Quatloos!
> Investment
Fraud > Multi-Level
Marketing > EXHIBIT:
Global Prosperity Group
Introduction
At the bottom of multi-level marketing -- a scummy business at best -- lurks
Global Prosperity. The slimy-est of the slimy, Global Prosperity marks the
absolute rock-bottom low of the MLM programs. There simply is no MLM program
which is more of a scam, or has such a disreputable background, as Global
Prosperity and its many equally-sordid spin-offs.
The people associated with GPG are the bottom of the bottom, too. Many of
the people have criminal pasts, others are lifelong network marketers. In
other words, you have to be a total scumbug to be affiliated with GPG -- that
is, creating relationships with hardened criminals and a programs which has
a reputation for scamming young and old, rich and poor alike. If somebody
actually admits they are in Global Prosperity, you know you are dealing with
a lowlife, so run!
Global Prosperity's reputation is so bad that other network marketers
will often add a disclaimer to the bottom of their own spams and advertisements
which says "Not Global Prosperity" -- now that is pretty bad! And
Global Prosperity really had to work at being the Black Sheep of the multi-level
marketing industry, which is like being the really dislikeable guy in a lineup
of child molesters.
Global Prosperity Group ("GPG") was formed by a scam artist named
Keith Anderson formerly of Tulsa, Oklahoma (before he fled the United States).
Essentially, Anderson put together a bogus "three-tiered" trust
system, relying heavily on discredited tax protestor theories and whatever
common law terms he could pick up out of Black's Law Dictionary (a generic
reference source for 1st year law students and paralegals, but not much else).
Anderson then took this trust system and began to market it, multi-level style,
by creating different tiers of membership in GPG, and with people awarded
only when they -- or someone in their "downline" brought in some
new sucker who purchased the GPG materials.
The GPG trust system being absolutely bogus, Anderson relied on the MLMers
who flocked to GPG reading "scripts" (prepared speeches to be read
over the phone to new prospects) as well as audiotapes and a bunch of glossy
materials which would have been laughed at by any tax attorney or legal academician.
But, by powerful marketing and PROMISES that people who sold GPG would go
on to great riches, GPG blossomed and literally thousands of completely-worthless
trusts were created, mostly in the early 1990s.
By the mid-1990s however, only a Anderson and a few of the people at the
top of the GPG hierarchy made any money, and many people at the lower levels
were left being prosecuted for tax evasion and trying to figure out how to
get their money out of bank debenture programs and other bogus investments
promoted by GPG.
Then, GPG splintered into a bunch of equally bogus programs, most notably
Global Prosperity 2000 (GPG2000), Global Prosperity 2001 (GPG2001), Investors
Alliance, Financial Legacy Alliance, and others. All of these program follow
essentially the same recipe: Selling bogus trust or other questionable legal
structures and investments, selling "memberships" to be able to
sell to your friends and family and whatever suckers you come across, by reading
carefully drafted scripts and sending out audiotapes, and of course aiding
and abetting tax evasion and securities fraud, depending on the time of day.
Soon after the collapse of GPG, even Keith Anderson admitted that "Big
Mistakes" had been made in that program. Nonetheless, within a couple
of years some of the old leaders of GPG had banded back together, and despite
the fact that the original GPG was a complete bust that left many people scammed
and other being prosecuted for tax evasion, GPG is back on track (?) holding
overpriced seminars, spamming the internet with "offshore opportunity"
and reading scripts to suckers over the phone.
Go figure. The first time GPG went around, it was probably easy to be suckered
into the newness of it all. But to get suckered into GPG this second time
around, well you'd have to be a real fool.
So what does GPG sell? Well, mostly they sell seminars which tell you how
you can sell their seminars to others. Which is funny, because the GPG seminars
do little more than promote so-called Pure
Trusts (a quick ticket to lose your wealth in IRS fines and penalties,
and perhaps even spend some Club Fed time) and various shady investments in
condos, etc.
From our April 2000 Newsletter
Speaking of abusive trusts, lately there has been a resurgence of the old
"Global Prosperity Group", a group which offered Pure Trusts (a sham trust
sold by scam artists) and unreported Offshore Trusts (deemed to be tax evasion
by the IRS) on a multi-level marketing basis.
GPG, as it was known, is a version of an MLM scam known as the "aussie-2-up",
basically because it offers two levels to which a network marketer could climb
if they scammed enough people OR that suckers who mistakenly thought the GPG
seminars and materials were valuable, could buy into.
GPG was famous for suggestions that its network marketers spam e-mails like
crazy, advertise in newspapers, etc., and then when a prospective dupe would
call, a long "script" would be read over the telephone which extolled the
virtues of GPG as a tax-free "business opportunity" that would lead many to
riches.
And lead it did, but not to riches. GPG proved to be a notoriously difficult
program for people to sell, because most people didn't want to commit tax
evasion. Still, by sheer persistence the program sold into the tens-of-thousands,
only perhaps a dozen or less were destined to walk away net ahead, the others
losing big in thousands of dollars in bogus seminars and materials, not to
mention lost time.
