Pete's criminal trial (continued)

[.]

It'll be interesting to see what they have to say about him after he's sent away for many, many years.

[Famspear]

Pete is an incredibly brilliant man.

That forms the basis of the problem with tax protestors. Someone with no training in the law is more qualified than anyone else in the world to interpret the tax laws. That's an incredible about of faith - no person in the history of the US, the world, the educated legal system, and all members of congress throughout history has been able to figure out what Peter Hendrickson was able to discern. I can't imagine believing in someone that much. To ignore every other single living being in favor of believing what this one, uneducated man says is the truth. wow, stunning really.

The gullibility of Hendrickson's followers is indeed astonishing. This is the kind of garbage these people swallow -- about Peter Hendrickson -- from the pen of Peter Hendrickson himself:

But researcher, analyst and scholar Peter E. Hendrickson believes that after Cracking the Code, you’ll agree that what has been misunderstood is the 3,413,780 word monstrosity itself– and how, and to whom, it applies.
Hendrickson delves deep into the history, statutes and case law behind the Code to reveal its startling and liberating secrets; and unless you live in a cave, you need to know what he’s uncovered.
Once you’ve finished “Cracking the Code”, the tax laws will never mean the same thing to you, or your bank account, again!

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

(bolding added).

So, Hendrickson is a "scholar"? Yes, and who has granted that credential to Hendrickson? Why, Hendrickson himself, of course!

Hendrickson says:

Those whose only exposure to the "income" tax scheme has been as a compliant victim of the mainstream disinformation program maintained by its beneficiaries-- the government, 'tax professionals', clients of redistribution programs, etc.-- will likely find little to interest them here. The sole antidote necessary for that mainstream misunderstanding is 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misunde ... gs/map.htm

(bolding added)

In another place, Hendrickson says:

I know some will find it off-putting for me to say it, but the bottom-line is this: The reader is strongly encouraged to simply avoid sources of information other than 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' and what is presented on this site.

[ . . . ]

ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THIS WEBSITE. ANYTHING NOT FOUND ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT, AND WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCURATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misunde ... gs/map.htm

(the capitalization is Hendrickson's; bolding added).

At the risk of vulgarity, I will say as plainly as possible what I have by necessity said many times before, but usually with more circumspection (and can't seem to say often enough): Any and all notions concerning the nature of the "income" tax-- how it is applied, why it can be thus applied, how it interfaces with the legal system and so forth-- which are not taught in CtC or on this site (exclusive of forum posts, of course) are just inherently wrong or are entirely irrelevant to the tax. They are raised or promoted either in ignorance or for ill purposes.
Such notions should not be debated or discussed [in the losthorizons forum] -- doing either is a waste of valuable time and energy. There is one simple response that is appropriate when presented with "alternative" or "supplemental" notions of this sort: "You didn't find that in CtC or on losthorizons.com, so put it out of your mind. Here is what is actually true about that aspect of the tax..."

(bolding added).

According to Hendrickson, his Cracking the Code is the result of:

. . . . the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the common, Constitutional, statutory and "case" law related to the American tax system in general and the "income" tax in particular ever conducted.

Wowee zowee! Hendrickson's flimsy little self-published crapola book, the use of which has resulted in 100% losses in federal courts for every single person who has attempted to use Hendrickson's scam, including Hendrickson himself, is the "the most comprehensive and sophisticated research," etc.!! These people actually "believe" this crap? This is way beyond stupid. Anyone who really believes that Cracking the Code is the most comprehensive and sophisticated research and analysis of the American tax system, etc., is either dumber than a box of rocks or has serious psychological problems, or both.

About his "work," Blowhard Hendrickson says:

The accuracy of that research and analysis is then incontrovertibly confirmed by an unending series of real-world, actual events, starting with my series of historic accomplishments as the first American to ever recover Social Security and Medicare "contributions", the first subject of both IRS summonses and IRS/DOJ injunction efforts to defeat each such assault (and not once, but three times), and the first to have forced the tax system into the choice of either watching its gravy-train be derailed by the truth I have revealed or abandoning all pretenses of legitimacy and law and trying to coerce me into undoing the bonds I have placed upon it.

(bolding added).

This hilarity is so far over the top it's difficult to come up with satire for it. Hendrickson seems to write this about himself in all seriousness, and with little hint that he is aware of how stupid he looks. This is classic narcissistic personality disorder. And yet Hendrickson's Heroes swallow miles of this crap as though it is The Revealed Truth Of The Savior of the World.

