More unrest at LH

[Quixote]

Not sure I agree with the first part though.


Quixote wrote:
Actually, it would be impossible for Appeals to state the exact reason or even an inexact reason, because Appeals would get involved only if the taxpayer appealed the determination that his return was frivolous, and cited a non-frivolous reason for the appeal.

We're requiring the tax denier to state a concise position but not doing so ourselves?

Something's wrong with that logic, and it wouldn't hurt Appeals (or any other responder) to state a more exact reason than a multiple-choice quiz left to the tax denier's imagination.

If you're going to publish notices, such as Notice 2008-14, then cite to it specifically. Otherwise, anything you say is up for dispute because of your inexactness and vagueness.

In practice, as I recently learned, once the Letter 3176 is mailed, no one with any decision making power will touch the case. At that point. the only way the taxpayer can avoid the penalty is to file a return that the GS-7 tax examiner (TE) working the case recognizes as non-frivolous and withdraw the frivolous claim. (See IRM 4.10.12.4.6.) (Or have a Local Taxpayer Advocate threaten the TE's boss's boss with a taxpayer assistence order.)

Well now, that's interesting!

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge (and, I'm speaking among tax deniers) would recognize that if no one with any decision making power will touch the case, and the only way to remove the penalty is to file a non-frivolous return, that's the way to go.

This ought to be more widely known among the tax denier community. I find that some (after they beat their head against the wall enough times) do actually wise up and comply.

Not sure I agree with the first part though.

Actually, it would be impossible for Appeals to state the exact reason or even an inexact reason, because Appeals would get involved only if the taxpayer appealed the determination that his return was frivolous, and cited a non-frivolous reason for the appeal.

We're requiring the tax denier to state a concise position but not doing so ourselves?

Something's wrong with that logic, and it wouldn't hurt Appeals (or any other responder) to state a more exact reason than a multiple-choice quiz left to the tax denier's imagination.

If you're going to publish notices, such as Notice 2008-14, then cite to it specifically. Otherwise, anything you say is up for dispute because of your inexactness and vagueness.

Sorry. I was being too subtle. My point is that Appeals would only be responding to a taxpayer if the taxpayer made a non-frivolous appeal. A non-responsive reply, such as those suggested on the LostHorizons forum, would never be forwarded to Appeals, so Appeals would never have an opportunity to say anything to a tax denier prior to assessment of the frivolous filing penalty.

[Quixote]

Something's wrong with that logic, and it wouldn't hurt Appeals (or any other responder) to state a more exact reason than a multiple-choice quiz left to the tax denier's imagination.

It also is not necessary. The taxpayer does not have to take each frivolous position in turn and show he has not taken it. All he has to do is explain the one position he has taken. In other words, all he has to do is explain why his apparently frivolous return is actually not frivolous. I have done that twice that I recall, once for a $500 penalty and just recently for a $5,000 penalty. (Admittedly, as hinted at above, the latter penalty was removed from my client's account only after my Local Taxpayer Advocate threatened to issue a TAO.) I admit I was curious as to which published position the FRP coordinator thought my client had taken, but it was not necessary that I know, even if I had had the opportunity to ask.

[Famspear]

Here's a little jewel from "Pablo" at losthorizons.com (bolding added):

........What I'm seeing is that inside a courtroom, your sworn statement is more limited in its scope than it first appeared. Inside a courtroom you need more than a sworn assertion to make the truth prevail on your side.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0792#20792

duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

[jg]

Here's a little jewel from "Pablo" at losthorizons.com (bolding added):

........What I'm seeing is that inside a courtroom, your sworn statement is more limited in its scope than it first appeared. Inside a courtroom you need more than a sworn assertion to make the truth prevail on your side.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0792#20792

duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

From the same post Pablo states:

Pete has the truth on his side because in fact he didn't earn wages. No court can change that fact because no court can change truth into falsehood.

and he ends by saying:

In other words, we've got to understand how the courts work, how they think, and their mindset, without losing our good intentions, our innocence, and the truth about the income tax.

Then you, and other CtC educated, will have to try to grasp that the court (either the judge or in a jury trial the jury) actually is charged with the task of determining what the facts are in the case
True, false, right or wrong - what the court determines ARE the facts upon which the decision of the court will be made.

More importantly, you, and other CtC educated, will have to accept the principle that each individual does not get to determine what is the meaning of the law.
The Supreme Court is given judicial authority by the Constitution; so you and I do not have the leisure to decide what are and what are not wages for purposes of the income tax or the meaning of any other law. What the courts say is the meaning IS what it means unless and until that interpretation is changed by a court.

The truth of the income tax does not come from Hendrickson or any individual; but is determined by the law, through the courts.

It is an excellent goal for you to "understand how the courts work, how they think, and their mindset, ...and the truth about the income tax". Best wishes !

[notorial dissent]

You mean, that just because Pablo, our latest super duper legal scholar, or one of his ilk, signs a sworn statement that the moon is made of green cheese, it really isn’t. Why the very idea, why, that would mean that someone was questioning his sworn statement!!!! Let alone laughing out loud at him.

[LPC]

From the same post Pablo states:

Pete has the truth on his side because in fact he didn't earn wages. No court can change that fact because no court can change truth into falsehood.

I find it to be both unbelievable and annoying that crackheads like Pablo can't remember that the entire basis of "Cracking the Code," the very foundation upon which it rests, is the premise that words in the Internal Revenue Code have special meanings that are different from their meanings in ordinary English. "Cracking the Code" is supposed to be all about "the law."

