Paul Thomas, CPA

Eldon "I'm a loser" Warman wrote
> Regarding this bit from a current article
> on the Alternative Minimum Tax in the USA:
>
> Quote:
> "Four million hit by AMT this year


For one of my clients it was $1. Just a buck. The cost of fries on the
dollar menu at MickyD's.




> An estimated 4 million Americans will be
> subject to the higher AMT this year.



Out of some 100 million filings -not too bad.






> Yes, it is Canadian,


But you yourself don't use it in Canada. How telling is that of your
confidence in it's effectiveness.





> but has been very successfully used to
> file the IRS 1040 return of income.


Not according to you. You can't provide ONE person who has beat the true
wording of the law.



If anyone wantes to know why Eldon doesn't use what he preaches, read on:


http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...106504,00.html


Contention: Taxpayer is not a "person" as defined by the Internal Revenue
Code, and thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.

Some maintain that they are not a "person" as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This
argument is based on a tortured misreading of the Code.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines "person" and sets forth
which persons are subject to federal taxes. Section 7701(a)(14) defines
"taxpayer" as any person subject to any internal revenue tax and section
7701(a)(1) defines "person" to include an individual, trust, estate,
partnership, or corporation. Arguments that an individual is not a "person"
within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly
rejected. A similar argument with respect to the term "individual" has also
been rejected.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480
U.S. 907 (1987) - The court affirmed Karlin's conviction for failure to file
income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was "not a 'person'
within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203" as "frivolous and requir[ing] no
discussion."

United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996) - The court
stated that "[a]n individual is a person under the Internal Revenue Code."

Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11 th Cir.), reh'g denied, 775
F.2d 304 (11 th Cir. 1985) - The court said the claim that Biermann was not
"a person liable for taxes" was "patently frivolous" and, given the Tax
Court's warning to Biermann that his positions would never be sustained in
any court, awarded the government double costs, plus attorney's fees.

Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89
(2000) - The court described the argument that Smith "is not a 'person
liable' for tax" as frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and
imposed a penalty for maintaining "frivolous and groundless positions."

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9 th Cir. 1986) - The court
affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's contention
that she was not subject to federal tax laws because she was "an absolute,
freeborn, and natural individual" and went on to note that "this argument
has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the
government for decades."




http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0...#_Toc153765505

Contention: Taxpayers can reduce their federal income tax liability by
filing a "zero return."

Some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal income tax liability
by filing a tax return that reports no income and no tax liability (a "zero
return") even though they have taxable income. Many of these taxpayers also
request a refund of any taxes withheld by an employer. These individuals
typically attach to the zero return a Form W-2, or other information return
that reports income and income tax withholding, and rely on one or more of
the frivolous arguments discussed throughout this outline in support of
their position.

The Law: There is no authority that permits a taxpayer that has taxable
income to avoid income tax by filing a zero return. Section 61 provides
that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived,
including compensation for services. Courts have repeatedly penalized
taxpayers for making the frivolous argument that the filing of a zero return
can allow a taxpayer to avoid income tax liability, or permit a refund of
tax withheld by an employer. Courts have also imposed the frivolous return
and failure to file penalties because such forms do not evidence an honest
and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax laws or contain sufficient data to
calculate the tax liability. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-34, 2004-1
C.B. 619, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this argument.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the phrase "nunc pro tunc," or other legal
phrase, does not have any legal effect and does not serve to validate a zero
return. See Rev. Rul. 2006-17, 2006-15 I.R.B. 748.

In December 2005, a federal district court in Arizona permanently barred
Beverly J. Hill and Darrell J. Hill (individually and doing business as
Superior Claims Management) from, among other things, preparing or filing
federal tax returns for any person or entity other than themselves. The
court found that the couple filed zero returns on behalf of their clients
based on various frivolous tax arguments, thus interfering with the
administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. United States
v. Hill, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 548, 2005 WL 3536118 (D. Az. 2005); see also,
2005 TNT 248-8 (Dec. 27, 2005).

In April 2006, a federal district court in Michigan permanently barred
Charles Conces from promoting several fraudulent tax schemes, including one
in which he filed "zero returns" on behalf of his clients on the faulty
premise that income is not taxable. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_243.html; see also 2006 TNT
80-36 (Apr. 25, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:
Little v. United States, 2005 WL 2989696, *4 (M.D.N.C. 2005) - taxpayer
filed income tax returns showing "0" income and "0" tax liability, even
though his W-2 Forms showed taxable income. In response, the IRS imposed
penalties for submitting frivolous returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6702.
The court noted that multiple other courts have upheld such a penalty
assessment in similar cases where taxpayers filed a "zero return" based on
various "tax protester" arguments. Determining that plaintiff failed to
raise any genuine issues of material fact, the court upheld the penalties.

Schultz v. United States, 2005 WL 1155203, *3 (W.D. Mich. 2005) - "Courts
have consistently found the arguments made by Plaintiffs, or ones very
similar, in support of an all zero return to be frivolous."

Yuen v. United States, 290 F.Supp.2d 1220,1224 (D. Nev. 2003) - taxpayer's
tax returns were substantially incorrect and frivolous, when he filed
returns with zeros on nearly every line, and thus, the court decided,
assessments of frivolous return penalties were valid.

Gillett v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881 (W.D. Mich. 2002) - the
court stated "[n]umerous federal courts have upheld the imposition of the
$500 sanction by the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) [for frivolous
returns], where, as here, a tax form is filed stating that an individual had
no income, but the attached W-2 forms show wages, tips, or other
compensation of greater than zero."

United States v. Schiff, et al., 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004) - the court of
appeals upheld a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin
Schiff and two associates from promoting their "zero-income" tax return
theories through his bookstore and three Internet websites. As the court
noted, Mr. Schiff "has a long history of opposition to the federal income
tax laws" and has never been successful in court with his theory that "the
federal income tax is voluntary."

Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554
(2005) - the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found
no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held
that the taxpayer's argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an
income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus
deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed
a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making
frivolous arguments.

Halcott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-214 - the court held the taxpayer
liable for the penalty under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file
his return where the taxpayer filed a "zero return."

Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-144, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1328, 1331
(2003) - the court imposed a $15,000 penalty under section 6673 because the
taxpayer took the frivolous "zero return" position.

Rayner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-30, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1161 (2002) -
the court imposed a $5,000 penalty under section 6673 where the taxpayer
argued the frivolous "zero return" position.






All it takes is for you to prove your claims.




--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

Vicegerent

Why are these CPAs such as Paul Thomas
spending 24/7 monitoring and futilely attempting
to refute Eldon's detax method by ad hominum
attacks and outright lies?

There is a paragraph on this blog which explains
a lot about the "professional predators", as does
his whole blog:

[ cut and paste to your address bar ]
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/
Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=017299&From=News

Quote:
"There is something far more powerful at work
here, though - namely the attitudes of those
tax professionals, attorneys, Congressional
Representatives and IRS agents. One might
assume that such people would show genuine
concern when they are challenged and find
themselves unable to cite the legal basis for
their very professional existence. (This may
be a naïve assumption for reasons that will
be addressed shortly.)

Instead, however, these folks are palpably
uncomfortable even being asked "the question."
Invariably they bury the question in an
exasperating psychological stew consisting
of red herring, cheap ridicule, utterly
unsubstantiated "...because I'm an expert
and I say so" ... oh, and raw intimidation -
lots of intimidation ("You'll wind up in jail.").

This, again, from people whose job descriptions
- one would think -- tie them directly to the
information being sought: i.e., the law that
clearly imposes a liability for the payment of
an income tax on the average American.

Anyone with the slightest clue about human
nature begins to smell a rat in the woodpile
at this point." Unquote

So, there you have it - Paul Thomas, CPA
[ Certified Public Asshole AKA Criminal
Predator Asshole ] explained.

Vicegerent

Paul Thomas, CPA

Eldon "the loser" Warman wrote
> Why are these CPAs such as Paul Thomas spending 24/7



.....at the office? Gee.......dontchyaknow?




> refute Eldon's detax method by ad
> hominum attacks and outright lies?


These are verifiable US tax cases:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...106504,00.html


Contention: Taxpayer is not a "person" as defined by the Internal Revenue
Code, and thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.

Some maintain that they are not a "person" as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This
argument is based on a tortured misreading of the Code.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines "person" and sets forth
which persons are subject to federal taxes. Section 7701(a)(14) defines
"taxpayer" as any person subject to any internal revenue tax and section
7701(a)(1) defines "person" to include an individual, trust, estate,
partnership, or corporation. Arguments that an individual is not a "person"
within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly
rejected. A similar argument with respect to the term "individual" has also
been rejected.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480
U.S. 907 (1987) - The court affirmed Karlin's conviction for failure to file
income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was "not a 'person'
within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203" as "frivolous and requir[ing] no
discussion."

United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996) - The court
stated that "[a]n individual is a person under the Internal Revenue Code."

Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11 th Cir.), reh'g denied, 775
F.2d 304 (11 th Cir. 1985) - The court said the claim that Biermann was not
"a person liable for taxes" was "patently frivolous" and, given the Tax
Court's warning to Biermann that his positions would never be sustained in
any court, awarded the government double costs, plus attorney's fees.

Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89
(2000) - The court described the argument that Smith "is not a 'person
liable' for tax" as frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and
imposed a penalty for maintaining "frivolous and groundless positions."

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9 th Cir. 1986) - The court
affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's contention
that she was not subject to federal tax laws because she was "an absolute,
freeborn, and natural individual" and went on to note that "this argument
has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the
government for decades."




http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0...#_Toc153765505

Contention: Taxpayers can reduce their federal income tax liability by
filing a "zero return."

Some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal income tax liability
by filing a tax return that reports no income and no tax liability (a "zero
return") even though they have taxable income. Many of these taxpayers also
request a refund of any taxes withheld by an employer. These individuals
typically attach to the zero return a Form W-2, or other information return
that reports income and income tax withholding, and rely on one or more of
the frivolous arguments discussed throughout this outline in support of
their position.

The Law: There is no authority that permits a taxpayer that has taxable
income to avoid income tax by filing a zero return. Section 61 provides
that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived,
including compensation for services. Courts have repeatedly penalized
taxpayers for making the frivolous argument that the filing of a zero return
can allow a taxpayer to avoid income tax liability, or permit a refund of
tax withheld by an employer. Courts have also imposed the frivolous return
and failure to file penalties because such forms do not evidence an honest
and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax laws or contain sufficient data to
calculate the tax liability. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-34, 2004-1
C.B. 619, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this argument.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the phrase "nunc pro tunc," or other legal
phrase, does not have any legal effect and does not serve to validate a zero
return. See Rev. Rul. 2006-17, 2006-15 I.R.B. 748.

In December 2005, a federal district court in Arizona permanently barred
Beverly J. Hill and Darrell J. Hill (individually and doing business as
Superior Claims Management) from, among other things, preparing or filing
federal tax returns for any person or entity other than themselves. The
court found that the couple filed zero returns on behalf of their clients
based on various frivolous tax arguments, thus interfering with the
administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. United States
v. Hill, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 548, 2005 WL 3536118 (D. Az. 2005); see also,
2005 TNT 248-8 (Dec. 27, 2005).

In April 2006, a federal district court in Michigan permanently barred
Charles Conces from promoting several fraudulent tax schemes, including one
in which he filed "zero returns" on behalf of his clients on the faulty
premise that income is not taxable. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_243.html; see also 2006 TNT
80-36 (Apr. 25, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:
Little v. United States, 2005 WL 2989696, *4 (M.D.N.C. 2005) - taxpayer
filed income tax returns showing "0" income and "0" tax liability, even
though his W-2 Forms showed taxable income. In response, the IRS imposed
penalties for submitting frivolous returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6702.
The court noted that multiple other courts have upheld such a penalty
assessment in similar cases where taxpayers filed a "zero return" based on
various "tax protester" arguments. Determining that plaintiff failed to
raise any genuine issues of material fact, the court upheld the penalties.

Schultz v. United States, 2005 WL 1155203, *3 (W.D. Mich. 2005) - "Courts
have consistently found the arguments made by Plaintiffs, or ones very
similar, in support of an all zero return to be frivolous."

Yuen v. United States, 290 F.Supp.2d 1220,1224 (D. Nev. 2003) - taxpayer's
tax returns were substantially incorrect and frivolous, when he filed
returns with zeros on nearly every line, and thus, the court decided,
assessments of frivolous return penalties were valid.

Gillett v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881 (W.D. Mich. 2002) - the
court stated "[n]umerous federal courts have upheld the imposition of the
$500 sanction by the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) [for frivolous
returns], where, as here, a tax form is filed stating that an individual had
no income, but the attached W-2 forms show wages, tips, or other
compensation of greater than zero."

United States v. Schiff, et al., 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004) - the court of
appeals upheld a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin
Schiff and two associates from promoting their "zero-income" tax return
theories through his bookstore and three Internet websites. As the court
noted, Mr. Schiff "has a long history of opposition to the federal income
tax laws" and has never been successful in court with his theory that "the
federal income tax is voluntary."

Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554
(2005) - the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found
no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held
that the taxpayer's argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an
income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus
deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed
a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making
frivolous arguments.

Halcott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-214 - the court held the taxpayer
liable for the penalty under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file
his return where the taxpayer filed a "zero return."

Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-144, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1328, 1331
(2003) - the court imposed a $15,000 penalty under section 6673 because the
taxpayer took the frivolous "zero return" position.

Rayner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-30, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1161 (2002) -
the court imposed a $5,000 penalty under section 6673 where the taxpayer
argued the frivolous "zero return" position.






All it takes is for you to prove your claims with ONE case in your favor.




--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

Archmedes

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
> Eldon "the loser" Warman wrote:
>> Why are these CPAs such as Paul Thomas spending 24/7

> All it takes is for you to prove your claims with ONE case
> in your favor.

Eldon really needs to change his shtick. How about "Eldon's surefire method of
converting coal to diamonds!!" THAT, at least, is plausible.

Vicegerent

On Apr 14, 12:30 pm, "Archmedes" wrote:
> Eldon really needs to change his shtick. How about "Eldon's surefire method of
> converting coal to diamonds!!" THAT, at least, is plausible.

Another PREDATOR checks in, or is it just
a typical "lead for a brain" American??


Why are these CPAs such as Paul Thomas
spending 24/7 monitoring and futilely attempting
to refute Eldon's detax method by ad hominum
attacks and outright lies?

There is a paragraph on this blog which explains
a lot about the "professional predators", as does
his whole blog:

[ cut and paste to your address bar ]
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/
Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=017299&From=News

Quote:
"There is something far more powerful at work
here, though - namely the attitudes of those
tax professionals, attorneys, Congressional
Representatives and IRS agents. One might
assume that such people would show genuine
concern when they are challenged and find
themselves unable to cite the legal basis for
their very professional existence. (This may
be a naïve assumption for reasons that will
be addressed shortly.)

Instead, however, these folks are palpably
uncomfortable even being asked "the question."
Invariably they bury the question in an
exasperating psychological stew consisting
of red herring, cheap ridicule, utterly
unsubstantiated "...because I'm an expert
and I say so" ... oh, and raw intimidation -
lots of intimidation ("You'll wind up in jail.").

This, again, from people whose job descriptions
- one would think -- tie them directly to the
information being sought: i.e., the law that
clearly imposes a liability for the payment of
an income tax on the average American.

Anyone with the slightest clue about human
nature begins to smell a rat in the woodpile
at this point." Unquote

So, there you have it - Paul Thomas, CPA
[ Certified Public Asshole AKA: Criminal
Predator Asshole ] explained.

Vicegerent
http://www.detaxcanada.org