The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby wserra » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:33 pm

Mea culpa. I missed something else in Scambos' magnum opus that may well better explain Stevens-acolyte Randall's affinity for him.
Agent Hunter adamantly refused, and refuses still, to provide any statement of jurisdiction or authority for the legal record that would assert or even indicate that she has any jurisdiction at all in these matters over Respondent (a Citizen) to conduct an investigation of potentially criminal charges.
No evidence of jurisdiction! Maybe Stevens got it from Scambos.

I hope you're all sitting down for this news, but the DJ found this brilliant argument just as "utterly frivolous and without legal merit" as the rest of Scambos' nonsense.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7197
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Famspear » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:43 pm

I notice that while we have blown the Troll's arguments about "taxable activity" and "alcohol, tobacco and firearms" out of the water, he still has not explained the fact pattern I posed earlier in this thread. He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.

None of the facts of this case had anything to do with alcohol, tobacco or firearms. None of this had anything to do with title 27 of the United States Code (USC) or title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

No "oh it's because the courts are corrupt" nonsense, Troll. Answer the question: Why does the union official have to report the theft of money as gross income for Federal income tax purposes?
...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

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10914
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:26 pm

Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.
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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby The Observer » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:23 pm

wserra wrote:I hope you're all sitting down for this news, but the DJ found this brilliant argument just as "utterly frivolous and without legal merit" as the rest of Scambos' nonsense.


Cue the Captain Renault response for me, please.

notorial dissent wrote:And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.


Hey, when one has nothing else, they gotta play to their strengths, no matter how silly they may be. "Double down, all the way" is their battle cry.
"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

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Arthur Rubin » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:39 pm

Famspear wrote:He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.
If I were the embezzler, I'd try "claim of right" for the deduction.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7197
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Famspear » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:32 pm

Arthur Rubin wrote:
Famspear wrote:He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.
If I were the embezzler, I'd try "claim of right" for the deduction.


Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.
...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

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Arthur Rubin » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:36 pm

Famspear wrote:Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.
Both 5th circuit, so not technically "precedent" outside 5th circuit jurisdiction. I guess it wouldn't work, though. I won't comment on the clearly unconstitutional civil forfeiture statutes, as not directly relevant to the tax protesters.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:49 pm

The Observer wrote:
wserra wrote:I hope you're all sitting down for this news, but the DJ found this brilliant argument just as "utterly frivolous and without legal merit" as the rest of Scambos' nonsense.


Cue the Captain Renault response for me, please.

notorial dissent wrote:And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.


Hey, when one has nothing else, they gotta play to their strengths, no matter how silly they may be. "Double down, all the way" is their battle cry.


Reminds me of the old lawyer's advice to the new lawyer: " when you are in court, if you're weak on the facts, pound the law. If you're weak on the law, pound the facts. If you're weak both on the facts and the law, pound the counsel table."
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

SquatloosianTroll
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby SquatloosianTroll » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:30 am

notorial dissent wrote:Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.
Last edited by SquatloosianTroll on Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7197
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Famspear » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:33 am

SquatloosianTroll wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.


Objection, badgering the witness.


Or, badgering the parrot.
...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

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby The Observer » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:46 am

Or parroting the badger.
"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
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:39 pm

SquatloosianTroll wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.


Objection, badgering the witness.


Has anyone else noticed that the Squatloosian Troll edited his post, to remove the comment to which Famspear later responded?
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby jcolvin2 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:13 pm

Famspear wrote:
Arthur Rubin wrote:
Famspear wrote:He has not explained why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.
If I were the embezzler, I'd try "claim of right" for the deduction.


Yeah, section 1341. I haven't studied the subject in depth, but the theory did not work in McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 (1979), or in Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989).

EDIT: Added denial of cert. on McKinney.


Section 1341 essentially provides something better than an ordinary deduction in the year of payment, i.e., it provides a benefit equivalent to what the payor would have received had he returned the funds in the year that he received them (and taken a deduction at that time). For example, if the taxpayer reported receipts of $750k in Year 1 when funds were received (paying $250k in tax), and then returned the entire $750k in Year 4, even if the taxpayer had no other income in Year 4, he could get a refund of $250k if he qualified for section 1341 treatment.

Embezzlers do not qualify for the section 1341 claim of right deduction (because they never had a valid claim to the property taken), but it is possible that, if the embezzlement was systematic and continuous enough, the taxpayer can argue that the embezzlement constituted a "trade or business" and the repayments create ordinary deductions, perhaps going into an NOL, which could reduce tax in two prior years and can be taken against other income into the future.

If funds are repaid in the year that they are taken, it is clear that there is no tax liability. For a fun read - and an interesting take on collateral estoppel - see Senyszyn v. CIR, 146 T.C. No. 9 (2016)http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/OpinionViewer.aspx?ID=10737

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7197
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Famspear » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:32 pm

Pottapaug1938 wrote:
SquatloosianTroll wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.


Objection, badgering the witness.


Has anyone else noticed that the Squatloosian Troll edited his post, to remove the comment to which Famspear later responded?


Yep.
...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

operabuff
Captain
Captain
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby operabuff » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:35 pm

Coming to this discussion late, it seems like a worthy but ultimately futile effort by Quatloosians - as the philosopher Epictetus said about 2000 years ago - "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7197
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby Famspear » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:25 pm

operabuff wrote:Coming to this discussion late, it seems like a worthy but ultimately futile effort by Quatloosians - as the philosopher Epictetus said about 2000 years ago - "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."


Futile effort? I think not; we achieved our purpose. The troll came here with his stupid theory about why he shouldn’t have to pay taxes, and we clearly illustrated why his theory is wrong -- and we humiliated him in the process. Sounds like a complete Quatloosian success to me.

8)
...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

User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3880
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby webhick » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:37 am

Pottapaug1938 wrote:
SquatloosianTroll wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:Now really, just how is he going to do that when he can't even explain all the stuff he has been busy parroting? He can't explain, let alone defend what he doesn't basically understand.

And let's be honest, he isn't even trying. All he's doing is cutting and pasting from someone else's poorly organized, collated and stapled websty.


Objection, badgering the witness.


Has anyone else noticed that the Squatloosian Troll edited his post, to remove the comment to which Famspear later responded?


Yes. Do you think he'll notice that I removed his ability to do so again?
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10914
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:13 am

Depends on how smart he is, I'm not betting on very, certainly honesty isn't in his repertoire.
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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby The Observer » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:41 am

webhick wrote:Yes. Do you think he'll notice that I removed his ability to do so again?


OMG. Did you replace his opposable thumbs with stale Twinkies?
"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
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3880
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:41 am

Re: The Epic Fail of Squatloosian Troll

Postby webhick » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:55 am

The Observer wrote:
webhick wrote:Yes. Do you think he'll notice that I removed his ability to do so again?


OMG. Did you replace his opposable thumbs with stale Twinkies?


Why would I do that when I can make his penis shoot glitter?
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie


Return to “US”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests