Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
-
- Pirate Judge of Which Things Work
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:13 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
One of Schiff's buddies hits tax court again and wins again. See US Tax Court today's opinions.
Remember that CtC is about the rule of law.
John J. Bulten
John J. Bulten
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
Eight indicia of frivolousness in tax return submission enumerated; and the court found out that the petitioner had met the requirements in seven, not bothering with the eighth because it wouldn't overcome the others. On top of that, a $25,000 frivpen.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
-
- Pirate Judge of Which Things Work
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:13 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
Laural Ann Curtis. Her win should give her enough material to write a sequel to her previous book.
Remember that CtC is about the rule of law.
John J. Bulten
John J. Bulten
-
- Endangerer of Stupid Species
- Posts: 877
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
- Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
Case is Laurel Ann Curtis, 5657-10. Here is the decision.
Note that this is Round Two for her. I guess that she never heard the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again while hoping for a different outcome.
Note that this is Round Two for her. I guess that she never heard the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again while hoping for a different outcome.
Good for the lawyer. I wonder why he waited so long.Petitioner was represented by counsel Ronald H. Hoevet throughout the pretrial proceedings. When petitioner’s case was called for trial, however, Mr. Hoevet moved for leave to withdraw as counsel on grounds that he could not “assert a position unless there is a basis of law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” Respondent did not object to this motion, which the Court granted.
Maybe she figured that the Feds would grant him a leave of absence from his prison cell to testify for her. Not exactly bright, this one.In the early 1980s after attending a seminar by Irwin Schiff and reading one of his books petitioner decided to stop filing Federal income tax returns. She has not filed a Federal income tax return since 1983.
Mr. Schiff assisted her in preparing for her first Tax Court case, and she unsuccessfully attempted to call him as an expert witness during the trial. At the time, petitioner was aware that Mr. Schiff had previously been convicted, fined, and imprisoned for willfully failing to file Federal income tax returns.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
-
- A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
- Posts: 13806
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
I would say the stupid is strong in this one.
You'd have thought that the fact that Shifty was already in jail for doing what she was trying to do would have been a clue, but guess not.
You'd have thought that the fact that Shifty was already in jail for doing what she was trying to do would have been a clue, but guess not.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
-
- J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
John:jkeeb wrote:Laural Ann Curtis. Her win should give her enough material to write a sequel to her previous book.
What did she "win"? The court upheld all of the deficiencies, found her liable for fraud penalties, and hit her with a $25,000 frivolous litigation penalty.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
-
- Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
- Posts: 3994
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
Every loss is a win.Dr. Caligari wrote:John:jkeeb wrote:Laural Ann Curtis. Her win should give her enough material to write a sequel to her previous book.
What did she "win"? The court upheld all of the deficiencies, found her liable for fraud penalties, and hit her with a $25,000 frivolous litigation penalty.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
I am guessing that she "won" because the ebil gummint Just-asses still haven't shown her the law which makes her "liable" for an income tax.Dr. Caligari wrote:John:jkeeb wrote:Laural Ann Curtis. Her win should give her enough material to write a sequel to her previous book.
What did she "win"? The court upheld all of the deficiencies, found her liable for fraud penalties, and hit her with a $25,000 frivolous litigation penalty.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
Winning - n. Gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition, except when used by tax protestors, when its meaning is expanded to include any outcome, however negative, including fines and imprisonment. (Webstur's Intergalactic Dictionary for Intentionally Obtuse Trolls)
-
- A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
- Posts: 13806
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
Well, they didn't send her to Dry Totugas, and they still haven't locked her up, so I guess that qualifies as a win in her book. Mine, not so much. I would say she is continuing to lose of all fronts, but then what do I know??
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
-
- Further Moderator
- Posts: 7524
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
- Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith
Re: Author of IRS Exposed Wins Again
LAUREL ANN CURTIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Release Date: APRIL 18, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM/*/
Tax Ct. No. 5657-10
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted March 7, 2016/**/
Portland, Oregon
Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SAMMARTINO,/***/ District Judge.
