Tom deSabla's Answer To Maryland's Lawlessness
(The nature of which is explained therein)
Thomas H. deSabla
March 20, 2005
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2383
Dear Ms. Bormuth:
This letter is in response to your letter from the Comptroller of Maryland dated March 7, which I received on March 9 regarding the delay in processing my lawful refund for tax year 2004. I am beginning to suspect that racial and/or ethnic discrimination may be causing this delay. A summary of all the actions and communications regarding this matter between the State of Maryland and myself to date is as follows:
1. A Maryland tax return form 503 was filed, strictly following Maryland law by using the income from my federal 1040. Also included was a copy of that 1040, along with a form 4852, which is the proper form supplied by the IRS when a person is unable to obtain correct wage information from a payer. This Maryland tax return was received by the Comptrollers office via certified mail article number 7004 2890 0004 2383 9748 on February 1 2005 by a Gene Robbins.
2. On February 17, 2005 I received a Personal Income Tax Computation Notice or “letter 956” from the Revenue Administration Division of the Comptrollers office.
3. Not fully understanding the rather cryptic and baffling content of the “letter 956,” I called the Taxpayer Service number on the letter, which was 410-269-7980 on February 18, 2005 at about 3:55 PM. At that time, I had a conversation with a Mr. Tom Henry which confirmed both the receipt of the 2004 Maryland tax return along with the accompanying federal 1040 and 4852 forms; and also that the February 17 letter was indeed a (956) type letter requesting that I fax the State a copy of my federal tax return. Obviously, as I pointed out to Mr. Henry, such a request was redundant, as the requested item was already in the State’s possession. Nevertheless, Mr. Henry reiterated that request.
4. On February 22, 2005 I complied with the State’s request by faxing another copy of my federal 1040 and 4852 to the fax number on the (956) letter, which was 410-260-6214. Also included with my fax was an explanation of why Maryland taxes should never have been withheld from my pay to begin with along with a second request for prompt attention to the processing of my lawful refund. The fax was received at 5:26 PM.
5. On March 9, 2005 I received the instant and latest communication from the Comptroller’s office, which says, in relevant part,
“Under SECTION 13-302 (a) of the TAX-GENERAL ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, NOTICE is hereby made that you provide this office with the following information within 30 days of this letter:
• Copy of the W2 from the employer.
Pursuant to SECTION 13-401 (a) of the TAX-GENERAL ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, failure to comply with this NOTICE will result in an assessment of tax due, plus interest and penalty, based on the disallowance of the deductions mentioned above.”
I now respond to the instant communication from the State of Maryland, and incorporate by reference all previous communications, copies of which are also included herein.
First off, here are some factual observations regarding this latest letter. One is that the request for a “Copy of the W2 from the ‘employer” is yet another redundant request, because again, the State of Maryland already has this information, as the withholding entity has already sent it to them. This precludes the applicability of §13-302(a), because the tax collector is already free to examine that record/document if he wishes. He’s already got it, so what’s the point in demanding it from me? I’ve already sworn that it contained erroneous information; and that I tried and failed to have that information corrected by the withholding entity. Also, there are no “deductions mentioned above” in the instant letter, so I am at a loss as to the meaning of that statement. I didn’t claim any “deductions” to be “disallowed.”
Also, it’s worth pointing out that §13-302(a) doesn’t say anything about W2’s specifically; and the word, “notice,” capitalized or not, appears nowhere in the text. I might also add that §13-302(a) says that the tax collector may examine relevant, material records and data. Incorrect records and incorrect data are not relevant or material, and do not belong on a tax return nor should they be submitted with one. Just because a withholding entity is willing to break the law by sending the State of Maryland incorrect “wage” data, does not mean that I will or should do so. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If the withholding entity jumped off a bridge, should I do that too?
Speaking of leading someone off a bridge, I am beginning to question the ethics and propriety of the State’s conduct during this entire process. All I have done is comply with the clear instructions on the face of the Maryland tax return forms, the instruction books for the forms and the laws of Maryland. Specifically, §10-203 states “Except as provided in Subtitle 4 of this title, [Special Treatment of Income, which doesn’t apply] the Maryland adjusted gross income of an individual is the individual's federal adjusted gross income for the taxable year...” The instructions for form 503 say to “copy the figure for adjusted federal gross income from your federal return onto line one of form 503.” I have done exactly that, so why is the State ignoring it’s own laws and giving me the runaround by asking me, not once but twice, for documents that it already has, instead of simply following the law and issuing my refund?
I’m going to venture an answer. I think it’s because of my sworn declaration of income. Because my federal income happens to be zero, the Comptroller apparently thinks that’s an excuse for fraudulently attempting to coerce me into amending my Maryland return. I won’t do it; so kindly stop asking me to perjure myself. I’m not going to get with the “Compliance Program,” because my actions DO comply with the law, while your actions, in particular the instant March 7 “notice,” DO NOT comply with the law. I didn’t write either Maryland or federal tax law; so it’s hardly my fault how the law is written. I shouldn’t be punished or treated unequally simply because I actually read and obeyed it.
Maybe the Comptroller of Maryland thinks that, just because I have an ethnic surname – deSabla - that I can be intimidated or that I might be too stupid to know the law. That is not true; my people and my family are proud Americans who refuse to be conned or bullied. We’ve been here awhile, and we can read just fine. In fact, I read that if you file with direct deposit, you get your refund faster. So, I gave the state my bank account number for the express purpose of getting a faster refund; instead they get my return and hold it for five weeks while trying to con me into amending it. Meanwhile, others who filed with direct deposit at the same time that I did received their money weeks ago. That is not only unequal treatment; it is unethical and possibly even illegal treatment. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment; and 18 U.S.C. §241 specifically forbids denying that equal treatment under color of law. There are other laws that apply to these fraudulent attempts to coerce perjury statements from me – don’t make me look them up.
Finally, regarding your threats that, pursuant to §13-401(a), my “…failure to comply with this notice will result in an assessment of tax due, plus interest and penalty,” it’s clear that you are attempting to imply that, because you don’t like my tax return, you have the authority to unilaterally change any of the numbers on it in order to reflect a predetermined amount of tax you want me to pay. And, further if I don’t “comply” by amending my return with false information, you’re going to do exactly that – make up the numbers yourself.
Upon examination, §13-401(a) doesn’t say anything about “NOTICES,” or “disallowance of deductions,” it simply says, “if a tax collector examines or audits a return and determines that the tax due exceeds the amount shown on the return, the tax collector shall assess the deficiency.” It does not say, “if a tax collector examines or audits a return and doesn’t like the amount of income declared, he shall change the numbers until the desired result is achieved.” Now let’s look at § 13-509 (a), which says “the Comptroller or the Comptroller's designee may issue an order decreasing or abating an assessment to correct an erroneous assessment.” The purpose of these sections is to codify the Comptrollers authority to fix assessment or calculation errors on people’s tax returns. In other words, they simply and properly establish that the state shouldn’t be bound to honor the results of math errors that people inevitably make.
Assessment is applying a rate of tax to a predetermined amount of income. Authority to increase or abate an assessment is simply authority over those calculations; it does not, and could never mean authority over what income figure those calculations are being performed on. The obvious truth of this can be seen by analogy: The Comptroller of Maryland and I can stand before a house and assess its value. I say it’s worth 5000 dollars; and he says it’s worth 4000. Now he can disagree with my assessment, increase or abate it; but he can’t change one single thing about the actual house itself. If there is no house, there is little point in debating my methods of assessing something that is not there. The authority to assess a thing does not include the power to change or create the thing you are assessing, only to govern how calculations are performed on that thing.
To be absolutely clear, to claim that § 13-401 or § 13-509 give the state the authority to unilaterally reject a sworn statement as to the amount of someone’s income and then proceed to process the person’s return in whatever way they see fit leads inevitably to the notion that the filing of a Maryland tax return is superfluous and unnecessary. Under this fictitious interpretation of the Comptroller’s assessment authority, the state can just determine the amount of tax itself, needing no input or authority from us, and simply mail out a bill or a check, whichever it decides is proper. This is obviously a ridiculous and unacceptable legal proposition; so don’t even try to go there.
Indeed, § 13-509 (b) says that, if the Comptroller does increase or abate, even within the limited scope of his authority to do so, the reason must be stated clearly. What would the reason be in my case? “We didn’t like the amount of income this guy put on his federal return, so we disregarded his compliance with the law, tried and failed to intimidate him into amending his return, and finally just had to invent an income number for him”? Unless the state wants to put that reason on the record, it can simply cut the bull and refund the $3560.37 that was improperly withheld from my money. In fact, I insist on it.
