Is Harvester stepping off a cliff?

[Famspear]

Back on January 5th, Harvester/Nationwide/Libre/johnthetaxist/johnny cash/John Travis Harvester, posting as "johnny", posted this at codebusters dot org (the alternative web site for believers in Pete Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam):

As to how one would claim lawful money where there WAS 1099 reporting - As my inquiry to the IRS regarding rebutting 1099 received no answer, it appears there is no official procedure for rebutting them. The recipient just needs to refuse or deny that the money received was Federal Reserve money (statutory income), and be prepared to provide proof of it. I might have some proof of that later as I've asked a payer to issue a 1099 this 2012 year. Since my redeemed lawful money paychecks aren't income under the Revenue Acts of Congress, there is no need to file a return of income despite the 1099-MISC alleging otherwise.

http://www.codebusters.org/peh-disses-l ... -t324.html

(enlarged font added by me).

Today (Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013) he writes:

Hey everyone! [runs around waving] Just received a Form 1099-MISC for 2012 from one of my PAYER's with over $70k listed in box 7 Nonemployee compensation. Last I checked that is over the statutory exemption amount for filing. So now I can put the "you're only successful because of NON-reporting" argument to bed (jesse james will havta change his tune). This may take awhile to develop though; Auntie [the IRS] won't have a clue anything's amiss until April 15th when no return of income is filed.

http://www.codebusters.org/peh-disses-l ... 24-80.html

(italics and "[runs around waving]" language in original; enlarged font added by me).

Note: "Jesse James" is another user who has posted tax protester rhetoric in an ongoing arguments with Harvester at another web site.

I have some difficulty believing that Harvester has the ability to generate $70,000 in gross, non-employee compensation in one year, much less $70,000 from just one source in one year. On the other hand, if he really grossed that much, he is certainly stupid enough to try a stunt like refusing to file a tax return and claiming that his income isn't income. If he is telling the truth about this $70,000 Form 1099 that he has supposedly received, will he have the guts to tell the truth in the codebusters forum about what will be happening if the IRS comes after him for failure to file a 2012 return?



This bozo claims to be a full believer in DMVP's "redeeming lawful money" scam. Several months ago, he even claimed to have stop paying his mortgage.

[LaVidaRoja]

Since IF (giant if) he actually received a 1099 for that amount, and the IRS does not usually get around to matching 1099's with filed returns until a MINIMUM of 8 months after filing season (Say December of 2013 at the earliest) by the time IRS comes after him, he will likely believe that his followers (if any) will have forgotten his posting of today. He will claim it is some other sort of error/battle/mis-understanding with the IRS. Frankly, HE might not even remember his current claim.

[wserra]

Harvey, posting as "Nationwide" on Lost Horizons, gets bitch-slapped by Peter the Petulant:

No, they could not, Nationwide, and it should not be necessary to say this again. This errant notion was raised and knocked down here not long ago, and even appeared in the January 4 newsletter as an example of the kind of erroneous notion that does nothing but hinder our progress toward restoring the rule of law

After all, once Pontiff Peter the Petulant has posted, protesting is presumptuous.

[Burnaby49]

Harvey, posting as "Nationwide" on Lost Horizons, gets bitch-slapped by Peter the Petulant:

No, they could not, Nationwide, and it should not be necessary to say this again. This errant notion was raised and knocked down here not long ago, and even appeared in the January 4 newsletter as an example of the kind of erroneous notion that does nothing but hinder our progress toward restoring the rule of law

After all, once Pontiff Peter the Petulant has posted, protesting is presumptuous.

Please, remember that deference is due to the literary idiosyncrasies of Quatloosian contributors. Alliteration in respect to Preposterous Pete is the particular purview of poster Famspear.

[notorial dissent]

Well, since the master tax evader has spoken, then that should be the final word on the subject, at least at Lost Hopes.

As to hamster boy shutting up, not so likely, he likes to hear the sound of his own voice too much, even though it be the sound of one tongue clacking.

I'll have to go with LaVidaRoja on this one, a pretty humongous IF about just about anything the hamster boy says or claims.

[wserra]

Alliteration in respect to Preposterous Pete is the particular purview of poster Famspear.

If that were true, wouldn't it be "Pamsfear"?

[Burnaby49]

Alliteration in respect to Preposterous Pete is the particular purview of poster Famspear.

If that were true, wouldn't it be "Pamsfear"?

I considered that and then cautiously, slowly, stepped back from the edge of the precipice.

[Quixote]

Auntie [the IRS] won't have a clue anything's amiss until April 15th when no return of income is filed.

They might not have a clue even after the 15th. If you've ever completed a Form 1099, you may recall that there are 3 copies. The payer keeps one, sends one to the payee and one to the IRS. Even assuming the Hamster's copy is legit, that doesn't mean the payer sent the IRS its copy.

I've asked a payer to issue a 1099 this 2012 year.

Why would he have to ask? If someone had actually paid him $70,000 in connection with the payer's trade or business, the payer would be obligated to file a Form 1099-Misc. Why would the payer not file the form. It is an essential part of his record that he paid a $70,000 deductable expense. One scenario, in fact, the only scenario I can come up with, is that Harvey is paid in cash by someone who is paid in cash. Harvey's customer is not reporting his income, so he doesn't care about deductions. In fact, he avoids sending any information to the IRS. So, even assuming Harvey was paid $70,000 in 2012, the payer probably will not be sending a 1099 to the IRS.

No 1099, no matching program inquiry. Harvey declares victory.

[Mider]

If as he has said that he is not going to file anything as of April 15th, it might be a couple of years before the IRS notices, we have had a few clients where nothing was filed and only after a couple of years was it noticed. However, if he is stupid enough to file fraudently, than the matching program will catch it within a couple of weeks, we had one last year that we e-filed and the return was caught, missing a W-2 for $2,000 from a temp agency in less than a week, the client got a notice.

[Gregg]

I have several more likely scenarios in mind.

Whoever paid him sent him a 1099 despite his protests, threats and pleas.

Harvey is all mouth and pays his taxes every year filing a form 1040EZ.

The biggest 1099 Harvey receives is more like $7,000 than $70,000.

Harvey is a kid who works at a burger joint or video game store and doesn't owe any taxes because his income isn't high enough.

I mean come on. If he had done enough work for you that you paid him $70,000, isn't it likely that you've been around him enough to see what a blabbering idiot he is? WTF could he be doing that pays him $70,000 without the benefit of any common sense?

[webhick]

WTF could he be doing that pays him $70,000 without the benefit of any common sense?

Exotic dancing.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Whoever paid him sent him a 1099 despite his protests, threats and pleas.

Or just sent it in anyway without mentioning it to Harvey. Or just said "Yeah, Sure, Whatever" when Harvey asked. Look at it this way, if you had a legitimate business that paid one subcontractor $70,000, I'd expect you keep reasonably accurate records and be reasonably straight with the IRS.

If he had done enough work for you that you paid him $70,000, isn't it likely that you've been around him enough to see what a blabbering idiot he is? WTF could he be doing that pays him $70,000 without the benefit of any common sense?

[darling]

I've asked a payer to issue a 1099 this 2012 year.

Why would he have to ask?

It's entirely possible that, in Hamster's world, his payer is really his employer and Hamster asked to be treated as an independent contractor rather than an employee who would receive a W-2.

[Arthur Rubin]

WTF could he be doing that pays him $70,000 without the benefit of any common sense?

Exotic dancing.

Keyboard warning!

[Arthur Rubin]

I have several more likely scenarios in mind.

...
Harvey is all mouth and pays his taxes every year filing a form 1040EZ.

The biggest 1099 Harvey receives is more like $7,000 than $70,000.

These scenarios seem inconsistent. I thought that, if you receive any non-employee 1099 (it being over 600), you can't use the short form (1040A), as you be be prima facie subject to SE tax, and a schedule C must be filed to show that your net income is less than $433 if you do not have to pay SE tax.

I agree that any of the scenarios are more likely than what Harvey said.

As an aside, though, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about people who are banned from posting here.

[Famspear]

.....As an aside, though, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about people who are banned from posting here.

Hmmm. Maybe we need clarification. I'm not aware of any such rule. DMVP was banned a while back, and I believe I (and others) make occasional references to DMVP.

Further, I'm not aware that Harvey has been banned or, if I was aware of it, I've forgotten.

[JamesVincent]

.....As an aside, though, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about people who are banned from posting here.

Hmmm. Maybe we need clarification. I'm not aware of any such rule. DMVP was banned a while back, and I believe I (and others) make occasional references to DMVP.

Further, I'm not aware that Harvey has been banned or, if I was aware of it, I've forgotten.

His name still appears with his rank and title and whatnot, so i dont think he has been banned. Maybe he was restricted in some way. As far as talking or involving people, I don't see any reason why not, if it is in direct relation to the subject at hand. DMVP's "theories" still apply in many threads and subjects that are brought up here, as do people like Bork and others who were banned.

[Famspear]

In a forum devoted to exposing scams, it wouldn't make much sense to have a rule that says you can't mention a given scammer if that scammer has been banned from posting in the forum. By definition, a scammer is someone who engages in bad behavior. And, by definition, someone who is banned from posting at Quatloos is someone who has been banned because of bad behavior at Quatloos. It would seem that having a rule that says you can't mention a banned scammer in Quatloos would not only defeat the purpose of this site, it would be playing into the hands of any scammer who wanted to silence Quatloos criticism of him/her.

[wserra]

(1) Harvey is not banned, but is moderated. He has not tried to post in some time.

(2) There is no rule against discussing the less-than-dear departed. I asked people to avoid making fun of those who are unable to defend themselves.

people like Bork and others who were banned.

Bork isn't banned. He threatened to sue me for defamation and didn't, then threatened to file a disciplinary complaint against me and didn't (despite me giving him the address to do it). He then left of his own accord, probably because he was shown to be all hat and no cattle (in addition to being an idiot).

Other than spammers, this site has only banned three people in its history: Lawyerdud(e), a disbarred lawyer, racist and pedophile, now deceased; Mikey, a foul-mouthed poster who insisted on acting like a spoiled five-year-old; and Van Pelt. The last was only banned after repeated unheeded warnings and a lot of discussion, both amongst the mods and in public.

[Famspear]

Wes, thanks for the elucidation.