This is why watching Blowhard Hendrickson twist in the wind induces so much pleasure.....

[Gregg]

Wow. Reading through the DOJ's reply to Pete's motion, they totally avoid the key issue - that he was involved in a specific taxable activity.

I want to address that point, and please, if I'm wrong, someone correct me.
the LH people seem to think that as soon as Pete tells them that only "federally connected income" etc... that the jury will immediately end the trial, acquit him of all charges and break out in a spontaneous chorus of Kumbaya. Would someone please go over and tell them that Pete isn't going to get to tell them his theory of the law. The law is settled, what your employer pays you every Friday is part of gross income, from which you take your deductions and arrive at taxable income and that fact is going to be presented to the jury in either the jury instructions or somewhere in the case the prosecution makes. There will be no rebuttal of that simple fact. At issue is whether Pete signed documents to the effect that he didn't get paid every Friday (or however his payroll runs) and if he did, whether he knew better. All the comments that Dan has quoted here are going to pretty much remove any doubt as to whether he should have known better and he has more or less admitted that he did sign the documents in question. If he has really researched tax law, he had to be pretty selective in his scholarship to have missed the many times courts have ruled on this point. The point is not in question, remember, if you work and someone pays you, you have income. If you make enough net of deductions, you have taxable income. No one is going to get to argue about that. Pete's only defense boils down to "I read the law, I called myself a scholar on the subject, but I'm still to stupid to have comprehended it" The prosecution is attempting to prove that Pete is either selective in his studies, or just out and out ignoring the law.

If Pete convinces his lawyer to let him attempt to argue what the definition of wages, income, service etc.. and whether he was involved with "federal connected income" he won't get very far, and I suspect he'll have a bad time of it in court.

[notorial dissent]

So does this mean maybe that good ole Pete went shopping for a lawyer either desperate or dumb enough to let him bully or BS them in to fronting for him in court? Or is it just that she is in so far over her head that she is letting Pete run the case, and doesn’t have sense enough to see the end of her legal career around the corner when she gets sanctioned for shilling for Pete?

Everything I have seen so far leads me to the inescapable conclusion that while Pete’s current lawyer may be a criminal lawyer, and may be good at what she does, but that she does not know what she is doing here, and that ultimately she is going to get sanctioned or removed from the case, and more to the point she is being used by Pete, just the way he has used everyone else, possibly to point of getting a mistrial for ineffective representation.

[.]

an unending series of real-world, actual events

Yeah. Like the dozen or so losses that he has personally suffered.

[notorial dissent]

I hadn’t realized it until after I finished reading the rest of the article, but come on, the lawyer has an email address at aol.com, reminds of the bank security warnings I keep getting that lead back to hotmail, gives me about as much confidence too.

[grixit]

Hendrickson says:

Those whose only exposure to the "income" tax scheme has been as a compliant victim of the mainstream disinformation program maintained by its beneficiaries-- the government, 'tax professionals', clients of redistribution programs, etc.-- will likely find little to interest them here. The sole antidote necessary for that mainstream misunderstanding is 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misunde ... gs/map.htm

(bolding added)

In another place, Hendrickson says:

I know some will find it off-putting for me to say it, but the bottom-line is this: The reader is strongly encouraged to simply avoid sources of information other than 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' and what is presented on this site.

[ . . . ]

ANYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT WILL BE FOUND ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THIS WEBSITE. ANYTHING NOT FOUND ADDRESSED IN CtC AND/OR ON THE WEBSITE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE "INCOME" TAX SUBJECT, AND WILL INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCURATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUBJECT.

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misunde ... gs/map.htm

(the capitalization is Hendrickson's; bolding added).

At the risk of vulgarity, I will say as plainly as possible what I have by necessity said many times before, but usually with more circumspection (and can't seem to say often enough): Any and all notions concerning the nature of the "income" tax-- how it is applied, why it can be thus applied, how it interfaces with the legal system and so forth-- which are not taught in CtC or on this site (exclusive of forum posts, of course) are just inherently wrong or are entirely irrelevant to the tax. They are raised or promoted either in ignorance or for ill purposes.
Such notions should not be debated or discussed [in the losthorizons forum] -- doing either is a waste of valuable time and energy. There is one simple response that is appropriate when presented with "alternative" or "supplemental" notions of this sort: "You didn't find that in CtC or on losthorizons.com, so put it out of your mind. Here is what is actually true about that aspect of the tax..."

Amazing. Even the Inquisition never banned books without reading them first.

