Organize against the IRS, attention Lawyers and CPAs test your knowledge

Great Debates
81

You have to go back to my Westside Story comment for the title to be of meaning.

Tax Attorney, I did a search in Larken’s TI report and 1.861(a) appeared 14 times. So I’m going to bother you to describe the words that you feel do not support Larken’s assertions.

Tax attorney the TI report refers to 1.861-8T(d)(iii) three times. Please expand why that section does not support Larken’s assertions

Section [1.861-8T (d)(i)] seems to say that when allocating deductions(A), exempt income will be take into account, and when apportioning deduction (B) exempt income will not be taken into account. I will ask you to expand on this as well. I think there is a very interesting admission here. If you think most tax payers should be looking to that section that means you disagree with Dewey about stopping at 26USC61. Are you agreeing that up until (d)(i) most people’s income is exempt and that it just needs to be taken into account because of (d)(I)(A)?

Tax Attorney - “Then repeat 100 times that those temporary regs deal with allocation and apportionment of deductions.” Those regulations specifically say what they deal with, and (d)(i) described what circumstances exempt income will be taken into account not that all these regs are only for allocating deductions. Your claim is an inference not supported by actual words in the law.
You claim that operative sections are not specific sources yet the words in the law say that specific sources are refered to in this section as operative section. Again specific sources are referred to as operative sections. Tax attorney – “It doesnt say: “from which specific source or activity, also known as operative sections.” It just about does…
“The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer
from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this
section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and
description of operative sections.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)]

According to Larken….
Each item on the list mentions a
section of Subchapter N (with one exception). Those sections mentioned
(like Section 871(b)) are “operative sections.” Each “operative section”
describes a “specific source or activity.” For example, Section 871(b)
talks about nonresident aliens doing business in the U.S. So, in that
example:

Operative section = Section 871(b)
Specific source or activity = nonresident alien doing business in U.S.
Statutory grouping = income from nonresident alien doing business in U.S.
(as described in 871(b))

Such income is taxable under 1.861-8.

Paragraph (f)(1) is a list of “operative sections” AND “specific sources and
activities.” Each items on the list gives a section number AND describes
the exact type of commerce (i.e. “specific source”) dealt with in that
section.
Tax Attorney I think that addresses most of your points, I look forward to your response.

Wick

82

wick, your argument seems to rest on the belief that in the phrase “from whatever source”, the word “source” refers only to the specific sources listed in section 861, and does not have the common English meaning of “source”. Legal documents are often tricky like that, but I think in this case they’re using the common English definition.

Do you have a cite from any court that has actually agreed with your interpretation? What would it take to convince you that “from whatever source” refers to all possible income, short of a new law explicitly stating “‘from whatever source’ really means FROM ANYWHERE”?

83

Why does Larken ignore 1.861-8(a), 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) and 1.861-8T (d)(2)(iii)?

Alan’s response to each of the following:

(1) 1.861(a) - Alan says, “Tax Attorney, I did a search in Larken’s TI report and 1.861(a) appeared 14 times. So I’m going to bother you to describe the words that you feel do not support Larken’s assertions.”

Tax Attorney’s Comments: I am bothered by Larken’s refusal to admit that 1.861-8(a)(4) refers to 1.861-8(f) as a list of “operative sections.” It does not refer to 1.861-8(f) as a list of “sources or activities.” It tells us to look at 1.861-8(f) for the list of operative sections.

Also note: we are required to look at sources or activities “under” an operative section. It doesnt say: “from which specific source or activity, also known as operative sections.” This is where Larken Rose closes his eyes and magically equates “operative sections” with “sources or activities.”

Let’s try something. Go to the very first item in 1.861-8(f). Ask yourself if the overall limitation on the foreign tax credit is a “source or activity.” Obviously, it is not.

Let’s move to the next section Larken ignores, with Alan’s comments, followed by my own.

(2) 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) - Alan says, “Section [1.861-8T (d)(i)] seems to say that when allocating deductions(A), exempt income will be take into account, and when apportioning deduction (B) exempt income will not be taken into account. I will ask you to expand on this as well. I think there is a very interesting admission here. If you think most tax payers should be looking to that section that means you disagree with Dewey about stopping at 26USC61. Are you agreeing that up until (d)(i) most people’s income is exempt and that it just needs to be taken into account because of (d)(I)(A)?”

Tax Attorney’s Comments: Let’s first look at the section to understand what it says:

1.861-8T(d)(2)(i):
In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, except to the extent otherwise permitted by 1.861-13T, the following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or excluded, or assets generating such income, with respect to allocation and apportionment of deductions.

Now let me clarify. This clearly states that the following rules apply with respect to allocating and apportioning deductions. Larken would have you believe that somehow your income is exempted by these regulations - but it clearly states that the goal to to provide rules governing the allocation and apportionment of deductions - not rules governing the exemption of income. Larken coincidentally skips over this nugget of information in his report without any comments. Wonder why? Well, now you know.

Let’s move to the third section, 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).

(3) 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) - Alan is wondering why I even mention 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii): “Tax attorney the TI report refers to 1.861-8T(d)(iii) three times. Please expand why that section does not support Larken’s assertions.”

Tax Attorney’s Comments - 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) says:
Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them: (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer…

Again, the context of these rules is given. Exempt income is discussed in the context of, again (I sound like a broken record), allocating and apportioning deductions. Thats the purpose here - and Larken misses it entirely. Nowhere does it say that “these items are exempt from taxation, so enjoy all that tax free money!” We are discussing ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT of deductions.

Context is EVERYTHING. Larken ignores these words because they put the regulations into CONTEXT.

That’s what I’m talking about - if you have any reason for ignoring these sections I’ve cited, please justify your assertions.

Finally, you made a completely unsupported statement when you said:

Paragraph (f)(1) is a list of “operative sections” AND “specific sources and activities.”

Alan, (f)(1) is ONLY a list of operative sections of the Code. It is not a list of sources or activities. Please support your statement that (f)(1) is referred to as a list of “sources or activities” by showing me the regulation that refers to the list of “sources or activities.” I only see references to the list of “operative sections.”

By the way, Larken wants you to refer to that list as “sources or activities” because it fits in nicely with his fairy tale. He wants people to see if they have income from a taxable source or activity in that list - but the truth is - its not a checklist of sources or activities. Its a list of OPERATIVE SECTIONS. Unless you can supply the regulation cite that refers to that list specifically as a list of “sources or activities”, you must agree with me. (Well, you must agree with the letter of the law.)

Good luck.

84

“[T]he term ‘statutory grouping’ means the gross income from a specific source or
activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at ‘taxable income’ from which
specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.)” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)]

I agree with you that [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)] refers to a list of operative sections. It seems to me that we should be looking to those operative sections to arrive at taxable income, right?

Do you agree that “The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] ?

It’s pretty clear that it’s getting hard for you to separate specific sources and activities under other sections of the code from ‘operative sections’ because ‘specific sources and activities under other sections of the code’ is refered to as ‘operative sections’. You didn’t deal with this citation in your last post.

Quiz: What are specific sources and activities under other sections of the code referred to as in [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] ?

Answer: Operative sections.

Since you really harped on this at length without dealing with [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] I just want to be clear that that citation is what I’m using to prove to the readers that “specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, [are] referred to in this section as operative sections”.

Sorry for repeating my self so badly, the citation should be enough.

Wick.

85

Well… we’ll see how Larken’s (and yours by extension) little contextual grammer dances work out in the big house, where Larken may well be going very shortly. I have a feeling deconstructing standard subject-object grammar relationships amy not work quite out as well there.

86

Allan said,“I agree with you that [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)] refers to a list of operative sections. It seems to me that we should be looking to those operative sections to arrive at taxable income, right?”

