User talk:Famspear/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Aaron Russo edits 2 Barnstar 3 Trust company 4 Not very happy 4.1 If this be spamming, make the most of it 4.2 Apology 5 Tax protester statutory arguments 6 In regards to taxes 7 Proper case citation 8 Odd thought 9 Thanks for the FICA cite 10 Sun Myung Moon tax case 11 You have a bad attitude 12 CSD G4 13 Edit conflict 14 Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution 15 America: From Freedom to Fascism 16 Cluestick for Famspear! 17 Could you enable your email? 18 Tax fraud and options backdating 19 Template: Legally frivolous TFD 20 Tax protester arguments 21 External party 22 Sixteenth Amendment 23 Re: Hello there INTP 24 Good work 25 Tax haven 26 Taxation Wikiproject 27 Regarding the MCA 2006 Article 28 In re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation 29 Some edits to check. 30 Social Security and Epstein

Aaron Russo edits

Works for me ... thanks! I was just randomly reading the NYT online this morning. NawlinWiki 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I Morphh award Famspear this Barnstar for the large efforts and contributions to income taxation articles. Many Thanks!

Danke shoen! Yours, Famspear 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the articles that you've been working on are looking pretty good. I watch them all but I haven't had time to really participate as I'd like too. I expect they are very close to WP:GA and on their way to WP:FA. Perhaps now would be a good time to submit many of these for WP:PR to begin this process. Morphh 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a particular article you would like to target for nom, I'll try to focus some of my energy on it. Perhaps we should start a Taxation Wikiproject.. haha. Morphh ^(talk) 19:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this. I'm thinking that maybe Tax protester constitutional arguments would be a start. I don't know anything about the process for WP:GA, etc., yet. Perhaps you can review that article and let me know what you think. Yours, Famspear 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Trust company

In Canada (where I'm from) trust companies give out trust accounts, whitch is why i dabbed a link to that. -- Selmo 00:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not very happy

After deleting the article Roni Lynn Deutch, what did I find in the links but that you had spammed user tall pages regarding the AfD. If you had not done this, I would have deleted anyway, but now the deletion is tainted. There's every reason now for the article to go to deletion review where is should probably be relisted and start again. I'll make a note of this on the AfD page. This is pain because the article should not exist in my opinion. So don't do that. Herostratus 03:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If this be spamming, make the most of it

Thank you for informing me of the Roni Lynn Deutch article. I am still swamped with real life, and will probably remain so until Thanksgiving at least, but I don't want to give up Wikipedia totally. I am grateful for the handful of fellow editors who keep me apprised of situations that will interst me. I regret that Herostratus took an extreme view of your actions in this case, and I hope that you will continue to keep me informed, but I will understand if you do not. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, regarding the comments of fellow editor Herostratus, I'm not aware (or at least I was not until now) that informing experienced Wikipedia editors in this situation in this way was a violation of any Wikipedia rule, etc. I will not do this again until and unless I obtain clarification. And thanks to Herostratus for bringing this to my attention. Stay tuned. Thanks, Famspear 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy is against votestacking. IMO, you did not violate that policy. You specifically contacted people with knowledge of the subject area to solicit their opinions with no guarantee that they would agree with you. In the actual event, we all did, but that was simply because your were right. As I mentioned to Herostratus, when bad editors combine, the good must associate, or else articles will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptable struggle. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that WP:SPAM#Friendly notice specifically exempts communication with those who have made unsolicited requests to be kept informed of certain types of issues. I consider our previous conversations on tax related topics to constitute such a request by me, and I think the same would apply to BD2412. As for the others, you are a fitter judge than I. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Roni Lynn Deutch AfD is now up for deletion review. Would you mind explaining there what your criteria were for choosing other editors to contact? The info message itself seems neutral enough, and, as Robert A West points out, there are valid reasons to notify other editors about an ongoing AfD. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology

• I've been notified that my accusation of spamming was out of line, that contacting other editors with technical knowledge or skill is OK. I can agree with that pretty much, so I apologize for saying that you were spamming and withdraw the statement, if that's OK. (I do note, as a purely practical matter, that the article is up for deletion review -- as I feared it would be -- and the notification of users may be used as an argument to relist the article, which would be a shame, at the person is clearly not notable IMO.) Herostratus 19:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And I appreciate your input. Also, I put an explanation of my actions in the deletion review page. Regards, Famspear 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tax protester statutory arguments

I've left some comments on the Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments page. Pixelface 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to taxes

I agree with your assesment 100% that wikipedia should be entirely objective. I do not necessarily agree that it always is. I am clearly biased against taxes. You are clearly biased towards taxes and have a lot to gain from them. Ahab and his whale.

I don't know if you noticed, but i have not attempted to tarnish wikipedia articles with my biases. I will however argue them as i see fit. The article discussion pages are intended to be used to suggest improvements, and i think the articles would be improved if they did not appear to be biased against tax arguments.

While it may be correct that courts have dismissed tax protest arguements, this does not mean they have been effectively dismissed. You should know as well as i do that just because you are innocent does not mean you will go free, and just because you are guilty does not mean that you will get convicted. Just ask OJ. While the court may be the law of the land, they are not omnipotent. At one time they upheld slavery, which based upon my interpretation is clearly unconstitutional. It took a civil war to fix.

The 'magic' of the constitution is that it is open to interpretation. You and i can come to totally contradictory conclusions about what it says, and essentially both be right. If the government brainwashes people into accepting taxes, then its constitutional. If i brainwash people, it is not. Thomas Jefferson left us to with this statement in regards to our interpretations of The Constitution:

“On every question of the construction of The Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in its debates and, instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

And we know that the framers were well versed in Adam Smith's economic theories, "Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor…."

I'm sure that you would not expect me to accurately represent your views. Why should we expect that the IRS can accurately represent the views of the authors of The Constitution? --Arltomem 05:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arltomem: I hope this does not come as too much of a shock, but I am biased against taxes, not “toward” taxes. Indeed, not only do I have to pay exorbitant Federal income taxes and exorbitant Texas property taxes, I get paid big bucks to work every day to reduce the amount of taxes other people are LEGALLY required to pay. I do that within a framework called the law. Yes, I do have a lot to gain from the continued administration of the tax law – that’s how I make my living. But if the Federal income tax were to be repealed, I would just go do something else.

If, as you say, you are also biased against taxes, a productive way to “fight” taxes would be to make cogent policy arguments against taxes – not to pretend that the U.S. Federal income tax system is somehow legally invalid. It is not. Indeed, I suspect from your comments that you could formulate some pretty good tax policy arguments. Let’s just keep in mind that a tax policy argument (such as “the Federal income tax is a bad idea and should be repealed because of this factor, etc.”) is totally different from an argument that the Federal income tax is not constitutional, not valid, etc. (all such arguments are without legal merit, and are legally frivolous).

Yes, I do note that you have not attempted to “tarnish” Wikipedia with your “biases,” as you said, and I commend you. You say you think the articles would be improved if they did not appear to be biased “against” tax arguments. Wikipedia articles (at least as currently written) are not biased against tax arguments – either tax policy arguments or arguments that the Federal income tax is invalid.

Again, arguments that the current tax system is stupid, unbalanced, unfair, counter-productive, oppressive, etc., etc., are POLICY arguments. There might be a place in Wikipedia for those kinds of arguments – if they are presented as arguments or opinions, and not as “fact,” and as long as counter-arguments are presented in the same way. The rules of verifiability and NPOV and “no original research” apply here.

Likewise, in Wikipedia it has been determined that tax protester arguments – arguments that the tax system itself is legally invalid – have a place in Wikipedia, even though they are incorrect from a legal standpoint and are marginal -- held by an extremely small minority of people. The same rules of verifiability and NPOV and “no original research” apply here as well. You simply cannot present an argument, for example, that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified without pointing out that all the court decisions have rejected that argument. You cannot argue that the Constitution does not allow a direct tax on labor without also pointing out that there is nothing in the actual text of the Constitution that actually says that, and without also pointing out that the Federal courts have rejected that argument every time – because that’s the situation.

The statement that such and such a court ruled a certain tax protester argument legally invalid is not an opinion. It is a statement that can be backed up with a citation to the text of the case. The statement that every court that has considered a particular tax protester argument has rejected it as legally invalid would be easy to refute if it were incorrect; all you would have to do is find at least one court decision that upheld that argument. The problem is that every single time I have seen a tax protester claim that such and such a court ruled in favor of a tax protester argument in a certain case, and I go and study the actual text, I find that the tax protester claim is incorrect (often the court case wasn’t even about taxes, and the word “tax” often does not even appear in the text). Often the case was about taxes, but the court has actually ruled just the opposite – ruling as valid the statute that the protester claimed was ruled invalid. This is intellectual dishonesty on the part of tax protesters.

We shouldn’t confuse disagreement with the wisdom of the law with obdurate denial that the law actually exists and means what the courts have ruled the law means.

When you say that although court has dismissed tax protester arguments, this does not mean that the arguments have been “effectively dismissed,” I think I understand what you mean. I assume that you’re basically saying that you believe the reasoning, etc., of the courts is somehow wrong, etc. I think you are saying that in your personal opinion, you are not satisfied with the court’s ruling, or with the reasoning the court used to arrive at that ruling. If that is what you are saying, then, yes you are entitled to your own opinion.

What you have to understand is that under the U.S. legal system, the legally correct interpretation of what the law actually IS and what the law MEANS can be made only in a court of law in the context of an actual “case or controversy.” Under the U.S. legal system, this means that the legally correct interpretation of what the law is at a given moment ultimately rests with the courts – not with the Congress or the President or you or me. It’s an oversimplication, and there are exceptions, but the general rule is that Congress makes the laws, the President enforces (executes) the laws, and the judiciary decides what the law is and what it means when people have disputes and bring those disputes to court. This is not my personal opinion or bias. This is how our legal system was set up.

One of the pervasive beliefs I have noted with many tax protesters over the years is that they – and not the courts – should be the ultimate arbiters of what the law means. Aside from the fact that this is incorrect under our legal system, it’s also in my view silly.

Yes, you and I can come to contradictory conclusions about what the constitution MEANS – but if we come to contradictory conclusions about what it actually SAYS, then one of us is wrong, by definition. The exact text is there for all to read. And as far as what it MEANS, from a LEGAL standpoint there is only one FINAL authoritative source – the rulings of courts of law. The Federalist Papers, records of the debates prior to ratification, statements by Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison, and other historical documents may be “persuasive” etc., and indeed are sometimes used by the courts in analyzing the text. Those secondary source documents and our interpretations of them are, however, under the U.S. legal system SECONDARY to the real authority – actual rulings by courts of law.

I’m sorry but Adam Smith is not a primary authority on the definition of a “capitation” for purposes of U.S. Constitutional law. Court decisions are primary authority on this point.

Regarding whether we can expect the IRS to accurately represent the views of the authors of the Constitution – I don’t care about what IRS employees think about the views of the authors of the Constitution (except as it affects my clients -- see below). Yes, the IRS takes the correct legal position that the Federal income tax statutes are authorized under the Constitution. So do the vast majority of lawyers, CPAs, law professors, Congressmen and most Americans. The lawyers, CPAs, law professors, etc., came to that conclusion quite without the help of any IRS employees, thank you. We don't look to IRS employees to give us authoritative statements on what the tax law is. We study the law ourselves.

Most importantly, despite all the gazillions of tax protester arguments that have been brought into court since the mid 1970s, every single Federal court that has ruled on the arguments has ruled that the Federal income tax is constitutionally valid. Under the U.S. legal system, it is legally meaningless to argue that the courts are “wrong.”

I do care, however, about how IRS employees interpret and apply the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury regulations and the case law when it affects my clients. It’s not the IRS interpretation of the Constitution that I’m worried about. It’s the IRS interpretations of statutes, regs, and case law. I represent taxpayers in their dealings with the IRS. My clients’ positions are occasionally contrary to the IRS position. Sometimes the IRS gets it wrong. Sometimes the IRS gets it right. If the IRS were always right about what the law is, taxpayers wouldn’t need lawyers and CPAs – and we wouldn’t need courts of law to decide disputes between the IRS and the taxpayer. Yours, Famspear 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper case citation

I thought there was a template for proper case citation, but can't find it. I cited Victor v. Nebraska in Moral reasoning and am not sure of my format. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert A. West: You can cite it simply as Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) -- without the case number (docket number). Since "511 U.S. 1" is a citation to a case reporter (in this case, United States Reports, the official case reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court), you don't really need the case number in the citation. Yours, Famspear 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd thought

I had an odd thought about the OMB number argument. Assume that the IRS left off the OMB number from Form 1040 for a given year. Would there then be a reasonable argument that a taxpayer could legitimately make a return of his own devising, so long as it contained sufficient information to allow an examiner to verify the computation of income and the amount of tax due? Not that the case is likely to come up. I've never fathomed the OMB Number argument, with the number staring one in the face. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a little looking around on this last night. I don't have an answer yet. If you look at 26 U.S.C. § 6061, it says that, with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return should filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc. See 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6). I am just trying to think whether I have ever heard of a case where a court allowed a document that was not on the official IRS forms to be treated as a legal income tax return. I can't recall at this time. (Note that there is nothing wrong with attaching manual schedules and statements to the Form 1040 to explain particular items, etc. Any statements and schedules attached to the official forms, and intended to be part of the return, are legally part of the return. In tax practice we do this all the time for various legal disclosures, etc.)

I know that if the taxpayer makes a return "of his own devising" (i.e., not on the IRS forms) and does not include the "jurat" showing that he is signing the "return" until penalties of perjury, then it's not a legal Federal income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6065.

At any rate, if the IRS were to leave off the OMB number from Form 1040 for a given year, I still don't know of any rule that would allow a taxpayer to make a return of his own devising (i.e., not using Form 1040). Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert A West: Here's some more on the use of IRS forms - from the Treasury regulations:

(b) Use of prescribed forms. --Copies of the prescribed return forms will so far as possible be furnished taxpayers by district directors. A taxpayer will not be excused from making a return, however, by the fact that no return form has been furnished to him. Taxpayers not supplied with the proper forms should make application therefor to the district director in ample time to have their returns prepared, verified, and filed on or before the due date with the internal revenue office where such returns are required to be filed. Each taxpayer should carefully prepare his return and set forth fully and clearly the information required to be included therein. Returns which have not been so prepared will not be accepted as meeting the requirements of the Code. In the absence of a prescribed form, a statement made by a taxpayer disclosing his gross income and the deductions therefrom may be accepted as a tentative return, and, if filed within the prescribed time, the statement so made will relieve the taxpayer from liability for the addition to tax imposed for the delinquent filing of the return, provided that without unnecessary delay such a tentative return is supplemented by a return made on the proper form.

--from 26 C.F.R. section 1.6011-1(b) (emphasis added).

This still does not answer your question directly, though. I'll keep looking around when I have time. Yours, Famspear 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the FICA cite

Tax deduction would place SE people on par with real business. Chivista 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yours, Famspear 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon tax case

Hi Famspear. I just made this its own article. Thanks for your contributions. Steve Dufour 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yours, Famspear 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a bad attitude

"Phantom" supreme court decisions indeed. 206.124.31.24 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at IP 206.124.31.24: Yes, I have a bad attitude. Here's my attitude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Phantom Supreme Court decisions indeed. Yours, Famspear 04:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the word "phantom" is being used here as an adjective:

phantom (adjective): illusory; fictitious (from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 8th ed. 1976);

unreal; ghostlike (from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1985);

not really existing; illusory (from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1970).

I'm not saying that the filmmaker did not cite eight real U.S. Supreme Court cases. I’ll almost bet he probably did. I am saying that the Court did not rule the way you contended it did. What I am saying is that there is no Federal court case (Supreme Court or otherwise) since 1913 where the court ruled that “there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor.” That's the language in the article America: From Freedom to Fascism that you were referencing when you inserted the unverifiable statement about the "eight" Supreme Court cases. The so-called rulings to the contrary are phantom (illusory, fictitious, not really existing). There are no such court rulings that say what you contend. The "rulings" exist only the minds of tax protesters.

What I am also saying is that we need to follow Wikipedia rules. And if you think a particular court ruled a certain way in a particular case, give a citation to the case, so that legal scholars and other Wikipedia readers can check it out. You can do that right here on my talk page. Yours, Famspear 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD G4

Greetings Fellow INTP,

As you can guess, with over one million articles and a cultural bias for efficiency over "rules-lawyering", the application of G4 is more expansive in practice than its written terms might imply. You are free to try to repost an altered copy of the deleted article, but it will probably be speedied unless it is substantially different from the AfD'ed original. If more than one of these repostings is speedied, the page is often "protected deleted", called "salting the earth" in wiki-slang, meaning that any recreation will require DRV or RFPP permission.

So, yes, you can repost a rewritten version; but tread carefully, and make the new reposting the best you can before you post in article space. You can always compose an article in your userspace and solicit opinions first.

One more bit of advice: The one thing you absolutely shouldn't do is change a few words and consider that you escaped the literal reading of G4; we have enough "product over process" admins around here that this course would end up only with you being ignored. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cher Xoloz: Je vous remercie. Je crois que je parle un peu francais aussi. Quand j’ai fait un voyage en France dans les 1990s, les gens qui demeuraient dans le pays ont cru que j’ai pu parler français – jusqu’à la pointe où j’ai ouvert ma bouche!

Whew! I saw on your talk page that you speak French, so I thought I would give it a try. It’s been awhile since I tried to write in that language. Actually, it looks like you and I have a few things in common. From the South, speak some French, INTP, law degrees, both with an apparent interest in history. I did not go to Georgetown or Harvard, but I have walked through parts of Georgetown, and once got semi-lost trying to drive in Cambridge -- so, hey, we’re practically cousins.

I was not thinking about creating an article myself. Actuellement, je pensais de Roni Lynn Deutch qui est né encore (mais je ne sais pas qui a écrit l'article originale). Yours, Famspear 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Ms. Deutch is one of those special articles that has been through the "process mill" a few times -- as a result of the latest efforts at reposting, I have "salted the earth", protected a deleted page. Now, her admirers will need to seek DRV permission for any drafts. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I see that my reversion of the "Ha ha" vandal conflicted with your. Please check my explanation on Talk:Tax protester constitutional arguments for accuracy and appropriateness as a layman's explanation. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hello – you are probably aware of this, but Mneumisi (talk • contribs) has suggested taking the Fifth be merged into Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A month has passed and the merger is currently failing 2/3. I see you have contributed to this article in the past (and even recently), and thought you may like to add your two cents to the discussion. (Disclaimer: I am opposed to the merger) Thank you, Fvasconcellos 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

America: From Freedom to Fascism

Dear BD2412: I removed some material in the above-referenced article that had been copied and pasted from the web site advertising the film itself. I removed it as a possible copyright violation (and I guess I could have cited non-neutral POV as well, maybe). I think I may have asked you this before, but I can't remember the rule. Question: Because I moved the excerpt from the article to the talk page with an explanation of why I deleted it, do we still have a copyright violation problem? Or, is putting it on the talk page OK under the fair use doctrine? Should I delete the quote from the talk page as well? Yours, Famspear 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, moving copyvio material from the article to the talk page probably weakens the fair use rationale as it is arguably no longer being used as part of the "educational" process which the articles serve. So, yes, you should probably delete it altogether if that's the rationale for removing it from the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! For that valuable legal counselling, I now owe you one "virtual Wikipedia cyber-unit" of "tax advice"! I'll go ahead and remove the quote from the talk page, if it's still there. Yours, Famspear 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cluestick for Famspear!

You, my friend, are an inspriation to law students and aspiring attorneys such as myself, especially when I encounter so many similar arguments on Internet discussion boards. You rock. --Eastlaw 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: Wikipedia had a server error and logged me out as I posted this, so if the edit history of your talk page looks weird, now you know why. :) --Eastlaw 01:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Eastlaw: Wow, seriously you made my day! Thanks! Yours, Famspear 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, if you really want to be a Wiki-badass, you should move your barnstars & awards to your main user page (so they don't end up being buried in an archive or something). Whatever, just a suggestion.

By the way, where did you go to law school? I go to Northeastern University School of Law. --Eastlaw 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I graduated from the University of Houston Law Center [1] -- I don't want to say how many years ago that was! We studied law in the dead of night using whale oil lamps for light because there was no electricity back then, and we used quills to write, because there were no ink pens, and of course we had to ride a horse twelve miles through the snow each day to get to class (umm, I might be exaggerating).

Now, to the important stuff: Have you taken any tax courses? Don't you think tax would be the most exciting practice area of all? Is there life outside Federal tax practice? Uh, do I need to get a real life? Yours, Famspear 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I took Basic Income Tax (a.k.a. Income Tax I) last year, with Prof. Daniel Schaffer, who was excellent. The course itself was pretty interesting, especially because we revisited certain tort & contract-related issues from the standpoint of how they are evaluated under the U.S. Tax Code. We didn't get to cover some of what we had planned to cover though, such as trust & corporation-related issues. That is the only tax law course I have taken, although we did look at some tax materials in Secured Transactions (specifically, the Federal Tax Lien Act, 26 U.S.C. § 6321 et seq.).

I don't have the accounting background you have, so some of the concepts were a little new to me. But I can see why people find it interesting. However, I will say that some tof the tax cranks do have one thing right: the statutes are very difficult to truly understand, and they are worded rather confusingly. Having the IRS regulations in Title 26 of the CFR was quite helpful in understanding the application of the Code itself. --Eastlaw 07:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Eastlaw: Confusing? Difficult to understand? Why, what could be clearer than the following, for example, which is part of a now-repealed provision called Internal Revenue Code section 341(e)(1), and which grammatically consists of only one sentence:

For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a corporation shall not be considered to be a collapsible corporation with respect to any sale or exchange of stock of the corporation by a shareholder, if, at the time of such sale or exchange, the sum of --

(A) the net unrealized appreciation in subsection (e) assets of the corporation (as defined in paragraph (5)(A)), plus

(B) if the shareholder owns more than 5 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of such stock, plus

(C) if the shareholder owns more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and owns, or at any time during the preceding 3-year period owned, more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of any other corporation more than 70 percent in value of the assets of which are, or were at any time during which such shareholder owned during such 3-year period more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock, assets similar or related in service or use to assets comprising more than 70 percent in value of the assets of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the determination whether the property, in the hands of such shareholder, would be property gain from the sale or exchange of which would under any provision of this chapter be considered in whole or in part as ordinary income, were made --

(i) by treating any sale or exchange by such shareholder of stock in such other corporation within the preceding 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and

(ii) by treating any liquidating sale or exchange of property by such other corporation within such 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation), as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the property sold or exchanged,

does not exceed an amount equal to 15 percent of the net worth of the corporation.

--From former Internal Revenue Code section 341, which was repealed by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-27, 117 Stat. 752 (May 28, 2003).

Don't ask me what it means. Yours, Famspear 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Reilly 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly enough I actually do know what the above means. It was made irrelevant by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealing the General Utilities Doctrine. BTW we just passed the 20th anniversary of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986(Enacted 10/22/1986 - although many provisions were not effective until 1/1/1987 so maybe that is when they are going to throw the party.

Dear Peter Reilly: Ooops, if you admit you remember what the General Utilities doctrine was, you are showing some age there, fella.

Speaking of tax complexity, the '86 Act was a real party-pooper in my opinion, if for no other reason than it brought in section 469 and the passive lost rules (wiping out a lot of the fun and games of the old legal real estate tax shelters and foisting additional monumental complexity). I can't remember the last time I looked at the regulations under section 469 (and actually I don't have occasion to think about passive losses much in my practice), but the complexity is just ..... oh don't get me started! Yours, Famspear 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you enable your email?

Hi, wanted to email you concerning the Hovind article. Could you enable your email? Arbusto 07:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arbusto: OK, I've enabled my email (I think). I've never done this before, so I'm not sure how it works. Yours, Famspear 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tax fraud and options backdating

Please check out any errors in Options backdating article. Chivista 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Template: Legally frivolous TFD

The template has been nominated once again for deletion. If you think the template is useful (or if you have changed your mind and don't) you may wish to comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tax protester arguments

Thanks ([2]) — and thank you for doing so much work on the tax-related articles—I think it's really improved Wikipedia. I decided to come back and try things out for a while after seeing some changes have been made here. There seems to be a realization among administrators now that if you're going to call something an encyclopedia, the main emphasis should be on ensuring it contains verifiable fact. At the time I left, the focus seemed to be on Wikipedia as a social experiment, where the most important goal was to give everyone an equal voice in editing, regardless of the validity of their contributions.^[3] I hope my experience will turn out better this time. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

External party

Famspear, We're having a POV dispute on the FairTax article and Predicted effects of the FairTax. I believe this dispute to be a misunderstanding on the other users part in not reading through the article and extreme use of the tag where a discussion in the talk to work out his concerns would work better. However, if he continue to push the issue - I suggested we should bring in an external party. I recommend you with the comment "He has never edited this article that I know of and makes his living off the current system (so he will probably be against it). However, I've always seen him remain NPOV, honest, and polite. He's an attorney and a Certified Public Accountant with a great deal of knowledge on taxation and has provided major contributions to wikipedia taxation articles." While I think I've proved the argument false and hope he concedes, I expect he will not retract his use of the POV tag. Comments of our dispute can be found here and here. Hope you can help - Thanks, Morphh ^(talk) 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Morpph: I am in the process of reading the materials. I hope I can help. Yours, Famspear 13:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added a new entry to the Talk under the POV discussion about the use of these tags. I also wanted to point out a criticism that is probably soon to be added to the article Talk:FairTax#Income tax industry (I expect you'd be looking for this entry). I think it is close to ready but one of the other editors is giving it a review - I just added sources and expanded it - might require some word tweaking for neutrality and additional material. Morphh ^(talk) 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would drop a note and see how this review was progressing. I thought you might break it down into parts. Is the use of the tag on the main article appropriate use for the charges. Is the use of the tag on the sub-article appropriate use for the charges. Thoughts on areas or sections that you think could use some work or balance based on the charges or personal review. I think the main dispute is actually on the sub-article and the user has just about conceded himself that the tag on the main article may not have been the appropriate choice, however, he is leaving that decision to you. Hope to hear soon - I'd like to get the tag issue resolved and then hopefully work to address the presented issues. Thanks again Morphh ^(talk) 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: I apologize but I haven't gotten to this in any meaningful way yet. Please stay tuned. Thanks, Famspear 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sixteenth Amendment

You're welcome, and thank you for making the changes to the reference. I had planned on updating the reference to conform with the anon's changes before you did your reversion, but I never got around to it. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hello there INTP

Glad to be of service. :) Thanks for taking care of some of that. Not sure what exactly he/she was adding, actually, but it was pretty clear it was inappropriate. Luna Santin 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work

Excellent work with Omega Trust - Skysmith 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Famspear 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tax haven

Your mistaken. The anon user did not contribute the text you think she did - that was just a reversion. See this list. Paul Beardsell 09:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see. It appears the material -- at Tax avoidance and tax evasion -- may have originally been inserted on 16 December 2006 at [4] by an anonymous editor at IP 142.161.145.36. Thanks for the tip. Yours, Famspear 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I on't know how to add citations, but the authority for the addition of 'or civil partner' is Civil Partnership Act (2004 Ch33) s261(1), Sch27 para56

Taxation Wikiproject

Hi there, you can use the WP:AWB tool to make pasting the project template much easier. It fills a list of articles category by category. I haven't yet seen a quicker way to make a list of talk pages from that than saving and textprocessing the list, but even that should save you a ton of time. That way it can be added to every article in every subcategory of Category:Taxation in a more automated way. I was considering waiting until adding and assessment for each, but whatever you prefer. - Taxman ^Talk 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On a lot of technical computer issues, I guess I make it up as I go along because -- bluntly -- I am somewhat weak on my knowledge of the computer aspects of Wikipedia, even after having edited here for about a year. I'm glad that other editors more than make up for my lack of expertise.

