Hendrickson claims $6 million plus "victory"

[Famspear]

From Pete Hendrickson at losthorizons:

I didn't expect to be posting anything today...

When I posted the last full edition of this newsletter on December 5, it was my plan to wish everyone the best of the Holidays with the December 12 Mid-Edition update, and announce that the next newsletter post would be made on January 2, 2009. However, that plan has been rather pleasantly upset (or perhaps I should say, "upsot", in keeping with the spirit of the season...).

What happened is that in between that full-edition post and what I meant to be the final year's post last Friday, I was sent the evidence of a new CtC Warrior's first three victories in the march to uphold the rule of law. These victories, though no different from any other as reflections of the good character and true patriotism of the warrior, are so extraordinary in their scale as to constitute a Christmas present to the entire CtC community (and to everybody else who cares about the rule of law, and thus SHOULD be part of the CtC community).

Taken together, these first-time victories-- all of which were secured this past October-- have a combined dollar value of a whopping $6,144,412.73! As such, they make a wonderful exclamation point with which to close 2008, and have prompted me to issue this special supplement to the current newsletter edition. (Hey, I wonder how much they had to do with prompting the government's latest attempt to discourage people from reading CtC...?!)

So, THIS will be the final newsletter post of 2008, and I now wish all of you the very best of this wonderful season and offer all of you my most sincere thanks for your company and support on the march to uphold the law that this newsletter and website are all about. The next edition of the newsletter will welcome the new year.

In the meantime, please enjoy CtC Warrior Bruce G.'s remarkable victories for 2001, 2002 and 2004 (the last of which is presented below as Episode XVIII of the 'Every Which Way But Loose' series, 'cause that's just what kind of a victory it was)! Then please take time over the next few days to proceed through the rest of the edition!

I'm sure that not everyone has managed to do that thorough read-through before now, and I'm also sure that in doing so everyone will find a great deal of interest that otherwise might well be overlooked or foregone. Bruce's three victories should serve as an incentive in that regard-- they are, of course, a direct result of a studious attention to the revelations in CtC, but also reveal a studious attention to the continuing educational materials presented on these pages every week, especially in the case of his 2004 victory.

Finally, please take the time to share this webpage with others. Overall victory for the rule of law will only come as a result of this community vigorously and persistently sharing its knowledge with others. I can't do that, no matter how hard I try.

I have no magic means to share anything with people I don't know how to contact, which means I can't share anything with anyone but you. Only you can move this knowledge out into your own circle of friends and acquaintances. Please do.

from

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

[Famspear]

Weston White eats it up:

There is even better news about this to consider as well. Being that one of the top Quatloos arguments has just been thoroughly debunked (of which I think there are only about a total of three anyways... all very, very weak), persisting that wealthy people always file their returns status quo, with an exception to Snipes of course, whom they go on to claim that he was simply mislead [sic] by his accountants, led astray (sure, sure)... oh and of course there is also that woman that owns/owned some fancy hotel in NY or something and went to the slammer, I think she was a Schiff follower.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1207

[Thule]

In the meantime, please enjoy CtC Warrior Bruce G.'s remarkable victories for 2001, 2002 and 2004 (the last of which is presented below as Episode XVIII of the 'Every Which Way But Loose' series, 'cause that's just what kind of a victory it was)!

Or in translation:
Dear IRS. Search your files for any major refunds in the last weeks, and cross-check with the name Bruce. Then prosecute for a sure win. Lotz of luv, Pete the Snitch

[Demosthenes]

oh and of course there is also that woman that owns/owned some fancy hotel in NY or something and went to the slammer, I think she was a Schiff follower.

Oh dear, I just snorted out coffee thinking about Leona Helmsley sitting through a Schiff seminar.

[.]

White demonstrates yet again what a blithering idiot he really is. Leona wasn't a "follower" of Schiffty or anyone else. She was convicted of evasion for claiming that millions of dollars of personal house renovation expenses were corporate expenses.

[The Operative]

There is even better news about this to consider as well. Being that one of the top Quatloos arguments has just been thoroughly debunked (of which I think there are only about a total of three anyways... all very, very weak), persisting that wealthy people always file their returns status quo, with an exception to Snipes of course, whom they go on to claim that he was simply mislead [sic] by his accountants, led astray (sure, sure)... oh and of course there is also that woman that owns/owned some fancy hotel in NY or something and went to the slammer, I think she was a Schiff follower.

Weston, I do not believe anyone here said that wealthy people always file their returns 'status quo'. Wealthy people, and people in general, will do what they can to avoid taxes. Sometimes, the line will get crossed and some will evade taxes, like Snipes and Bruce G. If CTC was correct, most of the wealthy in America would be lining up to file tax returns in that manner. CPAs and tax lawyers would have discovered a loop hole that large, years ago. However, CTC is not correct. Believe what you wish, but you and Pete are most certainly wrong.

[LPC]

There is even better news about this to consider as well. Being that one of the top Quatloos arguments has just been thoroughly debunked

I must have blinked and missed that one.

Of course, it's a lot easier to "thoroughly debunk" something when you censor and suppress any information you don't want to hear.

[ASITStands]

Reading the posted documents, I notice a common error.

'Cracking the Code' proponents are mistaking the reversal of a notice of deficiency, which likely occurred because the taxpayer submitted a 'corrected' 1099-MISC and the IRS has not determined the correct amount of compensation yet, with removal of a Frivolous Penalty.

The reversal occurs on notice CP-21C. You can clearly see a progression on the assessment of an income tax [as opposed to the frivolous penalty assessment] from Letter 2556 [Holtsville], Letter 3219 [Holtsville], CP-22A [Holtsville] to this CP-21C [Memphis].

