Tax Update Blog: Permalink

« Previous · Tax Update Blog Home · Next »

Code Cracker can't crack District Court

April 28, 2010

Peter Hendrickson, author of a book purporting to teach its readers to avoid the income tax by "Cracking the Code," has failed to get a judge to undo his recent conviction on tax charges.

One of Mr. Hendrickson's arguments was that he is not a "person" for purposes of the tax law. The judge is convinced otherwise:

Moreover, to the extent that Defendant suggests that the Government failed to meet its evidentiary burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant is a "person" within the meaning of § 7206(1), this challenge to the jury's guilty verdict rests upon the premise that the term "person" as used in the statute has a specialized meaning. The Court, however, expressly held in its October 7 ruling that the term "person" in § 7206(1) encompasses ordinary individuals. See Hendrickson, 664 F. Supp.2d at 816. As the Government points out, the jury could reasonably have inferred from the testimony at trial that this statutory element was satisfied, where Defendant himself took the stand and appeared to be an ordinary individual.

Ordinary, if somewhat deluded.

He also argued that he didn't receive "wages," under his own squirrely definition. The judge replied:

First, the Government introduced into evidence the W-2 forms issued to Defendant by his employer, Personnel Management, Inc., for the years 2000 to 2006, which reported the remuneration he received from the company for each of these years. In addition, the jury heard from two individuals at Personnel Management, Larry Bodoh and Warren Rose, who discussed Defendant's tenure and responsibilities at the company and characterized Defendant as an "employee." (See Trial Tr. at 370-71, 392-93, 399.) What is more, Defendant himself described his job duties at the company in his testimony at trial. (See id. at 507-10.) From this evidence, the jury could permissibly have concluded that Defendant was an "employee" whose remuneration during the relevant years qualified as "wages," as these terms were defined in the jury instructions given by the Court,1 so that his claims of zero "wages" on his tax forms were false.

Curses. Foiled again.

While books like "Cracking the Code" may seem convincing under their own internal logic, the IRS and the Federal courts don't follow that logic. They are pretty darned sure that there is an income tax, and it applies to you if you have a job or otherwise have earnings, unless there is a specific exemption for you. The Federal Marshals and the Bureau of Prisons are also on board with that. As Mr. Hendrickson will experience for the next 2+ years, it's their opinion that counts.

Cite: USA v. Hendrickson, Case No. 08-20585, DC_MI, SD 4/26/2010.

Related: Cracking the Code, or Smoking the Crack?

Tags: Peter Hendrickson.tax protesters.

      Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit