Re:Tax Protester FAQ
by tzs on Wednesday November 04, 2020 @08:24PM
(#24994823)
There are a couple or so that I didn't see listed (although I could have easily missed them, as that FAQ is very extensive).
1. Citing completely non-existent cases, sometimes from completely non-existent courts.
2. Citing quotes from real cases, but the quotes were not from the court. I remember looking at one where they cited a real Supreme Court case, and the quote was very favorable to the tax protester's claim. Unfortunately, it was not from the opinion of the court. It was from one of the briefs filed by the losing side which the court completely rejected.
3. Citing cases that were subsequently overturned on appeal.
4. Arguing that Soandso (usually someone selling a book or offering a seminar on getting out of taxes) has not gone to jail or even been sued by the IRS and so his methods must work.
The flaw in that is that you have no proof that he is actually using the methods from his books and seminars. It is quite possible he's not in trouble because he actually pays his taxes.
1. Citing completely non-existent cases, sometimes from completely non-existent courts.
2. Citing quotes from real cases, but the quotes were not from the court. I remember looking at one where they cited a real Supreme Court case, and the quote was very favorable to the tax protester's claim. Unfortunately, it was not from the opinion of the court. It was from one of the briefs filed by the losing side which the court completely rejected.
3. Citing cases that were subsequently overturned on appeal.
4. Arguing that Soandso (usually someone selling a book or offering a seminar on getting out of taxes) has not gone to jail or even been sued by the IRS and so his methods must work.
The flaw in that is that you have no proof that he is actually using the methods from his books and seminars. It is quite possible he's not in trouble because he actually pays his taxes.