Thomas H. deSabla
CC – The Comptroller of Maryland
Revenue Administration Division
Maryland Responded, and Tom Fires Back
|Thomas H. deSabla |
April 3, 2005
Re: Maryland Tax year 2004
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore Maryland 21201-2383
Dear Ms. Bormuth;
I’m sorry, but you are very much mistaken in your letter dated March 22, 2005; I never indicated in any way shape or form that “wages” as defined by law are not income subject to taxation. They most certainly are taxable income; and to accuse someone of claiming that they are not is to accuse that person of advocating the commission of a crime. I must demand that you immediately withdraw your accusation unless you produce proof that I so indicated.
Since you say you have used that fabrication to justify an “assessment” you have made, presumably under §13-410, before coming to defend myself against your actions, I reject the notion of somehow being put in the position of having to “appeal” some decision that was made under the false pretenses of a position I never took. Therefore, fully reserving all of my rights to due process available to me under any applicable law, including the written appeal to which your letter refers, I wish to point out the facts and the law to you straight away, so you can correct this mistake promptly and uphold the law without further delay.
The facts are that I read the instructions in my 2004 Maryland tax guide, which commands in instruction number 2 that I do my federal taxes first, because “Maryland law requires that your income and deductions be entered on your Maryland return exactly as they were reported on your federal return.” Also, Maryland law - §10-203 clearly states “the Maryland adjusted gross income of an individual is the individual’s federal adjusted gross income for the taxable year…” I have fully, provably complied with these instructions and laws.
With all due respect, my federal tax return is my business. Only I am responsible for it, and for knowing and obeying federal tax laws; and therefore no one, not the Comptroller of Maryland, and not even the IRS Commissioner has the authority to decide for me what my lawful federal tax liabilities are. Nor does either one have the authority to complete an income tax return on my behalf. If you disagree with this statement, please cite the federal or state law that gives that authority. You won’t find one that applies when the citizen or resident has already filed an income tax return. This principle has been enshrined in federal tax law since the Revenue Act of 1862, Section 93 of which states, in relevant part, “And be it further enacted,…that any party, in his or her own behalf,…shall be permitted to declare, under oath or affirmation, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,…the amount of is or her annual income liable to be assessed, …and the same so declared shall be received as the sum upon which duties are to be assessed and declared.”
Ms. Bormuth, the above is still the law. The Comptroller of Maryland has not and will not sit down with me at my kitchen table and take responsibility for determining my federal tax liability. Last time I checked, that responsibility was still mine. I accepted that responsibility and spent hundreds of hours researching my 2004 federal tax liability. The result of my determinations is evidenced on my federal tax return, a copy of which I mailed you over two months ago along with my 2004 Maryland return. Again, my federal tax liability is my responsibility to determine, and I did so. Then, as Maryland law and instructions command, I entered the income figures on my Maryland return. Scrupulous compliance with the law cannot be frivolous, and so my return, before even turning to examine §13-705, cannot be a frivolous return. Attachment #1 rebuts this charge in detail.
Let’s be clear - assessment doesn’t mean, as you imply, the right or authority to “adjust” someone’s income on a tax return. Assessment is simply the process of applying a rate of tax to an income figure. It is not an excuse to dispute a resident’s Maryland tax return simply because the amount of income transferred from their federal tax return doesn’t suit the state’s fancy. The authority under Sections §13-401 and §13-410 is, as I’ve said, the authority to fix assessment, or calculation errors that people inadvertently make in applying tax rates to their income figure. The authority under §13-705 is the authority to fix deliberate, willful assessment or calculation errors that a person makes. In other words, §13-705 applies when someone has taxable income by law, but says, for whatever reason, that they shouldn’t have to pay. Or they give a patently unlawful reason, like religious objections, or slavery reparations credits, or because they think that tax laws are unconstitutional or whatever. In these cases, using information contained in the return, the Comptroller may assess the tax on what the declared income of the person is even if the person claimed to owe no tax.