Even worse, as GPG progressed, many people took advantage of the people in
it by getting them into bank debenture roll programs, historical bonds, and
all sorts of other fraudulent investments, where the investors didn't even
get a dime back. Many of these schemes were later busted up the SEC, and the
rest simply didn't pay.
GPG finally collapsed around 1997, with 99% of the people in it being utterly
disgusted with the lies and lost investments. But like any bad social disease,
GPG kept coming back, in the form of some equally fraudulent programs known
respectively as "Global Prosperity 2000," "Global Prosperity 2001", "Investors
Alliance", and several other similar programs - all lead of course by former
GPG leaders, who were as shameless about telling blatant lies in the marketing
of these programs as they were with GPG.
The history of GPG and its spin-off programs is a lesson in sham programs,
and how the idea of "tax free offshore trusts" and multi-level marketing can
blend together to make a nightmare for those involved. We cover the GPG scam
at http://www.quatloos.com/groups/gpg.htm
Lately, we have seen a resurgence of one of the spin-off groups, Global Prosperity
2001, which has apparently been given overpriced seminars in the Caribbean
again. This is amazing, giving GPG's proven track record of being both fraudulent
and notoriously difficult to sell (bad amongst other MLM programs!). So, we
will wait again for the inevitable cease-and-desist order and prosecutions.
If you are approached to buy into any GPG spin-off group, just tell them
that you're not interested - and that they can "shove" their scripts.
Offshore Trusts and Accounts Must Be Reported
Though GPG claims that its trusts are somehow special because they involve
"three tiers" and not just one, they are special only in that it
is easy for the IRS to identify these trusts as a tax evasion scheme.
If an offshore trust is created for you then you MUST report it. You may
be fed some theories about why you need not report it, but these are bull.
The Global Prosperity Group "plan" was created before the passage
in August of 1996 of the Small Business Protection Act, and as such is outdated.
NOW, if you are a US citizen you MUST report to the IRS every offshore trust
to which you have any connection, and anyone who tells you differently is
a liar. Moreover, the fact that they tell you that you don't have to report
is NOT a defense to civil and criminal liability.
The IRS has recently started to crackdown on unreported offshore trusts,
and has issued numerous warnings about these. From the IRS Criminal Investigative
Division (CID), at http://www.treas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/trusts.htm
Fraudulent Foreign and
Domestic Trusts
Promoters of abusive trusts can lead innocent taxpayers
to financial ruin.
The bottom line: "Don't Buy In!"
What Is An Abusive Trust?
Establishing a foreign or domestic trust for the purpose of hiding income
and assets from taxation is illegal. Abusive Trust Schemes typically involve
the creation of one or more trusts into which the taxpayer transfers his
or her personal and/or business assets and to which the taxpayer assigns
his or her income. The taxpayer, the promoter, or someone who will allow
the taxpayer in reality to control the activities of the trust is then
assigned as the trustee.
The Facts About Trusts
-
A trust is a form of ownership which completely separates responsibility
and control of assets from all the benefits of ownership
-
Trusts are used in such matters as estate planning; to facilitate
the genuine charitable transfer of assets; and to hold assets for
minors and those unable to handle their financial affairs
-
All trusts must comply with the tax laws as set forth by the Congress
in the Internal Revenue Code, Sections 641-683
-
Violations of the Internal Revenue Code may result in civil penalties
and/or criminal prosecution
-
Civil sanctions can include a fraud penalty up to 75% of the
underpayment of tax attributable to the fraud in addition to the
taxes owed
-
Criminal convictions may result in fines up to $250,000 and/or
up to five years in prison for each offense
-
Taxpayers are responsible for payment of their taxes as set forth
by Congress regardless of who prepares their return
IRS Issues Warning
Income cannot be shifted to another entity for tax purposes and must
be reported by the individual who earned it. In addition, personal living
expenses which were not deductible prior to the creation of a trust
are not deductible by virtue of assignment of assets and income to a
trust. No matter how carefully the trust documents are drafted, if the
intent of the trust is to avoid taxes, the trust will be treated as
a sham.
In April 1997, the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice
97-24 and Information Release 97-19 warning taxpayers to avoid abusive
trust schemes that promise bogus tax benefits, and to take steps to
correct past participation in such trusts.
|
IRS Notice 97-24
Citations: Notice 97-24,
1997-16 IRB 1
Tax Analysts Reference: 97 TNT 65-1
Code Section: Section 671 -- Grantors as Owners
Institutional Author: Internal Revenue Service
______________________________________________
IRS Warns Of Abusive Trusts
The IRS has issued an alert to taxpayers (Notice 97-24) about trust arrangements
that purport to reduce or eliminate federal taxes in ways that are not
permitted by law (abusive trust arrangements).
CERTAIN TRUST ARRANGEMENTS
====== SUMMARY ======
The IRS has issued an alert to taxpayers (Notice 97-24) about trust arrangements
that purport to reduce or eliminate federal taxes in ways that are not
permitted by law (abusive trust arrangements).
The trust arrangements that concern the IRS ignore the true ownership
of assets or the substance of transactions. According to the IRS, promoters
of the arrangements claim that they allow the owners to retain full benefit
of business or personal assets but reduce or eliminate taxes. The arrangements
often involve more than one trust; for example, a person may put business
assets in an unincorporated business trust, transfer business equipment
to an equipment trust, place his home in a family residence trust, and
set up a foreign trust to hold the other trust units and to receive trust
income. The notice contains five examples of the arrangements.
The IRS warns taxpayers to be suspicious of arrangements that claim to
make personal living expenses deductible, to create charitable deductions
for payments benefiting the transferor or family, or that otherwise result
in an individual having to pay no tax with no change in control over the
assets.
The IRS says promoters of the arrangements advertise "investment
seminars" or "tax seminars" in local media and the Internet.
The trusts, says the IRS, may have names that refer to constitutional
issues, fairness, equity, or patriotic themes, but often have names that
are similar to common business organizations and nonabusive trusts. The
Service encourages individuals who have participated in abusive trust
arrangements to file correct tax returns for 1996, as well as amended
returns for prior years.
====== FULL TEXT ======
Communications Division
Part III - Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous
Notice 97-24
[1] This notice is intended to alert taxpayers about certain trust arrangements
that purport to reduce or eliminate federal taxes in ways that are not
permitted by federal tax law. (The notice refers to such arrangements
as "abusive trust arrangements." See Section I. ABUSIVE TRUST
ARRANGEMENTS - IN GENERAL, below.) The notice describes some typical abusive
trust arrangements, as well as the tax benefits promised by promoters,
and then explains the correct tax principles that apply to these trust
arrangements. Taxpayers should be aware that abusive trust arrangements
will not produce the tax benefits advertised by their promoters and that
the Internal Revenue Service is actively examining these types of trust
arrangements as part of the National Compliance Strategy, Fiduciary and
Special Projects. Furthermore, in appropriate circumstances, taxpayers
and/or the promoters of these trust arrangements may be subject to civil
and/or criminal penalties.
[2] This notice should not, however, create concerns about the legitimate
uses of trusts. For example, trusts are frequently used properly in estate
planning, to facilitate the genuine charitable transfer of property, and
to hold property for minors and incompetents.
[3] Under the federal tax laws, trusts generally are separate entities
subject to income tax (except for certain charitable or pension trusts
that are expressly exempted by the tax laws and certain grantor trusts
described in sections 671 - 679 of the Internal Revenue Code). Under these
laws and certain court developed doctrines, either the trust, the beneficiary,
or the transferor, as applicable, must pay the tax on the income realized
by the trust including the income generated by property held in trust.
I. ABUSIVE TRUST ARRANGEMENTS - IN GENERAL
[4] Abusive trust arrangements typically are promoted by the promise
of tax benefits with no meaningful change in the taxpayer's control
over or benefit from the taxpayer's income or assets. The promised benefits
may include reduction or elimination of income subject to tax; deductions
for personal expenses paid by the trust; depreciation deductions of
an owner's personal residence and furnishings; a stepped-up basis for
property transferred to the trust; the reduction or elimination of self-employment
taxes; and the reduction or elimination of gift and estate taxes. These
promised benefits are inconsistent with the tax rules applicable to
the abusive trust arrangements, as described below.
[5] Abusive trust arrangements often use trusts to hide the true ownership
of assets and income or to disguise the substance of transactions. These
arrangements frequently involve more than one trust, each holding different
assets of the taxpayer (for example, the taxpayer's business, business
equipment, home, automobile, etc.), as well as interests in other trusts.
Funds may flow from one
trust to another trust by way of rental agreements, fees for services,
purchase and sale agreements, and distributions. Some trusts purport
to involve charitable purposes. In some situations, one or more foreign
trusts also may be part of the arrangement.
II. EXAMPLES OF ABUSIVE TRUST ARRANGEMENTS
[6] Described below are five examples of abusive trust arrangements
that have come to the attention of the Internal Revenue Service. An
abusive trust arrangement may involve some or all of the trusts described
below. The type of trust arrangement selected is dependent on the particular
tax benefit the arrangement purports to achieve. In each of the trusts
described below, the original owner of the assets that are nominally
subject to the trust effectively retains authority to cause the financial
benefits of the trust to be directly or indirectly returned or made
available to the owner. For example, the trustee may be the promoter,
or a relative or friend of the owner who simply carries out the
directions of the owner whether or not permitted by the terms of the
trust. Often, the trustee gives the owner checks that are pre-signed
by the trustee, checks that are accompanied by a rubber stamp of the
trustee's signature, a credit card or a debit card with the intention
of permitting the owner to obtain cash from the trust or otherwise to
use the assets of the trust for the owner's benefit.
1. THE BUSINESS TRUST.
[7] The owner of a business transfers the business to a trust (sometimes
described as an unincorporated business trust) in exchange for units
or certificates of beneficial interest, sometimes described as units
of beneficial interest or UBI's (trust units). The business trust makes
payments to the trust unit holders or to other trusts created by the
owner (characterized either as deductible business expenses or as deductible
distributions) that purport to reduce the taxable income of the business
trust to the point where little or no tax is due from the business trust.
In addition, the owner claims the arrangement reduces or eliminates
the owner's self-employment taxes on the theory that the owner is receiving
reduced or no income from the operation of the business. In some cases,
the trust units are supposed to be canceled at death or "sold"
at a nominal price to the owner's children, leading to the contention
by promoters that there is no estate tax liability.
