The Hendrickson newletter

[Demosthenes]

So I'm slogging through Pete's latest newsletter dated 5/18/2007 and read this bit:

CtC Warriors Thwart Five IRS Summonses!

Using the law revealed at http://www.losthorizons.com/RespondingToTheAssault.htm , CtC Warriors Dave and Toby Taylor responded last Dec mber to five IRS "third-party record-keeper" summonses for information from their banks and other financial service-providers with a well-crafted "Petition to Quash". The consequence is nicely summarized by the DOJ here. Well done, Dave and Toby!

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/taximag ... ismiss.pdf

[Demosthenes]

While I'm reading the above, I receive an email with the following court ruling.

5th Cir.

No. 06-51642

May 17, 2007
_______________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

DAVID S. TAYLOR;
TOBY C. TAYLOR,
Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
BANK OF AMERICA,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(1:06-CV-502)


Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David and Toby Taylor challenge, pro se, the district court's denial of their petition to quash two summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to Bank of America requesting their bank records. They were issued in furtherance of the IRS' investigating Appellants' 2003-2005 tax liability. Appellants assert three claims, all of which lack merit.

First, Appellants contend the IRS lacks authority to issue summonses for their bank records because, inter alia, "the Internal Revenue Code is not the law". (Emphasis added). Contrary to Appellants' contentions, Title 26 of the United States Code grants the IRS expansive information-gathering authority, including the power to issue summonses to compel disclosure. E.g., 26 U.S.C. §§7602 (authorizing IRS to examine records, issue summonses, and take testimony to verify tax returns and determine tax liability) and 7609 (authorizing the IRS to "compel compliance with the summons"); see also United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984).

Second, Appellants contend they are not within any class of persons to whom the IRS may issue summonses, and the summonses lack a legitimate purpose. Section 7602(a) authorizes the IRS to issue summonses concerning "any person for any internal revenue tax". 26 U.S.C. §7602(a) (emphasis added). Third-party summonses, like those issued here, are explicitly authorized under 26 U.S.C. §7602(a)(2). The burden on the Government to establish a prima facie case to enforce a summons is "slight" or "minimal". Mazurek v. United States, 271 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) (identifying four factors the IRS must establish for summons enforcement). For the reasons stated by the district court, the IRS satisfied the Powell factors. Concomitantly,

Appellants have not fulfilled their "heavy" burden of rebutting the Government's prima facie case. Mazurek, 271 F.3d at 230.

Finally, Appellants, United States citizens residing in Texas, claim the IRS lacks jurisdiction to investigate their tax liability or enforce tax laws. This contention is nonsensical. See, e.g., Powell, 379 U.S. at 50-51; Barquero v. United States, 18 F.3d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED

[.]

Well done, Dave and Toby!

Way to go! It's always good when idiots who buy the BS make fools of themselves on the public record.

[Nikki]

Now why would Criminal Investigation order that third-party summonses be revoked?

Could it be that a more significant criminal case is being developed?

[LPC]

While I'm reading the above, I receive an email with the following court ruling.

5th Cir.

No. 06-51642

May 17, 2007
_______________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

DAVID S. TAYLOR;
TOBY C. TAYLOR,
Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
BANK OF AMERICA,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(1:06-CV-502)


Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David and Toby Taylor challenge, pro se, the district court's denial of their petition to quash two summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to Bank of America requesting their bank records. They were issued in furtherance of the IRS' investigating Appellants' 2003-2005 tax liability. Appellants assert three claims, all of which lack merit.

First, Appellants contend the IRS lacks authority to issue summonses for their bank records because, inter alia, "the Internal Revenue Code is not the law". (Emphasis added).

OhMyGod, it's deja vu all over again.

See Steven E. Borchert v. United States, 2007 TNT 96-8, No. 06-4418 (7th Cir. 5/16/2007) (http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=566);

And

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=576

[webhick]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein

[Joey Smith]

Of course, the mail bomber will not talk about defeats in his newsletters. That might cut the revenue stream out from under the two-bit con artist.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Of course, the mail bomber will not talk about defeats in his newsletters. That might cut the revenue stream out from under the two-bit con artist.

I bet you come on stage after the magician's act to explain how he does all the tricks.

[John J. Bulten]

Of course, the mail bomber .... the two-bit con artist.

Joey, do you realize that every time you say that you look more pitiful? Do you expect different results this time or something?

So that's 5 victories and 2 defeats for the Taylors in quashing summonses? Good record so far.

It was not Albert Einstein but Rita Mae Brown who said that quote above. But then, I don't expect any different results than I got the last time I said these things.

[Nikki]

How is it a victory when a civil summons is terminated by a Criminal Investigation office?

You really don't have a clue, do you?

[The Observer]

How is it a victory when a civil summons is terminated by a Criminal Investigation office?

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Nikki, you have forgotten Tax Protestor Lesson 11 - Lesson of the Black Knight:

"Any time you avoid getting hit by the full force of the government, you are allowed to claim victory - regardless of how many limbs you lost in the process."

[Joey Smith]

So that's 5 victories and 2 defeats for the Taylors in quashing summonses? Good record so far.

Only in the sense of the man who fell off a building and halfway down said, "So far, so good!"

Nobody has ever actually "won" with CtC. A few idiots have put off their tax payments temporarily and sometimes even had money sent to them after they filed bogus returns, but not a single court anywhere has even started to hint that the mail bomber's theories *might* hold water -- directly to the contrary, ever time a court has had to weigh in on any CtCer they've gone down in flames.

[grammarian44]

It was not Albert Einstein but Rita Mae Brown who said that quote above. But then, I don't expect any different results than I got the last time I said these things.

On the web, you can find the quote attributed to Einstein, Rita Mae Brown, Rudyard Kipling, and even Benjamin Franklin.

Who cares who said it first? It's still the truest thing ever said about tax protestors.

[Quixote]

So that's 5 victories and 2 defeats for the Taylors in quashing summonses?

No, that's 0 victories, 2 defeats, and 5 delays of game.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Of course, the mail bomber .... the two-bit con artist.

Joey, do you realize that every time you say that you look more pitiful? Do you expect different results this time or something?

We just call 'em the way we see 'em, John.

[LPC]

Of course, the mail bomber .... the two-bit con artist.

Joey, do you realize that every time you say that you look more pitiful? Do you expect different results this time or something?

Typical Bultenism. We're "pitiful" because we keep repeating the truth after Bulten has announced he's going to ignore it.

[Randall]

Of course, the mail bomber .... the two-bit con artist.

Joey, do you realize that every time you say that you look more pitiful?

You're right. He left out "scumsucking" as in why would anyone defend the mail bombing, scumsucking, two-bit con artist?

[John J. Bulten]

Pete has asked to disseminate this explanation:

There were two separate actions the Taylors were being subjected to. The petition to quash that was just ruled on by the appellate court had been filed last winter (2006) well before I had developed the position on this subject. Although much of what I ended up posting was added into the Taylor's arguments with the appellate court, the petition and affidavit are the key, as the appellate court can really go no further than those docs went. The five thwarted summonses were ... issued last autumn and competently addressed in December, with the results as posted. Please do what you can to ensure that this is made known to any with an interest.

[Demosthenes]

There were two separate actions the Taylors were being subjected to.

Duh.

[Dezcad]

Pete has asked to disseminate this explanation:

There were two separate actions the Taylors were being subjected to. The petition to quash that was just ruled on by the appellate court had been filed last winter (2006) well before I had developed the position on this subject. Although much of what I ended up posting was added into the Taylor's arguments with the appellate court, the petition and affidavit are the key, as the appellate court can really go no further than those docs went. The five thwarted summonses were ... issued last autumn and competently addressed in December, with the results as posted. Please do what you can to ensure that this is made known to any with an interest.

Does anyone have any verifiable evidence that John and Pete are two separate people?

Or is John J. Bulten a nom de plume?