That is not the case here; there is no inconsistency on my return between my income and my tax owed. Previous cites of §13-401(a) did not and do not apply because that law clearly says “if a tax collector examines or audits a return and determines that the tax due exceeds the amount shown on the return, the tax collector shall assess the deficiency.” This wording makes clear that, under this particular law, if a tax collector is to determine that a tax due exceeds that shown on the return, the return itself is where he must look for assessment or calculation errors. In other words, just like under §13-705, the tax collector must limit himself to searching for inconsistencies in the information contained on the return itself. This contrasts greatly with the authority under §13-402, which only applies when a tax return is not filed. Under §13-402, the Comptroller “shall estimate income by using the best information in the possession of the tax collector.” As you can clearly see, this authority to estimate or “adjust” income does not exist in the instant matter because a tax return was filed, so kindly stop assuming it.
As a consequence, your “assessment,” which according to §13-411 is only prima facie correct, is in fact substantially incorrect, illegal, and invalid. In fact, its erroneous application will be made clear by examining the result, which, if acceded to, would cause one provision of Maryland law to destroy another. Not only does the Comptroller not have the authority to adjust my declared income, for him to do so under supposed violations of §13-705 or §13-401 would instantly force me to be in violation of a number of Maryland laws, including §10-203, and whatever other laws are referred to in the tax form instructions as requiring that my Maryland and federal income figures match exactly. On my sworn Maryland and federal tax forms, they do match exactly; and the Comptroller cannot make, nor force me to make, any changes in my Maryland return that cause me to be in violation of Maryland law. And, as I have said, my federal tax liability is my own right and responsibility to determine.
Therefore, it follows that the Comptroller cannot adjust my Maryland income consistent with Maryland law, because, since the two must be the same, to do so would require adjusting my federal income as well, which he has no authority to do.
If you disagree with this statement, please cite the law that says the Comptroller can estimate or adjust the income figure on an income tax return when a return is filed. If you cannot cite such a law, then you must concede immediately that you don’t have that authority. The fact is that laws cannot conflict with each other; I can’t obey §10-203, which I factually and provably did, and then have that compliance viewed as evidence that I somehow disobeyed §13-705. Again, compliance with the law can’t be frivolous, and compliance with one law can’t be a violation of another law.
Another thing about the “assessment” is simply that there is, again, no legal authority to “adjust” someone’s tax return. How could there be, when it’s a sworn statement, made under penalty of perjury. The Comptroller may be a powerful guy, but he can’t hack into my sworn statements and make changes. That would violate §1-203 because I can’t allow somebody to force me into swearing an oath over false income numbers. They have to be true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, or else I’m in violation of that statute. Your “assessment” would force me into a violation of yet another Maryland law.
Your letter contains the threat of attaching my property due to your proposed “assessment.” Since you made this decision without any due process whatsoever, and by fabricating and then attributing an illegal “position” to me, such an action arguably violates Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which says “…no man ought to be…disseized of his freehold,…or deprived of his…property, but by the judgment of his peers or by the Law of the land.”
Further, the proposed “assessment” clearly and utterly violates Article 17 by imposing, and requiring a retrospective oath. The Comptroller is attempting to change something I have sworn to, and that he has no right to change. The state’s treatment of me also violates this Article because it is ex post facto. If I had called the Maryland Comptroller’s office prior to submitting my return to confirm that I should determine my federal tax liability and then faithfully obey state law by copying the figure for federal income onto my Maryland return, your office would have undoubtedly approved of it. That’s exactly what I did, and now, after the fact, it somehow isn’t good enough.
Also, you seem to be systematically attempting, via Maryland laws ranging from §13-302(a), §13-401(a), and now §13-705, to unlawfully impose a tax on me when no liability exists by arbitrarily contriving and fabricating alleged offenses of those laws. This violates Article 14, which says no taxes to be levied without the consent of legislature.
Also, you may not suspend, for your convenience, the provisions in §10-201 and §10-203 for the purpose of concealing or permitting your unlawful attempts to manipulate my tax returns; nor can you claim in the tax instructions that Maryland law requires that Maryland income be copied from a person’s federal return, and then suddenly say that those instructions are no longer operative. This violates Article 9, which says you can’t suspend laws without the legislature. Also, if you tell me those instructions are no longer operative, after the fact of me submitting my return – then we have another violation of Article 17.
Also, I might further remind you that there is absolutely no dispute about the fact that $3560.37 was withheld from my pay. Now understand this – that money is not presumptively the state of Maryland’s; it is presumptively mine, because I earned it. The only way it could ever become the state of Maryland’s money is if all relevant law clearly says it is, with absolutely no ambiguity, doubt, or legal contradiction. I don’t need to jump through hoops to explain why I should get to keep it; on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the state of Maryland, and that burden must be met beyond question and in a manner utterly above reproach. This is codified in Article 6, which says that all persons invested with the executive powers of government, meaning the Comptroller, are trustees of the public. The public is me, and the Comptroller is therefore accountable for his conduct and may not pervert the ends of government by exercising arbitrary power over me.
