Talk:Tax protester/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Commentary moved from article to talk

The following comment was posted into the article by 207.200.116.132:

All reference to the Tax Honesty Movement has been removed from this encyclopedia by the ignorati who cannot stand the intellectual challenge to their impaired, emotion-driven psyches. The removal of this material is itself an example of the obstacles encountered by those who promote logical thought, truth, and integrity in the administration of tax law.

I must admit, I find it somewhat bemusing to be labelled "ignorati" by someone who apparently speaks for a movement that holds that dollar bills are not "money", that court opinions have no effect because they spell the name of the accused in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and that the IRS is really a Puerto Rican collection agency that the President allows and the Congress funds because they're all in on the "conspiracy" levy taxes. bd2412 T 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Reason article that is referenced in the links at the end. Its tone seems more respectful and thus closer to NPOV than this article. The Reason author ultimately doesn't believe the line of argument, but he is curious and interested as opposed to the point of view of this article. BD2412 seems to have been guarding this article for a while, and I think his contempt shows. Everyone has a point of view. NPOV is difficult. Why is there all this hubub about calling some of this phenominon the Tax Honesty Movement? Pretend were not talking about the US for a second and think about how to write this. As the Reason article points out, not everyone agrees. Some are frustrated by others that worry about CAPITAL LETTERS. However most seem sincere. "Tax Honesty" means something subtle but important to them. They are not against the gas tax for instance. And there seems to be a lack of fairness in a system that requires advanced legal training to understand the law. All the arguments may have been brought before a court before, and some of the defendents may be "cranks", but people are individuals. If the system treated these people with respect and answered their questions clearly and with detail...as it does for other issues!...then perhaps they wouldn't seem like cranks anymore. Not everything is false. For instance it appears there were some irregularities in the passage of the 16th Amendment. Perhaps the Secretary of State was wrong to certify it, but the courts say that is a political problem and they are bound by it. That is fascinating!

For a start, is this NPOV? "These arguments generally contain logical fallacies, selective interpretation of perceived syntactic ambiguity in statutes and cases, and convey a general misconception about the structure of the legal system and the operations of the government." Gearspring 15:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of tax protester arguments is a statement of fact borne out by literally thousands of court decisions and by statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President that permit penalties to be assessed where such arguments are brought. Those who disagree with the law should work to change the law rather than stringing together incorrect definitions of legal terms in order to prove that no such law exists.

With respect to my perceived guardianship of this article, a review of the article history demonstrates that it has repeatedly been subject to enormous text dumps of materials cut and pasted from tax protester sites, and making blatantly legally incorrect claims about the meaning of specific cases or of specific terms used in statutes. External links have repeatedly been removed that would take the user to sites that say little more than "you don't have to pay taxes; buy my book/buy my CD's/buy a ticket to my seminar to find out how". The article has repeatedly been corrected from changes asserting that it has been "proven" that income earners are not obliged to file their taxes, although the reasons given in support of this "proof" have universally been rejected by the courts.

I have no objection to presenting the claims that have been brought, if those claims are balanced by an explanation of why the courts have deemed them incorrect. Otherwise, leaving such information in the article would be akin to allowing a claim that if you see someone else's bicycle unattended on the sidewalk, you are free to take it because laws againt stealing do not expressly apply to bicycles; or because laws against stealing bicycles are unconstitutional or legally unenforceable anyway because the Constitution does not permit laws against stealing bicycles, or because one court acquitted someone charged with stealing a bicycle, even though the acquittal was on technical grounds that were later overturned. That the income tax is constitutional, enforceable, and applies to income is well settled law. bd2412 T 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize with the difficulty of keeping that junk out. I have not followed this article, so I don't know how it got to this point. I am only looking at its current state. Still I don't understand your need to rebut all the claims being brought. I am not totally against the idea, but I think it would be best in its own section. Should an athiest be hanging out at the Catholic article making sure no one is fooled that God exists? --Gearspring 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, in this country you don't get fined or put in jail for believing that God does or does not exist. If readers come upon a theory that says, for example, you don't have to pay your taxes if you declare yourself to be a religious institution, some may try that and face dire consequences - at the very least, having to pay a hefty penalty to the IRS. Whether you believe the claim or not, failing to pay taxes based on it will bring penalties, which is part of the complete picture with respect to the subject matter of this article. bd2412 T 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: The question has been raised with respect to a statement in the article: Is this neutral point of view? "These arguments generally contain logical fallacies, selective interpretation of perceived syntactic ambiguity in statutes and cases, and convey a general misconception about the structure of the legal system and the operations of the government."

Well, it is certainly correct to say that tax protester arguments contain each of these attributes (logical fallacies, selective interpretation, etc., and general misconceptions about the legal system, etc.). Perhaps the article will eventually be expanded to give examples of each under explicit topic headings created for that purpose. More sourcing may help.

