Yes, the river of denial over at LH is currently at flood stage.
Calling them "clueless" would represent an overstatement of their level of rationality.
All the drivel about "sworn testimony" obscures an essential fact: Hendrickson never denied receiving compensation for his services, and so the government was granted a summary judgment because
there was no dispute about any material fact.
Hendrickson's "testimony" did not relate to any relevant fact (such as whether he was paid or why he was paid), but was directed instead to a
legal conclusion, that what he was paid was not "wages" within the meaning of the IRC. The Circuit Court clearly identified this fallacy:
6th Circuit wrote:The Hendricksons’ remaining claims also plainly lack merit. First, 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.
Some of the clearer heads at LH recognize that the criminal trial will be about whether the false returns were filed "willfully," and that the government has the burden of proving that Hendrickson knew that his returns were false. But they also seem to think that the government's burden of proof is impossible to fulfill, which is wrong.