Does the Comptroller’s office need a refresher on what the purpose of government is? Glad to help. “…All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, the ends of government are the securing of my rights. If I’ve got even the slightest hint of a right to lawfully retain my $3560.37, then the Comptroller’s job is to see to it that right is secured and my money returned to me, not scrounge through Maryland law looking for any and every frivolous excuse to take it from me.
There are a number of other laws invalidating the “assessment” your letter refers to and proscribing your actions. I’m sure that misrepresenting or falsifying the statements of another entity for the purpose of financial gain violates a number of state and federal fraud statutes; and I’m sure a number of civil rights and racketeering laws apply too, and then of course there is the Constitution to consider, but for now…the above ought to be sufficient to show that your actions may very well be illegal and they are certainly unethical.
Also, there’s no point in kvetching at me about “wages” because I have received none for tax year 2004, but more importantly, they are not the issue, the issue is my federal income, the determination of which is out of your hands. The reason? Maryland lawmakers have chosen to rely on a MD resident’s sworn federal income figures. This is not a loophole, and it is not my fault or my choice; it is simply the law. There is no other way of determining someone’s income under Maryland law when a return is filed. If you disagree with this statement, please cite any law that provides an alternative source for determining Maryland taxable income when a return is filed.
As you well know, Ms. Bormuth, the word “wages” is a specifically defined legal term. Payments that do not fit that legal definition are not “wages.” If you disagree with this statement, please cite the law that says every payment anyone receives is “wages.” Alternatively, please cite the law that says that every dollar that comes in is “income”. So, since it is definitely possible that money could change hands without it being “wages,” you must also concede that some payers are not aware if the money they are paying is legally “wages” or not. Just because some entity sends in a W2 does not prove that “wages” as defined by law have been paid.
The only thing that matters is the actual character of the payments themselves; do they fit the legal definition of “wages” or do they not? If you disagree, please cite the law that says any and all payments to anyone automatically fit the legal definition of “wages.” Alternatively, please cite the law that gives a withholding entity the authority to legally determine and define a certain payment to be “wages” simply by virtue of submitting a W2. And, please cite the law that says W2 forms are legally definitive and cannot be challenged or corrected. Of course, if incorrect W2 forms couldn’t be corrected or challenged, IRS Form 4852 would not exist, but it does.
If you can’t cite the proper laws to disprove the above points, you are only confirming the true character of the law. The last word on a person’s lawfully taxable income is not some form filled out by a payer who may not even know the law regarding the character of such payments, but is and must always remain the sworn declaration of the person himself, as evidenced by the contents of his tax return.
Again, my actions were according to Maryland’s instructions; I first completed my federal tax return scrupulously according to all applicable laws; and then transcribed the income figure to my Maryland tax return, again as instructed by the state. Then, pursuant to my lawful federal return and all the Maryland laws that command the use of my federal income figure as the basis for Maryland taxable income calculations, which are §10-101(e), §10-203, and §10-201, I determined my Maryland taxable income to be zero. Since, according to §10-102, the tax is only imposed on Maryland taxable income, and pursuant to §10-901, only individuals that have “…Maryland taxable income in a taxable year shall pay the income tax on that income with the return that covers that year,” I determined that I am not required to file. Finally, according to §10-809, “If an individual is not required to file a tax return…the individual is not liable for income tax and may file an income tax return to claim a refund of the income tax withheld…” There is also a Maryland Form 503 instruction that corresponds to this law by addressing the instance of when a resident uses the form only to apply for a refund.
This is exactly what I have done – legal and proper from beginning to end. It is your actions that are frivolous and violate the law. Please issue my lawful refund of $3560.37 without further delay.
Thomas H. deSabla
One attachment – 13-705 Rebuttal:
§ 13-705. Frivolous income tax return. (a) Penalty - The Comptroller shall assess a penalty not exceeding $500 if:
(1) an individual, as defined under § 10-101 of this article, files what purports to be an income tax return, but which:
(i) does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the tax may be determined; or
(ii) contains information that, on its face, indicates the tax reported on the return is substantially incorrect;
(2) the conduct of the individual is due to:
(i) a desire, apparent on the face of the return, to delay or impede the administration of the provisions of Title 10;
(ii) a position that is frivolous because the position:
2. is patently unlawful; and
3. does not involve a legitimate dispute or reflect an inadvertent mathematical or clerical error.