[LPC]

Wow. Reading through the DOJ's reply to Pete's motion, they totally avoid the key issue - that he was involved in a specific taxable activity.

The "key issue" that Hendrickson himself has failed to raise?

Although Hendrickson's cheerleaders still haven't wondered why Hendrickson himself doesn't raise all these can't-lose issues, the government has. From the government brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, footnote 1:

It is curious to note that the defendant does not seek dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that the returns and Forms 4852 that he filed were correct as matter of law. The defendant unsuccessfully presented such arguments in a civil action involving his false 2002 and 2003 returns and the false Form 4852 that he filed with those returns. See United States v. Hendrickson, Civ. No. 06-11753 (NGE). In that proceeding, the United States sought injunctive relief and recovery of erroneous refunds issued to the defendant and his wife after they filed false returns and Form 4852 for each year. The Court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, labeling the returns and Forms 4852 filed by the defendant and his wife as “deliberate misstatements”, Report and Recommendation, p. 9, and rejecting their legal arguments as “‘among an array of shopworn and quixotic arguments, having currency among so-called ‘tax protesters’, but without any support in the law.” Id., p. 7 (quoting Spencer v. Social Security Admin,, 2006 WL 695782, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 2006)).

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgement and issuance of the injunction. The court rebuffed Hendrickson’s arguments that he was not an “employee” who received “wages” with the dismissive comment that it was “the typical tax protester argument that income is not taxable.” United States v. Hendrickson, No. 07-1510 (6th Cir. June 11, 2008). The Court later assailed the “patent baselessness” of the frivolous appeal lodged by the defendant and his wife and granted the government’s motion for an award of $4,000 in sanctions.

[mutter]

doesnt the Andrew Scott case count as a CtC case?
remember when I said when I file in court I ll use my spell checker?

[Famspear]

doesnt the Andrew Scott case count as a CtC case?
remember when I said when I file in court I ll use my spell checker?

I would argue that the Andrew Scott case counts as a CtC case. As noted elsewhere, the United States Tax Court specifically stated in his case that Scott had informed the IRS that he was a follower of Cracking the Code. The Court also specifically stated that the IRS had warned Scott in writing that Hendrickson’s arguments had been repeatedly rejected by the courts. The Tax Court found Scott’s arguments — that he was not an “employee,” and that he did not earn “wages” — to be “frivolous and false.” The Court found Andrew Scott liable for a $10,031 deficiency in tax. Andrew D. Scott v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26392-06, United States Tax Court, Bench Op. (June 4, 2008).

EDIT: Here's a direct link to the Tax Protester Dossier (another Daniel B. Evans web site, companion to the Tax Protester FAQ) on Pete Hendrickson:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

[mutter]

doesnt the Andrew Scott case count as a CtC case?
remember when I said when I file in court I ll use my spell checker?

I would argue that the Andrew Scott case counts as a CtC case. As noted elsewhere, the United States Tax Court specifically stated in his case that Scott had informed the IRS that he was a follower of Cracking the Code. The Court also specifically stated that the IRS had warned Scott in writing that Hendrickson’s arguments had been repeatedly rejected by the courts. The Tax Court found Scott’s arguments — that he was not an “employee,” and that he did not earn “wages” — to be “frivolous and false.” The Court found Andrew Scott liable for a $10,031 deficiency in tax. Andrew D. Scott v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26392-06, United States Tax Court, Bench Op. (June 4, 2008).

where was this case?

[Famspear]

I have the actual Tax Court opinion in PDF format somewhere. Somebody else may be able to get to it before I do....

EDIT: Mutter, I have found the Scott decision. I will email it to you in a few minutes.....

[Nikki]

Are you referring to Tax Court cases?

There are three listed for Andrew Scott:

Andrew D. Scott - Vermont
Andrew M. Scott - North Carolina

But it seems you might be referring to
Andrew W. Scott - Connecticut 26392-06
Petitioner claimed "I did not earn 'income' or 'wages' as defined by the Internal Revenue Code" (despite having received $61,072 in 2004) and "I was not an 'employee' of the Manhattan Mortgage Company as defined by the Internal Revenue Code" which the Court determined to be frivolous and for which the Court warned Scott he could be subject to up to a $25,000 sanction.
As mentioned in the Judge's bench opinion, Scott stated that he was a follower of a book entitled Cracking the Code.... The Judge found that Scott was liable for a deficiency in federal income taxes in the amount of $10,031 for 2004, an accuracy-related penalty of $2,941 and a frivolous arguments penalty in the amount of $20,000. However, Scott was victorious in that he avoided the fraud penalty for the falsified Form 4852.

It seems I took too long researching the Scotts and typing up my reply.

However I can contribute for Mutter's benefit, that most Tax Court opinions are available on the Internet via http://www.ustaxcourt.gov.

Opinions are not available in the Opinions Search tab if they have been submitted for appeal, BUT there's a great deal of information available through the Docket Inquiry tab.

[Demosthenes]

There's an Andrew Scott state level case too.

Andrew Scott v. Department of Taxes

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 08-190
SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT
2008 Vt. Unpub. LEXIS 282

October, 2008, TERM

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
APPEALED FROM: Washington Superior Court. DOCKET NO. 716-10-07 Wncv. Trial Judge: Dennis R. Pearson.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

JUDGES: Paul L. Reiber , Chief Justice, Denise R. Johnson , Associate Justice, Marilyn S. Skoglund , Associate Justice.

OPINION

ENTRY ORDER

Taxpayer, Andrew Scott, appeals from the superior court's order affirming, in part, the Department of Taxes' assessment of income tax and penalties on taxpayer for the years 2004 and 2005. On appeal, taxpayer argues that the Department erroneously denied his request for a full refund of his withheld income tax because, under the statutory definition, he is not an employee and his income is not wages. We affirm.

During the relevant period, taxpayer was a resident of Vermont and worked for Manhattan Mortgage Company. Taxpayer timely filed a return for, and paid, his 2003 Vermont personal income tax. For 2004, instead of a W-2, taxpayer submitted federal form 4852, indicating no wages, and requesting a full refund of his $ 2567.44 in withheld income tax. The Department obtained a copy of taxpayer's W-2 form, which indicated that taxpayer had gross wages of $ 61,072.39 for 2004. Using this information, the Department sent taxpayer an assessment and notice of tax [*2] liability on October 21, 2005. The assessment included interest and a 100% fraud penalty. Taxpayer filed a timely protest and request for a hearing. See 32 V.S.A. § 5883 (“Upon receipt of a notice of deficiency or assessment of penalty or interest … , the taxpayer may, within 60 days after the date of mailing of the notice or assessment, petition the commissioner in writing for a determination of that deficiency or assessment.”).

In April 2006, taxpayer filed his 2005 return and again submitted form 4852 instead of a standard W-2 form. Like his 2004 return, taxpayer claimed $ 0 in wages and requested a full refund of his $ 3218 in withheld tax. The Department issued an assessment and notice of tax due on May 17, 2006. Taxpayer filed a protest and request for a hearing on July 18, 2006. The Department notified taxpayer that his protest was filed beyond the sixty-day deadline and was therefore untimely.

A hearing officer held a hearing on the two assessments at the same time, even though taxpayer's 2005 protest was untimely filed. The hearing officer upheld both assessments in all respects. Taxpayer then appealed to superior court pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 5885(b). Taxpayer argued that the [*3] Department erroneously assessed taxes and penalties on him because he was not an employee and did not earn wages. Following a hearing, the court concluded that taxpayer was indeed an employee of Manhattan Mortgage and that his “arguments to the contrary are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” The court affirmed the hearing officer's determination that tax was due for 2004. In addition, the court concluded that the record supported the Department's assessment of a penalty because taxpayer had engaged in “willful” conduct to “evade a tax liability” by failing to submit his W-2 forms and claiming $ 0 wages on his form 4852. 32 V.S.A. § 3202(b)(5) (allowing the Department to assess “a penalty equal to the amount of the tax liability unpaid on the prescribed date of payment” if a taxpayer fails to pay a tax liability “fraudulently or with willful intent to defeat or evade a tax liability”). The court remanded, however, for the Department to recalculate the amount of penalty due, explaining that the penalty was limited to the amount of unpaid tax liability, not the full amount of the tax due. 1 See id. As to the 2005 assessment, the court concluded that taxpayer's failure to timely [*4] file a notice of protest to the Commissioner, id. § 5883, prevented the court from hearing taxpayer's complaint. See id. § 5887(b) (failure of taxpayer to appeal an assessment to Commissioner in accordance with § 5883 binds taxpayer to terms of assessment); Stone v. Errecart, 165 Vt. 1, 6, 675 A.2d 1322 (1996) (failure of taxpayer to exhaust administrative remedies by first appealing to Commissioner deprives superior court of jurisdiction). Thus, the court affirmed the Department's 2005 assessment in its entirety.

