Gain... what is it?

[Disilloosianed]

How many other raw materials for meth were accompanying that tiny bit of extra sudafed?

[John J. Bulten]

"Tax protestor" is inaccurate but commonly used as the term for those that are better described as "tax denier" for they deny that the law is valid or that it means what it says or that it applies to them or that it is constitutional, etc. etc.

Sorry, I don't deny that the law is valid, or deny it means what it says, or deny that I am subject to it, or deny that it is Constitutional. Please cite where CtC says the law is invalid, does not mean what it says, is not binding, or is not Constitutional. Now the word "apply" is ambiguous: it does apply in that I am subject to it, but it does not apply in that I am not described in significant sections of it. However, CtC would be more properly classed as tax avoidance than tax denial (tax avoidance is the perfectly legal and accepted practice of structuring one's affairs to minimize tax due under existing law).

The term "tax protestor" refers to those who use theories that have been rejected time after time after time, or patently bogus theories. Certainly, CtC is an easy fit into that characterization.

Sorry, CtC has not been rejected and is not patently bogus (except to the closed-minded). Please provide a cite where CtC itself has ever been rejected, or where CtC is equivalent to a published bogus theory.

Instead, you have a nut who was once convicted of blowing up an innocent postal employee ....

Sorry, the plea bargain was "conspiracy to possess a destructive device", not "blowing up an innocent postal employee". Please read the P.S. at http://www.losthorizons.com/Lawsuit.htm for other quite significant exculpatory details. If you wish to continue, please cite any evidence disproving anything in the P.S.

Yes, Shades, Dan uses the phrase "tax denier" at the head of his FAQ to compare those who uphold the law to Nazi sympathizers. That fallacy is called "poisoning the well".

As for reading the whole 3-million-word code, although you are technically legally responsible to know every word of it, there comes a point of diminishing returns where the effort of reading more about, say, inheritances is worth less than the time you expend for it. At that point you rely on Congress not to have snuck anything in, and on expositors of the law to have summarized it accurately. But bravo for the attempt! You can also obtain the entire electronic IRC and search it for every instance of a word, which I found especially enlightening in the case of the phrase "United States". I think you can download it either at once or in large chunks at uscode.house.gov. Searching online is possible to a lesser extent. For the particular questions you have, I may have already done the research, if you trust me to report it accurately.

[Nikki]

"Tax protestor" is inaccurate but commonly used as the term for those that are better described as "tax denier" for they deny that the law is valid or that it means what it says or that it applies to them or that it is constitutional, etc. etc.

Sorry, I don't deny that the law is valid, or deny it means what it says, or deny that I am subject to it, or deny that it is Constitutional. Please cite where CtC says the law is invalid, does not mean what it says, is not binding, or is not Constitutional. Now the word "apply" is ambiguous: it does apply in that I am subject to it, but it does not apply in that I am not described in significant sections of it. However, CtC would be more properly classed as tax avoidance than tax denial (tax avoidance is the perfectly legal and accepted practice of structuring one's affairs to minimize tax due under existing law).

The term "tax protestor" refers to those who use theories that have been rejected time after time after time, or patently bogus theories. Certainly, CtC is an easy fit into that characterization.

Sorry, CtC has not been rejected and is not patently bogus (except to the closed-minded). Please provide a cite where CtC itself has ever been rejected, or where CtC is equivalent to a published bogus theory.

The order notes that the couple based their improper conduct on a book Peter Hendrickson wrote called Cracking the Code. The book states that federal tax withholding and income taxes on wages are applicable only for a limited class of people, primarily government employees. The court found that position to be “false and frivolous,” and cited an earlier court decision holding the position to be “preposterous.”

Instead, you have a nut who was once convicted of blowing up an innocent postal employee ....

Sorry, the plea bargain was "conspiracy to possess a destructive device", not "blowing up an innocent postal employee". Please read the P.S. at http://www.losthorizons.com/Lawsuit.htm for other quite significant exculpatory details. If you wish to continue, please cite any evidence disproving anything in the P.S.

Yes, Shades, Dan uses the phrase "tax denier" at the head of his FAQ to compare those who uphold the law to Nazi sympathizers. That fallacy is called "poisoning the well".

As for reading the whole 3-million-word code, although you are technically legally responsible to know every word of it, there comes a point of diminishing returns where the effort of reading more about, say, inheritances is worth less than the time you expend for it. At that point you rely on Congress not to have snuck anything in, and on expositors of the law to have summarized it accurately. But bravo for the attempt! You can also obtain the entire electronic IRC and search it for every instance of a word, which I found especially enlightening in the case of the phrase "United States". I think you can download it either at once or in large chunks at uscode.house.gov. Searching online is possible to a lesser extent. For the particular questions you have, I may have already done the research, if you trust me to report it accurately.

Is that clear enough?

Peter and Doreen Hendrickson lost their case.

They have to pay back over $20,000 to the government.

They have been enjoined from filing tax returns and forms on which they falsely report their income as zero.

That really looks like CtC is a dead parrot.

[Cpt Banjo]

That really looks like CtC is a dead parrot.

Although CtC is singing with the Choir Invisible, it never had beautiful plumage.

[The Observer]

That really looks like CtC is a dead parrot.

No, I think it is pining for the fjords of Norway.

[Duke2Earl]

I believe that is an ex-parrot

[silversopp]

It has ceased to be!

[Imalawman]

Customer: ....I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

O: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

C: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

C: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

C: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!

(shouting at the cage)

'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...(owner hits the cage)

O: There, he moved!

C: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

O: I never!!

C: Yes, you did!

O: I never, never did anything...

C: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!!

Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

C: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

O: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

C: STUNNED?!?

O: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

C: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

O: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

C: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

O: The Norwegian Blue prefers kippin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

C: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

O: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

C: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

O: No no! 'E's pining!

C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!

'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!

'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

(pause)

O: Well, I'd better replace it, then.

(he takes a quick peek behind the counter)

O: Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of parrots.

C: I see. I see, I get the picture.

O: I got a slug.

(pause)

C: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does it talk?

O: Nnnnot really.

C: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

O: Look, if you go to my brother's pet shop in Bolton, he'll replace the parrot for you.

C: Bolton, eh? Very well.

[Nikki]

O: Look, if you go to my brother's pet shop in Bolton, he'll replace the parrot for you.

C: Bolton, eh? Very well.

Leave it to Monty python to misspell Bulten.

[LPC]

Objective gain requires that the two sides of the exchange be compared to determine plus or minus.

You're confusing gain and realization, which are two different concepts.

Gain occurs when there is an increase in value. Income is the *realization* of gain.

“From the beginning the revenue laws have been interpreted as defining ‘realization’ of income as the taxable event rather than the acquisition of the right to receive it.” Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 115 (1940).

Gain is realized regardless of whether or not the exchange is of equal values. For example, if I buy stock of ABC Corporation for $50 per share, and the value goes up to $100 per share, I have realized a gain of $40 even if I stupidly sell the stock for only $90 instead of its fair market value of $100.

You realize a gain when you sell something for more than what you paid for it, regardless of what it was really worth when you bought it or sold it (generally speaking).

So, how much did you pay for your own labor. Not how much it is *WORTH*, but how much did it *cost* you in money (or money's worth).

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.” Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

[LPC]

And I will be enforcing the BOGMPR (Ban on Gratuitous Monty Python References) more strictly in the future.

[Demosthenes]

And I will be enforcing the BOGMPR (Ban on Gratuitous Monty Python References) more strictly in the future.

Ni.

[Nikki]

And I will be enforcing the BOGMPR (Ban on Gratuitous Monty Python References) more strictly in the future.

If you intend to do that, you better be prepared to do all of your work from the comfy chair

[John J. Bulten]

Nikki, thanks for that buried paragraph from Pete's case. Looks like with the context you might begin to have a point. Can you please link the full decision, and/or the direct Quatloos thread?

All, thanks for the Python revival! But are they African or European parrots carrying that coconut? You have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[Nikki]

Nikki, thanks for that buried paragraph from Pete's case. Looks like with the context you might begin to have a point. Can you please link the full decision, and/or the direct Quatloos thread?

All, thanks for the Python revival! But are they African or European parrots carrying that coconut? You have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

BEGIN? Pete has been flogging a dead horse for years. You and he seem to be the only ones who don't realize it.

Well, the other shoe has finally dropped. CtC's method of tax evasion is one of the dirty dozen and automatically qualifies for a $5,000 sanction PER EVENT.

You really need to spend less time here and get back to LoserHeads to inform all the sheeple there that their emperor is, in fact, naked.

[The Observer]

And I will be enforcing the BOGMPR (Ban on Gratuitous Monty Python References) more strictly in the future.

We weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

[John J. Bulten]

OK, replied on the "Hendrickson losses" thread. Still looking for the full text.

[Anti-861]

We weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Our chief weapon is surprise. That's all, just surprise.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Perhaps you can cite to me when a "clerical error" "ruined your life". No? Didn't think so.

The allegorical information is nice, but is the IRS under any compunction to send you a polite letter? No, I don't think so. The law doesn't read "After a polite letter..." anywhere.

So you got one. Bully for you. Not everyone gets a polite letter. Several folk, myself included, immediately get a letter making threats of criminal prosecution.

Some folk don't even get a letter... they get a summons.

So let's dispense with allegorical evidence and consider this strictly by the book. A simple clerical error can ruin your life 100% of the time, according to the law. This has been shown time and again; Kuglin, for example. She has had her life ruined for what the criminal court decided was a stupid and unintentional error.

[ShadesOfKnight]

I throw the BS flag on that one.

Well, believe it or not. He had four boxes in his bathroom (he bought them when the rumblings of the removal of them from the shelves first started just so he'd have some handy).

The reason for the warrant? He had a legally-owned firearm in his car when pulled over for speeding. The folks at our DAs office blew it all out of proportion and tried to hang him on a weapons offense. When that didn't work, the warrant to search his premises for illegal weapons somehow led to his arrest for possession of "controlled substances."

My friend is neither manufacturer, nor dealer, nor mule... he is simply one of those folk who would fit the earlier description of a "TP," being a libertarian and part of the "gun culture." And that makes the police and other folk in power nervous.

There's a happy end to the story however. My friend was able to have the charges on "controlled substances" thrown out, since that's not what they were looking for the "evidence" was inadmissable. Seems that the Judge was more sensible than the DA.