Bulten...confused about CtC?

User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Bulten...confused about CtC?

Post by webhick »

Now, as we all know, Bulten was ordained by Pete as someone who has a "good" grasp of what is taught in CtC.

Keep that in mind as you watch Bulten expound a bit of advice regarding correcting 1099s:
John J. Bulten wrote:Only the payor can issue "corrected" 1099s. What is described in CtC is not a payor correcting a 1099, but a payee creating an affidavit with a signature under penalties of perjury indicating that the 1099 form (its graphic details) has been used as part of the affidavit, for the purpose of supplying the data which should have appeared on the 1099, in the absence of any regulatory guidance for payees disputing 1099s (other than 1099-R). Explain in your reply that your submission constitutes an affidavit. You did have affidavit text signed under penalties of perjury, right?
To which he is smacked down with a CtC cite:
strawman wrote:Very interesting indeed. Although you may be correct, my reading of CtC p. 177 is in clear contradiction.

"A payee need merely check this box on the form, make appropriate corrections to the data, and submit the form with a corresponding accurate tax return."

Followed by: "I think it important to also mark a 'correcting' Form 1099 with a sworn declaration to the effect that,..."

Pete does not say that it is necessary to sign this form as an affidavit.

Having said all that, I did in fact sign my corrected 1099 with a sworn declaration.

Can you reference a section of Title 26 or any other relavent law that specifically states that only the payer can correct a 1099?
And then Bulten mysteriously disappears from the thread. Looks like Darth Hendrickson's favored disciple has strayed from the path.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bulten...confused about CtC?

Post by Famspear »

Hey, if Pete himself couldn't figure out how to argue his own theories in his own erroneous refund case in a federal court, how can we reasonably expect Bulten to argue Pete's theories correctly?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Bulten...confused about CtC?

Post by Dezcad »

Famspear wrote:Hey, if Pete himself couldn't figure out how to argue his own theories in his own erroneous refund case in a federal court, how can we reasonably expect Bulten to argue Pete's theories correctly?
It is hard to define something that is so amorphous.
Paul

Re: Bulten...confused about CtC?

Post by Paul »

But isn't an affidavit nothing but a statement with a "sworn declaration" attached? Or am I thinking of an AFFIDAVIT?
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bulten...confused about CtC?

Post by Famspear »

Paul wrote:But isn't an affidavit nothing but a statement with a "sworn declaration" attached? Or am I thinking of an AFFIDAVIT?
And what about an "AFfiDAviT"? Yikes!
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Bulten...confused about CtC?

Post by Famspear »

John J. Bulten indirectly responds to the material above, with this response to a posting by that Sterling Legal Scholar, Weston White:
Thank you for that useful research Weston, and that Q [Quatloos] quote is actually funny, going again to prove my contention that Q [Quatloos] exists today for humor more than for anything else. I have less time for humor lately.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0640#10640

(bolding added).

Yeah, well, we can certainly understand why John J. Bulten would now have less time for the "humor" over here at Quatloos, considering his current situation.
Actually, I didn't think strawman's quotes are in contradiction to my statement, so I didn't reply. The payee submitting a "correcting" (not "corrected") 1099, as we have come to call it, is described in CtC, and we think it is important, but it is not provably necessary. That's all that was said, and so no need for followup. The Q characterizations are an imaginative search for drama in an otherwise bland thread, indicating that Q users have lots of time to spend on such creativity, which is to be expected from tax leeches.
Ah, yes, we are such "leeches"...... Suggestion to John J. Bulten: If you eventually find yourself under indictment for using Cracking the Code, why not try to get Peter Eric Hendrickson to represent you, since he supposedly knows so much about how all this tax law thing works? Yes, try Peter Eric Hendrickson, the guy who argued, in his own losing cause in his own erroneous tax refund case, the hilariously doofus theory that "As a condition precedent to the Court acquiring jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit, pursuant to IRC [section] 7405, there must be a showing of an 'erroneous tax refund' to Defendants."

A showing of an erroneous refund is a condition precedent to the court's subject matter jurisdiction??!!!??!! Totally f*****g clueless!

I can't help but noticing, however, that Hendrickson has hired a lawyer -- and apparently a good one -- to represent him in his own criminal case resulting from Hendrickson's use of Cracking the Code on his own tax returns. Apparently, Hendrickson is at least not as completely delusional as he would lead us to believe.
All the same, the timing of my comings and goings here should not be regarded as significant, as life often intervenes.
Yeah, well, "life" might be "intervening" more and more "often" as time goes by, John -- especially if you eventually get a not-so-friendly visit from a Special Agent of the Criminal Investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service, or from a Deputy United States Marshal. Free advice: If that happens, tell Officer Friendly that you have nothing to say, and that you want to talk to a lawyer. No guarantees on how it will turn out, though, fella.

John, your saving grace might well be that the government prosecutes very few federal tax cases. I hope for your sake and that of your family that you are not being caught in the net.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet