Challenge to Ducky

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Challenge to Ducky

Post by Famspear »

LPC wrote:True story: I tried to make a joke last week about the "Delaware tax trap," which can result in federal estate tax if a perpetual trust (in a state such as Delaware that has repealed the rule against perpetuities) includes a special power of appointment, and (get this) no one laughed.

In retrospect, I think there were three problems: (1) My audience was a group of lawyers, but not tax lawyers, so they didn't really understand the Delaware tax trap. (2) I don't really understand the Delaware tax trap. (3) The Delaware tax trap really isn't funny at all.
This kinda reminds me of a thread here a while back, where we were talking about the Murphy case that caused so much stir in 2006 (Murphy I) and 2007 (Murphy II), and I learned that tax law isn't sexy. Now, I'm getting a clue that sometimes tax law isn't funny either!
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Challenge to Ducky

Post by Imalawman »

Famspear wrote:
LPC wrote:True story: I tried to make a joke last week about the "Delaware tax trap," which can result in federal estate tax if a perpetual trust (in a state such as Delaware that has repealed the rule against perpetuities) includes a special power of appointment, and (get this) no one laughed.

In retrospect, I think there were three problems: (1) My audience was a group of lawyers, but not tax lawyers, so they didn't really understand the Delaware tax trap. (2) I don't really understand the Delaware tax trap. (3) The Delaware tax trap really isn't funny at all.
This kinda reminds me of a thread here a while back, where we were talking about the Murphy case that caused so much stir in 2006 (Murphy I) and 2007 (Murphy II), and I learned that tax law isn't sexy. Now, I'm getting a clue that sometimes tax law isn't funny either!
Such is the life of a tax lawyer. I will be out with a group of my lawyer friends, everyone will be swapping stories, people are laughing and having a good time. Then I'll start talking about an interesting tax case of mine, and its like the music stops playing, people get a glazed look on their faces and I feel like an ass for ending the jovial discussion. Let's face it, a guy suing Burger King for getting his ass glued to a toilet seat (which required fire department and EMS attention - true story) is just way more entertaining to the general populace than almost any tax case.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Challenge to Ducky

Post by Quixote »

I learned that tax law isn't sexy
Except the Barbie twins case.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
buck09
Quatloosian Baron of the Unknown Statute
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:01 pm

Re: Challenge to Ducky

Post by buck09 »

Ducky wrote: Just curious, how many of you have actually read his book cover to cover?
I have a copy, though I haven't read it from cover to cover. Like others here, I attempted to figure out if Hendrickson's writing followed a defined, logical thought process from premise to conclusion - it doesn't. (Some sub-sections do, but barely and are often semi-coherent at best.)

Realizing that, there really wasn't a point reading it from cover to cover. In addition, there is only so much time in the day, and frankly, there are far better works of literature that could be digested instead.

[edit: FYI - I did not purchase the book. It was given to me. ]
I’ll help them get more power at the Fed. - Ron Paul
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Challenge to Ducky

Post by webhick »

buck09 wrote:there are far better works of literature that could be digested instead.
I hear that CtC can cause indigestion, upset stomach, and colon cancer...so you may want to cut back on your FABIES intake.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie