Big win against the IRS!!!!!

[Doktor Avalanche]

I just had a mental image that cracked me up. Imagine his visit to a proctologist . . . woooooo hoooooooooooo!

I really liked that keyboard, Mr. Branscum.

[jcolvin2]

Next up, a tp cites this decision as evidence that only corporations can be taxed.

Where can I get a copy of the Court of Claims decision?

I can get the Tax Court memorandum from the Tax Court website (I presume).

I just haven't found the decision on the Court of Claims website.

Thompson has been posted on the CFC site:
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/def ... /block.pdf

[ASITStands]

Next up, a tp cites this decision as evidence that only corporations can be taxed.

Where can I get a copy of the Court of Claims decision?

I can get the Tax Court memorandum from the Tax Court website (I presume).

I just haven't found the decision on the Court of Claims website.

Thompson has been posted on the CFC site:
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/def ... /block.pdf

Thanks.

[LPC]

One of the huge mistakes that tax protesters seem to always make (though I think "purposeful oversight" would be a better term) is that they forget about (or ignore) case law.

[...]

And one beef I have with anti-tax protest dudes is that they often fail to point this out.

You're not seeing the big picture.

Tax denier arguments are the purest form of "ad hoc" arguments possible. A TD will cite the statute if he thinks it supports his position (dismissing regulations and case law to the contrary), or will cite the regulations (dismissing the statute and case law to the contrary), or will cite case law (dismissing statutes and regulations), sometimes doing all three in the same paragraph.

I've tried to have exchanges with TD's who insisted on being shown "the law" in statutes, and never mind what the courts say, so I quote from the IRC. Their response is to take a quotation out context from Southern Pacific v. Lowe or some other Supreme Court decision on the meaning of income. And they don't see the inconsistency. (For example, Hendrickson frequently bounces back and forth between dismissing case law as irrelevant and citing it to support his positions.)

Quite simply, tax deniers will grab at whatever legalistic straw that looks like it might help them, and ignore anything that creates problems for them, consistency be damned. (This is a corollary of what Joey Smith pointed out, which is that tax deniers work backwards, starting with the conclusion and looking for whatever will support that conclusion. That approach leads to the ad hoc arguments I'm describing.)