Laurel Ann Curtis appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision upholding income tax deficiencies and additions to tax for tax years 1994 through 1997. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1). We review the Tax Court's legal conclusions de novo, and review its factual findings for clear error. Johanson v. Comm'r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
1. We reject Curtis's contention that the IRS lacked authority to assess taxes because the statute of limitations had run. Curtis admits that she never filed tax returns for 1994 through 1997. "In the case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed . . . at any time." 26 U.S.C. section 6501(c)(3).
2. The Tax Court properly concluded, on stipulated evidence, that the rents and capital gains Curtis had received were taxable income. The Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived," including both rents and "[g]ains derived from dealings in property." 26 U.S.C. section 61(a)(3), (5). The Tax Court also appropriately imposed additions to tax for Curtis's failure to pay estimated taxes. See 26 U.S.C. section 6654(a).
3. The Tax Court did not err by imposing a penalty for Curtis's fraudulent failure to file tax returns. The Internal Revenue Code authorizes penalties for fraudulent failure to file timely tax returns, id. section 6651(f), and this Court has defined tax fraud to include "intentional wrongdoing on the part of the taxpayer with the specific intent to avoid a tax known to be owing." Maciel v. C.I.R., 489 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Estate of Trompeter v. Comm'r, 279 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Curtis had such intent.
4. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sanction against Curtis under 26 U.S.C. section 6673 for taking frivolous positions regarding the constitutionality and mandatory nature of income taxes. See id. section 6673(a)(1). Curtis relied on arguments that have long been held frivolous, including in a previous case against Curtis. Curtis v. C.I.R., 73 F. App'x 200, 202 (9th Cir. 2003) (unpublished). "When taxpayers are on notice that they may face sanctions for frivolous litigation, the tax court is within its discretion to award sanctions under section 6673." Wolf v. Comm'r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
//*//
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
//**//
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
//***//
The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Release Date: APRIL 18, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM/*/
Tax Ct. No. 5657-10
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted March 7, 2016/**/
Portland, Oregon
Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SAMMARTINO,/***/ District Judge.
Laurel Ann Curtis appeals pro se from the Tax Court's decision upholding income tax deficiencies and additions to tax for tax years 1994 through 1997. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 7482(a)(1). We review the Tax Court's legal conclusions de novo, and review its factual findings for clear error. Johanson v. Comm'r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
1. We reject Curtis's contention that the IRS lacked authority to assess taxes because the statute of limitations had run. Curtis admits that she never filed tax returns for 1994 through 1997. "In the case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed . . . at any time." 26 U.S.C. section 6501(c)(3).
2. The Tax Court properly concluded, on stipulated evidence, that the rents and capital gains Curtis had received were taxable income. The Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived," including both rents and "[g]ains derived from dealings in property." 26 U.S.C. section 61(a)(3), (5). The Tax Court also appropriately imposed additions to tax for Curtis's failure to pay estimated taxes. See 26 U.S.C. section 6654(a).
3. The Tax Court did not err by imposing a penalty for Curtis's fraudulent failure to file tax returns. The Internal Revenue Code authorizes penalties for fraudulent failure to file timely tax returns, id. section 6651(f), and this Court has defined tax fraud to include "intentional wrongdoing on the part of the taxpayer with the specific intent to avoid a tax known to be owing." Maciel v. C.I.R., 489 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Estate of Trompeter v. Comm'r, 279 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Curtis had such intent.
4. The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sanction against Curtis under 26 U.S.C. section 6673 for taking frivolous positions regarding the constitutionality and mandatory nature of income taxes. See id. section 6673(a)(1). Curtis relied on arguments that have long been held frivolous, including in a previous case against Curtis. Curtis v. C.I.R., 73 F. App'x 200, 202 (9th Cir. 2003) (unpublished). "When taxpayers are on notice that they may face sanctions for frivolous litigation, the tax court is within its discretion to award sanctions under section 6673." Wolf v. Comm'r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
//*//
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
//**//
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
//***//
The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff