Mutter's analysis

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm glad that you came here to post Mutter, and I'm impressed with your attitude.

They don't say it takes a big man to admit he's wrong for nothing. A few CtC regulars have come here to post in the past, only to disappear after being shown their positions are incorrect. I suspect they knew they were wrong, just unwilling to admit it or accept it.

You have shown far more intellectual honesty than most visitors here that subscribed to a TP theory, I am impressed. If you need advice on how to fix any past mistakes you may have made I'm sure a number of people here would be willing to point you in the right direction.

Good luck to you.

What Ryan said.

[grixit]

I have little sympathy for those officials and their "oopsies". However, unlike the tp crowd, those officials were savvy enough to immediately own up and pay up.

[buck09]

Mutter gets major points from me for:
1. Actually reading what other people wrote.
2. Understanding what was written.
3. Realizing the logical consequences for his original position.
4. Being willing to change his point of view.

It's a rare trait. Better yet, if you continue to be critical of all points of view and demand objective and empirical evidence, regardless of where it leads you, you're going to be in good shape. (Perhaps not always happy with the results, but willing to accept them for what they are.)

[RyanMcC]

User MN Stix responded to the thread about Dan's FAQ.

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1299

He basically made a post saying it's absurd to say his labor has $0 value. You might notice, he doesn't even make the slightest attempt to show his opinion has any basis in law (not one citation of one court that agrees with his opinion). By contrast Dan's FAQ cites numerous court cases which strongly disagree with MN Stix's opinion:

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

The only thing he says that can even be considered a legal arguement or citation is this:

We are endowed by our creator, the right to the fruits of our labor as protected by the constitution. NRA's do not have those rights protected and are taxable.

Unfortunately, the US Constitution does not contain the word "fruits" or even "labor".

In his defense, he may have confused the US Constitution with Article 1 of the North Carolina Constitution:

Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation ... icle1.html

[The Operative]

User MN Stix responded to the thread about Dan's FAQ.

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1299

He basically made a post saying it's absurd to say his labor has $0 value. You might notice, he doesn't even make the slightest attempt to show his opinion has any basis in law (not one citation of one court that agrees with his opinion). By contrast Dan's FAQ cites numerous court cases which strongly disagree with MN Stix's opinion:
[SNIP]

Actually, he is right in that it is absurd to say his labor has $0 value. However, that is NOT the contention of the income tax laws or Dan's FAQ. The contention is that a gain (which is income) is calculated as the difference between what a person PAID for something and what amount he or she SELLS it. For example, if a person finds a diamond ring in their backyard that is worth $4,000 and sells it to his or her neighbor for $3,000. Does that person have a $1,000 loss? No, he or she has a $3,000 gain because the gain is calculated as the difference between what he or she PAID for the ring ($0) and the amount for which he or she sold it ($3,000). It is the same with a person's labor. It is irrelevant what the labor is worth to the individual selling it to someone else. The gain is the amount for which they sell it (his or her wage or salary) and the amount he or she paid for his or her own labor ($0).

EDIT: After reading MN STIX additional posting, I feel the need to clarify. While a person does not sell all of his or her capability to labor for all time all at once, a person does sell a period of time of labor for an hourly wage or salary. Once a person works for a paycheck for a certain period of time, that time is gone forever. The amount of energy your body used during that labor is gone until you replenish it. That labor covering that amount of time has been sold by the laborer and the employer paid the laborer for it. It is that simple.

[Famspear]

Yes, "MN Stix" at losthorizons is yet another an example of someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills. The "value" argument is an old, tired, argument. Anyone who has taken Accounting 101 should know better.

By definition, in an arm's length exchange, the value of what you pay is equal to the value you receive.

For federal income tax purposes, gain is not computed as the excess of the value of what you receive over the "value" of what you gave up. Gain is the excess of the value of what you receive over the ADJUSTED BASIS of what you gave up.

These people cannot read a statute. The Internal Revenue Code does not say that gain is determined by deducting the "value" of what you gave up from the value of what you are receiving.

Adjusted basis -- which is an amount determined by statute, not by reference to current "value" of an item -- is almost never equal to the current VALUE of an asset at the time you dispose of that asset.

