Hendrickson losses just keep mounting

[Paul]

Under the plain meaning of the words of 3401, Pete's interpretation was just as stupid as the straw man. And, don't forget, the CTC book would be hearsay, and should not have been introduced as evidence of the truth of anything stated in it. So, the question is, what did Pete actually say in court or in briefs? Do you have evidence he never stated that his position was that only government employees are 3401 employees?

[John J. Bulten]

And, don't forget, the plain meaning of "includes" does not apply because "includes" is defined in 7701(c), which nullifies your point. As for evidence of what Pete didn't say, I don't have every document he introduced into the docket, so can't answer directly; but I can testify from my thorough knowledge of his position and his ability to explain it that he would never state the frivolous position you describe.

[grammarian44]

Truth will always eventually win.

I am leaning toward the likelihood of Pete being denied on appeal.

I agree with both statements. Pete will lose, and the truth will win. You, meanwhile, contradict yourself so often that you're starting to look ridiculous.

[notorial dissent]

Referring to J J BS

You, meanwhile, contradict yourself so often that you're starting to look ridiculous.

Already happened a long time ago.

Someone who cannot read a plain English sentence is a long ways down the path to begin with.

And the court apparently disagreed with both John’s and his master’s enlightened interpretations of both the language and the statute. Imagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joey Smith]

Given the nature of our courts, I am leaning toward the likelihood of Pete being denied on appeal.

There is a 100% chance of Pete being denied on appeal because he is WRONG. The only open question will be whether he will be sanctioned for a frivolous appeal.

But again, where are the tens-of-thousands of legal and constitutional scholars that might otherwise comment on a wrong court ruling? Or is it possible that they think that Pete's position is flat wrong?

[LPC]

Pete's position has not lost, because Pete's position was not ruled on at all.

If Pete stated his position to the court, then the court ruled on his position.

Dan, as the context demonstrates, Pete is saying "withholding only applies to" government workers in the hypothetical contemplated immediately prior, i.e., where corporate officers are NOT "paid as a consequence of their positions".

There is no "hypothetical" in what you quoted, and nothing about corporate officers NOT being paid "as a consequence of their positions."

And your latest rationalization doesn't even make any sense. Government employees and corporate officers are two different things. If you're saying that Pete meant that withholding "only applies to government workers because sometimes a corporate officer might not be paid as a consequence of his position," then your claiming that Pete intended gibberish.

Having looked more closely at Pete's insertion about "United States corporation," it now looks to me as though Pete actually meant exactly what he wrote. The only reason to insert a reference to a definition of "United States corporation" as one owned or controlled by the United States would be to suggest that "an officer of a corporation" in section 3401(c) means an officer of a corporation owned or controlled by the United States, and not an officer of any other corporation.

So when Pete wrote that "withholding only applies to the pay of federal government workers," he meant exactly what he wrote, because he believes that section 3401(c) refers to only government employees and officers of government-controlled corporations.

So what he meant to say and what he actually said are both frivolous.

In short, 3401(c) employee means only government workers, corporate officers, and others of like kind and class; and whatever the like kind and class means,

You don't know what it means, do you?

I don't blame you for that one, because the concept of "like kind and class" to a government worker or corporate officer is rather incoherent. It is difficult to imagine anything ""of like kind and class" to being a government employee or corporate officer. You are either paid by the government, or you are not, and you are either a corporate officer, or you are not. There doesn't seem to be much room for "of like kind and class" in those definitions.

If you're willing to admit that Pete's explanation is unintelligible in this regard, it would be a sign of some sanity.

I also want to point out that the "of like kind and class" gloss is contrary to the language of section 3401(c), because the statute itself never says anything about "of like kind and class" or "similar workers." But I'm sure you need to expand the application of section 3401(c) in order to rationalize court rulings against you.

it is narrow and does not generally contain private workers.

Which is the frivolous part.

They are not "excluded" because they were never "included".

See IRC section 7701(c).

If private workers were part of 3401 because of the word "includes", they would also be part of 3231 because of the word "includes" and thereby subject to Railroad Retirement.

Section 3231 does not use the word "includes" in defining "employer" and "employee."

Pete's position is that his pay for work is not 3401 "wages" because 3401 "employee" means government, corporate, and similar workers.

And that's frivolous.

Which is why the court ruled that Pete received "wages."

Nancy in effect ruled, "Pete's position is frivolous because his position is that his pay for work is not 3401 'wages' because 3401 'employee' means government workers." Anyone reading the record can see that Nancy changed Pete's position into a strawman so that she could rule against it.

Please point to anything in the record to support your claim about Pete's position.

In order for the judge to have *changed* Pete's position, and in order for someone reading "the record" to see that the judge changed Pete's position, Pete must have stated his position somewhere in the record. Please tell me where in the record Pete stated his position.

In order to have made the statement you have made about "anyone reading the record," you must have already read "the record" so you must already know where Pete stated his position. So, unless you've been lying, you should be able to tell us quite quickly and quite easily where to look in "the record" to see Pete's position.

My bet is that you're a liar, and haven't actually read all of the pleadings, so you don't really know what Pete said about his position.

Anyone who thinks Pete's position is essentially the same as the strawman has yet to prove it.

Done. As I've explained above, Pete's statement about "only applies to the pay of federal government workers," when taken in context, means exactly what he wrote and what he wrote is frivolous (as you yourself have now admitted).

[wserra]

Pete's position has not lost, because Pete's position was not ruled on at all.

If Pete stated his position to the court, then the court ruled on his position.

And if Hendrickson didn't state his position to the court but had the opportunity to do so, then the court in effect still ruled on his position (by waiver).

Either way, game, set, match, chalk outline.

[LPC]

Pete's position has not lost, because Pete's position was not ruled on at all.

If Pete stated his position to the court, then the court ruled on his position.

And if Hendrickson didn't state his position to the court but had the opportunity to do so, then the court in effect still ruled on his position (by waiver).

I've been waiting for Bulten to play the "badly argued" card, but so far he doesn't seem interested (or it hasn't yet occurred to him that his guru screwed up big time).

[Brian Rookard]

Given the nature of our courts, I am leaning toward the likelihood of Pete being denied on appeal.

There is a 100% chance of Pete being denied on appeal because he is WRONG. The only open question will be whether he will be sanctioned for a frivolous appeal.

But again, where are the tens-of-thousands of legal and constitutional scholars that might otherwise comment on a wrong court ruling? Or is it possible that they think that Pete's position is flat wrong?

And Joey's point continues to be a good one.

Tax protestors have this opinion that ALL lawyers are in on the gig when it comes to the income tax. That is such utter hogwash as to be laughable.

There are soooooooooooooooooo many lawyers that would love nothing more than to stick it to the government and see the government lose that if any of them really agreed with the tax protestor nonsense they would be fighting tooth and nail in support of tax protestors.

Furthermore, tax professionals get paid to REDUCE their client's taxes ... not see that they pay more. Hence, tax professionals will structure their client's affairs so as to lessen the tax burden. If any of these constitutional arguments had any merit tax professionals would be advising their clients on how to eliminate their taxes.

Hey, I can even give tax protestors a sure fire way to stop paying U.S. income taxes ... it is 100% legitimate ... and you won't have to pay a dime to the U.S. government ... it's called expatriation ... but that means you have to leave the country ... and you can't earn any income from U.S. sources.

Guess how many tax protestors are willing to go that route though? And it's the legal route to not paying U.S. income taxes!!!!

Showing that tax protestors want to live here, enjoy the benefits of living here, but they really don't want to pay for those benefits. In the end, it comes down to tax protestor greed.

[grammarian44]

Hey, I can even give tax protestors a sure fire way to stop paying U.S. income taxes ... it is 100% legitimate ... and you won't have to pay a dime to the U.S. government ... it's called expatriation ... but that means you have to leave the country ... and you can't earn any income from U.S. sources.

In many cases, Brian, this is not true: Under section 877, expatriate US citizens remain liable for U.S. taxation at section 1 or AMT rates for the first ten years after they renounce US citizenship if they have income from any source in excess of $124,000 in a tax year or if their net worth is $2 million or more. Proposed 877A, which the Senate keeps incorporating into tax bills but which has yet to survive Conference Committee, would require expatriates to recognize all gain or loss from all assets on the date of expatriation.

Some have argued that section 877 is unconstitutional; I think it might be.

