Loper Bright case vindicates Irwin Schiff

[dude58677]

Irwin Schiff argued that the internal revenue code should be void for vagueness. Under Chevron Doctrine, he couldn’t argue this. If the IRS said he was wrong then the court had to agree with the IRS and thus anyone arguing against the IRS was wrong. The Loper Brightvcase changes all this. The IRS now has to make a compelling argument that they are right and good luck to them cause they are going to need it. The tax code is too confusing
for anyone to reasonably expect understand. The 861 is also controversial regardless of what was said before Loper. So Irwin Schiff was vindicated. This is why the establishment is in such panic.

 

[jmdrake]

Irwin Schiff argued that the internal revenue code should be void for vagueness. Under Chevron Doctrine, he couldn’t argue this. If the IRS said he was wrong then the court had to agree with the IRS and thus anyone arguing against the IRS was wrong. The Loper Brightvcase changes all this. The IRS now has to make a compelling argument that they are right and good luck to them cause they are going to need it. The tax code is too confusing
for anyone to reasonably expect understand. The 861 is also controversial regardless of what was said before Loper. So Irwin Schiff was vindicated. This is why the establishment is in such panic.

Maybe, but it will take a SCOTUS willing the make "vast swaths" of the tax code unconstitutional which is something Trump appointed Bret Kavanaugh recently stated he was unwilling to do.

See. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ign-earnings-tax&highlight=kavanaugh+tax+code

 

[unknown]

Vindicated?

Irwin was never wrong.

Guy was a legend.

RIP.

 

[dude58677]

Maybe, but it will take a SCOTUS willing the make "vast swaths" of the tax code unconstitutional which is something Trump appointed Bret Kavanaugh recently stated he was unwilling to do.

See. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ign-earnings-tax&highlight=kavanaugh+tax+code

There could be a Trump Judge that agrees with Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. That might drop the case against a criminal defendent based on Loper and the defendant can’t be tried twice.

 

[jmdrake]

There could be a Trump Judge that agrees with Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. That might drop the case against a criminal defendent based on Loper and the defendant can’t be tried twice.

I'm pretty sure that if a case is dismissed by a judge on constitutional grounds rather than going to trial the government can appeal that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3731

That said, it would be nice if there were three more judges on SCOTUS willing to agree with Thomas and Gorsuch on this issue. FTR that was a Trump tax law that Kavanauch was upholding.

 

[oyarde]

Maybe, but it will take a SCOTUS willing the make "vast swaths" of the tax code unconstitutional which is something Trump appointed Bret Kavanaugh recently stated he was unwilling to do.

See. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ign-earnings-tax&highlight=kavanaugh+tax+code

Correct , large pc.s need discarded but judges wont do it

 

[dude58677]

I'm pretty sure that if a case is dismissed by a judge on constitutional grounds rather than going to trial the government can appeal that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3731

That said, it would be nice if there were three more judges on SCOTUS willing to agree with Thomas and Gorsuch on this issue. FTR that was a Trump tax law that Kavanauch was upholding.

Not if it is “dismissal with prejudice.”? Plus with Loper the challenges won’t be treated as frivolous because the IRS has to prove their case unlike with Chevron. The ruling you are referring(Us vs Moore) to made it a limited ruling.

 

[jmdrake]

Not if it is “dismissal with prejudice.”? Plus with Loper the challenges won’t be treated as frivolous because the IRS has to prove their case unlike with Chevron. The ruling you are referring(Us vs Moore) to made it a limited ruling.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Dismissal with prejudice generally means the same case cannot be filed in the same court but it doesn't mean it can't be appealed. But if you've got legal authority that says otherwise I'd love to see it.

 

[dude58677]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Dismissal with prejudice generally means the same case cannot be filed in the same court but it doesn't mean it can't be appealed. But if you've got legal authority that says otherwise I'd love to see it.

Final paragraph of Moore vs US “
(d) The Court’s holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs. Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity. Nor does this decision attempt to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether realization is a constitutional requirement for an income tax.”

“Notwithstanding this precedent, the Government asserts its power to tax without apportion- ment all economic gains, including appreciation in property value. The Court does not address this issue.“ Any Coney Barrett concurring opinion

 

[jmdrake]

Final paragraph of Moore vs US “
(d) The Court’s holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs. Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity. Nor does this decision attempt to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether realization is a constitutional requirement for an income tax.”

“Notwithstanding this precedent, the Government asserts its power to tax without apportion- ment all economic gains, including appreciation in property value. The Court does not address this issue.“ Any Coney Barrett concurring opinion

Okay. That says nothing about whether a criminal dismissal with prejudice by a district court can be appealed. But okay. Anyway, we'll see what happens next.

 

[dude58677]

Okay. That says nothing about whether a criminal dismissal with prejudice by a district court can be appealed. But okay. Anyway, we'll see what happens next.

I didn’t say that it did. I was making a new argument.

 

[oyarde]

Final paragraph of Moore vs US “
(d) The Court’s holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs. Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity. Nor does this decision attempt to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether realization is a constitutional requirement for an income tax.”

“Notwithstanding this precedent, the Government asserts its power to tax without apportion- ment all economic gains, including appreciation in property value. The Court does not address this issue.“ Any Coney Barrett concurring opinion

Ya gotta be quite an optimist to see any good in any of it

 

[jmdrake]

I didn’t say that it did. I was making a new argument.

Okay. I'll be honest I haven't read the entire opinion. I wonder why Kavanaugh decided to punt on the underlying constitutional question?

 

[dude58677]

Okay. I'll be honest I haven't read the entire opinion. I wonder why Kavanaugh decided to punt on the underlying constitutional question?

Yea, so the Loper case stated that any statute that is vague cannot be automatically deferred to IRS interpretation and the IRS would have to prove that the interpretation of that statute was valid. Too much if it though as Irwin Schiff said is vague so an argument that it is void for vagueness can win in court. With the Chevron doctrine it the IRS called that challenge frivolous then that is how the court would have to rule. Now that actually have to reason in court or compete against their opponent in court instead of having a victory handed to them. They have to earn it!