Einstein was right - proof is at LostHorizons.com

[Nikki]

This thread is in the wrong place. It really should have been appended to "Damn Dog Shot Me" except he didn't even need any help from his dog.

[LPC]

I won a jackpot at a non-indian casino in 2007, and never claimed the winnings,

What? Why did he place a bet if he didn't want to win? He just likes losing money?

And the answer to his question is "constructive receipt." The winnings were there for him to claim. The fact that he decided not to claim them does not mean he did not receive the income.

Fortunately, it's all going to work out fine for him, because the IRS will eventually assess a deficiency, then levy on the jackpot he never claimed, so all he's going to lose is the money he apparently never wanted.

[Demosthenes]

I assumed he meant that he never claimed the winnings on his Form 1040.

[Pottapaug1938]

I won a jackpot at a non-indian casino in 2007, and never claimed the winnings,

He probably walked away in a sulk because they casino wanted to pay him his winnings in FRNs, and not in Constitutionally Lawful Money.

[bmielke]

I won a jackpot at a non-indian casino in 2007, and never claimed the winnings,

He probably walked away in a sulk because they casino wanted to pay him his winnings in FRNs, and not in Constitutionally Lawful Money.

Or worse they wanted to give him a useless paper check, his local liquor store can't cash anything over $1,000 and everyone knows banks or for suckers.

[Imalawman]

I assumed he meant that he never claimed the winnings on his Form 1040.

Yeah, I assume that was the case too.

Though for academic purposes, I'm not sure constructive receipt would apply here, would it? if there were some action required of him to claim the winnings, and he didn't take that action, then I don't think its income. I know Court's have applied construction receipt doctrine in a number of situations, have they ever applied in this type of event? Just curious...

[bmielke]

It also appears that a few LHers have discovered suijurisclub.net and are really impressed with what DMVP has to say. Holy Christ what a group of idiot losers.........

Once you drink the Koolaid it's like Crack, you need to keep looking for the stronger fix, in this case the more nonsensical BS by the bigger idiot.

[Nikki]

It's more along the line of

Emperor BlowHardMeister is dead.

Long live the new Emperor Merrill (and who cares if he has no clothes either).

David's greatest attraction to the sovereignorami is his combination of pseudo-intellectualism and total obscurity. Since he usess such big words accompanied with all of his graphics, the audience assumes he must know what he's talking about, even if they can't understand it yet.

Who cares that he's homeless, has no income, can't cite a single instance where any of his theories have earned anything other than jail time, or can't give a clear answer to a simple question.

[silversopp]

I missed a bit in my absence. What exactly is the difference between a tax protesters and sovereignorami? Their arguments seem to me to be equally incoherent, and most importantly, ineffective. And their goals seem to be the same - avoiding taxation. Is one just dumber than the other, or is it really a new specie?

[Duke2Earl]

A subspecies.... the species is those who delude themselves into believing there is no legal obligation to pay income taxes. The various subspecies are the various reasons why. Some of them belong to numerous subspecies.

[bmielke]

... Emperor Merrill (and who cares if he has no clothes either).

Ewwwwww.......

Maybe we need to take up a collection and buy Mr Van Pelt, (See Other Thread I asked him for proof he legally changed his name), some clothes, I could afford $10 and Good will has some good deals.

[Nikki]

It would be a waste. He'd blow the $10.00 on filing fees with his clerk.

[Thule]

Meanwhile, PeacefulKancer proves that having a SSN makes you "federal personell". QED.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... f34ec89d80

[Imalawman]

I missed a bit in my absence. What exactly is the difference between a tax protesters and sovereignorami? Their arguments seem to me to be equally incoherent, and most importantly, ineffective. And their goals seem to be the same - avoiding taxation. Is one just dumber than the other, or is it really a new specie?

Sovereigns focus on the whole of the law - not just income tax. They assert that the US government has or is attempting to take over each individual person and make them a slave to the system. Until such time as you realize it (aka you Matrix moment) you will just live your dull and boring slave life - serving the gov't nefarious bidding.

Tax Protestors are normal by comparison - usually they just have a bee in the their bonnets about the tax laws. Of course, tax protesting is a gateway drug, usually it leads to the sovereign movement or advanced mental illness (in all seriousness).

[Parvati]

Of course, tax protesting is a gateway drug, usually it leads to the sovereign movement or advanced mental illness (in all seriousness).

Exactly what seems to have happened to my father. A couple years ago, he got into "Pure" Trusts. Just reading about them a bit, on the weekends--to unwind, you know? Then it was the seminars, but that was okay--it was a social thing. Pretty soon, though, he started pushing, because it was just too good not to share. Soon, all he talked about were Pure Trusts and COLATOS. His office was littered with pages and pages of tax code and printed web pages about America's secret "two court" system and Maritime Law.

After a couple years of that, he seemed to get control of himself and he stopped talking about it. I assumed he'd stopped.

But just the other day, he explained over dinner that if he renounced the government's "ownership" of his personhood and became a Sovereign Citizen, it would prevent them from selling him into slavery. He claims that he never actually sent back the Sovereignty Declaration that the nice man sent him--he just filled it out, that's all. It's just sitting on his desk because he forgot to throw it away. He won't actually mail it.

[Gregg]

Close the entries, we have a winner...our old favorite Patrick Mooney weighs in with this stellar advise...

Patrick Mooney
-



Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Lovingston, Virginia
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:50 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't need to attend their audits, nor comply with them. Legally, you are out of the bounds of their jurisdiction. This is assuming that you did not participate in any excisable activity, of course.

