SECC Corporation v. Commissioner: How It Started, How It Ended, and What Might Happen Going Forward

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

In yesterday’s post guest poster Lavar Taylor set the table for the dispute before the Tax Court in SECC v Commissioner, a case that considers the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to hear employment tax disputes under Section 7436. Today Lavar walks us through the Tax Court’s surprising resolution of the dispute. Les

If you read Part 1 of this post, you now understand what I meant when I said that the SECC case was a tax procedure nerd’s dream and a client’s nightmare. The tax procedure issues in the case were ubiquitous. Things were about to get even more interesting.

On April 3, 2014, the Court issued a reviewed opinion in SECC Corporation v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 225 (2014)(“SECC”). At the time the Court released its opinion, I was meeting with an IRS Appeals Officer in another case. Someone from the IRS interrupted that meeting to tell me that I had “won” the SECC case, without explaining the contents of the Court’s opinion. Of course, regardless of how the Court ruled, the case would not be over. Given the IRS’s vigorous advocacy of its position, I anticipated they would appeal if the Court granted our motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. I returned to my office, eager to find out exactly how I had “won” the case.


The Majority Opinion

The Tax Court issued a reviewed opinion in the SECC case, with the majority opinion (authored by Judge Colvin and joined by 14 other judges) denying both parties’ motions to dismiss and holding that the Court had jurisdiction to determine the merits of the disputed employment tax liabilities. The majority opinion properly noted that it has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction, even where both parties argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and that the Court owes no deference whatsoever to the IRS’s view, whether expressed through regulations or otherwise, as was the case in SECC, see Notice 2002-5, 2002-1 C.B. 320, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case.

The majority opinion then held that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to determine the merits of the disputed employment tax audit deficiencies even though the IRS had never issued a Notice of Determination under section 7436(b). The majority opinion pointed out that section 7436(a) gives the Tax Court jurisdiction if there is a “determination” made as the result of an audit and there is an actual controversy regarding whether workers are employees for purposes of Subtitle C or whether the taxpayer is entitled to relief under section 530. That subsection says nothing at all about a “notice of determination.”

Per the majority opinion, the legislative history of section 7436 makes clear that a mere “failure to agree” regarding the result of an employment tax audit could constitute a “determination” under section 7436(a) which would trigger a taxpayer’s right to file a Tax Court petition. Once there has been a “determination,” the taxpayer’s right to file a petition with the Tax Court to challenge the results of the employment tax audit is limited only when the IRS issues a Notice of Determination by certified or registered mail under section 7436. When that happens, the taxpayer must file a petition within 90 days after the date of that notice in order to invoke the Tax Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, per the majority opinion, section 7436 is similar to the statutory scheme governing refund claims. Under that scheme, the taxpayer has the right to go to court at any time after a refund claim has been filed and six months have passed since the filing of the claim, but the taxpayer’s right to go to Court has a two year time limitation once the IRS issues a formal denial of the claim for refund.

The majority opinion also noted that Congress, in section 7436(d), failed to make the principles of section 6212 applicable to determinations under section 7436(a). Rather, Congress incorporated only “the principles of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of section 6213, section 6214(a), section 6215, section 6503(a), section 6512, and section 7481” as applying to proceedings brought under section 7436. The majority opinion also noted that the principles of these sections were to apply in the same manner as if the Secretary’s determination described in subsection (a) were a Notice of Deficiency (emphasis added).

Thus, per the majority opinion, it is a “determination” under subsection (a) of 7436, and not the Notice of Determination under section (b), that triggers, among other things, the taxpayer’s right to file a Tax Court petition and the related restrictions on assessment and collection of the employment taxes which are the subject of the dispute between the IRS and the taxpayer who is being audited. It would appear that the “determination” under subsection (a) also starts the suspension of the statute of limitations on assessment. More on how that might work later.

As for applying these principles to SECC’s case, the majority opinion held that SECC’s petition was timely because the IRS had never sent SECC a Notice of Determination by certified or registered mail as required by subsection 7436(b). There had previously been a “determination” under section 7436(a) in connection with an audit and there was an actual controversy when Appeals issued their letter dated April 15, 2011, and SECC was entitled to file a Tax Court petition at any time thereafter until the 90th day after a notice was sent to SECC by certified or registered mail.

The Concurring Opinion

A concurring opinion, authored by Judge Halpern and joined by eleven other Judges, joined the majority opinion “without reservation” and noted that the majority reached the correct conclusion as a matter of tax policy. Judge Halpern noted that sustaining the IRS’s position would “improperly permit the Commissioner to determine, in his sole discretion, whether a taxpayer shall have access to this Court in order to resolve [a worker classification dispute such as the dispute between SECC and the Commissioner].” Judge Halpern went on to say:

Were we to adopt respondent’s position, the Commissioner, by refusing to issue a notice of determination, would be able to deny the taxpayer access to this Court, which he may be tempted to do whenever he feels his chance of success on a worker classification or RA ’78 sec. 530 issue is better in either the District Court or the Court of Federal Claims than this Court. There is no basis in section 7436 or as a matter of policy for granting the Commissioner this “forum shopping” discretion, and it would thwart the obvious congressional intent embodied in that provision to permit taxpayers, in their discretion, to litigate, in this Court, worker classification and RA ’78 sec. 530 issues that the Commissioner has raised on audit.

The Dissenting Opinion

Judges Goeke and Kerrigan dissented. They stated that the structure of section 7436 indicates that the Court should treat a worker classification determination as if it were a deficiency determination in an income tax case. They expressed concerns that the majority’s approach will result in administrative problems. They posed a number of questions which they thought did not have appropriate answers under the approach taken by the majority, such as whether the IRS would be able to assess a disputed employment tax deficiency after the IRS made a “determination” (without sending a Notice of Determination under section 7436(b)) but the taxpayer failed to file a Tax Court petition within 90 days of the date of the determination. Thus, in their view, the Tax Court should not have jurisdiction over a worker classification case unless the IRS has issued a notice of determination under section 7436(b). Since the parties agreed that no such notice had been issued to SECC, the dissenters would have dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

As for whether the IRS should have issued a Notice of Determination, the dissenters stated that the Court should not have “delved” into the administrative record to determine whether the IRS had made a “determination” under section 7436(a). Rather, they would have permitted the IRS to decide unilaterally when its examination warrants the issuance of a Notice of Determination, leaving the IRS to bear the consequences associated with making an invalid assessment if it turned out that the IRS was in fact required to issue a Notice of Determination before assessment of the employment tax deficiencies.

The dissenters left little doubt about how they viewed the merits of the dispute. They viewed the case as a pure accountable plan case and believed that the majority’s approach set a “dangerous precedent” which would allow any taxpayer in an accountable plan case to make the arguments that SECC made and transform its case into a worker classification dispute. The dissenters stated that “[t]he IRS could have reasonably concluded that the worker classification arguments were frivolous and did not justify a determination.”

Wait a minute. Stop the presses. Did the dissenters call my arguments frivolous? FRIVOLOUS? My arguments have been called many things over the past 35 years: “creative,” “clever,” “aggressive,” “too cute by half,” even that dreaded five letter word – “wrong.” But my arguments had never before been called “frivolous.” Perhaps the only thing worse would have been if Justice Scalia had called my arguments “legalistic argle-bargle.” See Windsor v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2709 (Scalia dissenting). (Fortunately I escaped that fate. Justice Scalia, like all the other Justices, ignored the amicus brief I filed in the Windsor case.)

I can’t let that characterization of my arguments by the dissenting Judges go unchallenged. Was it “frivolous” to argue that the cable splicers were true independent contractors when the Fifth Circuit had previously held that similarly situated cable splicers were independent contractors? I don’t think it was. Was it “frivolous” to argue that, in the alternative, my client was entitled to section 530 relief when, among other things, a) the entire cable splicing industry in southern California treated the cable splicers the way SECC treated them during the periods in question, b) SECC had always complied with the rules regarding the issuance of information returns such as Forms 1099, c) the IRS had previously told SECC to treat the cable splicers the way they did, and d) there was absolutely no case law which addressed the question of whether SECC was entitled to section 530 relief where it had treated the workers as “dual status” workers for tax reporting purposes? I don’t think it was. Was it “frivolous” to argue in the alternative that the taxes owed by SECC should have been computed based on section 3509(a) rates when SECC believed (based on advice given by the IRS itself) that it had been doing things properly? I don’t think it was. Was it “frivolous” to argue in the alternative that the taxes owed by SECC should have been reduced under section 3402(d)? I don’t think it was.

I really don’t think that the dissenters thought that statement through before they wrote it. And I certainly hope that if any of their friends or neighbors ever run a business and receive a bill from the IRS for $1.5 million in taxes as the result of doing business in the manner in which they were told to do business by the IRS, the dissenters would urge their friends or neighbors to use all arguments at their disposal to fight that bill, just as SECC did. Frivolous? Bah, humbug! I’ll fight that characterization to my dying breath. (Now Keith and Les understand why I did not want to write this post until the case was over.)

Now that I have vented my spleen, I have a more important point to make about the dissent. The dissenters’ suggestion that the IRS can ignore the rules just because the IRS (or a Tax Court Judge) believes that a taxpayer’s argument is frivolous is an extremely dangerous idea that, if adopted by the IRS and the Courts, could seriously damage our voluntary compliance system. The fact that the government must follow proper procedures, and can be held accountable if it fails to do so, is as much a bedrock of our voluntary compliance system as is the willingness of taxpayers to voluntarily file their tax returns and (usually) file an income tax return that consists of non-fiction instead of fiction.

The government doesn’t convict criminal tax defendants and throw them in jail without a trial just because the IRS or a Judge thinks that their arguments are “frivolous.” Instead, the government gives them a trial, along with an opportunity to appeal the result at the trial if they don’t like the outcome of the trial. Nor do we allow the IRS to assess income tax deficiencies without issuing a Notice of Deficiency just because the IRS or a Judge believes that the taxpayer’s arguments are “frivolous.” Rather, the IRS must first issue the taxpayer a Notice of Deficiency, and the taxpayer can file a petition and seek a trial in the Tax Court. If the taxpayer does not like the result there, they can appeal to the Courts of Appeal. And sometimes it turns out that an argument that the lower court thought was “frivolous” turns out to have been a winning argument.

Even where taxpayers lose, and lose badly, however, the taxpayer can say that they had their day in court, and third-party observers can take comfort in the fact that, should they ever end up in a wrestling match with the IRS, the IRS (and the courts) will give them a fair shake by following the rules, instead of bending the rules whenever they don’t think much of the taxpayer’s arguments. When taxpayers are convinced that the IRS does not follow the rules and/or the Courts don’t follow the rules, they are less likely to comply with the law.

In the third and final part, I will discuss the aftermath of the SECC opinion, including the reasons and consequences of the IRS position and the ultimate resolution of the case.



