In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, The Tax Lawyer’s Blog admits to the following biases:
- We believe that taxpayers are foolish if they attempt to represent themselves without the assistance of a qualified tax professional
- We believe a taxpayer’s qualified tax professional should be either a Tax Lawyer or a CPA (and, even better, both)
- We believe the federal income tax is consititutional and, therefore, legal
- We believe that tax protester arguments (see Absurd Tax Protester Arguments) are absurd and, even if rational, are unlikely to succeed
- We believe that IRS personnel often violate the law and/or the IRS’s procedures as outlined in its own Internal Revenue Manual
- We believe that income received in the form of cash payments is taxable income and must be reported to the IRS
- We believe it is unethical as well as illegal to advise taxpayers how to evade taxes
- We believe it is one of our duties and obligations to assist taxpayers in legally avoiding taxes
- We believe in telling our clients and potential taxpayers the truth about their tax problems
- We believe that the federal government should have to show taxpayers that it used wisely the money they already gave it before it demands that they give it more money.
- We believe that William Shakespeare – the man from Stratford – wrote the works attributed to him and those who suggest otherwise do so either to sell books or to draw attention to themselves
Bookmark & Share:
54 responses so far ↓
1 Rick Darby // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:38 am
Peter,
Great site. I hope I never need a tax lawyer but if I do I will look you up.
I gave you a tip of the hat in my blog the other day in a posting about the income differential between the federal and private sectors, which you cited:
http://reflight.blogspot.com/2009/08/hard-times-will-be-over-when-everyone.html
Best wishes,
Rick Darby
2 Peter // Aug 28, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Rick,
Thanks very much for the kind comments and the link.
3 JR // Mar 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm
The federal income tax is consititutional and legal but the IRS is not in compliance with 5 USC 553 and therefore enforcement using interpretative regulations is without “force and effect of law.” (Chrysler, 441 US 281) Care to research how many substantive regulations have been published in the Federal Register? Zero. So stick that in your tax lawyer pipe and win a few more cases.
4 Peter // Mar 3, 2010 at 9:30 am
JR,
In true tax protestor form, you have completely misread the Chrysler case. That case only talks about improperly delegated powers.
The Courts have consistently held that Congress has the power to delegate the intepretation of the tax laws to the Treasury Department.
Put that in your conspirowacknut pipe and smoke it.
5 ddsharpe // Apr 25, 2010 at 11:13 pm
conspirowacknut pipe? that was totally uncalled for. ad hominem.
6 Peter // Apr 26, 2010 at 9:04 am
ddsharpe,
I think it was called for.
7 BMW // May 12, 2010 at 9:01 am
Taxing income is nothing more then slavery and punishment for success. Plain and Simple
The tax system is unfair and unjust and therefor is unconstitutional. Anything that is not fair is against the constitution and therefor is a contradiction . How can Warren Buffet pay 2% tax when I have to pay 40% because he has the right people? Doesn’t that tell you our tax code is screwed. Why is the tax code so complicated that an average person needs a professional. Sounds like a monopoly to keep the dumb dumber, and the wealthy in the inner circle..What is the point of working hard, when my taxes paid carry all the lazy slackers , the low life’s and the ones who will live off a system that allows abuse. MAybe the real audits shouldn’t be on the tax payer but on the ones who abuse the system and keep on taking and taking~
8 Peter // May 12, 2010 at 2:18 pm
BMW,
First, the constitution does not require fairness.
Second, the tax code can and does give preferential treatment to all kinds of transactions and circumstances. For instance, the mortgage interest deduction favors home owners over renters. That isn’t “fair,” but it’s perfectly legal.
Finally, have you personally analyzed Warren Buffet’s tax return? There may be good, legal and fair reasons he paid taxes at a lower rate than you did. You simply can’t make a reasoned judgment about it unless you’ve examined his actual tax return.
Finally, Mr. Buffet might think it unfair that he has to pay taxes at all since he has employed thousands of taxpayers over the years. How many have you employed? Who knows, he might even think you’re a lazy slacker?
It doesn’t help to get emotional about these things. They’re always more complex than you think.
9 JR // Jul 27, 2010 at 3:22 pm
The Treasury Dept has the authority to promulgate regulations in accordance with 1 CFR 21.43 and 5 USC 553(b)(c)&(d). If either are not adhered to then IRS is out of compliance with their delegation of authority.
The S.Ct. often references Chrylser in the context presented so your ipsi dixit summary of the case is way off base. Substantive regs have force and effect of law and interpretative regs do not. The former binds the general public and the latter doesn’t. This applies to all agency promulgations unless you refuse to acknowledge the intent of Congress & Chrysler.
Allegations with lables of protestor and conspirator (#4) only show your lack of ability to directly address the issues in order to turn the discussion into an emotional response.
P.S. I don’t smoke.
10 Peter // Jul 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm
JR,
The income tax is constitutional because the Supreme Court says so.
Pay up, man.
11 Marty Herder // Nov 26, 2010 at 9:42 am
Your site is extremely well executed.
One observation: While your full disclosure statement states that it is unethical to advise clients how to evade taxes, they should appreciate that only highly-skilled professionals like yourself are truly qualified to legally advise them on the most agressive and reliable “tax avoidance” strategies.
Best Wishes To Each of You,
Marty Herder
President,
Az Litigation Support, LLC
12 Tim the Protestor // Apr 3, 2011 at 4:47 pm
OMG. You are a person devoted to The Law, without regard for the effect of the The Law upon the person. As a lawyer, you should be horse-whipped and pilloried.
In America, our laws were designed to promote and protect the sovereigntyof individual persons, as well as groups of individual persons who might have a beef with the government.
To mandate some or (legally) ALL of our income be paid to our government, with any sort of penalty or physical punishment for “non-compliance”, is tantamount to forced socialism. There is no other word for it.
There ARE alternative methodologies and/or practices, such as the Fairtax, that would keep government running along very nicely. The IRS absolutely needs to be abolished along with its tax upon our income.
What the hell are you, a freakin’ IDIOT! How can you rationally support the semi-random taking of anyone’s life’s-blood??! The Founders would hurl chunks at the thought of their newborn country imposing the same type of tax/es which impelled us to leave the European system of governance in the first place!!!!
They attempted to FREE us from this method of servitude, and here you are DEFENDING such “legal” servitude!!!
There is the Law, and then there is the spirit of the Law. Here, I refer to the spirit of the “Law”. What, I might ask, IS the ‘spirit’ of a law that allows that, given the 13th, it is OK for a government to make slaves (full or partial) of its people, aside from pseudo-socialism? Americans, at large, do NOT strive toward a socialistic realization of life, but a more egoistic, republican, conservative, capitalistic, SOVEREIGN(istic) realization of their Lotto-like life. We only get this one life, and we’d best do our best!
Let me make sure you understand that I am not fooled into believing that you actually defend an income tax; I don’t believe you do. Instead, I understand that you defend the States’ right to tax us, in whatever way it needs to. There is MUCH qualifying necessary herewith, if so.
However, (and I’ll wrap this up quickly)
The 16th is in severe doubt as to its legality, and in direct oppostion to the 13th; the IRC is incomprehensible to the average person, which makes it moot.
Stop defending the hazy “legality” of the tax upon our income, and instead, devote your earnest efforts to rid this country of this idiot tax, and the hideously scary “IRS”!! Is THIS why our countrymen took bullets????? To have to deal with the I-Freakin’-R-S??? Is THIS WHY you became a lawyer????????
Do the RIGHT THING, sir. Stop the practice of insideously pissing us off!
Wake your legalistic asses UP!
13 Peter // Apr 4, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Hamsterlips,
Pay your income taxes and stop freeloading.
And for Pete’s sake, calm down before you burst a blood vessel?
14 Michael J. Miller // Apr 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I’ll have whatever Tim is having. I’m not driving.
15 Peter // Apr 6, 2011 at 8:28 am
Michael,
Aww, leave Tim alone. He just had a bad hair day.
16 HappyTaxDude // Apr 6, 2011 at 10:29 am
Peter, Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him? Really? As a Christopher Marlowe major in college, I beg to differ (but don’t ask for irrefutable proof).
17 Peter // Apr 7, 2011 at 9:00 am
Christopher Marlowe major. LOL.
For conspiratorialists there’s are no proofs that are irrefutable.
18 Rick Darby // Jun 7, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Peter,
I am trying to learn about legal — legal — means of asset protection against the possibility that a bankrupt government will require exchanging private retirement accounts for some kind of government annuity.
I am prepared to report any accounts held outside the United States as the law requires. And yes, I realize the government can do anything you can’t stop it from doing. But in your view would having money in a foreign jurisdiction, say Singapore, be of any use in keeping it out of the clutches of the federales?
Of course this isn’t a tax question. I am perfectly willing to pay taxes on any income derived from the offshore money. But I’d value your opinion.
Regards,
Rick
19 Peter // Jun 7, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Rick,
I know of nothing being discussed right now that would require you to relinquish your savings or convert them into a government annuity.
But if you’re still worried, I would start by looking at whether there is a treaty between the U.S. and the country you intend to place your money.
20 Rick Darby // Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 am
Peter,
If the government does go the confiscation route, my bet is that the necessary legal machinery will be put into place very quickly. I’d rather be prepared beforehand than react afterward.
Checking out treaties is a good suggestion, thanks. I’ll probably consult a specialist in asset protection eventually; doubtless it’s a mine field for the ordinary person.
21 Alfred // Jul 26, 2011 at 9:43 am
Yes, it would be useful to have a list of countries that do not have a tax treaty with the US. With preference for countries where English is understood to some degree.
22 Jay // Aug 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Can anyone answer this?: If I have a job making $10,000 a month and deposit that monthly check into my bank account, and then turn around and withdraw most of it in cash…and withdraw several hundred per day every day from an ATM… until I have tens of thousands of dollars of cash ‘under the mattress’…if I then bring all this cash back to the bank to deposit it to pay off a large IRS bill, what kind of problems might I have? As I said, there’s a multiyear bank record of cash being continually withdrawn with only check deposits. Can I expect any problems beyond filling out that form for $10k+ cash deposits?
23 Peter // Aug 20, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Jay,
Assuming you paid tax on the initial 10k, no.
24 Oldfart // Aug 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Your definition of “qualified tax professional” seems a little more narrow than Circular 230. There a still a few of us EA’s laboring in the trenches.
James Marsh
25 Peter // Aug 25, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Oldfart,
I think an EA is a qualified tax professional.
26 Dale // Aug 27, 2011 at 8:47 pm
So…let’s go back to the beginning. What people don’t understand is that yes, the Federal Income tax is constitutional, but not everyone is subject to or liable for that tax.
If you disagree, please tell me how any tax law asuming so can be reconciled with Article 1 Sec.9 Par.4 of the constitution still in force?
[here comes the misunderstanding of the 16th Amendment]
27 Peter // Aug 28, 2011 at 7:53 am
Dale,
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not understandable.
If you really want to understand why the federal income tax is constitutional and why all the bozo tax protester challenges to it have failed, you should read the hundreds of judicial opinions on the subject.
(here comes “the Courts are part of conspiracy” charges)
28 Dale // Aug 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Peter,
“Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not understandable.”
True, and same to you my friend.
“If you really want to understand why the federal income tax is constitutional”
I never said it wasn’t Constitutional. I agree that it is and always have. It is its implementation that is in error.
“(here comes “the Courts are part of conspiracy” charges)”
No, here comes the insistence that you answer my question DIRECTLY. I’ll ask it again…
How do YOU, Peter, reconcile your claim that our Government has the authority to take anyone’s money in any amount they deem necessary (or “fair”) with the prohibition against that very thing found in the Constitution at Article 1, Sec.9 Par.4, which IS still in force and effect?
29 Peter // Aug 28, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Dale,
Read the cases.
What’s hilarious to me is that you think you are more well-versed in tax and constitutional law than the hundreds of learned judges who have studied and ruled on these matters.
Oh, and by the way, raising a question that I cannot answer or, better yet, simply refuse to answer, proves only that I cannot answer it or that I refuse to answer it. Nothing else.
Especially when the question has been answered thousands of times before.
Read the cases if you want the answers. My hunch is that you don’t want the answers.
30 Dale // Aug 30, 2011 at 11:22 pm
I’m glad you are amused. I’m not amused in the least when someone wants to take away my property and/or rights without proper authority or justification.
I’m the first to admit that since I cannot walk on water or speak through a burning bush, I am inherently fallible. Judges and lawyers are also fallible beings, which is why on many occasions court cases are overturned.
You see Peter, you and others “refuse” to answer simple questions such as the one I posed, because you can’t answer it honestly without making my case for me. I’m engaged in this conversation just to prove myself right. I DO want to know the answers, but it only strengthens my mistrust of the so-called experts when the most basic of questions is avoided, side stepped or just blatantly refused to consider.
I’ll read the freakin’ cases…list them please.
31 Dale // Aug 30, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Correction: that should read “I’m NOT engaged in this conversation….”
32 Peter // Aug 31, 2011 at 9:13 am
Dale,
Your question “what cases and where can I find them” tells me everything I need to know about the efficacy of your argument: You have arrived at your position on the law without reading the law.
There are hundreds of cases. I will find the most relevant ones and list them here. My hunch is that you won’t read them and even if you do read them, they won’t change your opinion because your opinion is based on emotion, not reason.
33 Mustafa // Dec 13, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Wow Peter,
I’m mystified by the opening statements of this blog and then your response (or lack of)to Dale’s basic question.
You state that you believe everyone should seek the counsel of a “qualified tax professional”, but if you can’t ask questions of that “tax professional” to garner an understanding of some pretty serious life considerations, what’s the point?
You accuse Dale of thinking he is more well learned than hundreds of judges yet I don’t see why you get that impression. All he did was ask you, as a qualified tax professional, a specific question about taxation in its relationship to the constitution. Do you feel it was a stupid question? Why? Art 1 Sec 9, Par 4 does exist and I see no record of it being repealed. Again, if qualified tax professionals can’t or won’t answer questions about taxes and the law, what’s the point of seeking their counsel?
To further baffle me you refer to some others as “conspiratory” and yet you insist on actions and statement that would only serve to fuel any thoughts of a conspiracy. I don’t get it.
34 Peter // Dec 13, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Mustafa,
I answered Dale’s question by directing him to the hundreds of legal opinions that have already thoroughly addressed it and thousands of other frivolous tax protester arguments.
Qualified tax professionals are not required to answer anyone’s questions. However, if Dale wants to pay me for my legal opinion, I would be more than happy to provide it to him. I am sure you will agree that I have no obligation to provide answers – especially ones that I know will not be accepted – free of charge.
In any case, there is no need for me to do so because the answers to Dale’s questions are part of our national jurisprudence and available for all to see.
Finally, the notion that the federal income tax is unconstitutional is indeed a conspiracy theory because it means that judges, congressmen and tax lawyers are covering up the truth. Either that, or Dale has a superior intellect.
35 Mustafa // Dec 15, 2011 at 1:04 am
You’re right Peter, no one has to answer anyone’s questions, so here are some statements…
When someone goes to great lengths not to answer a simple question, it leaves the listener (reader) with 1 or 2 impressions: 1) the answer to the question is not known; or 2)there is something being hidden that a truthful answer would reveal.
