User talk:Famspear/Archive11

Bob Hurt/Lawsuit and Vandalism
I deleted Bob Hurt’s hate rant on the Florida Supreme Court and I know you've had run ins with him on this stuff before. His and his JAIL4Judges friends like Nancy Jo Grant are suing the FL Supreme Court and are trying to use the Florida Supreme Court page as a dumping ground, something he admits to in his own emails. http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen/browse_thread/thread/2fba73af47606638 Bob’s been blocked and banned before Bob. I am requesting that happen again. 91.193.130.16 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Patriot
I have proposed to move this article. Please comment at its talk page. Gazpacho 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

An invitation
Hey Famspear, I have enjoyed working with you on the Tom Cryer article and see your work on other tax protester articles. I am an admin over on another project called RationalWiki. Our goal is to analyze and refute various crank theories, at the moment we are biased heavily on pseudoscience type stuff but if you ever felt the urge to write some fully POV stuff debunking tax protester arguments I would love to invite you over. Tmtoulouse 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll check it out. Famspear 00:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Two issues you may wish to address...
1. User:Mpublius has created an article on Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., a case which is often cited erroneously by tax protesters. I am familiar with the case only in passing; I will read it again and make additions to it when I can, but I am quite busy with other things right now (both on Wikipedia and in real life). I just wanted you to know about this because I have seen that he has been edit warring with you on the Tom Cryer article and elsewhere.

2. I don't know how much you know about Antitrust, but I am attempting to rewrite and rehabilitate the article on the USDOJ/FTC merger guidelines. This is proving to be a much bigger task than I had anticipated. I have already removed all the unsourced POV material which had previously been there, and I have been in the process of rewriting the entire article from the ground up. Any assistance you could offer in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Nice to talk to you again, --Eastlaw 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks -- Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is already on my list. And I don't know anything about antitrust, but I'll be glad to offer my meager talents on that.


 * Stay tuned! Yours, Famspear 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! Wait a minute, I edit primarily in legal articles, especially tax law articles. Isn't tax law the most glamorous topic in all of Wikipedia?

Oh, wait. Maybe I need to get out more! Yours, Famspear 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
I am relatively new to content disputes on Wikipedia and I wanted to pause a moment to thank you for your considered, thoughtful response that was both compelling and (most importantly to me) civil. It was partly because I recognized that, from you, I would get such a response that I decided to comment on the RfC. I better understand your position (as well as policy) because of it, for which I am grateful. I hope you didn't think that I came with an agenda to support the fringe view, which isn't the case. In any event, thank you. Maxims for me to remember are that neutral point of view is not complete neutrality and that not all research is original.  Into The Fray  T / C  23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Tax season, more or less, approaches. I have created User:Into The Fray/Into The Fray's 2006 1040 and hope that you'll take a look at last year's filing and give me your thoughts on it.  Cheers,  Into The Fray   T / C  23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Into the Fray: Thanks! I have responded on the talk page for the Tom Cryer article. Yours, Famspear 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user
Comment regarding. You may want to check his contribs and his block log (which was longer). His edits are also very similar to N0_D1C4. He seems like a POV pusher that is now working his way to Strom Thurmond‎, whose edits in the past reveal deletions of valid citations.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
In the event that it seemed I was suggesting otherwise, I just wanted to be clear that I didn't think for a moment that you were doing anything malicious or unwarranted with your revert. I thought I'd say this here, since it's not really relevant on the talk page at this point. Regards,  Into The Fray  T / C  22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Into The Fray: No, and actually I was just concerned that my edit would be seen as inappropriately "stepping on" your discussion with Mpublius (not knowing what rule if any that might violate). Thanks for your continued input on the article in question. By the way, if you haven't yet reviewed the edit history of Mpublius, a review is enlightening on the thought process. In particular, see the Mpublius statements earlier today about the United States being a "police state" (talk page for America: Freedom to Fascism. The assumption of good faith is fraying thin. We are dealing with someone with a strong political agenda, and I'm afraid that no amount of logic -- or any appeal to Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- is going to change the behavior. Famspear 22:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't, actually, until you suggested it. When I go into RfC's, I generally like to review little about those involved: a glance at their user page, their user talk page.  I was sincere when I said I didn't even realize Mr. Rubin was an administrator.  I knew you were a lawyer and that was about it.  I hadn't intended to become as involved with the article as I have, but my discussion with you was so interesting that I got hooked.  In any event, here's a legal question for you: Can one libel the dead ?  Cheers,  Into The Fray   T / C  00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Into The Fray: Regarding the question: Can one libel the dead?

First, as you know we do not give legal advice here in Wikipedia, and this is not an area I deal with at all. Having said that, my law school study was that the general rule in most USA jurisdictions is that there is no such thing as a defamation (whether libel, which is written, or slander, which is oral) of a dead person. Like many general rules, however, there are exceptions. For example, as I recall Oklahoma had a statute that provided for the possibility that someone could be liable for libel of a dead person. So, it depends on the law of each state. My guess would be that in most states, it's probably still the rule that there is no such thing as libel of a dead person. On the Federal level, there is essentially no general Federal common law covering defamation (either libel or slander), so I doubt that Federal law would be much of a problem. Yours, Famspear 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood regarding advice. And thank you for taking the time to answer my question, which was purely academic.  Cheers,  Into The Fray   T / C  01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Come around any time you want to talk about taxation, too (the world's most interesting topic, right?) Yours, Famspear 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely not nearly as riveting and popular as my career in the much-coveted world of insurance. :D  Take care,  Into The Fray   T / C  02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Flint v. Stone Tracy article
I noticed you removed material from a far-right tax-protester woo-woo crazy site...so I thought you would enjoy this essay about the views of these types of people. It's a very interesting look at the militia crowd's revisionist history and legal theory.

Enjoy. --Eastlaw 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, the Flint v. Stone Tracy article is on my list for a re-write. If I recall correctly the article was created by someone who has been pushing tax protester POV at Tom Cryer and other places. The last time I looked, the article didn't really address the facts and holdings in the case. Yours, Famspear 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer
I have decided to take the mediation case. I would like you to take part in the discussion-- Phoenix 15 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think I've participated in one before. Famspear 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks,  Daniel  13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax article up for deletion
The article Income tax and compensation for services has been nominated for deletion. I just thought you should know. Personally, I don't care if it does get deleted, as it is not a very good article. --Eastlaw 08:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe Francis
Thank you for the heads up. I have outlined the reasons on the Francis talk page. Good to meet you Jaydon Farrely 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The cabal
Wow, a cabal on tax protester. Am I in the club? I feel all special.. haha. Morphh  (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a point of adding my name to the latest dispute - Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-21 Tax protester. Still, please do take the first crack at it. My thinking would be to cite a few dozen court cases that use the term specifically as the article does. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Morphh, you definitely are (and should be) in the club! And BD2412, it's good to hear from you! I wish you could spend more time in the tax-related articles, like in the old days!


 * I've added an introductory comment to the cabal page. Yours, Famspear 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I ended up doing some hand holding on the ref... I was tired of reading about it... although I didn't actually inserted the ref, just showed how it should look.  Morphh   (talk) 0:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester argument and amendment resolutions
Hi Famspear,

I wrote this long message and right before I was about to send it realized that because of the title of the section ("Repeal clause arguments") it makes this message slightly incorrect but still potentially helpful (I had thought the title of the section was "Repeal arguments" not "Repeal clause arguments" and by doing so was a little harsh on Evans). I've used Wikipedia for a long time but had not edited it until then. I'm learning as I go, and figured I'd get an account if I end up liking editing :). But hey I took the time to write this so here you go, I still think that the section could use slight adjustment ;)

---

Other than what was already on Wikipedia (the images of the resolutions) I hadn't looked into any other sources that might have commented on Evans' argument. What led me to look into this was Evans saying "if this argument were valid...", which seemed to be a biased POV but possibly correct. So I figured I should see for myself so I went to the wiki pages for the 12th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. I clicked on the scanned images of the resolutions and started reading each from the beginning. And so when I found out that the resolutions of the amendments he cited did specifically mention they were intended to invalidate existing Constitutional law, whereas the 16th Amendment resolution made no mention, it to me made Evans sound almost like he was setting up a straw man and knocking him down.

The argument he is trying to debunk basically says that the 16th Amendment does not repeal existing law. Our courts, in theory, take into account both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It is clear that the 12th and 17th amendments Evans cited were to replace existing law. What isn't clear is why Congress would break tradition for that particular amendment and neglect to say it replaces law.

However to be fair to Evans, he does technically debunk the argument in the form as presented in the wiki. But again, what the argument is essentially trying to say is that the amendment was an addition not a replacement.

OK well sorry if I was confusing, I'm still getting the hang of all this :). What I told you is pretty much all I know about that, so go ahead and edit it how you see fit.  One last thing is, I don't really know how to figure out where the original argument came from.  But I have an unfounded suspicion that it came from the same page/source that Evans "debunked" it on.  If that's true, I believe that does have significance because it wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to discredit a group by misrepresenting an argument and debunking the misrepresentation (whether intentional or not).  One example I've seen that comes to mind relates to 9/11 conspiracy theories.  A conspiracy theorist might say "Jet fuel can't melt steel, it isn't hot enough", and then the 'debunker' might say "Well it didn't need to because it just had to weaken the supports which then sagged and caused the floors to pancake. Sorry, you're debunked!" But in this case the 'debunker' doesn't mention that hot molten metal was actually dug up weeks later and was still hotter than one would expect.  I wish I could think of a better (and less controversial) example at this time.  Oh and sorry about the long winded message :).

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.67.226 (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear user at IP68.185.67.226: Well, regarding what Evans is saying, you could say that it is "biased POV" -- and that Evans is indeed correct. His point of view (POV) is based on an analysis of the law, and once he reaches a legal conclusion he is, like any other person, in some sense "biased" in favor of that conclusion, which in this case happens to be a correct conclusion from a legal standpoint.


 * I would further point out that Evans is a source. That is, Evans is not the one editing the Wikipedia article. Evans is being cited by the Wikipedia editor who inserted his material (I think that was me, if I recall correctly). In Wikipedia, all sources, almost by definition, are indeed allowed to be "biased" and are allowed have "points of view" that do not have to be neutral.


 * There is a rule about Neutral Point of View (NPOV) in Wikipedia, but the NPOV rule simply does not prohibit the use of biased sources or biased material, as odd as that may sound. The NPOV rule instead means that Wikipedia itself does not take a position within the article that "this source is correct" or "that source is wrong". NPOV relates to how the material is presented.


 * To digress a bit, I would note that one common tactic of tax protesters is to make a particular claim and then, when a legal expert calls the protester on that claim, to complain that the legal expert is setting up a "strawman" and that the protester "didn't really say that" or that the protester's argument is a bit different from the way the argument was characterized by the legal expert.


 * Similarly, I even had one protester (who presumably lived in Oklahoma) argue one time that non-government employees who were residents of Oklahoma were not subject to Federal income tax, under the silly "rule" (made up by tax protesters) that Oklahoma and the other 49 states are not "states" under the Internal Revenue Code, and that somehow the supposed "fact" that they are not "states" should mean he could not be taxed. When court cases were cited to him showing that courts have always rejected this argument, he complained that the cases did not really contradict the "rule" he and other protesters had set up, because each of the cases involved residents in some state other than Oklahoma. Many times where a tax protester argument loses in court (and protester arguments lose every time they are presented), other protesters argue that the facts or the arguments just weren't presented quite right, or the right magical words weren't used by the protester in just the right way, or that some insignificant fact in the case was important to the outcome (when of course it wasn't) and the facts are "different" in other cases. In the Oklahoma fellow's case, although he was correct that none of the cases specifically involved residents of Oklahoma, his argument was of course intellectual dishonesty, quite apart from being totally incorrect as legal analysis.


 * An integral part of the scheme of many tax protesters is the process of making up non-existent rules of law. The Sixteenth Amendment argument that Evans is debunking involves an example of that. Indeed, virtually all tax protester arguments are based on non-existent rules made up by the tax protesters, using "logic" (if you will) that does not conform to the rules of legal analysis. Yours, Famspear 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's the verbiage from the tax protester web site linked in the article:


 * That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States did not repeal the Constitutional apportionment restrictions imposed on direct taxes by the Constitution for the united States of America, Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, and Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four, thus, taxes on personal property are direct taxes, not taxable by the federal government unless apportioned according to the census of the union states.

Daniel Evans does not refer specifically to the web site containing this argument. That, however, is not required. Again, this is very typical tax protester rhetoric. The verbiage offers no rule of law to support this theory about "repeal" (as, indeed, there is no such rule of law). Daniel Evans is merely pointing out the incorrect nature of this kind of argument. Evans is not required, and the courts are not required, to address every single possible permutation or possible variation on an argument based on an imaginary rule, or to show why every possible variation on the argument is legally invalid. It is the tax protester who must show that his or her theory has legal validity. Indeed, that's a responsibility of anyone who chooses to raise a particular point in court. Famspear 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one odd thing about the quoted material is that the final conclusion -- that "taxes on personal property are direct taxes" -- is actually correct! The problem is that the concluding statement does not support, and has nothing to do with, the frivolous argument that tax protesters try to use, namely the laughable argument that Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned among the states by population and (since income taxes aren't apportioned), that Federal income taxes are somehow invalid. Yours, Famspear 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Tom Cryer article
An RFA for the Tom Cryer article has been filed in which you are a party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MEDCAB Case Tax Protester
Hello!

I'm Aeon and I will be your Mediation Cabalist for your issue. I'm currently reviewing all statements, difs and said article and will be able to start the mediation soon. All involved parties if you could please leave quick note (no need to make any further statements until I'm ready to begin) saying if you are still willing to undergo mediation. Please keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal cannot and will not enforce the ultimate consensus that will hopefully be gained from this and it will be up to the involved parties to uphold the agreement. Also during the mediation all parties will remain civil (Per WP:CIVIL) and will treat each other with respect. Thank you Æon  Insanity Now!  17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Confirmation of agreement to the mediation posted a few minutes ago, at Yours, Famspear 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick roger up on the mediation. Æon Insanity Now!  18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE My apologies to all, my computer crashed and I was with out internet for the last few days. The Mediation is now open I will be posting my views and opinions with in the next hour. Æon Insanity Now!  18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Famspear, just thought I'd through out the thought of reporting Mpublius to ANI or something. These RFC and Mediations are getting out of hand and he's using the system for every small dispute that doesn't go his way. I'm all for the process, it is there to help the minority but he's abusing the system in my opinion. I'm not quite sure how best to handle it. Morphh  (talk) 14:22, 09 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Morphh: Yes, I also view this as an abuse of the system by Mpublius, but I'm not familiar with the details of the rules on this, either. You are exactly right. It's as though he's just toying with Wikipedia editors. Should I will ask an administrator or someone who knows more about this stuff for advice on how to handle it? Yours, Famspear 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'd leave it alone. He will quickly establish his level of credibility in those proceedings. Let him have all the rope he desires. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: Interesting point. Famspear 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts
I just finished writing up an article over at rationalwiki (I had told you about before if you remember) on "pseudolaw" I would like your thoughts if you have the time: here. Tmtoulouse 19:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985
What do you make of the recent changes to this article? It now seems to me to be saying that if you receive payment in valuable coins, you only have to declare the face value of the coins (which can't be right). I looked up bullion on the IRS tax protester FAQ, and the only relevant thing it said was:
 * Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846, 855 (6th Cir. 2000) – in regard to defendant’s argument “that imposing sales tax on the sale of legal-tender silver and gold coins unconstitutionally interferes with Congress's exclusive power to coin money is simply untenable,” the court recognized that “most, if not all, of the courts that have considered this issue have held that imposing sales tax on the purchase of gold and silver coins and bullion for cash does not infringe on Congress's constitutional power to coin and regulate currency.” See also United States v. Davenport, 824 F.2d 1511, 1521 (7th Cir. 1987).

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear bd2412: Let me do a little research on this, and I'll get back to you. Yours, Famspear 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, but you are right in that it does now lean too far into the tax issues. Perhaps those should instead be worked into some tax protester article (or even the Gross Income article)? Is this even much of a tax protester theory? It is a new one to me. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear bd2412: Yes, I'm wondering whether this theory is primarily a tax protester theory, or really just a "regular" theory that was quickly shot down in the courts. Tax protesters might be starting to pick up on it, though (I need to read some more cases to see). If enough people keep re-arguing a theory that has already been ruled for years and years to be without merit, then re-arguing the same thing can obviously be deemed to be engaging in frivolous litigation -- of which tax protester litigation is only one variety.


 * Maybe the section should be moved to the "gross income" article, with a shorter reference in the "gold bullion coin act" article and a link to the more detailed discussion in the "gross income" article??? Famspear 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My thinking on this is that the argument would apply to all collectible coins, not just those minted under this Act. It certainly seems to be the kind of dodge tax protesters would latch onto. If so, perhaps a separate article entirely is in order. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Famspear
Well, the good news is that I just got word that I passed the NJ Bar Exam. The bad news is that the job market here sucks. So, if you need help out in Texas, let me know...I will have to take the Texas Bar but I don't figure that I would have a problem learning the material (though I hear the Texas exam is pretty hard). --Eastlaw (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Once you pass the bar of any state, you can waive into the Washington, D.C. Bar; if you wait a few years, you get great comity with other states. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eastlaw: Congratulations! Famspear 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin.
If you'd really like to be able to look at the content of deleted articles, I may have to nominate you for an adminship. Are you up for it? bd2412 T 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear bd2412: Well, I didn't really need to see the content of the article -- which has now mysteriously re-appeared for some reason. The article is Shaun Kranish. I was just curious yesterday (Monday) as to why it was suddenly red-linked in the article Edward and Elaine Brown. When I tried to find the Kranish article, I could no longer locate it, and I could find no discussion of its having been deleted. I deleted the link to the Kranish article in the Brown article. Now, this morning (Tuesday) I see that the Kranish article is back again, so my request is moot.


 * Anyway, on adminship -- I haven't been involved very much in Wikipedia "projects" over the nearly two years that I have been participating here. I've just been editing articles, and not creating articles. As you know, I edit mostly in the tax law area.


 * I know that you and one other editor have previously suggested adminiship for me. Is there anything I should do, or read up on, before I decide whether to go for it? Yours, Famspear 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is generally a good idea to peruse the discussions on the Requests for Adminship to get a sense of what goes on there, what people are looking for or objecting to, and so forth. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, about Shaun Kranish, I asked the deleting admin to restore it, but it must be reliably sourced or it will be deleted again. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, Shaun Kranish will be re-deleted if it is not sourced. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear bd2412: Thanks. It's fine with me if the article is re-deleted. Although I had previously edited the article, my only interest in this was in wondering how the article got deleted without my noticing it, and whether there was some sort of discussion page about the deletion. Personally, I think the subject of the article is only barely notable, if that. I apologize for not being clear. Yours, Famspear 19:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

EECavazos
Hey Famspear, thanks for the compliment. I'm starting to enter the journeyman level of expertise from the novice level. If you notice me committing any inapprioriate edits or edits that could otherwise be improved, please let me know. Stay well,EECavazos (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on keepin' on! Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Section of Taxation in the United States
If you look at the section Taxation_in_the_United_States, this list is the exact same one that Aaron Russo used in his stupid America: Freedom to Fascism movie. Half the items on the list aren't really "taxes", but rather user fees (which I always thought the libertarian-types supported). Do you think it is a good idea to trim this section down, eliminate this section entirely, or just leave it alone? --Eastlaw (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Eastlaw: Wow, what a mess. I quickly deleted some of the obvious stuff. Maybe this can be salvaged? This is going to take some work. Famspear (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Grand Tutnum
FYI - I just noticed that you've achived the status of Veteran Editor II (or Grand Tutnum). Congrats! Morphh  (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mpublius and his ilk
I'll absolutely support you in whatever action you choose to bring against misguided souls such as Mpublius. In light of his behavior with respect to the processes he has initiated himself, I doubt he'll participate much in any such proceeding, to his detriment. I added a bit to the Springer case, and will look at Flint tomorrow. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and could you put a few words into Appellate court? I think in time it will be built up to a Good Article. Cheers again! bd2412 T 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear BD2412: Thanks! Famspear (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may notice, by the way, that I've nominated United States Tax Court for Good Article status. Fingers crossed! I suppose it could use a picture of the courtroom or the building, if a free one can be dug up. Cheers! bd2412  T 05:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tax levies
I noticed you made a few changes to my submission on Tax Levies. Good job. This was my first article so I am learning. I am a tax attorney specializing in IRS collection actions and abuse. In the next article I will try to include statutory and case citations to increase the usefulness of the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miknag (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And every Wikipedia article is a work in progress. By the way, on talk ("discussion") pages for users (like this one) and in talk pages for the articles themselves, you can add your own "Miknag" signature at the end of your comments by using four "tilde" characters, like this: ~ . After you save the comment, your signature will appear as "Miknag," with the date automatically shown. Famspear 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

United States Tax Court
Hi Famspear, United States Tax Court has been evaluated for good article status, and has been found lacking in the POV and citations department (although I think the problem is primarily citations, particularly for potentially controversial statements). Can you help with that? Cheers! bd2412 T 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear bd2412: I will try to take a look at this one tonight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Jewry
Hey you ace Wikipedian. I guess I am violating NPOV by pointing out an objective fact about the members of the Federal Reserve? NPOV NPOV: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. NPOV NPOV: John F. Kennedy is Catholic! Hmm that's a new one. And original research -- yes I will gladly source this simple and well publicized fact. I just don't see why you're not objecting to the many other unsourced facts on the page. And my lol my 'original research'. Are you serious? If you're going to accuse me of that, then please blow up wikipedia -- because it seems that all other contributors researched their facts from other sources, hopefully -- is this 'original research' or are you implying I interviewed them and wrote a biography or something? Please read the discussion page, because I'm started my own notable, accurate, and relevant stub: Demographics of the Federal Reserve of the United States. P.S. thanks for the lesson in homonyms -- something that made sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GRAT etc
Thanks for your edits on GRAT etc.--Nowa (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Famspear (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird stubby article
OK, I ran across another one of Mpublius' bizarre "creations", Income tax cases. I have absolutely no idea what the hell this article is referring to. Should we put it up for AfD, or do you have any better ideas? --Eastlaw (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Eastlaw: Yes, this is a classic case for deletion. I had found this a while back and had never gotten back to it. I'm kinda snowed under at the moment. If you want to nominate it for deletion, I'll certainly contribute to the discussion!


 * By the way, weren't you recently admitted to the bar? Congratulations! Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I just PRODed it, let's see if that helps. I haven't seen Mpublius make any edits in the past few weeks, so hopefully he is gone for good.  And yes, I did get admitted to the NJ Bar.  :-)  --Eastlaw (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of IANAL
An editor has nominated IANAL, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxing and spending
Thank you for looking over my revamp of the article. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also wondering: is there a way to better organize the reference on this page? And, Im wondering if the article should maybe have something under the general welfare clause section about earmarks. What do you think? Foofighter20x (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Foofighter20x: You're welcome. On organizing the references, I'll take another look at the article. Famspear (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A litte help, please? Seems some editors are angry about the moving of what was essentially a tax article under the "General Welfare Clause" article heading to the Taxing and Spending Clause. This really is bumming me out about people in general, too. You can't change facts by committee. *sigh* Foofighter20x (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia in judicial opinions
I've started a little project here, to which you are invited to add (I currently get 224 hits on LexisNexis, and anticipate many more). Cheers! bd2412 T 08:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BD2412/draft RfC
Ok, I've had it with the random POV tags and the like. Please comment on this draft RfC which I intend to bring within the week. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy thought regarding labels
Famspear, in one of your comments on the Tax protester talk, you stated "If, for example, a liberal think tank supports a particular position about whether the Alternative Minimum Tax is good or bad, it is OK to document that in Wikipedia with an adequate description that it is the liberal think tank that is taking that position." Not that this matters to the discussion there, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss as I disagree with the statement if you were meaning to assign a label to the think tank in an outside article (outside from the article about the organization). If you said for instance, "the liberal Brookings Institution says xyz". I think instead you should leave off the label and let the wikilink aid the reader if they want more about the political leaning of the institution. Just say "the Brookings Institution says xyz". Otherwise, I think it is a form of poisoning the well. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. The intent of adding the label is to imply bias, and thus I think the material can not be fairly represented without bias. It seems to set up the perception that one view is more correct then the other, based on political labels. NPOV states we should not asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Such a label would seem to be applied in the attempt to add a pejorative inflection to the data presented. Now if the statement is directly about the think tank being liberal or conservative and the effect of it on the data, then I think it would be ok, but I disagree with just assigning a label just as a passing descriptor in outside articles. Something to think about. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. That was a mistake on my part. Wikipedia itself should not label the organization as "liberal." Actually, in the particular case of Brookings, if I recall I was responding to the comment of another editor who was arguing that Brookings could not be used as a source because Brookings was biased to the liberal side. I do not mean to imply that Wikipedia itself should attach the label "liberal," and my quotation example was careless.


 * Of course, in some other context, if you were in an article on Brookings and some reliable third party source characterized Brookings as "liberal", Wikipedia could report that -- without taking a position on whether the third party source is correct in its characterization of Brookings. Famspear (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While this does seem to be the overall consensus from a village pump policy discussion and talking with others, I've run into disagreement on the issue (BHI label). At this point, I've left such a label but I still don't agree with the use.  Morphh   (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxing and Spending Clause
This is your subject. Do you have an opinion on what this article should be called (see the Move discussion)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MSN Money article on tax protesters
Thought you might be interested - Feds crack down on tax protesters, MSN Money, January 25, 2008. This could serve as a source in a number of those articles. bd2412 T 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good one.. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does cover a lot of ground (and justifies citing Dan Evans as a "leading authority" to boot). bd2412  T 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I caught that as well. :-) Morphh   (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put together some materials for a draft re-write of that section at User:BD2412/Tax protesters - the role of courts. Feel free to work on it as well! bd2412  T 07:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright ? Something to look at
I haven't had time yet, but a large amount of material added by User:Walter Hemmings (including the article Real property use tax that you posted in a bit ago) seems to be sourced to Gillis. With the amount of instantly added material coming from a single source - I'm wondering if we may have a copyright problem. I've never read Gillis and I have no evidence that Walter copied material; it just looked a little odd so I thought I would bring it up. Morphh  (talk) 20:21, 01 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Morphh: I think we should ask editor BD2412. He is the copyright law guy. I'll drop him a line. Famspear (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS
Famspear, noticed some manual of style things that I wanted to mention. It seems you capitalize "Federal" a lot. Unless that is part of a name, I don't think it would be a proper noun that would be capitalized. I could be wrong...  Also, I've noted that when doing quotes, you sometimes include punctuation in the quotes, which may not be in the actual quote (see WP:PUNC). I know you won't take this the wrong way or as some critique. I think you do excellent work. I just figured if I was doing something that our MOS suggested should be presented in a different way, I'd want someone to tell me. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the capitalized "Federal" thing that I do is just a habit.


 * On quotations, I wonder if you're talking about single quotation marks (like 'xxxxx') and double quotation marks ("xxxxx"). I think it is customary in some places (but maybe not in Wikipedia) where you are quoting material and enclosing it in regular double quotation marks (the "xxxxx") to convert any such quotation marks that are already found in the original material to single quotation marks, like this: 'xxxxx'. I think this "rule" (if it is a rule) does not apply where you are using a block quote or indentation (where you would just leave the double quotation marks as is). However, I don't have any authority to cite for these "rules" I just described, and anyway they might not be same as the Wikipedia rules. You are probably a lot more knowledgeable about the Wikipedia style than I am.


 * I confess that although I would be a stickler for following something like the Harvard Bluebook (A Uniform System of Citation) in formal legal publications (that is, if I ever published an article in a formal law review or law journal, which I have not yet done), I am neverthless kinda sloppy on things like this in Wikipedia. I need to study the Wikipedia Manual of Style, etc. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to putting a period or comma inside the quotation - like this edit.  "Compensation Clause," should be "Compensation Clause",  - comma outside the quote.  Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation.  I think you're find regarding double and single quotes.   Morphh   (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. Famspear (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

rollback
You could use rollback, so I gave it to you. This is the full spiel. Cheers, NoSeptember  14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

--Thanks! Famspear (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Guardian
Thanks for telling me about the "family guardian" website. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Famspear (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester constitutional arguments FAC
I have nominated Tax protester constitutional arguments as a feature article candidate. If you're interested in responding to comments and addressing any issues that arise, please add the above FAC page to your watchlist. Also consider voting on the article. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 17:53, 03 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Editor Morphh: Yes, I just saw that! Thanks! Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Famspear, I was just reading the external links on this article. The last external link states "Website of tax protester attorney Tom Cryer who recently won against the IRS."  Since the context of the article is constitutional arguments, which Tom Cryer certainly has not "won",  shouldn't we reword this for the proper context of his "victory"?  I also noted that he is not linked in the body of the article anywhere.  Is there anyplace to use him as a protestor that makes one of the arguments listed?.Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 0:39, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: I'll check this out. But in the meantime, I've changed the description, which was misleading in that it seemed to imply that Cryer won on a tax protester argument. Let me take a look at this later tonight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: On second thought, I simply deleted the link, since we already have a link to the Wikipedia article on Cryer. What do you think? Also, I guess we should look at the links to other articles, like the one to Devvy Kidd (?). Famspear (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with deleting the external link. I expected the only reason it was there was to represent another POV.  If we have any links that represent a protestor POV on constitutional arguments that might provide additional information beyond the article, then it would be good to include if it meets our WP:EL policy.  Problem is our External link policy states we should avoid linking to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."  This would seem to pretty much exclude the inclusion of tax protester websites as external links.  With regard to additional see also links, use your best judgement on articles that are related.  Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also", but do what makes sense for a reader that may be looking for similar information.  We should probably have a mention of Devvy Kidd in the section regarding ratification, since it appears she's notable enough to have an article.   We also have the tax protestor section in the U.S. taxation template, including a show/hide command that can reference additional articles.  Morphh   (talk) 2:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester sourcing.
To assist with the secondary sourcing, I've made a pretty thorough list of the "tax protesters believe" points raised by Jackson in his Gonzaga law review article, which I have left on the FAC page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and I believe I have a copy of the Jackson article at home. Unfortunately, I actually do not have immediate access to Westlaw or Lexis at home or work (I used the CCH online tax service). I have hard copies of only two or three law review articles on tax protester type subjects right now. In a pinch, I can get other copies from friends who do have Westlaw or Lexis, though. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Citizen of the several states
More tax protester-type garbage. I'm going to take this on, but may require an assist. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Baxter v Us
Hey Famspear,

I REALLY appreciate your assistance with this article... it needed the eye of somebody familiar with the law and with access to the actual case. Thanks. The one thing I did want to mention to you, and you may already know it, but "Id" isn't really a good reference practice on an electronic encyclopedia. The problem with it is that you never know if somebody down the road is going to enter a new citation. This would then make it look as if the "id" is pointing to a different source than it really should. The way to handle this is:

Then subsequent references to the same reference can be done as:

Where shortname is a short (non numeric) name that can be used to describe the reference. For example, on this article, I changed all of your ID to have a name of "case". Again, thanks for your help with the article!Balloonman (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just about to leave you a message of thanks on cleaning that up for me. Despite having been here a while, I am really weak on some of the technical computer coding aspects of Wikipedia, especially the coding for the footnotes. I need to take the time to learn this stuff.


 * By the way, I will try to get back to this article in the next few days. I think I left some of the legal description part of it "hanging" a bit. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: When I say "legal description" I mean the description of the facts of the court case, the issues presented to the court, and the court's rulings. Much of the essential stuff is there, but I just haven't had a chance to give the article the full attention it deserves. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I love about Wikipedia... you would never have written this article, but now that it has been started, you are making sure that it is up to snuff from a more legal perspective. True collaboration!Balloonman (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep (Texas for "yes). Famspear (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

NTU
Hi Famspear. I noticed your edits to the National Taxpayers Union article today. This might be of interest to you. I haven't had time to parse the edits that were made by the organization today. Just an FYI if you weren't already aware. · jersyko   talk  19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Jersyko: Thanks, and I wasn't aware of that. Famspear (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We may have another one...
User:Jon Roland does not appear to have been active for a while, but he created two pages which may be of interest to you: Territorial jurisdiction and Federal enclave (the latter of which cites notorious tax protester Larry Becraft). This user is a self-admitted member of the Libertarian Party of Texas and has involved himself with Bob Schulz's group "We the People". I didn't find any glaring legal errors in either article but you may want to check them for POV anyway. I know that this user was previously involved in some edit warring on the Constitutional militia movement page, and added this rather dodgy edit to Conference of Chief Justices.

I don't mean to seem like a WikiStalker here, and I hope I don't offend you by saying this, but I am personally suspicious of most of the American-style libertarians, as well as libertarian politics in general. My experience is that some of their ideas sound good on a superficial level, but they tend to carry them from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Editor Eastlaw: Thank you for the “heads up” on these articles! I will definitely check them out.


 * Regarding libertarians: Unfortunately, the libertarian movement does seem to attract tax protesters. (I don't have any statistics - this is just my perception based on the fact that I study tax protesters on almost a daily basis now, in my free time). That’s a shame, because although I am definitely not a libertarian, I assume that many libertarians probably are honest, non-delusional, psychologically normal people. The tax protesters tend to give the libertarians a bad reputation among people (like me) who study tax protesters.


 * There is a libertarian I discovered just the other day, named Sheldon Richman, who has debunked tax protesters. He has written a three-part essay on tax protesters, here:.


 * Anyway, I guess it goes without saying that I always appreciate any information on what appears to be possible tax protester-related activity in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't hold it against the party too much Eastlaw. Each group has their own extremists - just on different things.  Libertarians tend to attract those on the tax side since this is one of the group's major concerns, which is over taxation - smaller federal government - much more so then most Republicans.  Morphh   (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Found innocent by a jury
If someone is found innocent by a jury it's the same as if they're found innocent by a judge, that's how it works. Where is the law that says you have to file? I see voluntary compliance in the tax code... I wasn't sugesting the 16th amendment article was the place to disgucuss tax protests, I was observing that the talk page was being littered with name calling and not actual refudiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear IP68.151.173.229: I think you are confusing your legal concepts. You are now talking about something else. You are correct when you say that when someone is found innocent by a jury, it's the same as if they're found innocent by a judge. Indeed, in some criminal cases the defendant elects to have the case "tried to the court" or "tried to the bench," meaning that the defendant elects not to have a jury; the judge acts as the jury. So what?


 * No you do not "see voluntary compliance in the tax code". Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code does it say that compliance with the requirements to file federal income tax returns or to pay federal income taxes are somehow "voluntary." Further, the word "voluntary" is a word found in various court cases and in certain other places - not in the Code itself (in connection with the obligation to file income tax returns or pay income tax).


 * Again, you are confusing your legal concepts.


 * Tax protesters, for example, interpret the word "voluntary" to mean "not a legal obligation." Unfortunately, every place that the word "voluntary" is used in federal court cases about federal income tax, the word is used to mean something else. It's used in reference to the fact that the federal income tax is a "return reported tax" with respect to the ultimate taxpayer. What that means is that YOU THE TAXPAYER YOURSELF compute the tax and file the return. By contrast, an example of a non-voluntary tax is your local sales tax. Your local sales tax is not a "return reported tax" with respect to YOU, THE ULTIMATE TAXPAYER. In other words, YOU YOURSELF do not file the sales tax return. The seller at the store where you purchase the goods or services collects the sales tax by ADDING IT ON to the sales price at the checkout stand. You have no choice. If you want to buy the product, then you have to agree to be charged the sales tax. The checkout clerk "collects" the sales tax from you at the time of checkout, and the store files a monthly or quarterly sales tax return (for most or all of its sales for that period) and sends the tax to the state, etc.


 * Regarding your comment that you were "observing that the talk page was being littered with name calling and not actual refudiation [sic]" -- name calling does violate Wikipedia rules and guidelines.


 * By "refudiation" I assume that you meant "refutation." The purpose of the talk pages for the articles is to discuss what should or should not be in the articles. Yes, there will be some refutation of tax protester arguments in the talk pages, but that is incidental to the main purpose: to discuss what should and should not be in the articles.


 * I have studied tax protesters and their arguments intensively for many years. Wikipedia itself cannot take a "position" that tax protester arguments are scams and hoaxes (although I can tell you that tax protester arguments are indeed scams and hoaxes, etc.). Wikipedia can and does report what reliable sources say about tax protester arguments. I would suggest that you read the applicable articles on tax protester and the talk pages for those articles. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-script to IP68.151.173.229: On the meaning of the word "voluntary," here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:


 * Some tax protesters argue that filing of Federal income tax returns or payment of taxes is "voluntary" (in the sense of "not a legal obligation") based on language in the text of numerous court cases, such as the following: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint" (from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Flora v. United States. 362 U.S. 145 (1960). Flora was a decision on a rehearing affirming the decision in Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958).


 * In Flora, the Supreme Court ruled that a Federal District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit by a taxpayer for a Federal income tax refund where the taxpayer has not paid the entire amount assessed (the rule, known as the Flora full payment rule, does not apply to U.S. Tax Court cases or bankruptcy cases). Tax protesters sometimes cite the language in cases like Flora for the contention that filing of tax returns and paying taxes is not legally required, i.e., that the filing of returns and paying of taxes is, in that sense, "voluntary".


 * In the Flora case the taxpayer did not contend, and the court did not rule, that there was no legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay the related taxes. The Court's ruling in Flora was almost the opposite: the taxpayer was required to pay the full amount of tax claimed by the IRS to be owed by the taxpayer before the court would even hear a lawsuit by the taxpayer against the government to determine the correct amount of tax.


 * The quoted language from Flora refers to the Federal income tax: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." The key words are "voluntary" and "distraint." Like many legal terms, "voluntary" has more than one legal meaning. In the context of the quoted sentence, the income tax is voluntary in that the person bearing the economic burden of the tax is the one required to compute (assess) the amount of tax and file the related tax return. In this sense, a state sales tax is not a voluntary tax - i.e., the purchaser of the product does not compute the tax or file the related tax return. The store at which he or she bought the product computes the sales tax, charges the customer, collects the tax from him at the time of sale, prepares and files a monthly or quarterly sales tax return and remits the money to the taxing authority.


 * In Flora, the Court used the word "voluntary" in opposition to the word "distraint." Distraint is a legal term used in various contexts. For example, distraint is used to refer to the act of a landlord who withholds property of the tenant already in the landlord’s possession to secure payment of past due rent. The property "held for ransom," in a sense, is said to be "distrained," or "distressed." The key connotation of the word "distraint" is that there is often a taking of possession or withholding of property to induce a debtor to pay an obligation. Once the debt is paid, the property is released.


 * By contrast, the Internal Revenue Service does not seize the property of taxpayers each January to induce taxpayers to file a tax return and pay the tax by April 15th. The IRS relies on "voluntary" compliance as the term is used in this sense.


 * In the separate sense of the word "voluntary" in which some tax protesters use the term, the obligation to pay the tax and file the return is not voluntary -- for either income tax or sales tax. For example, the Internal Revenue Code is full of statutes specifically imposing the obligation to file returns and pay taxes, and imposing civil and criminal penalties for willful failure to do so on a timely basis [ . . . ]. The difference is that in the case of the income tax, the taxpayer files the return, whereas in the case of the sales tax, the seller (not the customer) files the return.


 * [ . . . .]


 * With respect to the use of the term "voluntary," no court has ever ruled (as of 2008) that there is no legal obligation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to timely file Federal income tax returns or to timely pay Federal income taxes.

A common tactic of tax protesters is to take a famous court case like Flora, disregard the ruling, and then argue that the case means essentially the opposite of what the court ruled. The internet is full of this kind of baloney. We see this all the time -- especially with internet web sites that mention old Supreme Court cases like Brushaber. In Brushaber, for example (year 1916), someone comes to court and argues that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, on a variety of grounds. The Supreme Court rules that the income tax is constitutional. Then, about sixty or seventy or eighty years later, tax protesters start arguing that the case somehow "means" the opposite of what the court actually ruled.

Another example is the argument that "only corporate profits are taxable". The main case that the tax protesters cite over and over is the Merchants' Loan case -- in which the Supreme Court actually upheld the validity of the income tax. In that case, the income that was ruled to be taxable was not corporate profit, and the taxpayer was not a corporation. The words "corporate profit" do not even appear in the case.

There is no need to "refute" tax protesters' arguments. They have yet to win one in court. Tax protester arguments are scams, hoaxes.

I hope this clarifies things a bit for you. Famspear (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel B. Evans
Since you've done so much towards citing his capacity as an authority, you might wand to go ahead and write an article on Daniel B. Evans. I think he is sufficiently notable, based on his publication history. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've actually thought about that before, ol' buddy. Actually, as you may have noticed, the material I just added in the footnote in Tax protester (United States) was in response to a newbie who questioned why the article had cited Evans. I'm not sure that we really need all the stuff I added in the footnote, but hopefully it will make the newbie happy.

Well, BD2412, I survived tax season again! It's a little before 4:00pm here in Texas, and I ain't doin' no more tax work today! All the extension requests have been filed, so I don't need to do anything else. Got some breathin' room now! Famspear (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll expect to see more of you 'round here! ;-) bd2412  T 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jury Nullification
I admit that I didn't do any research, but only too the existing language in the article and organized it grammatically in order to make more sense (at least to me; I use a pretty systematic approach to language in an effort to make it as clear as possible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofighter20X (talk • contribs) 17 April 2008.


 * OK. Maybe we can check those old court cases later, in my "spare time" (ha!) Thanks, Famspear (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)