[Brian Rookard]

Hey, I can even give tax protestors a sure fire way to stop paying U.S. income taxes ... it is 100% legitimate ... and you won't have to pay a dime to the U.S. government ... it's called expatriation ... but that means you have to leave the country ... and you can't earn any income from U.S. sources.

In many cases, Brian, this is not true: Under section 877, expatriate US citizens remain liable for U.S. taxation at section 1 or AMT rates for the first ten years after they renounce US citizenship if they have income from any source in excess of $124,000 in a tax year or if their net worth is $2 million or more. Proposed 877A, which the Senate keeps incorporating into tax bills but which has yet to survive Conference Committee, would require expatriates to recognize all gain or loss from all assets on the date of expatriation.

Some have argued that section 877 is unconstitutional; I think it might be.

Actually, I don't know why people keep thinking this (and you're not the first person to say it).

The expatriate (if he is described in 877(a)) is only taxed on gross income from sources within the U.S.

877(b) quite clearly states:

(b) A nonresident alien individual described in subsection (a) shall be taxable for the taxable year as provided in section 1 or 55, except that—
(1) the gross income shall include only the gross income described in section 872 (a) (as modified by subsection (d) of this section) ... [sub-paragraph (2) regards deductions]

Section 872(a) also quite clearly states:

(a) General rule
In the case of a nonresident alien individual, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, gross income includes only—
(1) gross income which is derived from sources within the United States and which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, and
(2) gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

What I said is right on. I said that you can't earn income from U.S. sources, and this is correct (that is the income that is subject to tax).

But that is not a whole lot different from any other non-resident.

Thus, an expatriate is not taxed on "all" his income ... he is basically still taxed on U.S. source income, and that should not be surprising.

So, an expatriate CAN avoid paying income taxes ... just don't have U.S. source income.

[natty]

In short, 3401(c) employee means only government workers, corporate officers, and others of like kind and class; and whatever the like kind and class means, it is narrow and does not generally contain private workers. They are not "excluded" because they were never "included". If private workers were part of 3401 because of the word "includes", they would also be part of 3231 because of the word "includes" and thereby subject to Railroad Retirement.

Pete's position is that his pay for work is not 3401 "wages" because 3401 "employee" means government, corporate, and similar workers. Nancy in effect ruled, "Pete's position is frivolous because his position is that his pay for work is not 3401 'wages' because 3401 'employee' means government workers." Anyone reading the record can see that Nancy changed Pete's position into a strawman so that she could rule against it. Anyone who thinks Pete's position is essentially the same as the strawman has yet to prove it.

pete's position is in error because he uses the terms 'includes' and 'means' interchangably while they are polar opposites. When Congress uses 'includes', they are expanding the definition of the term by not excluding things OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS MEANING. A private worker is otherwise within the meaning of 'employee' in 3401(c) because Congress uses 'includes'.

Contrast that with 3231. There Congress uses 'means' which is a term of limitation, not expansion. There is no doubt the only empolyee there is a railroad worker.

[John J. Bulten]

If Pete stated his position to the court, then the court ruled on his position.

Near as I can tell (and my understanding of court procedure is still amateur), Pete tactically moved for dismissal or clarification prior to answering the complaint. Since the court rejected his motions simultaneous with granting the motion for summary judgment, it seems Pete can argue the court never gave him a chance to answer the complaint and state his full position.

So when Pete wrote that "withholding only applies to the pay of federal government workers," he meant exactly what he wrote, because he believes that section 3401(c) refers to only government employees and officers of government-controlled corporations.

You just contradicted yourself. You have Pete meaning "government workers" and immediately have him meaning "government employees and officers of government-controlled corporations". Officers of government-controlled corporations are not government workers, they're corporate workers. For instance, the TVA is a government-owned corporation, not an agency or instrumentality of any branch of government. Its officers work for the corporation, not directly for the government.

As I said, Pete also included "other federal workers whose descriptions are not specifically listed" p. 61; this might include TVA workers themselves, who are of like kind and class as true government workers. A more comprehensive position statement appears on p. 88:

The only lawful objects of the "income" tax are activities for which one is paid by the federal government or a federal agency or instrumentality; activities effectively connected with the performance of the functions of a public office; activities as a federal, federal instrumentality, or federally chartered "State" worker; or activities as a paid officer of a federal corporation ....

I also want to point out that the "of like kind and class" gloss is contrary to the language of section 3401(c), because the statute itself never says anything about "of like kind and class" or "similar workers."

No, the statute uses the word "includes" with reference to 7701(c), and thereby the regulatory interpretation of 7701(c) as being of the same general class (26 CFR 403.5) and the court's interpretation of 7701(c) as being of like kind and class. (I may have attributed this brief formula to the Supremes, it's actually from the 1st Circuit in Brigham, 97-2436, whereas the Supremes use a clunkier formula with the same upshot in Sims, 359 US 108.)

it is narrow and does not generally contain private workers.

Which is the frivolous part.

No, the frivolous argument is the "government only" argument, since only that argument appears on official frivolous lists (excluding your own). How could it be frivolous to say that the term simply means government workers, corporate officers, and others otherwise within the meaning of the term defined by those two examples? That's what the law says!

Section 3231 does not use the word "includes" in defining "employer" and "employee."

It uses "include(s)" three times in defining "employee" (once by negation).

Please point to anything in the record to support your claim about Pete's position. In order for the judge to have *changed* Pete's position, and in order for someone reading "the record" to see that the judge changed Pete's position, Pete must have stated his position somewhere in the record.

Pete's relevant statement in the record was simply:

We deny the allegations ... that Peter makes any assertions to the effect that ... "only federal workers are required to pay income taxes"; and that "wages and income for federal income tax and withholding purposes means only wages and income of government employees".

This position statement, such as it is, was changed by the DOJ taking CtC out of context and by Nancy refusing to rule on Pete's motion until she could make a summary judgment without having to hear Pete's explanation of his position.

[Nikki]

Near as I can tell (and my understanding of court procedure is still amateur), Pete tactically moved for dismissal or clarification prior to answering the complaint. Since the court rejected his motions simultaneous with granting the motion for summary judgment, it seems Pete can argue the court never gave him a chance to answer the complaint and state his full position.

Pete had the opportunity to file an answer to the government's complaint. If he chose not to, tough shit for him.

There are specific procedures which are followed in federal court cases. All too many times, pro se defendants fail to inform themselves of the step-by-step procedures and decide to submit a flurry of inappropriate motions.

Pete, acting pro se, was an attorney with an idiot for a client.

[Quixote]

No, the frivolous argument is the "government only" argument, since only that argument appears on official frivolous lists (excluding your own). How could it be frivolous to say that the term simply means government workers, corporate officers, and others otherwise within the meaning of the term defined by those two examples? That's what the law says!

Only in Pete's head. The court disagreed. Every court which has ever heard that nonsense disagrees. Anyone capable of understanding English and not saddled with the need to contort the meaning of what they read disagrees.

Iirc, Pete starts his discussion of the word "includes" in Cracking the Code, by assuming that Congress never means what it says. That delusion cannot lead to truth.

[John J. Bulten]

You're baiting me. This is how Pete begins his discussion of "includes":

The Law Means What It Says

[quotes from IRM and Black's]

It is axiomatic (and the law) that terms and phrases within a statute for which definitions are provided DO NOT have their common meanings as used therein.

I mentioned in the foreword to this book that for decades efforts to mis-apply the income tax to receipts connected with private-sector activites have capitalized upon the widespread presumption that despite no one ever seeing it, some portion of the law must explicitly impose the tax upon them.

Pete's assumption might be that Congress, when discussing the income tax's relation to pay for work, never seems to mean what it says. But, he owns, it does in fact mean what it says.

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.

"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least-- at least I mean what I say-- that's the same thing, you know."

"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter.

Pete goes on:

The principles discussed earlier in 'Regarding the Law and Its Virtues' should make addressing this nonsense unnecessary; however, it must be acknowledged that the construction of the relevant portions of the law combines sufficiently with a lifelong misinformation campaign regarding this subject to nurture a somewhat forgivable uncertainty in some.

The key of those principles were stated earlier as:

The entire purpose of law-making is to inform those to whom it applies precisely what is expected of them by others and how those others will formally react to any given behavior ....

This principle is so elementary and fundamental that it needs no elaborate analysis. The law must mean what it says, and say what it means, or there is no purpose to it whatsoever. We do not establish a legislature, and delegate authority thereto, in order to guess at the meaning of its products or learn of their requirements and nuances only once charged with their violation, and in jeopardy of life, liberty or property.

