Tax Court Rules (Presumption of Guilt in Tax Court / Why 87,000 new agents matters)

US Tax Court ^ | December 27, 2021 | N/A

[DoodleBob]

Rules of Practice and Procedure

The Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure are available below.

...

RULE 142. BURDEN OF PROOF

(a) General: (1) The burden of proof shall be upon the petitioner, except as otherwise provided by statute or deter- mined by the Court; and except that, in respect of any new matter, increases in deficiency, and affirmative defenses, pleaded in the answer, it shall be upon the respondent. As to affirmative defenses, see Rule 39.

...

Guidance for Petitioners: Things That Occur During Trial

Someone told me that the petitioner (taxpayer) has the burden of proof. I don't understand this. What is the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is a legal term that refers to a party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion. The burden of proof is generally on the petitioner. This means that you need to bring to court evidence, such as documents and testimony of witnesses (you and maybe others), to prove that the determination of the IRS is not correct and that your position is correct.

There are some limited circumstances where the burden of proof is on the IRS. For the burden of proof to shift to the IRS on a factual issue, the petitioner must introduce credible evidence in court with respect to that issue. The petitioner must also comply with substantiation and record-keeping requirements set forth in the tax laws. Also the petitioner must show that he or she cooperated with reasonable requests from the IRS for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews. In most cases, the burden of proof does not shift to the IRS and the petitioner must show that the IRS’s determinations are wrong.

[cuz1961]

what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
/\

It’s blatantly ignored like all the other laws progs in positions of power ignore

(except when they can charge and prosecute their political enemies.)

.

[Secret Agent Man]

You said “the only entity fixed more than family court”

Not “the only entity fixed more IS family court”

[redcatcherb412]

Obamas new private militia he talked about as large and armed as the US Military. Well, Army has 481,000 active duty personnel. If you use the age old calculation that it takes 8 non combatants to field 1 combatant then about 60,000 Army are considered combat arms ready to deploy. So the 87,000 or so new IRS troopies, heavily armed and equipped like the military should give obama an orgasm that his dream may be realized having a militarized arm under his contol ( you just know he runs all the puppets) and the private Army larger than the standing Army, that answers to the executive branch (ie dicktater) instead of the pentagon is now obamas dream child.

[Chgogal]

Bookmark

[sergeantdave]

“So the 87,000 or so new IRS troopies, heavily armed and equipped like the military should give obama an orgasm that his dream may be realized having a militarized arm under his contol”

Your IRS soi boys, who can’t figure out which bathroom to use, don’t magically become 10-foot-tall Rambo infantry just because they have a rifle and ammo.

[bitt]

p

[Chode]

meant almost as bad

[eeriegeno]

If 87000 can be hired by this communistic gang then the next administration, assuming it has common sense, can fire those 87000 gestapo agents. If I was looking for a new job I would be looking beyond this irs temp service.

[Secret Agent Man]

Now I got ya :)

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article DoodleBob. Please note that the following critique is a side note to this thread and not directed at you.

To begin with, since we have a constitutionally limited power federal government, doesn't it make sense that the federal government's power to raise revenue should also be constitutionally limited?

With that question in mind, we need to go “upstream” of the misguided (imo) Tax Court and consider constitutional history concerning limits on federal taxes. So please consider the following material from a thread critiquing the unconstitutional (imo) climate and healthcare bill which the Democratic-pirated House passed today (Friday, 8.12.22).

The bottom line is that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to dictate, regulate, tax and spend in the name of Democratic politically correct, global warming junk science or INTRAstate healthcare (Obamacare unconstitutional imo), and a whole lot of other things that the feds spend taxpayer money on.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the feds.

”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)

The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government oppressing everybody under its boots...

The states need to eliminate the unconstitutional middleman, the unconstitutionally big federal government, from “helping” the states to manage their revenues.

More specifically, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters need to start supporting their Trump-endorsed MAGA candidates for state lawmakers ASAP to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, and likewise unconstitutional interference in state affairs, by doing the following.

MAGA candidate state lawmakers need to lead ALL the states to effectively "secede" from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular vote for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A).

Once 16&17A are gone, unconstitutional federal taxes permanently stopped, each state will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues (imo) that can be used to increase teacher salaries, also salaries of police and fire departments for starters.

Let's also include new state funding for infrastructure maintenance in that list. Undoubtedly many other state social spending programs as well to replace former unconstitutional federal spending programs.

In fact, Justice Louis Brandeis had seemingly reflected on Bingham's words (above) when Brandeis volunteered his "laboratories of democracy" metaphor to emphasize the unique power of the states to serve the people, ultimately depending on the kind of state social spending programs that the legal majority citizen voters of a given state want.

"[...] a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." —Justice Louis Brandeis, Laboratories of Democracy.

So while we need to be concerned about presumed guilt in Tax Court, in the meanwhile Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters need to work together to exercise our voting power to peacefully put corrupt Congress back into its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power cage, particularly where unconstitutional federal taxes are concerned.

Corrections, insights welcome.

[WASCWatch]

About 20 years ago I got two letters spaced about six months apart to which the IRS attached a document they wanted me to sign that imputed a certain level of taxable income.

I ignored the first. When I got the second, I called the IRS and talked what seemed to be a young man. Asked him to provide me with the actual statute that required me in my circumstances to pay income taxes.

I also asked him if ever heard the name Joe Bannister? Told him to do a YouTube search for him and listen to a few of his speeches. That’s the last I’ve heard from the IRS.

The best advice when the IRS wants to interview you is to assert your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination and then STFU. Unless there is huge money involved, you won’t be worth their time and effort. To many suckers out there where they can get easier results.

If the FBI ever wa to to speak with you, have them meet at your attorney’s office.once the introductions are made, pull out a recording device and turn it on. The FBI will tell they don’t allow interviews to be recorded. Your attorney will tell them that the interview will be recorded or there will be no interview. At that point, the FBI agents will get up and leave,never to be heard from again

[boxlunch]

This would be HUGE. In draining the swamp, it would take so much power away from the federal government! We need something like this passed asap. Trump should put it in his platform.

If states collected, you could forbid the IRSgestapo from setting foot in your state

[crz]

“The best advice when the IRS wants to interview you is to assert your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination and then STFU.”

Yes..you are correct.

But, like you said, they go after those who are scared to death of them and are willing to do anything to get off the hook.
NEVER..EVER show them fear!

[tired&retired]

As my name implies, I have been retired for over twenty years as a CPA and tax law professor.

This article is correct concerning a person’s presumed guilt rather than presumed innocence. It’s frustrating, but that’s how it works.

The exception to this is when I handled tax disputes in Bankruptcy Court rather than Tax Court. I’ve done this several times over the years and found the judges were much tougher on the IRS attorneys.

The Democrats appear to be starting a private army with all the new agents. The future does not look good.

[DoodleBob]

Hmmm... lets say the IRS claims you owe $x in back taxes over $12,000 in "income" that you swear was a "gift." Using your strategy, you sue the IRS in federal court for...what...harassment?

And assuming you lose, can the IRS NOW pull you into their home stadium?

[Varsity Flight]

R E N T E N M A R K

Global
666

[DoodleBob]

The reality, that only ten states receive more in federal outlays than they pay in taxes - and the biggest four are outright statist hellholes - suggests that any effort to repeal the 16th faces a massive PR problem.

The good people of, say, Pennsylvania, would need a compelling argument since the $9,872 in per capita taxes they'd get back is exceeded by the $12,171 in per capita pork they receive.

Now, we know that the top 10% of tax payers by AGI pay the lion's share share of of income taxes (about 70% last time I looked). Thus the spending and tax paying breakdown along demographic lines will also mean the Repeal debate will break along similar lines. And this will be weaponized by the left as "for the rich," blah blah blah. Then there will be the RINOs, NeverTrumpers and related losers who claim income tax is the price we pay for a civilized society blah blah blah.

Every journey starts with a first step. But that step here is a steep one.

[Regulator]

Ro the corrupt Indian foreigner is not clueless, he’s just a racist liar.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for replying.

Given that the federal government is the source of the numbers that you have posted, we first need to audit the numbers for accuracy.

In fact, consider the term "unaccountable federal spending" and similar terms that we see on this message board, alleged Democratic crime families allegedly participating in money laundering with respect to our tax dollars.

I'll also mention that Justice Joseph Story had clarified that "foreign aid," a term that we often hear about concerning federal spending, is constitutionally indefensible.

“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).

Also, given that the main expenses in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8 powers is military-related , the 2022 "peacetime" defense budget claimed to be about $700+ billion, I'll round that figure up to $1 trillion to give us an idea of what the total annual federal budget should be, not the multiple trillions that the very corrupt Congress is spending annually.

After all, given that one of the very few powers that the states have actually expressly constitutionally given the feds to dictate an aspect of domestic policy is to run the U.S. Mail Service, the constitutional reality is that most federal domestic spending is based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated state revenues, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.

• "Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

• "10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

• "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) should be required by law to publicly report within 24 hours when any item in an appropriations bill is probably not reasonably based on any constitutionally enumerated federal government power.

Again, the states need to eliminate the unconstitutional middleman, the unconstitutionally big federal government, from “helping” the states to manage their revenues, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments a relatively simple way to do this that corrupt Congress has relatively little control over imo.

Corrections, insights welcome.

[beancounter13]

You would need to consult your tax professional to get the latest advice. I have not been in the tax business in quite some time.

Even so, some of the case studies we had back in the day would blow your mind…..