Another LostHead on the road to ruin

[Famspear]

No, but I bet Dennisconn will not be using the CtC method in the future.

From the tiny bit of information presented, it seems as if Dennisconn was polite and showed good manners in dealing with the IRS, which ended saving him some serious coin. Going forward, by not relying on spurious tax "theories" he can save himself a lot of additional coin.

Hopefully he will and will never have dealings with the IRS again, outside the standard and ordinary.

Yes, hopefully this is a happy ending of sorts for Dennisconn.

I keep forgetting to mention that in the Paltalk internet conference on Friday, April 17th, Pete Hendrickson announced that one of his children (a daughter, I think he said) is now using the CtC scam.

[Gregg]

Cool, federal prison family plans....

[The Operative]

I have my doubts that Dennisconn has stopped drinking the kool-aid. If he had truly dropped CTC, he should not have been asking the dim bulbs at lost hopes for advice. He should have consulted an accountant or EA to help him.

[Thule]

So, Dennisconn only had to pay $2000 for following CTC (in addition to any taxes) and the nice Appeals officer abated $2000 of penalties.

And that would make him by a mile the smartest regular over at LH.

[webhick]

I keep forgetting to mention that in the Paltalk internet conference on Friday, April 17th, Pete Hendrickson announced that one of his children (a daughter, I think he said) is now using the CtC scam.

I bet it's the one with the pissy expression who is modeling t-shirts on his website. When I was growing up, expressions like that always got smacked clean off.

[Famspear]

I keep forgetting to mention that in the Paltalk internet conference on Friday, April 17th, Pete Hendrickson announced that one of his children (a daughter, I think he said) is now using the CtC scam.

I bet it's the one with the pissy expression who is modeling t-shirts on his website. When I was growing up, expressions like that always got smacked clean off.

If she's really following in Daddy's footsteps on this tax evasion thing, I predict that her mood will not improve any time soon.

It's gotta be tough to know that your Daddy is a recidivist.

By contrast, I always knew my Dad was a Methodist, and I handled that knowledge fairly well.

[RyanMcC]

For some reason this picture made me think about taxes.



The guy on top represents the IRS, the guy on bottom represents your average CtC filer fighting the system.

[Famspear]

For some reason this picture made me think about taxes.



The guy on top represents the IRS, the guy on bottom represents your average CtC filer fighting the system.

Obviously, the CtC scammer on the bottom is experiencing victory after victory after victory after victory after victory after victory after victory after victory after victory .......

[Gregg]

I can't get rid of the vision of the kids in Ricky Bobby (Taledega Nights, whatever...) running around the house, the young one screaming "ANARCHY ANARCHY!!! and the other one says "I don't even know what it means, but I like it!"

That's what tax loonies remind me of.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Cool, federal prison family plans....

Or he's angling for the "Peter E. Hendrickson Perpetuity Wing" of the prison.

[Trippy]

For some reason this picture made me think about taxes.

Okay, where do I send the bill for yet another ruined keyboard??

[Weston White]

Whelp, really no need to further debate this issue anyways, see: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1700

Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated. I for one am not surprised. However, your contentions are based on a faulty premise; neither have you yet to thoroughly explain how your arguments hold any support in law. You are out of accord with established legal doctrine and statutory construction. One must then only conclude that your arguments are merely your misinterpretations or ill-guided opinions. Needless it is, to say, really now who cares what you think, I sure don’t. Ergo, keep your opinions to yourself.

[Famspear]

Whelp, really no need to further debate this issue anyways, see: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1700

Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated.

Nope.

I for one am not surprised. However, your contentions are based on a faulty premise; neither have you yet to thoroughly explain how your arguments hold any support in law.

Nope.

You are out of accord with established legal doctrine and statutory construction.

Nope.

One must then only conclude that your arguments are merely your misinterpretations or ill-guided opinions. Needless it is, to say, really now who cares what you think, I sure don’t. Ergo, keep your opinions to yourself.

Nope. And yes, Weston, you do care what we think.

Weston White, Weston White,
Banned by Petey late one night!
So he leaves the Peter-meister,
Abandoning the Peter-shyster,
Comes to Quatloos, misbehaves,
Cannot get respect he craves.
Weston sees his Faker Plan
Exposed; he is the Faker Man.
No one likes him any more,
His nonsense writing -- such a bore.
Writing 'round in circles where,
Nobody buys it - so unfair!
If only he had really studied,
Writing would be not so muddied.
Longs to heal his childhood trauma--
Something bad
With Dad
Or Momma.
That's the problem, now, you see:
'Twas Mom or Dad that made him be
The Hater of Authority,
The Anti-Governmental Jerk,
A failure now, in all his work.

[The Operative]

Whelp, really no need to further debate this issue anyways, see: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1700

Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated.

The only thing that post at lost horizons shows is that person's inability to read and comprehend English.

[absdes96]

Doktor Avalanche said, "You remind me of the guy who was placed in a room piled to the ceiling with horsesh*t and eagerly grabs a shovel because, despite the room being piled high with the stuff, there just has to be a pony in there somewhere.

Doktor Avalanche,

You're killing me, man! I am going to add this to my list of Doktor Avalanche quotes.

[Weston White]

Whelp, really no need to further debate this issue anyways, see: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1700

Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated.

The only thing that post at lost horizons shows is that person's inability to read and comprehend English.

Funny, they say the exact same thing about you. Really, they do I just spoke with them on Skype about your little thread here and they were laughing their asses off at you people! What a w00t! Really!

[Duke2Earl]

Tell you what. Mr. White... when you win a case then you can declare victory. At the present all you have is your theories and an unbroken string of losses. And that is reality.

[Weston White]

How do you apply IRC 6702 (b)(3) if only one spouse corrects the filing if you are of the mind that the penalty can apply only once to the joint filing?

6702(b) states any person. So, jointly, each could be charged.

If you can't look to 6702(b) to make the penalty charge to each under 6702(a), then is 6702(b)(3) only applicable to penalties charged under 6702(b) but not 6702(a)?

With that logic, 6702(a) has no grace for a corrected return (coming to your senses), if you exclude all of 6702(b).

WTF are you even talking about? That has to do with tax court hearings it has nothing to do with filing tax returns. AND BTW, two persons is not any person, because it is plural now, so it would stand that since the charge applies to a submission it would serve to mean the petitioner or petitioners, however many of them there are, one or two or twenty. Though this section applies to certain classes of corporations anyways and not to individuals, so it is not relevant at all (as individuals were intentionally omitted from the term of person defined by implementation of this section).

[Nikki]

Weston still fails to realize that his rabid opinions are worthless in comparison to the published opinions of Tax Court, District Court, and Appellate Court judges.

No matter how carefully Weston applies his microtome to dissecting the specific language of a Code section or regulation, or how many explanatory letters he or Pete's other disciples write to the IRS carefully laying out how the IRS is incorrect in their interpretations or rulings, it won't make a rat's patootie worth of difference.

They are arguing against long-established legal decisions which, despite thousands of challenges, have never been overturned.

Weston, and everyone else who listened to Pete -- including Pete, is facing having to pay back taxes, interest, and penalties. They can scream, reason, whine, and whimber all that they want, but the end result will be the same: they will pay or their assets will be seized and sold.

On the bright side, some of them, courtesy of CI and DoJ, will have no living expenses for several years.

PS: Weston, do you realize that every time you post here, there, and everywhere under your real name, it just makes that red dot get bigger and brighter?

[Famspear]

Whelp, really no need to further debate this issue anyways, see: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1700

Your arguments are only further torn apart and disseminated.

The only thing that post at lost horizons shows is that person's inability to read and comprehend English.

Funny, they say the exact same thing about you. Really, they do I just spoke with them on Skype about your little thread here and they were laughing their asses off at you people! What a w00t! Really!

When I go to the zoo, the monkeys in their cages laugh at me too. They chatter and bounce off the walls -- like monkeys in a cage. Your tax protester/tax denier friends, Weston, are analogous to the monkeys in the cage. They claim to believe they know what they're talking about. They don't know what they're talking about. And neither do you.

How do you apply IRC 6702 (b)(3) if only one spouse corrects the filing if you are of the mind that the penalty can apply only once to the joint filing?

6702(b) states any person. So, jointly, each could be charged.

If you can't look to 6702(b) to make the penalty charge to each under 6702(a), then is 6702(b)(3) only applicable to penalties charged under 6702(b) but not 6702(a)?

With that logic, 6702(a) has no grace for a corrected return (coming to your senses), if you exclude all of 6702(b).

WTF are you even talking about? That has to do with tax court hearings it has nothing to do with filing tax returns. AND BTW, two persons is not any person, because it is plural now, so it would stand that since the charge applies to a submission it would serve to mean the petitioner or petitioners, however many of them there are, one or two or twenty.

Thanks for clearing that up, Weston.

Though this section [section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code] applies to certain classes of corporations anyways and not to individuals, so it is not relevant at all (as individuals were intentionally omitted from the term of person defined by implementation of this section).

Section 6702 applies only to corporations and not to individuals? Sure, Weston. And The Moon is made of green cheese.