Paul Hansen Receives Below Guideline Sentence – End Of L’affaire Kent Hovind?
Hansen believes that after all the dust settles he and Kent Hovind will be able to bring the IRS agents, prosecutors and federal judge before a court and get a judgment for damages. The terms he has variously used are “common law court”, “community court” and “court of record”.
In an interview with Rudy Davis, Hansen indicated that convening a common law court requires only twelve godly men who then get to decide both the facts and the law. Combining Hovind and Hansen’s views on a proper judicial system, I can’t help but think that they would be pleased with something that looks a lot like Sharia law, only Christian flavored with the King James version of the Bible being used rather than the Koran.
Does Ninth Circuit Mortgage Interest Decision Create Special Rights?
We thus agree that the debt limit provisions of § 163(h)(3) result in a marriage penalty; but we are not particularly troubled. Congress may very well have good reasons for allowing that result, and, in any event, Congress clearly singled out married couples for specific treatment when it explicitly provided lower debt limits for married couples yet, for whatever reason, did not similarly provide lower debt limits for unmarried co-owners.
The IRS argues that applying § 163(h)(3)’s debt limit provisions on a per-taxpayer basis creates a marriage penalty. We agree that it does, but we do not believe the marriage penalty is as significant a concern as the IRS urges.
Follow Me
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.