A Hypothetical for Bulten

[Nikki]

Okay, smartmouthbutnotbrain, show some legal citation that supports your brain-dead theory.

Prove that the only thing that puts someone working under the dominion of income tax law is that he must have a social security number.

Also, prove the distinction you allege between civil, common, and statutory law -- it's difficult to pick the right ones because you keep changing the terms in every other post.

Finally, why do you keep ignoring the fact that there are people who work in this country, legally, without a social security number, but are still liable for income taxes?

[LPC]

I'll let the jurat speak for its self.

And how about the 16th Amendment? Will you let it speak for itself also?

It speaks volumes about your "objectivism" that you consider the subjective beliefs of individuals (that have no basis in statutory law or historical fact) to be superior to the words of the Constitution, the words of statutes, or the objectivism of the judicial system.

Quakers say that "your life speaks," and your life screams "FRAUD!" (Or "IMBECILE!" You can take your pick.)

[LPC]

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete

Strange how you get it has nothing to do with what you personally believe when it clearly states "to my knowledge and belief".

You're assuming that "my knowledge and belief" is a reference to a purely subjective belief about the law.

But that doesn't make any sense. That would mean that we have a tax system in which every person can form an individualistic, idiosyncratic, possibly irrational, and completely unchallengeable view of what the law required that could never be contradicted or challenged by any court.

I prefer to think that the tax system is not so irrational.

[notorial dissent]

My interpretation would be: that to the best of my knowledge is what I know, or in Petey’s case has been judicially told, and that based on that, it is my belief, based on the law that I now know, that it is my belief, they(the forms) are true, correct and complete according to the law as I now know it. It is saying that the forms have been filled out correctly and completely according to the law, in this case as he was told the law was. He is filling out and completing the forms based on what the law says, not on what he wants it to say.

[Famspear]

From: Famspear
Monday, June 4, 2007

Dear tax protesters: I apologize in advance for the following entry, which, like all the other tedious entries here intending to help you find the strength to overcome your own delusion, involves taking up space in this forum with (heaven forbid!) accurate statements of what the law actually is:

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990): Tax evasion conviction under Internal Revenue Code section 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer’s argument -- that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable -- was rejected by the Court; taxpayer’s argument -- that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population -- also rejected.

Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9209 (5th Cir. 1984): Taxpayer's argument -- that wages are not taxable -- was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; taxpayer charged double costs for filing a frivolous appeal.

Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984): Internal Revenue Code section 61 ruled by United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be “in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states”; taxpayer’s argument -- that wages paid for labor are non-taxable -- was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous.

White v. United States, 2005-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,289 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____ (2005): Taxpayer’s argument that wages are not taxable was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; penalty -- imposed under section 6702 for filing tax return with frivolous position -- was therefore proper.

Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9660 (7th Cir. 1984): Taxpayer’s argument that wages are not taxable was rejected, and ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, CCH Dec. 35,354 (1978), aff’d per curiam, 614 F.2d 159, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9162 (8th Cir. 1980): Taxpayer's argument -- that gain from labor of self-employed individual cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor" has been subtracted from the amount received -- was rejected; validity of Internal Revenue Code section 262, disallowing deductions for personal living expenses, was upheld.

United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 81-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9126 (9th Cir. 1980): Taxpayer's theory -- that wages were not taxable because (1) "only profit or gain, such as that from the sale of a capital asset, constituted income subject to federal tax" and (2) "[w]ages could not constitute gain or profit because wages merely represent an equivalent exchange for one's labor" -- was rejected by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Carter v. Commissioner,784 F.2d 1006, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9279 (9th Cir. 1986); United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit states: "The assertion that proceeds received for personal services cannot be given a 'zero-basis for the purpose of the assessment of taxation,' is frivolous. This is a variation of the 'wages are not income' theme, which has been rejected repeatedly by this court.”

Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F.2d 1389, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9512 (11th Cir. 1985): Taxpayer’s argument -- that income taxation of wages is unconstitutional -- was rejected by United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; taxpayer required to pay damages for filing frivolous suit.

Link v. Commissioner, CCH Dec. 56,565(M), T.C. Memo. 2006-146 (2006): Taxpayer's argument -- that pension income is "labor property" and that when taxpayer receives his pension income from his former employer for whom he once performed services (or labor), any amount he receives in exchange for his labor is a nontaxable exchange of equal value -- was rejected by the United States Tax Court.

Gee, I wonder why, after a remand in the most recent tax protester case decided by the United States Supreme Court, Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), the taxpayer’s asserted belief that wages were not taxable didn’t keep the tax protester out of jail. Why oh why didn’t the jury believe that he merely had a good faith misunderstanding based on the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code? And why oh why was his conviction upheld on appeal? And why, when he took it back to the U.S. Supreme Court, did the Supreme Court simply (so sorry) decline to hear his case? Why did he have to spend time in Federal prison? United States v. Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112 (1994).

Could it be that most Americans, including most juries in Federal tax cases, are smarter than the tax protesters? Maybe Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun was on to something when he wrote:

----“It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with ‘the complexity of the tax laws,’ [ . . ] but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income? [ . . . ] t is incomprehensible to me how, in this day [year 1991], more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.”

Yours, Famspear

[Famspear]

Can you pass the Blackmun Minimal Intellectual Competence Test?

[John J. Bulten]

SteveSy, my man! Thanks for your help holding the fort on this topic. Have you checked out the 109-page legal memo that appears to bring the 861 argument up to date? Not that I agree with all 109 pages, but it's a start. http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf . Did you notice that when I get this much vituperation in 24 hours it always happens when I lay out my best arguments? Watch them fume at this:

JG: Most people with human hearts recognize when judges are refusing to listen to evidence, changing testimony to align with a predetermined conclusion, and ordering people to lie about their beliefs. These people, who often serve on juries, are not swayed by the dead cobwebby shadows of your zombified law.

Nikki: You are confusing two points. My earnings are not Subtitle C wages; nor do they derive Subtitle A gross income. There is no need for an exception making my compensation not wages, because there is no law making my compensation wages in the first place. There is no need to expand the definition of wages beyond Subtitle C because there is no reference bringing them into Subtitle A as wages. The nature of the law has not changed in this respect since 1862, when some salaries derived income equal to their value and some did not; and yes that is the legislative history of 26 USC clearly showing that Congress intended the income tax to apply to, not a subset of employees, but a subset of salaries or compensation or earnings.

Natty: Simply consider a cop who witnesses a violent death. He testifies "I saw the death" (fact, knowledge) and "I believe it was murder" (law, belief). Even if it was actually manslaughter and his belief about the law is wrong, it would be perjury to say "I believe it was manslaughter", and subornation to suggest he say that-- EVEN IF the suggester thinks it was manslaughter.

Wes: When Nancy and Robert and their friends are in court to determine if they conspired to suborn perjury, they don't get to frame the issue the way you want it. Undeniably, they conspired to order Pete to testify that payments were income to the best of his belief, and undeniably, Pete does not believe they were income. There is very little wiggle room for them before a prosecutor.

Dan: Someone ought to remind you every thread that US v Hendrickson is still being fought in the 6th Circuit. You also seem to think unaccountably that legal opinions are "objective" if you're wearing a robe and "subjective" if not.

Paul: Of course you can compel people to testify truthfully, that's the whole point. But you can't compel them to testify what is false. "I believe it was income" is false. "The court says it was income" is true, but is not the testimony being directed. The notion that he doesn't believe he earned wages is perfectly correct and exactly the issue, but you brush it aside as nonsense. You then spout real nonsense, the idea that "he may believe that ... his wages aren't taxable income", because you would rather he believed that-- it is easier for you shills to understand and rule on. You then say the court has ruled he is wrong on that belief, without realizing he doesn't believe it. You then say that he had wages is a fact, but that is a legal conclusion too. Compelling him to testify to the facts would only cause him to testify that he received payments. The 1040 compels him to testify to his legal beliefs also, i.e., those payments were or were not 3121/3401 wages. See reply to Natty.

Quixote: When a judge's findings of law are contrary to the law as written, which often happens, there is no such thing as compliance, because no one can comply with contradictory orders; and there is no shortcut to getting it right, because there is no right left.

Dezcad: I was so proud of you, you almost got it! The facts are not in dispute, only the legal conclusion; and this distinction is significant as you say. Now simply add the fact that the 1040 requires him to testify about his legal conclusions (beliefs) as well as the facts, and your circuit of understanding will be complete. We could even take a side trail: what if the judge simply ordered Pete to swear that he received the payments? That would neither generate a tax, nor be fruitful, because Pete has already sworn up and down he received the payments. The only part of the order that generates the tax is Pete swearing to a legal conclusion, that he believes payments were income. They can't generate the tax any other way in this case, which shows how helpless they are.

