User talk:Famspear/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Awesome job!

You've been doing one helluva job cleaning up all those tax articles! Thanks! BD2412 T 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have you seen Daniel Evans’ Tax Protester FAQ? He takes a scalpel to most of the arguments I've seen come up (although I've lately seen one or two pop up that even he doesn't cover). BD2412 T 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Broken links in Codification

The links were not working because the text included within the linking brackets had an extraneous period at the end - a la Frank Sinatra. (which should read "Frank Sinatra.") BD2412 T 20:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

COBRA

I saw your email to BD2412 and am being somewhat presumptive by answering it myself. The date in the name of the act is 1985. I looked at my bookshelf and for some reason I don't have the original act (I have every other tax act from 1977 to 1988, so I don't know what happened to it), but the IRS and DOL web sites both give the year as 1985 in the name of the act. The name of the act generally follows the name it was given in the bill, so it does make sense for a bill that spends time winding its way through both houses and the conference committee.

While I am usurping BD's talk page, I'll also tell you that moving (renaming) a page is not a big deal but you should definitely read Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page first. If there is a talk page, be certain to move it, too.

Thanks for the work you are doing on the income tax articles. I have been too busy to lend a hand but I do have them on my watchlist. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pension Stuff

Thank you for your edits Famspear. They are much better worded than the original.

I am looking for comments on Marvin Chirelsteins article on the Tax Avoidance JURISPRUDENCE of Learned Hand, especially the Gregory case. John wesley 20:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read/heard Bill Clinton's autobiob, you may notice that he mentions that Marvin Chirelstein was his professor. John wesley 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Update to IRC 501(c)(3) & 501(c)(4)

You really know your stuff. I am a new TEGE EO revenue agent and have been considering adding some new facts to the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) areas on this site, but have not had the time lately. Your additions to those code sections descriptions were precise. This site is lacking on nonprofit accounting subjects and could use your more of your input. --Ashay8 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, section 501 is not exactly an area of in depth "expertise" in my case, but I will make edits where I'm reasonably sure I'm on steady ground. So, what's it like working for the Service, in the time you've been there so far? What is a typical week like? (I deal with the IRS a lot but have never worked there.) Famspear 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Before I joined the Service I worked for a CPA firm and didn't have much time for family and friends. The Service is a great place to work because there is no forced overtime like at a CPA firm, but you can still make a reasonable amount of money working there. As far as my average day, it is working behind a desk and talking on the phone. I am a determinations agent and not an exam agent. Basically my job is to review the initial tax exempt applications that come in and make sure they are in compliance with what ever 501 code section before approving them. I have not had one denial yet in the 7 months I have worked there, thank god. Most people that apply for tax exemption in my experience are organizations like your local PTO’s or Booster clubs trying improve their community. Their may be a few issues with the application, but usually it is due to ignorance rather than fraud. Applicants are willing to work with you to restructure their organization so they comply with whatever section they are going after. I do hope to get to exam one day, but I hear that there are only around 300 exam agents so openings are few and far between. I can wait my turn though. Ashay8 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Fun

We really need to find a place to put DePrizio because it was a wacky case that reaches the fair result but the judge used a strained definition of insider to do so. John wesley 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Would there need to be a different article within bankruptcy. John wesley 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley: Well, I was thinking about writing two more subheadings -- one for Preferences and the other for Fraudulent Conveyances -- both to go in the Bankruptcy in the United States article. Maybe Deprizio would go in the discussion of "insiders" under the "Preferences" topic. What do you think? Famspear 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Famspear, fraudulent transfers and conveyances is a very good topic. For corporations, the sole shareholder tries to recapitalize with debt for equity or oes other shenanighans in anticipation of insolvency. It is all that gaming that is interesting and how much Congress allows it by giving exemptions John wesley 14:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Article

Please see my talk page for details on my reply to your comments.Xode

USD article dispute

Hi, I have some good counterpoints to the factuality dispute. I've been battling a really bad infection for a while now and it makes it hard for me to concentrate. I will however continue to give input and counterpoints into the discussion hopefully sometime soon when I can conclude my research into the matter. --Kurt 03:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your message and added some comments to the talk page --Seitz 06:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to try and arugue the facts with Xode. First, I don't think you're likely to persuade him. Second, as I mentioned on the USD talk page, it appears Wikipedia policy is to document all sides of a factual dispute, no matter how "wrong" we may think one side is. So I think the best argument to make is not that Xode is wrong, but that he is simply posting in the wrong article. Redirect him to the Federal Reserve Note article, where the "information" is more appropriate. -- Seitz 06:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast Flag and FCC

Any articles and stuff on the controversy about RIAA trying to stifle consumer electronics manuafctuirers by trying to get congress to put in a radio version of the TV broadcast flag. The Ct of Appeals bitchslapped the FCC's broadcast flag regulation last year. John wesley 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Kent Dawson addition

An anon added the following to Kent Dawson:

Judge Dawson is on record as giving the legal ruling whereby three Internal Revenue Code sections are "working together" to impose the required legal liability to pay federal income taxes and that the Internal Revenue Service may seize property without court orders (Jury Instuction #19, http://www.dougkenline.com/20051020101734638.pdf.pdf).

