Dan's FAQ Improveable?

[John J. Bulten]

The IRS catalogs of frivolity, such as The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, are carefully vetted by innumerable high-level government counsel to ensure compliance with all laws. Dan Evans's similar listing (which he categorizes as "Just for Fun" and "a work in progress" and carefully disclaims as "Not legal advice"), in spite of its greater scope and passion, necessarily lacks such thorough committee review, so it would not be surprising if it contained an occasional error. Since Dan has stated an interest in improving this FAQ, I offer a couple sincere improvements to apparent errors.

I do this because while I can fully affirm the frivolous nature of each of the IRS's enumerated positions, there are at least two cases in which I believe Dan has represented the law inaccurately, and I would like to refer others to his FAQ as a sound compilation of frivolous positions as well, which I could do if the occasional questionables were better worded. I am proposing wording which I trust Dan would not find disagreeable; he would only question the need for such change. I can only appeal to his desire to improve the FAQ, which would specifically include at least replacing weak statements, easily picked apart, with ironclad explications. I'm holding out hope that Dan might acknowledge that at minimum there is no harm in using the more legally accurate statements and that, in the interests of more appropriately reflecting the IRS presentation of the law, the amendments are worthy of making in his next update.

(For anyone who believes that I would ever espouse a frivolous position identified by the IRS as contrary to law, please recall that my purpose is rather to uphold the law. So it should not be surprising that I wish to contribute to Dan's unstinting work in clarifying the IRS's frivolous position list. Those who still cannot tell the difference between the frivolous positions I identify below and my own positions, which are often misrepresented, may ask for any clarification.)

The states of the United States are within the normal meaning of the word “State,” and so a definition that says that “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the states of the United States from the meaning of “State.”

I would replace this first subpoint with the accurate statement:

All the States of the United States, not counting the District of Columbia, are within the normal meaning of the word “State,” and so a definition that says that “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the other existing States of the United States from the meaning of “State.”

In general, the word "State" should be capitalized whenever clear reference to the IRC term under consideration is intended. Further, after the second subpoint:

A definition of “State” that equates “State” with “District of Columbia” turns the definition of “United States” into gibberish, because the definition then becomes a statement that “United States” “includes only the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia.”

(which is an excellent observation, especially considering 7651), I would add:

Clearly the term “States” in the definition of “United States” means the other States of the United States and not the District of Columbia.

After the third subpoint I would add:

The same argument applies to parallel definitions in I.R.C. section 3121(e).

These statements make clear that there are by definition more States than the District of Columbia (as the IRC does state explicitly), which point is not explicit in Dan's version; and they also make clear that the similar frivolous argument based on 3121(e) is equally answered. If these statements are omitted, Dan's argument against "'State' means only DC" is much weaker, especially in the first subpoint.

As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of “includes” does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of “employee,” so “employee” includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.

I would expand this to:

As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of “includes” does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of “employee,” so “the term employee includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee”, and “generally the relationship of employer and employee exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services” (26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1(a)-(b)). “Employee” includes everyone who performs services in a legal employer-employee relationship, as well as some people you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.

This does not leave the definition of "employee" to the reader's own imagination, but provides the regulatory context for both the legal and general definitions of "employee". Omitting these regulations leaves a weaker argument because the reader might still attempt to define "employee" independently of the law and regulations.

Dan, would you moderately answer whether my suggested quotes are accurate representations of the law? Thanks for your consideration.

[grixit]

I would just say something like "When the word "state" is used, it refers not only to the States, but to all the constuent entities of the Union".

[The Dog]

All the States of the United States, not counting the District of Columbia, are within the normal meaning of the word “State,” and so a definition that says that “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the other existing States of the United States from the meaning of “State.”

How do you square this wording with that of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution?

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Joey Smith]

John, when anybody who matters agrees with you, be sure to send us a postcard to let us know.

[notorial dissent]

John, it is nice to see that you are as linguistically challenged as you are legally, morally, and ethically.

While I might quibble with some of the wording Dan used, his statements are clear, concise, and accurate, and easily understandable, whereas yours moves to the level of obfuscation and convolution, so beloved by you guru.

[grammarian44]

So when a court hands Pete an obvious defeat, striking down your entire theory about how the tax code works, you try first to insist that you were not addressing yourself to Pete's case, but to someone else's.

When that doesn't work, you decide to deflect attention from the defeat by nitpicking your way through the Taxpayer FAQ just to change the subject and get us to stop pointing out the errors in your own position.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at deflection.

If you applied the same standards to yourself that you have applied to Dan in this thread, you would have concluded months ago that all of your arguments are bogus.

[Florida]

John, when anybody who matters agrees with you, be sure to send us a postcard to let us know.

Careful, I think he's getting pissed off. You can probably fry an egg on his head at this point.

[notorial dissent]

Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time he's had egg on his face now would it?

[Joey Smith]

John, when anybody who matters agrees with you, be sure to send us a postcard to let us know.

Careful, I think he's getting pissed off. You can probably fry an egg on his head at this point.

I think that subliminally John has figured out that Pete Hendrickson is a fraud and that John is going to have to pay some massive penalties because of it. Whether John is consciously able to realize his mistake in following the CtC method is another story.

At the end of the day, the truth is that not a single accredited or credible tax, legal, or constitutional theory (much less any judge) thinks that CtC is anything other than a joke, and the CtC guru is a poorly educated dolt who once blew up an innocent postal employee.

[jg]

At the end of the day, the truth is that not a single accredited or credible tax, legal, or constitutional theory (much less any judge) thinks that CtC is anything other than a joke, and the CtC guru is a poorly educated dolt who once blew up an innocent postal employee.

There may very well be a day when a judge (or jury) thinks that Ctc is very much anything other than a joke.
Time will tell.

[LPC]

The IRS catalogs of frivolity, such as The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, are carefully vetted by innumerable high-level government counsel to ensure compliance with all laws. Dan Evans's similar listing (which he categorizes as "Just for Fun" and "a work in progress" and carefully disclaims as "Not legal advice"), in spite of its greater scope and passion, necessarily lacks such thorough committee review, so it would not be surprising if it contained an occasional error. Since Dan has stated an interest in improving this FAQ, I offer a couple sincere improvements to apparent errors.

I do this because while I can fully affirm the frivolous nature of each of the IRS's enumerated positions, there are at least two cases in which I believe Dan has represented the law inaccurately, and I would like to refer others to his FAQ as a sound compilation of frivolous positions as well, which I could do if the occasional questionables were better worded. I am proposing wording which I trust Dan would not find disagreeable; he would only question the need for such change. I can only appeal to his desire to improve the FAQ, which would specifically include at least replacing weak statements, easily picked apart, with ironclad explications. I'm holding out hope that Dan might acknowledge that at minimum there is no harm in using the more legally accurate statements and that, in the interests of more appropriately reflecting the IRS presentation of the law, the amendments are worthy of making in his next update.

(For anyone who believes that I would ever espouse a frivolous position identified by the IRS as contrary to law, please recall that my purpose is rather to uphold the law. So it should not be surprising that I wish to contribute to Dan's unstinting work in clarifying the IRS's frivolous position list. Those who still cannot tell the difference between the frivolous positions I identify below and my own positions, which are often misrepresented, may ask for any clarification.)

It's amazing how very many words you can use while saying so very, very little.

And the little you do say is often a lie, such as the malarky about your purpose being to "uphold the law."

The states of the United States are within the normal meaning of the word “State,” and so a definition that says that “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the states of the United States from the meaning of “State.”

I would replace this first subpoint with the accurate statement:

All the States of the United States, not counting the District of Columbia, are within the normal meaning of the word “State,” and so a definition that says that “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the other existing States of the United States from the meaning of “State.”

It's difficult for me to see the difference between those two statements, so I've "redlined" the two, showing your additions in red (you made no deletions):

All The states of the United States not counting the District of Columbia are within the normal meaning of the word “State,” and so a definition that says that “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the other existing states of the United States from the meaning of “State.”

So you've added more words, but have failed to add any meaning or any clarity to what was already both accurate and concise.

In general, the word "State" should be capitalized whenever clear reference to the IRC term under consideration is intended.

I prefer to follow the convention that has prevailed in the English language for the last 200+ years, which is that nouns should not be capitalized unless they are proper nouns (i.e., the name of a particular thing).

The states of the United States are all "States" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, so there is no need to distinguish between the common word "state" and the IRC term "State" unless I am talking about the application of the tax laws within the District of Columbia (which I rarely do).

Further, after the second subpoint:

A definition of “State” that equates “State” with “District of Columbia” turns the definition of “United States” into gibberish, because the definition then becomes a statement that “United States” “includes only the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia.”

(which is an excellent observation, especially considering 7651), I would add:

Clearly the term “States” in the definition of “United States” means the other States of the United States and not the District of Columbia.

Yes, you would add more words, regardless of whether or not they were necessary. I get that.

After the third subpoint I would add:

The same argument applies to parallel definitions in I.R.C. section 3121(e).

More words having no direct relevance to the text around them.

These statements make clear that there are by definition more States than the District of Columbia (as the IRC does state explicitly), which point is not explicit in Dan's version; and they also make clear that the similar frivolous argument based on 3121(e) is equally answered. If these statements are omitted, Dan's argument against "'State' means only DC" is much weaker, especially in the first subpoint.

I think you need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of “includes” does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of “employee,” so “employee” includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.

I would expand this to:

As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of “includes” does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of “employee,” so “the term employee includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee”, and “generally the relationship of employer and employee exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services” (26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1(a)-(b)). “Employee” includes everyone who performs services in a legal employer-employee relationship, as well as some people you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.

This does not leave the definition of "employee" to the reader's own imagination, but provides the regulatory context for both the legal and general definitions of "employee". Omitting these regulations leaves a weaker argument because the reader might still attempt to define "employee" independently of the law and regulations.

See comment above about sucking eggs.

[John J. Bulten]

But Dan, your quotes are not legally accurate.

The states of the United States are all "States" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code

You imply the 50 states are all 7701(a)(10) States. What is your evidence? The FAQ only proves "State" expands; but the explicit expansion is actually, in 7651, to all possessions and territories. There is no explicit expansion to the 50 states.

As for implict expansion, last year you said the 50 states were of the same class as DC because DC used to be part of MD and VA. When I pointed out that your twisted logic would make all the nations of the same class as possessions (i.e., States) because PR used to be part of Spain, you shut up.

Please try to answer these questions without special pleading: What evidence shows the 50 states are 7701(a)(10) States? What evidence shows private workers in the 50 states are 3401(c) employees? And the question you declined to even acknowledge:

Dan, would you moderately answer whether my suggested quotes are accurate representations of the law? Thanks for your consideration.

[Paul]

Please try to answer these questions without special pleading: What evidence shows the 50 states are 7701(a)(10) States?

As soon as you tell us what evidence shows that you asked a question, I will be happy to answer the question.

[LPC]

But Dan, your quotes are not legally accurate.

The states of the United States are all "States" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code

You imply the 50 states are all 7701(a)(10) States. What is your evidence?

Where is yours?

Just above, you said that the statement, "All the States of the United States, not counting the District of Columbia, are within the normal meaning of the word 'State,' and so a definition that says that 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the other existing States of the United States from the meaning of 'State'," was an "accurate statement."

Now you're saying it's not? Were you lying before, or just trolling?

[John J. Bulten]

For those confused by Dan's feint, he is pretending he does not know the difference between one of the common meanings of the uncapitalized word "state" (where "state" means any of the 50 union states) and the meaning of the capitalized IRC term "State" defined at 26 USC 7701(a)(10) with reference to 7701(c) and 7651(a) (where "State" includes the District of Columbia, and thereby adds whatever other things are otherwise within the meaning of the term "State", and other things otherwise within the meaning of the term "State" are explicitly given to be possessions and territories). With those distinctions and case-sensitivity observed, the reason for my changes is obvious. My opening comments were addressed to those who are presumed to know the IRC definitions.

You might note that every time Dan dodges these questions, or answers with a special pleading, his case gets less persuasive.

Dan, what evidence shows the 50 states are 7701(a)(10) States? What evidence shows private workers in the 50 states are 3401(c) employees? And would you moderately answer whether my suggested quotes are accurate representations of the law?

[.]

his case gets less persuasive.

Only to you and similarly situated nut-jobs who are bent on explicating their delusions ad nauseum.

[Brian Rookard]

And would you moderately answer whether my suggested quotes are accurate representations of the law?

As you apparently interpret it ... that's easy ... the answer is a resounding NO!

The term State normally includes that which is a State ... ie. the 50 States.

It is always amazing how much tax protestors fight to give a tortured meaning to the word "includes". If they lose on that single argument, 90% of their theories go down the crapper (which is why tax protestors fixate on that word so much and make all kinds of silly rationalizations).

If I say "the brownie recipe includes eggs" ... and I ask people like John whether the recipe includes only eggs ... the tax protestors will come up with any way to say that (1) I'm using improper grammar, (2) it's not a fair question, (3) yes, the recipe includes only eggs, (4) _______ (fill in the stupid rationalization of the day).

Oftentimes, tax protestors will simply avoid the question because they know how dumb they're about to look when their stoopid logick is about to lead them to say something really ... stoopid.

John is no different, he'll argue some inane argument about "includes" and will never concede that he's wrong (because his theory absolutely depends on being able to torture the simple meaning of the word includes.

[LPC]

For those confused by Dan's feint, he is pretending he does not know the difference between one of the common meanings of the uncapitalized word "state" (where "state" means any of the 50 union states)....

Dan, what evidence shows the 50 states are 7701(a)(10) States?

You mean, other than your own statements to that effect?

Just above, you said that "'state' means any of the 50 union states." Are you asking me for evidence that you are right?

And, from earlier in this thread:

All the States of the United States, not counting the District of Columbia, are within the normal meaning of the word "State," and so a definition that says that "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the other existing States of the United States from the meaning of "State."

You said that was an "accurate statement."

So, in answer to your question, my "evidence" are the statements of John J. Bulten. If you disagree with his statements, I suggest you take it up with him, and not me.

However, I should warn you that he is a pathological liar, and very slippery, and when you confront him with his own statements, he may invent some convoluted and incomprehensible explanation for why he didn't really mean what he wrote. Or he will simply ignore your questions and pose questions of his owning, pretending that it is you that are being evasive.

[Brian Rookard]

Oh but Dan ... when John says "States of the United States" ... that doesn't mean States of the Union ... that means the territories and possessions ... those are "States of [belonging to] the United States."



Remember the TP super-secret lingo.

There's an excuse for everything.

[Paul]

Hey, johnnie boy, you still haven't answered my question: What is YOUR evidence that you asked a question?