2. THE EQUIPMENT OR SERVICE TRUST.
[8] The equipment trust is formed to hold equipment that is rented
or leased to the business trust, often at inflated rates. The service
trust is formed to provide services to the business trust, often for
inflated fees. Under these abusive trust arrangements, the business
trust may purport to reduce its income by making allegedly deductible
payments to the equipment or service trust. Further, as to the
equipment trust, the equipment owner may claim that the transfer of
equipment to the equipment trust in exchange for the trust units is
a taxable exchange. The trust takes the position that the trust has
"purchased" the equipment with a known value (its fair market
value) and that the value is the tax basis of the equipment for purposes
of claiming depreciation deductions. The owner, on the other hand, takes
the inconsistent position that the value of the trust units received
cannot be determined, resulting in no taxable gain to the owner on the
exchange. The equipment or service trust also may attempt to reduce
or eliminate its income by distributions to other trusts.
3. THE FAMILY RESIDENCE TRUST.
[9] The owner of the family residence transfers the residence, including
its furnishings, to a trust. The parties claim inconsistent tax treatment
for the trust and the owner (similar to the equipment trust). The trust
claims the exchange results in a stepped-up basis for the property,
while the owner reports no gain. The trust claims to be in the rental
business and purports to rent the residence back to the owner; however,
in most cases, little or no rent is actually paid. Rather, the owner
contends that the owner and family members are caretakers or provide
services to the trust and, therefore, live in the residence for the
benefit of the trust. Under some arrangements, the family residence
trust receives funds from other trusts (such as a business trust) which
are treated as the income of the trust. In order to reduce the tax which
might be due with respect to such income (and any income from rent actually
paid by the owner), the trust may attempt to deduct depreciation and
the expenses of maintaining and operating the residence.
4. THE CHARITABLE TRUST.
[10] The owner transfers assets to a purported charitable trust and
claims either that the payments to the trust are deductible or that
payments made by the trust are deductible charitable contributions.
Payments are made to charitable organizations; however, in fact, the
payments are principally for the personal educational, living, or recreational
expenses of the owner or the owner's family. For example, the trust
may pay for the college tuition of a child of the owner.
5. THE FINAL TRUST.
[11] In some multi-trust arrangements, the U.S. owner of one or more
abusive trusts establishes a trust (the "final trust") that
holds trust units of the owner's other trusts and is the final distributee
of their income. A final trust often is formed in a foreign country
that will impose little or no tax on the trust. In some arrangements,
more than one foreign trust is used, with the cash flowing from one
trust to another until the cash is ultimately distributed or made available
to the U.S. owner, purportedly tax free.
III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO TRUSTS
[12] As noted above, when trusts are used for legitimate business,
family or estate planning purposes, either the trust, the trust beneficiary,
or the transferor to the trust, as appropriate under the tax laws, will
pay the tax on the income generated by the trust property. When used
in accordance with the tax laws, trusts will not transform a taxpayer's
personal, living or educational expenses into deductible items, and
will not seek to avoid tax liability by ignoring either the true ownership
of income and assets or the true substance of transactions. Accordingly,
the tax results that are promised by the promoters of abusive trust
arrangements are not allowable under federal tax law. Contrary to promises
made in promotional materials, several well-established tax principles
control the proper tax treatment of these abusive trust arrangements.
1. SUBSTANCE -- NOT FORM -- CONTROLS TAXATION.
[13] The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently stated
that the substance rather than the form of the transaction is controlling
for tax purposes. See, for example, Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
(1935), XIV-1 C.B. 193; Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 (1940),
1940-1 C.B. 105. Under this doctrine, the abusive trust arrangements
may be viewed as sham transactions, and the IRS may ignore the trust
and its transactions for federal tax purposes. See Markosian v. Commissioner,
73 T.C. 1235 (1980) (holding that the trust was a sham because the parties
did not comply with the terms of the trust and the supporting documents
and the relationship of the grantors to the property transferred did
not differ in any material aspect after the creation of the trust);
Zmuda v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the
income and assets of the business trust, the equipment in the equipment
trust, the residence in the family residence trust, and the assets in
the foreign trust would all be treated as belonging directly to the
owner.
2. GRANTORS MAY BE TREATED AS OWNERS OF TRUSTS.
[14] The grantor trust rules provide that if the owner of property
transferred to a trust retains an economic interest in, or control over,
the trust, the owner is treated for income tax purposes as the owner
of the trust property, and all transactions by the trust are treated
as transactions of the owner. Sections 671 - 677. In addition, a U.S.
person who directly or indirectly transfers property to a
foreign trust is treated as the owner of that property if there is
a U.S. beneficiary of the trust. Section 679. This means that all expenses
and income of the trust would belong to and must be reported by the
owner, and tax deductions and losses arising from transactions between
the owner and the trust would be ignored. Furthermore, there would be
no taxable "exchange" of property with the trust, and the
tax basis of property transferred to the trust would not be stepped-
up for depreciation purposes. See Rev. Rul. 85-13, 1985-1 C.B. 184.
3. TAXATION OF NON-GRANTOR TRUSTS.
[15] If the trust is not a sham and is not a grantor trust, the trust
is taxable on its income, reduced by amounts distributed to beneficiaries.
The trust must obtain a taxpayer identification number and file annual
returns reporting its income. The trust must report distributions to
beneficiaries on a Form K-1, and the beneficiary must include the distributed
income on the beneficiary's tax return. Sections 641, 651, 652, 661
and 662.
4. TRANSFERS TO TRUSTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.
[16] Transfers to a trust may be recognized as completed gifts for
federal gift tax purposes. Further, whether or not the gift tax applies,
if the owner retains until the owner's death the use of, enjoyment of,
or income from the property placed in a trust, the property will be
subject to federal estate tax when the transferor dies. Section 2036(a).
5. PERSONAL EXPENSES ARE GENERALLY NOT DEDUCTIBLE.
[17] Personal expenses such as those for home maintenance, education,
and personal travel are not deductible unless expressly authorized by
the tax laws. See section 262. The courts have consistently held that
non-deductible personal expenses cannot be transformed into deductible
expenses by the use of trusts. Furthermore, the costs of creating these
trusts are not deductible. See, for example, Schulz v. Commissioner,
686 F.2d 490 (7th Cir. 1982); Neely v. United States, 775 F.2d 1092
(9th Cir. 1985); and Zmuda.
6. A GENUINE CHARITY MUST BENEFIT IN ORDER TO CLAIM A VALID CHARITABLE
DEDUCTION.
[18] Charitable trusts that are exempt from tax are carefully defined
in the tax law. Arrangements are not exempt charitable trusts if they
do not satisfy the requirements of the tax law, including the requirement
that their true purpose is to benefit charity. Furthermore, supposed
charitable payments made by a trust are not deductible charitable contributions
where the payments are really for the benefit of the owner or the owner's
family members. See, for example, Fausner v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 620
(1971).
7. SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO FOREIGN TRUSTS.
[19] If an arrangement involves a foreign trust, taxpayers should be
aware that a number of special provisions apply to foreign trusts with
U.S. grantors or U.S. beneficiaries, including several provisions added
in 1996. For example, a U.S. person that fails to report a transfer
of property to a foreign trust or the receipt of a distribution from
a foreign trust is subject to a tax penalty equal to 35 percent of the
gross value of the transaction. Other examples of these provisions are
the application of U.S. withholding taxes to payments to foreign trusts
and the application of U.S. excise taxes to transfers of appreciated
property to foreign trusts. See sections 6048, 6677, 1441, and 1491.
8. CIVIL AND/OR CRIMINAL PENALTIES MAY APPLY.
[20] The participants in and promoters of abusive trust arrangements
may be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties in appropriate cases.
See, for example, United States v. Buttorff, 761 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.
1985); United States v. Krall, 835 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1987); Zmuda and
Neely.
IV. IRS ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY FOR ABUSIVE TRUSTS
[21] The Internal Revenue Service has undertaken a nationally coordinated
enforcement initiative to address abusive trust schemes - the National
Compliance Strategy, Fiduciary and Special Projects. This initiative
involves Service personnel from the Assistant Commissioner (Examination),
Assistant Commissioner (Criminal Investigation), and the Office of Chief
Counsel.
[22] As part of this strategy, the Service seeks to encourage voluntary
compliance with the tax law. Accordingly, taxpayers who have participated
in abusive trust arrangements are encouraged to file correct tax returns
for 1996, as well as amended tax returns for prior years, consistent
with the explanation of the law set forth in this notice.
[23] For information regarding issues addressed in this notice, taxpayers
may call (202) 622-4512 (not a toll-free number).
Date Published: 04-03-97 |
Offshore Account & Report of Foreign Bank and Financial
Accounts
Likewise, if an offshore account is created for you and the amount of that
account (or an aggregate of accounts) exceeds $10,000 at any point during
the year you MUST report that to the U.S. Treasury Department, and anyone
who tells you differently is a liar. As with offshore trusts, the fact that
they tell you that you don't have to report an offshore account is NOT a defense
to civil or criminal liability.
If you own a foreign bank account, stock account, mutual fund, unit trust,
or other financial account, then you may be required to file a Treasury Department
Form 90-22.1, which provides in part as follows:
This form should be used to report financial interest
in or signature authority or other authority over one or more bank accounts,
securities accounts, or other financial accounts in foreign countries
as required by the Department of the Treasury Regulations (31 CFR 103).
You are not required to file a report if the aggregate value of the accounts
did not exceed $10,000. SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK FOR DEFINITIONS. File
this form with Dept. of the Treasury, P.O. Box 32621, Detroit, MI 48232
* * *
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Who Must File a Report -- Each United States person
who has a financial interest in or signature authority or other authority
over a bank, securities, or other financial accounts in a foreign country,
which exceeds $10,000 in aggregate value at any time during the calendar
year, must report that relationship each calendar year by filing TD F
90-22.1 with the Department of the Treasury on or before June 30, of the
succeeding year.
* * *
B. United States Person -- The term "United States
person" means (1) a citizen or resident of the United States, (2)
a domestic partnership, (3) a domestic corporation, or (4) a domestic
estate or trust.