…and why do you insist on bringing up the “federal income tax is unconstitutional” argument when Dale (in posting #28) already stated that he agreed that the f.i.t. IS constitutional.
Heck I’d almost be willing to pay you to answer his question regarding Article 1 Sec.9 Par.4.
It shouldn’t take more than an hour right?
36 Peter // Dec 15, 2011 at 10:48 am
Mustafa,
There is a third possibility: No matter what answer I give, Dale and you will not accept it therefore I choose to spend my time conversing with people who do not reside on planet Conspiratoria.
Again, and finally, the question has been answered a thousand times by better people than me and it still makes no impression on either Dale or you. Read the cases. Also, there are hundreds of tax professionals who have written blog posts taking apart these absurd tax protester arguments. These can be found by doing a simple Google search. If you really want the answers – which we both know you don’t – they are easy to find.
And incidentally, if you don’t pay your taxes, I better not see you driving on an interstate highway.
37 Mustafa // Dec 16, 2011 at 4:04 am
Now see, I was gonna leave well enough alone…but I gotta hear this.
“And incidentally, if you don’t pay your taxes, I better not see you driving on an interstate highway.”
Why not?
38 Peter // Dec 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Mustafa, are you serious?
Because you didn’t pay for the right to use it.
39 Mustafa // Dec 24, 2011 at 10:58 am
…I thought that was where you were headed.
While indeed “taxes” pay for our roads, the “Federal Income” tax does not. The roads and highways and their maintenance are paid for by gasoline taxes which I pay each time I fuel up my cars.
See ya on the road Peter!
40 Peter // Dec 25, 2011 at 10:15 am
Mustafa,
LOL. Okay, I will let you drive on my roads.
41 Mustafa // Jan 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm
I noticed there was no reference to the following tax case on your blog… you didn’t hear about this??
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070713%2FNEWS03%2F707130321%2F1062%2FNEWS03
42 Peter // Jan 21, 2012 at 9:08 am
Mustafa, Mustafa,
There are thousands of court cases where taxpayers have prevailed for one reason or another. Usually, cases are dropped because of lack of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, etc. The fact that Cryer is claiming that the IRS dropped the cases against him and he was acquitted because EVERYONE has no duty to pay income taxes is absurd and utterly meaningless. If that were true, the entire federal income tax system would have just been declared illegal and it would have been the lead story on every cable channel and in every newspaper in America. Don’t be so gullible and don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
Tax protesters always point to cases where some fellow delusional tax protester either got acquitted or had his case dismissed as evidence that their wacko protest theories are accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I suggest instead of reading a short article on the Cryer case you study the entire history of the case. You can get everything by filing a simple Freedom of Information Act request. I think you will find that neither the IRS or any jury agreed with Cryer’s ridiculous anti-tax arguments. I can assure that he was acquitted of failure to file tax returns and had his tax evasion charges dismissed for reasons other than that the federal income tax is illegal.
For every case where the prosecutors drop tax evasions charges hundreds off tax protester types get thrown in the hoosegow. There are many tax protesters, like Irwin Schiff, rooming with Bubba as we speak. I recommend that you don’t construe Cryer’s case as license to stop paying your own federal income taxes or you might find yourself joining him.
You’re going to have to do better than this if you want to gain converts to your bird-brained cause.
43 Mustafa // Jan 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Gee Peter, I was just wondering why you didn’t bring it up for discussion…
Anyway, your knee jerk reaction notwithstanding, maybe the reason you feel that the ratio of Gov’t tax abuse successes versus tax “truth er” dismissals/acquittals is because the latter are rarely widely published. Cases such as this are pushed onto the back pages of the local rag where it sits a short time in obscurity…and those “thousands of court cases where taxpayers prevailed” that you mentioned?
Perhaps they prevailed because they actually WEREN’T “Taxpayers”. (I won’t cite the case ruling re: taxpayers vs non-taxpayers as it applies to the code, you’ll just ignore it) Let me ask a very simple question… is it your contention that everyone that receives any money for anything is automatically a “taxpayer”?
Thanks for your suggestion about looking the actual case, I’ll most likely do that as I am NOT one to believe everything I read on the internet, even when the internet is only the vehicle and not the source, as is the case here. The source is a newspaper, which I don’t blindly believe everything in either. Unless you case have thoroughly investigated the case you don’t know why it ended in acquittal either, but I can guarantee you Cryer did NOT claim that the Federal Income tax is illegal. That’s a claim that you “tax-em-all’s”, including state tax agents and IRS, constantly try to attribute to us, despite how many times we say loudly “THAT’S NOT MY ARGUMENT!”
By the way, don’t forget (ahem) to answer my question please…about who you contend is a taxpayer.
44 Peter // Jan 23, 2012 at 9:14 am
Mustafa,
There it is. The conspiratorialist cover up.
When a tax protester lacks evidence for his argument he dismisses it by saying the conspirators are hiding the evidence.
This is why sane people don’t argue with tax protesters.
45 Mustafa // Jan 27, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Peter,
There it is. The tax-truth denier excuse not to answer a direct question.
Yeah, what was I thinking? Trillions and Trillions and Trillions of dollars are not enough reason for people to lie, to cheat, to CONSPIRE.
When you arise from the rabbit hole Peter, tell Alice I said hello.
46 Peter // Jan 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Mustafa,
That people have a motive to cheat is not evidence of cheating. Otherwise every wife of a husband who died with a big insurance policy is a murderer.
You can do better than that.
47 Mustafa // Feb 2, 2012 at 7:47 am
Peter,
“That people have a motive to cheat is not evidence of cheating.”
Of course it isn’t. It does, however, raise the possibility of cheating and then it’s the knowledge of what the laws say (which we are all supposed to be subject to), the court cases involving those laws and the blatant sidestepping, obfuscation and downright disregard of those laws by those in power that gives us the evidence.
48 Peter // Feb 2, 2012 at 9:08 am
Mustafa,
The law is what the Supreme Court says it is.
49 Kevin // Feb 4, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Peter,
I just got turned on to your site today through a Facebook debate page in which I participate. I work as a tax preparer, working on my EA certificate, and seriously considering law school. Based on what I’ve seen, I’ll be more than happy to send any Florida clients I may ever have your way in the event they need local representation.
(And while I have very strong feelings about the current discussion, I’m staying out of it, as I agree with you that no matter how many cases you cite, legal principles you explain, there will always be people that think their opinion actually matters in a court of law.)
Seventy three days to go!
Kevin
50 Peter // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Kevin,
Welcome to the site. Thanks for the kind comments. Good luck with your EA certification. If I can help you, let me know.
You are smart to stay out of conversations with tax protesters.
51 Mustafa // Feb 4, 2012 at 7:28 pm
…oh great, another tax know-it-all in the making…heaven help us all.
…and Kevin, why is it that ONLY the laws, cases, etc. that you “Taxers” cite deserve consideration?
I cite laws and cases all the time and even try to get answers to direct questions from “you types” to no avail. Yeah, you are smart to stay out of conversations with people who actually understand what the tax laws say. That way you can hold on to your delusion of superiority.
52 Peter // Feb 4, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Mustafa,
We aren’t tax-know-it-alls, you are a tax know-nothing!
53 Mustafa // Feb 5, 2012 at 10:49 am
“you are a tax know-nothing!”
…and yet I can and will answer ANY direct question you ask me regarding the tax code. You will summarily dismiss my answer because it won’t be aligned with the propaganda you were taught in Gov’t sponsored school.
I thank God each day that I have a mind of my own.
54 Peter // Feb 5, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Mustafa,
No, you are wrong. I will summarily dismiss your answer because you are three ants short of a picnic.
Leave a Comment