Hendrickson explains how U.S. Tax Court works

[Famspear]

In a thread over at losthorizons, Pete Hendrickson (ForumAdmin) pontificates:

..........Walbaum [an alleged follower of Hendrickson's tax scam who lost in court] acknowledged that he was SUBJECTED to withholding, not that he was subject to it. This is just a pretense of misunderstanding by the judge, and as such, not an exploitation of something left undone by Walbaum (presuming that he is, in fact, CtC-educated, and acted accordingly) but rather a plain evasion of Walbaum's otherwise insurmountable position.

It is also clear error, if the issue in this matter was Walbaum's rebuttal of a "notice of deficiency".

In a "notice of deficiency" and its related procedures, the government makes an assertion, and by way of his petition to Tax Court and related submissions, the target [the taxpayer] makes his answer (or, by silence, defaults in favor of the motion/assertion). As such, government bears a positive burden of proof.......

In support of his theory, Hendrickson proceeds to cite Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Let's see now. Pete is saying that the government (respondent), not the taxpayer (petitioner), bears the burden of proof in U.S. Tax Court. He goes on:

Further, the court's obligation is to treat the petitioner's assertions-- and all reasonable inferences therefrom-- as true...

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2454

Amazing...... Up to now virtually every tax lawyer and Tax Court judge in the United States thought that the burden of proof in general rested on the taxpayer -- the petitioner -- in U.S. Tax Court. Thank goodness Peter was here to straighten us out.

[Nikki]

Aren't there also a couple of minor technicalities in the law which place the burden of proof on the petitioner -- except for a few specific circumstances?

Or are those the sections of the law which don't count because we're dealing with wages and not with income?

[Famspear]

Internal Revenue Code section 7453:

Except in the case of proceedings conducted under section 7436 (c) or 7463, the proceedings of the Tax Court and its divisions shall be conducted in accordance with such rules of practice and procedure (other than rules of evidence) as the Tax Court may prescribe and in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in trials without a jury in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.

From the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Tax Court (eff. Jan. 1, 2010):

RULE 142. BURDEN OF PROOF

(a) General: (1) The burden of proof shall be upon the petitioner, except as otherwise provided by statute or determined by the Court; and except that, in respect of any new matter, increases in deficiency, and affirmative defenses, pleaded in the answer, it shall be upon the respondent. As to affirmative defenses, see Rule 39.

(2) See Code section 7491 where credible evidence is introduced by the taxpayer, or any item of income is reconstructed by the Commissioner solely through the use of statistical information on unrelated taxpayers, or any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount is determined by the Commissioner.

(b) Fraud: In any case involving the issue of fraud with intent to evade tax, the burden of proof in respect of that issue is on the respondent, and that burden of proof is to be carried by clear and convincing evidence. Code sec. 7454(a).

(c) Foundation Managers; Trustees; Organization Managers [text not reproduced here]

(bolding added).

In his post, Pete does mention section 7491.

[Famspear]

Aren't there also a couple of minor technicalities in the law which place the burden of proof on the petitioner -- except for a few specific circumstances?

Or are those the sections of the law which don't count because we're dealing with wages and not with income?

I would say that in Pete's eyes, none of the real law really counts -- because we're dealing with the PeterEricBlowhardMeister.

[Famspear]

As early as 1933, the United States Supreme Court thought that the ruling (i.e., the determination) of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had "the support of a presumption of correctness," and that "the petitioner has the burden of proving it to be wrong." Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933) (affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, affirming the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, predecessor of the U.S. Tax Court).

Aren't we glad we have His PontificatingPeterness with us now, to straighten everyone out?

[notorial dissent]

Or, we have something else to laugh at.

[LOBO]

Someone got creative with the disallowance also.

"The income you’re excluding should be included in your gross income. Internal Revenue Code section 61 defines gross income as all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that isn’t exempt from tax. The income we are referring to is wage income, reduced to zero on your Forms 4852.

The Forms 4852 associated with your Form 1040X were not filed in accordance with the laws of mathematics, as it is not possible to withhold the taxes shown on Forms 4852 from zero wages"

Laws of mathematics?

[Doktor Avalanche]

[fortinbras]

The Tax Court's rule on this is entirely reasonable in light of the law of evidence generally; the factual assertions in govt reports - especially from govt agencies that have special expertise in the topic at hand - are presumed accurate. Therefore the IRS calculations or estimates of tax liability are presumed to be accurate, but it's a presumption that the litigant (the petitioner) can overcome with something resembling hard evidence to the contrary. Mere sayso doesn't do it. The petitioner essentially has to put his financial cards on the table. As most time these cases begin because the petitioner has been less than forthcoming about his financial details, you can guess why the win-loss record is rather lopsided.

[Famspear]

As noted above, over at losthorizons, in his assertion about the burden of proof in U.S. Tax Court, Peter Hendrickson wrote:

In a "notice of deficiency" and its related procedures, the government makes an assertion, and by way of his petition to Tax Court and related submissions, the target [the taxpayer] makes his answer (or, by silence, defaults in favor of the motion/assertion). As such, government bears a positive burden of proof.......

But now, Crackhead "SilverEye", in a discussion with other Crackheads, writes:

.........My questions relate to when you land in Tax Court, how are you going to fight the battle? Remember, in tax court, you are the petitioner/plaintiff and therefore you, not the IRS, bears the burden of proof.......

(bolding added).

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 71df#23893

Careful there, SilverEye! You don't want to join the swelling ranks of the Banned Crackhead Users, now do you?

[Famspear]

The Blowhard In Chief, the Fabulous Felon, the Pontificating PrisonBoundPeterMeister does seem to have a problem with understanding procedure and terminology in U.S. Tax Court. As pointed out before, His Blowhardiness has also written on his losthorizons web site that the term "deficiency" as used in an official IRS Notice of Deficiency and in U.S. Tax Court deficiency procedures means the amount of unpaid tax.

It does not. The term "deficiency" in this context means the EXCESS of the amount that the IRS asserts is the tax OVER the amount the individual showed as tax on his return -- with BOTH amounts computed WITHOUT DEDUCTING the amount withheld, etc. (In some but not all cases, the "deficiency" amount will, of course, also be equal to the amount of unpaid tax.)