Inhaling the angeldust at LostHeads

[Imalawman]

One can only marvel at a person that will file a tax return according the advice of a person that is going to prison for that very advice. What mental hangups must one have that would cause such lemming like behavior.

[Duke2Earl]

I am amazed at the patience of the employer. I would have told him I was going to withhold. That I, as employer, was not going to risk a penalty for failure to withhold. And, of course, if he could not accept employment under those terms, he was absolutely free to seek employment elsewhere.

[Gregg]

The newest reality disconnect from the Lost Head "Skankbeat"

I just served this recently to the US Treasury Secretary.

Quote:
To the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and delegates,

I do not understand why my file has not been closed and my money property returned to me.

My federal return for the tax year 2006 is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief (Attachment A). Please see the signed jurat on the second page of my form 1040 and on my corrected form 1099-Misc (Attachment A).

My federal return for the tax year 2007 is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief (Attachment B). My return was amended two times to make important corrections (Attachment C, D). Please see the signed jurat on the second page of my form 1040, on my two form 1040Xs, and on my three form 4852s (Attachment B, C, D).

My federal return for the tax year 2008 is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief (Attachment E). Please see the signed jurat on the second page of my form 1040, on my two form 4852s, and on my corrected form 1099-G (Attachment E).

I have also provided additional information in other served documents to communicate to you that for these tax years i was engaged in activities of right, not of privilege to be subject to a federal income tax. I have also communicated to you that i rescind both my signature and information put on current and past W-4s, that these documents were completed under misrepresentation, coercion, and other. I have also communicated to you that my money property has been taken from me without consent by other parties.

I do not consent to changes to my corrected record. I rebut all presumptions and positions contrary to my corrected record. I do not consent to the conversion of my activities of right into activities of privilege to be subject to a federal income tax.

You are directed to acknowledge my corrected record and update your files, including but be not limited to determinations, assessments, audits, or otherwise conclusions about my record. You are directed to process my corrected record in accordance with the law. You are directed to return my money property.

If this is not done you will be in violation of my rights. You are provided 30 days to remedy to prevent further harm and grievance.

Signed


If remedy is not made the next step is to give detailed notice of rights violations. If remedy is not made the next step is to sue the US Treasury Secretary and select delegates for rights violations.

I found one of the games the IRS plays is to transfer you file around, and through gradual distortion, isolate your corrected record from false determinations of the record. I found that everytime i provided copy of my corrected record in response to adverse action against me, adverse action stopped. Then things got moved around again. To stop this process abuse, i am now informing the head honchos of the corrected record. When you inform the top guy about your corrected record, this game of passing things around stops.

Nice try there genius! You're right, it might end the passing around of your returns, just as soon as they hand it to a US Attorney. You pass the threshold of just asking for it with that one, you're getting down on your knees and begging!

Let us all know how that works out for you!

[iplawyer]

true, correct, and complete

How could he get this wrong? It is CTC after all not TCC. Correct, True, and Complete. When he fails that will be undoubtedly be the reason.

Where is old John Bulton these days anyway?

[bmielke]

Does the Sec Treas even have anything to do with the IRS?

I suppose they are under his umbrella, but isn't all authority delegated to the Commissioner?

Does the Sec. Treas. have any power over descisions at the IRS?

[Demosthenes]

Where is old John Bulton these days anyway?

He's in tax denier friv pen hell.

BULTEN, JOHN J
Filing Date: 11/3/2009
Amount: $1,000
Certificate Number: 593365809
FEDERAL TAX LIEN

BULTEN, JOHN J
Filing Date: 10/20/2009
Amount: $5,000
Certificate Number: 588776309
FEDERAL TAX LIEN

BULTEN, JOHN J
Filing Date: 10/6/2009
Amount: $5,000
Certificate Number: 585504409
FEDERAL TAX LIEN

BULTEN, JOHN J
Filing Date: 1/2/2009
Amount: $1,839
Certificate Number: 502382608
FEDERAL TAX LIEN

BULTEN,JOHN J
Filing Date: 10/22/2007
Amount: $500
FEDERAL TAX LIEN
Filing Number: 20070487947

BULTEN,JOHN J
Filing Date: 3/30/2007
Amount: $2,500
FEDERAL TAX LIEN
Filing Number: 106955461
Filing Date: 3/30/2007

BULTEN,JOHN J
Filing Date: 9/20/2005
Amount: $9,743
FEDERAL TAX LIEN
Filing Number: 05111425

[The Observer]

We should erect a page, similar to the one where Pete showed off all the refunds received by the Crackheads. But this page should keep track of all the frivpens handed out to the Crackheads.

