A Scamster for All Seasons

[wserra]

Perhaps it was, Wes. But the more I trace "veganmatty" the more he seems to confirm having been that 16 year old boy.

The addresses I redacted from the whois search make it pretty clear.

[LPC]

The previous step is interesting:

If you want the other Trustee to be on the bank account and have access, then they should show up to the bank with you to sign paperwork with you. Hopefully you both remembered to bring your World ID Cards or Affidavits of Identification, and that you both are going to answer that neither one of you have a Social Security number (or do not wish to disclose it). Again, do not disclose your State Drivers ID or any other State or Federal ID.

Open a bank account without a taxpayer identification number or government ID? I doubt it.

The trust is going to have an employer identification number (although getting an EIN for a trust without disclosing the SSN of the grantor is something else I doubt is going to happen),

Coincidentally, the IRS has changed Form SS-4 (application for employer identification number) to require the name and Social Security number (or EIN) for a "responsible party," and have just amended the regulations under section 6109 to require that the information about the "responsible party" be updated as needed.

The explanation of the final regulations shows that one of the goals of the regulations was to prevent exactly what was described above:

Treasury and the IRS continue to conclude that updating this application information is necessary for effective tax administration. Some EIN applicants continue to list individuals temporarily authorized to act on behalf of EIN applicants (sometimes referred to as "nominees") as principal officers, general partners, grantors, owners, and trustors on EIN applications. The listing of nominees or other individuals who are no longer associated with the entity prevents the IRS from gathering and maintaining correct and current information with respect to the responsible party for the EIN applicant. The requirement in the final regulations to provide updated application information will allow the IRS to ascertain the true responsible party for persons who have an EIN. This knowledge will prevent unnecessary delays by allowing the IRS to contact the correct persons when resolving a tax matter related to a business with an EIN. In addition, this information will help the IRS combat schemes that abuse the tax system through the use of nominees, which results in the concealing of the true responsible party for entities that hide assets and income.

[JamesVincent]

SO basically now if you set up a trust to get money out of your name it still goes in your name? Thats gonna suck for some people.

[wserra]

I could comment on Mr. Rammelkamp and what he is doing, but frankly, I think his materials speak for themselves.

They do indeed, but I'm likely to comment anyway.

Take a look at the guy's blog. Staring at you on the home page - the first thing I saw - is Kevin Truedough. If there is anyone in the world to whom the question "Why is that man smiling?" applies, it's Truedough. Rammelkamp sells a bunch of Truedough bullshit.

The tab "Commercial Redemption" features a number of Gordon Hall videos. What have we recently discussed about Hall? Oh, yeah, he's just been indicted. But that's OK - another of Rammelkamp's videos is about how you can "accept for value" an indictment and walk away. I wonder why everyone doesn't do that? A couple of other videos are from Winston Shrout, who lost every "commercial redemption" case he ever litigated.

Tab "Debt Elimination": He claims to use "an unconventional, grassroots, yet honorable & legal way to pay or eliminate your debt, to the benefit of all parties involved – including you, the courts, the bank, IRS and the government". He doesn't say what it is. Probably paying it off.

Tab "Dream Building": pictures of some beautiful properties, as if he has something to do with them. He has just grabbed them from various places, and pasted them on his site. For example, compare the fifth picture down - the house with all the palms around it - with this.

There's more like this stuff.

[Famspear]

SO basically now if you set up a trust to get money out of your name it still goes in your name? Thats gonna suck for some people.

Well, that's not a new rule.

Generally, in most states, putting money or other property in a trust does not protect the assets from your creditors to the extent that you yourself are a beneficiary of the trust. That's an old, old rule, and it applies with respect to creditors generally - not just with respect to taxing authorities.

A few states such as Alaska have modified the rule in some ways, but I haven't been keeping up with that.

EDIT: As far as "nominees" go, if you could "legally" cheat your creditors by using nominees, then no one would want to loan anyone any money.