  1. Robert P Belden says

    Dear A LAVAR TAYLOR: I am Robert P Belden. I have read and studied your SECC v.
    IRS 7436(a) Win. You did a great thing and it is enormous work, Thank You. I am glad you decided to go to law school. You are helping me. I filed US Tax Court Docket No. 7048-18S on April 11, 2018. Today June 19, 2018 I served on Clerk, US Tax Court and on IRS Denver Attorney an OBJECTION to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The facts are different but the general notion is identical to your SECC Corp win as the Tax Court Judges ruled. It is funny. You lose your own dismissal by having the Tax Court rule against you. Yes, there is Real Fear with a bad IRS and Worse, a bad tax court Judge when you go up alone against them.
    I don’t like the charge you are Frivolous either. These are safe, deep inside lawyers with no skin to lose, and their word Frivolous, yes, is their word; not mine nor yours. They use this against you as some sort of formal Charge. This is truly Frightening. I call these types of Gov’t. Attorneys GAMEBOY and CURVEBALL. They do this on purpose and I know why. They are
    going to Lose. Plus I hear their negative pejorative gossip on some victim up and down the office hallways. I know the Type. My case is a good one and right down your SECC Corp vs.
    IRS Commissioner alley. Under ACA Health law in State No 50 Hawaii, the Hawaii Health Connector failed and was Ordered closed May 15, 2015. In violation of ACA law, Hawaii failed to send out to ACA QHP enrollee taxpayers a Form 1095-A needed to Prove a Form 8962 PTC Refund.
    This Hawaii failure puts petitioner into the Impossible position of being Forced to Prove The Negative (Kant) with Absence of Evidence (John Locke). Your SECC Corp vs. IRS Commissioner is a real Blessing. Thank You A Lavar Taylor. IRS has jurisdiction and owes duty and obligation for administration of ACA Health Tax law in all 50 States, and IRS has failed this responsibility. Like Genesis Chapter 2, Cain hurt Abel because Cain isn’t Able. John Stienbeck Wrote in 1952 in East of Eden. He won a Nobel Prize for this. I fear too whether IRS and a bad tax court Judge can even see and read English when all the facts are in front of them. Yes, the facts of your SECC case are different, and the US Tax Court can decide for itself if it wants jurisdiction. So again, Thank you for Losing your motion to dismiss in SECC. You need a sense of humor with this stuff.
    My Father for 26 years ran the Los Angeles office of Price Waterhouse. From age 10 to 18 I worked for my Father and Joe Paxson. Joe Paxson was No 1 Price Waterhouse, as my Father said, Technical. IRS paid Joe Paxson money to teach IRS their own tax law. He came out of the Navy after WWII and was my Father’s Partner. He was big and strong with a Richard Nixon 5 o’clock
    shadow. He had thick black short crew cut Navy hair and he wore real thick black rimmed eyeglasses. Joe Paxson looks like an Accountant. We are not lawyers. He had very strong thick
    black hairy forearms so he can hold a Pencil 14 to 16 hours a day and not Cramp. He wore a white short sleeved dress shirt with a Bow Tie, a real Master. He died of stomach cancer at 51 doing this kind of tax work, the stress. My Father died at 56.

  2. Robert P Belden says

    Dear A LAVAR TAYLOR: Part 2 from Robert P Belden. Before moving on I need to ask a serious question. Today when Graduate from law school, they award a J.D., Doctor of Laws.
    I would be proud with the old L.LB. of Books. I know I would not be a good Doctor. A real
    Doctor, an M.D., must do a surgery in less than one day under General Anaesthesia, or you will die. One day for the most difficult, complicated surgeries. First he opens you up, uses a knife and butchers you, replaces the water pump and ignition system and cleans you burned valves, then sews you back up, and you live another 20 years. All in less than 1 day, Doctor. Howcome a good Doctor of Laws cannot finish a simple case with paper and black ink from a simple typewriter in less than 1 day? Is it the lawyers, or the Judge who demands more, or all of them. No law case, including your SECC Corp vs. IRS comes near some surgeries that in my life could be more serious, permanent and real. I worked for 2 years in the Catholic Daniel Freeman Hospital in Inglewood near the LAX Airport for the Chief Pathologist, M.D.
    Harvard Medical School. He was a big man. He played football at Harvard. Daniel Freeman Hospital had an electron microscope, expensive. There were only 3 in California.
    His office was the largest in the hospital. You cannot walk across the floor and can not see out the window. 1,000’s of Books on medicine, all difficult. He is a Doctor. Few lawyers I’ve met have his kind of Knowledge, which he must render in less than one day, or patient
    will die. I am sure you know the answer to this frivolous question. It may be the Attitude learned and taught in law schools, or it may be personal failings. WWII was won by Eisenhower from June 1944 until May 1945, not counting preliminaries. Doctors have to read and write too.
    Back to your SECC Corp vs. IRS Commissioner. I have filed Objection June 19, 2018 using your
    case against IRS motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Before I read your SECC case, I had the facts. After your case, I have the law. I cannot Thank You enough. You, A LAVAR TAYLOR, if you don’t mind, I will address as L.LB. with highest honor. I have an M.B.A. Please, next time you see an M.B.A., from Harvard or anywhere else, do not buy their common shares listed on Wall Street. I am ashamed of my M.B.A. I know how their lack of ability and lack of Integrity without going into details.

