Kensei not happei

[Famspear]

This is something of a technicality, but Famspear has stated the issue backwards. Congress did not limit the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, but rather failed to expand it.

I stand corrected.

(I know, I know.... "Please sit down.")

[Tax Protester]

Each of you are overlooking the fact that there are at least two issues to consider: 1. is the individuals claim for refund and 2. accruing penalties and interest. Each of you instead focus solely on the latter and ignore the former.

Each of you overlook that fact that there are many options to consider. There is just not one or two. Each of you can... well I will leave you to figure that out on your own. Your all suppose to be fairly smart right? Yea, I know that remains to be seen.

[Gregg]

Each of your overlooking the fact that there are at least two issues to consider: 1. is the individuals claim for refund and 2. accruing penalties and interest. Each of you instead focus solely on the latter and ignore the former. Each of you overlook that fact that there are many options to consider. There is just not one or two. Each of you can... well I will leave you to figure that out on your own. Your all suppose to be fairly smart right? Though that remains to be seen.

huh? Has a post been deleted or something? I cannot make that sentence make sense no matter how many times I read it.

[ASITStands]

someone explain why the tax court would not have jurisdiction to review/over turn anything the IRS has done. isnt that its entire reason for existance? Judicial review of tax matters. speaking of the frivilous penalties here

Other explanations aside, I believe there's a simpler answer to your question.

Essentially, there are only two places a taxpayer can invoke the jurisdiction of tax court.

The first involves the receipt of a notice of deficiency (which is a proposed assessment) at which time the taxpayer may petition tax court for a redetermination of said deficiency.

Filing a petition in tax court on a proper issue invokes its jurisdiction.

The second involves the receipt of a notice of determination (which is a proposed collection action under lien or levy) at which time the taxpayer may petition tax court for any abuse of discretion in the upholding of the collection action by Appeals.

The only issue is whether Appeals correctly upheld the lien or levy.

This is the spot in which 'Kensei' finds himself, except he forfeited his right to a collection due process hearing before an Appeals Officer, and therefore, his right to tax court.

This is a rather simple answer, as there are other opportunities to petition tax court, but in the case of frivolous penalties, it's the precise time to challenge them before payment.

That's the part 'Kensei' and Lost Horizons missed. It was the only time in which to challenge the frivolous penalties under IRC § 6702 without having to pay the entire amount first.

'Kensei' should not have forfeited his right to a collections due process hearing.

And, 'Tax Protester's' assertion we've overlooked his first point (something about a claim for refund) itself overlooks the fact, the only way to make a claim for refund is to first of all pay the entire amount of the disputed tax or penalty, before making a claim on Form 843.

And, of course, any claim brought in district court or the court of claims comes later.

EDIT: Among other statutes, take a look at IRC § 6212(a) and IRC § 6330(d), which grant an opportunity to petition tax court at the notice of deficiency and notice of determination.

[Nikki]

You overlooked innocent spouse, employee classification, whistleblower rewards, attorney fees, among other jurisdictional aspects of the Tax Court.

[Tax Protester]

lol, oh now you do not understand. How adorable! Tax court is not for U.S. citizens and residents living and working within a sovereign state of the Union. U.S. Constitution calls for them to be heard in Article III and not Article I.

[Tax Protester]

Just of few points:

26 USC PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
6212: 6203--6204 27 Part 70
6330: NULL

§ 6211. Definition of a deficiency
(a) In general
For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term “deficiency” means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the excess of—
(1) the sum of
(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus
(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over—

...And what does the IRS never ever do... performs any assessment, whatsoever. So what does that mean... you got it!

[Nikki]

And still not a single word regarding any verifiable source of law or court decision associating taxability with federal nexus.

CtC is based on that premise. You can't defend it, so, instead, you fall back on the same old stale ITP and sovereignoramus rhetoric.

I was really hoping for an interesting debate over new theories.

[Tax Protester]

What do you mean? It is written that way in the IRC itself. I would have thought you had read them thoroughly? Guess not.

Here perhaps have a reading of RA1862: http://defendindependence.org/IRS/RA/Re ... of1862.PDF

Oh and here: http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag ... recNum=673

Oh and, and, and... RA1913: http://defendindependence.org/IRS/RA/IncomeTax1913.PDF

[Tax Protester]

Oh look at that you got me all excited now, I just love spreading knowledge.

[Famspear]

Oh look at that you got me all excited now, I just love spreading knowledge.

Tax Protester has been "spreading" something, all right, and what he's spreading helps to make the grass grow.

[Joey Smith]

The "direct" versus "indirect" idiocy is exploded here:
http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

[LPC]

What do you mean? It is written that way in the IRC itself. I would have thought you had read them thoroughly? Guess not.