The stupidity of comments like those made by MN Stix is typical.

[Famspear]

From something I wrote in another place:

Another tax protester argument is that income from labor should not be taxable because any amount the worker receives in exchange for his or her labor is received in an exchange of "equal value," although an exchange in any true "arm's length" fair market value transaction is, essentially by definition, an exchange of equal value. See, for example, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 81-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9126 (9th Cir. 1980), in which the taxpayer's theory -- that wages were not taxable because (1) "only profit or gain, such as that from the sale of a capital asset, constituted income subject to federal tax" and (2) "[w]ages could not constitute gain or profit because wages merely represent an equivalent exchange for one's labor" -- was rejected. See also the decision of the United States Tax Court in Link v. Commissioner, CCH Dec. 56,565(M), T.C. Memo. 2006-146 (2006), where the taxpayer's argument -- that pension income is "labor property" and that when taxpayer receives his pension income from his former employer for whom he once performed services (or labor), any amount he receives in exchange for his labor is a nontaxable exchange of equal value -- was rejected.

Further, under the U.S. federal tax laws, even if labor were considered "property" the gain or income from "labor property" would be defined as the excess of the amount realized (for example, the money received) by the taxpayer over the amount of the taxpayer's "adjusted basis" in the "property" (see 26 USC sec. 1001). Since the taxpayer can have only a zero "basis" amount in his or her own labor -- Cullinane v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, T.C. Memo 1999-2, CCH Dec. 53,203(M) (1999), the personal living expenses incurred to generate labor being both non-capitalizable and, under 26 USC sec. 262, non-deductible -- the "gain" would thus be equal to the amount of compensation received by the taxpayer. Compare Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9279 (9th Cir. 1986), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: "The assertion that proceeds received for personal services cannot be given a 'zero-basis for the purpose of the assessment of taxation,' is frivolous. This is a variation of the 'wages are not income' theme, which has been rejected repeatedly by this court." See also Reading v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument -- that gain from labor of self-employed individual cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor" has been subtracted from the amount received -- was rejected; validity of 26 USC sec. 262, disallowing deductions for personal living expenses, was upheld). 70 T.C. 730, CCH Dec. 35,354 (1978), aff’d per curiam, 614 F.2d 159, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9162 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Burnett v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument -- that wages represent an equal exchange of property and, therefore, are not taxable income -- was rejected). 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 811, T.C. Memo 1994-475, CCH Dec. 50,139(M) (1994).

These cases highlight the point previously made: You do not determine gain by subtracting the current value of the item you are giving up. You determine gain by subtracting the BASIS of the item you are giving up.

Under the doofus "logic" put forward by MN Stix, no one could ever realize a gain or loss on a sale of stock.

"MN Stix," with your goofy theory of computing gain, you not only flunk Tax 101, you also flunk Acccounting 101, Logic 101, and Common Sense 101.

[Famspear]

What angers me about the comments like those of MN Stix at losthorizons is the stupid arrogance. This is not merely ignorance. This is willful stupidity of the worst kind. For MN Stix to question the legal conclusions of an attorney is akin to the arrogance of a wino on the street corner with a fourth grade education pontificating and questioning the heart surgery skills of the late Dr. Michael DeBakey.

It is bad to be wrong. It is even worse to presume that you know more than the legal experts about something as mind-numbingly complex as the Internal Revenue Code -- and be wrong as well. As Daniel B. Evans once said, "If you are going to strike the King, you had better kill him."

MN Stix gets my vote for the Losthorizontal Doofus of the Day Award.

[Gregg]

MN Stix gets my vote for the Losthorizontal Doofus of the Day Award.

and that is of course the gateway award towards the "Stupid on a Stick Lifetime Achievement Award"

[mutter]

FamSpear sent me the Andrew Scott decision, which makes PH a freaking lyer as it is no doubt CtC. so CtC has been taken to tax court and was utterly slammed dunked!
That closes the matter for me, and i will be forwarding it to the couple of people on the forum I communicate via email with.
I am still going to read more of dan's write ups thou, just for my education

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

FamSpear sent me the Andrew Scott decision, which makes PH a freaking lyer as it is no doubt CtC. so CtC has been taken to tax court and was utterly slammed dunked!
That closes the matter for me, and i will be forwarding it to the couple of people on the forum I communicate via email with.
I am still going to read more of dan's write ups thou, just for my education

I'm curious, have you posted at YouTube under the name "muttergeo"?