D. Account in a Foreign Country -- A "foreign country"
includes all geographical areas located outside the United States, Guam,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
* * *
F. Bank, Financial Account -- The term "bank account"
means a savings, demand, checking, deposit, loan or any other account
maintained with a financial institution or other person engaged in the
business of banking. It includes certificates of deposit.
The term "securities account" means an account
maintained with a financial institution or other person who buys, sells,
holds, or trades stock or other securities for the benefit of another.
The term "other financial account" means any other
account maintained with a financial institution or other person who accepts
deposits, exchanges or transmits funds, or acts as a broker or dealer
for future transactions in any commodity on (or subject to the rules of)
a commodity exchange or association.
G. Financial Interest -- A financial interest in a bank,
securities, or other financial account in a foreign country means an interest
described in either of the following two paragraphs:
(1) A United States person has a financial interest in each
account for which such person is the owner of records or has legal title,
whether the account is maintained for his or her own benefit or for the
benefit of other including non-United States persons. If an account is
maintained in the name of two persons jointly, or if several persons each
own a partial interest in an account, each of those United States persons
has a financial interest in that account.
(2) A United States person has a financial interest in each
bank, securities, or other financial account in a foreign country for
which the owner of record or holder of legal title is: (a) a person acting
as an agent, nominee, attorney, or in some other capacity on behalf of
the U.S. person; (b) a corporation in which the United States person owns
directly or indirectly more than 50 percent of the total value of shares
of stock; (c) a partnership in which the United States person owns an
interest in more than 50 percent of the profits (distributive share of
income); or (d) a trust in which the United States person either has a
present beneficial interest in more than 50 percent of the assets or from
which such person receives more than 50 percent of the current income.
H. Signature or Other Authority Over an Account --
Signature Authority -- A person has signature authority
over an account if such person can control the disposition of money or
other property in it by delivery of a document containing his or her signature
(or his or her signature and that of one or more other persons) to the
bank or other person with whom the account is maintained.
Other authority -- exists in a person who can exercise
comparable power over an account by direct communication to the bank or
other person with whom the account is maintained, either orally or by
some other means.
I. Account Valuation -- For items 7, 9, [of the form]
and Instruction A, the maximum value of an account is the largest amount
of currency and non-monetary assets that appear on any quarterly or more
frequent account statement issued for the applicable year. If periodic
statements are not so issued, the maximum account asset value is the largest
amount of currency and non-monetary assets in the account at any time
during the year.
* * *
O. Penalties -- For criminal penalties for failure to
file a report, supply information, and for filing a false or fraudulent
report see 31 U.S.C. 5322(a), 31 U.S.C. 5322(b), and 18 U.S.C. 1001. |
Would this include a debit card? Yes -- Many
offshore service providers will tell you that they will own the account,
but you will get a debit card to use, and the debit card does not trigger
the filing of the TD F 90-22.1. This is completely false, as a debit card
clearly constitutes authority over the account.
Not Reporting is Criminal Tax Evasion
International Trade & Investments,
Ltd.
Newsletter #63, July 1998
"Global Prosperity Group -- We have
had many questions about these people who peddle extremely expensive tax
avoidance programmes of dubious value through a system of seminars and
tapes. They operate primarily as a Multi Level Marketer and, as they could
claim to have an "end product" in their manuals and books, avoid
the charges of being a pyramid scheme. But their claims of the possible
financial rewards that could be obtained by members are totally unbelievable
and this has led to a wave of complaints (550 last year alone) from those
who were gullible enough to subscribe. 'Cease and Desist' orders are now
in place for the company in Washington, Oregon and Michigan with, presumably,
more to follow.
'"Keith Anderson, the elusive character who appears
to mastermind all this nonsense from a PO Box in Washington State, has
a tax avoidance policy that, if followed, can only result in a lengthy
rest in the local penitentiary. Some 30,000 members seem to have contributed
to his financial wellbeing but it seems unlikely that any of his 'strategies',
if that's the right word, will have enhanced the lives of his members
very much." |
From our 1 November 1998 Newsletter
As we predicted, the Global Prosperity Group has collapsed. About the only
folks pushing GPG are those who are too stupid to see that it is dead, or
are trying to recoup their investments by selling to other suckers too.
The Global Prosperity Group pitched the infamous Three-Tier Trust System,
that typically starts out with an LLC or some domestic trust, and eventually
all your money ends up in an (allegedly) non-controlled foreign trust. The
trouble, GPG promoters' claims aside, is that in our humble opinion this three-tier
trust system is criminally tax evasive. Apparently, a lot of GPG buyers have
figured that with THREE, not just one, trust that this structure MUST be legal.
This is pretty stupid reasoning, sort of like thinking that if you add three
times as many wheels to your car that it will go three times as fast.
GPG also made BIG bucks selling seminar materials, audio tapes, and other
bogus materials, in addition to the trusts. If you followed through completely
with GPG, you would have spent far more than $10,000 purchasing worthless
crap that had as its end effect a trip to Club Fed for tax evasion, and for
aiding and abetting other to commit tax evasion -- a crime which carries much
longer sentences.