Here perhaps have a reading of RA1862: http://defendindependence.org/IRS/RA/Re ... of1862.PDF

"Tax Protester" is apparently responding to a post by Nikki:

And still not a single word regarding any verifiable source of law or court decision associating taxability with federal nexus.

CtC is based on that premise. You can't defend it, so, instead, you fall back on the same old stale ITP and sovereignoramus rhetoric.

I was really hoping for an interesting debate over new theories.

So, in response to a request for "a single word regarding any verifiable source of law or court decision associating taxability with federal nexus," TP responds with a link to the revenue act of 1862?

This is beyond ignorant or irrational, and into the realm of the psychotic.

[Nikki]

What do two laws significantly predating the 16th amendment and a non-functioning link have to do with a valid citation to a current law or an actual court case related to your allegations regarding federal nexus?

Clearly, you can't substantiate your claims -- most likely because the material you are copying from fails to back up its own blather with verifiable facts.

You mention the IRC, but fail to provide a specific citation within 26USC to support your claim.

It's becoming obvious that you aren't actually an owl. You're merely a parrot, sitting on your master's shoulder, squawking back words that someone else has said enough times to burn themselves into your little avian brain.

[LPC]

Incidentally, I really like the title of this thread. The "happei" is inspired.

[ASITStands]

You overlooked innocent spouse, employee classification, whistleblower rewards, attorney fees, among other jurisdictional aspects of the Tax Court.

Not that I need to defend myself, but I did say ...

This is a rather simple answer, as there are other opportunities to petition tax court ...

I knew there were "other" reasons, and other opportunities, to petition tax court. I wanted to keep it simple for 'mutter' as he contemplated the "normal" reasons he might encounter.

And, I though my response answered the question more directly than a discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, which I see has become the general subject of the thread. Oh, well.

EDIT: Tax Court is useful in two important ways: (1) It allows a taxpayer to dispute a tax or penalty without having to pay the amount in full first, and (2) It offers the "poor man" an entry to the appellate level, where legal arguments can be disputed and resolved.

[ASITStands]

Just of few points:

26 USC PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
6212: 6203--6204 27 Part 70
6330: NULL

§ 6211. Definition of a deficiency
(a) In general
For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term “deficiency” means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the excess of—
(1) the sum of
(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus
(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over—

...And what does the IRS never ever do... performs any assessment, whatsoever. So what does that mean... you got it!

Two suggestions: (1) The words, "... if a return was made by the taxpayer ..." go directly to the problem at hand. A 'Cracking the Code' return is treated as a "zero" return and fails the Beard test, and such is upheld by every court that has considered the issue.

And, (2) Just because any particular person has never seen the assessment record does not mean there's no assessment made. It's as has been argued before, "The government is not obligated to produce documentation in any particular format that satisfies the taxpayer."

There are such things as valid assessments. To say differently, only suggests ignorance, or to use a phrase perhaps more palpable to the reader, "only shows a lack of knowledge."

Don't base your conclusion on one reading of a statute or regulation. Provide case law.

[ASITStands]

What do you mean? It is written that way in the IRC itself. I would have thought you had read them thoroughly? Guess not.

Here perhaps have a reading of RA1862: http://defendindependence.org/IRS/RA/Re ... of1862.PDF

Oh and here: http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag ... recNum=673

Oh and, and, and... RA1913: http://defendindependence.org/IRS/RA/IncomeTax1913.PDF

You do understand that Statutes at Large routinely change, do you not?

What was enacted at one point by one Congress is routinely changed, edited, modified, and additions are added over time, that significantly change the outcome of some earlier laws.

For instance, "The 'sworn testimony' argument based on Sec. 93 is discussed here."

Pete Hendrickson was apprised of the amendment of Sec. 93 before the forum changed.

[ASITStands]

When I wrote the above, I had not known that 'Tax Protester' took his toys and went home.

However, one of the last posts in the previous thread interested me.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 583#p60583

I'd like a discussion on how those sentences are out of order. And, maybe a link.

I'll look for a link and look at the issue myself, but it would seem to be a valid point.

Thanks, 'Observer,' for pointing it out. And, "So long, Weston!"

[The Operative]

When I wrote the above, I had not known that 'Tax Protester' took his toys and went home.

However, one of the last posts in the previous thread interested me.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 583#p60583

I'd like a discussion on how those sentences are out of order. And, maybe a link.

I'll look for a link and look at the issue myself, but it would seem to be a valid point.

Thanks, 'Observer,' for pointing it out. And, "So long, Weston!"

Here is a link to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations...
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm
and
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c ... -4-ss1.htm
As with everything else he quotes, he does not understand it.