Joe Banister, IRS CID, No Law

[The Observer]

do recall Banister saying something many years ago about putting the cash he wasn't paying in taxes into a bank account. Sort of an "escrow" in his own mind.

Perhaps he thought it would contribute to the illusion that he was pursuing legitimate, principled positions instead of a bunch of frivolous nonsense. Look at me! I'm different. I'm too stupid to file and pay when I should have, but I'm ready to pay if I'm wrong. I'm smarter than your garden-variety TP.

I remember reading something similar to that, and at the time I knew this was idiotic on his account for the reasons you outlined: When he failed (not "if") he was going to owe more than what he would have if he had just paid up.

If Banister was smart and confident about his de-taxation theories, he would paid the taxes in full when he filed the returns, and then filed a claim for refund and litigated the claim. But he didn't, simply because deep down somewhere Joe knew he wasn't right and couldn't win.

[LPC]

I do recall Banister saying something many years ago about putting the cash he wasn't paying in taxes into a bank account. Sort of an "escrow" in his own mind.

Perhaps he thought it would contribute to the illusion that he was pursuing legitimate, principled positions instead of a bunch of frivolous nonsense. Look at me! I'm different. I'm too stupid to file and pay when I should have, but I'm ready to pay if I'm wrong. I'm smarter than your garden-variety TP.

War tax resisters often do that sort of thing, for two different reasons:

1. So that, when the government goes to collect the tax via administrative levy, the money will be there, waiting for them. It's a way of bowing to the inevitable without "voluntarily" paying the tax to support the immorality of war.

2. War tax resistance is not about the money, and so principled war tax resisters have an aversion to keeping the money. They either have to give it away or put it in an account for the government to seize later.

But neither of those reasons apply to Banister. He claimed he thought he should win, and it's all about the money.

It's just more muddled thinking from a muddled thinker.

[Lambkin]

But, perhaps 206K in penalties is better than 2 or 3 years in prison. Or maybe not. Victory because no prison time? Or just another slightly more sophisticated version of delusion and stupidity? Expensive, any way you slice it.

Is there anyone in possession of $206,000 who wouldn't give it up to avoid 2-3 years in prison?

[Number Six]

But, perhaps 206K in penalties is better than 2 or 3 years in prison. Or maybe not. Victory because no prison time? Or just another slightly more sophisticated version of delusion and stupidity? Expensive, any way you slice it.

Is there anyone in possession of $206,000 who wouldn't give it up to avoid 2-3 years in prison?

That's a lot of money and it doesn't grow on trees, lots of people would take their chances stash their wealth somewhere and either do their time or head outside of US jurisdiction as traumatic as that is.

There were some imaginative Sci Fi episodes like "The rip van winkle caper" playing on the idea of beating your sentence..

It's pretty bizarre that a former CID agent went crazy like this after seeing lots of criminals caught by the government for good cause. For him to get hung up on minutiae and trivialities when the much bigger issues of justice and accountability across the culture are neglected, is unfathomable, for people of decent intelligence.

[The Observer]

It is being reported that Bannister's petition to the Supreme Court resulted in the Court denying certiorari yesterday.

[The Observer]

It is being reported that Bannister's petition to the Supreme Court resulted in the Court denying certiorari yesterday.

I know that a great number of you will say that you are shocked, you tell me, shocked that this happened.

[Famspear]

To summarize: Banister v. Commissioner, case no. 030500-12, T.C. Memo 2015-10 (Jan. 12, 2015), aff'd, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (case no. 15-71103, Nov. 21, 2016), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court (case no. 17-338, Oct. 10, 2017).

By my calculation, for tax years 2003 through 2006, Banister is now looking at:

1. combined tax deficiencies of $179,786.00;

2. section 6651(a)(2) penalties for failure to timely file of $44,946.50;

3. section 6651(f) fraud penalties of $130,344.86;

4. section 6654 penalties of $6,022.84 for failure to timely make estimated payments;

5. a $25,000 penalty that was imposed by the U.S. Tax Court;

6. a penalty of $8,000 imposed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Total, $394,100.20.

Plus interest.

[Famspear]

PS:

The $25,000 penalty was imposed on Banister by the Tax Court under Internal Revenue Code section 6673 (frivolous litigation, etc.).

The $8,000 penalty was imposed by the Court of Appeals under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (frivolous appeal).

[notorial dissent]

I was going to say I didn't know he even had anything left in the pipeline, but oh well, he's not one I keep track of as I find him tedious and unimaginative.

Sounds like a sovcit tax denier win to me though.

[The Observer]

Total, $394,100.20.

If I recall correctly, Joe also lost his CPA license. I wonder how he is supporting himself nowadays. I think his gig at being a de-tax guru has failed miserable (you can pose with your guns only so many times when milking your marks).

I was going to say I didn't know he even had anything left in the pipeline,...

Oh, ye of little faith. Our flock of felonious, fraudulent frivvers always can be good for one more tilt when you least expect it.

[notorial dissent]

I never thought Banister was particularly smart, and to date I haven't seen anything that changes my opinion. I think he either got incredibly lucky or the prosecution was incredibly sloppy in the one trial he was involved in, I really did think he should have been convicted. Otherwise, he just seems to just perpetuate the same dumb at every turning. I do expect him to keep repeating the same fails though.