Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Steve Forbes discusses Kent Hovind case!

RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 10:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
See the following link and join the discussion in the readers' comments section there if you have something you want to add:

http://www.forbes.com...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:06:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 10:31:20 PM, RLBaty wrote:
See the following link and join the discussion in the readers' comments section there if you have something you want to add:

http://www.forbes.com...

Kent Hovind was convicted of tax fraud because he didn't pay taxes on his $2 million a year he was grossing from his for-profit theme park. He attempted to avoid paying taxes by claiming his Dinosaur Adventure Land theme-park, was actually a "church" and his employees were "ministers" paying them in cash to avoid income tax.
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 5:26:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YECs, why must you pollute our faith so...
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:38:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 5:26:08 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
YECs, why must you pollute our faith so...

I'm surprised you can even read the article with such a large beam in your own eye.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Peter J Reilly is the author of this article.

It's an interesting facet of statism that causes the masses to see the person resisting extortion as an evil criminal and the people with guns attempting the extortion who kidnapped and caged the man defending his earnings as just and righteous. Oh statism, you never cease to dazzle me with the patent incompetence of your followers :D

Signed with Love,
Austen Samyn

P.S. Keep the material coming, state. Maybe we can try to use initiatory violence on a country and then call the people defending themselves from such violence "terrorists." Get back to me on that.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:33:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kent Hovinds tax evasion and structuring, is interesting not because it is tax evasion, but because it gives an insight into his thinking process.

He seems just as decieptful or simply delusional in the way he handled his response to the tax cases as he does when complaining about science.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 8:43:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 4:33:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Kent Hovinds tax evasion and structuring, is interesting not because it is tax evasion, but because it gives an insight into his thinking process.

Obviously his thinking process is in line with most of us who feel that Caesar is overstepping his bounds.

He seems just as decieptful or simply delusional in the way he handled his response to the tax cases as he does when complaining about science.

I won't comment on the legalities of his case, as I'm not aware of all the details, nor do I think you'll get a good accounting of those details from the comments section of that article.

As for science, he has no beef with science. It's the lies in textbooks, and junk science being passed off as real science, that he has a problem with. Obviously he isn't alone in thinking that way since he was one of, if not the most, requested speaker on the Cre-Evo debate, before his kidnapping by jack-booted thugs.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 10:16:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should also be noted that Kent Hovind was an open anti-government activist. The guy that investigated him was pulled by his agency from tracking lost funds in the Iraq war and was re-assigned to investiagte Hovind. A terrible waste of resources if you compare the missing funds in Iraq to Hovind's miniscule tax evasion.

Additionally, Hovind was taking on the school system and was actually pretty good at getting a crowd behind him.

He should have been ordered to pay the taxes....not be sent to jail. They guy and his wife are senior citizens. Why send them to federal max prison?

While he clearly is a nutjob....the punishment doesn't fit the crime. This reeks of "lets make an example of him" justice.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 11:40:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 4:33:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Kent Hovinds tax evasion and structuring, is interesting not because it is tax evasion, but because it gives an insight into his thinking process.

He seems just as decieptful or simply delusional in the way he handled his response to the tax cases as he does when complaining about science.

It's not his only deception either. I'm sure you're also familiar with the "university" he attended to achieve his doctorate, and by "university" I mean the double-wide trailer Diploma mill he purchased his doctorate from. Even AnswersInGenesis has been critical of him.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 12:06:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 10:16:15 AM, Heineken wrote:

While he clearly is a nutjob....the punishment doesn't
fit the crime. This reeks of "lets make an example of him" justice.

I disagree.

The punishment fits the crime according to the law that mandates the 10 year sentence when the "structuring" occurs in conjunction with the commission of other related crimes, which it does.

Of course, had Kent be of a different mindset, he could have easily entered into a plea bargain and got by with a lot less jail time. Kent wanted to be able to play the martyr and the government obliged.

And is it really "punishment"?

Have you not read about how Kent brags about being restricted to a prison without fences, how he could just walk away if he wanted to, how he has completed 2 more doctorates and is working on a 3rd which will bring his total to 4, how he's been writing so many books and articles, how he is allowed up to 30 email correspondents (I was one) and he's spending about $300 a month in pursuit of his personal correspondence.

Punishment?

He's in "Hovind Heaven"!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:33:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Peter J Reilly is the author of this article.

It's an interesting facet of statism that causes the masses to see the person resisting extortion as an evil criminal and the people with guns attempting the extortion who kidnapped and caged the man defending his earnings as just and righteous. Oh statism, you never cease to dazzle me with the patent incompetence of your followers :D

Signed with Love,
Austen Samyn

P.S. Keep the material coming, state. Maybe we can try to use initiatory violence on a country and then call the people defending themselves from such violence "terrorists." Get back to me on that.

It never ceases to amaze me that a man who builds on someone else's land, takes grants and subsidies from the state and takes liberties and freedoms not found in nature complains when he is expected to hold up his end of the bargain and chip in to protect the lifestyle he has. It's the equivalent of complaining that you have to work for your money.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 5:12:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 12:06:34 PM, RLBaty wrote:
At 2/2/2013 10:16:15 AM, Heineken wrote:

While he clearly is a nutjob....the punishment doesn't
fit the crime. This reeks of "lets make an example of him" justice.

I disagree.

The punishment fits the crime according to the law that mandates the 10 year sentence when the "structuring" occurs in conjunction with the commission of other related crimes, which it does.

Of course, had Kent be of a different mindset, he could have easily entered into a plea bargain and got by with a lot less jail time. Kent wanted to be able to play the martyr and the government obliged.

So he could have got off with less jail time and that would have been acceptable, in the interest of justice, but he got more time because he fought the case?? That tells me that the additional punishment was exacted, not because it was deserved, but simply because he wouldn't shut his mouth and take his beating like a big boy.

Make it easy on the lawyers and you get less time, make them work for a living and you get more time...lol...Welcome to the American justice system.

And is it really "punishment"?

Have you not read about how Kent brags about being restricted to a prison without fences, how he could just walk away if he wanted to, how he has completed 2 more doctorates and is working on a 3rd which will bring his total to 4, how he's been writing so many books and articles, how he is allowed up to 30 email correspondents (I was one) and he's spending about $300 a month in pursuit of his personal correspondence.

Punishment?

He's in "Hovind Heaven"!

Yeah, I'm sure that there's nowhere he would rather be. That's just plain dumb.

What's in all this for you, anyway?? What good does it do for you to become involved, and call out the man's wife publically, and try to get her to comment?? That's low-rent for even a lawyer or journalist.

If you have some kind of vendetta against him then have the cajones to deal with him, leave his family out of it. Are they not going through enough trials and tribulations right now??

And how is this case, as you've termed it, "important public matters"?? A man is in jail paying the debt that society (a lazy lawyer) has bestowed upon him. I see no reason why this needs to be an important public matter, in fact it should be left as a very private matter between Hovind, his family, and God.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 5:35:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 5:12:04 PM, medic0506 wrote:

So he could have got off with less jail time and that would
have been acceptable, in the interest of justice, but he got
more time because he fought the case?? That tells me that
the additional punishment was exacted, not because it was
deserved, but simply because he wouldn't shut his mouth
and take his beating like a big boy.

Make it easy on the lawyers and you get less time, make
them work for a living and you get more time...lol...
Welcome to the American justice system.

Yeah, I'm sure that there's nowhere he would rather be.
That's just plain dumb.

What's in all this for you, anyway?? What good does it
do for you to become involved, and call out the man's
wife publically, and try to get her to comment??

That's low-rent for even a lawyer or journalist.

If you have some kind of vendetta against him then
have the cajones to deal with him, leave his family
out of it. Are they not going through enough trials
and tribulations right now??

And how is this case, as you've termed it, "important
public matters"?? A man is in jail paying the debt that
society (a lazy lawyer) has bestowed upon him. I see
no reason why this needs to be an important public
matter, in fact it should be left as a very private matter
between Hovind, his family, and God.

Kent Hovind and his followers have made his legal problems a matter of public interest and he and they continue to promote his misguided notions about the case and related matters.

His wife is implicated in these matters and it seems there are many making ipse dixit claims about her situation. They can try to keep her under wraps, and she is welcome to go along if she wants, even if reluctantly.

However, its quite legitimate to offer her the opportunity speak to the issues, particularly from a woman's/wife's perpective. Many a similar sort have been found to have been quite reluctant in supporting their husband's antics. I noticed such was recognized by the Court in sentencing Ms. Vernon up in Alaska last month; for her part in her husband's anti-government scheming and threatening of government officials.

Here's a link discussing the Vernon case and the wife's part in it:

http://www.themudflats.net...

Mrs. Hovind might not be strong enough to speak her mind and risk compromising so much, including her modest lifestyle.

It's all speculation, of course. I prefer her direct testimony; though I realize it may never be heard.

If Kent Hovind and his supporters ever get him to just shut up and go away, then the public interest in his cases will, no doubt fade. See what you can do about that.

Till then, both Kent's and Jo's continuing antics will remain legitimate fodder for public comment.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 12:43:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 5:35:21 PM, RLBaty wrote:
At 2/2/2013 5:12:04 PM, medic0506 wrote:

So he could have got off with less jail time and that would
have been acceptable, in the interest of justice, but he got
more time because he fought the case?? That tells me that
the additional punishment was exacted, not because it was
deserved, but simply because he wouldn't shut his mouth
and take his beating like a big boy.

Make it easy on the lawyers and you get less time, make
them work for a living and you get more time...lol...
Welcome to the American justice system.

Yeah, I'm sure that there's nowhere he would rather be.
That's just plain dumb.

What's in all this for you, anyway?? What good does it
do for you to become involved, and call out the man's
wife publically, and try to get her to comment??

That's low-rent for even a lawyer or journalist.

If you have some kind of vendetta against him then
have the cajones to deal with him, leave his family
out of it. Are they not going through enough trials
and tribulations right now??

And how is this case, as you've termed it, "important
public matters"?? A man is in jail paying the debt that
society (a lazy lawyer) has bestowed upon him. I see
no reason why this needs to be an important public
matter, in fact it should be left as a very private matter
between Hovind, his family, and God.

Kent Hovind and his followers have made his legal problems a matter of public interest and he and they continue to promote his misguided notions about the case and related matters.

That doesn't seem to be the case, in light of the fact that you are the one instigating discussion of his legal matters both here on DDO, and the Forbes site. I make no bones about my support for Hovind's beliefs on matters of the Bible, evolution, etc., and I look forward to his release. However, I think it presumptuous for outsiders to discuss his personal legal matters when he has no fair representation in the discussion, so that we know we're getting factually correct information, about his and Mrs. Hovind's cases.

His wife is implicated in these matters and it seems there are many making ipse dixit claims about her situation. They can try to keep her under wraps, and she is welcome to go along if she wants, even if reluctantly.

However, its quite legitimate to offer her the opportunity speak to the issues, particularly from a woman's/wife's perpective. Many a similar sort have been found to have been quite reluctant in supporting their husband's antics. I noticed such was recognized by the Court in sentencing Ms. Vernon up in Alaska last month; for her part in her husband's anti-government scheming and threatening of government officials.

Here's a link discussing the Vernon case and the wife's part in it:

http://www.themudflats.net...

Mrs. Hovind might not be strong enough to speak her mind and risk compromising so much, including her modest lifestyle.

It's all speculation, of course. I prefer her direct testimony; though I realize it may never be heard.

I have no interest in the Vernon case, as once again, I feel it is outside the scope of our need to know.

You seem to feel as if you have something to gain by Mrs. Hovind commenting publically. What stake do you have in her testimony?? How are you related to this case??

If Kent Hovind and his supporters ever get him to just shut up and go away, then the public interest in his cases will, no doubt fade. See what you can do about that.

Hovind's legal case was not being discussed on this site until you posted this thread. Blaming this on him or his supporters is obviously a falsehood.

Till then, both Kent's and Jo's continuing antics will remain legitimate fodder for public comment.

I'm sure you'll see to that.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 2:15:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obviously Kent Hovind was victimized by the federal goverment for being an out spoken challenger to the adiminstartion that is brainwashing the educational system in the US.

If you were to put everybody who evaded tax in prison you would have very few people left in society, this guy was singled out and hounded down by the elite. End of story.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 8:44:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 2:15:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Obviously Kent Hovind was victimized by the federal goverment for being an out spoken challenger to the adiminstartion that is brainwashing the educational system in the US.

If you were to put everybody who evaded tax in prison you would have very few people left in society, this guy was singled out and hounded down by the elite. End of story.

So the majority of people commit purposeful and knowledgable income tax evasion to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Don't try and absolve the guy of blame. He broke the law, and broke the law significantly. He did so with full knowledge, and purposefully avoided cooperating with the investigation, If he had done so, he may not have had a custodial sentence.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 10:54:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/3/2013 2:15:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Obviously Kent Hovind was victimized by the federal goverment for being an out spoken challenger to the adiminstartion that is brainwashing the educational system in the US.

I think it's mostly because he tried to pass off Dinosaur Adventure Land as a "church" to evade taxes, did he really think that would hold up in court? The federal government doesn't give a d*mn what he believes so long as they are getting their $$ cut. Hovind was basically asking for trouble.

I find it amusing all the excuses his supporters are making for him. Hovind is not above the law just because you agree with his views.

If you were to put everybody who evaded tax in prison you would have very few people left in society, this guy was singled out and hounded down by the elite. End of story.

