Tax Lawyer's Blog

tax, finance, politics, culture

Tax Lawyer's Blog header image 3

My Bias

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 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

10 Comments

10 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.

Leave a Comment