But, really, GPG was nothing more-or-less than an elaborate and expensive
Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) scam, where suckers essentially purchased not
only their trusts and worthless promotional materials at outrageous prices,
but also got the right to sell their friends the same materials on a commission
or bonus basis.
And in the end GPG fell apart just like any other MLM scam, and lots of people
who had purchased GPG for the right to sell more GPG to their friends, lost
lots of bucks. Why did it fall apart? Some of the more obvious reasons was
that Attorneys General of several states had issued cease-and-desist order
to prohibit the sale of GPG, and the IRS took an increasing interest in several
GPGers who were not declaring all of their income.
So, GPG has collapsed. But just like any bad disease it has disappeared only
to reappear in various new forms, sold mostly by former GPGers (many of whom
have now mysteriously migrated to Canada) under a variety of names, which
we have been told include (among others): Global Prosperity 2000, Global Prosperity
2001, Global Prosperity New Millennium, Financial Legacy Alliance, The Infinity
Group, etc.
So, be careful of any GPG spinoffs. And if you see the infamous three-tier
trust system, irrespective of who markets it, you should run like hell because
it will not do you any good and will only restrict your ability to visit with
your family on Saturday mornings.
Cease and Desist Orders (just a few!)
Michigan
Honorable Frank J. Kelley
Attorney General of Michigan
Office of the Attorney General
Post Office Box 30212
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, MI 48909-0212
(517) 373-1110
Oregon
Honorable Hardy Myers
Attorney General of Oregon
Office of the Attorney General
Justice Building
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-6002
Washington
Honorable Christine O. Gregoire
Attorney General of Washington
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 40100
1125 Washington Street, SE
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
(360) 753-6200
Links
NEW! -- The
Starkey Expose of Global/IGP The story of David Starkey,
who spent years in prison because of his involvement with the
Global Prosperity Group and the Institute for Global Prosperity.
NEW! -- Department
of Justice Announcement: Global Prosperity co-founder
Keith Anderson who later founded Anderson Ark is being extradited
to the U.S. and has been charged with a variety of tax crimes.
BEST Global Prosperity Group Scam
-- http://www.global-prosperity.com
-- Includes information about the Cease-and-Desist Orders against
GPG, victim's stories, and much more for victim support.
NEW! -- Investigative News Program
48 Hrs' expose of the Institute for Global Prosperity scam
-- http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,266681-412,00.shtml
Mark Odell's
Award Winning GPG Essay
San Diego
Union-Tribune article
FREE the GPG tapes -- Why waste your money buying this junk when it
is free on the internet? (P.S. It is total junk -- the same cl_ptrap the tax
protestors use to sell their bogus materials to unsuspecting victims --
http://global-prosperity.netfirms.com/
CASES WHERE PURE TRUSTS WERE ANNIHILATED
The following is a partial list of cases where Pure Trusts
were blown up. The scam artists who sell Pure Trusts will tell you the lies
that "They have never lost in court" and "The IRS and creditors
are afraid of them." Of course they have to tell you that because if they
didn't there is no way you would buy one from them. But as shown, these are
complete and total lies, and there is no merit whatsoever to the Pure Trust,
as the following cases show what REALLY happens when the Pure Trust meets the
IRS (and it ain't pretty for the people who have formed Pure Trusts:
-
Alsop
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-172
-
Arcadia
Plumbing Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-453
-
Brittain v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-277
-
Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757 (1972)
-
Buckmaster v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-236 (§
6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Buelow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-219 (§ 6673
sanctions imposed)
-
Chase v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-164, aff'd,
926 F.2d 737 (8th Cir. 1991)
-
Cheek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-84 (§
6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Christal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-255
-
Clifford v. Helvering, 309 U.S. 331 (1940)(lead case)
-
The Colby B. Foundation v. United States, 1997 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 17698
-
Dombrowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-261
-
Edwards Family Trust v. United States, 572 F. Supp.
22 (E.D. N.M. 1983)
-
Estrada v. Commissioner, T.C . Memo. 1997-180
-
Fogle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-74
-
Furman v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 360 (1966), aff'd
per curiam, 381 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1967)
-
United States v. Geissler, 94-1 USTC ¶ 50,060 (D.
Ida. 1993)
-
George v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-381 (1999)
-
Ghalardi Income Tax Education Foundation v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-460 (1998) (§ 6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Gran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-558
-
Hanson v. Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1232 (9th
Cir. 1983), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1981-675
-
Harrold v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-274
-
Holman v. United States, 728 F.2d 462 (10th
Cir. 1984)
-
Itz v. United States, 85-1 USTC ¶ 9345 (W.D.
