Doreen Filed

[Dr. Caligari]

Doreen seems to believe that there would be no sanctions if they complied within 14 days, but in this belief (as in many other beliefs) Doreen is wrong.

I don't think she is arguing that; I think she is arguing that she should only be fined for 14 days of noncompliance because she mailed her responses on the 14th day. I think that actually may be a valid argument (so she of course listed it last, after a whole batch of stupid arguments).

[bmielke]

Doreen seems to believe that there would be no sanctions if they complied within 14 days, but in this belief (as in many other beliefs) Doreen is wrong.

I don't think she is arguing that; I think she is arguing that she should only be fined for 14 days of noncompliance because she mailed her responses on the 14th day. I think that actually may be a valid argument (so she of course listed it last, after a whole batch of stupid arguments).

The way I read it was, "We shouldn't have to pay at all, but if you make us it should only be for 14 days."

[Dezcad]

Hearing has been rescheduled, against BOTH Pete and Doreen:

08/19/2010 Reset Deadlines as to 74 MOTION for Order to Reduce to Judgment Contempt Fine Imposed Against Each Defendant. Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2010 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

[Thule]

The way I read it was, "We shouldn't have to pay at all, but if you make us it should only be for 14 days."

Still, with this 14 days-thing, Blowhard has finally raised a non-frivolous question. I'm sure it's just a typo.

[webhick]

unholy violation of our Constitutional rights

Jeez. Is that the kind of unholy violation that has to be salted and burned or the kind that has to be dragged by screaming bunny rabbits onto holy ground? I can't remember and I don't have my manual on me. Can someone look that up?

[Gregg]

unholy violation of our Constitutional rights

Jeez. Is that the kind of unholy violation that has to be salted and burned or the kind that has to be dragged by screaming bunny rabbits onto holy ground? I can't remember and I don't have my manual on me. Can someone look that up?

Salted and burned, you can not use bunnies against the straw man, only the freeman upon the land.

[LPC]

The way I read it was, "We shouldn't have to pay at all, but if you make us it should only be for 14 days."

Still, with this 14 days-thing, Blowhard has finally raised a non-frivolous question.

Yes, the 14-day thing is not a frivolous argument, but I still think it's a loser.

The court ordered a penalty for each day until the Hendricksons complied with the order "to file" amended returns, and a penalty for each day until they complied with the order "to submit" discovery responses.

The general rule is that a tax return is not "filed" until it is received. I think that the same principle should apply to the discovery response.

[The Observer]

The general rule is that a tax return is not "filed" until it is received. I think that the same principle should apply to the discovery response.

The IRS allows for postmarks to show that that the return was filed timely, i.e, April 15th. Not trying to be a smartass here. Are we talking about two different things here in terms of what a timely filed return would be considered by the IRS and what would be considered timely by the court?

[Arthur Rubin]

The general rule is that a tax return is not "filed" until it is received. I think that the same principle should apply to the discovery response.

The IRS allows for postmarks to show that that the return was filed timely, i.e, April 15th. Not trying to be a smartass here. Are we talking about two different things here in terms of what a timely filed return would be considered by the IRS and what would be considered timely by the court?

It's more complicated than that.

Dealing only with calendar year individual returns (to avoid questions of which business returns have to be filed by March 15 and which by April 15) and ignoring adjustments for weekends and holidays:

An original return is timely filed if mailed by April 15. If the (say) 2009 return was timely filed by April 15, 2010, an amended return has to be received by April 15, 2013 to be timely.

At least, that's my understanding.

[Cathulhu]

Arthur, your understanding matches my recollection. I think there's an IRM section that says that.

[LPC]

The general rule is that a tax return is not "filed" until it is received. I think that the same principle should apply to the discovery response.

The IRS allows for postmarks to show that that the return was filed timely, i.e, April 15th. Not trying to be a smartass here. Are we talking about two different things here in terms of what a timely filed return would be considered by the IRS and what would be considered timely by the court?