Famspear: Nice try, but "if you know you received wages" is not the case here. In your extended hypothetical, you are requiring someone to swear he is aware of a "train" when he has sworn (said) he is not aware of a train; this would not actually happen. If you made him swear instead that someone warned him of a train, he could easily do so. In your hypothetical he's aware "that's not a train" and he's also "aware of the approaching train". That's believing a contradiction, which IS stupid, but doesn't apply here. You next imagine that on a 1040 I am swearing my awareness (knowledge) of the legal conclusion but NOT my belief of the legal conclusion, completely contrary to the 1040 jurat format. If Pete could strike out "and belief", you might have a point, but he's not allowed to. All through, you pretend Pete's position is "wages are not taxable" when it is not, and that you are talking to "tax protestors" when we uphold the tax as enacted. You may retry the hypothetical, but if you match the case properly you will not have any argument left. PS: The more obstinately and consistently the court refuses to contradict directly anything Pete says (except one sentence taken out of context), the stronger the ground for the jury to conclude the court does NOT have a good-faith belief that Pete is wrong. PPS: So you think the tax law and collections call for Pete merely to swear "I received payments and Judge Nancy says they're income": you fail to realize that that would not perfect the DOJ's remedy nor be in compliance with Judge Nancy's order (and in fact, their remedy is impossible). PPPS: You show your bias in the end saying that "the law is what the courts rule the law is". You confuse judicial with legislative and oligarchy with Constitutional republic.

Notorial: you might try that again without holding that bottle. The problem is, Pete has been told by Congress itself in the SAL and Code what the law is, and by the court that it's something different. Faced with such a contradiction, you cannot hold that Pete has been told the law says something unequivocal or demonstrable. No one can obey contradictory orders, which is why despots find them so convenient.

Courts: I agree with you that wages are taxable; that income tax is not required to be apportioned; that section 61 is Constitutional; that the "self-employed" cannot deduct cost of doing labor under section 262; that income is not strictly limited to profit or gain; that wages do not represent equivalent exchange for labor; that proceeds for "personal services" can be given a zero basis when included in an assessment for taxation; that wages are income; that income taxation of wages is Constitutional; that pension income is not labor property; that pension income is not an exchange of equal value; and that competent "taxpayers" should recognize wages are income.

Cool, I could've maxed out the thread just by replying to everyone separately. Well, instead it's: FREE-FOR-ALL!

[Famspear]

Dear Mr. Bulten: Let's look at this statement:

--"You show your bias in the end saying that 'the law is what the courts rule the law is'. You confuse judicial with legislative and oligarchy with Constitutional republic."

Well, no, that's incorrect. I am not "biased." I am stating what the law is. Under the U.S. legal system, the law is what the courts say the law is. It is emphatically the duty of the courts to say what the law is (paraphrasing Marbury v. Madison). As one of my law professors, a former dean of the law school, said in class one day (paraphrase): The law is what a given judge does to you on a given day in a given court room. Yours, Famspear

[Quixote]

Did you notice that when I get this much vituperation in 24 hours it always happens when I lay out my best arguments?

That would difficult inasmuch as you have yet to make any argument. You have agreed that in every instance of someone receiving money in exchange for labor the income derived is equal to the value of the money received. Yet you insist that your case is special for some reason you have yet to divulge. When were you planning on providing an argument?

[Quixote]

Under the U.S. legal system, the law is what the courts say the law is.

I disagree. If that were true, then statutory provisions for which no judicial interpretation exists would not be the law. The law is what a court would say the law is.

[Famspear]

Dear Mr. Bulten

Actually, my train hypo was in response to SteveSy. I haven't really studied "Pete" or his arguments in detail, and my listing of the case laws on taxation of wages and labor, etc., wasn't directed at "Pete" or his arguments, whatever they are. I apologize - I should have simply put that material in an entirely new thread, to avoid confusion.

Suffice to say that it's enough if you understand the bottom line: There is no legal inconsistency where a tax protester who disagrees with the law (or believes that the law is not what the courts rule the law is) signs a tax return with the the jurat as prescribed reporting wages, etc., in a way that contradicts the protester's own belief about what the law is. Stated another way, the tax protester has no legal ground for complaint merely because the law requires him to sign the jurat and report, as taxable, the income he believes is not really taxable. That may not seem fair to you or me, but that's it. Yours, Famspear

[Quixote]

Quixote: When a judge's findings of law are contrary to the law as written, which often happens, there is no such thing as compliance, because no one can comply with contradictory orders; and there is no shortcut to getting it right, because there is no right left.

But that is not the case here. The judge's findings of law were in accordance with the law as written. If they weren't, you could point out where they differ from the law as written. You haven't, because you can't. The best argument you can come up with is that there might be some accounting method under which PH did not have income. Even for a troll, that's just sad.

[Famspear]

Quixote, you may be as much of a hair splitter as I am. You are correct; but my statement that the "law is what the courts say the law is" is circumlocutory (and is correct on that basis). As you may know (I'm new here and I don't recall whether you're a lawyer), courts do this all the time (make statements that are connotatively true but denotatively incorrect).

For example, I believe I've read somewhere - it may have been in a court case - that if you borrow money to buy an asset, the debt is included in your basis in that asset. We all know what that means, and it's correct in the sense in which it's intended -- but if taken literally it's not correct. Borrowing money to buy an asset does not itself give you basis in the asset; what gives you basis is actually investing the proceeds of the borrowing in that asset (investing the proceeds in the purchase). For example, you could borrow the money "to buy" the asset and then perhaps divert the funds to some other use. In such case, no court is going to agree that the amount of the debt is included in the basis in that asset - even though we may say, colloquially or connotatively, or in a circumlocutory way, that "if you borrow money to buy an asset, the debt is included in your basis in that asset."

But anyway, you're right. -- Famspear

[Famspear]

Dear Mr. Bulten: Oh, regarding this comment:

"You confuse judicial with legislative and oligarchy with Constitutional republic."

No, that's incorrect. First, I do not confuse "judicial" with "legislative."

It is true that in grade school we were taught that the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces or executes the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. This standard is true in a general sense, but not in its particulars. Here's why.

Under the U.S. legal system, the judicial branch of government also makes "laws" in a technical legal sense. Much of the law made by the judicial branch is called "case law." New case law is created every day. And our legal system comes to us from something called "English common law." The English law of property, the law of crimes, the laws of contract and torts (even before they were called contract law and tort law), etc., were examples of common law -- primarily judge-made law, primarily based on judicial precedents.

The executive branch under our legal system also makes "law" in the technical legal sense. Treasury regulations are an example of this kind of law.

If you really believe that I or any other lawyer here is confusing "judicial with legislative", you have my permission to add that to your list of delusions about the law, which appear to be many. This is pretty basic stuff, fella. I can pretty much guarantee you that every tax lawyer in this forum, myself included, is doing this for fun. This is relaxing for me because I deal with REAL tax problems with REAL complexity for real clients. Tax protester stuff is one of the easy parts of tax law.

Next, I do not confuse "oligarchy" with "constitutional republic." An "oligarchy" is "government by the few" or "a government in which a small group exercises control esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 800 (8th Ed. 1976). I know the difference between an oligarchy and a constitutional republic, and you do too -- so can the rhetoric. You are overstating your case.

I do agree with you that there is too much vituperation in this forum and I wish the level of that sort of thing could be toned down. I am new here and I don't like to see that sort of thing. That doesn't mean that I won't be somewhat hard on you or other tax protesters from time to time. Like a prosecutor in a criminal trial, I may strike hard blows, but I must strike only fair blows.

Society has granted me and every other lawyer here a license to pontificate about what the law is. We are here to lay down the law - literally. I suspect that many of the experts with whom you are dealing have been coming here for the purpose of having fun and for the purpose of teaching tax protesters, not to persuade them. Whether you accept the teaching is up to you. Having dealt with many tax protesters, I have to say that most protesters cannot or do not work themselves out of the pattern of delusional thinking which is at the heart of tax protester beliefs. Good luck to you.

Regards, Famspear

[wserra]

Wes: When Nancy and Robert and their friends are in court to determine if they conspired to suborn perjury, they don't get to frame the issue the way you want it. Undeniably, they conspired to order Pete to testify that payments were income to the best of his belief, and undeniably, Pete does not believe they were income. There is very little wiggle room for them before a prosecutor.

Of all the moronic things Bulten has posted here, this one has got to get some sort of award. Instead of responding to the settled law I posted concerning Judge Edmonds' power to direct Hendrickson to file accurate returns, he postulates that she and the AUSA/AAG (I assume that's who "Robert" is) will be charged criminally.

