Airline pilot CtCer can't find a lawyer

[Famspear]

Posting by a new user called "rwelzel" at losthorizons -- apparently "Robert Welzel":

Hi Everyone,

First post, but an avid reader. So I thought I would provide a little back ground.

I am an airline pilot and flew years ago with Vernie Kuglin; my adventure into this arena was as a non-filer. In that venue, I sued the US under 7433 in May 2006. During the fall of 2006, I was first exposed to CTC and became convinced that Pete was right, so I collected all my data and filed CTC returns getting most of the same responses many others are getting.

I would like to observe that I believe that the main reason the IRS rejects our returns as "frivolous" has nothing to do with the definition of "frivolous" but rather some defect in our return. Either a math error or an omission or some small defect that any other return would receive the "math error notice" or audit, or some other method of correcting the inconsistency. In our case, the IRS (from a tactical perspective) has no down side to simply declaring them "frivolous" because it is almost impossible to deal with and allows them to continue all other enforcement actions.

In March of 2007 my case was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I filed a motion for reconsideration based upon a Supreme Court case from Jan 2008 that found the exhaustion was a positive defense for the jury. In March 2008, the judge (Reggie Walton -- Scooter Libby's judge) REINSTATED my case in a minute order refering mostly to his Memorandum Opinion which has yet to be published.

Interestingly (although painful) the IRS elected to seize my assets and garnish my wages within one week of receiving my original summons in May or Jun of 2006. Eventually they were required to return what they stole. Now, when the IRS learned that the case had been reinstated, they contacted a DOJ attorney (but not the one assigned to my case) who instructed them to "proceed with enforcement actions." Apparently they don't like being challenged in court and immediately respond by trying to take any funds you might have to fight with. So the company I work for has started levying funds again, and nothing is safe in any of my bank accounts.

I have been toying with the idea of filing a motion to show cause and then a request to sanction them as a result of their history of seizing assets when the case turns against them. My problem right now is that I am preparing to go to trial as one of the few folks ever to sucessfully challenge the IRS on this issue and I can't find any attorneys willing to take the case. I have talked to most of the big ones, Cryer, Dickstein, Bancroft, etc either personally or through close contacts, and am really getting frustrated.

Additionally, I think the case is at a point that it might be possible to get a mandamus motion considered on the CTC filed returns, but I am unwilling to do it unless I have someone helping who knows exactly what the issue is and how to properly file for it, because I am not willing to see the case evaporate because of some administrative or procedural issue.

So, I am making an appeal to any of you who might be attorneys to consider looking at my case and evaluating if the entire cause can be advanced by pursuing this case. I survived 12b6 and exhaustion and I think this could go to trial, and I aim to win.

Thanks in advanced,
Bob

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=733

(bolding added).

See:

Robert J. Welzel & Lisa L. Welzel v. United States Government
case no. 1:06-cv-00838-RBW
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

And:

Robert J. Welzel & Lisa L. Welzel v. United States
case no. 1:06-cv-01580-RBW
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(This case -- brought by taxpayers under 26 USC 7431 and 7433 -- was dismissed with prejudice.)

EDIT: Corrected middle initial on name of Lisa Welzel. Also, both cases apparently brought under section 7433.

[Imalawman]

Posting by a new user called "rwelzel" at losthorizons -- apparently "Robert Welzel":

Hi Everyone,

First post, but an avid reader. So I thought I would provide a little back ground.

I am an airline pilot and flew years ago with Vernie Kuglin; my adventure into this arena was as a non-filer. In that venue, I sued the US under 7433 in May 2006. During the fall of 2006, I was first exposed to CTC and became convinced that Pete was right, so I collected all my data and filed CTC returns getting most of the same responses many others are getting.

So, basically, you've tried everything else and it hasn't worked, so let's try CTC - this has to be "it"!!

....

My problem right now is that I am preparing to go to trial as one of the few folks ever to sucessfully challenge the IRS on this issue and I can't find any attorneys willing to take the case. I have talked to most of the big ones, Cryer, Dickstein, Bancroft, etc either personally or through close contacts, and am really getting frustrated.

Not even professional tax protestor attorneys will take your case, at this point most sane people would start to re-evaluate the merits of their case...

.....

So, I am making an appeal to any of you who might be attorneys to consider looking at my case and evaluating if the entire cause can be advanced by pursuing this case. I survived 12b6 and exhaustion and I think this could go to trial, and I aim to win.

Whoa, he's assuming that some regulars on lostheads are attorneys?!? Boy is he in for some disappointment. I'm not sure half of them graduated high school, much less college.

Thanks in advanced, (and there's the concomitant grammar error)
Bob

[Famspear]

In case number "00838", the complaint by Welzel includes attachments with a Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated April 3, 2006, showing over $217,000 in assessments for Form 1040 for years 1999 through 2003.

[Nikki]

Is this him, too? If so, I'll bet some IRS attorneys will be interested in the LoserHead thread.

U N I T E D S T A T E S T A X C O U R T
D O C K E T E N T R I E S

Docket No. 12668-08L INDEX
Robert John Welzel
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Pro Se

NO. DATE EVENT FILINGS AND PROCEEDINGS ACT/STAT DTE SERVED M

0001 05/27/08 PF PETITION Filed:Fee Paid R 05/29/08
0002 05/27/08 REQT REQUEST for Place of Trial at R 05/29/08
Anchorage, AK

[Famspear]

Is this him, too? If so, I'll bet some IRS attorneys will be interested in the LoserHead thread.

U N I T E D S T A T E S T A X C O U R T
D O C K E T E N T R I E S

Docket No. 12668-08L INDEX
Robert John Welzel
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Pro Se

NO. DATE EVENT FILINGS AND PROCEEDINGS ACT/STAT DTE SERVED M

0001 05/27/08 PF PETITION Filed:Fee Paid R 05/29/08
0002 05/27/08 REQT REQUEST for Place of Trial at R 05/29/08
Anchorage, AK

Probably the same guy. Tax Court case and one of the District Court cases show a tie to Anchorage, Alaska. The other District Court case shows a Tennessee address, but all three apparently relate to the same guy anyway.

[Famspear]

What airline does this tool fly for and on what routes? I want to avoid those routes on that airline.

Too right!

I don't wanna get up there at 37,000 feet with a clown like this in the cockpit and then find out he has suddenly decided to shut down the turbojets because he believes the law of gravity is invalid -- since God didn't use a Form 23C to "assess" the law properly.

EDIT: I haven't had a chance to study his complaint in detail, but as I recall I believe he raises some frivolous arguments -- such as, that the Code essentially requires that the IRS specifically use a 23C to assess the tax and that the IRS supposedly didn't use a 23C in his case. I think he raises at least one non-frivolous (but possibly factually meritless) argument -- that the IRS didn't issue a statutory notice of deficiency.

[Quixote]

I think he raises at least one non-frivolous (but possibly factually meritless) argument -- that the IRS didn't issue a statutory notice of deficiency.

One standard TP argument is that the CIR himself must sign all notices of deficiency (NOD) and that one not signed personally by the CIR is not a NOD.

I have been toying with the idea of filing a motion to show cause and then a request to sanction them as a result of their history of seizing assets when the case turns against them. My problem right now is that I am preparing to go to trial as one of the few folks ever to sucessfully challenge the IRS on this issue ...

Wouldn't he have to win before he would be "one of the few folks ever to sucessfully challenge the IRS on this issue"?

[The Observer]

Wouldn't he have to win before he would be "one of the few folks ever to sucessfully challenge the IRS on this issue"?

Perhaps he avoided the FrivPen and is declaring a moral victory?

[LPC]

In March of 2007 my case was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I filed a motion for reconsideration based upon a Supreme Court case from Jan 2008 that found the exhaustion was a positive defense for the jury. In March 2008, the judge (Reggie Walton -- Scooter Libby's judge) REINSTATED my case in a minute order refering mostly to his Memorandum Opinion which has yet to be published.

The phrase "for the jury" is misleading at best. The judge only agreed that a complaint under section 7433 should not be dismissed on the pleadings because of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The case could still be disposed of by summary judgment unless Welzel can offer evidence that he did in fact exhaust his administrative remedies.

Interestingly (although painful) the IRS elected to seize my assets and garnish my wages within one week of receiving my original summons in May or Jun of 2006. Eventually they were required to return what they stole. Now, when the IRS learned that the case had been reinstated, they contacted a DOJ attorney (but not the one assigned to my case) who instructed them to "proceed with enforcement actions." Apparently they don't like being challenged in court and immediately respond by trying to take any funds you might have to fight with. So the company I work for has started levying funds again, and nothing is safe in any of my bank accounts.

A claim under section 7433 is a claim for damages for reckless collection actions. The fact that a 7433 claim has been brought does not stop the IRS from taking new collection actions that are non--reckless.

My problem right now is that I am preparing to go to trial as one of the few folks ever to sucessfully challenge the IRS on this issue

This is wishful thinking. I doubt he survives a motion for summary judgment.

[LPC]

I sued the US under 7433 in May 2006. During the fall of 2006, I was first exposed to CTC and became convinced that Pete was right,

Typical tax denier behavior: First decide that the IRS is wrong, then look for a theory to explain why.

[LOBO]

So, basically, you've tried everything else and it hasn't worked, so let's try CTC - this has to be "it"!!

Speaking of "it", isn't is hilarious how the crackheads respond to "wages", "employer" and "employee"" the same way the Knights Who Go "Nee!" respond to "it?"

Crackhead1 (usually new): So I contacted my employer...

Crackheads: Aaaaugh! Aaaugh!

Crackhead2: Don't say the word!

Crackhead1: What word?

Crackhead2: I cannot tell, suffice to say is one of the words the Knights of Words of Art cannot hear.

Crackhead1: How can we wage war against the IRSS if you don't tell us what it is?

Crackheads: Aaaaugh! Aaaugh!

[Gregg]

From my understanding of the crackhead theory, isn't it all based on not having an nexus with the federal government? This nutjob doesn't even qualify by those rules, my pilot certificate is issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. I'm quite certain if he's flying for an airline he has one of those too.

[grixit]

About 20 years ago i read a story about a man who was a pilot at a very advanced age. There was some question as to whether he was still fit to fly. However there was no official action contemplated because 1) he hadn't had any accidents and 2) his pilot's license was signed by Orville Wright, he was not subject to the FAA. But i doubt he would have qualified for a commercial airline.

[Gregg]

In general, a private pilot must have a medical every 3 years, a commercial pilot has one every 6 months. There is a new class of certificate, recreational pilot, that has much less stringent conditions, I'm not familiar with it but know of one pilot who couldn't get a Class 3 (the minimum physical for a private pilot) and started flying recreational. It limited him to lesser aircraft, daytime flight. The idea I got was that the physical required you to have a pulse and being able to detect bright lights.

I originally flew helicopters and when I later learned fixed wing the instructor I hired was a WWII pilot who had 7 wheels-up landings in B17s, one with a bomb load onboard. He had 29 logbooks and the instructor who gave him his first solo endorsement had pilot certificate #13. My certificate number has 6 digits. Don't know about the guy with a cert signed by Orville Wright, but I do know that neither of the Wright Brothers ever had a license.

G

[notorial dissent]

It still all boils down to “It’s not that the ritual didn’t/doesn’t work, I/you just didn’t do it right. That is such a much better excuse than we wasted our time.

[webhick]

It still all boils down to “It’s not that the ritual didn’t/doesn’t work, I/you just didn’t do it right. That is such a much better excuse than we wasted our time.

One of these days, the TP will incorrectly perform one of these "rituals" and the portal to hell will open allowing the vampire thong monkeys to rule our realm until the moron pays his taxes.

[notorial dissent]

Truly a scary thought, but with some of these wastes of protoplasm, you just never know.

[Gregg]

Isn't it amazing what we can rationalize when it's in line with our predetermined beliefs...someone brought up the having a pilot's certificate to him and he found a very convenient way to sidestep it. Logically I could use the same argument to get out of about anything if he can get his idea to pass with someone ..

First, remember that you don't have a license, you have a certificate. This is one of those additional custom defined terms that the federal government is so fond of. A license requires payment of a fee for the privilege that is being exercised.

Additionally, if it really were a federal privilege then everyone that exercised that privilege would also have to be uniformly taxes to meet Constitutional muster. This is what really clinched it for me. Since the US isn't taxing ANY foreign pilots when operating in the US then they must not be exercising this privilege. Similarly, CDL holders can't be exercising Federal privilege since mexican truck drivers aren't charged a tax for operating on our roads. You can bet that if we were, then the foreign countries we operate in would likewise charge us, and we would definately know that because we would have to account for the time we were on foreign soil/airspace so that the tax could be calculated -- even if the tax were waived, we would still have to calculate it. I have never had to deal with such issues in any country worldwide, and I see that as an important "clue" as to the privilege status.

Finally, it is my understanding that certificates can be issued for safety and standardization issues to ensure public safety without granting specific privilege status.

What does everyone else think? I have also wondered about the issuing agency. Does the FAA actually have taxing authority that would be required if they issued a taxable "license?"

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... sc&start=0


Myself, I only wish that the FAA could revoke the certificates of anyone who wasn't paying their taxes, hell, they do it when you don't pay your child support.

[LPC]

Since the US isn't taxing ANY foreign pilots when operating in the US then they must not be exercising this privilege.

I got curious about that, because it seemed to me that the US could impose income taxes on the compensation of foreign pilots for services performed while in US airspace. So I looked at various tax treaties, and found the following in the US-Canada income tax treaty:

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment regularly exercised in more than one State on a ship, aircraft, motor vehicle or train operated by a resident of that Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State.

As far as I can tell, there is similar language in about 40 treaties, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, France, and Japan.

[Judge Roy Bean]

An ATP cert brings with it treaty obligations/powers in any country that wants to have commercial air traffic. It's quite similar to maritime captaincy status and among participating countries taxation of the income of a flight crew is a matter of their home country's business.