This phrasing seems suspicious to me for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Any thoughts? BD2412 T 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: Yep, I saw that earlier today. Haven't had a chance to look into it yet. My immediate impression was as follows: The comment is probably accurate. There are several IRC code sections that do indeed "work together" to impose liability. Likewise, it is certainly correct that the Internal Revenue Code empowers the Federal tax collector to seize property without going to court (as long as certain administrative procedures are followed). Indeed, most Federal tax lien seizures are done administratively, without the IRS having to go to court. But I'm suspecting that the anon put that reference in the Kent Dawson article because he or she believes that these kinds of jury instructions are somehow "remarkable" (and perhaps even somehow outrageous, maybe?) -- which they are not in any way. Under the statutes, the Federal tax collector has expressly had the legal power to administratively seize assets and sell them without going to court since probably long before you and I were born.

This morning I downloaded the PDF file to which the link provided by the anon but I haven't gotten to it yet (I've been working in the yard most of the day, actually).

From a Wikipedia standpoint, my problem with the anon's edit is that it is legally unremarkable with respect to a trial court jury instruction in a tax case -- sounds like it may have been put there by a Schiff sympathizer. It seems to put Judge Dawson in a false light -- seems to falsely imply that such a jury instruction does not follow the law. It's like someone coming on the TV news tonight and, without any explanation, saying "The mayor did not beat his wife today." A perfectly true statement that puts both Judge Dawson and the law in a false light. In other words, it appears to be an attempt at inserting "POV through the back door" if that makes sense.

I hope I'm wrong about the anon's motives. But even if I'm wrong, the edit as it stands is misleading in its present context. I intend to try to deal with the Kent Dawson article soon.

PS: Earlier today I believe this anon also made an edit -- I think in the Tax protester article). The edit inserted a quote from the syllabus of the Cheek case regarding the holding in Cheek. I think the quote is accurate as far as being a quote from the syllabus but again, it leaves the false impression that the statement is from the court's decision rather than from the syllabus. While I don't have a super big problem with the syllabus's formulation of the holding, I think the prior Wikipedia version (which, granted, I probably contributed myself) is actually a slightly more accurate distillation of the holding. Also, the anon's edit resulted in a slightly awkward grammatical construction. I may be editing in that area soon. Yours, Famspear 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More of the same going on now. BD2412 T 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the vandals of the IRS article

Any society must find a way to pay for common needs. Do they want the old style tax collectors? John wesley 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley: Yes, you make a good point. In my opinion, one motivation behind vandalism of tax articles on Wikipedia is in no small part the antipathy toward the tax collector. And the vandalism is misplaced, of course. Vandalizing Wikipedia does not impair the function of imposing and collecting taxes. I think someone once said "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" or words to that effect. When people vandalize Wikipedia, they're only victimizing the users of the encyclopedia. Yours, Famspear 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sound like what O W Holmes Jr. would have said. John wesley 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance / evasion

Please don't be annoyed but I have reverted two recent edits of yours at tax avoidance. Lengthy explanation on the article's talk page. Paul Beardsell 00:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Famspear, it seems some anonymous editor is routinely reverting (without ever contributing) to versions of the article to which neither of us consider ideal. Can I suggest that should you agree that this is happening and, if you see such a reversion, and you think it without merit, that you revert back to a version which includes contributions from all editors and that you then amend THAT version. Paul Beardsell 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editor: I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to get back to you. I haven't done much editing in the past few days. I see the small edit war that's been happening over my edit in the article. As of this writing, my edit is not in the article. It's gratifying to know that other editors liked my wording. However, if any of the other editors add it back, I'll try to take it out, with an explanation to them that it was my edit to begin with, and that I'm asking that it be left out since the point (about statutory assessment) is made later in the article, in the section on U.S. law. Maybe that will alleviate their concerns, and yours. Also, are you thinking about doing some more reorganization work on this article? Due to time constraints, I'm probably not going to deal with this article much more any time soon. Yours, Famspear 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