Tex. 1985); also, Itz v. United States Tax Court and United
States Internal Revenue Service, 87-2 USTC ¶ 9497
(W.D. Tex. 1987)
-
Jacobson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-261
-
Keefover v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-276; see
also, Keefover v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-151,
aff'd per curiam, 923 F.2d 857 (8th Cir
1990)
-
Kelley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-322
-
Leonard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-290 (§ 6673
sanctions imposed)
-
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)(lead case)
-
Luman v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 846 (1982)
-
Markosian v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1235 (1980)
-
Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-278
-
Morgan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-401
-
Muhich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-192
-
Neely v. United States, 775 F.2d 1092 (9th
Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. Noske, 117 F.3d 1053 (8th
Cir. 1997)
-
O'Donnell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-14
-
Para Technologies Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-366
-
Paulson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-643
-
Photo Art Marketing Trust, T.C. Memo. 2000-57
-
Prindle International Marketing v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-164
-
Professional Services v. Commissioner , 79 T.C. 888
(1982)
-
Reynolds v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-261
-
Sampson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-231 (§ 6673
sanctions imposed)
-
Sandvall v. Commissioner, 898 F.2d 455 (5th
Cir. 1990), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1989-189 (§ 6673 sanctions
imposed)
-
Schauer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-237
(§ 6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Schulz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-568,
aff'd, 686 F.2d 490 (7th Cir. 1982)
-
United States v. Scott, 37 F.3d 1564 (10th
Cir. 1994)
-
Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-487 (§
6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-91
-
Stoecklin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-453
-
Stokes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-204
-
Swayze v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-168
(§ 6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Tatum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-579 (§
6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-34
-
Vercio v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1246 (1980)
-
Vnuk v. Commissioner, 621 F.2d 1318 (8th
Cir. 1980), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1979-164
-
Wesenberg v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 1005 (1978)
-
Whitehead v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-455
-
Wilbur v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-442
-
Yeoham Estate v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1986-487 (§ 6673 sanctions imposed)
-
Zmuda v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 1417 (9th
Cir. 1984), aff'g 79 T.C. 714 (1982)
|
Have a question for Quatloos?
Ask
Tony-the-Wonder-Llama
We do NOT spam. Various multi-level marketers & other criminals
have recently sent out spam impersonating us, & having our return
email address, so that people would complain about spam and cause
us to be shut down (a/k/a "joe job"). These multi-level
marketers and other criminals have engaged in this form of cyber-terrorism
because our telling the truth about their fraudulent schemes was
hurting their ability to sell to new victims. Fortunately, our ISP
now recognizes that these fake spams are bogus and ignores them,
and additionally we are duplicating this site on numerous other
servers (including "hardened" servers as well as our own
proprietary servers) so that we cannot be harmed by these multi-level
marketers and other criminals. Death to Spammers!
MLM
Forum "Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to
sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!"
We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people
who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is
left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced
vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity,
Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other
new Global Prosperity scams.
Two
former IGP Administrators plead guilty in Fraudulent Offshore Tax
Shelter Scheme -- Shoshana & Jeffrey Szuch admitted
that they used a foreign bank account to conceal income paid by
IGP and income earned from the sale of IGP products...
US v Szuch Information
Jeffrey
Szuch Plea
Shoshanna
Plea
Laura
Jean Marie Struckman Indicted -- Alleged to have participated
in illegal currency structuring via Crescent Moon, Alternate Ventures,
and Specktack-Ular Holdings.
Lawsuit
Against Global Prosperity Founders -- A person who bought
into the Global Prosperity Scam and then went to prison has filed
a federal court lawsuit for damages against the promoters of the
scam.
Ten
Indicted in Offshore Tax Shelter Promoter Scheme -- A federal
grand jury in Seattle returned an indictment yesterday charging
the 10 defendants with 87 criminal counts, including conspiracy
to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.
Keith
Anderson Successfully Extradited -- One of the original
Global Prosperity Group founders and one of the biggest tax scam
artists in history is in now in a U.S. prison after being flown
to Miami from Costa Rica where he unsuccessfuly tried to avoid extradition.
IRS Codebusters
Scam - A new variant of the Global Prosperity scam
offers you (worthless) research and (equally worthless) forms to
let you live a tax-free existence. Supported by a person who claims
to be a judge but who has no formal legal education and who mostly
heard traffic ticket and small claims matters.
Two
California Men Sentenced to Prison in International Money Laundering
Scheme
Ninth
Circuit gives Institute for Global Prosperity, Andersen and LaMantia
big thumbs down -- Noting that there is a Federal Grand
Jury investigating the Institute for Global Prosperity, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit throws out a bogus lawsuit
by Dan Andersen and Zoe LaMantia to halt the execution of search
warrants on the promoters of IGP -- IGP membership lists seized!
Anderson's
Ark Seller Convicted of Money Laundering For Selling Illegal Trust
Program
Global
Prosperity Group / Investors International
Criminal fraud multi-level style. One of the worst scams
of all time keep reinventing itself with new names and expensive
seminars in Cancun.
Anderson's
Ark Accountants Convicted -- Accountants Roosevelt L. Drummer
and Roy Lentz, who prepared returns for Keith Anderson in the Anderson's
Ark fiasco, will spend some serious prison time after being convicted
of tax fraud.
Pinnacle
Quest International, Inc. -- The Institute for Global Prosperity
closes (suckers who bought into IGP take note) and PQII becomes
the latest in the long-running Global Prosperity scam.
The
Starkey Expose of Global/IGP -- The story of David Starkey,
who spent years in prison because of his involvement with the Global
Prosperity Group and the Institute for Global Prosperity.
Department
of Justice Announcement: -- Global Prosperity co-founder
Keith Anderson who later founded Anderson Ark is being extradited
to the U.S. and has been charged with a variety of tax crimes.
|