User talk:Famspear/Archive 3

Puerto Rico and Fed Tax
I once ran across some IRS regulations that allowed PR based employers to use a different rule to divide employees between NHC Non-Highly Compensated and HC Highly-Comp employees. They allowed PR employers to divide employees into thirds and assign HC status to the top third in lieu of the $90,000 threshold from the appoximate W-2 gross from plan year 2004 [for testing the 2005 plan year]. Does this imply that PR has a different tax regime and that mainland based consultants need hire PR based tax attorneys? John wesley 13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear John wesley: I don't know anything about this rule, and my quick and dirty answer would be that I suspect it's not so much a different tax regime as it is a special, isolated exception for Puerto Rico buried somewhere in the "regular" income tax rules for employee benefit plans. Maybe the regulation is somewhere in the Treasury regs under Subchapter D of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (sections 401 through 424), or in the regs under Code sections 4971 through 4980E. Sounds like you may know more about this stuff than I do. Hey, you ask hard questions! You are keeping me busy. If I run across anything on your question, I'll leave you a message, though. (Actually, I should just look in one of the IRS publications on employee benefit plans, rather than digging it out of the regulations -- it might be faster!) I'll let you know if I find something. Yours, Famspear 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jury nullification
Thanks for the tip, I've canned it. There's no distinction between article space and talk pages for copyvios, as the owner of the material has the right to decide if it can be published anywhere else. From what I've seen, jury nullification proponents and tax protesters overlap greatly, so we'll have to keep an eye on this one. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you recommend?
Tax school for LLM or a Brookings thing? John wesley 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See my reply on your Talk page on 8 April 2006. Yours, Famspear 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement
(sigh) It never ends. BD2412 T 14:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Eh, I wouldn't bother editing Tax Honesty Movement - it's been 5 days on AfD, and once the socks are discounted it is a clear delete. Better to figure out what from that article can be salvaged for tax protester (the Vivien Kellums stuff would be a nice addition). Cheers! BD2412 T 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Dear BD2412: Yeah, and I know I asked you about editing the other day. It's just that I found a little free time this evening and some of the POV in the article was driving me nuts. Actually, I just finished my edits. I'm pretty busy right now, and the number of edits I have been making each day has dropped sharply. (I actually feel better getting back to real life for a while, but Wikipedia is so addicting.) Ummmmmm, say, if you don't mind my asking, what are you doing in the month of April (if you can disclose that kind of detail)? I see you are still making some edits. Are you on a real vacation or something? PS I am deliberately not posting on your own Talk page, etc., this month, per your instructions. Yours, Famspear 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are you? You're missing all the fun! BD2412  T 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you could cast a vote in the AfD, that would only take a minute. The discussion will be open for four more days, if you want to get into it - I've been challenged to go on the radio against their leader, and have pointedly declined. Cheers! BD2412  T 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's headed for deletion within a few days - edits at this point would be wasted. I am intrigued by this Vivian Kellums character they mention. Ever heard of her? BD2412  T 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just stunned by the wackiness coming out of the woodwork here. I'm just going to sit back and watch them stupify themselves with their rhetoric (although I suspect this may be one person posting from different IPs). BD2412  T 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I would rather not, for pure revulsion terms, I will have to agree with you 2412....LOL Rawhide4u 06:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
Have you any comments on the new article? I gave Professor Zipursky's law review's POV. John wesley 18:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember the case from law school. I'll have to get back to you later on this one too. Yours, Famspear 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivien Kellems is underway
I've started her article - quite a character, this one! BD2412 T 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, is this what you call a "break from Wikipedia"? I know, I know, it's hard to stay away! Tax season is over, but I'm still not able to spend much time here lately, although I made a few edits even before "tax day" arrived. Things just don't want to slow down for me right now. Regarding Vivien Kellems, maybe later I can add some material regarding the court cases she was involved in, too.


 * I would be curious to learn what an IP practice is like in general terms (some day, when you have time to talk about it). Are most IP attorneys also trained as engineers or in some other such field? What percentage of IP attorneys do NOT practice patent law, and just deal with copyright, trademark etc.? I'll catch you later. Yours, Famspear 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to tell me that someone here is before the patent bar? John wesley 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley: Nawwww, not that I know of -- unless of course BD2412 happens to be a member of the patent bar. I didn't see any reference to being a member on his web page. If he's not a member, the fact that he practices intellectual property law is encouraging -- hey, maybe I'll change from tax to IP law! Just kidding.

By the way, you might want to check out the cool chart for tax rates I have just added to the article on the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Ummm, well, I didn't exactly create the chart from scratch. I copied and pasted from somewhere else, and then inserted the amounts and tax rates. I am trying to recover from tax season, and I wanted to have a little fun. (That's my idea of fun? What do you think? Do I need to get out of the office more?) Yours, Famspear 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as getting out means watching the UAG Tecos play on la cancha. John wesley 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No patent bar - you have to have a technical or scientific background to be allowed to take it! I do no patent work - mostly trademark, rather, along with some copyright, misappropriation of publicity, etc. Which means that more than half of what I actually do is straightforward federal civil procedure. BD2412  T 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastman's Site
I took a look at his link, and it is an hysterically funny collection of logical fallacies that I would not expect from any reasonably bright freshman physics student. The first four dozen "questions" center on the argument that if "income" is used in the context of a Corporation Tax Law (1909), that it must mean "corporate income" (and that only) in all subsequent laws. This is, of course, not the way anyone uses the language. Imagine that a teacher discusses kinetic energy on day one, and potential energy on day 2, referring back to the first day to note that the units of energy are the same in both cases (mass-times-distance-squared-over-time-squared). For a student to infer that potential energy applies only to moving objects would be odd in about the same degree and for the same reasons as Mr. Eastman's site.

I do think that he raises one fair point in his reply -- stopped clocks being right twice a day -- it is rather irritating for a voter in a democracy to be told, more or less, to mind his own business -- that the law can only be understood by trained professionals. I don't believe that to be true, any more than only a physician knows anything about my health. Obviously, trained professionals are essential at times, but most of us can't afford to have one on call 24/7, and we should be evaluating the product of the guys we elect to make laws. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've looked at Mr. Eastman's site, and I agree. Aside from the logical errors, his idiosyncratic interpretation fails miserably on an entirely different and equally fundamental level - it's simply not correct legal analysis. The procedure he uses to go about coming to the conclusions he seems to desperately wish to reach would simply flunk him out of the first semester of law school -- in a class on contracts, property, torts, whatever. Without commenting on Mr. Eastman's personal view of things, I suspect that many tax protesters really do believe -- on some level -- the elaborate arguments they construct. The human capacity for self-delusion is very great. I will have much more to say about this on this talk page (after I get out from under some of the real world work piled on me right now).


 * I also agree that it would be irritating for a voter to be told that the law can be understood only by trained professionals. Federal tax law is, of course, one of the most technical and complex areas in all of law, so an untutored person will sink in water over his or her head much more quickly when venturing into taxation than when venturing into, say, contracts or property law. But even on the pages of Wikipedia, non-lawyers and non-CPAs are making valuable contributions to articles on taxation. So, some of the tax law is understandable by "normal" people (i.e., people who are not tax geeks like me). Yours, Famspear 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Post-script: I should add that I have never known a law professor, attorney or CPA to claim to have completely mastered all the internal revenue laws of the United States. With respect to the Internal Revenue Code itself, anything that includes a proper, grammatically constructed sentence of over 400 words (as has been found in at least one place in the Code) deserves our respect and should be approached with at least a little humility. In my experience, tax protesters -- 99% of whom have no adequate concept of the complexity of the Code or of the intensive and extensive study in which tax practitioners are continuously engaged to apply the Code's provisions to the real world -- seem to rush into their so-called "analyses" of the tax law with a blissfully ignorant eagerness which, in amplitude, is in an inverse proportion to the extent of their ability to master the subject. Yours, Famspear 19:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the Incompetence effect? It seems to apply here.


 * I am interested in the distinction that you are making between sound logic and careful reading on the one hand and "correct legal analysis" on the other. For one thing, I would think that a logical fallacy is more fundamental than a flaw in specialized legal reasoning, since legal reasoning must be based on logic.  Could you elaborate on something that is sound ordinary reasoning but poor legal reasoning?  A hypothetical is fine -- I am not restricting this question to things Mr. Eastman has said. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction I am making is based on my understanding that the rules of logic and the rules of proper legal analysis are two separate but perhaps somewhat overlapping sets of rules. I wasn't really thinking about it terms of something that would be sound ordinary reasoning but poor legal reasoning and, off the top of my head, I can't come up with a quick example (there may or may not be such a thing). However, let me give you an example of what I was talking about with respect to sound legal analysis. For the example I'll use case law (as opposed to statutes, treaties, regs, etc.).

In analyzing the text of case law, a frequent error made by non-lawyers (and especially by many tax protesters) is to take a particular statement in the text and treat that statement as the "law" for which that case stands. Contrary to what many non-lawyers probably assume, however, many if not most passages in the texts of court decisions are actually non-binding from a legal standpoint. These non-binding passages (I am deliberately not using technical legal terms here) may or may not be correct statements of law (indeed, they usually are correct statements) -- but they are nevertheless not part of what we call the "holding" of that particular case - essentially, the particular rule of law for which that case stands. Now, courts in subsequent cases do often quote from these non-binding statements found in prior decisions. To the extent that a subsequent court incorporates such a statement in its own holding, and only to that extent, that statement becomes part of the law for which that subsequent case stands -- the precedent (see Stare decisis). In the United States, the ability to distill the "holding" of a case from the text of the court report is a skill that is developed during law school by studying not hundreds but literally thousands of court decisions starting with old English cases, some decided over 200 years ago, and containing not just archaic language but archaic legal jargon.

Additionally case law is full of circumlocutory expressions which are not literal statements of precisely what the law is. These statements are not denotatively correct but are connotatively correct, if you will. A lawyer -- who has studied the texts of thousands of actual court decisions before he or she even finished law school -- is able to deal with this problem, as the lawyer studies case law in context -- that is, with a view to all the thousands of other cases he or she has already studied and with a view to understanding what the court actually meant denotatively but expressed in circumlocutory fashion.

The key point is that many tax protesters repeatedly make the mistake of quoting from the texts of court reports without understanding whether the quote reflects the holding of that particular case. Many also do not understand that the holding of the case -- the legal principle decided in that case -- may or may not even be explicitly stated in the text. Many also do not understand that each statement in the text, whether binding or not with respect to that particular case, may be circumlocutory and therefore correct only in a connotative sense (i.e., the literal circumlocutory expression must be transmuted into a similar expression where, in terms of semantics, each word in the transmuted formulation may properly be interpreted denotatively).

Courts do not always use sound "logic" (as formal logic would be taught in a philosophy class in college) in arriving at decisions. The holdings of such decisions are nevertheless just as binding as "case law" as decisions containing no such logical flaws. I took a course in law school called Logic of Legal Discourse where we studied cases -- including at least one state supreme court decision -- that contained flaws in formal, ordinary logic. We also considered the ethical implications of deliberately using illogical (but persuasive) argumentative forms in arguing cases before a court or other tribunal.

From memory, I can think of one court decision that might include an example of sound ordinary reasoning where the court did not follow that reasoning because to do so would, in a sense, have violated the rules of proper legal analysis -- but I'll have to go back and study the text again first, to be sure.

Regarding the link on incompetence, no I'm not familiar with it but I'm definitely checking it out! Thanks. Yours, Famspear 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: I am definitely no expert in formal logic, whether deductive or inductive in form, etc., as taught in a college philosophy class. I've taken two courses in logic but, hey, it was a long time ago! Yours, Famspear 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I was forgetting that most laymen don't know the distinction between a ratio decidendi and obiter dictum, let alone understand a legal fiction or an argument from public policy.  My solution to my lack of expertise at identifying them is simple, but rejected by the tax protestors -- I read not only the cases but also the opinions of competent lawyers about them.


 * I am also by avocation a game designer, and that has taught me a lot about the limitations of language. Once again I forget that is not obvious.  As the link on incompetence notes, those who absolutely lack a skill frequently lack also the ability to know how unskilled they are.


 * I've been arguing with these guys since 1979-81 when I first ran into them on Usenet and Compuserve. I did a fair amount of research at that time.  That was when I learned, for example, that a tax on wages has always been considered an indirect excise.  Obviously, the 16th-amendment-never-ratified tax protestors (or the wage earners among them) have never noticed this.  Oh well!  I have convinced a few people not to fall for some scams.  I suppose that is a victory of sorts. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the linked material on incompetence, I love it. I haven't read it all, but the lemon juice story makes it for me!

My greatest concern with tax protesters is that they damage the lives of other people who may be sucked into the nonsense.

Many hard line tax protesters themselves probably are not salvageable -- the psychological, mental state that allows them to construct and believe these ridiculous theories tends to prevent them from accepting anything that would guide them to the truth. The tax protest "movement" is very small in terms of the number of participants relative to the entire population of taxpayers. They seem to be sad, frustrated, lost. They are "Don Quixote contending with the windmill." I suspect interesting work could done with tax protesters by psychologists and psychiatrists. The study of these people from the standpoint of the transference (which I contend is behind the primary motivation for many tax protesters) could be very productive. (I don't know; perhaps I should check it out -- have any studies already been done or published?)

Regarding the point that an income tax on income from wages is an excise (an indirect tax) and therefore has never been subject to the rule of apportionment (both before and after the 16th Amendment) -- absolutely, this is one of the many fundamental legal points that these unhappy people refuse to accept (or in many cases are simply unaware of). Regarding the silly "16th Amendment has never been properly ratified" argument, this relates to what fellow editor BD2412 has called (and I forget his exact words) the tax protesters' basic misunderstandings of how law works. Much of their error is not specific to tax law -- it's fundamental error in analysis and understanding of law in general.

To the extent you have convinced anyone not to fall for the tax protester stuff, I commend you! Yours, Famspear 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Income Tax of the ......U.S.

 * Famspear... In the event you are unaware the term “taxable income” is defined as "gross income" minus the deductions allowed by that chapter. Within the "Gross Income" definition (Code 61) a US Citizen's "salary" or "wage" is NOT defined as income, unless one is defined as an employee (per code 3401)and that ONLY pertains to "wage withholding". So there is NO "taxable income" of one's salary or wage from a non-governmental company or agency.Rawhide4u 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already run into this fellow - seems to find joy in misreading the words of others - said I was "hypocritical" for posting on his talk page despite the notice on my talk page asking that messages not be posted there, then played gematria with that message (not unlike the gematria he's playing with IRC language above) as the basis of a straw man attack. I've decided to ignore the bait. BD2412  T 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your inaccuracies shine through quite brightly. I have just shown facts that you happen to dislike BD2412. Rawhide4u 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What facts, pray tell? Every substantive provision in IRC 3401 clearly states that its definition of income is "For purposes of this chapter" - that being "CHAPTER 24--COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES", otherwise known as the withholding statute. Just because you're not required to withhold a portion of your own income at the moment you earn it does not have any impact whatsoever on the requirement that you pay taxes. BD2412  T 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rawhide4u: Whew! Regarding section 3401, please review BD2412's explanation. Better luck next time. And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Yours, Famspear 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * BD2412... you are correct in your statement... "IRC 3401 does not have any impact whatsoever on the requirement that you pay taxes". I'm not quite sure why you made it in the first place. Considering that I have never insinuated that it did. As mentioned, IRC 3401 only pertains to "Wage Withholding" So your point is?? [Comment posted by Rawhide4u on 24 April 2006]

Dear Rawhide4u:

Your statement: "Within the 'Gross Income' definition (Code 61) a US Citizen's 'salary' or 'wage' is NOT defined as income, unless one is defined as an employee (per code 3401)and that ONLY pertains to 'wage withholding'" is incorrect. Your statement "[s]o there is NO "taxable income" of one's salary or wage from a non-governmental company or agency" is also incorrect (aside from also being a non sequitur). Your statements are tax protester arguments, and have no legal merit. They are also legally frivolous. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. Yours, Famspear 15:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Famspear…. you have a point and stand correct in regard to my statements you outlined above. I did write that haphazardly and without my full attention. So I will correct it with the following….The term “taxable income” is defined (Code 63) as "gross income" minus the deductions allowed by that chapter. Within the "Gross Income" definition (Code 61) a US Citizen's "salary" or "wage" is NOT defined as income. Since “taxable” income is determined by “gross” income minus deductions per Code 63 and the “gross” income is zero, one would have no “taxable” income of their "salary" or "wage" pursuant to the code. In regard to your comment “your statements are tax protester arguments,” Yes and your point is??  You make that statement as if it’s criminal. Then you continue to say “and have no legal merit. They are also legally frivolous.” Here my friend you are incorrect. If I was at liberty to show my documentation, I would.Rawhide4u 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Secret documentation? I trust you will understand my skepticism.  If the proof is secret, and the secret is just, then you shouldn't be discussing the matter here at all as it could prejudice the secret.  For example, if you are a paralegal under an attorney who is preparing a brief using these arguments, then aren't your comments a breach of privilege?  If you are an employee of the Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich, then your fnord is broken and you should spill all the beans while you still can.  Am I missing a possibility? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. West.. Secret?? Now you’re placing words in my mouth. I never said this documentation was "secret". You guys crawl out of the wood works when someone ruffles your feathers, huh. In regard to missing a possibility, many of you are. Have you ever heard of the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. Why do you think that is in existence??Rawhide4u 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What guys crawling out of what woodwork?  What words in your mouth?  You said, "If I was [sic] at liberty to show ..."  If that did not mean that you are under an obligation of confidentiality, then please tell me what it did mean?  I am genuinely mystified.  As to the Act, it means what it says -- authorization for issue of numismatic coins that are legal tender for a face value well below their specie value (the main benefit is that there is no incentive to spend them, so banks need not make provision for them) together with a blatant subsidy to gold mine operators.  Pork-barrel politics in a revenue-raising wrapper.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rawhide4u: When I say that your arguments are tax protester arguments, my point is that your arguments are tax protester arguments. Stop straining. Just relax. Your statement "[y]ou make that statement as if it’s criminal" is interesting from a psychological standpoint, as you (not I) brought the word "criminal" into the discussion. (And no, your merely making those statements is not a criminal offense, in case you were wondering.) Ask yourself these questions: Do you feel that what you're doing is criminal? Do you feel that someone has let you down? Do you feel resentful? Do you feel that you want to say to The Authority (e.g., the government, the tax collector, me, your parents, whoever), "You can't fool me!"? Regarding your feeling that I am incorrect, your feeling is misplaced. Your arguments have no legal merit, and are legally frivolous, regardless of what you believe. These things are matters of law. The rest of us are not here to convince you that you are wrong about the tax law. You brought it up here on my talk page, that's all. Your statement "[i]f I was at liberty to show my documentation, I would" is also interesting from a psychological point of view. Although you seem to feel you have a need to have this "documentation", whatever "documentation" you do have (if any) does not "show" that I am wrong about the tax law. Sorry. Breathe slowly and deeply, slowly and deeply. That's it! And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Yours, Famspear 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this user is now trying to raise a complaint against me. Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal. Can I get a character witness up in here? BD2412  T 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gross income and Internal Revenue Code 61
Dear fellow editors: Looks like we have two articles -- "Gross income" and "Internal Revenue Code 61" -- on essentially the same topic. Is a merger in order here? Yours, Famspear 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) By the way, please watch Internal Revenue Code 861, Cheers! BD2412 T 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the term used in other countries' income tax laws? In that case, GI should deal with the accounting concept from a worldwide perspective and IRC61 remain US-specific.  If this one of those things (like whether an income tax is or is not direct) that only matter to US Law, then I suggest a dab page, pointing to Gross margin, Net profit and Internal Revenue Code 61. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hadn't thought of that - I'd surely support merging IRC 61 into an article on "Gross income in the United States", and globalizing "Gross income". BD2412  T 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and everything else that Rawhide4u has been editing! And I've just made some additions to the section 861 article. Yours, Famspear 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking through his history, I noticed one article has been identified as copyvio. It seems the IRC is not the only law in which Rawhide4u disbelieves. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cat out of the bag....
Mr. West and "fans"..... No my "at liberty" statement pertains to the fact that I "physically" can not show you, Famspear, etc. In regard to the Gold bullion Coin Act, yes, there is a large incentive to spend them. Yes, banks do have provisions for them, and yes, there are major advantages. What I have been attempting to do with you and your "click" is to promote an awareness that is very commonly overlooked. A little example, as my original statement stood, "Have you ever heard of the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. Why do you think that is in existence??" Your focus shouldn't be on "Have you ever heard of it. It should be on "Why do you think that is in existence??"

