Ex-ctc'er to CtCer's

[Nikki]

Unless you really enjoy banging your heads against a brick wall, please stop feeding the troll.

[dude101]

Unless you really enjoy banging your heads against a brick wall, please stop feeding the troll.

wow - when the tide turns the names begin...

So none of you geniuses want to answer my questions - why would the IRS process a return that they challenged, sent out cp2000 notice and notice of deficiency, claimed $26,000 was owed and then after 6 months simply relented and apologized for pursuing the claim...

EXPLAIN IT AWAY - there are only 2 options:

1) the IRS after 6 months of trying to enforce a claim simply couldn't (as a matter of law).
2) the IRS after six month of trying to enforce a claim incompetently closed the case.

Which is it? No one? Anyone...Bueller; Bueller?

[dude101]

Unless you really enjoy banging your heads against a brick wall, please stop feeding the troll.
From whatever source derived can only be a limitation.

It's from whatever source derived in terms of the class of direct taxation - that class is the class as limited to 3401(c)!!!!!!!!!

The charge they leveled against Pete could be leve;ed at anyone of you would file "conventional" returns and mistake or exaggerate or out right lie about your deductions or the cash payments you get.

WTF and WAJ!

[wserra]

So none of you geniuses want to answer my questions - why would the IRS process a return that they challenged, sent out cp2000 notice and notice of deficiency, claimed $26,000 was owed and then after 6 months simply relented and apologized for pursuing the claim

Prove that's what happened. Post copies (or links to them) of all correspondence from both sides. If you do that, I'm sure you'll get plenty of comments. If you don't do that, for all anyone knows you're making it up.

[dude101]

Prove that's what happened. Post copies (or links to them) of all correspondence from both sides. If you do that, I'm sure you'll get plenty of comments. If you don't do that, for all anyone knows you're making it up.

JUST GO TO PETE'S SITE AND LOOK IT UP - IT'S ALL POSTED THERE...

YOU KNOW MY NAME, LOOK UP THE NUMBER!

[Imalawman]

Keep it clean Dude, or you're gone.

[LPC]

If USC 26 means what you say it means, then why would the IRS send out a CP2000 Notice claiming a tax liability of over 26K and then send out a Notice of Deficency reiterating that claim and then after they received 2 carefully crafted letters and one phone call and 6 months of consideration on the part of the IRS minons they agreed that the 26k claim was in error and that the case was closed.

The IRS didn't.

What you are describing is a lie, and you are a liar.

Prove me wrong.

[LPC]

Only remunerations to "employees" as defined in (c) are "wages" as defined in (a). Only such payments are taxable.

Wrong.

Section 3401(a) defines "wages" and 3401(c) defines "employees" and both definitions are expressly stated to be "For purposes of this chapter...."

"This chapter" is chapter 24, which is the chapter of the Internal Revenue Code in which section 3401 is placed.

Section 1, which imposes a tax on "taxable income," section 63, which defines "taxable income," and section 61, which defines "gross income," are all part of chapter 1.

Which means that, according to the Internal Revenue Code as written, the definitions of "wages" and "employee" in section 3401 are irrelevant to the question of whether "compensation for services" is income subject to tax.

[ASITStands]

Here's the purported victory trumpeted by 'dude101,' as posted to Lost Horizons.

Scott MacNeilage's 2006 federal "Notice of Deficiency" closing notice has been posted

Haven't reviewed the documents yet to determine what actually happened.

Maybe some of the regulars will get to it before I have a chance.

[Joey Smith]

One could argue the technical (de)merits of Pete's position, but the very simple fact is:

The courts do not agree with Pete, and in the United States it is the courts that resolve issues such as these, and not every person who self-decides issues in their own selfish self-interests.

No court has even hinted that the CtC position has anything like even a shred of legitimacy. To the contrary, everybody who has made the CtC argument -- including Pete himself in his own civil case -- has gone down in flames.

This time next year, the only thing that we will hear from Pete are the same things that we hear from Irwin Schiff, i.e., the prison food is really bad, they don't give you enough blankets, and the IRS has levied all the money in the commissary account.

By then, all of Pete's true-believers will have have gone on to their next (wrong) guru, and will be rabidly supporting whatever new theory they have picked up on, and dissing Pete for being wrong about this-or-that.

Just watch. I've seen it happen with lots and lots of gurus, from Phil Marsh to Lynne Meredith to Irwin Schiff to Larken Rose, etc., etc., etc. Pete will be no different.

The only difference, as others have pointed out, is that Pete doesn't have the proverbial icecube's chance in hell of successfully asserting the Cheek defense. And since the courts have already not only dismissed his theories as wrong, but stupid as well, it will be a very quick trial and an even quicker conviction.

[dude101]

Here's the purported victory trumpeted by 'dude101,' as posted to Lost Horizons.

Scott MacNeilage's 2006 federal "Notice of Deficiency" closing notice has been posted

Haven't reviewed the documents yet to determine what actually happened.

