What is your opinion about the IRS LOSING a case because their tax law is TOO COMPLEX?

"Now for what it's worth, the 9th Circuit Panel in San Francisco has been reversed. The Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, has ruled that Valerie and Robert McKee owed the government $31,000 in unpaid taxes until Valerie and Robert demonstrated in court that the tax law is so complex nobody can understand it. The court had to agree that the law was indeed so complex that nobody can understand it and the court reversed itself and the IRS gets the bill. The government also sought and got us --- ha ha ha (laugh) --- your government also tried to get a stipulation that this verdict would not be made public, but it just was... Paul Harvey, Good Day!!"

It sounds logical: If the law is too complicated, then let the citizen benefit and not pat the tax.

It's a very narrow ruling. (and not exactly 'new' either - the ruling was entered in 11/06)

The Court did NOT rule that the entire tax code was too complex, merely that the specific - and very complex - rules that the McKee's were accused of violating were.

The McKee's, also, did not get out of having to pay the taxes they owed - what they got out of having to pay were the penalties for "willfully" underpaying their taxes.

They also won a suit for repayment of their lawyers fees. They were originally billed, by the IRS, for $160,000, which included about $45,000 in underpaid taxes, plus $115,000 in fees, penalties, interest and late charges.

On appeal, the penalties were removed, because the court ruled that the McKees had made a "Good Faith" attempt to comply with a tax provision so complex that no ordinary taxpayer could be expected to understand it.

The court also held that since the IRS bill was reduced from $160,000 to $45,000, the McKees had "substantially prevailed" in their suit, and were entitled to have their lawyers fees - the $30,000 that Paul Harvey referred to - paid by the IRS.

Richard