Tax Attorney’s Answer: Yes, because you have income that requires using an operative section. If you have foreign source income, you need to use the operative section that tells you how much of a foreign tax credit you can take.

Remember, Allan, you must read in CONTEXT. You simply cannot pick and choose the words you like to fit your agenda. The regulations are speaking in terms of allocation and apportionment of deductions. I have told you this several times, and each time, you have insisted on ignoring this point. The regulations specifically tell us the context in which the rules shall apply.

At any rate, if you earn money in the United States, you have US source income under 861(a)(3), and it shall be included fully into taxable income under 861(b) after you allocate and apportion your deductions.

If you have solely US source income (like most Americans), then you don’t have to worry about allocating some of your expenses to foreign income…because you have none. Therefore, you arrive at the same result using Subchapter N as you would have under Section 61. No operative section is relevant here. However, just because an operative section does not apply, does not mean your income is magically exempted. Nothing in Subchapter N exempts your income from taxation. If you find something that explicitly exempts your income from taxation, please post the citation.

The 861 regulations are mainly about the allocation and apportionment of expenses. There are countless references to support this proposition…including especially in the very beginning of 1.861. I encourage you to read these regulations in their entirety.

By the way, you have not provided a citation that says 1.861-8(f) is a list of sources or activities. Will you now admit that you have no support for that ridiculous claim?

You have also not provided any rebuttal to the points I have made regarind the ignored phrases in the regulations by Larken Rose. I’m assuming you wanted to get this point out of the way first, before you start addressing these points.

87

Allan, for your information, I was able to subscribe with no problems. You might want to tell your forum member at 861Arizona that the Straightdope forum is fully operational. The following was taken from Yahoo’s group section 861Arizona forum…
From: allanchadwick
Date: Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:58 am
Subject: Want to help me out on a forum?

I started a thread on a forum and I’m getting swamped. Since nobody but me seems to be advocating the 861 evidence I’d like to invite you and your groups to tap in and show a little love for the actual words in the law.

Here’s the url to the thread, people will most likely have to create
a handle and password and email address. I always recommend using an anonymous email address for such forums.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=211556

This should be the actual thread

The main website is http://straightdope.com/
hit forum and search for organize agains the IRS.

Thanks!
Allan, my handle on the forum is ‘Wick’

To wit, someone replied:

From: mjyannone@a…
Date: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [861Arizona] Want to help me out on a forum?

ADVERTISEMENT

Hi Alan. Here was my experience with the forum:

Subj: Login, Registration, Replies
Date: 9/23/2003 4:10:28 PM US Mountain Standard Time
From: MJYannone
To: webmaster@straightdope.com

Tried registering. Failed. Kept trying. Eventually succeeded.

Tried to login. Failed. Kept trying. Eventually succeeded.

Tried to reply to a message. Failed. Kept trying. Never succeeded.

Trying to notify webmaster. I really don’t care what happens next.

I’m done.

:slight_smile:

88

Tax Attorney – “By the way, you have not provided a citation that says 1.861-8(f) is a list of sources or activities. Will you now admit that you have no support for that ridiculous claim?”

“The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer
from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this
section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and
description of operative sections.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] (Is this quote showing up in your browser tax attorney?)

I would love to address your points, but every time I do you act I didn’t.

If in your next post you would like to say something, anything about [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] referring to operative sections as sources and activities under other sections of the code. I think then we would actually be communicating. Once again…

Quiz: What are specific sources and activities under other sections of the code referred to as in [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] ?

Answer: Operative sections.

As far as the yahoo posts, some people including me are experiencing large delays with this post, it’s not a conspiracy. I’m sure somebody notified you that there was a tax chat happening judging by your four posts and new membership.

You know if you and Larken want to go head to head, there is 2000 dollars for you to write answers to the T.I. questions and debate Larken on the air. Why don’t you just contact Mr. McCandless and see if you can’t arrange something you think is fair?

