However, Mr. Hendrickson did not say that he couldn’t be a “person” as a matter of law, he said that he ISN’T a “person” as defined relevant to §7206(1), and it was the obligation of the U.S. to prove otherwise, if it could. Rather than carry this burden (which cannot be mooted by a judicial finding, see U.S. v. Bass, 784 F.2d 1282, 5th Circuit (1986) and cases cited),
The Bass case is kind of interesting, because it revolved around the problem that, in prosecuting someone for filing a false W-4, an element of the offense that must be proved is that the defendant was an "employee" who was required to file a Form W-4 with his employer. The trial court gave an instruction to the jury that appeals court thought amounted to an instruction that the defendant was an "employee" and so deprived the defendant of the right to a trial by jury on that issue.
the the U.S. simply made reference to several (uniformly non-precedential) cases in which the subject of “personhood” relevant to §7206(1) is airily disposed of without a scintilla of analysis, while ignoring Sims v. U.S., 359 U.S. 108 (1959), a Supreme Court ruling in which detailed analysis DOES take place, and which squarely supports Mr. Hendrickson’s position.
Actually, the Sims case completely refutes Hendrickson, because it held that a state was a "person" within the meaning of section 6332
as a matter of law. Similarly, it is completely within the power of the court to hold that a human being is a "person" within the meaning of section 7206(1)
as a matter of law.
I have never seen (or heard of) a case in which the prosecution was obliged to prove that the defendant was a human being, so Hendrickson's "case" seems to fall apart right there.
At the same time, the U.S. failed (and continues to fail) to address the overwhelming authority presented by Mr. Hendrickson that “includes” is merely a variant of “means”,
Because there wasn't any presented.
Like most tax deniers, Hendrickson spends most of his time telling you what he's going to tell you, and what he's already told you, but very little time actually telling you anything. Rather than saying that the government failed to address "overwhelming authority," it is much more effective (and persuasive) to re-cite that authority. But Hendrickson can't do that because his "overwhelming authority" consists mainly of convoluted explanations of quotations out of context, and those don't translate well into the briefer, real-life, "overwhelming authority" format of citing cases that are directly on point and which support your position.
