Pete and Doreen may have not filed correct amended returns

[Imalawman]

19. I am submitting these "amended" returns with the filing status Married Filing
Separately, and do not speak for my husband nor file returns on his behalf.

Can she do that?

Well, no. If they say that there hasn't been a valid return, then yes. However, you can't amend a return based on filing status (unless of course the was incorrect).

[The Observer]

Doreen Hendrickson wrote:
10. As soon as I began reading my statement into the record [on December 15th], Judge Edmunds covered her face with her hands, sighed, rolled her eyes, and during my testimony sat with her head in her hand and elbow on her bench, appearing to be bored and annoyed.

The first thought of mine upon reading this was, "Wow - the judge is obviously a Quatloosian."

And finally, why the hell dont they just drag her off in irons, lock her in a cell with Elaine Brown and see if they become friends or just reach critical mass of stupid and burst into flames?

In irons? And risk giving the sovrun paytriots the final proof, the veritable nail in the coffin, that we are railroading them through admiraltry court?

[LPC]

you can't amend a return based on filing status (unless of course the was incorrect).

Not quite. IRC Section 2013(b) specifically allows taxpayers who file separately to later elect to file jointly. But I you're right that you can't go in the other direction, and that the election to file a joint return is irrevocable.

So we're back to the question of whether the Hendrickson's original returns were "returns" on which binding elections could be made.

I guess the IRS will figure that out when they process Doreen's returns.

Meanwhile, what happens to Pete? Will the judge issue an order directing that he be held in civil contempt, and his criminal sentence suspended until he complies?

[LPC]

Another possible issue is that Doreen's returns are claiming the standard deduction. (She put in the wrong amount for 2003, entering the single person's deduction instead of married filing separately, but that's not material.)

The problem is that if a married couple file separately, they either both have to claim the standard deduction or they both have to itemize. If Doreen's use of the standard deduction is valid, then Pete can not itemize and may lose the benefit of mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and other deductions. (Assuming they care at this point.)

[Pottapaug1938]

Doreen Hendrickson wrote:
10. As soon as I began reading my statement into the record [on December 15th], Judge Edmunds covered her face with her hands, sighed, rolled her eyes, and during my testimony sat with her head in her hand and elbow on her bench, appearing to be bored and annoyed.

The first thought of mine upon reading this was, "Wow - the judge is obviously a Quatloosian."

And finally, why the hell dont they just drag her off in irons, lock her in a cell with Elaine Brown and see if they become friends or just reach critical mass of stupid and burst into flames?

In irons? And risk giving the sovrun paytriots the final proof, the veritable nail in the coffin, that we are railroading them through admiraltry court?

Well, if the court officers will simply change out of their naval-style uniforms when Doreen is brought into court, maybe she won't catch on....

[Gregg]

you can't amend a return based on filing status (unless of course the was incorrect).

Not quite. IRC Section 2013(b) specifically allows taxpayers who file separately to later elect to file jointly. But I you're right that you can't go in the other direction, and that the election to file a joint return is irrevocable.

So we're back to the question of whether the Hendrickson's original returns were "returns" on which binding elections could be made.

I guess the IRS will figure that out when they process Doreen's returns.

Meanwhile, what happens to Pete? Will the judge issue an order directing that he be held in civil contempt, and his criminal sentence suspended until he complies?

Will it ever come to the point where the Judge just thows up her hands and gives up, and then lets the IRS seize everything that isn't nailed down and quite a lot of what is? Sorry, but this garbage is just getting to me and I really do see this return as a tactical retreat, Doreen files and that gets the contempt order off her back, Pete is in jail already and I guess they hope the BOP won't remember if he gets the contempt order enforced against him and adds whatever time to his sentence. Meanwhile, Doreen doesn't have enough income separately to have any tax to pay, so she thinks she's gonna put it all behind her.... What's next, is she going to claim innocent spouse? How many times do they get to play "whatcha gonna say to that" with contempt orders?

[Quixote]

Will it ever come to the point where the Judge just thows up her hands and gives up, and then lets the IRS seize everything that isn't nailed down and quite a lot of what is?

There will be no seizing until an assessment and demand for payment are made. And then only after a CDP notice and the inevitable hearing.

[Imalawman]

you can't amend a return based on filing status (unless of course the was incorrect).

Not quite. IRC Section 2013(b) specifically allows taxpayers who file separately to later elect to file jointly. But I you're right that you can't go in the other direction, and that the election to file a joint return is irrevocable.

I've never been faced with that situation, so I just assumed it worked both ways. Thanks.

[Gregg]

Will it ever come to the point where the Judge just thows up her hands and gives up, and then lets the IRS seize everything that isn't nailed down and quite a lot of what is?

There will be no seizing until an assessment and demand for payment are made. And then only after a CDP notice and the inevitable hearing.

Translated = about 12 years?

What about if the IRS notices like I did, and doesn't let her try to claim married/separate? I guess the court fights over that and other nit picky ways they can come up with to say they're trying to comply can drag this out for the rest of their lives.

What about...if the court says 'too bad, you both must be in compliance or you're both in contempt? Any chance of that?

[notorial dissent]

So how does it affect things that in the affidavit that Doreen basically says she is filing the corrected returns under duress and is claiming that they are false and as near as I can tell that she is repudiating that she signed them?

Wouldn’t this put her back to square one still being in contempt?

[grixit]

Well, if the court officers will simply change out of their naval-style uniforms when Doreen is brought into court, maybe she won't catch on....

