User talk:Famspear/Archive 4

Direct Tax

How many times has Congress levied a direct tax upon the states, and what were the occasions?

BobHurt 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear BobHurt: Wow, good question. By the way, I haven't forgotten about you and our prior discussion. I'm trying to keep lots of different balls in the air at the moment. While I'm working on other stuff, can you answer a couple of questions? First, on the term "upon the states" do you mean direct taxes on individuals (i.e., living people, not corporations, etc.)? Or, do you want to include corporations, estates, trusts, etc.? Or by "states" do you mean "state governments"? It would be easier to come up with a statistic if you include all taxpayers.

Also, when you say "direct tax" I assume you mean the term "direct tax" in the constitutional law sense (it has more than one meaning). When I say "constitutional" sense, this has to do with the rule that direct taxes (other than any income taxes deemed to be direct taxes) have to be apportioned among the states according to population and the rule that indirect taxes (i.e., "excises" in the constitutional law sense), which includes income taxes on wages, etc., do not have to be apportioned.

For purposes of research, it would be easier to modify the question to say "income tax" rather than "direct tax" -- otherwise, you have to get into research before the year 1862 (the year of enactment of the first Federal income tax) to see if there were any direct taxes such as poll taxes or other capitations that were imposed. That would take more digging.

Also, as I said, some income taxes are arguably direct taxes and other income taxes are indirect taxes. There is a big argument among some tax protesters as to whether an "income tax" is a direct tax or an indirect tax. I won't bother you with all the technical mumbo-jumbo, but you can assume for the sake of argument that an income tax on income from property (such as rent income, dividend income, and interest income) is arguably a "direct tax" because of a Supreme Court decision called Pollock (though some people argue that even that categorization is no longer legally valid) and that income taxes on things like wages, salaries, gains on sales of stock, etc., are indirect taxes (i.e., excises).

The easiest way to re-phrase the question would be: "How many separate tax Acts (whether for direct or indirect taxes, income taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, statutory excises, or whatever) have been passed by Congress since August 16, 1954, the date of enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954?" Otherwise, the research would take too long. Even here, some of the Acts since 1954 may have only changed the existing law, without imposing or increasing any particular tax.

Also, there are lots of other taxes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (now 1986) that are not income taxes, such as gift taxes, estate taxes, and statutory excises. All those would be considered constitutional law "excises" (indirect taxes in the constitutional law sense), and not direct taxes.

This is made even more confusing by the fact that an "excise" in the constitutional law sense is not always the same thing as an "excise" in the statutory law sense.

But the number of Acts passed by Congress since 1954 is so overwhelming, it would take too long to figure out.

The easiest quick answer to your question -- which is not a direct answer, though -- is that the list of individual "Acts" ("Public Laws" amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1954/1986) that became law after August 16, 1954 is a list running for about 21 pages (double spaced) on the CCH with about fifteen or so acts per page. So that would be roughly 315 separate acts since August 16, 1954. I haven't actually counted the Acts on the list. Let's just say about 300 or more. But that doesn't really answer your question either, because some of the acts may have imposed no specific "new" tax (just changed various tax rules on exemptions, exclusions, deductions, credits, etc., or may have just made procedural changes) and other acts may have imposed several new taxes.

If you do not consider any Federal income tax to be a "direct tax" (i.e., if you consider the Pollock case to be completely eviscerated), then maybe no "direct taxes" have been imposed since at least the 1800s. And I don't recall whether any true direct taxes were imposed in the late 1700s or early 1800s.

This is my long-winded way of saying I don't think I can answer your specific, precise question in any reasonable amount of time without first quitting my day job!

Any comments or questions? Yours, Famspear 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I reverted your 12 May 2006 edit on the article on Direct tax. This is well-settled law. Tax protesters have never succeeded in any arguments about the validity of the Federal income tax. However, if you want to discuss the issue, a better place might be in the talk (discussion) page on the article for Tax protester than at Direct tax. Again, theoretically a direct tax could include a poll tax or capitation, or even a property tax -- and none of those are income taxes. Yours, Famspear 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

does this guy think that merely deluding yourself that you don't need to pay will obviate your obligation to pay. Or does want to endanger otters into so thinking? jeez! John wesley 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Revenue Canada

Does Canada distinguish between internal and external revenue? John wesley 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We are here to edit Wikipedia, not to answer Mr. Eastman's 74 questions

Dear Mr. Dale Eastman:

First, let’s review how you got to this point in Wikipedia. In late March of 2006, an article entitled “Tax Honesty Movement” was nominated for deletion by a Wikipedia editor, BD2412. Various Wikipedia readers posted comments pro and con regarding the issue of whether the page should be deleted. You opposed deletion of the article. I, Famspear, favored deletion. After discussion, the article was deleted.

During that process you, Mr. Eastman, apparently posted comments related to whether the so-called “Tax Honesty Movement” itself is viable, or valid, etc. Your post also included a re-hash of certain tax protester arguments about the validity of the U.S. Federal income tax itself, including a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) -- the holding of which you (and tax protesters in general) ignore or, even with your presumably “average reading comprehension skills,” did not read or comprehend (see below). You also referred to your own website, apparently urging others to view your website materials regarding your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Federal income tax laws.

I reviewed your website and found you are repeating arguments and conclusions made by other tax protesters – arguments and conclusions which are not only legally incorrect, but which have been repeatedly ruled legally frivolous in court. The cases you cited are the same cases cited over and over by tax protesters down through the past 30 years or so. Every court that has been presented with the arguments you raise has rejected them.

Early in this process, you visited my own user page at Wikipedia and discovered that in addition to my having a childhood love of baseball and an interest in airplanes, etc., I am a lawyer with an interest in the subject of income tax in the United States. At some point you also discovered that Wikipedia editor BD2412 (who had nominated the article for deletion) is also a lawyer. In referring to your comments about tax law and to me personally, you wrote:

If you want to take on the comments, and since your userpage states: ‘I am an American attorney with an interest in Income tax in the United States’, then how about a little one on one, you and I. You, a hifalutin big city lawyer, and me, a dumb ex-truck driver. Since you are the educated one, expect lot's [sic] of questions.

(Bolding added).

At my suggestion we moved the discussion to the talk (discussion) page for the Wikipedia tax protester article. (Later, it was determined that perhaps this page was also not an appropriate place for what you had in mind.)

On 3 April 2006, I, Famspear, acknowledged your comment about my being a lawyer without lingering on my credentials (which you, not I, had brought up anyway). I explained the process of acquiring legal expertise and credentials. I also pointed out that your idiosyncratic interpretation of tax law does not conform to the rules of legal analysis, and that your conclusions are legally incorrect. My discussion of the process of obtaining legal skills and credentials was not focused on me personally; it was presented in response to your own remarks.

You, Mr. Eastman, then responded with statements like:

What you [Famspear] attempt to say with that mantra [regarding the process of acquiring legal expertise], as paraphrased by me [Dale Eastman], is: Dumb trucker don’t know how to read the law”. [ . . . ] As frustrating as I [Dale Eastman] imagine this is going to be for you, I’m going to call those statements what they are: NAKED ASSERTIONS. [ . . . ] you [Famspear] wave the flag of the rigors of law school [ . . . ] by expounding upon your “formal” education.

You, Mr. Eastman, went on:

You [Famspear] have no “authority”; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis [ of the tax law . . . ] You have no authority, no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed [sic] person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not see it [ . . . ] A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I [Dale Eastman] do not worship at the alter [i.e., altar] of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials. [ . . . ] You [Famspear] can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results [regarding the tax laws] are wrong (or not). [ . . . ] What you can not do is tell me WHAT to think. That just doesn’t cut it in a society that is supposed to be based upon personal Liberty. [ . . . ] Now, tell us again, why do we need you (lawyers) to interpret laws for us?

This is interesting. First, you go to my user page and discover I’m a lawyer. Then you go to the trouble of pointing out that fact to me in the early stages of discussion.

Then you say that my diploma is “presently meaningless.” You say that I, Famspear, have no credibility, except to the extent I ESTABLISH CREDIBLITY IN A DIALOG WITH YOU, MR. DALE EASTMAN. You apparently fear I might scan a picture of my law school diploma and post it on the internet. You then say that if I were to do that, such a scan would be “called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless.”

Then, ironically, you say that you, Mr. Eastman, do not “worship at the alter [altar] of the bar.”

Really?

When you take the trouble, first, to bring my legal credentials into the discussion -- and second, to try to “neutralize” the very credentials you yourself brought into the discussion, you are (1) setting me up as your Authority Figure, and (2) then trying to tear your Authority Figure down.

In response to my statement about law school being akin to a “military boot camp for the mind,” you responded: “EXCELLENT! Good, Good. You can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results are wrong (or not).”

On 3 April 2006, I, Famspear, responded by stating:

[i]t’s pretty unclear whether I would be able to get to Mr. Eastman’s commentary in any meaningful way, anyway. However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman’s comments posted above. [closed parenthesis deleted]

You, Mr. Eastman later posted the following comments on the Talk page for the Wikipedia Tax Protester article:

Mr. Famspear, as a tax lawyer, is expected to engage [with Mr. Dale Eastman on] the topic of the U.S. income tax after the 17th of March [actually after the 17th of April, at the close of tax season]. If the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is so wrong, he [Famspear] should be able to prove it. [ . . . ] Mr. 2412 [BD2412, the editor who nominated the Tax Honesty Article for deletion] is invited to join in that discussion. If Mr. Famspear refuses to engage, or fails to prove the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is wrong, By default, Mr. 2412 will be known as an IRS COLLABORATOR attempting to cover up the truth. [ . . .] Please have your yes / no answers to the first 74 questions [posed by me, Dale Eastman, on my own web site] ready for posting by the 21st [of April].

(Bolding added).

On 21 April 2006, you posted in the same Wikipedia page, as follows:

Okay, Mr. Famspear, Today is April 21, 2006. I, Dale Eastman, am calling you out. Your choice of forums are as follows [ . . . .] I’m just a dumb ex-truck driver, so you should be abel [able] to make mincemeat out of me, eh?

(Bolding added).

Mr. Eastman, your impatience grew as shown by the following comments you posted:

No reply from Mr. Famspear, as of 4/29/06.

In other posts, Mr. Famspear has defended the conventional belief [that the Federal income tax laws are constitutional and are being correctly administered] as the IRS would have others believe. That make[s] Mr. Famspear a “defacto” IRS Agent. [ . . . ]

You then paraphrased the following language – taken totally out of context -- from the court decisions in United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), 70-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9336 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 831 (1970) or United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 77-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9330 (5th Cir. 1977), to somehow imply that if I or BD2412 do not answer your questions, we are somehow guilty of some sort of “fraud”:

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading . . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS [or its defacto agents – bracketed verbiage added by Mr. Eastman]

After still having received no reply, you, Mr. Eastman, posted on 13 May 2006 as follows:

I’m keeping this short in an attempt to get Mr. Famspear, the tax lawyer, on point. [ . . . ] he [Famspear] can’t find the time to publicly answer 74 numbered Yes / No questions [posed by Mr. Dale Eastman] [ . . . ] It is just this arrogance of the “establishment” in refusing to address honest questions that drives the Tax Honesty Movement.

(Bolding added).

Mr. Eastman, I sense from your commentary that you are a man desperately searching for answers. At the present time, you seem desperate to get me to answer your questions about tax law.

“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”

Proverbs 25:2 (Rev. Stand. Vers.)

Mr. Eastman, your attempt to get me “on point,” as you put it, is totally misplaced. Let me clue you in.

“On point” here in Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia editors must take the time to answer your 74 questions about tax law, Mr. Eastman. “On point” here in Wikipedia means editing Wikipedia. That is why the rest of us – at least, most of the rest of us -- are here.

Your attempt to get me to what you personally believe is “on point” and your reference to my failure to address your “74 questions” as somehow being “arrogance” on MY PART illustrate that you, Mr. Eastman, are overly convinced of your own importance, that you are overbearingly proud, and that you are haughty – in short, your attempts and your references and manner show classic arrogance on your part, not mine.

Because your IP address changes often and you apparently have not registered an account in Wikipedia, I’m haven’t researched all your posts. It does appear you have done little if any editing of actual Wikipedia articles. Your posts here are mainly on the talk (discussion) pages, and seem to be aimed at trying to get me or BD2412 or both to answer your 74 questions.

You, Mr. Eastman, like most people who make tax protester arguments, do not claim (as far as I can tell) to have any formal legal or accounting training. You presumably believe that you have arrived at the correct interpretation of the Federal income tax laws, albeit one already presented by other tax protesters to the courts – and rejected by the courts, the Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, and the vast body of thousands of lawyers, certified public accountants, law professors, and other legal scholars in the United States who have studied the tax laws since the modern Federal income tax laws were enacted, beginning in 1913.

You and may other tax protesters complain that other people (particularly government employees) “don't address the actual written words of law.” Yet, when presented with the actual words of the statutes, regs and court cases, you twist them to suit your own purpose – which is to persuade other people that the tax law is somehow what you say it is rather than what it really is. (Below, I’ll give an example with the case you mentioned in a Wikipedia talk page post.)

You say at one point, in referring to editor BD2412, that if you “don't address the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES, REGULATIONS, and appropriate Supreme Court rulings, then anything you have to say about the "INCOME" tax is Hearsay [capitalization is Mr. Eastman’s, not mine].” Ironically, had you, Mr. Eastman, understood the Wikipedia article on Hearsay to which you linked, you would have also understood that your statement is laughable. I suggest you go read the definition of “hearsay” carefully. You are embarrassing yourself.

Now, let’s look at the example of the court case you did cite in the talk pages of Wikipedia – the Merchants’ Loan case. Your Wikipedia post included a tired, old, often repeated, discredited tax protester argument that “income” for Federal income tax purposes somehow means only “corporate profits” and not other kinds of income (such as wages, salaries, dividends, interest, rent, gain on sale of stock, etc.) because of a mention by the Court in the Merchants’ Loan case of a statute enacted in 1909 that taxed corporate profits. Like many tax protesters who have argued this in court over the years – and have always lost – you included the same old quote from the case. Even with what you apparently feel are your magnificent interpretive skills, you ignored or were unaware of what the Court actually ruled in Merchants’ Loan – either because you don’t know what a holding is or you don’t know how to determine what the holding is, or maybe because you know that the holding in Merchants’ Loan essentially contradicts your argument that income means only “corporate profits.”

Here’s a clue, Mr. Eastman: One of the first rules in analyzing case law is to determine what the court actually decided – based on what the parties in the dispute actually fought about. Everything else stated in a court decision – everything that does not form a part of the court’s rulings on the issues actually decided – is not a rule for which that case stands. (Note: I am deliberately not using the technical legal terminology here.)

To be specific, the Supreme Court ruled in Merchants’ Loan that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the specific tax statute applicable at the time (which was a 1916 tax statute, not the 1909 statute), a gain on a sale of stock by the estate of a decedent (in that particular case, the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased,) is included in the income of that estate, and is therefore taxable to that estate for Federal income tax purposes. The Court was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue involving the taxability of “wages” or “corporate profits” or any other kind of income except the gain on the sale of the stock by the estate. An estate’s gain on a sale of stock is not a “corporate profit.” The “estate of a decedent” is not a “corporation.” The estate of a decedent cannot have “corporate profits.” The term “corporate profits” does not even appear in the text of the Court’s decision in Merchants’ Loan.

Not only that, but the 1916 tax statute also imposed income taxes on the income of individuals – real, living people. Real, living people are not “corporations” with “corporate profits.”

You, Mr. Dale Eastman, apparently did not realize these points, or you deliberately chose to ignore their significance. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of statutes, regulations, and case law is full of these kinds of errors.

Worse, your hilarious, idiosyncratic “interpretation” -- that “income” must somehow mean ONLY “corporate profits” – based on a reference in the text of the case to the 1909 corporation tax law -- could not have succeeded as a legal argument even if the taxpayer in the case had actually been a corporation. You apparently were unaware of that as well.

Your idiosyncratic interpretation of Merchants’ Loan isn’t even original with you. You are simply repeating arguments raised over and over by tax protesters for over twenty years – arguments that are ruled legally erroneous every single time they are raised. Here are examples of eight different court cases where tax protesters cited the same erroneous Merchants’ Loan “corporate profits” argument -- and LOST: Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., 593 F. Supp. 1540, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9845 (N.D. Ind. 1984), aff’d, 773 F.2d 126, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9661 (7th Cir. 1985); Stoewer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 13, T.C. Memo 2002-167, CCH Dec. 54,805(M) (2002); Reinhart v. United States, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,658 (W.D. Tex. 2003); Fink v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 976, T.C. Memo 2003-61, CCH Dec. 55,068(M) (2003); Flathers v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, T.C. Memo 2003-60, CCH Dec. 55,067(M) (2003); Schroeder v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 220, T.C. Memo 2002-211, CCH Dec. 54,851(M) (2002), aff’d, 2003-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,511 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1220 (2004); Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-268, CCH Dec. 56,200(M) (2005); Ho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-41, CCH Dec. 56,447(M) (2006).

And you, Mr. Eastman, want Wikipedia editors like me and BD2412 to get “on point” -- to play along with you and your “74 questions?” You want to be taken seriously here in Wikipedia?

One of the hallmarks of tax protester rhetoric here in Wikipedia and elsewhere is the infantile tactic of demanding that government employees or legal experts or others somehow “prove” to the tax protesters that the tax protesters are wrong about the tax law, with many tax protesters apparently feeling that the tax protesters (not the courts) should somehow be the final arbiters of whether the tax protesters are right. Many protesters say things like: “Show me the law that makes me liable for the tax.”

When tax protesters make demands like this, they are not really asking for an answer that they will accept. Indeed, any answer the government or anyone else gives them – especially citations to the specific code sections and case law -- that does not comport with their own view is rejected and “rationalized” away. Tax protesters argue that they “study” the same statutes, regs, and court decisions as legal experts. Yet, in court, tax protesters are losers on the arguments they claim are “correct.”

Mr. Eastman, here’s a clue for you: With some exceptions, government employees are under no moral or legal obligation to respond to questions from you, Mr. Dale Eastman, about the validity or meaning of the tax laws, any more than they are under an obligation to respond to questions about the validity or meaning of the laws on contracts, or property, or murder, or the environment, etc. Here is another clue: I and the other editors of Wikipedia are under no moral or legal obligation to you to answer your 74 questions. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to try to extract the answers from me or BD2412 or anyone else.

The laws -- the statutes, regulations, court decisions, etc. -- are required to be published as a matter of public record -- and are a matter of public record. In addition, the IRS and other government agencies publish mountains of forms, instructions, and other secondary materials to explain the law. Some publications include citations to specific statutory and regulatory provisions. Others do not.

However, neither the IRS, nor the President, nor your Congressman, nor the tax lawyers, nor the CPAs, nor the law professors, nor anyone else on the planet is under some sort of “obligation” – moral, legal, or otherwise -- to persuade you or prove to you that the law is what they say the law is. Some people of course may make efforts to educate you – but they are not here to prove to you to your own personal satisfaction that they are correct and that you are wrong.

You might want to ask yourself this question: Why don’t government employees and Wikipedia editors and other people want to debate with Mr. Dale Eastman and other people who espouse tax protester arguments? Ahhhh! Is it because they fear that Mr. Dale Eastman is right, and all the Congressman, IRS employees, lawyers, CPAs, and tax professors are wrong? Is it because they are engaged in a vast, selfish conspiracy to protect their own jobs and economic interests?

Mr. Eastman, I hope this won’t come as too much of a shock, but the reason that most people don’t want to debate you or discuss with you the tax law and your interpretation of the tax law is that most people DON’T CARE what your interpretation of the tax law is. Based on what appear to be your own implied admissions, and based on the enormous amount of verbiage you have posted on your web site, you, Mr. Eastman, do not have the knowledge to be taken seriously when you speak or write about tax law matters. Virtually any lawyers, CPAs, tax professors, IRS employees, etc., etc., who bother to review your materials will quickly see them for what they are: attempts by a untutored person to formulate his own, idiosyncratic interpretation of a mind-numbingly complex subject.

Let’s look again at one of your posts. You made the following comments, in referring to me and statements I made about your idiosyncratic way of “analyzing” tax law:

You [Famspear] have no "authority"; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis [[ . . . . ] You have no authority; no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed [sic] person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not [sic] see it, the lurkers who will read this can not see it. A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I do not worship at the alter [sic] of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials, I pay attention to whether the credentialed person says things that make sense. Remember, on the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog. Your paragraphs 8 through 14 have been neutralized. With 8 through 14 neutralized, support for your naked assertions in paragraphs 5,6,7,15,16,& 17 is also neutralized. The playing field is now level.

Again, you seem to have a strong urge to debate with me and BD2412 about whether your “analysis results” are right or wrong. You may want to ask yourself why you feel that way. The rest of us don’t care.

In reference to my comments about the importance of legal education in developing the ability to do proper legal analysis, you said:

because you [Famspear] say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: ‘Because I'm the Mommy, that's why.’

Your reference to “Mommy” is interesting (see below). Also, I, Famspear, did not “say so” on any “authority of my education.” Again, I did not mention that I was a lawyer until you brought it up first. Had I not happened to have already listed my legal background (in addition to my interest in airplanes, baseball, and other things) on my own Wikipedia user page, you would not have known I am a lawyer. Here in Wikipedia, one does not need expert credentials to edit in an area of expertise. Yet you, Mr. Eastman, chose to make my credentials and those of Mr. BD2412 an important part of your attempt here to get us to answer your “74 questions.” As we say in the legal profession, you yourself “opened the door” when you made other peoples’ credentials an issue.

You have informed other people of the existence of your own web site, through the talk (discussion) pages of Wikipedia. Other people can read your materials. A few people may be persuaded by what you write. In my opinion you are doing yourself, your family, and your readers a disservice. If you have any IRS problems because you have not complied with the tax laws, you are a “player,” of course. I hope for your sake and that of your family you are not a player in that game.

Mr. Eastman, in the “game” of enforcing the tax law (i.e., the job of IRS employees), in the game of representing taxpayers with tax problems in dealing with the IRS (my job), in the game of pontificating about what is or is not the law (the job of legal experts), you simply are not a significant player.

I am not your therapist or your “Mommy.” You may want to consider, however, whether your attempt to engage in a debate or discussion or question and answer session with me or BD2412 or others is part of your attempt to set other people up as your Authority Figure -- your substitute “Mommy” -- so that you can then try to tear the Authority Figure down. Whatever problems you may have had with Mommy or Daddy (or whoever in your personal life is really behind all this) are for you to sort out by yourself. For purposes of Wikipedia, what I, Famspear believe or say about the tax law should not even matter to you, Mr. Dale Eastman -- just as what you believe or say about the tax law does not matter to most of the rest of us here in Wikipedia. The rest of us are here to edit Wikipedia.

You, Mr. Eastman, seem to have a burning urge to have me or BD2412 answer the “74 questions” you want to pose to us. I gently suggest that you go back and think hard about your underlying motivation, and the underlying reasons for your anger. I and the other editors of Wikipedia do not want to know what your motivation and reasons are. We are not your therapists. You sort it out.

I have given you just one example of a Federal tax case (Merchants’ Loan) where your interpretation was legally incorrect, and I have given you some hints as to why it is incorrect. That is enough. I feel no urge to prove to you or to myself that you are wrong and I am right. My daily energies are aimed at real life. Real life for me is dealing with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of taxpayers, not at debating with you or answering your “74 questions.” Please stop using Wikipedia to try to get me and other editors to answer your questions. You have been wasting your time, and Wikipedia is not the proper forum for what you are trying to do.

Good luck, Famspear 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, just rewriting a bit of history - also, thought you'd like to know about the change... BD2412 T 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)