Wikipedia presents to its editors an interesting problem. By its nature, Wikipedia allows non-experts to edit in fields of expertise. In the case of articles about law, such as tax law, the problem is compounded by what I argue is a tendency among a few people to believe that they can obtain what they essentially regard as expertise in the field without actually going through what lawyers, CPAs and others go through to obtain tax expertise. Now, it is perfectly possible for non-lawyers and non-CPAs to make accurate edits to articles on tax law. Wikipedia proves that. Unfortunately, there is something about law that gives some people the impression that even without having gone through the fire of formal training, they can somehow "know" the law better than people who have gone through the fire. Maybe you don't see this as much with fields like brain surgery or elementary particle physics, etc. There is something about law -- even something as technical as tax law -- that allows normal people (i.e., people who are not tax geeks like me) to believe that they can understand the most technical aspects of tax law by reading tax protester web sites on the internet. Before the internet, it was hard copy such as books by Irwin Schiff.

The fact is that the statement about logical fallacies, selective interpretation and misconceptions about the legal system is accurate with respect to tax protester arguments. Now, the next question is: Can this particular accurate statement be presented in a Wikipedia article so that the article maintains a neutral point of view? I would argue that to deliberately omit such a statement from the Wikipedia article -- apparently for the reason that we don't want to appear to be taking sides -- would be a mistake. Here's why.

One of the tenets of Wikipedia is that not all arguments need be given equal weight. If we were to write an article that talks about the moon and, for some reason we decide that it's important enough to state that some people believe the moon is made of green cheese, it does not violate the rules of Wikipedia to point out that no reputable scientist or moon expert adheres to the green cheese theory. I argue that it would also be perfectly neutral point of view to point out that there are logical fallacies, etc., or whatever, in the green cheese argument.

The statement that there are logical fallacies, etc., in tax protester arguments is verifiable. There are actual rules you can follow to prove this. The mere fact that pointing all this out results in one theory (for example, the theory that the Federal income tax is perfectly constitutional and is being "applied" -- for all intents and purposes -- properly) being presented in an article as having more "weight" than an alternate theory (that the income tax is somehow invalid and that 99.999% of all legal experts since 1913, literally thousands and thousands of experts, have been befuddled and wrong about it or somehow engaged in malevolent conspiracy, and that every single court that has ruled on it has been "wrong") does not mean that the article lacks neutral point of view. A statement that something contains a "logical fallacy" can actually be verified. A statement that tax protesters argue based on misconceptions about the legal system as a whole is not only verifiable, it has been verified in court decision after decision. A statement that tax protester arguments routinely include selective interpretations is also verifiable, and it's not merely an opinion.

The reason: Law, like brain surgery and elementary particle physics, has its own technical rules which are beyond the ken of the average person. Law is not hard science in the way that physics is, but law does have its own rules of analysis. These rules can be learned, and are learned -- but only after years of both intensive and extensive study. Whether a particular tax protester argument is legally incorrect can actually be objectively determined. Granted, one may need to have been formally trained in law or at least tax law to be able to discern exactly why a particular tax protester argument is legally invalid. But that is a cross we must bear. Tax protester arguments, by definition, are based on argumentative forms that do not follow the rules of legal analysis that apply not only to tax law but to the law of contracts, property, torts, copyright, etc., etc. Tax protester arguments are essentially based on a foundation of mush, of nonsense. To pretend in an encyclopedia article that these arguments are not frivolous and cannot be objectively determined to be frivolous is to do a disserve to the readers of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia allows non-experts to edit in expert fields. However, if Wikipedia is to become a reputable source of knowledge, the experts who edit here must hold the non-experts to the same standards to which the experts hold each other. To demand less would impair the usefulness of Wikipedia, especially in the more complex technical fields of knowledge. Yours, Famspear 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: A post-script: I would also like to respond to some of the comments by my fellow editor Gearspring. Gearspring cites another article and mentions that it is more "respectful" than the Wikipedia article. Without having read the other article, and assuming arguendo the validity of Gearspring's observation, I would argue that Wikipedia, in its present configuration with respect to the tax protester article, is more than respectful enough to satisfy the rules of Wikipedia.

The fact that some tax protesters are now claiming that they are not tax protesters but are instead part of something called the "tax honesty movement" is interesting. Some have even written that the "movement" contains people who are not necessarily questioning the validity of the tax laws but just want some answers from the government. Unfortunately, having studied tax protester cases and their literature for years, I would argue that statements like this are disingenuous. There is something shrill and unnatural about the particular tax protester demand "Show us the law!" Imagine a small group of murderers banding together on the internet, etc., and fomenting literature that insists that the laws against murder actually are unconstitutional, that all the courts have always been wrong about the interpretation of those laws, and that 99.9999% of all experts are wrong about the laws on murder -- and then, after the code sections that every court and every legal expert recognizes as those code sections imposing criminal penalties for murder have been cited over and over and are published for all to see, imagine these same people continuing to scream, "Show us the law!"

Gearspring's comment: "And there seems to be a lack of fairness in a system that requires advanced legal training to understand the law" is also interesting. My response is that Gearspring is in my opinion absolutely right. That the system is so complex and arguably unfair is -- whose fault? It's our fault. We set up the system and elected the Congress that created the system. There are lots of laws and aspects of our legal system that can be improved. Unlike the tax laws, we did not set up the rules of physics regarding the behavior of elementary particles -- so we can't blame ourselves for that. But the tax law, like the laws of physics -- can be accurately learned only after years of intensive and extensive study. That, too, may not be fair -- but the lack of fairness thereof is of no moment for purposes of our discussion. The existence of the "fact" (assuming arguendo that it is a fact) that the tax law is monumentally unfair, or complex, or stupid, does not change the reality that tax protester arguments are legally invalid and legally frivolous (to use the technical legal term). The existence of that fact also does not change the reality that any encyclopedia article that does not make clear that the courts and legal experts are agreed on that point is NOT neutral point of view. Taking sides is one thing, but adherence to the "neutral point of view" concept does require that we put all "sides" in context -- we are not required to give equal weight to the green cheese argument.

The following statement is also interesting: "All the arguments may have been brought before a court before, and some of the defendents [sic] may be 'cranks', but people are individuals. If the system treated these people with respect and answered their questions clearly and with detail...as it does for other issues!...then perhaps they wouldn't seem like cranks anymore." I wish that this were true. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service and courts have answered all these tax protester arguments with what I contend is more than enough clarity. The problem seems to be not lack of clarity on the part of the government, but unwillingness on the part of a small minority to accept anything that does not comport with their own view. Many tax protesters seem not to understand why others do not want to engage or argue or debate them. The reason often is because people understand that many tax protesters are not willing to accept any view other than their own. The following statements are also revealing: "Perhaps the Secretary of State was wrong to certify it, but the courts say that is a political problem and they are bound by it. That is fascinating!" Gearspring seems to imply that the courts are somehow not doing their job properly here. Law is a highly technical, specialized body of knowledge. Every first year law student who has studied constitutional law is aware of the term "political question." I won't go into the legal technicalities, but Gearspring's statement seems to imply -- whether he or she realizes it or not -- that the courts should simply ignore the rules of law -- in particular the political question doctrine -- and simply render decisions based on the desired "result" -- the desired result in this case apparently being that the Sixteenth Amendment should be somehow ruled "unconstitutional" or "not properly ratified." Whether Gearspring realizes it or not, this is roughly equivalent to arguing that physicists should change their analyses and conclusions about how quarks and bosons, etc., operate -- should ignore the rules of physics -- because someone doesn't like the "result" that those rules seem to bring us. Again, law is not a hard science, and the rules of law are, unlike the laws of physics, man-made. The rules of law are often uncertain and ever-changing in the hands of legislators, bureaucrats and judges. But the rules of law are a bit more objectively determinable and "knowable" than some non-lawyers may realize. In reading the Wikipedia article on tax protesters, we should keep that truth in mind. Yours, Famspear 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Famspear's point on the political question doctrine, Wikipedia has a brief but informative article on the topic. The doctrine basically says that the court will stay out of a dispute that hinges on political considerations, rather than law. Since no one challenged the propriety of the passage of the 16th Amendment for over a half-century after its passage, the courts have left it to Congress to decide whether, for example, the Amendment itself or the laws passed under it should be repealed. Congress has not done so, but has only modified those laws, although certainly members of both parties on the committee responsible for tax legislation would be aware of the constitutional arguments. bd2412 T 04:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the 16th Amendment issue not to argue the courts are wrong, but to show that there is gold in them there hills. The "political question" answer of the courts is fine by me. But the history was researched by the "cranks" of the Tax Protester movement. They almost had their trump card and were stymied at the last moment. I think this aspect should make it to the article. I realize tax protesters are likely to lose in court, and I don't want the article to imply otherwise. I don't however hold the belief that the tax protesters are disingenuous. I am sure some are, but I have met a few that are not. Also, the rules of law are more amorphous than you acknowledge. There can be different and opposing interpretations of the law that are binding on you depending on where in the country the issue would be decided. Now, I am not saying this is true with tax law, but the issues that tax protesters raise tend to be fundamental ones that exploring will educate us about important aspects of our government. I read some of your discussion on an earlier debate. The argument was exploring the word profit. If I have a dollar, and you have a dollar, and then we trade them with each other. Did either one of us profit? If I have a book and you have your own copy of the book and we trade, did anyone profit? If I give you a book and you give me a dollar, did anyone profit? Perhaps the book normally sells for two dollars, does that mean I took a loss, and you had a profit? The answer may be that a court has been asked this question and the answer did not depend on my logic, and now we are bound by it. OK. Let's quote the case. But even before we do that, I would be happy with the following addition as a start. Since we are in agreement on the lack of fairness of law too complicated for an average citizen to understand. Let's put a statement in the article about the lack of fairness and its contrast with the belief that law must be understandable to be valid. As to your statement that the article meets the Wikipedia standard; The article point of view is the tax protesters are cranks, they are disingenuous, the questions they raise are dishonest, and the people involved are stupid for raising frivolous arguments. Be generous, the 16th Amendment issue wasn't frivolous the first time it was raised.--Gearspring 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gearspring: For ease in reading, I have moved your comments down below those of BD2412, to keep everything in chronology. You make some interesting points and suggestions. I don't want to get into your questions (rhetorical or otherwise) about "profit" (and the examples of the books, etc.) right now, and bluntly I'm pretty "snowed under" with work (i.e., not much time to edit Wikipedia right now). The discussion on profit (for Federal income tax purposes) can get technical, so I want to save that for a time when we have time to give it its due.