On appeal, taxpayer claims that the Department's tax assessment is erroneous because he is not an employee and did not earn taxable wages. Taxpayer bases his argument on his interpretation of certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The Code defines employee to “include[] an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof.” I.R.C. § 3401(c). Taxpayer contends that this definition limits employees [*5] to government workers and thus argues that he is not an employee because he is privately employed. In a related argument, taxpayer points to the Code definition of wages as remuneration for “services performed by an employee for his employer,” id. § 3401(a), and contends he earned no wages because he is not an employee. Taxpayer's arguments are based on a book by Peter Hendrickson entitled Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America.

We agree with the hearing officer and the superior court that taxpayer's arguments are without merit. The Code specifically explains: “The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” I.R.C. § 7701(c). Thus, the definition above is not limiting language and does not preclude private employees from also being employees under the Code. This is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and has been applied by other courts faced with similar arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) (“It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term [*6] of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”). As the hearing officer found, taxpayer was an employee of Manhattan Mortgage and earned wages during the years in question. Thus, we affirm the Department's assessment of income tax for 2004. 2

As to taxpayer's 2005 assessment, we agree with the superior court that taxpayer's failure to file a timely notice of protest precluded the superior court, and precludes this Court, from reviewing the Department's assessment. See Stone, 165 Vt. at 6. Taxpayer does not contest the untimeliness of his protest, but argues that we should exempt him from the time requirements because he claims he was confused by the number [*7] of tax notices that he received. While taxpayer may have received many notices, the initial notice was marked as a first notice of audit assessment, specifically stated that taxpayer had sixty days to protest the Department's assessment and explained that failure to file a timely protest would result in the assessment becoming “fixed.” Therefore, we affirm the 2005 assessment in its entirety.

Affirmed.


FOOTNOTES

1 The Department has not appealed the court's penalty decision and taxpayer has not raised any additional arguments as to the validity of the court's decision on the penalty; therefore, we do not address it on appeal.

2 Taxpayer also argues that the State is required to accept his own declaration of income set forth on form 4852 and is prevented from obtaining information about his income from other sources such as his employer or the Internal Revenue Service. Because taxpayer did not raise this issue at the hearing before the hearing officer, it is not preserved, and we will not consider it on appeal. See Hinckley v. Town of Jericho, 149 Vt. 345, 346, 543 A.2d 260 (1988).

[Famspear]

Excerpts from the Scott case in the United States Tax Court:

[ . . . . ] a deficiency case in which Petitioner [Andrew Scott] asserts he is not an "employee" and did not receive "wages," as defined in the Code, although he acknowledges that he received earnings in exchange for his services in 2004.

[ . . . .]

Petitioner resided in Vermont at the time he filed the petition. Petitioner was a mortgage broker for the Manhattan Mortgage Company during 2004 and earned $61,072, from which Petitioner's employer withheld, as required by law, $8,828.55 of federal income tax. Also required by law, Petitioner's employer issued Petitioner a Form W-2 entitled "Wage and Tax Statement" reflecting that Petitioner received $61,072 of wages, tips, and other compensation during 2004. Petitioner filed a return for 2004 and reported "zero" on the line specified for "wages, salaries, tips, etc." In addition, Petitioner attached a Form 4852 entitled "Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, Etc." Petitioner prepared the substitute to report that Petitioner's employer paid him zero in wages while $8,828.55 was withheld for federal income tax.

[ . . . .]

Respondent [the Commissioner of Internal Revenue] issued Petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency, dated October 16, 2006, determining that Petitioner was liable for a $10,031 deficiency in federal income tax and determining that Petitioner was liable for a $2,941 accuracy-related penalty, under Section 6662, for 2004.

[ . . . .]

Petitioner informed Respondent that he [Andrew Scott] is a follower of a book entitled Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth about Taxation in America by Peter Eric Hendrickson, in which the author takes the position that "income " is not defined in the Code and that wages earned by non-federal employees are not subject to federal income tax. Petitioner also stated, in a letter, dated November 8, 2007, to Respondent, that his earnings are his property, not that of the State of Vermont or the Department of Treasury. He is not an employee, as defined BY LAW in the Code. Petitioner asserts that he had no taxable activity in 2004 and, therefore, has no tax consequences. [ . . . ]

Petitioner did not consult with any tax attorney in filing the return for 2004 or in checking Mr. Hendrickson's position in the book. Respondent warned Petitioner, in a letter, dated October 10, 2007, that Mr. Hendrickson's arguments have been repeatedly rejected by the courts and gave Petitioner cites to five different federal cases in which the courts rejected Mr. Hendrickson's arguments. Respondent also warned Petitioner, in the letter, that he was at risk that this Court might impose a penalty, under Section 6673, up to $25,000 if he continued to maintain such frivolous arguments. The Court also reminded Petitioner, at calendar call on June 2, 2008, and at trial, that he was at risk of the $25,000 penalty if he continued to maintain his misguided arguments.