He was singled out, because his case was incredibly weak, and the amount of money he owed significant. Most tax evaders are not grossing $2mil a year. I don't know what he was thinking.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 4:02:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The recent Kent Hovind - Robert Baty Exchange via CorrLinks is now available for review and comment at:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

To comment, simply address an email reply to the following address, changing the (at) to @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com

Otherwise, if you are in to using YAHOO! groups, you can sign in and use the "post" and/or "reply" features found at the above link.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 6:45:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just noticed that the Creation Science Hall of Fame must be really getting some heat for its efforts to try and defend Kent Hovind's criminal career.

It has modified its page honoring Kent as one of its "Living Inductees" by eliminating the recent letter from Kent defending his criminal actitivies and a supporting analogy from the "Honorable Mention" honoree Jerry Bergman.

For a look at the "before" and "after" texts, you can go to the following link:

http://groups.yahoo.com...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 6:45:09 PM, RLBaty wrote:
I just noticed that the Creation Science Hall of Fame must be really getting some heat for its efforts to try and defend Kent Hovind's criminal career.

It has modified its page honoring Kent as one of its "Living Inductees" by eliminating the recent letter from Kent defending his criminal actitivies and a supporting analogy from the "Honorable Mention" honoree Jerry Bergman.

For a look at the "before" and "after" texts, you can go to the following link:

.http://groups.yahoo.com...

I think your obsession with Dr. Hovind borders on unhealthy.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:42:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:30:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I think your obsession with Dr. Hovind
borders on unhealthy.

Many have opined regarding my mental state in the context of various and assorted issues and the attention I have given them.

I guess if you are interested in something it's OK.
If I am interested in something it is unhealthy.

Maybe you should give your informed opinion as to the mental state of Kent Hovind who has spent decades promoting conspiracy theories and anti-government, anti-tax hobbies while raking in millions and while continuing in a state of denial while serving a 10 year sentence and after letting his wife go to jail for him for a year as well.

If it weren't for Kent invoking God, do you think he would be in prison on in a mental institution?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 3:22:58 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that a man who builds on someone else's land, takes grants and subsidies from the state

I haven't built on anyone else's land. And if I do, it will be justly acquired through contract. I also haven't accepted grants or subsidies from the state; I oppose both.

and takes liberties and freedoms not found in nature complains when he is expected to hold up his end of the bargain

This assumes that there is a contract between me and a monopoly of violence, which there isn't. You could argue the social contract here, but I doubt you'd deign to that level; the social contract argument is about as incompetent a statist argument as can be mustered.

and chip in to protect the lifestyle he has.

Chip-in sounds like a voluntary agreement, whereas the reality of the situation is that it's not. People are extorted under threat of being thrown into a cage for products/services that are artificially held in scarcity or have their competition eliminated (e.g. postal service can only deliver mail by law, number of police officers, etc).

It's the equivalent of complaining that you have to work for your money.

No, having to work is a basic reality. If I'm on a deserted island, I need to fish, hunt, provide shelter and clothing for myself to survive. The market economy simply allows the division of labor to occur, resulting in increasingly specialized jobs. Paying taxes is not my working for myself, to survive and thrive. It is my being forced to work for a parasitic class. If the tax rate I pay is 25%, that means that about 3 months out of the year I am working primarily for someone else (I understand that I receive around 2-3% of that in return). Do I have a choice to turn down this offer to work for someone else that I don't want to work for? No, I either comply or force being thrown into a cage. In this sense, my life is partially owned by someone else without my consent. This is fundamentally a master-slave relationship; in agricultural slavery masters sheltered and fed their slaves, but that did not change the reality of the coercive master-slave relationship. Similarly, masters/rulers in the parasitic class provide programs for their slaves, but that doesn't change the reality of the coercive master-slave relationship.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:03:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 5:12:04 PM, medic0506 wrote:

I see no reason why this needs to be an important
public matter, in fact it should be left as a very
private matter between Hovind, his family, and God.

It just so happens that earlier today Kent has caused one of his lengthy messages to be broadcast via one of his FaceBook pages:

http://www.facebook.com...

Among other things, he trots out his wife; the woman he let go to jail for a year so he could play the martyr.

It appears, according to Kent, that after going through 299 girls as a teenage Romeo, Jo caught his eye and God worked a miracle on his Volkswagon that gave him a "sign".

Alas, though he trotted out Jo, she was only a prop in his latest promotion.

Jo remains bound and gagged.

I can only ask and opine regarding what is really going on with that "poor woman".

It's unlikely she will ever be in a position to speak freely and openly and honestly about her perspective on her husband's antics.

