Hendrickson in the Detroit News

[Weston White]

It's kind of hard for the court to deny a case that has yet to be filed...

But Hendrickson would be right at the top of my "preemptive denial" list.

Are you a judge? So you would deny a case without even reading is merits first? And you wonder why I find our court system to be fatally flawed.

[Lambkin]

Hendickson claims to have filed it awhile back, no? Does he not have the PDF of the filing posted on his site? Are you all saying that is fake?

There was speculation in earlier threads that it may not have been accepted due to mistakes in formatting. We have all been waiting breathlessly for it to show up.

[Demosthenes]

Predicting how courts will rule is what lawyer's do, Weston.

[Famspear]

Weston, I think the best guess is that Pete did techically "file" it (he may have physically submitted it to the Court), but it was sent back and not docketed. Again, my terminology in the use of the word "filing" may have been wrong.

Anyway, as others who know the process a lot better than I have just noted, there is a formal process to go through before the Court would formally "deny" the petition.

[Lambkin]

It's kind of hard for the court to deny a case that has yet to be filed...

But Hendrickson would be right at the top of my "preemptive denial" list.

Are you a judge? So you would deny a case without even reading is merits first? And you wonder why I find our court system to be fatally flawed.

I'm not a judge, nor even an educated observer, but I can think of situations where the putative merits of a case could be dismissed in a microsecond. You know when a toddler tries to tell a lie about the carton of ice cream you find smeared down the door of the fridge? You listen for a second, you look at the stickum on the hands and face, and you say, "Stop, I don't need to hear any more. We are proceeding directly to the penalty phase."

That is what you call a frivolous argument.

[Dezcad]

It's kind of hard for the court to deny a case that has yet to be filed...

But Hendrickson would be right at the top of my "preemptive denial" list.

Below or above "Springer, Lindsay"?

[Weston White]

That is what you call a frivolous argument.

We are not talking about parenting skills, we are talking about law. Only a court can make such a determination not the IRS... that is why there is a 6702(c)... and there is a reason CtC is not specifically listed, still after 4-years... and it looks like it will not be listed in 2009 either. ...There is a reason why this entire list makes no mention at all of direct taxes... not even the Dirty Dozen list makes mention of direct taxes either! There is a reason for that as well.

[Famspear]

We are not talking about parenting skills, we are talking about law. Only a court can make such a determination not the IRS... that is why there is a 6702(c)...

Under 6702(c), the court does not make a determination as to whether a position is frivolous (if that's what you're talking about). The IRS (i.e., the "Secretary") does that. In certain cases, a court may make such a determination, but not under 6702(c).

......and there is a reason CtC is not specifically listed, still after 4-years... and it looks like it will not be listed in 2009 either......

Ah, because the IRS secretly knows "that Pete Hendrickson's CtC is really correct and they don't dare list CtC as frivolous", eh Weston?????

.........There is a reason why this entire list makes no mention at all of direct taxes... not even the Dirty Dozen list makes mention of direct taxes either! There is a reason for that as well.

Ah, because the IRS secretly knows "that there a Weston White argument about "direct taxes" that is is really correct and they don't dare mention that argument as being frivolous", eh Weston?????

[Gregg]

I'm not a judge, nor even an educated observer, but I can think of situations where the putative merits of a case could be dismissed in a microsecond. You know when a toddler tries to tell a lie about the carton of ice cream you find smeared down the door of the fridge? You listen for a second, you look at the stickum on the hands and face, and you say, "Stop, I don't need to hear any more. We are proceeding directly to the penalty phase."

That is what you call a frivolous argument.

better than the one Pete is making...

[Weston White]

Under 6702(c), the court does not make a determination as to whether a position is frivolous (if that's what you're talking about). The IRS (i.e., the "Secretary") does that. In certain cases, a court may make such a determination, but not under 6702(c).

And based upon what exactly? That is right past court rulings. I though you would have caught that one.

Ah, because the IRS secretly knows "that Pete Hendrickson's CtC is really correct and they don't dare list CtC as frivolous", eh Weston?????

Perhaps, though I take it you do not know yourself. Smiles!

Ah, because the IRS secretly knows "that there a Weston White argument about "direct taxes" that is is really correct and they don't dare mention that argument as being frivolous", eh Weston?????

Because by law they can’t, they would cause legal conflicts by doing so. They would thereafter make the IRC unconstitutional. With the setup they have going now, it is don through a misunderstanding and why mess up a good thing? They have everybody in check doing it mindlessly on their own. Also this argument is part of CtC, though for some reason Hendrickson chooses to push his arguments about the Code definitions more so than this central issue.

[Nikki]

Another classic argument: "My particular version of tax evasion is not specifically listed, so it must be legitimate."

Just because the IRS hasn't formally announced that tax returns prepared according the the education provided by Pete in CtC doesn't mean that such returns are legitimate and are not subject to the $5,000 penalty.

WW, just like the vast majority of "tax honesty" evaders won't be satisfied until 26USC is amended to state that "there is hereby imposed on all income resulting from labor, thinking, or any other activity or passive source to Weston White a tax in the amount of $nn,nnn."

Even then, he'll find some way of determining that the law doesn't apply to him.

[Weston White]

Another classic argument: "My particular version of tax evasion is not specifically listed, so it must be legitimate."

Just because the IRS hasn't formally announced that tax returns prepared according the the education provided by Pete in CtC doesn't mean that such returns are legitimate and are not subject to the $5,000 penalty.

WW, just like the vast majority of "tax honesty" evaders won't be satisfied until 26USC is amended to state that "there is hereby imposed on all income resulting from labor, thinking, or any other activity or passive source to Weston White a tax in the amount of $nn,nnn."

Even then, he'll find some way of determining that the law doesn't apply to him.

The only exception is to like or similar arguments, what I believe has nothing similarly listed. Also your point is further defeated for that fact that they listed a special argument about CtC in the Dirty Dozen (an unofficial mean nothing propagandized hit-piece), but not the 6702(c) list itself. Neither is the IRS capable or willing of even telling me what argument they contend I am holding in their charges against me so that I can learn from my past mistakes, so to speak. I still to date have no clue what they are alleging against me, that I have done wrong, nor are they able to provide me with my assessment of taxes I otherwise would have owed them so that I can take care of my dues or so that whatever was left over could be deducted from the total due to them now. The only thing I have it nearly two dozen bills for $5,000. a piece with massive interest accumulating... though they are unable to provide me with the signed approval to make such charges against me either.

The entire thing is a complete scam that depends entirely upon my own self-assessment. That is the only tangible fact. They just do not like what I have to say about it now, that is all. So they stack the deck.

[Famspear]

Another classic argument: "My particular version of tax evasion is not specifically listed, so it must be legitimate."

Just because the IRS hasn't formally announced that tax returns prepared according the the education provided by Pete in CtC doesn't mean that such returns are legitimate and are not subject to the $5,000 penalty.

WW, just like the vast majority of "tax honesty" evaders won't be satisfied until 26USC is amended to state that "there is hereby imposed on all income resulting from labor, thinking, or any other activity or passive source to Weston White a tax in the amount of $nn,nnn."

Even then, he'll find some way of determining that the law doesn't apply to him.

The only exception is to like or similar arguments, what I believe has nothing similarly listed. Also your point is further defeated for that fact that they listed a special argument about CtC in the Dirty Dozen (an unofficial mean nothing propagandized hit-piece), but not the 6702(c) list itself. Neither is the IRS capable or willing of even telling me what argument they contend I am holding in their charges against me so that I can learn from my past mistakes, so to speak. I still to date have no clue what they are alleging against me, that I have done wrong, nor are they able to provide me with my assessment of taxes I otherwise would have owed them so that I can take care of my dues or so that whatever was left over could be deducted from the total due to them now. The only thing I have it nearly two dozen bills for $5,000. a piece with massive interest accumulating... though they are unable to provide me with the signed approval to make such charges against me either.

I'd love to be there if you make that argument in the event they ever start seizing your limited assets, Weston.

The entire thing is a complete scam that depends entirely upon my own self-assessment. That is the only tangible fact. They just do not like what I have to say about it now, that is all. So they stack the deck.

Let me ask you something, Weston. How in the world can you seriously believe such nonsense?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...Neither is the IRS capable or willing of even telling me what argument they contend I am holding in their charges against me so that I can learn from my past mistakes, so to speak.

Weston, it's not their capability or willingness, it's your utterly absurd reasoning that prevents you from accepting facts.

I still to date have no clue what they are alleging against me, that I have done wrong, ...

Now you're simply lying.

... nor are they able to provide me with my assessment of taxes I otherwise would have owed them so that I can take care of my dues or so that whatever was left over could be deducted from the total due to them now.
The only thing I have it nearly two dozen bills for $5,000. a piece with massive interest accumulating... though they are unable to provide me with the signed approval to make such charges against me either.

Sure. You still think they're gong to have to play by your interpretation of the rules. As Dr. Phil asks, 'How's that workin' for ya?'

The entire thing is a complete scam that depends entirely upon my own self-assessment. That is the only tangible fact. They just do not like what I have to say about it now, that is all. So they stack the deck.

Weston, the fact is, everyone in the game knows precisely how the deck is stacked and they play accordingly. You don't even know how many cards are in the deck, let alone the rules of the game you think you're in.

[Famspear]

Under 6702(c), the court does not make a determination as to whether a position is frivolous (if that's what you're talking about). The IRS (i.e., the "Secretary") does that. In certain cases, a court may make such a determination, but not under 6702(c).

And based upon what exactly? That is right past court rulings. I though you would have caught that one.

That's actually correct, Weston. The IRS determination that a particular position is frivolous is probably based on prior court rulings in many or maybe all cases. But that's not what you said in your original post. Glad you clarified what you meant.

Because by law they [the IRS] can’t [list Hendrickson's scam as being frivolous], they would cause legal conflicts by doing so. They would thereafter make the IRC unconstitutional.

And there's a big hole at the North Pole where the aliens live, and The Moon is made of Green Cheese, etc.

With the setup they [the IRS people] have going now, it is don [sic] through a misunderstanding and why mess up a good thing? They have everybody in check doing it mindlessly on their own.

And there's a big hole at the North Pole where the aliens live, and The Moon is made of Green Cheese, etc.

Also this argument is part of CtC, though for some reason Hendrickson chooses to push his arguments about the Code definitions more so than this central issue.

Yeah, it's too bad that Hendrickson is no longer listening to you, Weston. You could set him straight.... If only you spoke the Peterericblowhardmeisterish idiolect the way Hendrickson does.

[Weston White]

z00m, z00m, z00m...

In the preceding extract we gave the language of the court. The law is that an account shall be taken of "all offices and posts of profit." The next section makes it the duty of the assessors "to rate all offices and posts of profit, professions, trades and occupations, at their discretion, having a due regard to the profits arising therefrom." The emoluments of the office, then, are taxable, and not the office. But whether it be one or the other, we cannot perceive how a tax upon either conduces to comprehend within the terms of the act the office or the compensation of an officer of the United States. It will not do to say, as it was said in argument, that though the language of the act may import that offices and posts of profit were taxable, that it was the citizen who holds the office whom the law intended to tax, and that it was a burden he was bound to bear in return for the privileges enjoyed and the protection received from government, and then that the liability to pay the tax was a personal charge because the person upon whom it was assessed was a taxable person.

The first answer to be given to these suggestions is that the tax is to be levied upon a valuation of the income of the office. But besides, the obligation upon persons to pay taxes is mistaken and the sense in which a tax is a personal charge is misunderstood. The foundation of the obligation to pay taxes is not the privileges enjoyed or the protection given to a citizen by government, though the payment of taxes gives a right to protection. Both are enjoyed as well by those members of a state who do not because they are not able to pay taxes as by those who are able and do pay them. Married women and children have privileges and protection, but they are not assessed unless they have goods or property separate from the heads of families. The necessity of money for the support of states, in times of peace or war, fixes the obligation upon their citizens to pay such taxes as may be imposed by lawful authority. And the only sense in which a tax is a personal charge is that it is assessed upon personal estate and the profits of labor and industry. It is called a personal charge to distinguish such a tax from the tax upon lands and tenements, which are enforced without any regard to the persons who are the owners. Taxes are never assessed, unless it be a capitation tax, upon persons, as persons, but upon them on account of their goods and the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations. They are so imposed because public revenue can only be supplied by assessments upon the goods of individuals --

"comprehending under the word 'goods' all the estate and effects which everyone hath, of whatsoever sort they be; taxes regard the persons of men only because of their goods."

The goods, then, are taxed, and not the person. But those who are to pay the tax are taxable persons, because they are under an obligation to contribute from their means to the necessities of the state. The obligation, however, only becomes a charge upon the person in consequence of the power in the state to enforce the payment of taxes by coercion. The power extends to the sequestration of the goods and the imprisonment of the delinquent. A tax, according to the object upon which it is laid, may be a personal charge, but that is a very different thing from its becoming a charge upon the person in consequence of the coercion which may be provided by law to enforce the payment.

We have been more particular in noticing this argument because it enabled us to put the point upon which it was intended to bear upon right principles. Besides, as it was drawn from the statutes of Pennsylvania, it implied the supposition that her legislature, in these enactments upon taxation, had disregarded those principles. But this is not so. If the occasion was a proper one for this Court to do it, we might easily show that the act throughout was framed upon an enlightened recognition by the legislators of that state of all the principles upon which taxes are imposed. The only difficulty in the act has arisen from the terms directing assessments to be made upon all offices and posts of profit without restricting the assessments to offices and posts of profit held under the sovereignty of that state, and not excluding them from being made upon offices and posts of profit of another sovereignty -- the United States.

Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 435 435 (1842)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/41/435/case.html

In Crandall v. State of Nevada, where it appeared that the legislature of the state had enacted that there should "be levied and collected a capitation tax of one dollar upon every person leaving the state by any railroad, stage coach, or other vehicle engaged or employed in the business of transporting passengers for hire,"

Case of the State Freight Tax, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. 232 232 (1872)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/82/232/case.html

Thomas v. United States, 192 U. S. 363, 192 U. S. 370, it was said of the words "duties, imposts and excises" that "they were used comprehensively to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations and the like."

Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/301/548/case.html

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for the Court in the Pollock case, upon the rehearing, as to the distinction between a tax upon the income derived from real estate and from invested personal property, on the one hand, and an excise tax upon business privileges, employments, and vocations, upon the other. Reference was also made to the interpretation put upon the decision in the Pollock case in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 80, and in Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, and it was held that the Corporation Tax Law of 1909 "does not impose direct taxation upon property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under Art. I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. "

McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven R. Co., 228 U.S. 295 (1913)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/228/295/case.html

"Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes 'all income from whatever source derived.' This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment, and the word 'income' is used in its constitutional sense."

H.R.Rep.No.1337, supra, note 10 at A18

A virtually identical statement appears in S.Rep.No.1622, supra, note 10 at 168.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
http://defendindependence.org/SCOTUS/Co ... ompany.PDF

Suppose two employees are given unconditional options to buy stock at $5, the current market value. The first exercises the option immediately and sells the stock a year later at $15. The second holds the option for a year, exercises it, and sells the stock immediately at $15. Admittedly the $10 gain would be taxed to the first as capital gain; under the Court's view, it would be taxed to the second as ordinary income, because it is "compensation" for services. I fail to see how the gain can be any more "compensation" to one than it is to the other.

Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956)
http://defendindependence.org/SCOTUS/Co ... vLoBue.PDF

It has been the subject matter of considerable discussion -- the terms duties, imposts, and excises are generally treated as embracing the indirect forms of taxation contemplated by the Constitution. As Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said in the Pollock case, supra:

"Although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words 'duties, imposts, and excises,' such a tax for more than one hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue."

And in the same connection the Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. United States, 192 U. S. 363, in speaking of the words "duties," "imposts," and "excises," said:

"We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like."

Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const.Lim., 7th ed., 680.

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, 192 U. S. 363, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/220/107/case.html


To summarize: The income tax is simply the realized gains or profits deriving from any of: "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." While excise taxes are the taxes from or upon such activities or items themselves.

[Famspear]

To summarize: The income tax is simply the realized gains or profits deriving from any of: "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." While excise taxes are the taxes from such items themselves.

I think that's called "chaining", Weston.

Zoom zoom zoooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!

[Weston White]

To summarize: The income tax is simply the realized gains or profits deriving from any of: "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." While excise taxes are the taxes from such items themselves.

I think that's called "chaining", Weston.

Zoom zoom zoooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!

Nope, it is called quoting SCOTUS cases that soo prove my point, so much so the only thing you have left to reply with is well... you know. Learn by doing, learn by doing!

Careful now, upon approaching the Quatloosian, they are a bit squeamish when approached to quickly with "facts":

[Famspear]

More illustrations of this kind of nonsense, from The Tax Protester FAQ, by Daniel B. Evans:

“Chaining” unrelated decisions together.

[ . . . . ] a tax protester will quote one court opinion that says that an excise is a tax on a privilege, and a quote from a second court opinion that the right to work is a fundamental right, and reach the conclusion that Congress cannot tax income from labor with an excise. Among the many problems with this argument is that the second court opinion (relating to the “right to work”) had nothing to do with taxation. So the chain from “excise” to “tax on labor” includes a link that has nothing to do with either the preceding premise or the conclusion.

Another example is one of the arguments that wages are not “income.” The tax protester will find a court decision that says that “income” is a form of “gain,” and then another court decision that the payment of compensation for services is not a “gain,” and announce that wages are not income. However, the second court decision is not about taxes, but about the meaning of “gain” as that term is used in nonprofit corporation statutes (which typically prohibit any “gain” to shareholders or other individuals).

This kind of chaining is not “logic” or “legal reasoning” but simply the manipulation of words and phrases without any attempt to understand the meaning of the words. One judge responded to these kinds of tax protester arguments by pointing out to the tax protester that, according to the Bible, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5) and Jesus said “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). Jamming those two unrelated things together creates a meaning that Jesus never intended.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#chaining

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life."

Fundamentalists say the Bible must be taken literally.

Therefore, Jesus is a loaf of bread.

[Weston White]

OH and let us not forget about Eisner v. Macomber, where that case further proves what I had clarified about the meaning of from "whatever source derived" as meant within the XVI Amendment.