A Hypothetical for Bulten

[LPC]

In another thread, Bulten posed a hypothetical about "forms under jurat" and other nonsense.

Let's look a more realistic hypothetical.

A certain person (let's call him PH) is sued by the United States for the return of a tax refund that was erroneously issued when PH filed a tax return claiming no income. As part of its motion for summary judgment the United States produces sworn testimony (in the form of affidavits) from an officer of a corporation stating that the corporation paid money to PH in exchange for services that PH performed for the corporation.

PH does not deny receiving the money, and does not deny performing services for the corporation. However, PH claims that he was not paid any "wages" and did not receive any "income" but never explains why.

1. How should the judge rule?

2. How DID the judge rule?

3. If the answer to #1 is the same as the answer to #2, why is Bulten still beating this dead horse?

[wserra]

why is Bulten still beating this dead horse?

(1) Because someone is paying him to do so.

(2) Because he has a personal stake in the matter, most likely that he has also claimed that the money his employer gave him for services rendered is neither wages nor income, and he is afraid of being next in the barrel.

(3) Because the horse isn't the only brain dead thing in the scenario.

(4) Because of some combination of (1), (2) and (3).

[Doktor Avalanche]

why is Bulten still beating this dead horse?

(1) Because someone is paying him to do so.

(2) Because he has a personal stake in the matter, most likely that he has also claimed that the money his employer gave him for services rendered is neither wages nor income, and he is afraid of being next in the barrel.

(3) Because the horse isn't the only brain dead thing in the scenario.

(4) Because of some combination of (1), (2) and (3).

That'll teach me to get here fashionably late. Took the words right out of my mouth.

My money's on #2.

[LPC]

why is Bulten still beating this dead horse?

(1) Because someone is paying him to do so.

(2) Because he has a personal stake in the matter, most likely that he has also claimed that the money his employer gave him for services rendered is neither wages nor income, and he is afraid of being next in the barrel.

(3) Because the horse isn't the only brain dead thing in the scenario.

(4) Because of some combination of (1), (2) and (3).

I would say 70% for #3 and 30% for #2.

#1 is out because who would pay him? Hendrickson? It is to laugh.

[Joey Smith]

Merely by being making himself known here John has undoubtedly raised his profile HIGH up in DOJ-TAX. After Pete goes down like Lynne Meredith, Irwin Schiff and others, John will not be far behind.

Some highly suggested reading for John:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse ... 3519&itm=1

[John J. Bulten]

1. How should the judge rule?

2. How DID the judge rule?

3. If the answer to #1 is the same as the answer to #2, why is Bulten still beating this dead horse?

1. Since you stipulated the refund was erroneously issued, the judge should rule in accord with that fact.

2. I am unaware of a judge facing the given situation.

3. The hypothetical added by this question does not apply.

If you're referring to Pete Hendrickson, you should be aware that Pete reported total income of $306.14, so the situation you described does not apply to him. Further, since the finding of erroneous refund is under appeal, it may not apply on that ground either.

If you'd like to change the hypothetical by deleting "erroneously" (or changing it to "allegedly erroneously"), and changing "no income" to "$306.14 income", the answers to 1 and 2 change:

1. Among other things, the judge should first rule on any countermotions to the complaint, then await a timely explicit answer by "PH" to the complaint, prior to ruling on any motions for summary judgment. The rulings will depend on the contents of the countermotions, answer, and MSJ.

2. Judge Nancy ruled on the MSJ prior to the complaint being answered.

(1) Because someone is paying him to do so.

(2) Because he has a personal stake in the matter, most likely that he has also claimed that the money his employer gave him for services rendered is neither wages nor income, and he is afraid of being next in the barrel.

(3) Because the horse isn't the only brain dead thing in the scenario.

(4) Because of some combination of (1), (2) and (3).

1. What currency did you have in mind?

2. Do you mean a 3401 employer, which I don't have?

3. Do you know the psychological meaning of "projection"?

4. See above.

Merely by being making himself known here John has undoubtedly raised his profile HIGH up in DOJ-TAX.

How so? I have never received a CtC refund, I don't sell anything, and I don't offer legal advice.

[John J. Bulten]

Also, Dan, please change "'income'" to "'income' derived from 'wages'", and you may need to be more specific about the affidavits produced, such as by what terms the corporation described the money, how much, how original the affidavits were and in what form they were produced, how they were admitted in evidence, etc. Your further omissions will become obvious as you proceed.