I'm not sure what this tax project will entail, other than in a general sense. I am such a tax geek that I didn't hesitate to sign up.

By the way, having been here for about a year now I'd like to say that I am very happy with the collaborative way Wikipedia has been working in the articles and talk pages that I have been following. The interaction with you, BD2412, Robert A West, and many other editors here is and has been such a very positive learning experience for me. Yours, Famspear 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you've enjoyed yourself, you've got a very valuable expertise and have made a lot of good contributions. Let me know if I can help any in the future of course. At worst the project should help bring some organization, and ideally some priority to the tax articles. If it goes better, it could be very valuable. Just suggested AWB if you wanted to save some time, try it out if you have a chance. - Taxman ^Talk 02:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Famspear 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you add your opinion to help resolve the prioritization issue Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation/Assessment. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the current priority scale and prior scale. We're trying to determine how best to define it for the project. Thanks, Morphh ^(talk) 15:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the MCA 2006 Article

The problem with the article that the person's been trying to insert is wrong and inaccurate. The article claims to state that torture has been "defined" away however reading the MCA doesn't suggest that.
I'll quote directly from the Act

`Sec. 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions

`(b) Offenses- The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:

`(12) CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT-

`(A) OFFENSE- Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control shall be punished, if death results to the victim, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to the victim, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

`(B) DEFINITIONS- In this paragraph:

`(i) The term `serious physical pain or suffering' means bodily injury that involves--

`(I) a substantial risk of death;

`(II) extreme physical pain;

`(III) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or

`(IV) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

`(ii) The term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18.

`(iii) The term `serious mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given the term `severe mental pain or suffering' in section 2340(2) of title 18, except that--

`(I) the term `serious' shall replace the term `severe' where it appears; and

`(II) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term `serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)' shall replace the term `prolonged mental harm' where it appears.

However the previous section before (12) is based on Torture

`(11) TORTURE-

`(A) OFFENSE- Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

`(B) SEVERE MENTAL PAIN OR SUFFERING DEFINED- In this section, the term `severe mental pain or suffering' has the meaning given that term in section 2340(2) of title 18.

USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 113C § 2340

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Also the article claims that it defines torture by using the exact words "serious physical pain or suffering" however if you read it, it states "severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)" rather than "serious physical pain or suffering". So it covered more bases in Section 11 than it did in Section 12. The articles doesn't contribute at all to the MCA 2006 but rather distort it and make fictitious accusation it overrides the definition of torture according to the United States Code. ViriiK 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation

Hello again Famspear. I noticed you tagged the talk page of Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner for inclusion in WikiProject Taxation. I wrote several other articles on tax cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, namely Irwin v. Gavit, United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., and Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner. I'm not sure if you consider these to be appropriate for inclusion in your project, but there is a whole category of U.S. tax related cases you may want to look at (Category:United States taxation and revenue case law).

I'm not sure I will be able to join you, as I am still swamped with real-life difficulties, but I wish you luck with your project. --Eastlaw 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Eastlaw: Thanks, you've made my work a bit easier. I'm not sure why I wasn't aware of that category. Yours, Famspear 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some edits to check.

Greetings Famspear! Can you check out this guy's contributions? He's added a horrendously written article on a tax case (South Carolina v. Baker), and made a bunch of changes to "Sixteenth Amendment" and "Gleshaw Glass". Cheers! bd2412 T 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Security and Epstein

We should not leave the impression that Epstein is like those crackpot tax resisters. He does not deny that the tax laws are valid. He pays his FICA. There is a risk that misguided or mischief making editors will portray Epstein as advocating disobedience of the SS tax laws. Chivista 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)