Honestly let me know if you think the rules aren’t fair or what conditions you would agree to because you really seem motivated to call Larken out. I’m just suggesting you do just that. You do have to be an actual attorney or CPA. I’m assuming that you are a licensed attorney?

http://www.petermacshow.com/challenge/

Wick.

89

I went to the website and read the challenge, and I have just one question: Who exactly gets to determine that the questions have been properly answered, the challenger or the challenged? If the person issuing the challenge will only accept answers that he already agrees with, the challenge is worthless.

90

Let’s let the readers make up their own mind.

1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) (d) Excess of deductions and excluded and eliminated items of
income.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded or eliminated
income–(i) In general. In the case of taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1986, except to the extent otherwise permitted by
Sec. 1.861-13T, the following rules shall apply to take account of
income that is exempt or excluded, or assets generating such income,
with respect to allocation and apportionment of deductions.
(A) Allocation of deductions. In allocating deductions that are
definitely related to one or more classes of gross income, exempt income
(as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section) shall be taken into
account.
(B) Apportionment of deductions. In apportioning deductions that are
definitely related either to a class of gross income consisting of
multiple groupings of income (whether statutory or residual) or to all
gross income, exempt income and exempt assets (as defined in paragraph
(d)(2)(ii) of this section) shall not be taken into account…”

That section can be summarized exactly as I did in a previous post. Section [1.861-8T (d)(2)(i)] says that when allocating deductions (A), exempt income will be take into account, and when apportioning deductions (B) exempt income will not be taken into account.
Where does it claim that [1.861-8T ] is ONLY about allocation and apportionment of deductions?

It just occurred to me that maybe tax attorney thinks that the phrase “the following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or excluded” refers to every rule in the code of federal regulations instead of just the rules listed at A and B of that section.

As for 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) since the words allocate and apportion appeared Tax attorney thinks that that is proof that that is the ONLY thing the entire related regulations do. While I agree that parts of these regs allocate and apportion, there is no phrase in the law that supports the assertion that this is the ONLY THING IT DOES.

Wick

91

Good question Czarcasm. Is anyone remotely interested in the challenge but unsure about the rules?

Wick

92

“The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities** under** other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)] (Is this quote showing up in your browser tax attorney?)

Allan, are we reading the same regulation? It says income from specific sources and activities UNDER other sections - operative sections.

It does not say “income from specific sources and activities, which are otherwise known as operative sections.” You are trying to twist the words around (and even erase a few) in order to arrive at your conclusion.

You are trying to equate “sources and activities” with “operative sections.”

What you fail to grasp is that one must examine sources and activities **UNDER/b] an operative section. The two are not the same. An operative section says, “look at certain sources or activities.”

The overall limitation to the foreign tax credit requires examining foreign source income. The overall foreign tax credit limitation is an operative section, and it requires looking at foreign source income.

The two are NOT the same, and the text clearly supports this. Why don’t you just admit you are wrong?

93

1.861-8T(d)(2)(i):
In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, except to the extent otherwise permitted by 1.861-13T, the following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or excluded, or assets generating such income, with respect to allocation and apportionment of deductions.

Allan asks, “Where does it claim that [1.861-8T ] is ONLY about allocation and apportionment of deductions?”

Tax Attorney says, “You are trying to evade the text of 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) at any cost. You revert back to 1.861-8T hoping that we will erase 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) from our copies of the CFR.”

Allan - the rules Larken cites follow 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i)…and 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i)specifically addresses the rules that FOLLOW…which means, all the “stuff” Larken cites comes AFTER 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i). So when 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) tells us about the rules Larken is citing - don’t you think its “kind of” important to read what they say?

Those rules speak strictly to allocation and apportionment of deductions - nothing else. If you see somewhere else in 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) that describes the rules that follow in any other context, please inform the forum.

94

1.861-8T(d)(2)(i):
In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, except to the extent otherwise permitted by 1.861-13T, the following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or excluded, or assets generating such income, with respect to allocation and apportionment of deductions.

