The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

[wserra]

Mea culpa. I missed something else in Scambos' magnum opus that may well better explain Stevens-acolyte Randall's affinity for him.

Agent Hunter adamantly refused, and refuses still, to provide any statement of jurisdiction or authority for the legal record that would assert or even indicate that she has any jurisdiction at all in these matters over Respondent (a Citizen) to conduct an investigation of potentially criminal charges.

No evidence of jurisdiction! Maybe Stevens got it from Scambos.

I hope you're all sitting down for this news, but the DJ found this brilliant argument just as "utterly frivolous and without legal merit" as the rest of Scambos' nonsense.

[Famspear]

I notice that while we have blown the Troll's arguments about "taxable activity" and "alcohol, tobacco and firearms" out of the water, he still has not explained the fact pattern I posed earlier in this thread. He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.

None of the facts of this case had anything to do with alcohol, tobacco or firearms. None of this had anything to do with title 27 of the United States Code (USC) or title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

No "oh it's because the courts are corrupt" nonsense, Troll. Answer the question: Why does the union official have to report the theft of money as gross income for Federal income tax purposes?

[notorial dissent]

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

[The Observer]

I hope you're all sitting down for this news, but the DJ found this brilliant argument just as "utterly frivolous and without legal merit" as the rest of Scambos' nonsense.

Cue the Captain Renault response for me, please.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

Hey, when one has nothing else, they gotta play to their strengths, no matter how silly they may be. "Double down, all the way" is their battle cry.

[Arthur Rubin]

He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.

If I were the embezzler, I'd try "claim of right" for the deduction.

[Famspear]

He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.

If I were the embezzler, I'd try "claim of right" for the deduction.

Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.

[Arthur Rubin]

Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.

Both 5th circuit, so not technically "precedent" outside 5th circuit jurisdiction. I guess it wouldn't work, though. I won't comment on the clearly unconstitutional civil forfeiture statutes, as not directly relevant to the tax protesters.

[Pottapaug1938]

I hope you're all sitting down for this news, but the DJ found this brilliant argument just as "utterly frivolous and without legal merit" as the rest of Scambos' nonsense.

Cue the Captain Renault response for me, please.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

Hey, when one has nothing else, they gotta play to their strengths, no matter how silly they may be. "Double down, all the way" is their battle cry.

Reminds me of the old lawyer's advice to the new lawyer: " when you are in court, if you're weak on the facts, pound the law. If you're weak on the law, pound the facts. If you're weak both on the facts and the law, pound the counsel table."

[SquatloosianTroll]

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

[Famspear]

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

Objection, badgering the witness.

Or, badgering the parrot.

[The Observer]

Or parroting the badger.

[Pottapaug1938]

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

Objection, badgering the witness.

Has anyone else noticed that the Squatloosian Troll edited his post, to remove the comment to which Famspear later responded?

[jcolvin2]

He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.

If I were the embezzler, I'd try "claim of right" for the deduction.

Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.

Section 1341 essentially provides something better than an ordinary deduction in the year of payment, i.e., it provides a benefit equivalent to what the payor would have received had he returned the funds in the year that he received them (and taken a deduction at that time). For example, if the taxpayer reported receipts of $750k in Year 1 when funds were received (paying $250k in tax), and then returned the entire $750k in Year 4, even if the taxpayer had no other income in Year 4, he could get a refund of $250k if he qualified for section 1341 treatment.

Embezzlers do not qualify for the section 1341 claim of right deduction (because they never had a valid claim to the property taken), but it is possible that, if the embezzlement was systematic and continuous enough, the taxpayer can argue that the embezzlement constituted a "trade or business" and the repayments create ordinary deductions, perhaps going into an NOL, which could reduce tax in two prior years and can be taken against other income into the future.

If funds are repaid in the year that they are taken, it is clear that there is no tax liability. For a fun read - and an interesting take on collateral estoppel - see Senyszyn v. CIR, 146 T.C. No. 9 (2016)http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/Opin ... x?ID=10737

[Famspear]

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

Objection, badgering the witness.

Has anyone else noticed that the Squatloosian Troll edited his post, to remove the comment to which Famspear later responded?

Yep.

[operabuff]

Coming to this discussion late, it seems like a worthy but ultimately futile effort by Quatloosians - as the philosopher Epictetus said about 2000 years ago - "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

[Famspear]

Coming to this discussion late, it seems like a worthy but ultimately futile effort by Quatloosians - as the philosopher Epictetus said about 2000 years ago - "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Futile effort? I think not; we achieved our purpose. The troll came here with his stupid theory about why he shouldn’t have to pay taxes, and we clearly illustrated why his theory is wrong -- and we humiliated him in the process. Sounds like a complete Quatloosian success to me.

[webhick]

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.

Objection, badgering the witness.

Has anyone else noticed that the Squatloosian Troll edited his post, to remove the comment to which Famspear later responded?

Yes. Do you think he'll notice that I removed his ability to do so again?

[notorial dissent]

Depends on how smart he is, I'm not betting on very, certainly honesty isn't in his repertoire.

[The Observer]

Yes. Do you think he'll notice that I removed his ability to do so again?

OMG. Did you replace his opposable thumbs with stale Twinkies?

[webhick]

Yes. Do you think he'll notice that I removed his ability to do so again?

OMG. Did you replace his opposable thumbs with stale Twinkies?

Why would I do that when I can make his penis shoot glitter?