Quatloos!

Pete was convicted of filing false Form 1040 returns for years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. For 2005 and 2006, he was convicted of filing false Form 4852 reports. (He was also convicted of filing false Form 4852 reports for 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004.)

Maybe he could therefore successfully argue that for purposes of section 6501(c)(1), he was not convicted of filing false tax returns for 2005 and 2006.

He also is free to argue that the false return convictions do not collaterally estop him from contesting fraud for those years and therefore the period of limitation for those years is not unlimited. Wright v. Commissioner, 84 TC 636 (1985). [fraudulent intent is not a necessary element for a 7206(1) conviction, so the taxpayer is not estopped from arguing that his returns were filed without fraudulent intent.]

Edited to correct citation

operabuff wrote:Wright v. Commissioner, 86 TC 636 (1985).....

A typo on the cite, right? Should be "84 [not 86] TC 636"?

EDIT: This is odd, though.

Under the Wright case, I guess someone could file a Federal tax return that the individual does not believe to be true, and could be convicted and sentenced to up to five three years in prison if charged under section 7206(1), even if no fraud were present.

Yet, if the same person filed a return where the individual knew that the return was fraudulent, but he or she were charged only under section 7207, the most he or she could get would be one year in prison.

EDIT #2: Section 7206 is three years, not five years.

The June 11, 2012 denial of certiorari in the Hendrickson case now has its official citation:

569 US 906.

It is an odd result. You have to give the petitioner's attorney a lot of credit for coming up with the argument that his client was too stupid to know that his false statement on the return was going to lead to an underpayment. I'm pretty sure that Pete won't be arguing that he was too dumb to understand...

(Of course, this argument just saved his client from a partial summary judgment - don't know how the case played out from there.)

The criminal statute with the five year sentence is section 7201.

I have the ultimate example of stupidity being an arguable defense. A Canadian freeman (I've lost details, used to have them) pleaded guilty to a minor criminal offense and was sentenced to jail. This astounded him because he claimed that he hadn't pled guilty, it was his strawman, his legal alter ego, who had committed the offense and pled guilty. He, the natural man, was innocent and couldn't be sent to jail. He appealed using this argument and had a new trial ordered on the basis that he hadn't understood what a guilty plea meant. Sadly I failed to find any information on the retrial.

I read a story once about a chinese who appealed his conviction. The higher court agreed that his original sentence was wrong-- he should have been executed, not imprisoned.

The docket shows this entry dated as of March 27, 2017:

TRIAL BEFORE JUDGE BUCH AT DETROIT, MI NOT CALLED 3/27/17. CALLED 3/29/17. PETR. [Peter & Doreen Hendrickson’s] SERIATIM OPENING MEMORANDUM BRIEF DUE 6/12/17. RESP. [Internal Revenue Service's] SERIATIM ANSWERING MEMORANDUM BRIEF DUE 7/27/17. PETR. SERIATIM REPLY MEMORANDUM BRIEF DUE 8/28/17. (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDING LIMIT ON NUMBER OF PAGES IN BRIEFS - NO ORDER) SUBMITTED TO JUDGE BUCH.

Yawwwwn. Darn it, this court stuff takes so long! (I guess I should not complain too much, though.)

And, there is an entry dated March 29, 2017, as follows:

FIRST STIPULATION OF FACTS by Resp. [IRS] & Petrs. Peter E. Hendrickson & Doreen M. Hendrickson (EXHIBITS)

I’d like to see that document.

Famspear wrote:FIRST STIPULATION OF FACTS by Resp. [IRS] & Petrs. Peter E. Hendrickson & Doreen M. Hendrickson (EXHIBITS)

I'm sorry but the words "facts" and "Hendrickson" should be never be included in the same sentence or comment.

The Observer wrote:

Famspear wrote:FIRST STIPULATION OF FACTS by Resp. [IRS] & Petrs. Peter E. Hendrickson & Doreen M. Hendrickson (EXHIBITS)

I'm sorry but the words "facts" and "Hendrickson" should be never be included in the same sentence or comment.

At least not when there is a possibility of someone holding or trying to ingest fluids. Definitely keyboard warning material.

The Bloviating Blowhard -- the Crack-a-dooster in Chief -- the Fabulous Felon -- Prevaricating Peter, the Pompous, Pandering Pontificator of Preposterously Paralogistic Promulgations -- the Haughty, Haplessly, Hopelessly Humiliated Hendrickson, and Distressed, Disingenuous, Dolorous Doreen.....

......have filed their opening memorandum brief with the U.S. Tax Court.

I don't have a copy of the brief, but golly it sure is fun to post this kind of news in Quatloos --
-------whenever the Dubious Duo Do something......

This is like, deja vu all over again.

Famspear wrote:The Bloviating Blowhard -- the Crack-a-dooster in Chief -- the Fabulous Felon -- Prevaricating Peter, the Pompous, Pandering Pontificator of Preposterously Paralogistic Promulgations -- the Haughty, Haplessly, Hopelessly Humiliated Hendrickson, and Distressed, Disingenuous, Dolorous Doreen.....

......have filed their opening memorandum brief with the U.S. Tax Court.

I don't have a copy of the brief, but golly it sure is fun to post this kind of news in Quatloos --
-------whenever the Dubious Duo Do something......

You mean they haven't posted their earth shattering, gound breaking, life altering, legal exercises on the innerwebs for all their devoted fans to see and fawn all over... What is the Great Prevaricator coming to??? Now I ask you????

Maybe its part of a very secret and cunning plan that Pete has devised and he can't risk sharing it with the world for fear that it will cause him to lose this precedent-setting action in Tax Court.

Or maybe he is going to go down in flames again, despite whatever he does.

The Observer wrote:Maybe its part of a very secret and cunning plan that Pete has devised and he can't risk sharing it with the world for fear that it will cause him to lose this precedent-setting action in Tax Court.

Or maybe he is going to go down in flames again, despite whatever he does.

You say that last like it wasn't/isn't a foregone conclusion!!!! The definition of insanity/stupid is repeating the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result from the last ten times. Prevaricatin' Pete's, and etux, track record in court has been zip all since day one, so no reason to expect, at least us, any different result from the last however many.

It's just downright rude and selfish of him NOT to provide us with more free entertainment, at his expense, just downright rude and inconsiderate I tell you.

If Pathetic Pete doesn't come up with some more entertainment for us soon, I'll be forced to try to think up more limericks about him.

And you know what that means........

Famspear wrote:If Pathetic Pete doesn't come up with some more entertainment for us soon, I'll be forced to try to think up more limericks about him.

And you know what that means........

It means I'll have to take another five week trip to escape the internet.

Gosh darn it, why can't the Tax Court have PACER set up? There would be so much entertainment potential.

KickahaOta wrote:Gosh darn it, why can't the Tax Court have PACER set up? There would be so much entertainment potential.

I'm not sure whether or not the Tax Court could have gone on PACER, but the route they chose was to have their own system. The decision to make only court issued documents publicly available on the website was consciously made. My memory is that they were concerned about publicizing taxpayers' financial information. This concern may have been why they chose not to go with PACER.