I wrote:Weston White wrote:In fact, I am willing to wage, that somebody, most likely an IRS doofus or other such operative was originally responsible for initiating the spread of this dis-info-quote throughout the Net’
Just as a bit of background, Irwin Schiff was one of the more prominent tax protesters who misinterpreted the text printed above the Court's opinion in Lucas v. Earl as being part of the opinion itself. Old Uncle Irwin wasn't specifically too bright. A three-time loser in federal criminal tax cases, he is also the one who stupidly claimed -- in papers filed with the court in one of his many lost causes -- that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (the subtitle dealing with income tax) did not include any mention of the "Internal Revenue Service". Of course, Subtitle A does include several specific mentions of the "Internal Revenue Service". Examples include section 42(m)(1)(B)(iii), section 51(g), section 170(f)(11)(E)(iii)(II), and section 501(p)(7).No, that was done by tax protesters who (like SkankBeat at losthorizons) don't understand that the language printed above the court's opinion is not part of the court's opinion.
We don't hear much from Uncle Irwin anymore.
(sigh.......)
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=75&y=16