I could/should have been more precise. There is a statute providing that timely mailed is timely filed, but it only applies to returns mailed on or before the due date, and I don't think it applies to court-ordered filings. Specifically:

§ 7502. Timely mailing treated as timely filing and paying

(a) General rule

(1) Date of delivery
If any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed, or any payment required to be made, within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal revenue laws is, after such period or such date, delivered by United States mail to the agency, officer, or office with which such return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made, the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment, as the case may be.

(2) Mailing requirements
This subsection shall apply only if—
(A) the postmark date falls within the prescribed period or on or before the prescribed date—
(i) for the filing (including any extension granted for such filing) of the return, claim, statement, or other document, or
(ii) for making the payment (including any extension granted for making such payment), and
(B) the return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment was, within the time prescribed in subparagraph (A), deposited in the mail in the United States in an envelope or other appropriate wrapper, postage prepaid, properly addressed to the agency, officer, or office with which the return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made.

(b) Postmarks
This section shall apply in the case of postmarks not made by the United States Postal Service only if and to the extent provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(c) Registered and certified mailing; electronic filing
(1) Registered mail
For purposes of this section, if any return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is sent by United States registered mail—
(A) such registration shall be prima facie evidence that the return, claim, statement, or other document was delivered to the agency, officer, or office to which addressed; and
(B) the date of registration shall be deemed the postmark date.
(2) Certified mail; electronic filing
The Secretary is authorized to provide by regulations the extent to which the provisions of paragraph (1) with respect to prima facie evidence of delivery and the postmark date shall apply to certified mail and electronic filing.

(d) Exceptions
This section shall not apply with respect to—
(1) the filing of a document in, or the making of a payment to, any court other than the Tax Court,
(2) currency or other medium of payment unless actually received and accounted for, or
(3) returns, claims, statements, or other documents, or payments, which are required under any provision of the internal revenue laws or the regulations thereunder to be delivered by any method other than by mailing.

[...]

[Dr. Caligari]

There is a statute providing that timely mailed is timely filed, but it only applies to returns mailed on or before the due date, and I don't think it applies to court-ordered filings.

The Hendricksons are not being penalized under the IRC for late filing. They are being punished for contempt of court. I think there is a strong argument to be made that mailing was compliance with the court order, especially given the rule that, in contempt of court situations, ambiguity in the court order is construed in favor of the contemnor.

[Imalawman]

There is a statute providing that timely mailed is timely filed, but it only applies to returns mailed on or before the due date, and I don't think it applies to court-ordered filings.

The Hendricksons are not being penalized under the IRC for late filing. They are being punished for contempt of court. I think there is a strong argument to be made that mailing was compliance with the court order, especially given the rule that, in contempt of court situations, ambiguity in the court order is construed in favor of the contemnor.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge sides with the Hendricksons on this one.

[Pottapaug1938]

The Hendricksons are not being penalized under the IRC for late filing. They are being punished for contempt of court. I think there is a strong argument to be made that mailing was compliance with the court order, especially given the rule that, in contempt of court situations, ambiguity in the court order is construed in favor of the contemnor.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge sides with the Hendricksons on this one.

You know what that means....

ANOTHER CTC VICTORY!!!

[notorial dissent]

My reading of the order is that it is more about them finally complying with the court’s orders, to properly file their returns as part of the penalty assessment, rather than the actual filing of the returns, since they are already by definition and fact late and NOT “timely filed” at all.

As I read the order, the order was to file “proper”(that is filled out, completed, and signed according to real law as opposed to Petey’s wish it was that way imaginary version of the law) returns, and that they would be fined for every day that they didn’t, until a specific date when he would toss their sorry asses in to jail.

The only thing they accomplished was to rack up a big fine for delaying as long as they did, and avoid going to jail, at least Doreen did.

The Appeals court has already affirmed everything else here as far as the orders were concerned, so them arguing about the fines shouldn’t go anywhere at all since they were in violation of the order to file for that number of days, and, at least to my view, only filed when it became evident that the court wasn’t kidding about the jail time.

They are being fined for failing to obey the court order, not anything else, and I don’t see how they can argue otherwise, at least other than to argue pointlessly.

The order was file or be fined each day you don’t, and if you don’t by such and such date you go to jail. I really don’t see any wiggle room here, and my personal feeling is that the received/filed date is when they reached the court, not when Pete finally got around to thinking about it or when the mail delivered them. As far as I know, in court filings, it is only “filed” when it reaches the court, that is why court’s set filing deadline. You don’t make the deadline, you’re not filed, no matter what your excuse, at least as far as they judges I’m familiar with.

I'm sure Pete can and will find some grand conspiracy or imaginary point of law to go on about, but I just don't see the court giving it any consideration at all at this point.

[.]

Who knows, this may be a case of first impression with regard to exactly when a return is considered to be filed pursuant to a court order, of contempt or otherwise.

I'd consider their tardy returns filed only when received and whack 'em for 17 days each, and then probably get tipped over on appeal.

[wserra]

Winner of the "All-time Most Useless Docket Entries" contest:

Minute Entry - Motion Hearing held on 8/26/2010 re 74 MOTION for Order to Reduce to Judgment Contempt Fine Imposed Against Each Defendant filed by United States of America before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 08/27/2010)

And? Granted? Denied? Decision reserved?

[The Observer]

Winner of the "All-time Most Useless Docket Entries" contest:

Minute Entry - Motion Hearing held on 8/26/2010 re 74 MOTION for Order to Reduce to Judgment Contempt Fine Imposed Against Each Defendant filed by United States of America before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: <a href="tel:08/27/2010">08/27/2010</a>)

And? Granted? Denied? Decision reserved?

Probably hasn't concluded yet given Pete's inability to stop talking about himself.

[Dezcad]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON and
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendant(s).
/
Case No. 06-11753
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REDUCE TO JUDGMENT THE CONTEMPT FINES IMPOSED AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT [74]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to reduce to judgment the contempt fines imposed against each Defendant per the Order entered June 10, 2010. [Docket Text # 68.] The June 10, 2010 Order provided:

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants are in contempt for failing to comply with orders of this Court.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that a conditional fine of $100.00 per day is hereby imposed for each Defendant, until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 as ordered by this Court.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that a conditional fine of $50.00 per day is hereby imposed for each Defendant, until such time that Defendants comply with this Order to submit complete and accurate responses to the post-judgment discovery requests as ordered by this Court.
[Docket Text # 68 at 7.] According to the government, Defendants mailed their responses to the United States’ post-judgment discovery requests and filed the amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 on June 25, 2010. Although the government states that it did not receive these documents until June 28, 2010, the Court finds that fifteen (15) days passed from the date of the Court’s Order to Defendant’s submission of the documents.

The Court having reviewed the pleadings in this matter and being fully advised in the premises, hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Peter Eric Hendrickson owes a total of $2,250 for failing to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 and failing to provide responses to the government’s post-judgment discovery requests.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Doreen M. Hendrickson owes a total of $2,250 for failing to file amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 and failing to provide responses to the government’s post-judgment discovery requests.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are to satisfy the judgment by payment
made out to the Clerk of Court.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Rule 67.1, the Clerk of Court is to deposit the monies received in an interest-bearing account until such time that Defendants’ appeals are concluded. The Clerk of Court is also “direct[ed] ... to deduct from the account any fee authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” L.R. 67.1.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: September 2, 2010
Case 2:06-cv-11753-NGE-RSW Document 77 Filed 09/02/10 Page 2 of 3
3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on September 2, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol A. Hemeyer
Case Manager

[Dr. Caligari]

According to the government, Defendants mailed their responses to the United States’ post-judgment discovery requests and filed the amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 on June 25, 2010. Although the government states that it did not receive these documents until June 28, 2010, the Court finds that fifteen (15) days passed from the date of the Court’s Order to Defendant’s submission of the documents.

What I thought she would do.