Posts Tagged ‘tax protesters’

Tax Roundup, 3/25/2013. Three weeks to go. And Cargo Cults!

Monday, March 25th, 2013 by Joe Kristan
Ceremonial cross of John Frum cargo cult, Tanna island, New Hebrides (now Vanuatu), 1967 (via Wikipedia)

Ceremonial cross of John Frum cargo cult, Tanna island, New Hebrides (now Vanuatu), 1967 (via Wikipedia)

Heresies of the Cargo Cult.  When some remote societies encountered the industrial world in World War II, they had trouble grasping what they were seeing.  Wikipedia explains:

Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of matériel.   When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and faux radio equipment out of bamboo or whatever materials they had at hand, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating there.

While it’s easy to mock an islander for building a refrigerator-like box in hopes of conjuring up an icy six-pack, cargo cult behavior also occurs in modern societies.   Without describing it as such, tax historian Joseph Thorndike writes about the cargo cult of the 1950s, where modern policy wonks try to conjure up 1950s-style growth through a ritualistic process of duplicating tailfin-era totems.  For example, Timothy Noah thinks the crushing stated top marginal rates of that era might help generate those Happy Days results.  Mr. Thorndike sees problems with that approach:

We still don’t know if high statutory rates and (relatively) high average rates were a drag on growth. And we can’t know, because we also can’t know what growth might have been in a different tax climate.

Moreover, a range of nontax factors were probably more important in shaping growth patterns in the 1950s. In particular, the economic disruptions of World War II had left the United States in a uniquely dominant position; by one estimate, U.S. manufacturing output constituted 60 percent of the world’s total in 1950.

In other words, it takes more than a bamboo box to conjure up that beer.

After all, the tax system of the Eisenhower era was not a very good one: It paired notionally sky-high rates with a deeply flawed tax base and created distortions both coming and going.

I understand that progressives like Noah are fighting a different battle: They are trying to beat back the rate-cutting mania that often serves as a definition of tax reform these days. But I think we might take a lesson from the tax experts of the 1950s, who understood the problems bedeviling their own tax system. As economist Harold Groves said at the time, “The impression is widely shared that the Congress deliberately throws a high-rate scale to the public as a demagogic bone and then as deliberately allows escapes from taxes that makes these rates specious.”

Mr. Thorndike is more sympathetic to high rates than I ever will be.  Doing taxes for a living, I see first-hand how high rates affect behavior, and I have no patience for academics who say otherwise.  But he wisely notes that simply trying to recreate the totems of the 1950s, like high tax rates, misses all of the other things that put cold beer in the refrigerator.  Same thing goes for other 1950s fetishes like tail fins, industrial unionism and defined benefit pension plans.

 

 

To serve and protect.  Former Pittsburgh Police Chief Charged with Conspiracy, Failure to File Federal Tax Returns (FBI Press Release):

Former Pittsburgh Police Chief Nathan E. Harper has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges of conspiracy and willful failure to file income tax returns, U.S. Attorney David J. Hickton announced today.

The five-count indictment named Harper, 60, of Pittsburgh.

According to the indictment, Harper was the chief of the city of Pittsburgh Police Department. From 2009 to 2012, he caused at least $70,628.92 in checks and cash received by the special events office of the department to be diverted to two accounts at the Greater Pittsburgh Police Federal Credit Union. Using Visa debit cards, Harper obtained more than $31,000 in ATM withdrawals and debit purchases, all for his personal benefit. Harper also failed to file federal tax returns for the years 2008 through 2011.

If he’s convicted, maybe the special events office can throw a little party for the occasion.

 

What could possibly go wrong?  James Timothy Turner was convicted last week of masterminding a cunning plan.  DothanEagle.com reports:

According to a U.S. Department of Justice press release, Turner was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., attempting to pay taxes with fictitious financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service, failing to file a 2009 federal income tax return and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding.                           

The FBI began investigating Turner in 2010 after he and three other people sent packages to all 50 governors demanding they leave office.                           

Turner is the president of a group of what prosecutors called “sovereign citizens” known as the “Republic for the united States of America.”

Send “packages” to all of the governors telling them to resign?  Well, at least they weren’t trying to hide what they were doing.

Turner toured the country in 2008 and 2009 teaching seminars that instructed attendees how to submit bonds to pay off tax debt.                           

According to prosecutors, these bonds were completely fictitious and often written for amounts in excess of $1 billion.

Silly man.  Only the Federal Reserve can do that.  Unless we’re talking about the $1 trillion magic coin

 

Every theater needs a dirctor, including economic development theater.  Economic development director accuses senator of engaging in “political theater” over Orascom deal (O. Kay Henderson, via TheBeanwalker)

 

William Perez,  Penalty Relief Available for Some 2012 Federal Tax Returns

Jack Townsend,  Ethicist Question About Tax Professionals Exploiting Loopholes:

So, for those tax professionals engaging in such transactions that they know violated a known legal duty, their conduct is illegal and unethical.  For those transactions engaging in such transactions where they don’t know (perhaps are willfully ignorant) that the conduct is illegal (ultimately most of the b—-t tax shelters are found to be
illegal), then at least the ethical issues arise.  These are smart professionals, paid (supposedly) to predict what a court will do with the b—–t tax shelter.  Yet, in the prominent civil cases that swat down b—–t tax shelters, they fail miserably in their predictions.

 

Kay Bell,  A tax lawyer has ethical problems with tax loopholes

Janet Novack,  How Much Tax Will You Owe On A $320 Million Powerball Jackpot? A Lot More Than In 2012 .  I knew I should have arranged to win that Powerball last year.

Jim Maule,  Tax Meets the Chicken and the Egg

Trish McIntire,  Extensions

Patrick Temple-West,  Athletes’ tough tax bills, and more

TaxGrrrl,  Senate Passes Budget, Calls For Nearly $1 Trillion In Tax Increases

You are required to go to the party.  The Affordable Care Act Turns 3 (Richard Morrison, TaxVox).

 

The Critical Question: Who Will Play Margaret Fuller When The Movie Comes Out ?  (Peter Reilly)

Tony Nitti, IRS Employees’ Star Trek Parody Is As Wonderfully Awful As It Sounds

Russ Fox,  To Boldly Go Where No IRS Employee Has Gone Before…

You mean it’s not a documentary?  IRS Releases Gilligan’s Island Parody Training Video (TaxProf).

Frankly, they don’t give a dam. Beavers defiant after convicted of tax evasion (Chicago Tribune)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/12/2013: What tax protester “victory” really means.

Tuesday, March 12th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

20130312-2It just doesn’t work.  The “Tax Honesty Movement” got excited a few years back when Louisiana attorney Tom Cryer was acquitted on criminal tax charges.  For example:

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.              

“I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever,” lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

There’s just one problem with the idea that this struck a death blow to the income tax:  he still owes the taxes.  Even though he’s dead.  Being aquitted in a criminal tax case doesn’t make it legal to not pay taxes any more than the O.J. Simpson acquittal legalized multiple homicides in Brentwood.

The Tax Court yesterday ruled that Mr. Cryer owes taxes, interest and civil fraud penalties for tax years for which he didn’t file income tax returns.  From the Tax Court:

In essence, Mr. Cryer claimed that the income he received during the tax years at issue from certain “sources” was taxable under Louisiana law, but not under Federal law. In United States v. Clayton, 506 F.3d 405, 412 (5th Cir. 2007), the Court to which an appeal would lie in this case, cited and followed its prior unpublished opinion holding that “the argument that income derived from sources within the United States” is not taxable under Federal law is “patently frivolous” and “absurd”.

The moral: No matter how convincing they are on the Internet, “Tax Honesty” arguments don’t work.  They will not keep the IRS from taxing you.  When “winning” means staying out of jail but paying 75% civil fraud penalties, you set the bar for victory too low.

Cite: Cryer, T.C. Memo. 2013-69

Related: Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ

Prior Coverage:  ‘NOT GUILTY’ DOESN’T MEAN ‘NOT TAXABLE’

 

Nick Kasprak, Weekly Map: State and Local Sales Tax Rates, 2013 (Tax Policy Blog)

 20130312-1

 

Peter Reilly,  Carried Interest Debate Heats Up Without Much Light .  A reasonable outline of the issues involved in the so-called “loophole” for private equity:

If “carried interest” were really just a loophole it would not need such an elaborate fix.  In fact, it is based on fundamental principles of partnership taxation.

I don’t think it’s a problem, so I don’t think it needs fixing.  Related:  New York Times Dealbook, Why Carried Interest Is a Capital Gain.

 

Tony Nitti, Contrarian Tax Planning: Increasing Income To Take Advantage Of The AMT

Missouri Tax Guy, Is that Gift Taxable?

Martin Sullivan, Showdown in Kansas: Realtors vs. Governor (Tax.com).  Will Kansas eliminate the home mortgage deduction on its state returns?

Jeffrey M. Kadet,  Tax And Territoriality: The Corporate 99% Versus The Law School 1%

William Perez,  IRS Plans Spending Cuts Due to Sequestration.  They can’t answer their phones, but they still want to regulate preparers.

Kay Bell,  NYC soda ban overturned. Would a soda tax have been better?  Maybe better, but still unwise.

TaxGrrrl, Former Detroit Mayor Found Guilty On Multiple Counts, Including Tax Charges.  Poor Detroit.

 

Tax News from the Animal Kingdom.

Beavers’ tax-evasion trial to begin (WGNTV.com)

Former Bear Chris Zorich charged in tax case  (WGNTV.com)

Fmr. Eagle Freddie Mitchell pleads guilty in tax scheme (6ABC.com)

 

Remember, Calendar 2012 1120 and 1120-S returns are due Friday!

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 10/15/2012: no more procrastination edition. Also: how not to stay in touch with your ex.

Monday, October 15th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

20080410-1ibiz.jpg

Today is it for extended 2011 1040s. File your return today, if you haven’t done so.  Get your 8879 to your preparer, e-file yourself,  send it certified mail, return receipt requested, or use an authorized private delivery service with the return addressed to the proper service center street address.  There are no more extensions available!

Related:  The End of Procrastination Season Is Upon Us  (Russ Fox);  TODAY IS “THE DAY”! (Robert D. Flach).

 

Brutal Assault on Reason Watch: 

Kay Bell, Top 10 tax moments in VP debate

Patrick Temple-West,   Essential reading: Biden and Ryan dispute economic toll of raising the top tax rates, and more

TaxGrrrl,  What The VP Debate Taught Us About Romney/Ryan – and Didn’t Tell Us About Tax

Joseph Henchman,   Biden, Ryan Give Tax Policy Rationales (Tax Policy Blog)

Donald Marron,  Five Things You Should Know about Mitt Romney’s “$5 Trillion Tax Cut”  (TaxVox)

Richard Morrison,   Chart of the Day: The Gains of the 1% Don’t Come at the Expense of the Middle Class  (Tax Policy Blog):

 

Peter Reilly,   Romney Wants No Estate Tax – Case For 2012 Mega Gift Remains Compelling:

When you break down possible outcomes on the political scene, they all argue for at least looking at your assets and sitting down with a planner to see if there is something worth doing.