[Dezcad]

How so? I have never received a CtC refund, I don't sell anything, and I don't offer legal advice.

What about this CtC return of yours you said was successful in the forums? Did you not get this refund?

http://losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/BultenFed2005.pdf

Does the word disingenuous mean anything to you?

[grammarian44]

If you're referring to Pete Hendrickson, you should be aware that Pete reported total income of $306.14, so the situation you described does not apply to him. Further, since the finding of erroneous refund is under appeal, it may not apply on that ground either.

This is so typical. Every time you're confronted with defeat, you try to squirm out of it by finding a completely irrelevant difference between your perception of the facts and someone else's, and you act as if this difference is the ONLY thing that really matters.

Do you really think anyone on this site is so stupid as to think that the fact Pete reported $306.14 of non-wage income would make any difference whatsoever to what happened in the case regarding his wage income? I mean, John, how stupid do you think we really are? Why don't you just address what was obviously LPC's central concern--Pete's income from wages--instead of trying to squirm?

And as for the fact that the case is (purportedly) under appeal:

I am leaning toward the likelihood of Pete being denied on appeal.

Since you've already admitted that you think Pete will lose on appeal, it was mere squirming of you to yet again act as if a pending appeal makes any difference to the argument.

Your attempts at spin have grown pathetic.

[silversopp]

What about this CtC return of yours you said was successful in the forums? Did you not get this refund?

http://losthorizons.com/tax/taximages/BultenFed2005.pdf

Does the word disingenuous mean anything to you?

Wow...John held 3 jobs in a year making a total of less than $10,000. Another failure who can't make it in the real world.

You know John, a college education would provide you with more than the $1000 refund you asked for. A few extra shifts at Burger King would also provide you with more than the $1000 refund you asked for. The nice thing about college educations and extra Burger King shifts is that they won't cause you to pay massive fines, interest, and penelties. You also won't have to pay some self-described guru to write documents for you during the court proceedings.

I wonder if John's wife is the one wearing the financial pants? What a shame that he's going to bring her down with him.

[webhick]

All three places he worked were temp agencies. Knowing that he was a Kelly girl is...funny.

(Yeah, I know that they temp out guys too...but I grew up with the term "Kelly girl" and it stuck)

[Quixote]

You know John, a college education would provide you with more than the $1000 refund you asked for.

And $266 of that refund was legitimate, so all the CtC nonsense was for $734.

[John J. Bulten]

Thanks, all, you've proven once again that the forum's purpose is not tax analysis but fun-poking. And on this thread in spades. Your pretentions to tax analysis are as faulty and as laughable as your analysis of my personal life.

Dezcad, you mistake a credit for a refund. In Joey's context of criminal prosecution, the CtC credit which I have received is completely different from a CtC refund, which exposes an erroneous refund suit possibility (the suit is erroneous, not the refund).

Grammarian, you mistake LPC's measly hypothetical for being "confronted with defeat". Never mind that it's SOP on this forum to nitpick someone else's flaws in presentation to avoid answering what the person really wants to know (which procedure I take advantage of freely, as I warned everyone when I reentered this forum). I even adjusted his hypothetical for him and it still didn't reach the issues. When he is able to frame the issues rightly, I'll respond (as I have with him for 2 years).

Yes, I think Pete's reporting of $306.14 income is significant, because Judge Nancy said twice he had "no income", which demonstrates incompetence or malice. To answer your first question, I think there are forum members here not so stupid as to ignore this point.

As to how stupid I think you really are, the answer is: stupid enough to judge what you do not comprehend.

As to why I don't address Dan's real concern, it's because he didn't ask it, nor did you. You mistakenly imply I should answer questions that are not asked, but recall that this forum is very casuistic about demanding proof that a question has been asked.

Finally, you mistake an admitted leaning toward denial as a definite thought that Pete will lose.

Silversopp, you mistake all my receipts reported to the IRS for all my receipts total. You mistake certain monetary transactions for making it in the real world. You mistakenly neglect to calculate the cost of a college education (which I have had), which makes it take much longer, often 10 years, to clear that first $1,000 net than simply filing returns accurately. You mistakenly imply I was in it for the $1,000 and neglected a simpler route to that goal. You mistakenly think I have been, or will be, caused to pay massive fines, interest, and "penelties". You mistakenly think that I have a "self-described guru to write documents", and that I will need to pay such a person for such a service. As for my wife's pants, don't make me track your IP address.

