Counsel Attorneys appreciate referrals

[Nikki]

It was so kind of Freemanatlast to post all the details of his pending tax Court case and the strategy he intends to employ.

Mark Schwarz was very appreciative of the referral to the LoserHead site and plans to use the information there as part of his motion for summary judgement and sanctions.

[.]

The only question is whether the sanction frosting will weigh more or less than the $5K frivolous filing penalty cake.

[Nikki]

Based on the recent behavior by the Tax Court, unless the Petitioner REALLY pisses off the judge, the first time through gets an admonition.

However, depending on the judge (and his breakfast), the behavior of the Petitioner throughout the process in response to the multiple warnings he will receive, AND information ntroduced into evidence by the Commissioner regarding the Plaintiff's mind set as he walked into the court room, I wouldn't be surprised to see a sanction in the range of $1,500. -- typical first-timer discount.

[grixit]

I see the Savage Submariner is playing cheerleader again.

[The Observer]

And kilbey shows that it isn't what you know that counts, it is what you read (on any given day, apparently):

Hi There-
I believe that if you are not a "taxpayer", then there is no jurisdiction. In such a case, one states that they are there in "special appearance" to challenge jurisdiction.
That's what I've read anyway-
kilbey

[LPC]

mutter has some great procedural advice:

find the thread thats called income cites or cites on income.
copy all the USSC cases take them to a paralegal and have them shepardized. Or do it yourself if you have easy access. [...] then take that into their lawyer as part of your stipulation of facts.

Right. Shepardizing Eisner v. Macomber is going to turn up all sorts of useful stuff for the stipulation of facts.

[Doktor Avalanche]

And let us not forget SubVet's amazement:

Since I have never heard of a real person being hauled into Tax Court, you must've petitioned for a hearing as the complainant.

This is like a sheep walking into the lion's den.

What is possessing you to do such a thing?

As soon as you go there, you are admitting that you are a person liable and that is likely not shown on your correctly prepared return.

Ummm...yeah, that's stellar reasoning there Sub. With logic like that, it's no wonder CtC is such a draw for you.

[Quixote]

Why freemanatlast et al will continue not to get it:

I was sent a NOIL last year, and demanded a CDPH, which I was given, went through this process with the (supposed hearing officer) really a collections officer, rebutted and refuted the allegations that I received "wages" worked as an "employee", for an "employer", that the "assessments" and "deficiencies" they claimed were correct and completed in accordance with the law (which I know were falsified and corrupted as is their style). I used Supreme Court rulings, Rule of Law Statutes, IRS code, as well as my own beliefs and feelings during this CDPH as evidence to support my claims. However, the final decision from the CDPH officer as usual was a ruling against me and in favor of Levying my property.

It's also interesting that, although freemanatlast is talking about an appeal of a CDP determination, mutter and others are talking about a petition for redetermination of a deficiency.

[ASITStands]

Not trying to demean the intelligence of anyone:

"They ain't very smart over there when it comes to procedure!"

One of the things they fail to understand is the progress of a return, or other document, as it goes through the system, and they miss deficiency and collection procedures altogether.

Of course, that's part and parcel with their belief Section 93 of the Act of 1862 includes no provision for the examination of a return; that the testimony of the signer is the final word.

Pete Hendrickson was proven wrong in that belief, but these new Crackheads know nothing.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of reading their half-baked theories.

Edit: Any word of the Hendrickson motion to reconsider?