Replies

Why is that?

The bottomline of what is a risk when one cannot provide a defense to the Court's satisfaction.

26 USC 5761.

CIVIL PENALTIES
(b) FAILURE TO PAY TAX
Whoever fails to pay any tax imposed by this chapter at the time prescribed by law or regulations, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be liable to a penalty of 5 percent of the tax due but unpaid.

26 USC 7203.

WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE RETURN, SUPPLY INFORMATION, OR PAY TAX
Any person required under this title[26] to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year"

Your cynicism of people and you trust of government is touching, but frightening. It should be the other way 'round.

Amazing that tax law is one of the few professions that a claim of no training, education or experience suffices as authority to tell others about their tax liability. I hope you don't look at brain surgery the same way.

The credentials of Larkin Rose, by his own admission, who you direct us to as an authority on tax matters:

http://www.taxableincome.net/about/aboutauthor.html

“Who is this Larken Rose guy, anyway?”

Larken Rose is a not a lawyer. He has never received formal training in tax law, or any other kind of law. He has no special degrees or credentials regarding tax law. He earns his living in a business unrelated to tax law.

“So why should I take his word for anything?”

You shouldn’t.

Are yours any better? How is it that anyone should rely on your or the Rose analysis without independant look at the documents, history and rulings that actually control the outcome of tax cases?

I'll go by my findings, you go by yours thank you very much.

Lawyers, until this last century, read law, then became lawyers. You post much law and opinion of that law. Were you trained in a law school? If not, why should anyone listen to your opinion?

The short answer, of course, is that anyone can read and think. The correct evaluation of any treatise is the truth or falsity therein tested against reality, not against a degree from an academic institution.

If opinions fail because lack of formal training, your's fail for the same reason.

Amazing that tax law is one of the few professions that a claim of no training, education or experience suffices as authority to tell others about their tax liability.
Then why are you doing just that? You are telling all who read your replies that they are liable aren't you? Yet, at the same time, you claim to have no "training, education or experience" yourself.
Seems like you're calling the kettle black when you, the pot, are just as black.