Weston White at losthorizons: The Latest from Weston World

[Thule]

Now, Weston White writes:

Is that the type of person you would really want to be associated with? My friend the ship is sinking and these people want to sit in the lounge enjoying their scotch. I say let them. As for our own people, there is much work to be accomplished.

Let us all take a step back and consider the situation. LH's big man has been hit with rather serious criminal charges. His first attempts to lay down the law with cleverly crafted motions has been brushed aside by the court. Hendrickson is heading straight into trouble, and his best bargaining-chip right now is turning over the names of people who used his scam and got lucky.

And he is still concerned that we spend time in the lounge? Well, at least we are not in the bow, listening to Petey raving about the wonders of concrete life-preservers (lack of buoyancy is unconstitutional, dammit).

[Gregg]

This is a complete W.A.G. on my part, but I would bet real money that Bulten has secretly slippedf away from the cult compound, had a "come to Jesus meeting" with the IRS, got religion and got his tax situation straight.

While he might still agree with PH, Bulten has bills to pay and will grudgingly play by the rules, if it keeps him employable and employed. Now is NOT the time to go off on a hopeless quixotic crusade.

That brings us back to what I think is the real tragedy here. The point is not far int he future where a whole gaggle of these people are going to be at the end of the legal rope, and having sent argumentative letters asserting their rights, and how their returns are their sworn testimony under the penalty of perjury etc... they have exhausted any chance of getting back out of their situations. A lot of people, is swift succession are going to be losing their homes etc.. within the next year or so, and because they "knew the law" better than the lawyers, accountants, revenue officers and everyone else, there's not much they can do about it. Unless they have the cash stashed under the mattress, the first sign that they'll accept that they're wrong is when the US Marshall is auctioning off the house. And that's the lucky ones who don't end up in criminal trouble.

[Nikki]

Let us all take a step back and consider the situation. LH's big man has been hit with rather serious criminal charges. His first attempts to lay down the law with cleverly crafted motions has been brushed aside by the court. Hendrickson is heading straight into trouble, and his best bargaining-chip right now is turning over the names of people who used his scam and got lucky.

And he is still concerned that we spend time in the lounge? Well, at least we are not in the bow, listening to Petey raving about the wonders of concrete life-preservers (lack of buoyancy is unconstitutional, dammit).

He doesn't even have that. He POSTED all the success stories that were submitted to him.

The only thing he might have is a list of purchasers of the book. Even that isn't too valuable. How long do you think it will take for the IRS (when it finally gets moving) to search its data base for every Form 4852 filed in the last 5 - 6 years?

[mutter]

Let us all take a step back and consider the situation. LH's big man has been hit with rather serious criminal charges. His first attempts to lay down the law with cleverly crafted motions has been brushed aside by the court. Hendrickson is heading straight into trouble, and his best bargaining-chip right now is turning over the names of people who used his scam and got lucky.

And he is still concerned that we spend time in the lounge? Well, at least we are not in the bow, listening to Petey raving about the wonders of concrete life-preservers (lack of buoyancy is unconstitutional, dammit).

He doesn't even have that. He POSTED all the success stories that were submitted to him.

The only thing he might have is a list of purchasers of the book. Even that isn't too valuable. How long do you think it will take for the IRS (when it finally gets moving) to search its data base for every Form 4852 filed in the last 5 - 6 years?

Pretty much. The IRM currently says a 4852 with zero wages is a frivilous submission.

[Lambkin]

I bet he has customer lists including some nervous people who filed false returns but didn't tell Pete because they knew it was unsafe and didn't want to be on the success list. The success list is for true believers but there are probably others.

[webhick]

For those looking for the MA Driver's license revoked, I split the posts off to another thread.

Non Payment of Taxes resulting in Revoked Driver's License

[Judge Roy Bean]

I bet he has customer lists including some nervous people who filed false returns but didn't tell Pete because they knew it was unsafe and didn't want to be on the success list. The success list is for true believers but there are probably others.

Considering the amount of plagiarism that goes on with things like these scams I'd be willing to bet a large bottle of Patron there are far more people dabbling in it than even Pete is aware of.

[Paul]

Plagiarism? Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky told me to call it "research"!

[Colonel_Buck]

Plagiarism? Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky told me to call it "research"!

Yeah, but can he do "New Math"?

[Nikki]

This time, he's posted a THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO THE RECIPIENT letter to the Commissioner, Secretary of the Treasury, and a local IRS office clearly informing them of their legal and procedural errors in assessing a penalty against him and demanding a number of documents which, when produced, will vindicate him.

Cover the keyboards.

[Lambkin]

That's a real beauty. Even one of his corhort lacking two brain cells to rub together found this gem:

your office is hereby instructed to seize and desist

I guess the desisting starts when the seizing is completed?

[webhick]

your office is hereby instructed to seize and desist

What if there are no epileptics in the office?

[Nikki]

WHAT You mean there's an office your mind-altering nanogerbils missed

[Nikki]

The letter does not purport to be a return or any other type of mandated filing.

Thus, it is not subject to a frivolous filing penalty.

With any luck, he'll send it in on nice soft paper so it can be put to good use.

[grixit]

He forgot to inform them that the letter puts them under arrest.

[grixit]

Just noticed this one:

‘Oath of Affirmation’

Heh. I solemnly swear to affirm that Weston Weaksauce is a ninny.

[LPC]

This time, he's posted a THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO THE RECIPIENT

If you haven't done so already, add "constructive" to the list of words tax deniers don't understand.

[LPC]

WW has already claimed a lack of debunking, so let's skip the fatuous opening and go to the first two numbered ":

1. Neither party is a ‘person’ subject to 26 USC § 6702(a) as defined with the supporting term ‘persons’ located within 26 USC § 6671(b).

Which only shows that WW still hasn't learned the meaning of "includes."

Section 6671(b) states that "The term 'person', as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs."

WW would like to believe that frivolous return penalties under section 6702 can never be applied to individuals who are not officers or employees of corporations, or members or employees of partnerships, despite section 7701(c) and the thousands of court decisions upholding the imposition of frivolous return penalties against individuals.

As far as I can tell, no court has yet had to refute this latest misapplication of "includes."

2. 26 USC § 6702(a) authorizes only one penalty per return.

That's wrong too, because 6702(a) provides for a penalty of $5,000 upon each *person* who files a frivolous return. The penalty is imposed both per person and per return, so if two persons file one return, there are two penalties.

[The Operative]

Weston,

A court order is not required. Nowhere in the section regarding the frivolous penalty does it require a court order or warrant of distraint. Neither is there a requirement for a court order for a levy. In fact, the courts have stated several times that a court order is not required for the IRS to levy.

1. You are a person as per the definition in 6671(b). Just because YOU and Pete Hendrickson do not understand the meaning of the word 'includes' does not mean you are not a person under the law.

2. Section 6702 does not limit the frivolous filing penalty to a return. That section states, "A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if—..." The frivolous penalty applies to each person who signs a joint return. It is a return for you and it is a return for your wife.

3. I suggest that you read Halcott v. CIR, T.C. Memo 2004-214 (2004). Your 'return' does NOT pass the 'Beard test', regardless of what you believe.

4. Section 6065 refers to returns and statements filed by a taxpayer with the IRS. Notices from the IRS to the taxpayer are not restricted by that section. Keep tilting at windmills.

5. The IRS does not have to determine how much tax you owe to assess a frivolous filing penalty. Deficiency procedures do not apply to frivolous penalties (See 26 USC 6703). You filed a return that met one of the listed positions that have been identified as frivolous.

6. See #5.

7. I would bet that they have told you why your filing was frivolous, but you probably refuse to listen or read it.

8. Too bad the courts disagree with you. Weston, the courts have consistently stated that the IRS may levy without a court order.

9. Wrong again, Weston. The court has never said that an income tax is a capitation. The court has said that an income tax is an excise or duty. Additionally, the Supreme Court has NEVER said that a tax on incomes derived from labor is a direct tax. In fact, the Supreme Court has said just the opposite.

I'm going to stop there because the rest is just more of the same old, tired, B.S. You will soon find out that you are completely wrong and the IRS is following the law.

[notorial dissent]

This time, he's posted a THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO THE RECIPIENT

If you haven't done so already, add "constructive" to the list of words tax deniers don't understand.

You mean along with all the others in my Webster’s, makes keeping the list ever so much easier.