Peter sees value in large-scale family gifting, no matter how the elections turn out.

Janet Novack,  The Forbes Guide To Estate Planning

 

Jim Maule,  Taking Tax Money Without Giving Back: Another Reality :

It is not surprising that, although they come at the problem from different angles and propose different solutions, both this commentator and the writer of this report consider taxpayer financing of private sector sports enterprises to be a very bad idea.

Brian Strahle, Non-Big 4 Firm SALT Professionals:  GOT LEVERAGE?

And, of course, Robert D. Flach came through with a Buzz this weekend.

 

So much for any chance of reconciliation.  A Fort Atkinson, Iowa man probably scored no points with his ex-wife while looking for tax refunds in all the wrong places.  Now Gene Jirak will serve a 45-month sentence for filing false refund claims.  From KCRG.com:

Prosecutors say Jirak devised a scheme by filing two tax returns claiming he was entitled in each return to a refund of over $50,000. Authorities say Jirak filed the first tax return as an amended joint return, using his ex-wife’s name and Social Security number and forging her signature.

Well, if he had a refund coming, maybe he should have asked for her signature.  Well, maybe because he didn’t have a refund coming.  Court documents show that Mr. Jirak attempted to get refunds under the absurd “1099-OID” theory, which, as much as I can make any sense of it holds that we all have big accounts in our name at the U.S. Treasury that we can tap by filing the right tax forms.    The judge wasn’t persuaded.

Acting as his own lawyer, Mr. Atkinson was convicted of five counts arising from the transaction.  Amazingly, he actually received a check from the IRS for $69,139.07 (still a few flaws in the old refund claim review system, I guess).  According the the indictment, his poor relationship with his ex caused things to go awry:

On or about March 9, 2009, defendant GENE JIRAK presented the Treasury check for deposit at Viking State Bank & Trust in Decorah, Iowa.  At the time the check was presented, it bore a forged endorsement signature [of his ex-wife].  When Viking State Bank & Trust determined [the] endorsement was forged, the bank returned the Treasury check to the IRS.

The Moral?  Don’t use ridiculous tax theories to claim tax refunds.  Oh, and forging your ex-spouse’s signature is never a great idea.

Share

Tax Roundup, 9/19/2012: 47% Frenzy, Day 2! And the dangers of filing unneeded returns.

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

Who know tax policy would finally take center stage in the presidential campaign?  The Romney “secret video” saying 47% of taxpayers won’t be interested in him because they pay no taxes continues to crowd high unemployment and foreign policy disaster from the headlines.  Will Freeland of the Tax Policy Blog takes an approach nobody else (besides me) seems to have, looking at both taxing and recipients of government spending.  It’s worse than 47%:

 

The red top line is the top 1% of taxpayers; the remaing lines are quintiles of taxpayers, top to bottom. The bottom 3 quintiles (60%) receive more in government payments than they pay in taxes.

If this controls voting (and it doesn’t), Mitt is doomed.

More 47% frenzy coverage:

Kelly Phillips Erb (TaxGrrrl):  Note to Romney: We’re all on the dole (USA Today)

Christopher Bergin,  Romney Steps in Taxes, Again (Tax.com)

Roberton Williams,  Why Do People Pay No Federal Income Tax?  (TaxVox)

Peter Reilly,  Mitt Romney And The 47% All A Matter Of Context

Trish McIntire,  Stoning Glass Houses – Again

Linda Beale,  Romney’s Tax Views Lead to Blooper Comments Denigrating America’s Elderly and Poor

Tyler Durden,  Your Taxes At Work: All You Need To Know About Who Pays What Taxes In The US (Via Instapundit)

 

 

If you’ve ever been snookered into buying a lame extended warranty for a car, you’ll like this.  From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

Cory Atkinson, a former co-owner of what was once one of the nation’s largest seller of auto service contracts, was sentenced in federal court here Tuesday to 40 months in prison on charges of tax fraud conspiracy and tax fraud charges for bilking both consumers and the IRS.

Atkinson, 42, of Chesterfield, will also have to pay $4.49 million in back taxes.

40 months? that’s less than a lot of extended warranties.

The company’s profit on a typically contract worth $2,000 or more was often more than $1,200. Fidelis kept 60 percent of that.

Unhappy customers canceled, sometimes at a rate as high as 60 percent, but US Fidelis staffers were told to arbitrarily withhold 10 percent to 40 percent of their money, according to plea documents.

I suspect few of the extended warranty customers will miss being able to work with this guy for the next 40 months.

 

You don’t want to give me more money?  Traitor!   As Taxes Edge Upwards, Leaders Question Taxpayer Patriotism  (TaxGrrrl). 

True that:   Tales from the Tax Field: Don’t “Start a Business” Just to Get Tax Deductions  (Jason Dinesen)

Jana Luttenegger,  Top Tax Errors in Estate Planning  (Davis Brown Tax Law Blog)

William Perez:  Avoid the Medicare Surtax by Giving Incoming-Producing Investments to Minor Children

Missouri Tax Guy,  Tax Misperceptions – Small Business

Jack Townsend,  The Role of the DOJ Tax Division in Criminal Tax Enforcement

It’s Wednesday, so it’s time for a Buzz!  Robert D. Flach Obliges.

Going Concern:  Audit Finds That IRS Small Business Division Not So Different From That Attractive Person at the Bar That Seemed Really Interested in You

Get ’er done, Iowans!   Could Iowans get any fatter? Yes, new study concludesRelated?  ISU economist says now may be the time to stock up on meat

 

I’m going to get even with you by getting myself sent to federal prison!  A Nebraska couple has a funny idea of vengeance, based on this item from the North Platte Bulletin:

Evidence presented at trial showed that the Kleensangs had not filed any tax returns in 2003-06 or in 2008-11, U.S. Attorney Deb Gilg said.

The Kleensangs testified under oath in state court proceedings in Sheridan County that they did not have to file tax returns because they were not federal employees and did not live in the District of Columbia.

However, in 2008, together they filed a total of 67 returns for 2007, with David Kleensang filing 57 separate returns for himself and Bernita Kleensang filing 10 separate returns on her behalf.

That’s a lot of returns if you don’t have to file.  What’s that all about?

During the investigation, Gilg said the Kleensangs admitted that they filed the bogus returns to “get justice” for judgments that were rendered against them in Sheridan County. The total amount of the refunds they claimed was $48.4 million.

Yeah, we’ll file bogus tax returns.  That’ll teach Sheridan County!  What could go wrong?

The frivolous returns were detected by the Frivolous Return Program Unit, established by the Internal Revenue Service around 2001, Gilg said. Frivolous returns are pulled and the filer is sent a warning letter that says if the returns are not corrected, the filer could be assessed a $5,000 penalty.

Not only did the Kleensangs not correct their initial returns, they continued to file similar returns for nearly four months, seeking refunds, Gilg said.

So they ended up convicted of fraud and false claims charges.  It will be a long time before Sheridan County messes with that couple — six years, anyway.

Share

Tax Roundup, 8/13/2012: Let the film credit revisionism begin! Also: a study in retirement planning.

Monday, August 13th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

http://www.rothcpa.com/misc/20090604-1.JPGStill Star-struck in Iowa.  Even after Iowa’s embarrassing and disastrous film tax credit fiasco, there are still people who think it’s a nifty idea for taxpayers to subsidize Hollywood, reports the Quad City Times.  Take Kent Newman, described as “a former board member with the Iowa Motion Picture Association who does production work in the Des Moines area and remains connected with various aspects of the film business.”:

 Newman said there were many positive aspects from the film tax credit program that included considerable training for young people interested in working in the entertainment industry and several projects that successfully used the tax incentives to complete high-quality productions. However, when the incentive program was suspended in 2009 many projects and people moved to Michigan, Louisiana and other places where there were jobs being offered.

An interesting observation.  Iowa spent $32 million, of which $28 million was pretty much pure waste and/or fraud, based on the state auditor’s report on the film program.  For that we trained people who moved away.  Success!

Newman said in the current environment that “unless and until Iowa has some level of a competitive incentive program that is well managed, we’re never going to have very much production happening here.”

He said he was hopeful local communities would fill in that void by offering to waive the first month of hotel-motel tax for production crews or other incentives that could entice film projects in the range of $3 million to $10 million that would headquarter in an Iowa city where they would be a short distance from rural locales that would be prime destinations for a film shoot.

In other words, unless we pay Hollywood to be our friends, they won’t like us.  Unless every business and employee who is already paying taxes here working for unsubsidized businesses ponies up tax money to bribe the filmmakers to come here, they won’t come here.

If Hollywood wants to make movies here with their own money or money from private investors, fine.   We should have a business environment that is welcoming to in-state and out-of-state entrepreneurs.   Then you don’t need “incentives” in the first place.

 

It doesn’t make sense to bribe other businesses either.  Some wisdom on Tax Policy from David Brunori ($ link): 

As first reported in the Las Vegas Sun, Nevada’s decision to grant Apple $89 million in tax breaks was made by one man. The decision rested with Steve Hill, the state economic development director. Where would one unelected bureaucrat get the power to hand over $89 million to a corporation that has a market capitalization of over $500 billion? Why would Nevada give a dime to a corporation that has revenue of over $110 billion and profit of $26 billion?

     In a society that has laws against everything, you’d think there would be some prohibition against handing over public money to fabulously successful private enterprises. Nevada politicians claim that Apple will hire 35 (yes, 35!) employees. Apple will also invest $2 billion over the next 30 years. But the truth is that Apple would have invested in Nevada even without the tax breaks. That’s almost always the case when states give incentives to individual businesses.

And don’t get me started on wind tax credits.

 

Sure they’re humble nowHumble church founders convicted of tax fraud. (Chron.com).

Assisted living would have been cheaper.  A user of the absurd “1099-OID” tax refund scheme faces expensive but substandard retirement living, according to a Department of Justice Press release:

Richard Kellogg Armstrong, 77, of Prescott, Ariz., was sentenced today by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Blackburn to 108 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.  Judge Blackburn ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the 660 day prison term and $1,021,500 of fines cumulatively imposed upon Armstrong as punitive sanctions for 10 acts of contempt of court. He also ordered Armstrong to pay restitution to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the amount of $1,678,834 and to forfeit two residences and a personal aircraft.

He gets to start over when he’s 86.  That’ll be fun.

The 1099-OID scheme claims that one way or another the government has a bunch of money for you that you can claim by dummying-up a 1099-OID showing withholding for you.  Wikipedia covers it here.   You can see an item advocating it here, but good luck trying to make any sense of it.

