At the Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA – IRS Facebook page, we’re discussing the following:
- There were several posts about the charge made by Kent and his followers that Judge Rodgers said Kent’s crimes were “worse than rape.” (1, 2). Jen Fishburne’s 2007 account of Hovind’s sentencing was posted and Jen herself came to the comments. We’re still waiting on those affidavits, Kent.
- The Kent Hovind Files have been reorganized.
- 2Peter3.com appears to be back, with autoplay videos. 🙁
Hovind Videos for Friday, January 23
Kent claims in this video that the Internal Revenue Service was incorporated in 1933, and he has the incorporation papers for “The Internal Revenue Tax and Audit Service Inc.” He started reading them on the air.
A little Googling (let your fingers do the walking) brought me to the case Acevedo v. U.S. (E.D. Missouri, 2008), where there’s a discussion of this so-called “IRS Corp.” Quoting from Footnote 2, pages 4-5:
2 The only purportedly “private” entity named as a defendant in this action is the Internal Revenue Tax and Audit Service, Inc. a/k/a “IRS Corp.” Plaintiff contends that his social security benefits, once levied for payment of his delinquent taxes, were “passed on” to the “IRS Corp.” There is no allegation in the complaint that the “IRS Corp.” acted in an unlawful manner. As such, plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against the “IRS Corp.” To the extent, however, that plaintiff is claiming that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the government, but rather, a private corporation, known as the “IRS Corp.,” the Court notes that this line of reasoning has been consistently negated by several other courts. See, e.g., Snyder v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (N. D. Ind. 1984); Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); Salman v. Jameson, 52 F.3d 334 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the claim that “[t]he Service is not an agency of the United States government but rather a private corporation or an agency of a State or Territory without authority to administer the internal revenue laws” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Moral of the story: Kids, don’t argue this. Unless you’ve got an extra five grand lying around that you want to give over to the Internal Revenue Service.
And we’re still waiting on the affidavits…
He is preparing a printable brochure to spread the word about Kent Hovind!