No way that this is fluke, the latest page of victories show those who have multiple years of refunds.
What my eyes see is clear evidence of the proper application of the IRC.
Using that line of reasoning, such as it is, the slavery reparations tax credit is also a "proper application of the IRC" since refunds have been issued in that scam.
On the other hand, see
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-12_IRB/ar13.html for a more standard method of determing if such a reparations credit is a "proper application".
No law, including the Internal Revenue Code, allows taxpayers to claim a reparations tax credit or any other similarly-named credit. Courts repeatedly have rejected reparations tax credit claims as frivolous and penalized taxpayers making these claims and promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayer in making these frivolous claims. See, e.g., United States v. Bridges, 86 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5280 (4th Cir. 2000) (rejecting as frivolous the non-existent “Black Tax Credit” and upholding conviction for aiding and assisting the preparation of false tax returns); United States v. Haugabook, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25314 (M.D. Ga. 2002) (ordering a permanent injunction against a promoter prohibiting the preparation of returns or other documents claiming a tax credit for slavery reparations or other similar frivolous credits and requiring that the promoter place an advertisement in the local newspaper declaring that there are no such tax credits); United States v. Mims, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25291 (S.D. Ga. 2002) (ordering a permanent injunction against a promoter prohibiting the preparation of returns or other documents claiming a tax credit for slavery reparations or other similar frivolous credits); United States v. Foster, 2002-2 U.S.T.C. (CCH) ¶ 50,785 (E.D. Va. 2002) (holding “no provision of the Internal Revenue Code allows for a tax credit for slavery reparations” and ordering a permanent injunction prohibiting the preparation of returns or refund claims based on a “fabricated tax credit for slavery reparations”).
The issuance of a refund is evidence that a refund has been processed and is not in any manner indicative of the propriety of the claims on the tax return that claimed the refund. The decision in Hendrickson's case is a recent example of the later determination and recovery of a false refund claim.
That CtC refunds continue to be issued may be evidence that the IRS is too kind and gentle in issuing refunds prior to any review of the basis for the claim. Unfortunately, screening for invalid refunds does affect legitimate refund claims; so it seems that the IRS errs on the side of speed of processing over verifying the legitamacy of the return.
That Hendrickson and Ctc can exploit the weakness of the processing of refunds is not any credit to those claiming such false and fraudulent refunds. My guess as to why these refunds are still processed relates to the decrepit computing system of the IRS.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