  3. Robert P Belden says

    Dear A LAVAR TAYLOR: Robert P Belden here, part 3. IRS says your SECC vs. IRS Commissioner case only applies to exact specific facts of SECC Corp issue only, what they call a Narrow construction. Of course they do. I am Generalizing it at my risk. My Fear is not IRS, my Fear is the US Tax Court Judge assigned. I believe I can apply your SECC Corp case to my Hawaii ACA tax law case Form 1095-A Failure for an IRS Form 8962 PTC Refund. I have the facts. You gave me the law.
    Now, a better subject. I know Wall Street, from my Mother, Father and Grandfather. BUY
    nothing but Apple, Exxon and Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. The rest is crow’s feed for the stockbrokers. If you like cars, BUY Ford. My Mother is a Miss America and she always drove and crashed the Ford. She made a specialty of Buying Coca Cola. I know why. Coke and McDonald’s are good 2nd choices. Coke does not make its money selling you cases. Coke is pure Accounting. Every now and then, Coke does a Capital Transaction, and my Mother harvested every one. They appear as nothing but Paper accounting tricks. They are not. They are very real nontaxable capital transactions. Coke buys a Bottler, puts $ 100 dollars into it, new fresh red paint and a music TV ad. 4 or 5 years later Coke sells this
    bottler back to itself at an inflated artificial high price, and Books a $ 1 Billion tax free capital gain. Warren Buffet owns Coke. My Father after the Navy took Ben Graham’s Wall Street
    class at Columbia long before Warren Buffet was born. I grew up on the Book, Graham & Dodd. Warren Buffett is nothing but pure accounting. He is the best.
    I studied the 2008/2009 Crash. It is all Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, jr. He did it. He went to N.Y.U. He is the real Rasputin, and they exterminated the Czars. I am no fan. N.Y.U. almost ended Western Civilization. Most don’t know how
    Dangerous 2008/2009 is. TARP cost more than $ One Trillion Dollars. I did not have a cheap
    mortgage. Benoit Mandelbrot worked in IBM Research for 35 years. He Discovered the mathematics of fractal geometry. In 2008/2009 we passed through a fractal. Alan Greenspan, jr. from N.Y.U. cannot do this math. Exxon uses fractal math with IBM machines to find new oil. It is expensive. No other oil, nor V. Putin, can afford it. Exxon invested $ 9 Billion cash in
    Mandelbrot arithmetic for seismic to find new oil. Buy Exxon and no other. Warren Buffett is good at accounting and earnings per share. He cannot do Mandelbrot math. Apple embraced
    Mandelbrot and surpassed IBM.
    What happened in 2008/2009 is like a glass bridge across the Pacific ocean. When it came, you’d better be one inch more than halfway across where the fractal glass bridge broke. And don’t turn around and look back. There’s nothing there. The power of a fractal is extremely dangerous.
    Pharoah is not here. Rome fell. Napoleon lost. Moscow disappeared. No guarantee for U.S.