[Joey Smith]

Let us not forget that Pete is such a highly educated legal scholar, whose writings have been published in numerous peer publications, and who holds the highest of respect from the courts!

[Paul]

It is axiomatic (and the law) that terms and phrases within a statute for which definitions are provided DO NOT have their common meanings as used therein.

So when Section 61 defines gross income to mean "all income from whatever source derived," and does not define "all", "income," "source", or "derived," where does that leave you?

[LPC]

If Pete stated his position to the court, then the court ruled on his position.

Near as I can tell (and my understanding of court procedure is still amateur), Pete tactically moved for dismissal or clarification prior to answering the complaint. Since the court rejected his motions simultaneous with granting the motion for summary judgment, it seems Pete can argue the court never gave him a chance to answer the complaint and state his full position.

Wrong.

Pete could have filed an answer to the government's complaint at any time, but he chose not to.

When Pete failed to respond to the government's motion for summary judgment, the government asked the court to order Pete to respond, which the court did on 8/23/2006 (Document #11), ordering Pete to respond by 9/8.

Pete actually responded to the motion for summary judgment on 9/7 (Document #13).

So Pete not only had an opportunity to explain his position (and his evidence) to the court, but he actually did state his full position to the court.

Right?

So when Pete wrote that "withholding only applies to the pay of federal government workers," he meant exactly what he wrote, because he believes that section 3401(c) refers to only government employees and officers of government-controlled corporations.

You just contradicted yourself. You have Pete meaning "government workers" and immediately have him meaning "government employees and officers of government-controlled corporations". Officers of government-controlled corporations are not government workers, they're corporate workers.

Tell that to Pete.

The only lawful objects of the "income" tax are activities for which one is paid by the federal government or a federal agency or instrumentality; activities effectively connected with the performance of the functions of a public office; activities as a federal, federal instrumentality, or federally chartered "State" worker; or activities as a paid officer of a federal corporation ....

Which is frivolous, so it's a good thing that Pete never included that in any of his pleadings. If he had, then the court might have actually understood his position and ruled against him.

Please point to anything in the record to support your claim about Pete's position. In order for the judge to have *changed* Pete's position, and in order for someone reading "the record" to see that the judge changed Pete's position, Pete must have stated his position somewhere in the record.

Pete's relevant statement in the record was simply:

We deny the allegations ... that Peter makes any assertions to the effect that ... "only federal workers are required to pay income taxes"; and that "wages and income for federal income tax and withholding purposes means only wages and income of government employees".

This position statement, such as it is, was changed by the DOJ taking CtC out of context and by Nancy refusing to rule on Pete's motion until she could make a summary judgment without having to hear Pete's explanation of his position.

You're not answering my question. My question was whether Pete "stated his position" in the record. In what you have quoted above, Pete denies the government's version of his position. Where does Pete himself state his own position?

Pete believes that he received no "wages." Where in the pleadings does he explain WHY he believes that he received not wages?

And, as I've already pointed out above, Pete was ORDERED by the court to respond to the motion for summary judgment. The court did NOT want to "make a summary judgment without having to hear Pete's explanation of his position," but ORDERED him to explain why the government's motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too, claiming that Pete both (a) stated his position and (b) did not have a chance to state his position.

[LPC]

If Pete stated his position to the court, then the court ruled on his position.

Near as I can tell (and my understanding of court procedure is still amateur), Pete tactically moved for dismissal or clarification prior to answering the complaint. Since the court rejected his motions simultaneous with granting the motion for summary judgment, it seems Pete can argue the court never gave him a chance to answer the complaint and state his full position.

Wrong.

Pete could have filed an answer to the government's complaint at any time, but he chose not to.

When Pete failed to respond to the government's motion for summary judgment, the government asked the court to order Pete to respond, which the court did on 8/23/2006 (Document #11), ordering Pete to respond by 9/8.

Pete actually responded to the motion for summary judgment on 9/7 (Document #13).

So Pete not only had an opportunity to explain his position (and his evidence) to the court, but he actually did state his full position to the court.

Right?

Pete posted a copy of his response to the motion for summary judgment on his own website, at http://www.losthorizons.com/PostReplyToMSJ.pdf

Let me know where to find Pete's explanation of his position in that document, because I'd sure like to read his own version of why the money he received from Personnel Management was not "wages."