Cracking the Code down in flames yet again

[Famspear]

from losthorizons.com, user "danama.1" on 22 April 2008, in the thread entitled "Tax Court Appeal":

Just received decision today from Judge in our Tax Court case, and Judge ruled against us. Don't know how to proceed from here... so much to learn. However, our 2003 1040 was prepared the CtC way and mailed off, but was not acknowledged. If this gets filed will it reverse things, or will I have to file an appeal and try to get this introduced as evidence? what can I expect to be the nexty move by the IRS (if anyone knows)? Guys, I just really don't know what to do next. Our pleadings should have been introduced into the record, and that should have caused a ruling in our favor, but Judge ignored them. Any suggestions?

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=450

Another loser, "mutter," responded with:

You need to back up to the beggining. [sic]
but lets [sic] go with your pleadings. If you filed pleadings and they are not on the record then someone frauded the court. IE whomever [sic] did not put them on record. Judges do not have such a discretion.
Post what you filed from the beggining [sic] our email them to me at geomutter at hot mail
their next move would be to proceed with forced collections.

The blind leading the blind.

[ASITStands]

It always amazes me how little they understand anything.

There were several on the old forum who taught them procedure. Of course, eventually, they were banned, and the forum itself became extinct. A person cannot search old threads.

And, yet, here's people who think they have a greater understanding of tax law than anyone on the face of the earth yet find themselves in situations they know nothing about.

Read the Tax Court Rules once in awhile. Read the IRM. Whatever.

I'll confess when I read the title of this thread I thought the Sixth Circuit had decided.

[Famspear]

Sorry about that - didn't mean to get anyone excited into thinking that this was THE case. Like everyone else here, I am definitely waiting patiently (uh, I mean, impatiently) for the Sixth Circuit to come out with its decision on Blowhard Hendrickson's appeal.

In the meantime, here's a prior thread on danama.1:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2271&p=35160

[Dezcad]

The blind leading the blind.

At least all the blind people I know have cognitive abilities - abilities not shared with the Crackheads at CtC.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee land at CtC..........

[jg]

However, our 2003 1040 was prepared the CtC way and mailed off, but was not acknowledged. If this gets filed will it reverse things, or will I have to file an appeal and try to get this introduced as evidence?

It seems that he is asking if CtC will be able to "reverse things" spontaneously or will he have to "file an appeal and try to get this introduced as evidence" with this referencing the "CtC way" 2003 1040.

We will soon see his case; but it does not appear that CtC was part of this particular loss by a tax denier/defier.

[grixit]

Except that the rattle is imaginary.

[Famspear]

jg wrote:

. . . it does not appear that CtC was part of this particular loss by a tax denier/defier.

I think I see what you mean.

But I guess I interpreted the Loser Head's verbiage to imply that (1) he had filed a 2003 Form 1040 return showing zero tax (based on a "CtC position," whether expressed in a disclosure on the return itself, or merely implied); (2) the return's express or implied "CtC position" had effectively been rejected by the IRS (whether the return itself was treated as having been "filed," or even as being a legal "tax return"); (3) a section 6211 deficiency had been determined; (4) a 90 day letter had been issued; (5) taxpayer had then filed the Tax Court petition; (6) the taxpayer had expressly raised the CtC argument in his pleadings; and (7) the argument in the pleadings was "ignored" (i.e., as being the frivolous argument that it is), with a Tax Court ruling in favor of the IRS. I may have misinterpreted his post.

[Dr. Caligari]

I think this is the decision here:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/Pi ... CM.WPD.pdf

[Gregg]

However, our 2003 1040 was prepared the CtC way and mailed off, but was not acknowledged. If this gets filed will it reverse things, or will I have to file an appeal and try to get this introduced as evidence?

Correct me if I'm wroong, but is it not true that you cannot for the most part enter new evidence (or try to re introduce old evidence) in an appeal? I was under the impression that an appeal was not really a trial of the issue at hand, but a trial on the fairness of the trial of the issue at hand? Am I correct in this?

[Famspear]

However, our 2003 1040 was prepared the CtC way and mailed off, but was not acknowledged. If this gets filed will it reverse things, or will I have to file an appeal and try to get this introduced as evidence?

Correct me if I'm wroong, but is it not true that you cannot for the most part enter new evidence (or try to re introduce old evidence) in an appeal? I was under the impression that an appeal was not really a trial of the issue at hand, but a trial on the fairness of the trial of the issue at hand? Am I correct in this?

Yeah, but you're talking actual legal reality here. Losthorizons, at least mentally, is over there in the alternative mental universe, where Peter ("Blowhard") Hendrickson's crap is "the law" and Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ is considered "frivolous." The problem for the lost horizontals is that they have to exist over here in our real world. All the actual courts and all the actual laws are over here in the real universe.

C'est dommage!

[ASITStands]

I think this is the decision here:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/Pi ... CM.WPD.pdf

Upon what basis do you believe Daniel Pierce is the Petitioner?

According to an earlier post, 'danama.1' went to tax court in Columbia, SC.

The Pierce Trial was in Tampa, FL.

[ASITStands]

Link to Patrick Mooney's discussion of how he intends to appeal

It's hilarious and proves my earlier observation about reading the rules of court.

What's even more hilarious are the points he suggests should go on appeal. And, by the way, there's comments earlier from 'danama.1' regarding the dates of his trial and order.

Still haven't located it just yet. The date shows it's not Daniel Pierce.

The Mooney case is Docket No. 21647-06. The Memorandum has not posted.

[LPC]

Link to Patrick Mooney's discussion of how he intends to appeal

Amazing. The only thing he got right was "I imagine."

[Famspear]

Patrick Mooney writes to danama.1:

Your next step will be to take your case to the United States District Court. I lost in my Tax Court case this past Monday. It was a thoroughly enlightening experience for me, despite the loss, which I really expected from the TC anyway.

I have not actually filed with the District Court yet, but my understanding of the "status" of such a case would be "de novo" or brand new, even if it is an appeal of a Tax Court decision.

Clue to Patrick: If you want to appeal a Tax Court decision, the place to go is not the District Court. And if you file a complaint in District Court, I think you might have some res judicata or collateral estoppel problems, or both.

Tax Courts are not full fledged courts. They are administrative hearings ruled by experienced IRS shakedown artists.

Really? Tell that to the United States Congress, which enacted the following:

There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.

--26 USC 7441. No it's not an Article III court; it's an Article I court. But it's still a court.

Patrick Michael Mooney blathers on:

As long as you did not give up your original 1040 testimony at the TC trial, it is still valid, even if the IRS goes into collection mode. (By the way, they will still need a signed COURT ORDER in order to collect...not a Tax Court order).

Uh, no Patrick. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Internal Revenue Service does not need a court order to execute a section 6331 administrative levy. See 26 USC 6331 and the case of Brian v. Gugin (note: Ralph Brian was the taxpayer and "Gugin" was a government employee):

The plaintiffs' premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice. [ . . . ]

A levy by definition is a summary non-judicial process which provides the IRS with prompt and convenient method for satisfying delinquent tax claims. [ . . . ] [T]he IRS has the option under §6502 to collect its assessment by either a levy or a court proceeding [ . . . . ]

Accordingly, the IRS agents were acting within the authority granted under §6331 and no court order was required for the attempted levy on Ralph Brian's property. [ . . . ]

It is important to note that the plaintiff Ralph Brian is not without a course of action under the Internal Revenue Code. If the delinquent taxes claimed are not delinquent, the taxpayer may bring an action with the IRS for a refund.

Brian v. Gugin, 853 F. Supp. 358, 94-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,278 (D. Idaho 1994), aff’d, 95-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,067 (9th Cir. 1995) (bolding added).

Patrick Michael Mooney blathers on:

In filing with the District Court, I imagine these points would be part of your suit:

1) A lawful 1040 was filed.
2) Any lawful 1040 can not meet the statutory definition of Frivolous as defined in sec. 6702 (1)(a)(b)

Not exactly, Patrick. A Form 1040 tax return could be legally classified as a "tax return" and still contain frivolous positions for purposes of 6702.

More blather:

The IRS needs to produce a sworn (signed) testimony of your annual income in order for a tax to be assessed. Since they can not file one if yours is on the record, there is no deficiency.

Wrong, Patrick. There is no requirement that the IRS produce a sworn statement of your annual income in order for a tax to be assessed -- at least not any sworn statement from you the taxpayer. And there is no requirement that the IRS even prepare a 6020(b) return in order to assess the tax. And once the Tax Court rules that a deficiency exists, the IRS is basically free to assess the tax, send notice and demand, and, if the tax is not paid within the prescribed time (is the rule still 10 days??), begin forced collection, with a statutory tax lien in effect, effective retroactively to the date of the assessment.

More blather:

4) There being no deficiency, the Court must rule that the IRS return your property and remove any alleged penalties and fines.

Dream on, dear boy.

[LPC]

It's hilarious and proves my earlier observation about reading the rules of court.

Reading an occasional statute wouldn't hurt either. For example, 26 USC 7482 might be helpful.

[Dezcad]

It's hilarious and proves my earlier observation about reading the rules of court.

Reading an occasional statute wouldn't hurt either. For example, 26 USC 7482 might be helpful.

The CTC'ers should pay particular attention to (c)(4) of 26 USC 7482.

[Dr. Caligari]

Upon what basis do you believe Daniel Pierce is the Petitioner?

Only because he said the case was decided that day, and that was the only Tax Court decision that day that looked like it could be him. My bad.

[Gregg]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but there is a part of me that wants to see the governement just go after a few of these fools, expidite their cases as much as is possible and get a few high profile cases where they take these peoples' homes, assets, garnish the wages etc...I mean litterally put them on the street in a cardboard box.
And before I get called a monster, how many cases of people that they actually know getting whapped in the head would it take for them to grasp that maybe the whole approach is perhaps, flawed?

[jg]

This is from a case by “a private-sector, non-federally-connected individual” that resulted in a $2,500 penalty under under section 6673(a)(1) despite the fact that " he claims that he is
not aware of any revenue taxable activity that he is engaged in that makes him liable for an excise tax measured by his income."

As we understand petitioner’s argument in support of the motion to dismiss,
it is that the Secretary’s authority to levy
under section 6331(a) without a court order does not extend to
his property because he is not a government worker. Petitioner
is wrong. Section 6331(a) empowers the IRS to levy upon the
property of all taxpayers. James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750,
755 n.9 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Sims v. United States, 359 U.S.
108, 112-113 (1959), for the following: “all taxpayers are
subject to levy for deficiencies under section 6331; section 6331
specifically names government employees and agents in response to
earlier Supreme Court case [Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388
(1918)] which held that ‘federal disbursing officer might not, in
the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an
indebtedness of a federal employee to the Government against the
employee’s salary’”). In the James case, the Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit considered the taxpayer’s argument (similar
to petitioner’s argument here) to be frivolous. James v. United
States, supra. We reach the same conclusion with respect to
petitioner’s argument.2 See also Craig v. United States, 30 F.3d
139 (Table), text at 1994 WL 408250 (9th Cir. 1994); Creamer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-266.

There does not seem to be any mention of the locale in which the case was tried that was mentioned.

[Nikki]

Step 1 - http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/

Step 2 - "Docket Inquiry"

Step 3 - From the above-referenced PDF file, copy the docket number 11165-07L into the Search By Docket Number screen

Step 4 - Read Docket entry #2 --> DESIGNATION of Trial at Boston, MA

TADA