Maybe some of the regulars will get to it before I have a chance.

wow - you really did know my name and you looked up the number! amazing...

of course there are lots more victories on Pete's site just like this one...

ENJOY.

[Lambkin]

Maybe it's uncharitable of me, but there seems to be a DMVP no-DL connection. Could mom's basement be far away?

http://visforvoltage.org/forum/5250-tra ... cement-may

I just love how the TP mistakes Quatloos for the field of battle. The only win is a win in court, so let's see it, with cites. No amount of trash talk can replace the cites.

[dude101]

One could argue the technical (de)merits of Pete's position, but the very simple fact is:

The courts do not agree with Pete, and in the United States it is the courts that resolve issues such as these, and not every person who self-decides issues in their own selfish self-interests.

Interesting - since this is the last in a long line of assualts on Pete by the IRS and this is the first criminal complaint since he published his book several years ago and it is a showcase trial meant to obfuscate and scare - just like this whole website - how can you say no court has ever not agreed with his positions. He has won a number of concessions along the way and I suspect he has a good chance at winning this.

Ask yourself why the IRS continues to process returns filed with amended 1099's and w-2's even after they try to enforce claims through bogus Deficiency Notices, etc...could it be that the Governement is involved in a witch hunt all the while the IRS is actually forced to follow the actual law?

Who knows. I leave it up to you. I do know this forum is full of liars.

[Lambkin]

One could argue the technical (de)merits of Pete's position, but the very simple fact is:

The courts do not agree with Pete, and in the United States it is the courts that resolve issues such as these, and not every person who self-decides issues in their own selfish self-interests.

Interesting - since this is the last in a long line of assualts on Pete by the IRS and this is the first criminal complaint since he published his book several years ago and it is a showcase trial meant to obfuscate and scare - just like this whole website - how can you say no court has ever not agreed with his positions. He has won a number of concessions along the way and I suspect he has a good chance at winning this.

And if he doesn't, then what? Instant martyrdom/irrelevance and the search for the next guru.

Ask yourself why the IRS continues to process returns filed with amended 1099's and w-2's even after they try to enforce claims through bogus Deficiency Notices, etc...could it be that the Governement is involved in a witch hunt all the while the IRS is actually forced to follow the actual law?

When it comes to a federal agency, I'll suppose incompetence, not intent. After all, the intent is pretty clearly stated.

Who knows. I leave it up to you. I do know this forum is full of liars.

[I think he meant to say "lovers" but spellcheck apparently has some bugs.]

[Tax Man]

One could argue the technical (de)merits of Pete's position, but the very simple fact is:

The courts do not agree with Pete, and in the United States it is the courts that resolve issues such as these, and not every person who self-decides issues in their own selfish self-interests.

Interesting - since this is the last in a long line of assualts on Pete by the IRS and this is the first criminal complaint since he published his book several years ago and it is a showcase trial meant to obfuscate and scare - just like this whole website - how can you say no court has ever not agreed with his positions. He has won a number of concessions along the way and I suspect he has a good chance at winning this.

Where has any court agreed with his position? I believe you will refuse to answer this question. Let's see.

Ask yourself why the IRS continues to process returns filed with amended 1099's and w-2's even after they try to enforce claims through bogus Deficiency Notices, etc...could it be that the Governement is involved in a witch hunt all the while the IRS is actually forced to follow the actual law?

Mmmmyeah, that's got to be it.

Who knows. I leave it up to you. I do know this forum is full of liars.

Go ahead and provide the case that agrees with Pete's position.

[Famspear]

Interesting - since this is the last in a long line of assualts [sic] on Pete by the IRS and this is the first criminal complaint since he published his book several years ago and it is a showcase trial meant to obfuscate and scare - just like this whole website - how can you say no court has ever not agreed with his positions. He has won a number of concessions along the way and I suspect he has a good chance at winning this.

No, Pete has never won any "concessions" -- not in any court of law.

And the reason we can say that no court has ever agreed with his positions is that we study the law. Ever heard of PACER? Ever heard of official court reports? For that matter, ever heard of losthorizons.com -- where any court victory for CtC would surely be posted? Were you just born yesterday, or what? There is no record of any court anywhere ever upholding Peter Hendrickson's Cracking the Code (CtC) arguments (or any other tax protester arguments for that matter). None Nada. Zilch. Nicht. And all you would have to do to prove me wrong on that point would be to find a court case where (1) a person had a dispute with the IRS over that person's federal income taxes, (2) that person actually raised a CtC argument in a federal court case, (3) the government in that case argued against the CtC argument, and (4) the court ruled in that case that the CtC argument was correct. That has never happened.

Ask yourself why the IRS continues to process returns filed with amended 1099's and w-2's even after they try to enforce claims through bogus Deficiency Notices, etc...could it be that the Governement is involved in a witch hunt all the while the IRS is actually forced to follow the actual law?

