Another question for the Lostheads

[Quixote]

On another thread, Famspear noted:

Speaking of fantasy, a user called "Victoria" writes, at losthorizons:

I received my proof that private sector pay is absolutely EXCLUDED from taxable income, and that Hendrickson was dead on. This IRS letter was confirmation no tax was owed, and amounts witheld (SS and medicare) were overpayments and a refund was due. Shenanigans notwithstanding.

Victoria's post raises the question as to why IRS letters showing no tax owed are proof positive of whatever fantasy the recipient is currently embracing, but IRS letters proposing a frivolous filing penalty are proof that the IRS doesn't understand the law? The matter becomes more puzzling when the same CTC warrior who previously received his get out of tax free card from the IRS receives a letter pointing out that his return, the same one that got him that big fat refund, is frivolous and giving him 30 days to get straight or be assessed a $5,000 stupidity penalty. If the IRS was right before, why is it wrong now?

And why, when CTC returns are filed for several years, do some returns result in refunds and others, essentially identical, in nasty penalties?

It is a puzzlement. I hope someone from LH will drop by to explain it to me. I would have posted this on the LH Forum, but I was banned for asking impertinent questions.

[LPC]

Victoria's post raises the question as to why IRS letters showing no tax owed are proof positive of whatever fantasy the recipient is currently embracing, but IRS letters proposing a frivolous filing penalty are proof that the IRS doesn't understand the law? The matter becomes more puzzling when the same CTC warrior who previously received his get out of tax free card from the IRS receives a letter pointing out that his return, the same one that got him that big fat refund, is frivolous and giving him 30 days to get straight or be assessed a $5,000 stupidity penalty. If the IRS was right before, why is it wrong now?

The refunds are "proof" that CtC is correct, while the judgment against Hendrickson means nothing.

That means that the low-level clerks who process returns know the law and are infallible, while the official in the Attorney General's office who approved the erroneous refund suit against Hendrickson, the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted the case, and the judge that ruled against Hendrickson are all ignorant paper-shufflers.

Another conundrum: Crackheads seem to believe that the IRS issues them refunds because the "CtC method" is correct and the IRS employees who process the returns are following the law, while the public pronouncements of the IRS, and the legal actions against Hendrickson et al. are nothing but public posturing that can be ignored. Which means that the IRS obeys the law privately, when no one by the taxpayer knows, but publicly violates the law? That doesn't make any sense.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Another conundrum: Crackheads seem to believe that the IRS issues them refunds because the "CtC method" is correct and the IRS employees who process the returns are following the law, while the public pronouncements of the IRS, and the legal actions against Hendrickson et al. are nothing but public posturing that can be ignored. Which means that the IRS obeys the law privately, when no one by the taxpayer knows, but publicly violates the law? That doesn't make any sense.

Makes one think one stepped into Bizarro World.