So Hendrickson has convinced them that, legally, "wages" does not mean "wages," and they then conveniently forget about all of the semantic contortions that got them to their twisted legal meaning of "wages" and claim that whether money received is "wages" is a "fact." As though the it had no connection whatsoever to their understanding of what the *law* means by "wages."

As though calling a tail a leg made it in fact a leg.

[Quixote]

crackheads like Pablo

I'm not sure Pablo is a crackhead. He has made a few heretical remarks, such as that the government, in the erroneous refund case, had shown that Pete was wrong about his not having income, but must, in the criminal case, prove Pete lied about not having income. He editted away the heresy and it survives only because it was quoted in other posts. I think Pablo is an opportunist who sees LostHorizons as a target rich environment for his own detax scheme, whatever that may be.

[jg]

On several occasions Pablo Rodriguez and others have offered for him to perform what seem to be legal services (to my layman's eyes).
For example, from http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2204

Legaltender:


Why don't you let me review your Tax Court case so to help you identify why you lost in Tax Court and make sure you make the arguments you need to win in Appellate Court.

I will forewarn you that Appellate Court is typically only worthwhile IF you can identify procedural, rules, or discretionary violations that would allow them to overturn your case. We can also help guide you to write a good appellate brief.

If you're interested, give me a shout at <gmail address extracted>.

[jg]

Pablo has changed from the gmail address to one hosted on a google web site and is offering

A Friday night Phone Conference Tax Court Task Force has been formed for CtC-educated filers who have been drawn into a dispute with the IRS and would like some practical help.

The purpose of the conferences is to offer a live discussion of ideas on how to do effective battle with the IRS when it doesn't respect an honest and truthful CtC-educated filing. The idea is to bring a CtC-filer from feeling dead in the water to giving him a real, practical fighting chance.

Those interested can contact me at <address redacted>@TaxCourtTaskForce<>com for more details.

Additional one-on-one coaching will available for those with more urgent needs, or upon request

[The Observer]

The purpose of the conferences is to offer a live discussion of ideas on how to do effective battle with the IRS when it doesn't respect an honest and truthful CtC-educated filing. The idea is to bring a CtC-filer from feeling dead in the water to giving him a real, practical fighting chance

.

Sounds like this is something that Pete should be attending.

[grixit]

I thought the definition of "CTC educated" was that no further information was needed. Or wanted.

[LPC]

I thought the definition of "CTC educated" was that no further information was needed. Or wanted.

Or possible.

[Pottapaug1938]

I thought the definition of "CTC educated" was that no further information was needed. Or wanted.

Or possible.

I say that the phrase "CTC educated" is a contradiction in terms....

[The Observer]

I thought the definition of "CTC educated" was that no further information was needed. Or wanted.

Or possible.

I say that the phrase "CTC educated" is a contradiction in terms....

Or an oxymoron.

[Quixote]

Pablo has changed from the gmail address to one hosted on a google web site and is offering

A Friday night Phone Conference Tax Court Task Force has been formed for CtC-educated filers who have been drawn into a dispute with the IRS and would like some practical help.

The purpose of the conferences is to offer a live discussion of ideas on how to do effective battle with the IRS when it doesn't respect an honest and truthful CtC-educated filing. The idea is to bring a CtC-filer from feeling dead in the water to giving him a real, practical fighting chance.

Those interested can contact me at <address redacted>@TaxCourtTaskForce<>com for more details.

Additional one-on-one coaching will available for those with more urgent needs, or upon request

Tax Court Task Force

Where Pro Se prey becomes the predator!

Killer lemmings?

[Quixote]

Religious unrest at LH.

kilbey wrote:
There are some who will look to Buddha for help, others will beseech a pink monkey who hides behind the clouds for guidance in Pete's case. Not everyone here is Christian, but we all have something in common- let's focus on that and not alienate anyone from our numbers by requiring them to believe in our spiritual path.

-Kilbey


Yes, we all have something in common Kilbey.....WE WANT VICTORY IN THE TRUTH! Do YOU have a problem with that?
God Himself is the very essence of Truth!
Budda and Pink Monkeys have no place here! Please agree with that!
That is one of the main reasons our country is in such a pitiful way!
If you are an atheist then read another thread.
I make no apologies! This is not about religion, this is about Truth!

It seems to me that once you've decided that CTC makes sense, calling for help from holy pink monkeys shouldn't be that big a stretch.

[LPC]

Tax Court Task Force

Where Pro Se prey becomes the predator!

Killer lemmings?

Which would be a great name for a rock band.

[LPC]

God Himself is the very essence of Truth!
Budda [sic] and Pink Monkeys have no place here! Please agree with that!
That is one of the main reasons our country is in such a pitiful way!
If you are an atheist then read another thread.

I find it interesting that here (and elsewhere) "holbrook" equates Buddhism with atheism.

[Thule]

Holy pink monkeys would be so cool!! People would pay serious coin to visit, be with and worship them - a nice little racket.

"Feeding the Holy Monkeys" might be fun for the kids. And "Ceremony of the Sacred Grooming". I think I'll pass on the "Flinging of the Holy Poo", though.

[Pottapaug1938]

Holy pink monkeys would be so cool!! People would pay serious coin to visit, be with and worship them - a nice little racket.

"Feeding the Holy Monkeys" might be fun for the kids. And "Ceremony of the Sacred Grooming". I think I'll pass on the "Flinging of the Holy Poo", though.

But how else will you ever become One of the Initiated? Only those who are Truly Wise can eagerly sit on the Sacred Stool and... on second thought, none of you want to know what comes next.