B-but if they do that, the'll look awfully silly when it comes time to do the Gilbert and Sullivan medley!

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, if the court officers will simply change out of their naval-style uniforms when Doreen is brought into court, maybe she won't catch on....

B-but if they do that, the'll look awfully silly when it comes time to do the Gilbert and Sullivan medley!

Perhaps you're right. Let's just make sure, then, that the judge doesn't tell Doreen that she has to go back to the brig.

[LPC]

So how does it affect things that in the affidavit that Doreen basically says she is filing the corrected returns under duress and is claiming that they are false and as near as I can tell that she is repudiating that she signed them?

Wouldn’t this put her back to square one still being in contempt?

I don't think so.

Suppose that Doreen had dropped the returns into a mailbox while telling the strangers standing nearby, waiting for the bus, that "these returns are being filed under duress, and have no verity," would that in any way invalidate the returns? I think not.

I think that the gratuitous affidavit that Doreen filed with the court has the same effect on the validity of the returns as would gratuitous comments to passers-by, i.e., none.

If the returns she filed were false, the affidavit could be used to prove that they were knowingly false, but since the returns are true, the affidavit is irrelevant. (It is a crime to file a return that is knowingly false, which is what Pete was convicted of, but, contrary to what Doreen believes, it is not a crime to file a return that is unknowingly true.)

[rogfulton]

It seems to me (non-lawyer) that repudiating your signature in writing (I agree with notorial dissent) would be hugely different than making a comment to someone. For example, I don't think a car dealership would give you a car on your word that you promise to pay (even if you cross your heart and pinkie swear), they require a signature (even the car commercials say "sign then drive"). Same goes for a credit card charge (I have heard that below a certain amount a signature may not be required, but I have no experience with that). Ditto, a mortgage.

[notorial dissent]

I don't think so.

Suppose that Doreen had dropped the returns into a mailbox while telling the strangers standing nearby, waiting for the bus, that "these returns are being filed under duress, and have no verity," would that in any way invalidate the returns? I think not.
I agree with you totally here
I think that the gratuitous affidavit that Doreen filed with the court has the same effect on the validity of the returns as would gratuitous comments to passers-by, i.e., none.
Here I will have to disagree, since she is in effect, by filing the affidavit along with the amended return with the court, filing formal and official notice to the court, “on the record”, that she is repudiating what she was ordered to do. I don’t see any difference with what she has done here and with what they did on the tax returns. They basically signed them and then repudiated the signing. Which to my mind is the same contempt, and it is quite obvious from the affidavit that despite the “false” outward show of contrition, that they are still in contempt of the court’s order.
If the returns she filed were false, the affidavit could be used to prove that they were knowingly false, but since the returns are true, the affidavit is irrelevant. (It is a crime to file a return that is knowingly false, which is what Pete was convicted of, but, contrary to what Doreen believes, it is not a crime to file a return that is unknowingly true.)
That is the true irony here, the returns that she is repudiating, actually are valid returns(at least by the IRS standards), probably not correct as someone pointed out several errors, but they still should stand as valid, except that she filed as single when they originally filed as married, and that opens a whole other philosophical line I don’t care to enter at the moment.

[Famspear]

Side note: According to a post in one of the threads at losthorizons, PayPal is no longer accepting payments with respect to losthorizons.

[notorial dissent]

Well color me shocked and surprised!!!!! Someone must have finally complained about them or reported them to Paypal as a scam, I'm just surprised it took so long.

[Dezcad]

Well color me shocked and surprised!!!!! Someone must have finally complained about them or reported them to Paypal as a scam, I'm just surprised it took so long.

I'm sure it has to do with the Writ of Garnishment entered against Petey I mentioned here.

Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10-mc-51307-GER-PJK

United States of America v. Hendrickson
Assigned to: District Judge Gerald E Rosen
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives
Cause: No cause code entered
Date Filed: 12/01/2010
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
United States of America represented by Jacqueline M. Hotz
United States Attorney's Office
211 W. Fort Street
Suite 2001
Detroit, MI 48226-3211
313-226-9108
Email: Jackie.Hotz@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Peter Hendrickson

Date Filed # Docket Text
11/30/2010 RELATED to criminal case #08-20585 Dft 1 (PMil) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
11/30/2010 1 WRIT of continuing garnishment issued as to Peter Hendrickson and Garnishee Lost Horizon Corp. (PMil) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
11/30/2010 2 WRIT of continuing garnishment issued as to Peter Hendrickson and garnishee Comerica Bank. (PMil) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
11/30/2010 3 WRIT of continuing garnishment issued as to Peter Hendrickson and garnishee Paypal, Inc. (PMil) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
12/06/2010 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States of America re 2 Writ of Garnishment Issued on Comerica Bank (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
12/07/2010 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States of America re 3 Writ of Garnishment Issued on PayPal Inc. (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
12/07/2010 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States of America re 1 Writ of Garnishment Issued on Lost Horizon Corp. (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
12/15/2010 7 ANSWER to Continuing Garnishment by PayPal denying liability. (DSmi) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
12/17/2010 8 GARNISHEE disclosure by Comerica Bank denying liability as to Peter Hendrickson. (Boutell, Michael) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
12/21/2010 9 ANSWER to Continuing Garnishment by Lost Horizons Corp denying liability. (PPau) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

(color added)

[notorial dissent]

Sorry, apparently totally missed that post.

[Gregg]

12/07/2010 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States of America re 1 Writ of Garnishment Issued on Lost Horizon Corp. (Hotz, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/07/2010)

So what are the odds that that particular order is being complied with?