Banister, Joe

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby The Observer » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:34 pm

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's decision barring Plaintiff from testifying regarding the diligence of his research, the community standard for his practice, his knowledge of others taking the same position successfully,...


Really? Joe knows of others who were successful in using the gibberish and garbage that he was advocating to others? You would have thought that he would have elaborated on this astounding claim, by citing their court cases or at least providing their names. Not that I am holding my breath in thinking that something revelatory is going to come out of this swill.
"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
User avatar
The Observer
Coordinator of the Grand Conspiracies
 
Posts: 4407
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby notorial dissent » Tue May 01, 2012 6:30 am

Banister seems to be really good at "knowing" all these things as a dead bang fact, and yet woefully inept at providing proof of same, which seems to be the hallmark of all his actions to date, as he certainly hasn't come forth with any of his "proof".
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.
User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby jcolvin2 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:25 pm

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2012/11/23/11-15961.pdf

Disbarment affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Concluding paragraph of opinion:

Banister admitted to conduct that qualifies as disreputable behavior under 31 C.F.R. § 10.50, rendering him eligible for disbarment under 31 C.F.R. § 10.70. Specifically, by advising clients that they did not have to pay taxes based on positions that he could not in good faith have believed to be consistent with the law, Banister violated 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.51(d), 10.51(j), 10.22(b), and 10.22(c). By signing a client’s tax returns as preparer even though he knew the positions advanced in support of the returns did not have a realistic possibility of being sustained and were frivolous, Banister also violated 31 C.F.R. § 10.34. In light of Banister’s admissions, there were no material facts in dispute, and the legal conclusions were apparent based on the settled facts. Summary judgment was thus wholly appropriate, and no evidentiary hearing was needed. With the material facts settled, the ALJ did not err by refusing to grant extraneous requests for discovery, witness testimony, or cross-examination.
User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby Famspear » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:12 pm

In the decision, the Court went into some detail over the the term "willful" (or willfully or willfulness) as used in the Circular 230 regulations (in 31 CFR part 10) by referencing the interpretation of "willful" as found in the Cheek case.

But Cheek involved the meaning of the term as used in the Internal Revenue Code's criminal provisions, which is not necessarily controlling as to the meaning of the same term as used in the Circular 230 regulation as applied to the disbarment of Banister from practice before the Internal Revenue Service. Both Banister and the government seemed to assume (and the Court seemed to assume, without actually deciding) that the formulation of "willful" per Cheek is, as a matter of law, the same formulation of "willful" as used in Circular 230.

Under the Cheek formulation, Banister still lost his appeal.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
 
Posts: 6249
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby fortinbras » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:43 pm

I do not see a problem about "willful". The govt is not obliged to demonstrate criminal or fraudulent intent, only a deliberate decision to do something other than what the Internal Revenue law requires.

Instances of some failure to comply that would not be willful might include intervening events, such as a severe and prolonged illness, hurricane, fire or flood. The failure of the individual to submit tax returns only one year, when he has properly filed them for years before and years after - this might point to some excusable error or possibly even shift the blame to something else such as the postal service.

On the other hand, doing the opposite of the IRS instructions, contrary perhaps to what this same person had previously done properly, and doing it repeatedly and despite some communication from the IRS, etc., shows willfulness. Knowing that the law says something but doubting its validity or looking to make a test case is also counted as willfulness.
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby wserra » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:46 pm

Famspear wrote:Both Banister and the government seemed to assume (and the Court seemed to assume, without actually deciding) that the formulation of "willful" per Cheek is, as a matter of law, the same formulation of "willful" as used in Circular 230.


That struck me as well.

Moreover, in deciding whether Banister is competent to represent people before the IRS, does it really matter whether his delusions are willful in any sense? I mean, delusions are delusions. If you are giving people tax advice which is the legal equivalent of eye of newt and wing of bat, who cares whether or not you are doing so "willfully"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
 
Posts: 5121
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:03 am

So does this mean he is barred from practice in the federal courts???? They slapped his wrists??? What???
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.
User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby Famspear » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:21 am

notorial dissent wrote:So does this mean he is barred from practice in the federal courts???? They slapped his wrists??? What???


It means that he cannot represent clients in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service -- generally, in matters involving audits, collections, and tax refunds.

Banister is not an attorney and is not a member of the bar of the Tax Court, so representing clients in federal courts has never been an option for him.

Also, he used to be a CPA, but the State of California revoked his CPA license a while back.

EDIT: Banister is probably through (over, fini, kaput, c'est tout) as far as having a reasonable hope of preparing federal income tax returns for a living as well (assuming that he even wants to do that). To be in the business of preparing federal returns, he would have to pass a test and become registered by the Internal Revenue Service as a "Registered Tax Return Preparer" (RTRP). Considering that he's already lost his CPA license and has been disbarred by the Treasury Department, with both losses having resulted from his federal tax-related shenanigans, I would think that trying to become an RTRP would not be a good option for him.

He was an IRS Special Agent until he went off the rails, but at this point a job in law enforcement might be problematic for him as well.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
 
Posts: 6249
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:53 pm

Thanks, was distracted when I read this, and was confusing him in my mind with Ballenger???. Now that my memory is working, I guess I had thought that Banister had been booted from representation, and I remember he lost his CPA, gave it up according to him as I recall, but I guess I thought this had been resolved, I didn't realize he was still beating that long dead horse. So, what next? Most likely he will either petition for a rehearing en banc? Or appeal to the SCT?? Any bets?
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.
User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby Cathulhu » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:23 pm

Well, the man's managed to totally destroy any chance he had of pursuing the trade he trained for in college, but he doesn't show himself able to consider the fact he could be wrong. He's bought in deeply, drunk the kool-aid, and I have no doubts whatever that he'll continue on this path. A slow-mo train wreck, with far too many victims.
Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold
User avatar
Cathulhu
Order of the Quatloos, Brevet First Class
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:53 pm

One of the questions I've always had, was Banister as good of an CPA as he was an IRS agent?

I guess my problem is that if he really was a good accountant, then how could he have bought in to the hooey he has lately been peddling? I just really don't understand how you go from where he should have been to where he is, the leap of illogic just doesn't work for me.
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.
User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Banister, Joe

Postby Famspear » Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:21 pm

notorial dissent wrote:One of the questions I've always had, was Banister as good of an CPA as he was an IRS agent?

I guess my problem is that if he really was a good accountant, then how could he have bought in to the hooey he has lately been peddling? I just really don't understand how you go from where he should have been to where he is, the leap of illogic just doesn't work for me.


This gets back to something I have asserted in the past -- that the whole tax protester-tax denier thing is not related to the individual being stupid or not properly educated. We tend to find the majority of tax protesters to be amusing -- the people who consistently spell "lose" as "loose" and "frivolous" as "frivilous" -- the manic, paranoid "Harvesters" of the world, who eagerly jump from one delusion to another, and who seem to have never applied themselves enough to have mastered anything of importance in life.

But the published documentation on the attorneys and CPAs and physicians and dentists and engineers and others who fall into this nonsense (thankfully, a very small percentage of all such professional people) illustrates that some people who absolutely should know better and who have the education and intellect to know better still do drink the kool-aid; the phenomenon is not limited to those with limited intellect, limited education, or limited life experiences.

It really boils down to a set of psychological problems that these people have.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
 
Posts: 6249
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Previous

Return to TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests