Interesting Tax Case

[bbl]

Joe Bannister, and Sherry Peel Jackson are big ones. I do not have the finite list of wins vs. losses on either side. Again, these are WFTF cases, which I do not advocate or promote as the best way to go about it.

Joe Banister?

Joe Banister's client is serving 72 months in prison for two counts of filing false claims for refunds, filing a false amended individual income tax return, ten counts of willfully failing to deduct, withhold, collect and pay over income and social security taxes from his employees.

In repealing Joe Banister's CPA liscence, the California Board of Accountancy said:

"The Department of Treasury found that Mr. Banister provided erroneous advice to taxpayers, including improperly advising them that tax returns were not required because IRS Code sections 861 through 856 define "source of income" in a manner that excluded the income of United States citizens residing in the United States from United States tax."

He apparently doesn't practice what he preaches, either:

"We suspect Banister is one of two things: (1) an ex-IRS agent who figured out that he could make a lot more money selling de-tax books and stuff than he could working for the governent, and who believes that so long as he pays his own taxes the U.S. government can't do much about it as long as he throws in the appropriate disclaimers into his materials (which he does) and thinks that the suckers dumb enough to believe him get what they deserve; or (2) he is -- as many in the tax protestor movement suspect -- a plant. Our bet is on the first.

http://www.quatlosers.com/joe_banister.htm

This is how you define "winning"?

[bbl]

RSB: "The whole topic of the OP was that Tom Cryer fought these alleged "experts" at the IRS at their own game and won, as many others have and will continue to do."

bbl: "Who else has "won"?:confused:"

RSB: "Joe Bannister, and Sherry Peel Jackson are big ones. I do not have the finite list of wins vs. losses on either side. Again, these are WFTF cases, which I do not advocate or promote as the best way to go about it."

RSB: "I read and study my ass off to learn this stuff and do it on a daily basis, fighting the IRS."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

When you say you, and Sherry Peel Jackson, "fight" the IRS, how exactly do you do that? In court?

It appears Joe Banister and Sherry Peel Jackson "fight" the IRS by telling others how to do so, not by doing so themselves.

Is that how you "fight" the IRS?

Have you (or anyone in your firm) represented a client, or prepared a case for a client, for action in court? If so, do you have any case references?

[RobRoy]

Whole other can 'o worms, but everyone should find out what taxes they allegedly "owe" in the first place, just like Tom and thousands of others!

A friend of mine hasn't paid in about 15 years. His argument is the same as thig guy. He even gave me a videotape explaining it with lots of computer graphics. It "looked" ironclad.

After reading this article, I am more convinced. If you are an american citizen living in the US and ALL your income is from wages earned in the US, it is not liable for federal income tax, according to this group. That's the readers digest version.

[RobRoy]

Meanwhile, my daugters best friend got really good grades as an accounting major and got a job in the IRS. She then got promoted to do on-site audits of business.

Her training included learning to shoot at the pistol range.

On appointments she wears a gun and wears a bullet proof vest.

These guys don't mess around.

[toolbar]

I'd like to resurrect this dead thread for a minute and ask: If I want my taxes calculated the 'correct' instead of the 'normal' way, do I need to hire a tax attorney or a CPA? What profession is qualified to to tell me the 'correct' way?

thanks.

[RSBro]

Joe Banister? Joe Banister's client is serving 72 months in prison for two counts of filing false claims for refunds, filing a false amended individual income tax return, ten counts of willfully failing to deduct, withhold, collect and pay over income and social security taxes from his employees. In repealing Joe Banister's CPA liscence, the California Board of Accountancy said: "The Department of Treasury found that Mr. Banister provided erroneous advice to taxpayers, including improperly advising them that tax returns were not required because IRS Code sections 861 through 856 define "source of income" in a manner that excluded the income of United States citizens residing in the United States from United States tax." He apparently doesn't practice what he preaches, either: "We suspect Banister is one of two things: (1) an ex-IRS agent who figured out that he could make a lot more money selling de-tax books and stuff than he could working for the governent, and who believes that so long as he pays his own taxes the U.S. government can't do much about it as long as he throws in the appropriate disclaimers into his materials (which he does) and thinks that the suckers dumb enough to believe him get what they deserve; or (2) he is -- as many in the tax protestor movement suspect -- a plant. Our bet is on the first. http://www.quatlosers.com/joe_banister.htm This is how you define "winning"?

I've read that guy's stuff on Quatlosers. Some interesting interpretations of the facts.

Joe Bannister won his case- where's the argument? That's what I consider "winning".

Again, I'm not sure how unclear it is that I do NOT endorse or condone WFTF as it automatically puts you into the criminal realm.

Do you get that much, or do I need to break it down to 3rd grade level?

[catphish]

I'd probably be on board with the "correct" way if I knew exactly what possible repercussions their could be and had a way to limit any potential future problems.

 

I mean...if it goes wrong and I end up having to pay the difference, is there any penalty beyond paying what i owed the "normal way"?

 

If not, I'd totally be down with just taking the difference and shoving it in a high interest savings account. I'm guessing it's more problematic than that.

[RSBro]

RSB: "The whole topic of the OP was that Tom Cryer fought these alleged "experts" at the IRS at their own game and won, as many others have and will continue to do." bbl: "Who else has "won"?:confused:" RSB: "Joe Bannister, and Sherry Peel Jackson are big ones. I do not have the finite list of wins vs. losses on either side. Again, these are WFTF cases, which I do not advocate or promote as the best way to go about it." RSB: "I read and study my ass off to learn this stuff and do it on a daily basis, fighting the IRS." * * * * * * * * * * * * When you say you, and Sherry Peel Jackson, "fight" the IRS, how exactly do you do that? In court? It appears Joe Banister and Sherry Peel Jackson "fight" the IRS by telling others how to do so, not by doing so themselves. Is that how you "fight" the IRS? Have you (or anyone in your firm) represented a client, or prepared a case for a client, for action in court? If so, do you have any case references?

You fight the IRS by yes, helping people in audits, which then go to internal appeals, which then go to US Tax Court, which go to Tax Court appeals, which go to an actual trial in the Tax Court, which then go to whatever Circuit of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court. If you've been in tax long at all, this should be fairly elementary as to the order of things...
I've only been to up to tax court, which has garnered mostly favorable results, since most of the time the judge gets mad when the IRS attorneys or agents lie about the case, which happens sadly pretty often.

Joe and Sherry won their WFTF cases. I'm not sure how that's confusing to you, as referenced in the above post, and yeah- I guess Tom Cryer, a non ex-IRS special agent, is an IRS plant too, right?
If you wish to go down the WFTF route, God be with you, as you'll need all the help you can get. Most judges believe they are knowledgeable enough about the IRC and related statutes, when this is hardly the case, and don't allow the IRC or IRM or statutes or Supreme Court decisions to be read aloud or presented to the jury in most cases. If that's what you consider a "fair" trial, then God have mercy on your soul.

And yeah, I can send you, if it weren't against disclosure rules for our firm, the people we've been with and represented in the last two years and ones we currently are. It's audit season, so I'm sure we'll have more dates coming up. I prepare 99% of all IRS/DOJ correspondence. I have to write it easy for them, like I do you, so it's not biggie. Do you think I'm making it up or something? I used to go sit in Tax Court hearings in high school to see how it goes. It's really not that big of a deal. I'm not sure why people make it out to be.

[RSBro]

I'd like to resurrect this dead thread for a minute and ask: If I want my taxes calculated the 'correct' instead of the 'normal' way, do I need to hire a tax attorney or a CPA? What profession is qualified to to tell me the 'correct' way? thanks.

The sad thing is, most CPAs and attorneys do not want the Code or IRC laws changed. It's too profitable and easy to make money. Most "tax attorneys" are fairly incompetent when it comes to the IRC itself. We have audit clients who say they talked to these "Experts" who tell them all sorts of nonsensical BS. Like if you're under civil audit, then you're under criminal investigation and they can put a levy on your monies and a lien on your house. All sorts of lies. And then afterwards, want a $5000 retainer to handle a friggin CIVIL AUDIT.
Very sad.

If anyone wishes to discuss what I and thousands of others consider "correct" filing, please contact me via email.

But back to OP, Tom won. IRS loses. I'm happy.

[RSBro]

I'd probably be on board with the "correct" way if I knew exactly what possible repercussions their could be and had a way to limit any potential future problems. I mean...if it goes wrong and I end up having to pay the difference, is there any penalty beyond paying what i owed the "normal way"? If not, I'd totally be down with just taking the difference and shoving it in a high interest savings account. I'm guessing it's more problematic than that.

 

 

I'll talk to ya via email about that if you want. It's pretty easy and straightforward. I would just need to make sure that people who did it this way understand why, and the laws behind such.

[RSBro]

A friend of mine hasn't paid in about 15 years. His argument is the same as thig guy. He even gave me a videotape explaining it with lots of computer graphics. It "looked" ironclad. After reading this article, I am more convinced. If you are an american citizen living in the US and ALL your income is from wages earned in the US, it is not liable for federal income tax, according to this group. That's the readers digest version.

Even further, we know from the Murphy case (and the 68 Supreme Court decisions Tom relied on in his case), that all that comes in is not "income", as properly applied.

You would think someone at the legislative level would just define the damn word "income", and we could at least have some direction... But oh no, don't want to go doing any work... Just make everyone duke it out in the Courts...

[bbl]

Joe and Sherry won their WFTF cases. I'm not sure how that's confusing to you, as referenced in the above post, and yeah- I guess Tom Cryer, a non ex-IRS special agent, is an IRS plant too, right?

There is no Sherry Peel Jackson WFTF case. You are full of {censored}.

Joe Banister lost his CPA liscence. He advised his client to avoid paying tax, then bailed on his client when challenged by the gov't. His client is serving 72 months in prison. Yet, you claim he fought the IRS and "won." Again, you're full of {censored}.

Both Joe Banister and Sherry Peel Jackson are ex-IRS agents who have switched to a more profitable, cottage industry - tax avoidance. Nobody wants to pay taxes, and want to learn how to avoid them. And we hate the IRS with a passion.

So the average idiot can buy their books, attend their lectures, and learn that they can fight the IRS and win. So what happens when the IRS challenges them? They're hung out to dry. Swindlers like Jackson and Banister keep the profits and leave their customers on their own against the IRS.

The Tommy Cryer case is a great case and one that everyone should watch closely. Tommy Cryer "won" in court. But, as you know, he's a brilliant attorney, not an everyday joe, who has probably spent a small fortune doing it. He took a huge risk, fought the man, and has paid dearly for it.

Here's what Bill Conklin (another protester who sells books) has to say about Tommy Cryer:

"The internet is abuzz with news of the Cryer Criminal Victory. The fact is that it is always marvelous when a defendant goes to court and wins a criminal case. It happens about 3 percent of the time. That is right; the IRS wins 97 percent of these cases. When the IRS loses a case, the Freedom Movement gets a big shove in the right direction. The problem is, however, that many of the unscrupulous conmen in the Freedom Movement will use this Cryer Victory to stand for the proposition that it is possible to not pay taxes and have assets.

The Cryer Victory does not make new law and it won't change anything in your case. The Cryer Victory simply means that Tommy Cryer got a jury to believe that he believes that he is not required to file returns. The IRS can, and will, attack Tommy civilly and will try to get all his assets and garnish his wages in the future. The agency may give him a summons if it cannot find his assets, and he will probably defeat the IRS on the Fifth Amendment. However, you have to realize that Tommy Cryer is a very smart and a very brave guy and he had a charismatic, intelligent and well-prepared attorney on his team and he probably spent a lot of money.

Don't think for one minute that you can justify an exempt W-4 or a Zero Tax Return because Tommy Cryer won his case. Don't think for one moment that the IRS will go softer on wage levies or seizures of homes and automobiles because Tommy Cryer won his case."

Like another poster said, it's probably best to sit and watch from the sidelines. But good luck to anyone willing to take the risk and fight the IRS. Unfortunately, your advisors aren't risking the same, so you might want to keep that in mind when you're (1) paying them to advise you, and (2) going to court without them.

[RSBro]

All in what matters to you.
If you don't read and don't study, then you don't need to spend the time worrying about it. If you're happy to pay taxes that don't even directly apply to most people, hey that's your call.
No one's forcing you to do anything. Most people ARE willing to sit idly by and pay their hard earned monies to some agency because, well, that's what everyone else does right? I still haven't gotten a response on the instructions to fill out and file the W4 yet but again, that's cool too.
I'll choose to live my life and help get the word out of what the IRC and underlying statutes say and to whom it applies.
Funny how people have conniption fits over the Patriot Act and the alleged 9/11 "inside job", yet the #1 thing most directly affecting them on a day to day basis, is the theory of an "income tax", and a shrug of the shoulders soothes their conscience. Oh well.

[bbl]

All in what matters to you. If you don't read and don't study, then you don't need to spend the time worrying about it. If you're happy to pay taxes that don't even directly apply to most people, hey that's your call. No one's forcing you to do anything. Most people ARE willing to sit idly by and pay their hard earned monies to some agency because, well, that's what everyone else does right? I still haven't gotten a response on the instructions to fill out and file the W4 yet but again, that's cool too. I'll choose to live my life and help get the word out of what the IRC and underlying statutes say and to whom it applies. Funny how people have conniption fits over the Patriot Act and the alleged 9/11 "inside job", yet the #1 thing most directly affecting them on a day to day basis, is the theory of an "income tax", and a shrug of the shoulders soothes their conscience. Oh well.

If what you're saying is true, that many of us are overpaying our taxes and don't know it, and therefore are due refunds on taxes already paid, then I have to ask:

Would your firm (1) prepare our amended returns (with your firm signing as "preparer"), and (2) represent us in court on a contingency fee basis?

Assuming, of course (as you stated), we've filed all of our returns and complied with all tax laws and regs.

If your rate of success is as good as you claim, you'd make a killing doing this.

Why wouldn't you?

[RSBro]

If what you're saying is true, that many of us are overpaying our taxes and don't know it, and therefore are due refunds on taxes already paid, then I have to ask: Would your firm (1) prepare our amended returns (with your firm signing as "preparer"), and (2) represent us in court on a contingency fee basis? Assuming, of course (as you stated), we've filed all of our returns and complied with all tax laws and regs. If your rate of success is as good as you claim, you'd make a killing doing this. Why wouldn't you?

 

 

I never once said anyone is "overpaying your taxes". Please read responses correctly and in context. It doesn't make much sense when you attempt to take them out. Overpaying taxes just means you're having too much withheld. I'm discussing applicability. Much different. If you do not OWE any taxes above and beyond what you have withheld, then you get your refund, yes? That's what most people look forward to on April 15th/16th.

 

As far as your questions, the current status of the firm I work for does not do much of this. My Dad and I do it not even on a contingency fee. We only charge how much it takes to do the return, and then yes, do a "letter writing campaign" (which all of the step letters I've formulated over the last 2 years) in response (if any) to IRS letters via such. But court in this case is not something that is an issue, as it's not a criminal procedure. I'm not sure where this is arising from, as filing a tax return doesn't put you into the criminal/DOJ realm? WFTF DOES, which is why I do not advise or advocate for such. Filing your return, correctly, is proper and good and what I promote. Hell, I WISH people would bring these types of cases for us to argue! Arguing law with anyone in the IRS/DOJ would be a dream come true, because they HATE people who argue law!

 

My Dad is retiring in 2 years, and we're (hopefully) going to get some study clubs together to teach this stuff and discuss it in person, as opposed to message boards and emails, as people pretty much do now. But people need to know WHY they're filing that way, which is where the education part comes in. As it shows on Pete's site, millions have been returned to people in full for filing a correct tax return. People I/we have helped have experienced the same.

I've already sent one book out today. I'm more than happy to help educate others.

[bbl]

As far as your questions, the current status of the firm I work for does not do much of this. My Dad and I do it not even on a contingency fee. We only charge how much it takes to do the return, and then yes, do a "letter writing campaign" (which all of the step letters I've formulated over the last 2 years) in response (if any) to IRS letters via such. But court in this case is not something that is an issue, as it's not a criminal procedure. I'm not sure where this is arising from, as filing a tax return doesn't put you into the criminal/DOJ realm? WFTF DOES, which is why I do not advise or advocate for such.

Why do you assume "court" = "criminal"?

You claim that many people are overreporting their taxable income ("If you're happy to pay taxes that don't even directly apply to most people, hey that's your call.")

So, if I've "paid taxes that don't even directly apply to me," then I overpaid my tax for 2006, as all my income received in 2006 was earned in the US, was in exchange for my labor, and was received by a private employer.

So, I now want to file an amended return for the 2006 tax year (which I'm legally entitled to do) and I want my overpaid tax returned to me.

Now, the IRS surely isn't going to accept my amended return, with my "new" definition of "income." Therefore, I'm going to have to challenge the IRS in court. (Stay with me - I need to go to court, but I've engaged in no criminal action).

My amended return is "correct," according to your claims in this thread. So why shouldn't I file it? And why wouldn't your firm prepare it? And why wouldn't your tax attorneys represent me in court?

[RSBro]

You're not even following your own "arguments". I know this is new to you, so I'm trying to be somewhat patient. I thought you were "in the know" about taxes and procedures and the like?

"Tax" is only applied when there's a figure to be taxed. If you have $0 "Wages, tips, etc.." as reported on your W2, Box 1, 3 and 5 or "Non-Employee Compensation" reported in Box 7 of your 1099-MISC, there is no tax, as there's nothing to BE taxed. How can you tax "$0"? Is this a new math technique? 15% of $0 is what? $0.

I don't assume "court = criminal" at all. WFTF is charged by the DOJ as a criminal offense- not civil. Civil "liabilities", such as a compliance (regular) audit is not charged as a criminal offense. A 941/940 audit is civil. Not criminal. Again, where are you getting confused?

Was all of your "income" (by the way, $50 to who can show me the definition of "income" from the IRC...) from the U.S. or the U.S.A.? As defined in the IRC, "United States" is different than the 50 states of the union. But for argument's sake, I won't consider that.

People amend returns all the time. I do it for people regularly. It's quite simple to fill out a 1040X. Why wouldn't the IRS accept a valid return? Have you done this already, or called and asked "someone at the IRS"? When was the last time you even spoke to someone there? Switchboard operators do not know the IRC or any tax law. You cannot speak to someone on the phone about general questions. They will not answer it.
People (and that I've helped) file amended, corrected returns. It's not a hard process. When you sign (not autograph) a return, it's YOUR sworn testimony against theirs. They have to rebut you. Something hard to prove, methinks, as you should know more about your personal tax situation than some IRS flunkie.

The first step inside court for a civil matter will be tax court, which is a joke, in essence. You have to appeal to a Circuit Appeals Court to ever get anywhere, and some even go to the Supreme Court. I have not. We've resolved all matters either in Tax Court Appeals or in Tax Court itself. You do not need an attorney to visit tax court. You can go yourself, or have counsel with you. Can have prepared statements, or have someone feed you what to say to the judge. Discussing a case in Tax Court opposite an IRS attorney isn't intimidating or challenging, as you've already had the arguments with them in Appeals.

Again, your assumptions are pertaining to, well, I'm not even sure. We don't have staff attorneys because you don't need them? We're an accounting and tax firm. If I helped someone prepare their corrected return, I'd love to discuss law w/ the IRS. I do it every day anyways.

Usually though it's just over "legislative grace"- you call them "deductions".

[Goofball Jones]

Actually to be honest I've not had evidence turned in against me in some years now

 

Aren't you like 25 or 26? How many years have you been doing this? When I think "in some years" I'm thinking like 8-10 or so. You started accounting at 16 or 17?

 

Or is your definition of "some years" shorter? Also, you're implying that you've had evidence turned in against you in the past? Is this a common thing?

 

Also, how much work do you actually do when you're here posting things on HCBF most of the day?

[RSBro]

Aren't you like 25 or 26? How many years have you been doing this? When I think "in some years" I'm thinking like 8-10 or so. You started accounting at 16 or 17? Or is your definition of "some years" shorter? Also, you're implying that you've had evidence turned in against you in the past? Is this a common thing? Also, how much work do you actually do when you're here posting things on HCBF most of the day?

Most jobs "require" you to fill out a W4 to receive a W2, or you're paid by cash or check, with a 1099 filled out against you. I've been working a while. It's nothing new. A FOIA request or a simple interrogation to the IRS' Transcript System will tell you what info they have on you. You're a newb, so I'll try and restrain from as many sarcastic remarks as possible. But don't hold me to it.

And yeah I'll be 26 in October. During my Spring Breaks my Dad would make me come reconcile bank statements by hand at work. I started that when I was about 15, so thanks. I've been doing at least basic bookkeeping for over a decade now.

I don't post most of the day usually. Some days are harder than others. Tax season was over 3 months ago. I didn't yesterday as I was on the phone all day. Today I'm just writing audit response letters.

Anymore smartass questions?

[Goofball Jones]

Anymore smartass questions?

Give me some time, I'll think of some...

[RSBro]

Give me some time, I'll think of some...

Instead, go look up "income" for me in the IRC - $50 if you can find me a definition!

[bbl]

You're not even following your own "arguments". I know this is new to you, so I'm trying to be somewhat patient. I thought you were "in the know" about taxes and procedures and the like? "Tax" is only applied when there's a figure to be taxed. If you have $0 "Wages, tips, etc.." as reported on your W2, Box 1, 3 and 5 or "Non-Employee Compensation" reported in Box 7 of your 1099-MISC, there is no tax, as there's nothing to BE taxed. How can you tax "$0"? Is this a new math technique? 15% of $0 is what? $0. I don't assume "court = criminal" at all. WFTF is charged by the DOJ as a criminal offense- not civil. Civil "liabilities", such as a compliance (regular) audit is not charged as a criminal offense. A 941/940 audit is civil. Not criminal. Again, where are you getting confused? Was all of your "income" (by the way, $50 to who can show me the definition of "income" from the IRC...) from the U.S. or the U.S.A.? As defined in the IRC, "United States" is different than the 50 states of the union. But for argument's sake, I won't consider that. People amend returns all the time. I do it for people regularly. It's quite simple to fill out a 1040X. Why wouldn't the IRS accept a valid return? Have you done this already, or called and asked "someone at the IRS"? When was the last time you even spoke to someone there? Switchboard operators do not know the IRC or any tax law. You cannot speak to someone on the phone about general questions. They will not answer it. People (and that I've helped) file amended, corrected returns. It's not a hard process. When you sign (not autograph) a return, it's YOUR sworn testimony against theirs. They have to rebut you. Something hard to prove, methinks, as you should know more about your personal tax situation than some IRS flunkie. The first step inside court for a civil matter will be tax court, which is a joke, in essence. You have to appeal to a Circuit Appeals Court to ever get anywhere, and some even go to the Supreme Court. I have not. We've resolved all matters either in Tax Court Appeals or in Tax Court itself. You do not need an attorney to visit tax court. You can go yourself, or have counsel with you. Can have prepared statements, or have someone feed you what to say to the judge. Discussing a case in Tax Court opposite an IRS attorney isn't intimidating or challenging, as you've already had the arguments with them in Appeals. Again, your assumptions are pertaining to, well, I'm not even sure. We don't have staff attorneys because you don't need them? We're an accounting and tax firm. If I helped someone prepare their corrected return, I'd love to discuss law w/ the IRS. I do it every day anyways. Usually though it's just over "legislative grace"- you call them "deductions".

OK. Thanks for the info.

I'd like to find a tax attorney to represent me when the IRS challenges my "correct" tax filings. I doubt anyone will "walk the walk" and present a case that they know they'll lose.

You say I'm "paying taxes that don't even directly apply to (me)," but that's meaningless because (1) there's so much precedent to the contrary, and (2) you're not risking anything by telling me that.

There are many conmen in the "tax protestor" industry. They make money by selling books, not by standing behind their claims by preparing tax returns and challenging the IRS in court. You mentioned two of them - Banister and Jackson. Classic.

It's like the guy selling "get rich" books - he got rich by selling "get rich" books.

[RSBro]

OK. Thanks for the info. I'd like to find a tax attorney to represent me when the IRS challenges my "correct" tax filings. I doubt anyone will "walk the walk" and present a case that they know they'll lose. You say I'm "paying taxes that don't even directly apply to (me)," but that's meaningless because (1) there's so much precedent to the contrary, and (2) you're not risking anything by telling me that. There are many conmen in the "tax protestor" industry. They make money by selling books, not by standing behind their claims by preparing tax returns and challenging the IRS in court. You mentioned two of them - Banister and Jackson. Classic. It's like the guy selling "get rich" books - he got rich by selling "get rich" books.

 

Tax attorneys are in the business of arguing deductions and special words with huge retainers. Not the law. But, hey, pay your $5000-10,000 retainer and have a field day with that one.

 

Meaningless, huh? Just like Tom Cryer's case? I guess his win isn't really that relevant. Or the fact that thousands file correctly each year and receive all of their withheld monies back. Yeah. Taxes and the application of such have nothing to do with tax returns.

 

What do I need to risk besides my own tax situation? That's up for people to learn and decide. I help do that. That's the only way it sinks in. I don't prepare returns that some would consider "out of the ordinary" for money w/out the client knowing what they're doing. I guess with that logic you'd tell me if people knew how to handle their tax and planning situations personally, they'd still pay thousands for CPA's and CFP's every year, right?

If keeping your money doesn't interest you, then hey, have at it hoss. Most people would rather pay a pittance just so their king will leave them be. I'm just not one of those people.

Some people pine about the environment and it being too {censored}ing hot or cold during a summer. I could care less. This stuff is what hits people the most. If this subject got press like alleged and fictional man-made, cosmically changing "global warming", the IRS would've been long gone, a long time ago.

 

OH- and way to go ducking the "income" definition. Classic You.

[toolbar]

Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)...

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/07/lawyertax-prote.html

more to read:

http://www.tocongress.com/

[catphish]

The Law: Section 3401© defines