[ . . . ]

Petitioner asserts that the only fraud in this case is the fraud the Internal Revenue Service (referred to as the IRS) has perpetrated against him for the 40-some years he has filed a return and paid taxes. Petitioner has been "enlightened" by Mr. Hendrickson's book and has filed zero returns for 2004, the year at issue; 2005 , 2006, and 2007 ( that is, the years after Petitioner read Mr. Hendrickson's book). Transcripts of his account for the tax years 2002 and 2003 (that is, the two years before the year at issue) indicate that Petitioner was aware that his wages constituted income, and he was required to file a return.

So, since the 2004 return – the only return at issue in this case – was for a year before Scott read Hendrickson’s book, Peter Hendrickson might try to argue that the Scott case is not a "CtC case." The problem with that argument, of course, is that Mr. Scott obviously argued “Cracking the Code” IN COURT with respect to his “non-CtC” 2004 return, and the Court rejected the Cracking the Code argument.

Later in the text, the Court states:

Petitioner argues that his income is not taxable because he is not an "employee" of the Manhattan Mortgage Company, nor did he earn "wages," as defined by the Code.

[ . . . ]

Courts consistently have upheld that taxpayers like Hendrickson, the author of the book, was an employee within the meaning of Section 3401(c). [ . . . ] More specifically, with respect to Petitioner's arguments gained from Mr. Hendrickson and his book, we find, as do other courts, where taxpayers like Petitioner argue that earnings are not taxable, he is not an "employee," and that he did not earn "wages," as defined in the Code [that such arguments] are all frivolous and false.

--from Andrew D. Scott v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26392-06, United States Tax Court, Bench Op. (June 4, 2008).

The Court found Andrew Scott liable for a $10,031 deficiency in tax. The Court also sustained the IRS determination that Scott was liable for the accuracy-related penalty of $2,941 under Internal Revenue Code section 6662(a), and imposed a $20,000 penalty under Internal Revenue Code section 6673 for presenting a frivolous argument in court.

[grixit]

Remember this mutter, spell check is not a fail safe way to check spelling. You can spell a word correctly, but it is the wrong word for the sentence.

Example - Both of these are correct, according to spellchecker:

I went threw the door.

I went through the door.


Even worse is when you misspell a word, but it is still correct:

I installed the widow.

I installed the window.

Gotta love English.

Right. There is no substitute for rereading your text before committing it to public view.

[jcolvin2]

However I can contribute for Mutter's benefit, that most Tax Court opinions are available on the Internet via http://www.ustaxcourt.gov.

Opinions are not available in the Opinions Search tab if they have been submitted for appeal, BUT there's a great deal of information available through the Docket Inquiry tab.

All opinions, even those submitted for appeal, are available on the Tax Court website. For example, the Tax Court ruled in favor of taxpayers in Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. No. 2 (1996), and this opinion can be found at the link below

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... TC.WPD.pdf

The Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling for the government. Despite being reversed, the Tax Court continued to apply the holding of Redlark in similar cases which appealable to other Circuits (applying the Golsen rule). The government dutifully appealed these decisions. Ultimately several other Circuits reached conclusions similar to that reached by the Ninth Circuit. In light of these mutliple reversals, the Tax Court reconsidered the approach it took in Redlark, and adopted the approach of the Circuits:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... TC.WPD.pdf

Redlark, despite being appealed, reversed and subsequently disavowed, can still be searched for and found on the Tax Court Opinion website.

[Famspear]

Despite the change in the judges in the Hendrickson case, I see no docketed ruling that expressly results in any further postponement in the trial. Is the trial still scheduled to begin on Tuesday, February 10th?

[Demosthenes]

Despite the change in the judges in the Hendrickson case, I see no docketed ruling that expressly results in any further postponement in the trial. Is the trial still scheduled to begin on Tuesday, February 10th?

Good question.

[mutter]

Despite the change in the judges in the Hendrickson case, I see no docketed ruling that expressly results in any further postponement in the trial. Is the trial still scheduled to begin on Tuesday, February 10th?

Good question.

but why did the judges change? it wont have any relevancy to the case i am just curious