Allan asks, “Where does it claim that [1.861-8T ] is ONLY about allocation and apportionment of deductions?”

Tax Attorney says, “You are trying to evade the text of 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) at any cost. You revert back to 1.861-8T hoping that we will erase 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) from our copies of the CFR.”

Allan - the rules Larken cites follow 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i)…and 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i)specifically addresses the rules that FOLLOW…which means, all the “stuff” Larken cites comes AFTER 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i). So when 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) tells us about the rules Larken is citing - don’t you think its “kind of” important to read what they say?

Those rules speak strictly to allocation and apportionment of deductions - nothing else. If you see somewhere else in 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) that describes the rules that follow in any other context, please inform the forum.

95

Tax attorney – “Allan, are we reading the same regulation? It says income from specific sources and activities UNDER other sections - operative sections.”

Then my eyes must be lying to me when it says specific sources and activities under other sections of the code, referred to in this section as operative sections.

1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) – Wow, you do think that ‘the following rules’ as that phrase is used in 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) is used to encompass more then rules A and B of that section.

This is dizzying, are you really a tax attorney? I’m serious.

Since there is nothing new to actually debate in the last few posts, I remembered your comment about section 482.

Tax Attorney “Just for fun - why not read Section 482 and ask yourself which should be done first - 482 adjustments by the IRS or allocation and apportionment of deductions under 1.861-8”

Sec. 482. - Allocation of income and deductions among taxpayers
In any case of two or more organizations, trades, or businesses (whether or not incorporated, whether or not organized in the United States, and whether or not affiliated) owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, the Secretary may distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses, if he determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses. In the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible property (within the meaning of section 936(h)(3)(B)), the income with respect to such transfer or license shall be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.

The ‘phrase In the case of two or more organizations’… excludes most individuals from being concerned about that section. But it has one of your favorite words ‘allocate’ in it so I can see why you would want to trump that section up.

Peace
Wick

96

Allan insists that operative sections are the same thing as “sources or activities.” He says:

“Then my eyes must be lying to me when it says specific sources and activities under other sections of the code, referred to in this section as operative sections.”

Allan, I want you to read this closely. It says UNDER other sections of the code, referred to as operative sections. You must examine sources or activities UNDER an operative section. An operative section is NOT the same as “sources or activities.”

How much more clear can I possibly make this? Your eyes are not lying to you, Allan. Either they are severely crossed or your brain is washed by Larken Rose to such an extent that you refuse to admit the sentence says what it says - you examine sources or activities UNDER operative sections.

Allan also goes on to say:

"1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) – Wow, you do think that ‘the following rules’ as that phrase is used in 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i) is used to encompass more then rules A and B of that section. "

This section is providing context, Allan. (A) also specifically refers to (d)(2)(ii), and tells us:

(A) Allocation of deductions. In allocating deductions that are definitely related to one or more classes of gross income, exempt income (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section) shall be taken into account.)

So when Larken strolls through (d)(2)(ii), he completely excludes this little nugget of information - which tells us whats going on here - the allocation of deductions. We see the proper context here - “in allocating deductions.”
If you look closely, you will find that the theme here is the allocation and apportionment of deductions. Larken likes to cite 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), but conveniently avoids any discussion about the little reference to allocating and apportioning deductions.

(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:

Now, Larken would like for you to believe this list is a magical list that consists of the only items of income subject to a tax. However, he completely closes his eyes to arrive at this conclusion. Countless references to “allocating and apportioning” deductions are ignored in order to arrive at his cross-eyed conclusion.

Please explain away the countless references to allocating and apportioning deductions, Allan. Why does Larken omit these references from his discussion?

We’ll discuss transfer pricing when you can grasp basic principles of statutory interpretation.

97

Perhaps we could apply wick’s and his associates “ignore that word twist this word” method of legal interpretation to the title VII laws… or are these techniques reserved for the evil tax code?

