Translation: Someone who has credentials and makes sense, and presents evidence Harvester can't refute and doesn't want to deal with.Harvester wrote:LPC, Edward Flaherty is your typical academic hack, making use of 'guilt-by-association,' half truths, and misconstruction. Ease [sic] to see through.
Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
Meanwhile:
LPC wrote: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.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
Yes, I found that earlier today.Randall wrote:On your FAQ, you list the following link:
Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (Edward Flaherty)
It does not work.
What do I win?
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.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
- 17th Viscount du Voolooh
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
Here's the correct link:LPC wrote:Yes, I found that earlier today.Randall wrote:On your FAQ, you list the following link:
Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories (Edward Flaherty)
It does not work.
What do I win?
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.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flahe ... serve.html
-
- Quatloosian Baron of the Unknown Statute
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:01 pm
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
Uhhh... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?LPC wrote: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.
I’ll help them get more power at the Fed. - Ron Paul
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
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.buck09 wrote:... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
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!
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6120
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
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.Famspear wrote: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.buck09 wrote:... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
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.Famspear wrote: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.buck09 wrote:... isn't a failure to understand the difference between form and substance a fundamental with these kinds of people?
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.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
- 17th Viscount du Voolooh
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm
Re: Tax Protester FAQ Challenge
I agree with Dan.LPC wrote: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.
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.