  4. Robert P Belden says

    Dear A LAVAR TAYLOR: Robert P Belden part 4. Back to SECC US Tax Court Jurisdiction law. I never imagined I’d too be interested in this subject. Now, a story way off course.
    William J. Casey was the wealthiest man in the Reagan White House. The Reagan White House is the wealthiest since long before George Washington. It took real wealth to defeat
    England. Reagan had George Shultz of private Bechtel. And Donald T Regan is CEO of New York Merrill Lynch. Sovereign nations call up stockbroker Donald T Regan to buy 100 shares of Mattel who makes Barbie Doll and Ken. I always played with the Hot Cars.
    Now, I studied the 2008/2009 Crash. You don’t need to play Golf with the Company Boss.
    ELY Callaway Golf gave no Warning in 2007. Nor did Harley Davidson. They are all in it,
    so can’t see the Bear Trap coming. Exxon shows a fractal in February 28, 2007. Enormous
    Force needs to move the mass of an oil supertanker. Don’t bump into one. I can see it, but
    I cannot explain it. Intel makes chips. Intel shows an even deeper and to the naked eye a
    far more powerful and dangerous fractal in February/March 2007 next to Exxon. Another
    that gave early warning is Cray Computer, an extreme fractal, impossible to miss. Mandelbrot says the signal must be visible enough for you to take real action when you see one. I see none now. One fractal signal early in 2007 is Hershey Bar. I tested H. & R. Block. They know how much money everyone is really making and see it first. H. & R. Block gave no Bear warning. You can buy an Hershey Bar at the cash register at WalMart. Hershey too sees it first. A fractal change is first seen at the edges, the boundary between the forces of two competing systems. A tree’s roots are a fractal pattern, not the fractal itself. Branches above the ground are a fractal pattern. The Tree fractal is the Trunk bottom right at the edge between ground and air. A fractal is like a Snow Avalanche after a new fresh 10 foot storm before it cracks. Beautiful to behold, and dangerous, and powerful. When Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492, he made a fractal. Shakespeare 1502 and MichaelAngelo 1508 stayed home. Einstein and the bomb are not a fractal. They are Continuous. A fractal is not continuous. My Father died of a Leiomyosarcoma, a fractal. He did not have an Accountan’s Tax ulcer as the doctors said. An ulcer is continuous, not fractal. Mandelbrot shows a shockwave that tells why $ 1 Billion of TARP. What was coming is a total blackout, bigger than any 1929 when things were small. Size too big indicates a fractal break. I don’t use the word risk. Mt Everest is not fractal. The Matterhorn is fractal. HIV/Aids is fractal. I studied with William F. Sharpe at Stanford, he won the Nobel. He did his work at UCLA Math and Santa Monica Rand. He teaches Wall Street risk. He says Mandelbrot is right. Eugene Fama says Mandelbrot is right. All the old math we were taught is wrong. I threw out the books, and Stanford, I want my money back. Fractal math argues against old Ford. I used to work personally for Robert S. McNamara. So I buy Ford. In a new car, Color is important. The transition from Horse to car is not fractal.
    John D Rockefeller Senior and Standard Oil and gasoline and drilling oil wells are fractals that
    led to the car.
    Columbus is a very different kind of man. He is what Charles Darwin studied. Columbus knew Galileo and Leonardo Da Vinci and the North Star and Orion. Plus he knew all of Nathaniel Bowditch. He is different, he left. Plus he got lucky. Columbus drew irregular fractal shapes on a blank sheet of paper any child can draw with a pencil. This is how he Navigated. You draw and experiment with all irregular shapes of bodies of water. The fractal Koch curve draws the coastline of Britain and would have found for Drake San Francisco, but not across the ocean. To draw a route across the ocean you can use the shape of a meandering river, which is a body of water. You cannot use a classic continous Euclid shape like circle or ellipse or parabola we were all taught. They won’t work. You could find and use every known actual shape of every known body of water known to man before Columbus, a whole catalog of them. This demands extensive real knowledge, per Darwin. The shape of rain is fractal. Rain is a body of water. I wouldn’t use snow. You may use ice shapes. Columbus got lucky, and his luck wasn’t 50/50 like heads or tails, north or south, or black or white. The luck of Columbus was better than 10 Billion to one, or he would have perished. He is lucky he didn’t sail West from San Francisco. You can draw a route around the world and sail and never see land. Had Columbus left San Francisco or Los Angeles, we’d still be inside the Sistine Chapel staring at MichaelAngelo’s new painting of Christ. Drake is a pirate, not a Navigator like the original Columbus. He had a very different mind, per Darwin. Its possible the break between old English law and our American law is fractal in nature. George Washington led a bloody war.
    All major war is fractal. It is better to win. The Losers in war get caught and are lost behind the halfway point where that Pacific ocean invisible glass bridge shattered. There is now way you can turn back, and now way those lost behind can move forward. The Harvard M.B.A. and Wall Street will use it for profit. Mandelbrot at IBM says corporations are not interested in sharing Knowledge. When they discover something new, they want profit. At IBM he couldn’t teach under an IBM copyright. American Express
    credit card fired Mandelbrot from IBM in 1993, and so he got a new job teaching arithmetic at Yale where he can teach and publish on fractal math. Today the No 1 man is Kenneth Falconer at St. Andrews outside London. He is the head of the Scottish Walking foundation. He walks.

