Tax Protester FAQ Challenge

[LPC]

LPC, Edward Flaherty is your typical academic hack, making use of 'guilt-by-association,' half truths, and misconstruction. Ease [sic] to see through.

Translation: Someone who has credentials and makes sense, and presents evidence Harvester can't refute and doesn't want to deal with.

[LPC]

Meanwhile:

So, this thread is for you, Harvester (aka Nationwide, aka johnthetaxist). Point to *ONE* (just *one*) statement in my FAQ that is in any way misleading or deceptive.

[LPC]

On your FAQ, you list the following link:
Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (Edward Flaherty)
It does not work.

What do I win?

Yes, I found that earlier today.

But I'm not responsible for web pages that move. My challenge to point to something that is wrong with my web page is a challenge to point to something that is wrong substantively, not wrong in a technical or procedural sense.

[ASITStands]

On your FAQ, you list the following link:
Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (Edward Flaherty)
It does not work.

What do I win?

Yes, I found that earlier today.

But I'm not responsible for web pages that move. My challenge to point to something that is wrong with my web page is a challenge to point to something that is wrong substantively, not wrong in a technical or procedural sense.

Here's the correct link:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flahe ... serve.html

[buck09]

My challenge to point to something that is wrong with my web page is a challenge to point to something that is wrong substantively, not wrong in a technical or procedural sense.

Uhhh... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?

[Famspear]

... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?

Good point. The concept of substance over form -- which is so fundamental for people who study federal income tax law -- is just too complicated for many of those people to grasp.

[Brandybuck]

But... but... they forgot to dot an 'i', therefore Ohio wasn't a state in 1916 so the sixteenth wasn't ratified proving that the Rothschilds own us and sacrifice our babies at Bohemian Grove!

[Pottapaug1938]

... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?

Good point. The concept of substance over form -- which is so fundamental for people who study federal income tax law -- is just too complicated for many of those people to grasp.

It's also too politically unpleasant -- it makes no provisions for Magic Words which, once cited (chanted?) or invoked will cast the forces of Tax Evil back into the Unholy Darkness from whence they sprang.

[LPC]

... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?

Good point. The concept of substance over form -- which is so fundamental for people who study federal income tax law -- is just too complicated for many of those people to grasp.

I have a different view, which is that substance is easy for people to understand, but that the forms of transactions that are found in tax law are complicated and difficult to understand. Lawyers (or at least good lawyers) learn that substance controls over form, but tax protesters get enchanted by the idea that you can change the tax consequences of a transaction by changing the form, and so they believe that they can do what lawyers do if they can just learn the right magic words to describe the form of the transaction.

In other words, the problem is not that the distinction between form and substance is too difficult to understand, but that they don't *want* to understand. Substance is too fixed and real and depressingly immutable. Form is the key to changing how the law applies to them, and so they focus on the forms, and the magic words, and the court procedures, because it's the only hope they've got.

[ASITStands]

I have a different view, which is that substance is easy for people to understand, but that the forms of transactions that are found in tax law are complicated and difficult to understand. Lawyers (or at least good lawyers) learn that substance controls over form, but tax protesters get enchanted by the idea that you can change the tax consequences of a transaction by changing the form, and so they believe that they can do what lawyers do if they can just learn the right magic words to describe the form of the transaction.

In other words, the problem is not that the distinction between form and substance is too difficult to understand, but that they don't *want* to understand. Substance is too fixed and real and depressingly immutable. Form is the key to changing how the law applies to them, and so they focus on the forms, and the magic words, and the court procedures, because it's the only hope they've got.

I agree with Dan.

Think of it this way. Substitute "procedure" for "form" and "outcome" for "substance."

Many think if they get the right "procedure" down (i.e., send in the right form or letter, utter the right words in the right order at the right time before the right person), they'll get the "outcome" they desire, which bears no resemblance to the "correct" outcome in law.

In their desire not to pay an income tax ("they don't *want* to understand"), they ignore the outcome prescribed in law, and through altered procedure, wind up contrary to law.

The concept of "form over substance" (in my understanding) usually means someone is celebrating the procedure over the actual outcome prescribe in and by the law. It means they're promoting the form of the action rather than the substance of law involved.

The concept of "substance over form" (again, in my understanding) means the outcome is directed by, and acceptable to, law, though the form or procedures may not be precise.

In their desire not to pay an income tax, tax deniers ignore the substance of law, and devise and prefer some obscure form or procedure in an attempt to circumvent the right outcome.

Just my two cents on a high school education and many years of hard knocks.