would not realize that the dismissal actually meant Pete lost.

[notorial dissent]

I wonder if Pete did this because he knew he would lose his case and decided to move for dismissal, then claim victory on his Losing Horizons website to attract more readers who would not realize that the dismissal actually meant Pete lost.

That sort of makes sense, but then again it doesn't, since the case won't get dismissed and he and Dopey Doreen are still for it. I don't see any kind of a forthcoming win here.

Does he even still have any followers? I figured the total idiot pool had pretty well dried up after Westy.

[.]

the Crack-a-dooster in Chief

This instantly brought to mind a rooster who has set up shop in a Publix parking lot here on the north side of Miami.

He struts around like he owns the place and makes a lot noise crowing in the middle of the day, not unlike PH. Doesn't make any sense to me as I don't speak rooster or even chicken, but then I don't speak TP either.

Nonetheless, every so often I see some new followers, that is a hen and a bunch of chicks walking around the lot, looking for any tidbit of sustenance. The rooster never seems to give them any, he's always on to his next mark, er, hen.

All of them are completely oblivious to the public (and their moving vehicles,) all of whom probably think that chickens should be locked up or at least be on some sort of farm.

I shall hereafter refer to this rooster as "Pete."

[AndyK]

Let's see:

He filed the Tax Court petition to contest an allegation by the IRS.

HE filed it.

1 - If he feels the Tax Court doesn't have jurisdiction, why in blazes did he file the petition.

2 - If the Tax Court DOES (which it won't) dismiss his petition, that automatically hands the the decision down in favor of the IRS. Hey, Pete: YOU JUST LOST.

3 - If he persists, I think the sanction lady is warming up offstage.

He is now throwing pasta at the wall, hoping something -- anything -- sticks.

Unfortunately, the court has seen him and his ilk enough times to not play those games.

[Famspear]

Pete and Doreen filed this Tax Court case on March 26, 2014 -- nearly three years ago. As far as I can tell, Pete has never mentioned this case on his lost horizons web site. We all recall that in his Missives to his Minions, Pete used to claim that his court defeats were his "victories".

Now he is looking at a Tax Court trial set to begin on Monday, March 27. This is a trial he himself had requested, but he now seems not to want to face what is coming. Perhaps consistently losing in court over the years has worn him down.

[Pottapaug1938]

Pete and Doreen filed this Tax Court case on March 26, 2014 -- nearly three years ago. As far as I can tell, Pete has never mentioned this case on his lost horizons web site. We all recall that in his Missives to his Minions, Pete used to claim that his court defeats were his "victories".

Well, of course. Each court defeat is evidence that The Powers That Be are knock-kneed terrified of the truth coming out about income and other taxes, so they engineer these corrupt decisions to keep the sheeple believing that income taxes still need to be paid. Thus, these decisions are not defeats for Prattlin' Pete and Dopey Doreen, because they prove that the Lost Horizons message is so true and so accurate that the courts will ignore the true law and persecute brave people like the Hendricksons who dare to expose The Truth; and therefore they are victories indeed.

Or, something like that....

[jcolvin2]

Motion to dismiss denied:
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=224974

Trial still on for next week.

[Dr. Caligari]

2 - If the Tax Court DOES (which it won't) dismiss his petition, that automatically hands the the decision down in favor of the IRS. Hey, Pete: YOU JUST LOST.

Ordinarily, that would be true, but we now know from jcolvin's posting of the Tax Court Order denying the motion (thanks, j!) that the basis for the motion was the alleged invalidity of the Notices of Deficiency. If the notices had been invalid (they're not, as the judge ruled) a dismissal would have meant that Pete would win, because without a valid NOD the IRS can't assess the tax.

[KickahaOta]

In fact, in the Tax Court, it used to be (and maybe still is) that you could get the following delightful sequence of events:

• The taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court, along with a motion to dismiss that petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• The IRS files a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• The two sides bitterly oppose each other's motions.
• The Tax Court dismisses the case.
• Someone is happy.

In other words, the taxpayer files a motion arguing that the notice of deficiency wasn't sent to the taxpayer's last known address (and thus was not a valid notice of deficiency, and thus that the IRS can't collect on it). The IRS files a motion arguing that the notice of deficiency was sent to the last known address, and the taxpayer didn't respond within the time limit. Either way, the Tax Court has no jurisdiction.

Personally, this always struck me as crazy. Yes, a court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. But when both sides agree that the court has no jurisdiction -- just for different reasons -- it seems like the only sensible thing for the court to do is to tell everyone to go home.

[Famspear]

From the Court's order denying the motion filed by Pathetic Pete and Dolorous Doreen, we have learned that five tax years are involved here: 2002 through 2006.

Break out the popcorn!

[Famspear]

2 - If the Tax Court DOES (which it won't) dismiss his petition, that automatically hands the the decision down in favor of the IRS. Hey, Pete: YOU JUST LOST.

Ordinarily, that would be true, but we now know from jcolvin's posting of the Tax Court Order denying the motion (thanks, j!) that the basis for the motion was the alleged invalidity of the Notices of Deficiency. If the notices had been invalid (they're not, as the judge ruled) a dismissal would have meant that Pete would win, because without a valid NOD the IRS can't assess the tax.

That got me thinking. (I know, I know, we're in a danger zone, here.....)

I went back and checked, and the tax returns for the 2002 through 2006 tax years are for the very same tax years for which Pete was convicted of filing false or fraudulent "Cracking the Code" tax returns.

So, even if the notice of deficiency (which covers those same tax years) had been invalid, the IRS could have simply issued a new notice of deficiency. In that case, Preposterous Pete would not have been successful in asserting the statute of limitations on assessment, either; he has already been convicted of filing a false document or return with respect to those years (26 USC 6501(c)(1)).

EDIT: A correction:

Pete was convicted of filing false Form 1040 returns for years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. For 2005 and 2006, he was convicted of filing false Form 4852 reports. (He was also convicted of filing false Form 4852 reports for 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004.)

Maybe he could therefore successfully argue that for purposes of section 6501(c)(1), he was not convicted of filing false tax returns for 2005 and 2006.