We may first conclude, before coming to examining each element on its merits, that § 13-705(a)(1) (i) or (ii) must be present and must also be accompanied by either § 13-705(a)(2) (i) or all three elements of § 13-705(a)(2) (ii). So, let us first see if §13-705 (a)(1)(i) has happened. No, because the only way that a return could “…not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the tax may be determined” would be if one of the numbers needed to make the assessment calculations were missing. That’s what “not contain” means, that something isn’t there. In my case, that is not so; all the numbers are there, and all the information needed to determine the correctness of the tax is right there; the starting point of which is, again, the FEDERAL ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME FROM MY FEDERAL TAX RETURN, JUST AS MARYLAND LAW REQUIRES – so that rules out §13-705 (a)(1)(i).
How about §13-705 (a)(1)(ii)? This one amounts to needing a “Yes” answer to this question: Did I, Thomas H. deSabla file a tax return that contained information that, on its face, indicated the tax reported on the return was substantially incorrect. Another way of saying this is asking did I supply any information that indicated that the tax I claimed to owe was wrong. Distilled further, it really means did I supply any information that contradicted itself. The answer is NO. Everything I submitted was completely consistent with the amount of tax I claimed to owe. So, that disposes of §13-705 (a)(1)(ii), which combined with the fact that §13-705 (a)(1)(i) doesn’t apply either, means the entire legal rationale behind your “assessment” is already destroyed because one of the elements needed to be in violation of §13-705 is not present.
However, just to be charitable, let’s just see if the instant facts support a violation of any of the elements of §13-705 (a)(2). First, how about §13-705 (a)(2)(i) - did my return show any “desire to delay or impede the administration of the provisions of Title 10”? I don’t see how, since it must be possible to have no legally defined “wages” without possessing a desire to delay or impede the administration of Title 10. I’m not sure what else on my return could possibly indicate such a desire.
I obeyed Title 10 by using my federal income, to do otherwise would have violated Title 10. As an aside, even though this section of law doesn’t apply to this act, as it has nothing to do with my tax return itself, I might also point out that the mere fact that I have acted to correct erroneous information returns submitted by others alleging the payment of “wages” can not fairly be said to constitute evidence that I am delaying or impeding the administration of Title 10. If anything, it means I’m upholding it. Also, claiming that I am delaying or impeding the administration of Title 10 by citing as evidence a violation of §13-705 (a)(2)(i) is a circular argument, saying, in effect, I am violating Title 10 because I am violating Title 10.
Well, that rules out §13-705 (a)(2)(i) - how about §13-705 (a)(2)(ii)? Is my “conduct due to a position that is frivolous because the position has no basis in law or fact, and is patently unlawful, and does not involve a legitimate dispute or reflect an inadvertent mathematical or clerical error”? My position, since I have at once obeyed §10-203 with regard to my sworn Maryland income, must be held as having a basis in both law and fact. Again, since I faithfully copied the “figure for federal adjusted gross income from my federal return onto line 1 of Form 503,” that complies with Maryland law, by virtue of the copying, and has a basis in fact, by virtue that the income copied truly was the federal adjusted gross income from my federal return. No position with any basis in law or fact can be held to be “patently unlawful.” That eliminates the applicability of both §13-705 (a)(2)(ii)(1) and (2). Which brings us finally to §13-705 (a)(2)(ii)(3) - whether my “position involves a legitimate dispute.” To be clear, my position is legitimate and supported by all relevant law; however, the dispute itself is not legitimate, because if the State of Maryland were conducting itself in a lawful manner there wouldn’t be a dispute. Since my “position” is to oppose unlawful and illegitimate behavior by the state in this case, fairness must hold that the dispute is legitimate – thereby ruling out the applicability of §13-705 (a)(2)(ii)(3) as well.
So, in summation, even though the applicability of §13-705 (a) requires that elements from Subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) be present, we find that, not only are they not both represented, but NOT ONE SINGLE ELEMENT OF §13-705 HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY MY TAX RETURN.
Use the 'Back' button on your browser to return to the previous page