From Whence It Came

[grixit]

And of course, long lunch breaks.

What i would like to see is for each entry to have a list of earliest sightings, the way the OED has for individual words.


For instance:

RED CRAYONS: 1971, Brandon "Banana Jamma" Wilson, on a bowling score sheet.
-- at an angle: 1974, "ReichKommandar" Gregory Desalvo, on a citation for molesting shetland ponies.

STANDING ON THE LAND: 1983, "Perfesser" Mitch Rickleton, on a notice of earthquake safety retrofitting.

[LPC]

I never at any time demanded someone give me answers to my questions. I merely asked for some information. If I want to check into my local library for some serious research time this winter, I at least need to know to what direction I should be looking. You may wonder what my motives are and it is quite simple. I got scammed by a local sov'run tax preparer and now I want to expose it all for the bullshit that it really is.

Several comments:

1. The question you're raising above, which is how to "expose it all for the bullshit that it really is," is different from the question you originally raised, which was "where did all this "Accepted For Value", 1099 OID's etc come from?" At first, you were asking for the origin, now you're asking for refutation, and those are two different things. It's like asking who was the first person to use dynamite to blow up a bank vault when what you really want to know is how to prove that blowing up a bank vault is illegal. Those are two different things.

2. You essentially answered your original question in your original posting, because you said that "It's kind of like an urban myth that just doesn't want to die." Who first thought of these things is anybody's guess, because they are very much like urban legends, and so largely untraceable for all practical purposes. The best I can do in most cases is identify the first time that a particular claim was addressed in a published court opinion.

3. As others have pointed out, you don't really need to prove that "accepted for value" and Forms 1099-OID are scams, because the authorities already know that they're scams. All you need to do is document what the scammer did, what you were promised, and what happened. If you don't want to report the scammer to authorities but want to pursue a civil remedy yourself, then you probably need a lawyer.

4. I've never researched "accepted for value" or the OID nonsense, so they're not in my Tax Protester FAQ. However, if you want to research those things, I can offer the following pointers:

a. "Accepted for value" seems to be based on some twisted reading of the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC is a statute that was drafted and proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Laws (http://www.nccusl.org) back in (I think) the 1950s, and over the years it has been enacted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, although sometimes with variations. You might want to try to find the enactment of the UCC in your state and see if you can find "accepted for value" in the statute, then try to figure out what the phrase means in the statute and why what you were told is wrong. Google Scholar might also be helpful in finding court decisions that discuss both the real meaning of "accepted for value" and the bogus meaning that scammers promote. (Assuming that you can even discern the bogus meaning that is claimed. I find most of the language associated with "accepted for value" to be incomprehensible gibberish, and it's difficult to refute gibberish.)

b. "OID" is "original issue discount" and it's a real concept in the Internal Revenue Code. If you want to try to research it, you'll find the more important provisions in 26 USC 1272. Briefly, OID arises when a corporation or government issues a bond with a face amount that is more than what the investors paid for the bond when it was issued. So, for example, a municipality might issue a $5,000 bond for which the first investor pays only $4,800 because of the low interest rate paid on the bond. During the life of the bond, the investor will receive interest payments and then, when the bond matures, the investor will receive $200 more than was paid for the bond, which is clearly a gain that is income. 20 USC 1272 says that the additional $200, which is a foreseeable gain when the bond is issued, must be realized as interest income ratably over the lifetime of the bond, and not just at the end. BUT (and here's the important part) the OID scam has nothing to do with section 1272, because it's based on fabricated Forms 1099-OID reporting interest that was never earned and taxes that were never withheld. The problem is not that they are misinterpreting section 1272; the problem is that they are lying to the IRS about the existence of bonds which don't exist. It's a simple fraud (which is why it doesn't interest me).

[LPC]

I find most of the language associated with "accepted for value" to be incomprehensible gibberish, and it's difficult to refute gibberish.

A good example is "What Does Accepted for Value Mean," which came up at the top of a Google search. Most of it is incomprehensible, and where it's comprehensible it's wrong.

[Gregg]

David Merrill Van Pelt.

If you can't wait on JJs book, he's the definitive source.

(ducks, cause I know it's coming)

[AndyK]

Unfortunately, David's theories are only a small part of the pile of patriot, sovereign, tax honesty manure.

In fact, other than the material he adopted from others, he is meaningless. There's absolutely no evidence that he has made any significant contribution to the larger movement.

[JamesVincent]

Unfortunately, David's theories are only a small part of the pile of patriot, sovereign, tax honesty manure.

In fact, other than the material he adopted from others, he is meaningless. There's absolutely no evidence that he has made any significant contribution to the larger movement.

Thats simply not true. Hell tell you flat out that hes a legend in his own mind.

[Prof]

Observer posted on another thread titled "Scammer Indicted over 1099-OID," above, at "Tax Fraud, Pure Trusts,...":

Scammer Indicted over 1099-OID
by The Observer » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:31 am

BNA Daily Tax Report
November 2, 2011

Tax Fraud: DOJ Asks Court to Shut Down Tax Preparer Over $13 Million Alleged Redemption Fraud

By Nora Macaluso

LANSING, Mich.—The Department of Justice Nov. 1 asked a federal court to block a Detroit tax preparer from filing federal tax returns for others, alleging that he falsified income tax information on at least 45 returns and sought more than$13 million in fraudulent refunds for customers (United States v. Brown, E.D. Mich., No. 2:11-cv-14783, complaint filed 11/1/11).

The civil suit alleges Carlos Brown and his business, Express Finance and Processing Services, fabricated withholding information on IRS Forms 1099-OID, and asks the court to order Brown to provide a list of all returns filed since 2008. One customer allegedly sought a refund of more than $1.75 million.

According to the government, Brown received compensation for preparing and filing “frivolous documents and fraudulent federal tax returns” covering tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

The claims are based on a “frivolous tax-definer [sic] theory” known as redemption or commercial redemption, which contends that the government maintains a secret account for each taxpayer that can be used to satisfy debts including tax liabilities, the government said.