I would like say that your comment that the 16th Amendment issue wasn't frivolous the first time it was raised is a good one! Your key language -- the first time it was raised -- says it all. The first time the issue was raised in a court of law, it had no legal merit, but it might not have YET been frivolous (in one sense) at that time. It became a frivolous argument after being raised over and over and rejected over and over. The term frivolous does have colloquial, non-technical meanings -- such as "of little value or importance" or "trifling" or "trivial" or "not properly serious or sensible" or "silly and light-minded" (all from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d College Ed. 1976)). Another one I've seen somewhere is "not worthy of serious consideration." But you can argue that it at least was not "frivolous" in one narrow, technical legal sense: no court had ruled on it before the first time it was argued. Some courts have indicated that a "frivolous" argument in the context of Federal income tax law is one that has been repeatedly raised in numerous court cases and has repeatedly been ruled to be without merit. At some point, a legally meritless argument does become legally frivolous -- so I agree with your point. Let's continue the dialog -- I'll probably be the one who's late in getting back to you for awhile, as my "real world" work load is interfering with my "Wikipedia time" lately. Yours, Famspear 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS -- Dear Gearspring: One more thing, on the comment about gold in the hills and the argument that the protesters almost had their trump card -- ummmmm wellllll, I have to disagree, in the sense that from a legal standpoint, the "16th Amendment was not properly ratified argument" never had a snowball's chance in "you know where." It's just not a valid, meritorious legal argument, on any level. I won't go into all the legal reasons why this is so, but they're covered in the court decisions on this. Also, your statement that "the rules of law are more amorphous" than I acknowledge is interesting. I disagree with your characterization of the degree to which I have acknowledged that the rules of law are amorphous. Law can appear very amorphous. Paradoxically, however, law is both much more uncertain and much more definitive -- at the same time -- than most non-lawyers (especially tax protesters) realize. Unless you have studied the texts of literally thousands and thousands of court decisions, statutes, regs, etc., and have had access to all the things to which law students and lawyers have access, you just can't really appreciate the whole picture. If that sounds elitist -- I'm sorry. I don't know whether you're a lawyer or not.

I read about Einstein's special theory of relativity and his general theory of relativity, and I think I understand some of the basics. It's interesting for me to think about the topic. But I have no expertise in physics or mathematics. There is simply no way for me to "know" relativity theory in the same way that Ph.D.s in physics and mathematics "know" the theory -- any more than it's possible for me to fully know French impressionism the way Monet knew it merely by walking through his garden at Giverny and gazing at his paintings (which I have done). I can only know a small part of what Einstein and Monet knew about their fields of expertise. Yours, Famspear 14:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I took my car to Tires Plus a few weeks ago, and they gave me this song and dance about how I needed something done with my brakes, which cost me $55. They also said I needed to replace all four (relatively new) tires, claiming that there were 'deep microscopic cracks' in the sidewalls. I balked at that and went to Goodyear for a second opinion; they told me my tires were fine and I had not even needed the "repair" that had been performed on my brakes. It's unfair that auto repair is so technical, and that my doctor, my electrician, and my computer guy all have specialized knowledge upon which I must depend, but which I lack the time to acquire myself. But that is the organic solidarity that governs the society in which we live. Despite my frustration at lacking knowledge of specialized areas, I am not telling people that they can substitute mineral oil for motor oil in their cars, or that snake-oil will cure their cancer. I lack the training to make these assertions, and experts who have the appropriate training will tell me otherwise. If someone were to post such a statement in the article on engines or on cancer, I would hope that an expert would point out the mythology of that assertion, lest I be tricked into ruining my motor or letting the cancer consume me. bd2412 T 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Eastman Replies

74 Numbered, Yes/No Questions Remain Unanswered

I'm keeping this reply short in an attempt to get Mr. Famspear, the tax lawyer, on point.

I find it interesting that Mr. Famspear could find time to post 2,636 words but he can't find the time to publicly answer 74 numbered Yes/No questions. Subtracting 74 "yes" or "no" answering words from the 2,636 words he did find the time to post would leave him 2,562 words to prove the conclusion as incorrect. It is just this arrogance of the "establishment" in refusing to address honest questions that drives the Tax Honesty Movement.

The 74 questions I ask are ALL "No-Brainer" questions. I cite passages of Supreme Court decisions, tax statutes, and tax regulations followed by reading comprehension questions.

When I ask a question of the preceding passage, I am asking, in essence, 'Did the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Secretary of Treasury state "X Y Z"?' Any person with average reading comprehension skills can readily see that the Supreme Court, Congress and the Secretary of Treasury did indeed state "X Y Z".

The "reply" by Mr. Famspear to my last sentence has already been posted by Mr. Famspear above. He said, "Unfortunately, there is something about law that gives some people the impression that even without having gone through the fire of formal training, they can somehow "know" the law better than people who have gone through the fire."

Okay Mr. "Gone-Through-The-Fire" Famspear, PUBLICLY ANSWER the first 74 questions on my web site and then use your other 2,562 words to prove that the words highlighted by the questions on my web site don't mean what they say. The questions start on the fourth page of my web site. http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/ Posted: 13:12 EDT 5/13/06. Edited by DRE: 10:12 EDT 5/14/06

We are here to edit Wikipedia, not to answer Mr. Eastman's 74 questions

Dear Mr. Dale Eastman:

First, let’s review how you got to this point in Wikipedia. In late March of 2006, an article entitled “Tax Honesty Movement” was nominated for deletion by a Wikipedia editor, BD2412. Various Wikipedia readers posted comments pro and con regarding the issue of whether the page should be deleted. You opposed deletion of the article. I, Famspear, favored deletion. After discussion, the article was deleted.

During that process you, Mr. Eastman, apparently posted comments related to whether the so-called “Tax Honesty Movement” itself is viable, or valid, etc. Your post also included a re-hash of certain tax protester arguments about the validity of the U.S. Federal income tax itself, including a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) -- the holding of which you (and tax protesters in general) ignore or, even with your presumably “average reading comprehension skills,” did not read or comprehend (see below). You also referred to your own website, apparently urging others to view your website materials regarding your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Federal income tax laws.

I reviewed your website and found you are repeating arguments and conclusions made by other tax protesters – arguments and conclusions which are not only legally incorrect, but which have been repeatedly ruled legally frivolous in court. The cases you cited are the same cases cited over and over by tax protesters down through the past 30 years or so. Every court that has been presented with the arguments you raise has rejected them.

Early in this process, you visited my own user page at Wikipedia and discovered that in addition to my having a childhood love of baseball and an interest in airplanes, etc., I am a lawyer with an interest in the subject of income tax in the United States. At some point you also discovered that Wikipedia editor BD2412 (who had nominated the article for deletion) is also a lawyer. In referring to your comments about tax law and to me personally, you wrote:

If you want to take on the comments, and since your userpage states: ‘I am an American attorney with an interest in Income tax in the United States’, then how about a little one on one, you and I. You, a hifalutin big city lawyer, and me, a dumb ex-truck driver. Since you are the educated one, expect lot's [sic] of questions.

(Bolding added).

At my suggestion we moved the discussion to the talk (discussion) page for the Wikipedia tax protester article. (Later, it was determined that perhaps this page was also not an appropriate place for what you had in mind.)

On 3 April 2006, I, Famspear, acknowledged your comment about my being a lawyer without lingering on my credentials (which you, not I, had brought up anyway). I explained the process of acquiring legal expertise and credentials. I also pointed out that your idiosyncratic interpretation of tax law does not conform to the rules of legal analysis, and that your conclusions are legally incorrect. My discussion of the process of obtaining legal skills and credentials was not focused on me personally; it was presented in response to your own remarks.

You, Mr. Eastman, then responded with statements like:

What you [Famspear] attempt to say with that mantra [regarding the process of acquiring legal expertise], as paraphrased by me [Dale Eastman], is: Dumb trucker don’t know how to read the law”. [ . . . ] As frustrating as I [Dale Eastman] imagine this is going to be for you, I’m going to call those statements what they are: NAKED ASSERTIONS. [ . . . ] you [Famspear] wave the flag of the rigors of law school [ . . . ] by expounding upon your “formal” education.

You, Mr. Eastman, went on:

You [Famspear] have no “authority”; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis [ of the tax law . . . ] You have no authority, no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed [sic] person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not see it [ . . . ] A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I [Dale Eastman] do not worship at the alter [i.e., altar] of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials. [ . . . ] You [Famspear] can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results [regarding the tax laws] are wrong (or not). [ . . . ] What you can not do is tell me WHAT to think. That just doesn’t cut it in a society that is supposed to be based upon personal Liberty. [ . . . ] Now, tell us again, why do we need you (lawyers) to interpret laws for us?

This is interesting. First, you go to my user page and discover I’m a lawyer. Then you go to the trouble of pointing out that fact to me in the early stages of discussion.

Then you say that my diploma is “presently meaningless.” You say that I, Famspear, have no credibility, except to the extent I ESTABLISH CREDIBLITY IN A DIALOG WITH YOU, MR. DALE EASTMAN. You apparently fear I might scan a picture of my law school diploma and post it on the internet. You then say that if I were to do that, such a scan would be “called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless.”

Then, ironically, you say that you, Mr. Eastman, do not “worship at the alter [altar] of the bar.”

Really?

When you take the trouble, first, to bring my legal credentials into the discussion -- and second, to try to “neutralize” the very credentials you yourself brought into the discussion, you are (1) setting me up as your Authority Figure, and (2) then trying to tear your Authority Figure down.

In response to my statement about law school being akin to a “military boot camp for the mind,” you responded: “EXCELLENT! Good, Good. You can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results are wrong (or not).”

On 3 April 2006, I, Famspear, responded by stating:

[i]t’s pretty unclear whether I would be able to get to Mr. Eastman’s commentary in any meaningful way, anyway. However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman’s comments posted above. [closed parenthesis deleted]

You, Mr. Eastman later posted the following comments on the Talk page for the Wikipedia Tax Protester article:

Mr. Famspear, as a tax lawyer, is expected to engage [with Mr. Dale Eastman on] the topic of the U.S. income tax after the 17th of March [actually after the 17th of April, at the close of tax season]. If the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is so wrong, he [Famspear] should be able to prove it. [ . . . ] Mr. Abramson [the editor who nominated the Tax Honesty Article for deletion] is invited to join in that discussion. If Mr. Famspear refuses to engage, or fails to prove the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is wrong, By default, Mr. Abramson will be known as an IRS COLLABORATOR attempting to cover up the truth. [ . . .] Please have your yes / no answers to the first 74 questions [posed by me, Dale Eastman, on my own web site] ready for posting by the 21st [of April].

(Bolding added).

On 21 April 2006, you posted in the same Wikipedia page, as follows:

Okay, Mr. Famspear, Today is April 21, 2006. I, Dale Eastman, am calling you out. Your choice of forums are as follows [ . . . .] I’m just a dumb ex-truck driver, so you should be abel [able] to make mincemeat out of me, eh?

(Bolding added).

Mr. Eastman, your impatience grew as shown by the following comments you posted:

No reply from Mr. Famspear, as of 4/29/06.

In other posts, Mr. Famspear has defended the conventional belief [that the Federal income tax laws are constitutional and are being correctly administered] as the IRS would have others believe. That make[s] Mr. Famspear a “defacto” IRS Agent. [ . . . ]

You then paraphrased the following language – taken totally out of context -- from the court decisions in United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), 70-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9336 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 831 (1970) or United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 77-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9330 (5th Cir. 1977), to somehow imply that if I or BD2412 do not answer your questions, we are somehow guilty of some sort of “fraud”:

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading . . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS [or its defacto agents – bracketed verbiage added by Mr. Eastman]

After still having received no reply, you, Mr. Eastman, posted on 13 May 2006 as follows:

I’m keeping this short in an attempt to get Mr. Famspear, the tax lawyer, on point. [ . . . ] he [Famspear] can’t find the time to publicly answer 74 numbered Yes / No questions [posed by Mr. Dale Eastman] [ . . . ] It is just this arrogance of the “establishment” in refusing to address honest questions that drives the Tax Honesty Movement.

(Bolding added).

Mr. Eastman, I sense from your commentary that you are a man desperately searching for answers. At the present time, you seem desperate to get me to answer your questions about tax law.

“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”

Proverbs 25:2 (Rev. Stand. Vers.)

Mr. Eastman, your attempt to get me “on point,” as you put it, is totally misplaced. Let me clue you in.

“On point” here in Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia editors must take the time to answer your 74 questions about tax law, Mr. Eastman. “On point” here in Wikipedia means editing Wikipedia. That is why the rest of us – at least, most of the rest of us -- are here.

Your attempt to get me to what you personally believe is “on point” and your reference to my failure to address your “74 questions” as somehow being “arrogance” on MY PART illustrate that you, Mr. Eastman, are overly convinced of your own importance, that you are overbearingly proud, and that you are haughty – in short, your attempts and your references and manner show classic arrogance on your part, not mine.

Because your IP address changes often and you apparently have not registered an account in Wikipedia, I’m haven’t researched all your posts. It does appear you have done little if any editing of actual Wikipedia articles. Your posts here are mainly on the talk (discussion) pages, and seem to be aimed at trying to get me or BD2412 or both to answer your 74 questions.

You, Mr. Eastman, like most people who make tax protester arguments, do not claim (as far as I can tell) to have any formal legal or accounting training. You presumably believe that you have arrived at the correct interpretation of the Federal income tax laws, albeit one already presented by other tax protesters to the courts – and rejected by the courts, the Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, and the vast body of thousands of lawyers, certified public accountants, law professors, and other legal scholars in the United States who have studied the tax laws since the modern Federal income tax laws were enacted, beginning in 1913.

You and many other tax protesters complain that other people (particularly government employees) “don't address the actual written words of law.” Yet, when presented with the actual words of the statutes, regs and court cases, you twist them to suit your own purpose – which is to persuade other people that the tax law is somehow what you say it is rather than what it really is. (Below, I’ll give an example with the case you mentioned in a Wikipedia talk page post.)

You say at one point, in referring to editor BD2412, that if you “don't address the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES, REGULATIONS, and appropriate Supreme Court rulings, then anything you have to say about the "INCOME" tax is Hearsay [capitalization is Mr. Eastman’s, not mine].” Ironically, had you, Mr. Eastman, understood the Wikipedia article on Hearsay to which you linked, you would have also understood that your statement is laughable. I suggest you go read the definition of “hearsay” carefully. You are embarrassing yourself.

Now, let’s look at the example of the court case you did cite in the talk pages of Wikipedia – the Merchants’ Loan case. Your Wikipedia post included a tired, old, often repeated, discredited tax protester argument that “income” for Federal income tax purposes somehow means only “corporate profits” and not other kinds of income (such as wages, salaries, dividends, interest, rent, gain on sale of stock, etc.) because of a mention by the Court in the Merchants’ Loan case of a statute enacted in 1909 that taxed corporate profits. Like many tax protesters who have argued this in court over the years – and have always lost – you included the same old quote from the case. Even with what you apparently feel are your magnificent interpretive skills, you ignored or were unaware of what the Court actually ruled in Merchants’ Loan – either because you don’t know what a holding is or you don’t know how to determine what the holding is, or maybe because you know that the holding in Merchants’ Loan essentially contradicts your argument that income means only “corporate profits.”