frivolous argument of tax protestor

Often we are directly asked where in the law do we find the command that we pay income tax. How do we handle such foolishness? There is an income tax on the books. Everyone knows that we must pay it. Ignorance is no defense. John wesley 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley: With respect to the Federal income tax on individuals, the basic tax is imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 1. Under that statute, the tax is imposed on a legal concept called "taxable income," which in turn is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 63. Taxable income basically means "gross income" less the allowable deductions. "Gross income" is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 61. Many tax protesters are well aware of these provisions, but for many of them it does not really matter how much law they read; they simply refuse to accept it. All tax protester arguments, by definition, are feeble. Not only are the arguments incorrect as a matter of law, they are so flaccid that they are legally frivolous. As fellow editor BD2412 has said, tax protester arguments are based on very fundamental misconceptions about how law and the legal system actually work -- not just Federal income tax law, but law in general. As a result, tax protester arguments are easy to refute. Tax protesters are also hampered by the fact that there are so many different tax protester arguments and theories -- and these theories have been rejected over and over by the courts for so many years. Tax protest theories were fatally hampered many years ago -- because of the foolish insistence by many tax protesters that the theories actually be litigated. To litigate a tax protester argument is to lose. And each time a tax protest argument loses in court, it hampers the efforts of later tax protesters. The tax protester is a real life equivalent of the poor "coyote" in the "Road Runner" cartoons that used to be popular on television in the United States. Tax protest arguments are, however, fun to study (if you're a tax geek like me)! Yours, Famspear 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: For those who are not familiar with the old "Road Runner" cartoons on U.S. television (see Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner), the coyote character was a character who tried, over and over each week, to capture the road runner (a bird) with one elaborate but ridiculous scheme after another. Each contraption fabricated or acquired by the coyote to capture the road runner failed miserably -- with the virtually inevitable result that the coyote was horribly (but, to the television viewer, hilariously) smashed against some rock or cliff or otherwise crushed, burned, etc. Despite always losing, the coyote never learned his lesson -- always coming back with yet another ridiculous contraption to defeat the road runner -- and always failing in the most miserable and silly way. Yours, Famspear 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I read your debate with the tax protester with great interest. Generally speaking these guys are hopeless, but I'm quite impressed sometimes. Stuff that I got from one guy every single quote was accurate. Wildly out of context but accurate.

Is this the way we communicate by typing on one anothers talk page or is there some other method. [Note: The above was posted by Peter Reilly on 22 March 2006.]

Dear Peter Reilly: Thanks for your comments. In this particular case, I'll post this comment on both my talk page and your talk page. If I post on your talk page, you receive a little message on your screen, basically a link that takes you to the message on your talk page. Also, if you sign all your messages on talk pages with four little "tildes" the program inserts your Wikipedia signature, time and date.

To respond to your comments about tax protesters, yes, it's interesting that a few of the tax protesters have read some of the actual statutes and cases.

I see that you’re a CPA. I am also a CPA, and an attorney. I’ve studied court decisions involving tax protesters for years. Many protesters seem to share certain characteristics. The vast majority appear to be not formally trained in taxation or law or accounting generally. The more they try to get into taxation and develop their own methods of "interpretation," the farther from reality they seem to get -- for at least two reasons, in my opinion: first, they aren't familiar with the intricacies of law and accounting (or with the fact that it takes years of intense training to develop sufficient knowledge), and they substitute their own rag-tag "reasoning" methods – apparently picked up from simply reading the tax protester literature. Second, tax protesters as a group almost by definition have a strong psychological antipathy toward -- really a hatred of -- the tax system, which I argue greatly impairs their ability to perform analysis. Many protesters nevertheless try to explain away their inability to win as a gigantic "conspiracy" by evil legislators, prosecutors, law professors, judges, lawyers, accountants, etc., etc. Some are even delusional to the point they believe that some fellow tax protester, somewhere, is actually successful with a crazy theory. Self-delusion is almost a sine qua non for tax protesters. A detailed psychological analysis of tax protesters as a group is beyond the scope of this comment. However, it is this inability to use -- indeed, an unfamiliarity with – legal and accounting concepts that is a hallmark of the vast majority of tax protesters I have studied. Many are educated people -- they're just in over their heads in fields in which they lack skills.

Another problem for tax protesters in my opinion is that many are intellectually lazy. They don’t bother to actually check things outside the tax protester web sites. I'm talking about, for example, phantom "quotes" from statutes and court decisions -- quotes that aren't really there. Many tax protesters have not studied the actual statutes, regs, case law, etc. Even here in the pages of Wikipedia, you can find things like, for example, a tax protester saying that the "Internal Revenue Service" is not mentioned anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, when as you know the Internal Revenue Code is actually riddled with specific references to the "Internal Revenue Service,” as are many non-tax Federal statutes. You would think a person would at least bother to actually check something like that before making a ridiculous statement. What many of these people may not realize is that their web sites are full of false materials. And the people who create the false materials, phony quotes, etc., either don’t realize or don’t care that the falsehoods are easy to expose. There are lots of experts who have studied the actual legal materials, and experts recognize it quickly if somebody sticks in a phony quote from a famous case. Further, in the age of the internet, even non-experts have the ability to find some of these materials and expose the phonies.

But what about accurate quotes? You mentioned the accurate quotes that are “wildly out of context.” Yep, in my opinion that’s a result (in part) of the intellectual laziness and the lack of legal and accounting skills. What these people apparently don’t realize is that law (not just tax law, but law generally) is so much more technical than they realize – they cannot develop legal reasoning ability merely by reading one actual case, or ten cases, or even a hundred actual statutes or cases. My sense is that the tax protesters, virtually without exception, have no idea what they’re getting into – for the simple reason that they don’t have the mental tools (unrelated to the subject of taxation itself) needed to analyze the materials. Much of what tax protesters do is something like reading magazine articles on brain surgery and then thinking you can understand brain surgery better than people who have been formally trained for years as physicians and have actually performed brain surgery. It is literally on that level.

For an example of some of this, see the heading “Sources for an alternate viewpoint” at Talk:Income_tax/Removed_text. The material you see there was copied and pasted by a tax protester a while back from some tax protest web site somewhere. Over the past few months I have been gradually inserting my own commentaries, exposing the materials. As you can see, many of the exposed materials include the kinds of accurate quotes you were talking about – quotes that are taken totally out of context without any awareness of the rules of legal analysis. Yours, Famspear 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to tax procedure course lists tax protesters: [1] John wesley 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between someone who files a "Tax Protest letter" and a "Tax protester". Cheers! BD2412 T 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley and BD2412: Yeah, what they're talking about on that cited web page is a letter you draft and send to the IRS after the IRS sends you what's called a "30 day letter" (as opposed to a "90 day letter" or "statutory notice of deficiency"). In your protest letter you lay out the facts and the law to demonstrate why you contend the government's proposed determination of a tax deficiency is incorrect. This is typically after the IRS has audited your Federal income tax return. Later, if you and the IRS still disagree, the IRS issues the "90 day letter," and you have 90 days to file a petition in U.S. Tax Court. If you don't go to Tax Court, the IRS can then assess the tax. After they assess the tax they send you a written notice and demand for the tax. And if you don't pay within a certain number of days after the date of the notice and demand, the law automatically creates a tax lien on everything you own, effective retroactively to the date of the assessment (even though no notice of Federal tax lien has yet been filed). And uh, and the lien applies to all property you own at the date of the assessment, as well as after-acquired property. And, and then, and then, ooooooh gosh, now you guys have gotten me started again! I am such a tax geek! Famspear 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The frivolous arguments themselves could be, if well written and maybe connected to other types of phony (i.e. dishonest) arguments, the subject of an article in itself. The trick would be what type of article. Should it be strictly tax protestor illusions and deceptions and the gullible people who adopt wishful thinking and abandon reason or a more general behavior? John wesley 15:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tax protesters- Quite a few years ago I was being harrassed by a tax protester - long story. Among other things I was "subpoened" (spelling of that is my problem) to a "common law court". I knew the thing was bogus, but being somewhat extra careful, I called up the state and asked who had the power to issues subpoenas and they implied that thing might be valid as did a Boston attorney. I sent it to a Florida attorney (which was where the "court" was) and he had a good laugh. I also faxed it to the FBI and they were all over it. I got a call from a US Attorney in a couple of days. This was during the "Freemen" "militia" period.

The material that I got from them was of such high quality (putting aside the context issues) that I formed a theory. Most of this stuff is now being passed in a similar manner to a computer virus or an urban legend. The material I had (God only knows where it is, now) was, I think, close to the original source (i.e. written by the people who thought the stuff up). I think they were way to good to not know the stuff was bogus. So my theory is that the stuff has been manufactured by the extreme right with a view towards creating alienation from ZOG (the zionist occupation government). Every once in a while you can pick up the racist sub-text. "I'm not a 14th amendment citizen". Also the material is somethimes packaged with Christian Identity material.

Could go on but have to keep up with my day job. [Note: The above was posted by Peter Reilly on 23 March 2006.]

Dear John wesley: Regarding your 8 April 2006 comments about the possibility of a future article on the subject of tax protester arguments, yeah, I've been thinking about that myself. I'm not sure that such an article would fit in Wikipedia but it would be a lot of fun to research and write -- regardless of where it would be published. An article could point out the thinking patterns and overt behaviors that have emerged from tax protesters as a group. Maybe someone has already written a book or article on the subject. It would be interesting to do such a project with a scholarly approach.

Also, I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond to your question about LL.M.s, etc. Despite my tax background I don't keep up with LL.M. tax programs and other graduate tax programs, and I don't have an LL.M. myself. But of course now you've given me another idea for something else to read about! Famspear 19:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)