Subject: Opinions

Dear Subscriber,

Court rulings are often referred to as "opinions," which is an accurate description. A mere human being (who for some reason wears a black dress, calls himself "the court," and insists that others call him "honorable") gives his OPINION about a legal issue, whether he has done any research into the issue at hand, or knows anything about it, or not. In our system of jurislunacy (more common than jurisprudence), their "opinions" are accepted as divine wisdom, to be accepted without question by us mere peasants.

"The courts have ruled..." Wow, that sounds so impressive. What it really MEANS is that some lawyer in a dress gave his opinion, whether it was worth giving or not. As with every other MERE MORTAL, his "opinion" is only worth the EVIDENCE and LOGIC supporting it. To think otherwise is insane. Can some people ALTER reality by stating their "opinion" of it? Of course not.

So why are court "opinions" so often cited as proof of something, but court EVIDENCE AND LOGIC is not? (I'm also a little unclear why the infallible, all-knowing, always right "courts" are constantly disagreeing with each other, and overruling each other.)

I'm about halfway through a book by Andrew Napolitano, who as a judge has seen first hand just how silly, unfair, unconstitutional, etc., "the system" can be. I find it very refreshing that someone with "system"-approved credentials (attorney and judge) dares to openly describe some court "opinions" as absurd. Yes, believe it or not, even people who wear black dresses and hit desks with wooden hammers can say stupid things sometimes. And when they do, we shouldn't respect their "opinions."

"Hey professor, I went over all my work on this problem, as I explained on the test, and concluded that the correct answer is six." "Sorry, but I have already ruled that the answer is seven." "Um... okay, but how did you get that?"

"You have my ruling. If you don't like it, you can appeal to the dean of the college."

What kind of delusional nutcase thinks that way? "I said it, therefore it is right." Can you say "god complex"? That's even worse than OTHER people saying "he said it, therefore it is right." Hey, if the "courts have ruled" on something, how dare we peasants presume to disagree?

The IRS loves to say that "the courts have ruled" against the 861 issue.

That's nice. But what did they SAY. What EVIDENCE (citations of law) did they cite? What was their line of reasoning to reach their conclusion?  Answer: "That's frivolous; I have spoken." Wow, it's hard to argue with brilliant logic like that.

Now try this on for size:

"The courts must interpret statutes as Congress wrote them, rather than what they "ought to mean."... The public must be able to rely on clear and understandable rules established by Congress to ascertain their federal tax obligations. If federal tax laws are applied in an unpredictable and arbitrary manner, albeit by federal judges for the "right" reasons in the "right case," public confidence in the Code and tax enforcement system surely will be further eroded."

Well said. By the way, you HAVE to believe that, because "THE COURTS" said it, when ruling against the IRS in a recent "abusive tax shelter" case (Coltec v. U.S., Court of Federal Claims, No. 01-072T). Well golly gee. Ya mean THE LAW has to tell us what THE LAW requires? Who'd uh thunk?

So, when "the courts" were "ruling" about the 861 evidence, did they SAY whether we should use 861(b) and 1.861-8 to determine our "taxable income from sources within the United States"? Nope. Did they say what those sections show to be taxable? Nope. Did they explain WHEN the "items" in 61 are excluded? Nope.

Who needs evidence, a thought process, and reasoning, when you can take a flying leap to an unsupported and provably false conclusion instead? If you have a wooden hammer and a black dress, that's all the permission you need to just ASSERT what the law is, regardless of what the law itself actually says.

So what are us poor peasants to do? We sit down with our pocket-sized, 10,000 page tax code, and try to figure out what we owe. Well, THE TAX REGULATIONS say we are to use 861(b) and 1.861-8 to determine our taxable domestic income (see 26 CFR 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c), and Treasury Decision 6258). But oops... that will lead us to a conclusion that "the courts" have ruled against. So scrap all those sections. Just rip them out of the book. While you're at it, rip out all of Subchapter N, and all related regulations. Oh, and 26 CFR 1.312-6, and all pre-1954 regulations defining "gross income." And someone rip that darn "inclusio unius" thing out of the legal dictionaries. And go erase the Supreme Court ruling in Gould v. Gould. And in Peck v. Lowe, while we're at it. Just get rid of all of them. They don't mean what they say. A guy wearing a black dress says so.

In fact, why go half way? Just do away with law books entirely. Lowly rabble like us isn't qualified to read it anyway. "The courts" have told you the conclusion you SHOULD reach, so who cares HOW you get there? Just get there. Anyway, only an extremist terrorist would believe his OWN EYES instead of believing the assertion of someone whose income, career, reputation, and power all depend upon maintaining the status quo.

Do I sound a bit cynical?

Sincerely,

Larken Rose