Here’s a clue, Mr. Eastman: One of the first rules in analyzing case law is to determine what the court actually decided – based on what the parties in the dispute actually fought about. Everything else stated in a court decision – everything that does not form a part of the court’s rulings on the issues actually decided – is not a rule for which that case stands. (Note: I am deliberately not using the technical legal terminology here.)

To be specific, the Supreme Court ruled in Merchants’ Loan that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the specific tax statute applicable at the time (which was a 1916 tax statute, not the 1909 statute), a gain on a sale of stock by the estate of a decedent (in that particular case, the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased,) is included in the income of that estate, and is therefore taxable to that estate for Federal income tax purposes. The Court was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue involving the taxability of “wages” or “corporate profits” or any other kind of income except the gain on the sale of the stock by the estate. An estate’s gain on a sale of stock is not a “corporate profit.” The “estate of a decedent” is not a “corporation.” The estate of a decedent cannot have “corporate profits.” The term “corporate profits” does not even appear in the text of the Court’s decision in Merchants’ Loan.

Not only that, but the 1916 tax statute also imposed income taxes on the income of individuals – real, living people. Real, living people are not “corporations” with “corporate profits.”

You, Mr. Dale Eastman, apparently did not realize these points, or you deliberately chose to ignore their significance. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of statutes, regulations, and case law is full of these kinds of errors.

Worse, your hilarious, idiosyncratic “interpretation” -- that “income” must somehow mean ONLY “corporate profits” – based on a reference in the text of the case to the 1909 corporation tax law -- could not have succeeded as a legal argument even if the taxpayer in the case had actually been a corporation. You apparently were unaware of that as well.

Your idiosyncratic interpretation of Merchants’ Loan isn’t even original with you. You are simply repeating arguments raised over and over by tax protesters for over twenty years – arguments that are ruled legally erroneous every single time they are raised. Here are examples of eight different court cases where tax protesters cited the same erroneous Merchants’ Loan “corporate profits” argument -- and LOST: Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., 593 F. Supp. 1540, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9845 (N.D. Ind. 1984), aff’d, 773 F.2d 126, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9661 (7th Cir. 1985); Stoewer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 13, T.C. Memo 2002-167, CCH Dec. 54,805(M) (2002); Reinhart v. United States, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,658 (W.D. Tex. 2003); Fink v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 976, T.C. Memo 2003-61, CCH Dec. 55,068(M) (2003); Flathers v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, T.C. Memo 2003-60, CCH Dec. 55,067(M) (2003); Schroeder v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 220, T.C. Memo 2002-211, CCH Dec. 54,851(M) (2002), aff’d, 2003-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,511 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1220 (2004); Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-268, CCH Dec. 56,200(M) (2005); Ho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-41, CCH Dec. 56,447(M) (2006).

And you, Mr. Eastman, want Wikipedia editors like me and BD2412 to get “on point” -- to play along with you and your “74 questions?” You want to be taken seriously here in Wikipedia?

One of the hallmarks of tax protester rhetoric here in Wikipedia and elsewhere is the infantile tactic of demanding that government employees or legal experts or others somehow “prove” to the tax protesters that the tax protesters are wrong about the tax law, with many tax protesters apparently feeling that the tax protesters (not the courts) should somehow be the final arbiters of whether the tax protesters are right. Many protesters say things like: “Show me the law that makes me liable for the tax.”

When tax protesters make demands like this, they are not really asking for an answer that they will accept. Indeed, any answer the government or anyone else gives them – especially citations to the specific code sections and case law -- that does not comport with their own view is rejected and “rationalized” away. Tax protesters argue that they “study” the same statutes, regs, and court decisions as legal experts. Yet, in court, tax protesters are losers on the arguments they claim are “correct.”

Mr. Eastman, here’s a clue for you: With some exceptions, government employees are under no moral or legal obligation to respond to questions from you, Mr. Dale Eastman, about the validity or meaning of the tax laws, any more than they are under an obligation to respond to questions about the validity or meaning of the laws on contracts, or property, or murder, or the environment, etc. Here is another clue: I and the other editors of Wikipedia are under no moral or legal obligation to you to answer your 74 questions. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to try to extract the answers from me or BD2412 or anyone else.

The laws -- the statutes, regulations, court decisions, etc. -- are required to be published as a matter of public record -- and are a matter of public record. In addition, the IRS and other government agencies publish mountains of forms, instructions, and other secondary materials to explain the law. Some publications include citations to specific statutory and regulatory provisions. Others do not.

However, neither the IRS, nor the President, nor your Congressman, nor the tax lawyers, nor the CPAs, nor the law professors, nor anyone else on the planet is under some sort of “obligation” – moral, legal, or otherwise -- to persuade you or prove to you that the law is what they say the law is. Some people of course may make efforts to educate you – but they are not here to prove to you to your own personal satisfaction that they are correct and that you are wrong.

You might want to ask yourself this question: Why don’t government employees and Wikipedia editors and other people want to debate with Mr. Dale Eastman and other people who espouse tax protester arguments? Ahhhh! Is it because they fear that Mr. Dale Eastman is right, and all the Congressman, IRS employees, lawyers, CPAs, and tax professors are wrong? Is it because they are engaged in a vast, selfish conspiracy to protect their own jobs and economic interests?

Mr. Eastman, I hope this won’t come as too much of a shock, but the reason that most people don’t want to debate you or discuss with you the tax law and your interpretation of the tax law is that most people DON’T CARE what your interpretation of the tax law is. Based on what appear to be your own implied admissions, and based on the enormous amount of verbiage you have posted on your web site, you, Mr. Eastman, do not have the knowledge to be taken seriously when you speak or write about tax law matters. Virtually any lawyers, CPAs, tax professors, IRS employees, etc., etc., who bother to review your materials will quickly see them for what they are: attempts by a untutored person to formulate his own, idiosyncratic interpretation of a mind-numbingly complex subject.

Let’s look again at one of your posts. You made the following comments, in referring to me and statements I made about your idiosyncratic way of “analyzing” tax law:

You [Famspear] have no "authority"; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis [[ . . . . ] You have no authority; no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed [sic] person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not [sic] see it, the lurkers who will read this can not see it. A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I do not worship at the alter [sic] of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials, I pay attention to whether the credentialed person says things that make sense. Remember, on the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog. Your paragraphs 8 through 14 have been neutralized. With 8 through 14 neutralized, support for your naked assertions in paragraphs 5,6,7,15,16,& 17 is also neutralized. The playing field is now level.

Again, you seem to have a strong urge to debate with me and BD2412 about whether your “analysis results” are right or wrong. You may want to ask yourself why you feel that way. The rest of us don’t care.

In reference to my comments about the importance of legal education in developing the ability to do proper legal analysis, you said:

because you [Famspear] say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: ‘Because I'm the Mommy, that's why.’

Your reference to “Mommy” is interesting (see below). Also, I, Famspear, did not “say so” on any “authority of my education.” Again, I did not mention that I was a lawyer until you brought it up first. Had I not happened to have already listed my legal background (in addition to my interest in airplanes, baseball, and other things) on my own Wikipedia user page, you would not have known I am a lawyer. Here in Wikipedia, one does not need expert credentials to edit in an area of expertise. Yet you, Mr. Eastman, chose to make my credentials and those of Mr. BD2412 an important part of your attempt here to get us to answer your “74 questions.” As we say in the legal profession, you yourself “opened the door” when you made other peoples’ credentials an issue.

You have informed other people of the existence of your own web site, through the talk (discussion) pages of Wikipedia. Other people can read your materials. A few people may be persuaded by what you write. In my opinion you are doing yourself, your family, and your readers a disservice. If you have any IRS problems because you have not complied with the tax laws, you are a “player,” of course. I hope for your sake and that of your family you are not a player in that game.

Mr. Eastman, in the “game” of enforcing the tax law (i.e., the job of IRS employees), in the game of representing taxpayers with tax problems in dealing with the IRS (my job), in the game of pontificating about what is or is not the law (the job of legal experts), you simply are not a significant player.

I am not your therapist or your “Mommy.” You may want to consider, however, whether your attempt to engage in a debate or discussion or question and answer session with me or BD2412 or others is part of your attempt to set other people up as your Authority Figure -- your substitute “Mommy” -- so that you can then try to tear the Authority Figure down. Whatever problems you may have had with Mommy or Daddy (or whoever in your personal life is really behind all this) are for you to sort out by yourself. For purposes of Wikipedia, what I, Famspear believe or say about the tax law should not even matter to you, Mr. Dale Eastman -- just as what you believe or say about the tax law does not matter to most of the rest of us here in Wikipedia. The rest of us are here to edit Wikipedia.

You, Mr. Eastman, seem to have a burning urge to have me or BD2412 answer the “74 questions” you want to pose to us. I gently suggest that you go back and think hard about your underlying motivation, and the underlying reasons for your anger. I and the other editors of Wikipedia do not want to know what your motivation and reasons are. We are not your therapists. You sort it out.

I have given you just one example of a Federal tax case (Merchants’ Loan) where your interpretation was legally incorrect, and I have given you some hints as to why it is incorrect. That is enough. I feel no urge to prove to you or to myself that you are wrong and I am right. My daily energies are aimed at real life. Real life for me is dealing with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of taxpayers, not at debating with you or answering your “74 questions.” Please stop using Wikipedia to try to get me and other editors to answer your questions. You have been wasting your time, and Wikipedia is not the proper forum for what you are trying to do.

Good luck, Famspear 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Far better to discuss fuure interests in real property like fee simple determinable or in trusts, like the rule agianst prepetuities than to talk to a stone wall ;). John wesley 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Good luck, fammy... P.S. I may get to meet Marv Chirelstien. John wesley 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)