Ah, clueless one, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the IRS processes millions of tax returns. The IRS unfortunately has no fool-proof procedure for stopping the processing of each and every erroneous (or even fraudulent) refund claim prior to the time the check goes out. This argument over at losthorizons -- that CtC must somehow be correct because CtC people keep receiving tax refunds -- is one of the more comical theories. The IRS unfortunately processes thousands and thousands of phony refund claims every year, and not just CtC claims. You obviously are not a tax practitioner.

Pete has a chance of winning an acquittal in his latest criminal trial. In his criminal case, the burden of proof is on the government, not on Pete. If he is acquitted, that will not change the fact that he cannot continue to use his own CtC method on his own tax returns without willfully violating a federal court order (which is a federal criminal offense) and without risking further felony prosecutions for filing false tax returns or even for tax evasion.

And even if Pete is acquitted, his acquittal will not affect the IRS's legal ability to seize Pete's assets to pay any taxes the IRS says he owes.

Many of Pete's followers have already lost their own cases. The list is long (and a partial list is already posted in a recent thread).

I suspect the only person who will be trying to "obfuscate" at Pete's upcoming trial will be Pete. And unfortunately for Peter and his followers, it will be a "showcase" trial -- meant to "scare" anyone else who has fallen for Pete's CtC scam, and to scare anyone thinking of taking the CtC approach. The government does tend to use the criminal tax statutes to make examples of people.

Oh, by the way: While Pete is a phony when it comes to claiming expertise in tax law [EDIT: SEE BELOW), we have the recent example of Tommy Cryer with which to compare to Pete. Cryer actually is a lawyer; he became delusional and became a tax protester. He was acquitted in his own criminal trial. Now, although Cryer became delusional, he was at least actually trained and experienced in law -- unlike Pete. Now, the tax protester theories of both men are just that -- tax protester theories, which means frivolous gibberish. But at least Cryer can correctly claim to be the "real deal" when it comes to having had legal training and actually practicing law.

So, let's look at Mr. Cryer, shall we? Although he won an acquittal, he has been ruined financially by all accounts I have seen -- including his own. And he might eventually be prosecuted again -- for future years' taxes if he continues to do what the government claimed he did in the past. And he still has to pay the taxes the government says he owes, with penalties and interest.

Pete will be in the same situation, even if Pete is acquitted. In other words, this might very well NOT be the last assault on Pete -- if he continues to do what he has been doing.

EDIT: Correction. Actually, as far as I know, Pete does not actually claim to have expertise in tax law. What I should have said is that he essentially claims that his CtC theory is legally correct. He is wrong.

[rachel]

Hahahaha......
Outside of captainkickback who is already deomstrating he screeching while sitting in a loaded diaper.
What captain, you a little pissed you couldn't see Hendricksons faults the way I seen them.
I mean come on you just sit back there hiding behind those who can read and just fling whats oozing out the side your loaded diaper.

[The Operative]

Unless you really enjoy banging your heads against a brick wall, please stop feeding the troll.

wow - when the tide turns the names begin...

The tide never turned. Pete Hendrickson and you are wrong.

So none of you geniuses want to answer my questions - why would the IRS process a return that they challenged, sent out cp2000 notice and notice of deficiency, claimed $26,000 was owed and then after 6 months simply relented and apologized for pursuing the claim...

EXPLAIN IT AWAY - there are only 2 options:

1) the IRS after 6 months of trying to enforce a claim simply couldn't (as a matter of law).
2) the IRS after six month of trying to enforce a claim incompetently closed the case.

Which is it? No one? Anyone...Bueller; Bueller?

First, the IRS is a huge, bureaucratic organization and not every clerk knows every screwball TP theory out there. Second, there are actual VALID reasons why a person would have '0' income or need to correct a W2 or 1099. CTC is not one of them. Third, a closing notice probably will not be the final letter you receive. As an example, http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 63619#8457

[wserra]

First, the IRS is a huge, bureaucratic organization and not every clerk knows every screwball TP theory out there. Second, there are actual VALID reasons why a person would have '0' income or need to correct a W2 or 1099. CTC is not one of them. Third, a closing notice probably will not be the final letter you receive.

And fourth, because you lied to them and they were too busy or too incompetent at the time to check further. Perhaps you recognize the following language:

the Hendricksons contend that the district court improperly weighted the evidence in favor of the government when it found that Peter E. Hendrickson was an “employee” who had been paid “wages,” and that Doreen M. Hendrickson had received “non-employee compensation.” However, this contention is tantamount to a typical tax protester argument that the income at issue is not taxable.
...
For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion for sanctions is granted in the amount of $4,000.00, and the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Hendrickson probably didn't argue CtC correctly, and that's why he lost.

Just remember Yogi: it ain't over 'til it's over.

[LaVidaRoja]

Would a Notice of Deficiency "Closing Notice" be issued to inform the recipient that as the IRS has no record of a Petition to Tax Court being filed, THE TAX SHOWN ON THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY IS BEING ASSESSED?