Following CTC probably increases your chance of receiving an NOD. You must understand that CTC is not about teaching you how to fill out forms so that the IRS leaves you alone. If they were a law-abiding organization, that WOULD be the result.

CTC is a battle. The government is trying to claim a power for itself that it does not legally have. CTC warriors resist that encroachment, as it has led to the deterioration of our economy and personal liberties.

I commend you for taking on the fight. Having faced the Tax Court in 2008 (lost) and facing them again in March of this year...I can tell you they are NOTHING to be afraid of.

Keep holding out...this charade won't be continuing for too much longer.

Happy Friday!

[Dezcad]

Keep holding out...this charade won't be continuing for too much longer.

You're right Patrick, the charade is almost over - the Blowhard's sentencing is only a few months away - 4/15/2010.

Although, I think we may be talking about different charades........

[The Operative]

You don't need to attend their audits, nor comply with them.

This might be right, but only if you want the worst possible result.

Legally, you are out of the bounds of their jurisdiction.

For Federal Income Tax laws, you are probably only out of the bounds of their jurisdiction if 1) you are not a citizen of any of the fifty states or U.S. territories; and 2) you are not actually IN any of the fifty states, D.C., or U.S. territories. Being a sovereignoramous does not exclude you from 1 and 2 above.

This is assuming that you did not participate in any excisable activity, of course.

Did you receive anything of value (including FRNs) in exchange for your labor? Congratulations, those things of value that you received are taxable.

Following CTC probably increases your chance of receiving an NOD.

To nearly 100%.

You must understand that CTC is not about teaching you how to fill out forms so that the IRS leaves you alone.

You're right, CTC is about teaching you how to get the full attention of an IRS agent. Alternatively, it is about teaching you how to pay two to three times more than you would have if you had followed the law.

If they were a law-abiding organization, that WOULD be the result.

Clue: The IRS is more law-abiding than any person who files using the CTC method.

CTC is a battle.

A losing one.

The government is trying to claim a power for itself that it does not legally have.

Sorry Dunce, you are wrong. The tax laws have been duly passed by Congress and the courts have upheld those laws for the past 97 years. Simply because Pete Hendrickson, you and other CTCers, have a reading comprehension problem doesn't mean the government doesn't have the power to tax the income of private sector workers.

CTC warriors resist that encroachment, as it has led to the deterioration of our economy and personal liberties.

Only to your detriment. Those of us that follow the law are doing just fine.

I commend you for taking on the fight. Having faced the Tax Court in 2008 (lost) and facing them again in March of this year...I can tell you they are NOTHING to be afraid of.

Let us know how that turns out for you, Dunce.

Keep holding out...this charade won't be continuing for too much longer.

Yes, soon you will be broke, homeless, and alone. The good thing will be that you probably won't earn enough money to have to pay taxes.

[LPC]

Having faced the Tax Court in 2008 (lost) and facing them again in March of this year...I can tell you they are NOTHING to be afraid of.

If you're not afraid of acting like an idiot and being sanctioned, then you're right, there's nothing to be afraid of.

From Mooney's previous face-off:

In petitioner's direct testimony, petitioner indicated that Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement (Form W-2), that he received with respect to his taxable year 2004 from
Interstate Industries, Inc ., and Form W-2 that he received with respect to the same taxable year from The Center, Inc ., are wrong because he received no wages from those companies during that year.

On cross-examination, petitioner acknowledged that during 2004 he worked for Interstate Industries, Inc ., and that he received from that company $24,541 in return for his services. On cross-examination, petitioner also acknowledged that during 2004 he worked for The Center, Inc ., and that he received from that company $2,200 in return for his services.

I'm not sure what Mooney thinks he learned from his last go-round in Tax Court or what he thinks will be different this time, but perhaps what he learned is that, if those questions arise again, he should commit perjury.

[webhick]

You don't need to attend their audits, nor comply with them.

That's right. Play hard to get. You'll find that just like high school, they'll suddenly become interested in you. But, you should know that they'll never want to take you to prom or knock you up in the back seat of your Yugo. Unless it's a prison prom and your cellmate already has a date.

Legally, you are out of the bounds of their jurisdiction.

Or just out of bounds.

This is assuming that you did not participate in any excisable activity, of course.

And if you participated, then just contort the meanings of the word until it turns out that you never participated.

Following CTC probably increases your chance of receiving an NOD.

Don't let Darth hear you say that.

You must understand that CTC is not about teaching you how to fill out forms so that the IRS leaves you alone.

Absolutely. It's about getting an erroneous refund check and then having the IRS go through the motions of trying to get it back.

If they were a law-abiding organization, that WOULD be the result.

If you were law-abiding citizens, the government wouldn't be issuing unearned refund checks and then wasting the tax dollars of law-abiding citizens trying to get it back.

CTC is a battle.

Yes, one that has lost. In a war with many battles containing the same arguments - all of which were lost.

The government is trying to claim a power for itself that it does not legally have.

More like you're trying to get money to which you have no right.

CTC warriors resist that encroachment, as it has led to the deterioration of our economy and personal liberties.

CTC warriors are looking for free money, which is really no different than those bastards on wall street who begged the government for a hand-out, got it, and still don't want to be held accountable for their actions (not that anyone is really trying to hold them accountable...).

I commend you for taking on the fight.

More cannon fodder!

Having faced the Tax Court in 2008 (lost) and facing them again in March of this year...I can tell you they are NOTHING to be afraid of.

Except losing repeatedly and eventually being forced to pay the money back.

Keep holding out...this charade won't be continuing for too much longer.

Saying it doesn't make it true.