It's actually pretty pathetic. One pictures Bulten alone in the wee hours of the morning, awake and fantasizing about that pair in the dock. He appears to be so far gone that he believes that there is some chance - any chance - of that happening. Who is that prosecutor before whom they won't have any "wiggle room" going to be, you?

Well, John, I'll tell you what. I'll bet you $5000 that neither is ever criminally charged with anything in relation to anything Hendrickson. We'll extend the term of the bet all the way to the end of the five-year SOL. Not that I don't trust you, but we'll use an escrow holder and a simple written agreement. Not enough to get your attention? OK, how about $10,000?

Oh, you weren't serious about that actually happening? So your only answer to clear case citations is jerking off in public.

[SteveSy]

Steve, you seem to agree that the judge can order PH to file a correct income tax return. (Correct me if I'm wrong about your belief.) If so, then the judge could make PH file returns unti he gets it right, imposing a monetary penalty for contempt each time PH fails to comply. Eventually, PH will be penniless, or in jail, or he will comply. All the judge has done is taken a short cut to the same result.

I think he can be forced to divulge the figures as the court thinks he should. I do not believe they can make PH sign the return attesting to his personal belief its an accurate representation of what is required of him by law. Namely placing figures on the wage line when he believes he had no wages.

[Nikki]

Nikki: You are confusing two points. My earnings are not Subtitle C wages; nor do they derive Subtitle A gross income. There is no need for an exception making my compensation not wages, because there is no law making my compensation wages in the first place. There is no need to expand the definition of wages beyond Subtitle C because there is no reference bringing them into Subtitle A as wages. The nature of the law has not changed in this respect since 1862, when some salaries derived income equal to their value and some did not; and yes that is the legislative history of 26 USC clearly showing that Congress intended the income tax to apply to, not a subset of employees, but a subset of salaries or compensation or earnings.

You have it totally backwards and have shot yourself in the foot at the same time.

The tax code specifically includes "compensation for personal services" in income. Nowhere does it say that they have to be wages.

You receive compensation for personal services. That is included in your income for the purpose of calculating gross income.

Thank you for slamming the door so tightly on yourself.

[.]

I don't like to see that sort of thing

You'll get over it.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy - I think your response supports my position, not yours. Again, remember that what you're attesting to when you sign a tax return is primarily factual. You yourself are agreeing in your reference to the language of the jurat.

I really do appreciate your responses, they are refreshingly thorough even if I believe they are not on point.

Yes, there are legal questions bound up in the process of determining how to properly report income, deductions and credits, and in signing and filing the return. But you seem to want to cling tenaciously to this false idea that somehow the statutes, the regs, the tax collector, the tax forms (including the language of the jurat) and the related tax form instructions are somehow asking the tax protester to report his income in accordance with his own legal conclusion based on his own personal, good faith belief about the taxability of wages (to use our example) even where the protester is already AWARE that his interpretation has been rejected by the IRS, or the DOJ, or the courts, or the vast majority of lawyers and CPAs who study the tax law, or some combination of these. You are wrong.

Again, you might have a point IF those very same forms were not used at a later time to prove the defendant does not hold a certain belief. They are and that's where your argument falls flat on its face.

Signing the jurat is not just a matter of law, as the powers that be see it, it is attesting to your belief that the figures provided in the lines they are provided in is to your knowledge and belief accurate. Since you are attesting to this fact, which is obvious by the language of the jurat, it is evidence of such and the form can and will be used against you at a later time to prove you believe you are required to file in the way you filed.
I do not believe you will accept my position because it’s fatal to yours. I will not accept yours because in my opinion the facts are blatantly obvious which prove you wrong.

Being made aware or informed of something does not constitute a required change in belief. People in authority who have been declared the ultimate arbiters on facts and law have been proven wrong. The Earth is the center of the universe is a good example. Certainly it would have been wrong for the Pope to force someone to admit, by means of a signed statement, they believe the theory is correct when they did not. This is especially true when that very same signed statement is used to prove they are lying for economic benefit about promoting the fact that they do believe it. Obviously they cannot believe what they say they believe if just recently they admitted, by a signed statement, they believed something other than what they are promoting.

The jurat is not worded in such a way that it attests the accuracy as the courts or IRS sees it. It’s worded and used by the DOJ to show you personally believe the numbers reflected on the form are in the correct sections and the numbers are true and accurate regardless of what someone else has said. In short the jurat reflects what you believe as the signor, not what anything else has said.

[Demosthenes]

Thread's too long. Start a new one to continue the conversation.