All of this is reflected in the Account Transcript.

Concurrently, Letter 3176 [Ogden] and CP-15 [Holtsville] imposed a $5,000 frivolous penalty, and CP-504 [Cincinnati] warned of its pending collection. The next event will be receipt of a Final Notice of Intent to Levy or a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with Opportunity for Hearing.

That will be on the frivolous penalty and not the assessed tax [which is reversed].

I realize CP-21C mentions penalty, but it's referring to the failure to file and failure to pay penalties included in the notice of deficiency and not the frivolous penalty.

I also realize the Account Transcript does not show the frivolous penalty, but somewhere on Lost Horizons they've discussed the fact a normal Account Transcript doesn't show those.

Someone is in for a rude awakening! But of course it will not be reported on Lost Horizons.

EDIT: I haven't found the three "victories" that total $6M yet.

[Dezcad]

EDIT: I haven't found the three "victories" that total $6M yet.

I think Blowhard is referring to the three victories posted under "Bruce G" at the bottom of this page.

It shows an initial amount for 2002 on the CP21A of $3,261,589.57 and
An Account transcript for 2001 for total of $2,839,434.58 ($61,074.33, $343,858.28, $1,528,384.00, $522,053.22 and $384, 064.75)
2004 CP21C shows $45,388.60

for a grand total of $6,146,412.75.

[ASITStands]

Ok. Silly me! I had just looked at the documents presented where he said they were [XVIII].

However, reviewing the documents for 2001, it's obvious $8,368.40 was reduced by a presumably proper Schedule D, as were $903,457.90, $2,773,467.80 and $229,319.79 by D-1.

That's no big deal and certainly not the result of a 'Cracking the Code' return!

And, reviewing the documents for 2002, it's obvious $48,922.50 was reduced by Schedule D, as were $928,142.51, $755,332.98, $2,798,199.70 and $277,868.78 by D-1.

Again. No big deal! How do you call that a $6M victory except by creative journalism?

Bottom line: It was NOT a 'Cracking the Code' victory!

[LOBO]

Congratulations on being a really bad day trader.

[ASITStands]

Once again, 'Cracking the Code' proponents fail to understand simple tax accounting!

Probably comes from not filing many returns with numbers bigger than "$0.00."

As I see it, and I may be wrong, the IRS computed a balance due based on the "unadjusted" sales price of securities subject to both long and short term capital gains taxes.

Once the amounts had been "adjusted" by the submission of presumably proper Schedules D and D-1, the amounts were reversed and represented losses instead of gains.

Pete Hendrickson touted this as a $6M plus victory, because the total amounts due were set aside, or reversed, after receipt of the properly prepared Schedules D and D-1.

And, because the "Explanation of Changes" discusses "corrections" to the 1099-MISC compensation, proponents jump to the conclusion it because of 'Cracking the Code.'

Wrong! Just another problem with reading comprehension.

Some accountant jump in here and tell me where I'm wrong. I don't think I am.

[Nikki]

I think we all missed the fine print.

Looking at page 2 of the 1040X for 2001, we see the CtC boilerplate regarding "federal privelege", "trade or business as defined in 26 USC 7701 (a) (26)", yada, yada ... regarding 1099s reported concerning "medical payments"

On page 8, we see a list of insurance companies which seem to be the issuers of the 1099s.

His CtC-educated "rebuttal" of these 1099s seems to be what made the millions of dollars vanish.

My guess is that Bruce G. is a physician (or owner of a fairly sizeable medical practice) who is paid via insurance.

The only question remaining is: Dentist, Chiro, MD, DO, ??? Which category gets another announcement from DoJ?

[Demosthenes]

The only question remaining is: Dentist, Chiro, MD, DO, ??? Which category gets another announcement from DoJ?

[Raises hand.] Pick me, I know.

I was able to back into his full name using my magic databases.

[jg]

My guess from the 1040X submitted is that there was both lack of reporting of stock sales and "correction" of 1099-MISC. For 2001 and 2002 the Schedule D transaction total are most, but not all, of the amount of the adjustment to income on the 1040X. In each year the Schedule D was about 40-45 K less than the total adjustment claimed.
So, most of the adjustment is as ASITSTANDS documented and the balance is as Nikki suggests.

Nonetheless, to claim that the entire amount is a CtC "victory" is either ignorant or disingenuous by Hendrickson. The amended returns do not claim there was not potential taxable income from gains on the assets listed on Schedule D, but rather just that there was a net loss after the cost was accounted for, as is standard tax accounting.

The other aspect of this posted "victory" is that it may very well be transient as later examination, adjustments and even a suit for erroneous refund are possible (or even likely). Hendrickson should be well aware of this possibility from personal experience and of the utter inability of his theories to prevent the imposition of tax, interest and penalty after such a "victory" has been posted despite what Hendrickson or anyone else imagines to testify.

[ASITStands]

Thanks, 'nikki' and 'jg' for clarifying what I thought I saw.

Yes. Claiming it as a "victory" is both disingenuous and fleeting, as it can reverse again.

That's something most tax deniers/protesters forget when looking at these cases. I'd think an honest evaluation by most of those posting comments on Lost Horizons would be that many of the supposed "victories" have been reversed in the weeks and months since posting.

So many have posted stories of their troubles with frivolous penalties and levy, etc. And, a few who formerly posted have all but disappeared precisely because of increased scrutiny.

Some of the current posters will find themselves in increased trouble shortly.

[LPC]

I don't suppose that any of the geniuses at LH have ever noticed that "tax loss" is a factor in federal sentencing guidelines for tax crimes, so that the "victories" are going to result in longer sentences if (or when) there is a criminal proceeding.