Are Court orders to file tax returns uncommon?

[Quixote]

Well, with such a proper authority as that, who could disagree? The question, or rather lack of one, in this case is whether it would be purjury to fill a government form correctly. I say not.

You are no Lawman (at least you are not very learned in the law);


It is plain that any real judge would simply convict for perjury on the current evidence. No real judge would order a truthful form be replaced with perjury.



Regards,

David Merrill.

PH has never been charged with perjury, so a conviction would be a bit premature.

[Quixote]

United States v. Sheldon and similar cases make it clear that my jurisdictional concern was unwarranted. And PH had all the due process he could want. My gut doesn't like the court's order, but my brain is OK with it.

[John J. Bulten]

What?! All I see is Sheldon being ordered to file accurate returns, without any indication as to directing the content of his assessment. Similarly in the cases of Billy Severence, Sharon Caulder, and Julie Adams (linked below), the requirement is only to file "accurate" returns. Still seems like Judge Nancy is unique in dictating the content of testimony.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforceme ... 71,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforceme ... 18,00.html

The 1040 is an affidavit of facts and legal conclusions, made during an official proceeding under penalties of perjury. By ordering Pete to "include" certain items in "income" (without picking apart those terms), Judge Nancy is ordering him to testify under jurat that he has legally concluded (in agreement with her conclusion) that those items were income. Since he testified plainly that he legally concluded the opposite, Judge Nancy and Attorney Robert Metcalfe are conspiring to suborn perjury and tamper with the witness under criminal code sections 1622, 1512, and 371. Ya think?

[Florida]

What?! All I see is Sheldon being ordered to file accurate returns, without any indication as to directing the content of his assessment. Similarly in the cases of Billy Severence, Sharon Caulder, and Julie Adams (linked below), the requirement is only to file "accurate" returns. Still seems like Judge Nancy is unique in dictating the content of testimony.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforceme ... 71,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforceme ... 18,00.html

The 1040 is an affidavit of facts and legal conclusions, made during an official proceeding under penalties of perjury. By ordering Pete to "include" certain items in "income" (without picking apart those terms), Judge Nancy is ordering him to testify under jurat that he has legally concluded (in agreement with her conclusion) that those items were income. Since he testified plainly that he legally concluded the opposite, Judge Nancy and Attorney Robert Metcalfe are conspiring to suborn perjury and tamper with the witness under criminal code sections 1622, 1512, and 371. Ya think?

Yep, I think you should file suit against Nancy on behalf of Petey and be sure to use the word jurat since people (jury) will be impressed with the big boy words.

[LPC]

The 1040 is an affidavit of facts and legal conclusions, made during an official proceeding under penalties of perjury. By ordering Pete to "include" certain items in "income" (without picking apart those terms), Judge Nancy is ordering him to testify under jurat that he has legally concluded (in agreement with her conclusion) that those items were income. Since he testified plainly that he legally concluded the opposite, Judge Nancy and Attorney Robert Metcalfe are conspiring to suborn perjury and tamper with the witness under criminal code sections 1622, 1512, and 371. Ya think?

Two words: res judicata.

Having won a court judgment that the money Hendrickson received was income, and an order that he report the income on a tax return, the government could not possibly prosecute him for perjury for reporting on a tax return what the court had both adjudicated and ordered.

Now we will return you to your regularly scheduled delusion, which is already in progress.

[Neckbone]

My gut doesn't like it and neither does my brain. Couldn't the Judge have simply asked (nicely, of course) the DoJ to persuade its client (IRS) to simply prepare a 6020(b) return? Then IRS gets the assessment they want, and PH doesn't face the choice of committing perjury or losing his religion. It's so unnecessary. What's the Judge's point? I don't get it.

Neckbone

[David Merrill]

My gut doesn't like it and neither does my brain. Couldn't the Judge have simply asked (nicely, of course) the DoJ to persuade its client (IRS) to simply prepare a 6020(b) return? Then IRS gets the assessment they want, and PH doesn't face the choice of committing perjury or losing his religion. It's so unnecessary. What's the Judge's point? I don't get it.

Neckbone

The point is that if Hendrickson commits perjury like the court wants, the fines and penalties are inherent in the act. Hendrickson will have to pay on the compensation as though it was taxable income, plus fines and an admission of guilt so that if he does not pay up, he may be imprisoned down the road.

Of course he is obligated to file a return if he has been accepting private credit...

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Couldn't the Judge have simply asked (nicely, of course) the DoJ to persuade its client (IRS) to simply prepare a 6020(b) return?

Yes, I suppose she could have done so. I don't see anything wrong, however, with what she actually did. Although the context is different - an employment discrimination suit instead of a civil tax case - I guess I agree with the sentiments the Second Circuit expressed in Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc., 983 F.2d 1204 (2nd Cir. 1993):

It hardly seems drastic to require [defendant] to obey the law.... It is difficult to discern what heavy burden the order places on the [defendant].... Moreover, we do not regard it as superfluous to subject an employer found to have discriminated [a taxpayer found to have failed to report income] to the district court's contempt powers, were it to repeat its conduct.

[LPC]

My gut doesn't like it and neither does my brain. Couldn't the Judge have simply asked (nicely, of course) the DoJ to persuade its client (IRS) to simply prepare a 6020(b) return?

I've had some the same thoughts, mainly thinking that it was procedurally easier to go through the assessment process that to enforce an injunction (assuming that Hendrickson fails to comply).

But if Hendrickson complies, then the injunction has value, because it's easier to process a self-assessment than impose an IRS assessment.

So, from my point of view, the IRS had no reason *not* to ask for an injunction. They were already going to court as a plaintiff, and already had a burden of proof, and the injunction didn't require much additional evidence. So it was kind of a "gimme."

And, in answer to the question posed by this thread, I think that this kind of civil injunction is rare for the simply reason that the procedural posture of the Hendrickson case is rare. In Hendrickson, the government was the plaintiff in an erroneous refund suit, in district court, against a repeat offender. Most tax litigation takes place in Tax Court, and the Tax Court doesn't have the power to issue an injunction. Most District Court litigation is over refunds where the government is the defendant and the refund claim is usually a "one-year-only kind of claim," so it's not worth the effort to file a counter-claim for injunctive relief.

Although why the government didn't ask for injunctive relief against the other CtC defendants is still unexplained.

Then IRS gets the assessment they want, and PH doesn't face the choice of committing perjury or losing his religion. It's so unnecessary.

I think that "losing his religion" might be the point.

Perhaps the government asked for the injunction just to show Hendrickson that they could, and to make an example of him to his followers.

What's the Judge's point? I don't get it.

The judge simply decided that the government was entitled to what they asked for and, as Serra has pointed out, why shouldn't someone be ordered to obey the law, particularly when they have demonstrated that they are unwilling to obey the law?

[Imalawman]

I just haven't seen the big deal here at all. It’s not troublesome to me in the least. They court, having found items of income to be taxable and the returns he filed to be incorrect, she merely required him to put the taxable income on a return in the correct manner. It matters not what he believes or not.

And how in the world would this ever be perjury? That would be like losing in a civil case and claiming that paying the judgment would be perjury. It is a truly ridiculous notion. On the state side, I've seen this sort of thing, and it’s done in different ways all the time. If filling a tax return could be perjury then I think you'd have to reconsider the case law on its status under 5th amendment. In either event, I just don't see why it’s shocking to some people.

[Quixote]

Pete's filing of a correct return looks like a formal acquiescence to the court's decision, an admission that he was wrong and the IRS is right. But it isn't. If Pete complies, he will do so under court enforced compulsion, not of his own free will.

I can see that the injunction might achieve the desired result more rapidly than deficiency procedures, although it will be interesting to see how many times the court has to tell PH what an accurate return looks like. But the refund suit and injunction were both unnecessary. The same result, it fact a better result, could have been achieved via deficiency procedures and other assessment options available to the IRS. The government's collection options on a judgment are weak compared to their options to collect an assessed tax.

[Neckbone]

I just haven't seen the big deal here at all. It’s not troublesome to me in the least. They court, having found items of income to be taxable and the returns he filed to be incorrect, she merely required him to put the taxable income on a return in the correct manner. It matters not what he believes or not.

And how in the world would this ever be perjury? That would be like losing in a civil case and claiming that paying the judgment would be perjury. It is a truly ridiculous notion. On the state side, I've seen this sort of thing, and it’s done in different ways all the time. If filling a tax return could be perjury then I think you'd have to reconsider the case law on its status under 5th amendment. In either event, I just don't see why it’s shocking to some people.

I wasn't really shocked. Just curious that here's a federal judge not taking the easier, expedient road?? Well, maybe I am shocked.

Neckbone

P.S. It's definitely not perjury as long as he disclosed the amount of the income. Here's a tip for you, PH. File the return showing the W-2 amount on Line 7(?), then submit an 8275 Disclosure Form and attach an autographed copy of CtC to show why the income isn't taxable. That might work.

[grixit]

Galileo ploy.

[wserra]

PH has never been charged with perjury, so a conviction would be a bit premature.

Where is Judge Roy Bean when we need him?

[David Merrill]

PH has never been charged with perjury, so a conviction would be a bit premature.

Where is Judge Roy Bean when we need him?

Maybe Pete has been filing truthful 1040 Forms? He would have been redeeming FRNs in lawful money all along if only, in good faith, he had known to?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

What will Van Pelt say when PH is indicted for "filing truthful 1040 Forms?"

Probably something about the Fed. Delusions never die, they just get perpetuated by the voices.

[Randall]

Maybe Pete has been filing truthful 1040 Forms? He would have been redeeming FRNs in lawful money all along if only, in good faith, he had known to?

Regards,

David Merrill.

Maybe he was redeeming his FRNs but failed to endorse them.

[David Merrill]

PH has never been charged with perjury...

That is amusing... PH is only being compelled to commit perjury.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Joey Smith]

David Merrill wrote:

PH is only being compelled to commit perjury.

No, he is being compelled to not commit perjury by filing an accurate return. In other words, so long as Pete files an accurate return he will not be charged with perjury.

If Pete is concerned that he cannot himself correctly calculate his return, then he should hire a CPA or enrolled agent to do it for him. But of course he will not do this, because Pete has no desire whatsoever to file an accurate return as it would show him to be the two-bit scam artist that he is and hurt his book sales.

[David Merrill]

David Merrill wrote:

PH is only being compelled to commit perjury.

No, he is being compelled to not commit perjury by filing an accurate return. In other words, so long as Pete files an accurate return he will not be charged with perjury.

It's not really worth my time since I advocate different interpretations anyway; but is that really what is happening with Pete?

It seems the way to prevent him from perjury is to simply charge him with perjury. And to compound that, is the judge really threatening to charge him with perjury? Maybe so. I think rather that if he fails to commit perjury, the judge will saction him for contempt.

Mainly for avoiding criminal syndicalism. A gang is most insulted when somebody honest comes along spouting the truth.



Regards,

David Merrill.