[Dezcad]

FamSpear sent me the Andrew Scott decision, which makes PH a freaking lyer as it is no doubt CtC. so CtC has been taken to tax court and was utterly slammed dunked!
That closes the matter for me, and i will be forwarding it to the couple of people on the forum I communicate via email with.
I am still going to read more of dan's write ups thou, just for my education

If you want to read another CTC filer lose in Tax Court, read Patrick Mooney's decision here.

Pay particular attention to this from the Order:

After cross-examination, the Court asked petitioner whether
the respective amounts that he acknowledged he received during
2004 from Interstate Industries, Inc ., and The Center, Inc ., in
return for the services that he performed for those companies
during that year constitute wages under the Federal income tax
(tax) laws . Petitioner responded that those amounts do not
constitute wages "Because the law clearly states that the term
`wages' is remuneration to an employee", and the term "employee"
means "someone performing the functions of a public office . "
The Court informed petitioner that he was advancing a
frivolous and groundless argument in support of his position that
the respective amounts reflected in Forms W-2 that he
acknowledged he received from Interstate Industries, Inc ., and
The Center, Inc ., respectively, for work that he performed for
those companies during 2004 do not constitute wages under the tax
laws .
As discussed above, the Court had warned petitioner at the
calendar call that if he were to advance at the trial in this
case frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and
arguments, the Court would entertain a motion by respondent to
dismiss this case for failure properly to prosecute . Petitioner
ignored that warning when he continued to advance a frivolous and
groundless position at the trial in this case, and the Court
entertained such a motion from respondent .

Also, Patrick Mooney is discussed at length here - http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3333.

[mutter]

Yes, "MN Stix" at losthorizons is yet another an example of someone who lacks basic reading comprehension skills. The "value" argument is an old, tired, argument. Anyone who has taken Accounting 101 should know better.

By definition, in an arm's length exchange, the value of what you pay is equal to the value you receive.

For federal income tax purposes, gain is not computed as the excess of the value of what you receive over the "value" of what you gave up. Gain is the excess of the value of what you receive over the ADJUSTED BASIS of what you gave up.

These people cannot read a statute. The Internal Revenue Code does not say that gain is determined by deducting the "value" of what you gave up from the value of what you are receiving.

Adjusted basis -- which is an amount determined by statute, not by reference to current "value" of an item -- is almost never equal to the current VALUE of an asset at the time you dispose of that asset.

The stupidity of comments like those made by MN Stix is typical.

Ive tried to explain this before. If Ive not been banned at LH I ll posts some rebuttals later today. Of course I am going to plagerize famspear

[mutter]

FamSpear sent me the Andrew Scott decision, which makes PH a freaking lyer as it is no doubt CtC. so CtC has been taken to tax court and was utterly slammed dunked!
That closes the matter for me, and i will be forwarding it to the couple of people on the forum I communicate via email with.
I am still going to read more of dan's write ups thou, just for my education

I'm curious, have you posted at YouTube under the name "muttergeo"?

Yes. Mutter is actually my name.
being a systems admin Ive got about 30 logins. it helps me keep them all in line by using my real name. that and I dont care if people know what my real name is. As you can read I take my honor very seriously. But you cant hold anything from the past Tax postings against me.
did you see what I told the english chick who was whinning about our grocery stores? I told her something like if she didnt like the food come on over to my house and I ll serve her a spot of dick. for those of you who know what that english delicacy is

[mutter]

FamSpear sent me the Andrew Scott decision, which makes PH a freaking lyer as it is no doubt CtC. so CtC has been taken to tax court and was utterly slammed dunked!
That closes the matter for me, and i will be forwarding it to the couple of people on the forum I communicate via email with.
I am still going to read more of dan's write ups thou, just for my education

If you want to read another CTC filer lose in Tax Court, read Patrick Mooney's decision here.

Pay particular attention to this from the Order:

After cross-examination, the Court asked petitioner whether
the respective amounts that he acknowledged he received during
2004 from Interstate Industries, Inc ., and The Center, Inc ., in
return for the services that he performed for those companies
during that year constitute wages under the Federal income tax
(tax) laws . Petitioner responded that those amounts do not
constitute wages "Because the law clearly states that the term
`wages' is remuneration to an employee", and the term "employee"
means "someone performing the functions of a public office . "
The Court informed petitioner that he was advancing a
frivolous and groundless argument in support of his position that
the respective amounts reflected in Forms W-2 that he
acknowledged he received from Interstate Industries, Inc ., and
The Center, Inc ., respectively, for work that he performed for
those companies during 2004 do not constitute wages under the tax
laws .
As discussed above, the Court had warned petitioner at the
calendar call that if he were to advance at the trial in this
case frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and
arguments, the Court would entertain a motion by respondent to
dismiss this case for failure properly to prosecute . Petitioner
ignored that warning when he continued to advance a frivolous and
groundless position at the trial in this case, and the Court
entertained such a motion from respondent .

Also, Patrick Mooney is discussed at length here - http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3333.

the case link doesnt work. In essence PH etc has been hiding losing cases from people. a lie is a lie by comission or admission. which basically constitutes a freakin fraud doesnt it? Now I am pissed! as soon as I get off this conference call and fix my server (yes Geo can multitask) I am going to start informing people.
Get that link fixed or email me the mooney case please. i want that evidence of his failure

[Demosthenes]

If Ive not been banned at LH I ll posts some rebuttals later today. Of course I am going to plagerize famspear

You can expect that your posts will be deleted and your IP banned.

Weston White wrote:

It looks like mutter has crossed back over to the darkside: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3716

Mutter past on as of 2/4/2009, you will be sorely missed.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

FamSpear sent me the Andrew Scott decision, which makes PH a freaking lyer as it is no doubt CtC. so CtC has been taken to tax court and was utterly slammed dunked!
That closes the matter for me, and i will be forwarding it to the couple of people on the forum I communicate via email with.
I am still going to read more of dan's write ups thou, just for my education

I'm curious, have you posted at YouTube under the name "muttergeo"?

Yes. Mutter is actually my name.
being a systems admin Ive got about 30 logins. it helps me keep them all in line by using my real name. that and I dont care if people know what my real name is. As you can read I take my honor very seriously. But you cant hold anything from the past Tax postings against me.
did you see what I told the english chick who was whinning about our grocery stores? I told her something like if she didnt like the food come on over to my house and I ll serve her a spot of dick. for those of you who know what that english delicacy is

I missed your exchange with the English chick and I'll admit my ignorance of your reference. I had seen that user name on some YouTube vids and noticed the similarity between that one and "mutter". Regarding your past tax postings: You mention that your honor is important to you. You've done well by yourself by listening to the experts here and accepting their advice over PH. As others have noted, it's oftentimes not easy to admit to past mistakes. Kudos.

[webhick]

I like how they refer to us as the darkside, when Darth Hendrickson is the one jettisoning people out the airlock...

ETA: Dum dum dum DUM-DEE-DUM dum dee dum.

[mutter]

I like how they refer to us as the darkside, when Darth Hendrickson is the one jettisoning people out the airlock...

ETA: Dum dum dum DUM-DEE-DUM dum dee dum.

Note my reply to them.
By the way a spot of dic is a sausage i ll have to check if the english chick said anything back

[Famspear]

Dear Mutter: The Tax Court decision on May 5, 2008, ruling against Patrick Michael Mooney is at the Tax Court web site, but it's hard to find. The Tax Court web site is rather klunky, generally. I am going to email a PDF copy of the May 5th decision to you.

The May 5th decision does not specifically mention Hendrickson or Cracking the Code in the way the court decision in the Scott case does, though.

Also, Mooney appealed his Tax Court loss to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals ruled against him. Later, I can email you a PDF copy of Mooney's brief in his appeal at the Court of Appeals. You can see his arguments. I don't recall whether he specifically mentioned Hendrickson on appeal, either.

But you can be the judge of what happened to Mooney.