 

Jim Maule watches People’s Court and ponders tax and other implications.

Jana Luttenegger, Taxing Gold Meals (Davis Brown Tax Law Blog)

It’s Romney-Ryan,and the tax bloggers are on it:

Kay Bell, Don’t look for GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s tax returns either

TaxGrrrl, Romney, Ryan and Reagan: The Winning Team?

Anthony Nitti, What Does Paul Ryan Mean For Potential Tax Reform?

Tax Break, Essential reading: Attack targets Romney’s role in Marriott tax deals, and more

Peter Reilly: Son Of Boss – Don’t Blame Romney Blame His Tax Pros

Robert D. Flach keeps Buzzing his roundups of tax blog posts from his new Pennsylvania lair.

Finally, Russ Fox tells us that the Accountant Who Solicited Hit Man Pleads Guilty:

Back in March I reported on Steven Martinez.   Mr. Martinez is a tax preparer who faced charges of stealing $11 million from clients.  He decided that the best strategy to fight this charge wasn’t hiring a good attorney, nor was it trying to disprove the charges; rather, he decided to hire a hit man to kill four witnesses.  (One reason he didn’t try to disprove the charges is that they were true; Mr. Martinez has admitted he took the $11 million and used it to buy a home in Mexico and other personal expenses.)

The only saving grace about criminals is that their stupid usually undoes their evil.

Share

What happens when a real attorney tries tax protest arguments?

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012 by Joe Kristan

Arguments that you don’t have to really pay federal income taxes never go away despite a long and dismal record of failure.  They are typically advanced by self-educated folks, often claiming to have spent hundreds of hours researching the tax law to prove that it doesn’t exist.  Non-lawyers tend to do poorly in advancing legal arguments.  If a real lawyer tried these arguments, might it go better?

Nope. 

A Maryland Attorney stopped filing tax returns after 2004.  The IRS eventually noticed.  The result was assessment of additional tax and penalties for fraudulent failure to file.  The attorney took the matter to Tax Court, where Judge Goeke sets the scene:

Petitioner testified that during 2006 “without looking for it” he discovered information which led him to conclude that he was not required to file Federal tax returns or pay Federal income taxes. As a result, petitioner has not filed a personal Federal tax return for any year since 2004.6 However, petitioner did make a $2,000 estimated tax payment to the U.S. Treasury for the 2005 tax year and also made a payment to the U.S. Treasury of $45,000 in April 2006, in connection with the filing of a Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2005. The $45,000 payment was credited to petitioner’s 2005 income tax account.7 Petitioner did not make any payments with respect to his 2006 tax.

So he discovered the secret to not paying tax but extended his 2005 return anyway?  Old habits are hard to break, I suppose.  The IRS started poking around, subpoenaing his bank records.  He didn’t care for that:

After learning of the subpoenas duces tecum issued to his banks, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss seeking to have his case dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner mailed a letter to M&T Bank in which he stated: “Because I am dismissing this case, the Subpoena issued by the IRS to M&T Bank should no longer be valid, and M&T Bank should not be required to respond by producing copies of my account records.” Shortly after he mailed this letter to M&T Bank, we denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

I know attorneys are “officers of the court,” but I don’t think that lets them quash subpeonas.

So how did the arguments fare in Tax Court?  Badly:

Petitioner repeatedly claims his arguments are not frivolous, but we disagree. Regarding petitioner’s constitutional arguments, courts have previously stated that “The constitutionality of our income tax system — including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court — has long been established.” Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d at 1417-1418; see also Powers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-229; DiCarlo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-280. We therefore hold these constitutional arguments are frivolous.

The judge suggested that there might be more behind the arguments than an accidental discovery of the secret to tax-free lawyering:

Petitioner argues that he stopped filing tax returns only upon discovering information in 2006 which led him to conclude that he was not required to file tax returns or pay taxes. We believe it more likely that petitioner stopped filing tax returns because of his larger tax burden resulting from the increasing profitability of his law practice.

Rather than making the arguments more effective, it seems that being a lawyer made things worse for the taxpayer:

Petitioner is a highly intelligent individual with graduate degrees in both engineering and law. He is an accomplished businessman and attorney, having formed his own successful law practice which he incorporated as an S corporation for tax reasons after an accountant suggested doing so. Although he does not practice in the area of tax, nor did he take any tax courses in law school, petitioner has the intelligence and ability to recognize the frivolous, incorrect, and completely discredited nature of the arguments he has made in support of his failure to pay Federal taxes or file a Federal tax return. We find these facts are further evidence of fraud.

The judge upheld the assessed tax and the fraudulent failure to file penalties. 

The Moral? Crackpot arguments don’t become legal scholarship in the hands of a trained lawyer.  Garbage in, garbage out.

Cite: Worsham, T.C. Memo 2012-219.

UPDATE: The TaxProf has more.

Share

Cracking the Sentencing Guidelines

Thursday, February 9th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

The author of “Cracking the Code,” which argues that he has figured out how to get out of paying income taxes, had his tax conviction upheld yesterday by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He did, however, get the case sent back for resentencing, as the court said the court improperly imposed an “enhancement” of his sentence for obstruction of justice. So he’s cracked that, anyway.
Related: Cracking the Code, or smoking the crack?
Cite: USA v. Hendrickson, CA-6, 10-1726

Share

Brown standoff with reality continues

Friday, January 20th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

Ed and Elaine Brown yesterday lost the appeal of their long sentences stemming from tax charges, and especially from their long holdout in a fortified New Hampshire compound after their tax convictions.
The Browns probably weren’t helped by their unusual view of the legal system. From the 1st Circuit opinion:

If it could be given a label, Edward’s belief system appears most akin to the so-called sovereign citizen movement whose proponents believe they are not subject to federal or state statutes or proceedings, reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate, and place special significance in commercial law. See Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement (last visited January 13, 2012). Edward’s comments reflected this philosophy. He repeatedly indicated that he did not recognize the district court or the laws it operated under. He also referred to himself and Elaine as “secured party creditors” and stated that a criminal case is really a “commercial transaction.” He referred to the court as “nothing but a commercial court” and “one of the
biggest businesses in the country.”

“Secured party creditors?” Well, they’re secured, that’s for sure.
ebtruther.JPG
Russ Fox has more.
Link: USA v. Ed Brown, CA-1, No-1081
Related: 37 years for Ed Brown

Share

Don’t ask me to fix your teeth…

Friday, January 13th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

…and don’t go to your dentist for tax advice. Jim Maule explains.

Share

At least he knows how his retirement will be funded

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

Carel Prater first appeared in the Tax Update in 2003, when a federal judge redesigned his business website to look like this:
prater.gif
Despite having been enjoined from selling his quack tax advice — a version of the “Section 861″ argument used by Wesley Snipes, among others — Mr. Prater kept at it. This led eventually to a 336 month prison sentence, which will expire when Mr. Prater is 99 years old.
Mr. Prater appealed his sentence, and last week a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it:

Prater’s misconduct is extensive: his tax avoidance scheme involved over 700 clients; he violated an injunction of a Texas court by continuing to operate his tax avoidance scheme and attempting to conceal his wrongdoing; he attempted to hide assets for himself and others from the Service; Prater asked Osa to lie to and prepare fraudulent statements to submit to the Service; Prater made false statements to a grand jury denying his crimes; Prater solicited Vicario to testify falsely before the grand jury; and Prater during trial defied repeatedly an order that prohibited him from challenging the tax laws. In a telephone call to Vicario from jail, Prater boasted that he was “gonna try to offer things into evidence” knowing that “the Judge is gonna deny it” then “ask the same question and . . . ask to offer it as an exhibit . . . just so the jury can hear me say this 50 times and the Judge say denied.”

Why do people assume prison phones are secure? I suppose if you believe the stuff Mr. Prater was selling, you’ll believe anything.
Cite: United States v. Prater, CA-11, No. 10-12909.
Prior coverage: 71 plus 28 equals a very old ex-inmate

Share

You mean I don’t have $630,000 in a secret government account hidden from me by the Cabal?

Monday, December 12th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

Sorry. My new post at the newly-renovated Going Concern.

Share

“Bondage breaker” having trouble with the “breaking” part

Friday, October 28th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

Lindsey Kent Springer was sent away last year for a 15-year sabbatical from his calling at “Bondage Breakers Ministries,” which preached the gospel of exposing “the violations of the written law committed by the Internal Revenue Service.”
He’s now in bondage, but the breaking part is proving troublesome. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals this week rejected his appeal, and that of his co-defendant. One of the grounds for appeal was that they did not act “knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily” in waiving their right to counsel at trial. It’s a given that that’s not intelligent, but apparently the common-sense standard isn’t the legal standard. The appeals court conclusion:

Here, defendants’ waiver was voluntary because the district court alerted them to their clear alternatives to self-representation. See R., Vol. 3 (April 22, 2009 Mot. Hrg.) at 71 (informing defendants that “both of you must understand that you do have a right to a lawyer” and “[b]oth of you have standby counsel”). The waiver also was knowing and intelligent because defendants were twice explained the advantages of being represented by an attorney and the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, see Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, yet they insisted on relinquishing their right to counsel and forgoing the benefits attendant to that right. Indeed, the court asked defendants a multitude of questions to evaluate their understanding of the nature of the charges against them, the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, and the consequences of a conviction. See R., Vol. 3 (April 22, 2009 Mot. Hrg.) at 82-92. Defendants signaled their understanding and were steadfast in their intent to represent themselves.
Defendants now contend they were confused at the time, but the record makes clear they knew what they were doing and made their choice “with eyes open,” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 (internal quotation marks omitted). We are satisfied that defendants waived their right to counsel knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

It’s like somebody driving past “bridge out” signs and through the traffic barriers, and then complaining about getting wet. To be sure, some attorneys may be less help than others, as became apparent when Mr. Springer chose his appellate counsel:

During the pendency of these appeals, Mr. Springer’s attorney, Jerold W. Barringer, was indefinitely suspended from practicing before this court.

That attorney has had trouble elsewhere.
Well, at least Mr. Springer apparently still has his web site.
Cite: Springer, CA-10, No. 10-5055

Share

In Kansas City, a bad situation gets worse.

Friday, September 23rd, 2011 by Joe Kristan

No, this isn’t about the Chiefs.
As bad as being barred from tax practice can be, federal felony indictments are far worse, as a Kansas City minister with karate and tax sidelines might attest.
Last March Gerald A. Poynter II, operating as “Jerry Love Ministries,” was barred from promoting a “redemption” scheme that claimed tax refunds based on the (absurd) notion that the government is sitting on big pots of money for all of us, there for the asking.
Mr. Poynter now has much more serious problems. He has been indicted as the central figure of a fraudulent tax refund scheme. From a Department of Justice press release:

Poynter, the leader of the conspiracy, allegedly recruited

Share

Snipes strategy fails in Bakersfield

Friday, August 5th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

The team of tax geniuses that got Floridian Wesley Snipes where he is today was also active out west. A Bakersfield man got bad news this week from two different courts after working with tax advisors linked to the jailed actor.
Mark DeVries was a plumbing contractor. He stopped filing tax returns, and in time IRS agent RA Chynoweth was assigned to find out why. The Tax Court outlines the unconventional approach Mr. DeVries and his advisors took with the IRS examination:

Petitioners’ representative and attorney, Milton H. Baxley II (Mr. Baxley), sent letters to the institutions to which RA Chynoweth issued summonses. Petitioners authorized both Mr. Baxley and Mr. Bryan Malatesta, on Forms 2848 attached to each of the letters, to represent them for the years 1985 through 2004. The letters stated that the relevant IRS summons was unauthorized by statute, the Code has not been enacted as positive law, the IRS is not an agency of the United States government and the institution will be held liable if the requested documents are released without court order. Mr. DeVries and the IRS were each sent a courtesy copy of each of the letters.
Later that year, Mr. Devries’ son Jason Henry DeVries sent an invoice for $1 million to RA Chynoweth, billing the revenue agent for the use of purportedly copyrighted property.

Mr. Baxley was involved in the Snipes IRS examination too. He was enjoined in 2003 from a number of tax activities.
The rather aggressive response to the IRS exam continued. Again from the Tax Court:

During the examination, Mr. DeVries also made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for RA Chynoweth’s personnel file.
Mr. DeVries filed a lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Kern County, against IRS Revenue Officer Douglas McDonald and RA Chynoweth in 2002.8 Mr. DeVries alleged interference with contractual relations, libel, slander, nuisance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, conspiracy and imposition of a constructive trust. Mr. DeVries sought over $50 million in damages plus significant punitive damages and injunctions. He caused RA Chynoweth to be served with the lawsuit by a process server at his personal residence. Mr. DeVries’ lawsuit was eventually dismissed.
Ultimately, petitioners’ efforts to derail RA Chynoweth’s investigation failed.

Failed? Imagine that.
The aggressive approach failed yesterday in Tax Court, which upheld 75% penalties for fraudulent failure to file tax returns. It failed also in the criminal case that resulted from the exam; on Monday a federal judge sentenced Mr. DeVries to 27 months in prison — short of Mr. Snipes’ 36 months, but no fun in any case.
The Moral? Suing your IRS agent for “libel, slander, nuisance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, conspiracy and imposition of a constructive trust” hasn’t worked yet. Perhaps a less confrontational approach to IRS exams would have been wise.
Cite: DeVries, T.C. Memo. 2011-185

Share

District Director? We don’t need no stinking District Director!

Thursday, May 12th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

Usually tax protesters use the same old ridiculous arguments — the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, wages aren’t taxable, Section 861 makes wages non-taxable in the U.S., the gold fringe on the courtroom flag makes the court an admiralty court, and so on. That’s why it’s news, sort of, when the Tax Court bothers to address a new tax protester argument in a full published decision, like they did yesterday.
A taxpayer advanced the novel argument that when the IRS eliminated its District Directors, it eliminated its ability to collect taxes. Judge Kroupa takes up the story:

Petitioner’s only argument in his 2-sentence petition is that he does not owe the frivolous return penalties because proper assessment cannot be made in the absence of a district director.
Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, and petitioner filed a response. This is the first time this Court has addressed in a published Opinion the question of whether the absence of a district director causes an assessment to be invalid.

He then explained why the taxpayer’s argument fails:

The district director position and responsibilities were assigned to others after the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA), Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, required the Commissioner to eliminate or substantially modify the IRS’ national, regional and district structure. Id. sec. 1001, 112 Stat. 689. To ensure continuity of operations, the RRA specifically included a savings provision. Id. sec. 1001(b). The savings provision applies to keep in effect regulations that refer to officers whose positions no longer exist. Id. It also provides that nothing in the reorganization plan would be considered to impair any right or remedy to recover any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority.

So they anticipated the argument. The court upheld frivolous return penalties, but declined to also apply penalties for taking a frivolous position in Tax Court.
The elimination of District Directors still causes some confustion for practitioners and taxpayers. Old regulations still in force require taxpayers to make some filings with a District Director, and there no longer is such a thing. Notice 2003-19 provides updated addresses for such filings.
Cite: Grunsted, 136 T.C. No. 21.

Share

Six months for Kalona non-filer

Monday, April 25th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

Kalona, Iowa is known more for its Amish and Mennonite communities than for tax protesters, but they apparently have one of those, too. A Kalona man was

Share

Misguided persistence

Friday, April 8th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

20071231-2.jpgMinnesota entrepreneur Robert Beale blundered away the fortune he earned in the tech business when he drank deeply of tax-protester theory. He fled before his scheduled tax evasion trial; after his arrest 14 months later, he was overheard trying to arrange for the detention/kidnapping of his trial judge by a “common law court” using a prison phone. None of this worked out well.
Yet he doesn’t give up. He recently moved to have his conviction vacated. The grounds include:

He contends the Government has entered into a “stipulated agreement” that the indictment should be dismissed and judgment vacated…
The “stipulated agreement” which Beale alleges binds the Government is actually a document entitled “Certificate of Default and Binding Administrative Agreement and Confession of Judgment” dated September 7, 2010. See Docket No. 402, Ex. J (“Certificate of Default”) at 2. The Certificate of Default alleges Beale sent the Government a “Notice of Counterclaim and Demand for Proof of Law, Proof of Fact and Proof of Claim and Contract” (“Notice”) in August 2010, and that the Government did not respond to the Notice within the time specified. Id. at 3. Therefore, according to the Certificate of Default, the Government chose to “stand silent” and enter into “an agreement and contract by operation of the law.”

In other words, he sent a bunch of tax protester stuff to the government from prison, telling the government that if they didn’t respond soberly and on-time to his gibberish, he gets out of jail.
That didn’t work either:

The Government was under no obligation to respond to the “Notice” sent by Beale in August 2010, and the Government’s lack of response did not result in a “stipulated agreement” between the parties.

Nor did other motions. Mr. Beale remains a resident of a Yazoo City, Mississippi facility with a scheduled move-out date in 2021.
Cite: Beale, Memorandum and Order, DC-MN, 4/6/2011

Share

Acquittal on tax crime charges doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay taxes.

Tuesday, March 8th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

When you are firmly convinced that the federal tax law doesn’t apply to sovereign citizens of (your state) when enforced in a courtroom with a gold-fringed flag using standard punctuation, you rarely get good news from the courts. That may explain why the tax denier crowd got all excited when tax protest figure Joe Banister was acquitted of tax conspiracy charges in 2005.
Tax protesters crowed that the acquittal vindicated their theories. That’s true only if you think that O.J. Simpson’s acquittal means multiple homicides are legal in Brentwood. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that tax laws still apply to Mr. Banister. The appeals court upheld a Tax Court decision requiring Mr. Banister to pay $4,551 in 2002 taxes, plus penalties.
Of course, no amount of evidence will shake the real tax protest true believers. Anybody with sense, though, will look at the unbroken record of failure of tax protesters in actually avoiding taxes in court and realize that the tax protest stuff just doesn’t work.
Cite: Banister, CA-9, No. 09-70775.
Link: IRS publication “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.”

Share

Note to non-filers: bragging about not paying taxes on the web may attract IRS attention

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

Russ Fox reports:

Today, we learn about the Institute for Unlearning.
Yes, that

Share

Florida dentist slow to catch on

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 by Joe Kristan

What is it with Florida dentists? They seem to have tax troubles way out of proportion to their numbers. I don’t think you can be stupid and still make it through dental school, but it does seem that you can do so and be remarkably slow to catch on.
That’s the case with a Florida dentist featured in a Tax Court case yesterday. He served a four-year sentence for tax evasion, but he still doesn’t get this tax thing. The Tax Court was hearing his objection to 75% civil fraud penalties on 14 years of unpaid taxes. It went badly for him:

Notwithstanding his recent incarceration, petitioner’s denials and defiance of his tax obligations continued through the time of trial of these cases. He admitted that he did not file returns for any of the years in issue. He did not dispute any of the facts establishing his receipt of substantial taxable income during the years in issue, and his receipt of specific items of income was deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 90 by his failure to respond to requests for admissions.

He hasn’t exactly become remorseful:

Petitioner argues that he had no intention of breaking the law and that his admitted failure to file returns was not fraudulent. His filings and his testimony are replete with implausible and inconsistent explanations of his behavior. He claims that he acted in accordance with the directions of the “trustees”, but there is no evidence that anyone other than petitioner and his wife controlled any of the transactions or earned any of the income attributed to him. He admits that the trusts were funded by “gifts” from him, that his personal expenses were paid from trust bank accounts, and that properties purchased in the names of various trusts were used by him for professional and personal purposes. According to his testimony, the beneficiaries of the trusts were his children and grandchildren. He claims that his accountant made mistakes reporting pension plan distributions, and he asserts that his criminal conviction resulted from false testimony. He asserts that

My decision to quit paying the tax was made in 1992, not before, and was the result of a letter sent, asking for the basis for their taxing me which received a reply after about 3 months, which was no answer to my question, but simply stated to ignore any correspondence received from them until I received an answer.

That sounds like somebody who sent one of those stupid “show me the law” letters to the IRS and then stopped paying taxes when the IRS didn’t take it seriously.
He also asserts the venerable, “I did nothing wrong, and it’s the accountant’s fault anyway” defense:

In a statement at the conclusion of the trial, he alleged that he was a “victim” of tax shelter promoters at some unidentified time, that thereafter he was repeatedly audited, that he was convicted because of misconduct by his accountant, and that his object was “civil disobedience”.

Using a “complex scheme” of trusts and multiple bank accounts to hide money for 14 years seemed like a funny form of civil disobedience to Judge Cohen:

Petitioner’s excuses are unpersuasive, and we do not believe that he acted as he did for nonfraudulent reasons. He has not presented evidence of any consultations with competent tax professionals or reliance on any legal authority for his positions. He incorporated boilerplate frivolous arguments about the Paperwork Reduction Act in his petition and alleged in his pretrial memorandum that the IRS lacks delegated authority to collect tax. Perhaps he believes that feigning lack of understanding or sincere beliefs will help him avoid the consequences of his deliberate choices. In view of his education, sophistication and success in conducting his profession and business transactions, persistence after his criminal conviction, and acknowledged “civil disobedience”, we reject any suggestion of good faith.

The Moral? If four years of prison time and $775,000 of civil fraud penalties won’t convince you that the income tax is real, you have serious issues with reality.
Cite: Goldston, T.C. Memo. 2011-9

Share