98

As a point of logic there are citations claiming that we use 861 and following to determine taxable income from specific sources and activities. While this section can be used to allocate and apportion, how does that negate the determination of taxable income which is the focus of Larken’s work?

If ‘ 861 and following only allocate and apportion income’ is your only rebuttal to Larken’s research I’m quite satisfied with my previous posts regarding the issue.

If you think that is very persuasive argument given the numerous citations describing 861 and following as sections to determine taxable income from specific sources, then I really encourage you to publicly debate Larken on the radio. Put your credibility where your mouth is so to speak.

If you have the slightest concerns about the rules, any counter offer or adjustment to the rules will be considered. I emailed Peter and it is clear to me that completing the show/ debate (no more than two shows), the topic of which is the questions, it is well worth $2000 to the people putting up the money. But, you would have actually be a TaxAttorney as your handle suggests. Would that be a problem?
Wick,

99

Allans comments are in RED, mine are in black.

As a point of logic there are citations claiming that we use 861 and following to determine taxable income from specific sources and activities. While this section can be used to allocate and apportion, how does that negate the determination of taxable income which is the focus of Larken’s work?
Because Larken’s focus is microscopic on certain words and completely leaves out others - including all the references to allocation & apportionment of deductions.

Now, I’ve asked you to explain away the countless references to allocations and apportionment that are missing from Larken’s analysis, and you have refused to do so.

If ‘ 861 and following only allocate and apportion income’ is your only rebuttal to Larken’s research I’m quite satisfied with my previous posts regarding the issue.

Funny, none of your previous posts, including this one, actually address the fact that Larken’s analysis skips over all the references to allocation and apportionment. My last posting identified the various sections skipped over by Larken in his “analysis.”

What you fail to realize is that Larken arrives at his insane conclusion by omitting certain sections of the Code in his “analysis.” You can’t PICK AND CHOOSE the words you like in the Code. You must consider ALL of the words as a whole. Allan, is it just a coincidence that Larken skips over these references? Its pretty odd when you see all the sections Larken casts aside because they all coincidentally deal with the allocation and apportionment of deductions.

If you think that is very persuasive argument given the numerous citations describing 861 and following as sections to determine taxable income from specific sources, then I really encourage you to publicly debate Larken on the radio. Put your credibility where your mouth is so to speak.

Translation: “I have no idea when it comes to Subchapter N - or tax law in general for that matter, but I can parrot Larken’s crap pretty well. Heck, its all a matter of cut n paste. But seriously, when you want me to actually do some substantive analysis, I bolt dude. I’ll have to refer you to Larken. I mean, dude, its not like I was the one who traipsed in here with an air of intelligence and started spouting gems of rhetorical wisdom regarding tax law. Geesh.”

If you have the slightest concerns about the rules, any counter offer or adjustment to the rules will be considered. I emailed Peter and it is clear to me that completing the show/ debate (no more than two shows), the topic of which is the questions, it is well worth $2000 to the people putting up the money. But, you would have actually be a TaxAttorney as your handle suggests. Would that be a problem?

Yes, it would be a problem…unless you can allow me to submit my analysis of the 861 argument to a neutral third party - say, a tax law professor of your choice from any ABA accredited law school. Sound good? Allow Larken to submit his argument to the same judge, and we’ll let the judge decide. This reminds me of the time someone took up Irwin Schiff on his challenge and the court sided with the challenger. Schiff got off on a technicality in contract law - the challenger responded too late. Schiff never paid that guy, by the way.

By the way, you COMPLETELY dodged my last posting that identified the portions of the law that Larken skipped over - could you please rebut my last posting? I took the time to carefully cite and highlight key terms that are missing from Larken’s analysis. Please provide your comments on these sections.

100

Hey, I could use an extra 2,000 bucks just for talking to some yahoos on a backwater radio station. Where do I sign up?