Bulton should be near the top with over $25,000 in penalties.

[Noah]

We should erect a page, similar to the one where Pete showed off all the refunds received by the Crackheads. But this page should keep track of all the frivpens handed out to the Crackheads.

Bulton should be near the top with over $25,000 in penalties.

To compare apples to apples show a list of frivpens collected.
Someone here should be able to come up with the collection data...so post it like Pete does..
Geeeezzzzzzzzzzz In God we trust all others bring data...

[notorial dissent]

Well, certainly looks our former CTC head cheerleader didn't bob and weave quite quick enough to avoid the inevitable. His former idol's methods didn't work any better for him than they did for ole Prattlin' Pete. What a shock!!!!

[LPC]

Does the Sec Treas even have anything to do with the IRS?

I suppose they are under his umbrella, but isn't all authority delegated to the Commissioner?

The administrative authority is definitely delegated to the Commissioner, but a lot of tax policy is formulated outside of the IRS and within other divisions of the Department of the Treasury.

For example, the Office of Chief Counsel is largely independent of the IRS, and yet provides legal advice to the IRS. Also, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), who reviews the operations of the IRS and makes policy and procedural recommendations, is under the Secretary of the Treasury and not the IRS.

[The Observer]

To compare apples to apples show a list of frivpens collected.
Someone here should be able to come up with the collection data...so post it like Pete does..
Geeeezzzzzzzzzzz In God we trust all others bring data...

No if you want that kind of comparison, then Pete should be updating his page to reflect how many Crackhead's are now receiving notices from the IRS that their CtC-driven refunds are erroneous and will need to be paid back. If Pete is dedicated to the truth as much as he claims to be, he would at least be honest enough to get the record accurate, instead of pretending that CtC isn't putting people squarely in the sights of the government.

[Dr. Caligari]

The latest from "Skankbeat" at LostHopes:

I got 3176C letters simply for making CTC returns. It took the IRS two years to take such a position after trying to trap me in other ways. It was getting to a point where the IRS had no choice but to return my money property. Now the IRS has played its last card.

When these folks violated my rights, they became imposters in their office. They have frauduently took their pay. And more. I can sue not just these folks, but also their spouses, as accessories after the fact. And since i have given multiple parties notice of rights violations, i can establish a conspiracy to violate my rights.

Sure you can.

Then he adds:

We will see what happens.

Yeah, we will, but it won't be what you think...

[Pottapaug1938]

The latest from "Skankbeat" at LostHopes:

I got 3176C letters simply for making CTC returns. It took the IRS two years to take such a position after trying to trap me in other ways. It was getting to a point where the IRS had no choice but to return my money property. Now the IRS has played its last card.

When these folks violated my rights, they became imposters in their office. They have frauduently took their pay. And more. I can sue not just these folks, but also their spouses, as accessories after the fact. And since i have given multiple parties notice of rights violations, i can establish a conspiracy to violate my rights. We will see what happens.

What is this clown taking, and where can I get some?

[YAAFP]

If this is not done you will be in violation of my rights. You are provided 30 days to remedy to prevent further harm and grievance.

Nothing like a good, "do it, or else" threat to liven up things!

[Joe Dirt]

The latest from "Skankbeat" at LostHopes:

I got 3176C letters simply for making CTC returns. It took the IRS two years to take such a position after trying to trap me in other ways. It was getting to a point where the IRS had no choice but to return my money property. Now the IRS has played its last card.

When these folks violated my rights, they became imposters in their office. They have frauduently took their pay. And more. I can sue not just these folks, but also their spouses, as accessories after the fact. And since i have given multiple parties notice of rights violations, i can establish a conspiracy to violate my rights. We will see what happens.

What is this clown taking, and where can I get some?

Pott, did you really mean to say that you want to get "some" from one called "Skank"beat???

[Famspear]

Legal guru Patrick Michael ("every defeat is a victory, for Pete's sake") Mooney must have angeldust coming out his ears. At losthorizons, he writes:

[Neither] You nor any other CTCer should adopt a strategy of trying to prove you are not an employee. This is wasted energy.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... a004#24377

Well, I agree with that.

Mooney continues:

The only thing you have to prove is that you filed a timely and accurate return.

If your return is alleged to be frivolous, the law clearly states that the proof of this charge must be found on the face of the return itself. NOWHERE ELSE.

(emphasis is Mooney's).

No, that's not what the law says. Here's what the law says (subsection (a) of section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code, in part):

(a) Civil penalty for frivolous tax returns

A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if -

(1) such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which -

[ . . . ]

(B) contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and

(2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) -

(A) is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection (c), or

(B) reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.

(emphasis added).

The "conduct" is the act of filing the "purported return". Notice that the statute does not distinguish between the act of filing purported returns that qualify as legal returns and the act of filing purported returns that do not qualify as legal returns. Both kinds of acts are covered by the statute. Notice also that there is no requirement that the return itself expressly state a frivolous position. I think Mooney and other Crackheads are interpreting the statute erroneously as requiring that for the purported return to be frivolous, the return itself must include some sort of verbiage that perhaps tracks the language of an expressly stated frivolous position. What the statute actually says is that the CONDUCT -- the act of filing the purported return, must be BASED on a frivolous position (specifically, one which the Secretary has identified -- under 6702(c) -- as being frivolous).

In other words, I think Mooney is falsely implying that the return cannot be determined to be frivolous unless the return itself includes some sort of special magically "frivolous" words (or includes words that the IRS considers to be a statement of a frivolous position).

It's almost as though Mooney thinks he can avoid a frivolous penalty by being "evasive" on the return -- essentially, by not stating the position on the return. Under the plain language of section 6702, I think that's a losing proposition for Mooney, if that's what he's driving at.

Now, Mooney continues:

The contest then, is simply to persevere in keeping that document in play. This was confirmed in my last round of Tax Court, where my main argument was that the Service received my return. The judge acknowledged that the burden of proof for the frivolous charge had been shifted to the respondent (IRS), but that it remained for me to prove there was no deficiency.

My answer to the judge. "No problem. You give me the first one, and the second item takes care of itself."

What that means is that, if on the face of my return, no "frivolous position" can be identified, and there is no mathematical error that shows an incorrect application of the tax, then the return must be accepted and processed. And the acceptance of that testimony legally means that there is no deficiency.

(emphasis is Mooney's).

Again, a losing argument. There is no requirement under section 6702 that the IRS must be able to identify a frivolous position on the face of the return itself.

Mooney continues:

The Tax Court has yet to return its verdict nearly a month later, after the IRS and their lawyers lawyers [sic] were screaming "frivolous" at me for 4 years and promising this would be a slam dunk case against me where the judge would come down hard on me.

Patience, Mooney, patience.

I found the judge to be a professional, and he ran a cordial proceeding. But that is the first time in 4 years anyone has acknowledged that the burden of proof has been shifted to the respondent.

And during the trial, the IRS lawyer made no attempt to prove the frivolous charge.

Somehow I rather doubt Mooney's recollection of what the IRS lawyer did or did not attempt to do at the trial.

If they do rule against me, it will be interesting to see how they try to worm out of that corner.

They're not in "a corner," Patrick. And it's not a "they." It's the Tax Court judge who will rule, not the IRS attorney. The Tax Court judge is not in a corner. You are, Mr. Mooney.

The case against the IRS is so wide open now. They are completely exposed, thanks to Pete.

Oh, Pete has them right where he wants 'em, eh? Pete is going to be sentenced to prison in less than four days for using the very scam you are using, Mr. Mooney.

I only say all this to remind everyone that there is no need to make this quest for justice harder than it already is.