    You filed in SECC Corp vs. IRS Commissioner to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and you were surprised the Tax Court Overturned you and ruled against you, claiming jurisdiction. This decision by the Judges may be a fractal. I would like to know their names. All 11 or 12 Judges are different from the past, and this Break is not Continuous, it is sharp. The men who Wrote the U.S. Constitution, per Darwin, are also different, and their difference is rough and broken and irregular and discontinuous and sharp. I believe your 11 or 12 Judges SECC Corp case is a fractal. Jung says anything truly new at first looks like it was made by a 3rd Grader in school with a bad sense of humor. It looks jarring because it needs to be developed. I agree with you A LAVAR TAYLOR, proud L.LB. of Books. Your SECC case is yours and is new. The US Tax Court has ruled anyone, even me, can Order through the McDonald’s Drive Thru Window if he disagrees honestly with IRS Commissioner and his facts are true.

  5. Robert P Belden says

    Dear A LAVAR TAYLOR, L.LB.: R Belden part 5. Now I know why you studied law. It grabs your mind in written English. I found your SECC case and I am using it with US Tax Court Docket No. 7048-18S right now to Object to an IRS Denver motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Your SECC case gives me Confidence when I had none. I do have the facts and they are true, but I didn’t have the law. IRS Attorneys have the law, and I am outnumbered and out horsepowered. You said a case like this is expensive. I use Kinko’s. My Overhead is the US Post Office. I see a Judge differently. You go to a surgeon if you have cancer. The Chief Pathologist, M.D. is very much like a Judge. He tells the surgeons what to do because he has far superior Knowledge. This is why he’s there above all doctors. He has the most Knowledge.
    The Chief Pathologist, M.D. is also a Teacher. He teaches the surgeons the medicine. He is the No 1 Doctor in the hospital, and has the authority because he is the authority.
    In my ACA Health Tax Form 8962 Hawaii Refund case, I pray the Tax Court Judge will take for himself the jurisdiction. My case is the first one in this new area.

  6. Robert P Belden says

    A LAVAR TAYLOR, L.LB.: R Belden. Back to my first question. If you are a J.D., and not an L.LB. of Books, then why in your SECC Corp vs. IRS Commissioner does it take more than One Day. (Like Gertrude Stein, I Omit the Comma and avoid the Question mark (?)). She only uses the Period and by method uses repetition. She aims for exact precision in her sentences.
    This method leads to some interesting writing. It is a formal method of writing. I cannot use this Gertrude Stein writing in my US Tax Court Objection to motion. The Judge will throw me out, and yes, this brings fear, alas. Gertrude Stein’s writing method is modern. If you try her as a lawyer, you’ll be disbarred. When a lawyer formally uses the words Wherefore or the Foregoing, he is using repetition with Commas. Gertrude Stein’s No Comma method with repetition saves paper. All a comma or semicolon does is tell you when to hold your breath.
    They add no real information and clear up no logic. When I use Her, people think I’m Nuts.
    The problem is, they can’t read. But I am the one who gets into trouble by the inability of their superior authority. One must kow-to, to survive.

Comment Policy: While we all have years of experience as practitioners and attorneys, and while Keith and Les have taught for many years, we think our work is better when we generate input from others. That is one of the reasons we solicit guest posts (and also because of the time it takes to write what we think are high quality posts). Involvement from others makes our site better. That is why we have kept our site open to comments.

If you want to make a public comment, you must identify yourself (using your first and last name) and register by including your email. If you do not, we will remove your comment. In a comment, if you disagree with or intend to criticize someone (such as the poster, another commenter, a party or counsel in a case), you must do so in a respectful manner. We reserve the right to delete comments. If your comment is obnoxious, mean-spirited or violates our sense of decency we will remove the comment. While you have the right to say what you want, you do not have the right to say what you want on our blog.

Speak Your Mind