As you say, No incentive to spend, no bank provision, a revenue raising wrapper. Yeah, right!! Don't you think the government is a little cleverer than that?? Things are rarely made obvious. The more confusion the better the true intention is concealed. Why would it be created if there wasn't a large incentive?? I have tried to spread some unseen and uncommonly known information to you and your “click” but as often done; individuals are focused on the intentional confusion instead of the underlined intention. All this time I’ve been viewed upon as a protester of the Income Tax... LOL I will admit it's been interesting. So much focus on court rulings, convictions, redundancies etc. That's the "PUBLIC" talking. Come on guys, we all have "friends." Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Famspear, BD2412, and you are knowledgeable, and seem like interesting people. However, take a time out and look deeply at some of this dearly held information, you might find something lying at the bottom.

The next meeting I have with the powers at be. Your group will be in my thoughts. Meanwhile, keep the confusion going!!Rawhide4u 06:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Famspear. In light of comments like the above, I'd like to open an RfC (or perhaps a policy discussion in another forum) on the general topic of fringe theories/-ists. I'd like to develop a clear policy that Wikipedia will not serve as a sounding board for those who contend to have "proven" that the law means something other than what it says, and that all who disagree are part of the massive conspiracy to defraud the handful who aren't part of it. I'm talking beyond just the tax protesters to the TONA folks, jury nullification proponents, allodial title proponents, and all others who would skew facts and play verbal gymnastics with the text of statutes and decisions to lure the unsuspecting into their insanity. I trust you will join me in this endeavor? Cheers! BD2412  T 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as time permits, I'm interested. I think it would be helpful in developing such a Wikipedia policy to do a brief comparison of the apparent psychological similarities (without getting too deep or technical into psychology, of course) among these different fringe groups -- such as the infantile tendency to demand that other people (the government, the experts, etc.) prove to them that they are wrong, as in "show me the law," or their claims that "there is a vast, evil conspiracy against me" or the apparent belief that "although I have never bothered to obtain any real training about this technical subject and I don't even know the basic rules about how the experts study this topic, I have special knowledge about this topic that the experts somehow have never been able to find" etc. I am actually working on something related to this right now, but it's slow going at the moment. I thought things were going to lighten up after tax season ended, but that hasn't happened yet. Please keep me posted! Yours, Famspear 14:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories in general are covered under WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, which are policy. I take it you suggest that some specific guidelines on what small minority means in the specialized context of the law -- but "small minority views" is already the subject of policy?  This could belong any number of places -- a paragraph in WP:NOT, in WP:NOT EVIL or its own guideline.  I would advise, however, against getting into psychological issues unless they directly inform the best way to respond.  Wikipedia is not therapy.  On the other hand, if there is verifiable research on the psychological phenomena involved, that could make a fascinating article. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm focused on legal hocus-pocus purveyors (as opposed to JFK assassination buffs or bigfoot theorists or Area 51 believers). People with no rational legal background should be reverted on sight when they attempt to give baseless legal advice based on something they heard in some hacks anti-gov'ment seminar. BD2412  T 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no one should use Wikipedia for legal advice, but we do not want to mislead. You argue active harm from an edit, so we cannot trust to eventualism.   That is WP:NOT EVIL.Robert A.West (Talk) 15:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

For purposes of US taxation Puerto Rico is considerd to be a foreign country. Puerto Rico taxes for itself in a manner similar to the US Internal Revenue Code. My last understanding was the Puerto Rican code was based on US Code of 1939.

Peter Reilly 20:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started drafting something. BD2412  T 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've dumped in a lot of text from prior matters, including the BB69 RfC and the Rawhide4U discussion on the mediation page. I plan to sort through it over the next week or so and organize it into a corpus of evidence of the pattern of behavior with which we must deal. Please let me know if there are any other articles or specific incidents I should be mentioning. Cheers! BD2412  T 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I sure will. I hope we can take our time with this, though. I am going through a period of burn out right now. More related to my "real world" work, but it's affecting the amount of time I'm spending in Wikipedia right now. I'm getting behind on responses that I want to send to various people, but I want to stay on top of things. I just may not be watching things as closely for the next few days. (May 9 I had no edits at all, which is unusual for me.) Looks like you're up late tonight. I'm in Texas and it's about 11:35 pm here, so if you're in Florida it's after midnight for you. Check you later, I'm hittin' the hay! Famspear 04:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reduced to Income Can you provide any help to why tax practs use such language, like sound in tort, the case does not lie et. John wesley 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley: I think expressions like a particular cause of action "sounds in tort" or that a particular case "does not lie" are just based on older, semi-archaic formulations. As you read court decisions I know you can see a lot of difference in the way judges wrote even 80 or 90 years ago, compared to the way they write today. Again, I wouldn't attach any particular significance to these expressions beyond that. It's just the way judges expressed the law back then -- probably still some use of the terms today as well. Yours, Famspear 14:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I wanted to know about reduced to income John wesley 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduced to income
Why do I see this verb "reduce" all the time in tax opinions and discussions? John wesley 15:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Should we say "realized? " John wesley 15:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear John wesley: Do you mean as in a particular item was "reduced to income"? I think either term OK. Income being "realized" is used more commonly I guess. I wouldn't attach any particular significance to the use of one term versus another. Yours, Famspear 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Brushaber
Honestly, let it sit for a while. The case is very complex, and needs to be completely re-written so that it is easily understood, but unlike more prominent articles (Income tax, Internal Revenue Service), I doubt anyone will actually look up Brushaber between now and the time it takes to rewrite. I don't know the decision (or the law) well enough to fix it up at this point, but I'll make a new page at Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad/temp to start laying out what it should say. BD2412 T 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Yours, Famspear 19:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer one on why Woodsam was wrongly decided. The anti-Woodsam rule would recognized income from loan proceeds would be income. John wesley 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)