Kickback, actually it was a shade under $10,000 for 3 years, because I had zero income reported for 2003-2004. You mistakenly think that not having income reported is sad or pathetic. You mistakenly exclude the possibility that I worked for myself.

Quixote, you mistakenly confuse amounts with different levels of precision. You erroneously subtracted $266 (which you apparently calculated to the nearest dollar) from $1000 (which was $1094.25 rounded to the nearest thousand dollars) and act like the result is meaningful. You really shouldn't make such sophomoric accounting errors on this forum.

Kickback again:

1. You mistakenly think the 4852 category "tax withheld" cannot also be used for overpayment withheld.

2. You mistakenly think filing MFS comes from idiocy about, rather than protection of, one's wife.

3. You mistakenly think I scanned and converted the document. You mistakenly think my retention of the address was unintentional, and you mistakenly think that is my current address or locality.

You next mistake questions for hypotheticals.

1. You mistakenly think that I'm working part time, and that my hourly rate (when I divide annual rate by 2080) is below Burger-King levels. You mistake the primary causes of this for laziness and idiocy.

2. You mistake "reral money" for a summum bonum. You mistake the primary causes of this for laziness or incorrigibility.

3. You mistakenly imply I find certain labor beneath me (forgetting that I have always advocated the virtues of the right to labor), that I have an overinflated ego, that I am seeking a "position" (I hope you're not referring to the Classification Act), that I am waiting for what I deserve or think I deserve, and that I have no proven track record.

I count 30 false presumptions in 4 hours, that's got to be a record for this forum. It's a great joy in life. See why Penni and I come here so often?

[Paul]

Thanks, all, you've proven once again that the forum's purpose is not tax analysis but fun-poking.

Congratulations! You finally caught on. Thanks for being such an easy target, and for all the laughs you've provided us.

Please don't quit now, or tell Van Pelt (although I don't think he would understand what's going on any more than you do, outside this one moment of clarity).[/quote]

[Dezcad]

Dezcad, you mistake a credit for a refund.

Really. Didn't you sign the 2005 1040A "Under penalties of perjury" declaring that "it is true, correct and complete"?

Didn't you put on line 45a the amount you want "refunded to you"?

So you were the one that swore that the amount you received was a "refund". I see nothing on the form where you swore or mentioned anything about a "credit".

You didn't perjure yourself on the 1040A, did you?

Or are you just being disingenuous and playing word games again?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Or are you just being disingenuous and playing word games again?

Dude, it's Bulten. Of course he's being disingenuous and playing word games again.

[Florida]

Finally, you mistake an admitted leaning toward denial as a definite thought that Pete will lose.

WTF?

[Joey Smith]

In Joey's context of criminal prosecution, the CtC credit which I have received is completely different from a CtC refund,

No, they are both tax evasion and perjury. As for poking fun goes, it is alway fun to laugh at the stooopid.

[grammarian44]

Yes, I think Pete's reporting of $306.14 income is significant, because Judge Nancy said twice he had "no income", which demonstrates incompetence or malice.

So it is a significant fact that the judge used the words "no income" twice? Significant enough to cause a reversal on appeal? No, that can't be right. You've already said that you think Pete will lose on appeal.

So please explain how the judge's purported misstatements can be "significant" yet will have no bearing on the future of the case. Significant to whom? For what purpose? Just so you can find something to disagree with, trivial as it is? Or because it is somehow material, even though you already concede that Pete will lose on appeal?

[LPC]

Yes, I think Pete's reporting of $306.14 income is significant, because Judge Nancy said twice he had "no income", which demonstrates incompetence or malice.

To be perfectly accurate, Judge Edmunds (not "Judge Nancy") twice stated that the Defendants (plural) "reported that they had no income." (Emphasis added.)

And the judge's statement should be taken in context. In each case, the three preceding paragraphs described the false claims of each defendant that he or she had received no wages or other compensation. They therefore reported no income from employment. The judge did not include the words "from employment" but that is what was being discussed.

So the incompetence and malice is all yours, I think.