It's worth noting as Kent continues his antics.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 3:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:44:07 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I haven't built on anyone else's land. And if I do, it will be justly acquired through contract. I also haven't accepted grants or subsidies from the state; I oppose both.

I don't think he's referring to you.
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:55:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(Maybe the Tax Court is warming up to writing its opinion in the case of Kent Hovind; an opinion that could come down any day now since the January 30, 2013 deadline has now come and gone. Ronald W. Davenport has a long history before the Tax Court. He"s a soul like-minded to Kent Hovind. Today he lost again.)

T.C. Memo. 2013-41
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

RONALD W. DAVENPORT,
Petitioner

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

Docket No. 21878-11.
Filed February 7, 2013.

Ronald W. Davenport, pro se.
Mindy Y. Chou, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(excerpts)

CHIECHI, Judge:

Respondent determined a deficiency of $13,013 in, and respective additions of $829.80 and $461 under section 6651(a)(1) and (2)1 to,
petitioner"s Federal income tax (tax) for his taxable year 2008.

We must decide whether to sustain the determinations that respondent made in the notice of deficiency that respondent issued to petitioner for his taxable year 2008.

We hold that we will sustain those determinations.

Background

(P)etitioner performed work for E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont) for which that company paid him. DuPont issued to petitioner Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement (Form W-2), for his taxable year 2008 in which it showed, inter alia, that during that year it had paid him
"Wages, tips, other compensation" of $75,536.16.

Petitioner did not file a tax return for his taxable year 2008.

In the petition that petitioner filed commencing this case, he gave the
following reasons for disagreeing with the determinations that respondent made in the notice:

1.

Petitioner has no requirement under
law to file a Form 1040.

2.

Commissioner has no lawful authority to file
a substitute for return in this instant case.

3.

Petitioner had no taxable income for the year
in question.

In an Order dated September 11, 2012, we denied petitioner"s motion to take judicial notice.

In that Order, we found that certain statements, contentions, and/or arguments in that motion and in the petition are frivolous and/or groundless.

As required by our standing pretrial order, respondent timely filed a pretrial
memorandum in this case.

Petitioner did not.

On December 10, 2012, when this case was called from the calendar for our trial session in Detroit, Michigan, petitioner and counsel for
respondent appeared and informed us that the case was ready for trial.

Petitioner informed us at the calendar call that his testimony at trial would
last about 10 minutes.

Respondent advised us at the calendar call that although respondent did not intend to call any witnesses, respondent intended to cross-examine petitioner.

On December 10, 2012, when this case was recalled for trial, petitioner and
counsel for respondent appeared.

When we asked petitioner to go to the witness stand in order to testify, he
refused to do so and stated:

> "The record speaks for itself."

We then asked petitioner why he requested a trial, to which he responded:

> "To come down and present my case.
> But I cannot be compelled to be a
> witness against myself".

We attempted to confirm that petitioner did not intend to testify by
asking him whether we were correct in stating that he did not want to testify, to which he responded:

> "Right. Under the law I cannot be
> compelled to be a witness against myself".

Because petitioner declined to testify and respondent did not call any
witnesses, we had this case submitted on the basis of the facts deemed
established under Rule 91(f).

Discussion

Petitioner bears the burden of proving error in the determinations in the
notice.

On the record before us, we sustain the determinations that respondent made in the notice for petitioner"s taxable year 2008.

We turn now sua sponte to section 6673(a)(1), a provision that we brought to petitioner"s attention on several occasions.

Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes us to impose a penalty in favor of the United
States in an amount not to exceed $25,000, inter alia, whenever it appears that a taxpayer"s position in a proceeding is frivolous and/or groundless or that the taxpayer institutes or maintains the proceeding primarily for delay.

Despite repeated admonitions to petitioner that we would impose a penalty on him under section 6673(a)(1) if he continued to advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and arguments and/or instituted or maintained this proceeding primarily for delay, he persisted in doing so.

On the record before us, we find that petitioner"s position in this case is
frivolous and groundless and that he instituted and maintained this case
primarily for delay.

Accordingly, we shall impose on petitioner a penalty under section
6673(a)(1) in the amount of $4,000.

We have considered any statements, contentions, and/or arguments of
petitioner that are not frivolous and/or groundless and that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit and/or irrelevant.

To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.

""""""""""
""""""""""
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 5:29:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:33:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Peter J Reilly is the author of this article.

It's an interesting facet of statism that causes the masses to see the person resisting extortion as an evil criminal and the people with guns attempting the extortion who kidnapped and caged the man defending his earnings as just and righteous. Oh statism, you never cease to dazzle me with the patent incompetence of your followers :D

I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you against taxation?