By doing so, we can scare many good natured people away from this fight. They will be intimidated by the legal language and back off because of their uncertainty about legalese.

Our goal as warriors should be to try and make this process simpler and easier to understand, not spend countless hours dredging for nuances in the legalese, thinking we'll discover something that will free Pete and the rest of us.

Well, you're right in that you're not going to discover something that will free Pete -- or anyone else who ends up being sent to prison for using the scam.

The only thing that will guarantee our liberty now is to connect with your fellow neighbor and citizen and make him aware of what is going on. As the economy continues to falter, and the banker robbery of our government continues in broad daylight, I can't imagine that the clear and easy path of CTC won't be appealing to millions once they get wind of it.

Tea Party people especially need to know this stuff, otherwise, they are going to get hijacked and derailed by Republican boondoggles like the fair tax or value added tax. Give me a break.

The paranoia you feel is because you are not conviced [sic] of your own power yet. These goons are still inside your head. Therefore, strengthen your heart as much as your mind, because the power of the human heart is capable of transforming this nightmare into something wonderful and life-affirming.

Let the truth grow in your heart as the spring blooms. You have nothing to fear when standing in the truth. You are the master. They are the employees.

You are the eggman, I am the eggman, I am the walrus. Yes, thank you for that inciteful commentary, Mooney.

[Famspear]

Patrick Mooney has, of course, already given the IRS the evidence that the act of filing his return was based on frivolous positions -- right in his petition to the Tax Court.

Among the arguments he makes in his latest case, in the petition, are the following:

---That Mooney is not a "taxpayer" as defined in the law;

---That Mooney did not engage in any taxable "activity" above the personal exemption amount (which can be construed as being pretty close to the frivolous argument that the federal income tax can be imposed only in connection with an "activity")

---That Mooney's "economic activities" are outside the "jurisdiction" of the IRS.

Mooney also repeats the complaint, in his Tax Court petition, that there is no record of an assessment of the tax. Again, Mr. Mooney, what's wrong with you? Do you still not realize that the whole purpose of giving you the opportunity to go to Tax Court is to allow you the opportunity to contest the Commissioner's determination BEFORE the Commissioner can be allowed to make the assessment? Of course no assessment has been made yet! You're complaining about something that is actually to your benefit!

What a dingbat!

[Pottapaug1938]

What is this clown taking, and where can I get some?

Pott, did you really mean to say that you want to get "some" from one called "Skank"beat???[/quote]

By "some", I meant what ever hallucinogen produced those bizarre words; and of course I meant it in a tongue-in-cheek sense....

[ASITStands]

Patrick Mooney has, of course, already given the IRS the evidence that the act of filing his return was based on frivolous positions -- right in his petition to the Tax Court.

Among the arguments he makes in his latest case, in the petition, are the following:

---That Mooney is not a "taxpayer" as defined in the law;

---That Mooney did not engage in any taxable "activity" above the personal exemption amount (which can be construed as being pretty close to the frivolous argument that the federal income tax can be imposed only in connection with an "activity")

---That Mooney's "economic activities" are outside the "jurisdiction" of the IRS.

Mooney also repeats the complaint, in his Tax Court petition, that there is no record of an assessment of the tax. Again, Mr. Mooney, what's wrong with you? Do you still not realize that the whole purpose of giving you the opportunity to go to Tax Court is to allow you the opportunity to contest the Commissioner's determination BEFORE the Commissioner can be allowed to make the assessment? Of course no assessment has been made yet! You're complaining about something that is actually to your benefit!

What a dingbat!

Where did you get a copy of his Petition? Or, did you read it off the Lost Horizons website?

Still wondering what readers of Lost Horizons will do Monday night when the forum goes dark? I contacted a couple who post over there, but I've seen no mention on the forum.

[Famspear]

[quote="ASITStands']Where did you get a copy of his Petition? Or, did you read it off the Lost Horizons website?[/quote]

Good question. I don't see a link on the docket at the Tax Court web site. It's possible I downloaded it from losthorizons, or perhaps Demosthenes had linked it here somewhere.

If you send me an email, I can email a copy to you.

my email address is:

lawfulman@gmail.com