This guy changed his “theory” a few times. Initially he was a tax cheat, claiming that he was entitled to a deduction for his 40 acres and mule. Later, however, he switched his story to “protestor” mode by claiming that he was a member of some tribe of Indian and therefore was an “Indian not taxed.”

I think blogged about this guy awhile ago. But, I forgot what I said about him

Whatever the case, his mo has does not make him look too good under the FSGs, in the IRM, or the DOJ’s manual. (And, it is possible for former tax cheats to make their image much better before sentencing.)

The reason that the service dropped the ball on this was that some people at their service centers were giving out these refunds. For some reason, the lowest people on the totem poll let these things slip by.

On the good side, the service is getting people one at a time. First the non-filing companies, then the angry black people, and such.

The original article in Essence didn’t really purport to be Tax Authority (and anyway, under the regs., you can’t take an aggressive position based on a treatise, anyway). I think the original article was sort of speculating about what the value would have been had the reparations not been vetoed. However, like a game of telephone, a whimsical article turns into a tax scam.

I seem to recall that even some IRS *agents* had applied for and received reparations refunds! Of course, there are probably a fair number of agents who use their specialized knowledge to cheat the system in other, less newsworthy ways, but one would think that these agents could find a genuine loophole rather than such a clearly improper deduction/refund. Then again, maybe they knew the IRS was turning a blind eye to this.

Anyway, my favorite tax protestor cases are still the folks who say the whole thing is voluntary, or only applies to federal employees, or the like. It's just a shame when they prey on the folks gullible enought to go to them for tax advice.

>I seem to recall that even some IRS *agents* had applied for and received reparations refunds!

Please provide a citation to this. I just do not believe you.

Sorry it took me a while to respond to Taint's challenge. I didn't read the blog over the weekend. I apologize for relying on memory, knowing how faulty it can be, without citation. The old saying is "Those who can't do, teach." Well, I say, "Those who can't blog, comment."

Anyway, a little googling first made me fear I had fallen for urban legends. I finally found this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/national/main519035.shtml) citing an AP story. It notes that "one employee" was being investigated for helping process fraudulent claims, and that "[a]t least 12 current and former IRS employees, all low-level workers in processing centers, applied to receive such a credit," citing a Washington Post story.

It appears that my memory promoted "processors" to "agents." I'm sorry for that mistake, and for any aspersion I might have cast onto IRS agents as a result.

I originally had a longer defense of my point above, arguing that it was really only a difference in degree of stupidity or sneakiness on the part of "processors" instead of agents. But I decided to leave it here. My putting "agents" in the scare-asterisks makes it clear that I was really aiming at them. I won't try to turn this into an Emily Litella ("Never mind.") skit. (http://www.tvguide.ca/netcetera/gilda_radner.html) I just goofed. Mea culpa.

Again, sorry for the mistake, and thanks to Taint for keeping me in line.