Doreen Trial Set for August 20, 2013

[jcolvin2]

From the docket sheet:

TRIAL NOTICE AND STANDING ORDER as to Doreen M. Hendrickson Motions due by 7/1/2013 Plea due by 7/29/2013 Jury Trial set for 8/20/2013 09:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DEADLINES (CPin) (Entered: 06/12/2013)

From the DISCOVERY NOTICE filed by the government on June 11:

DISCOVERY NOTICE
1. The attorney for the government knows that defendant Doreen Hendrickson
made:
a. relevant written or recorded statements, (including grand jury
testimony), and/or
b. relevant oral statements made in response to interrogation, whether
before or after arrest, by a person then known to the defendant to be a
government agent, whether or not the statement is included in a
written record, as follows:
• During United States v. Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, civil
case number 2:06-cv-11753-NGE, as reflected on the docket in
that case, and in responses sent to the government on or about
June 24, 2010;
• In correspondence sent to the IRS on or about December 1,
2003, July 7, 2004, and June 2, 2011; and
• In a letter to the undersigned on or about October 27, 2012.
2. The attorney for the government knows that defendant Doreen Hendrickson
has a prior criminal record:
NO __ YES X
3. The following books, papers, documents, photographs and tangible objects
are within the possession, custody or control of the government and are
intended to be used as evidence in chief at trial, are known to the
government to be material to the preparation of the defense, or were
obtained from or belong to the defendants:
• Documents and transcripts within the docket of United States v. Peter
and Doreen Hendrickson, civil case number 2:06-cv-11753-NGE;
• Documents created during civil case number 2:06-cv-11753-NGE,
including correspondence, interrogatories, requests for productions of
documents, and responses to those documents;
• IRS records concerning Peter Hendrickson and defendant Doreen
Hendrickson for tax years 2002, 2003, and 2008, including tax
returns; account transcripts; Form 4340 certificates of assessments,
payments, and other matters; correspondence and notices; Forms 1099
and W-2; refund checks; and Form 4549 income tax examination
changes; and
• Letters from Doreen Hendrickson dated June 2, 2011 and October 27,
2012
4. Results or reports of the following physical or mental examinations, or
scientific tests or experiments, are within the possession, custody or control
of the government, and are either intended to be used as evidence in chief at
trial or are known to the government to be material to the preparation of the
defense: None at this time.
5. The government intends to introduce at trial testimony from one or more
experts in the following areas of expertise: None at this time.
6. The government may introduce evidence obtained from execution of the
following search warrants: Not applicable.
7. The government may introduce evidence obtained through wiretaps or other
electronic surveillance:
Type: (wiretap, bug, etc.) Docket Number(s)Not Applicable X
8. The government intends to offer evidence under Rule 404(b), Fed. R. Evid.
Yes No Unsure X
9. The attorney for the government is aware of the obligations imposed by
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny and will comply
with their obligation to provide defense counsel with exculpatory evidence
that is material to either guilt or to punishment in time for effective use at
trial.
If the government discovers additional information of the type described in
Paragraphs One through Eight, it will advise defense counsel in writing.
Upon specific request of the defendant Doreen Hendrickson the government
will make available for inspection or copying the items described in Paragraphs
One and Three; will furnish the record referred to in Paragraph Two; and will
provide notice of the general nature of the evidence referred to in Paragraph Eight
if the government intends to offer such evidence. The government’s compliance
with any specific request will trigger the defendants’ duty to provide the reciprocal
discovery denoted in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)-(C). If a defendant makes a
general request for discovery the government will construe it as a request for each
item described in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1) (A)-(E). The government’s compliance with the defendant’s general request will trigger a defendant’s duty to provide
reciprocal discovery of each item specified in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)-(C).

[LPC]

DISCOVERY NOTICE
1. The attorney for the government knows that defendant Doreen Hendrickson
made:
a. relevant written or recorded statements, (including grand jury
testimony), and/or
b. relevant oral statements made in response to interrogation, whether
before or after arrest, by a person then known to the defendant to be a
government agent, whether or not the statement is included in a
written record, as follows:
[...]
• In correspondence sent to the IRS on or about December 1,
2003, July 7, 2004, and June 2, 2011; and
• In a letter to the undersigned on or about October 27, 2012.
[...]
3. The following books, papers, documents, photographs and tangible objects
are within the possession, custody or control of the government and are
intended to be used as evidence in chief at trial, are known to the
government to be material to the preparation of the defense, or were
obtained from or belong to the defendants:
[...]
• Letters from Doreen Hendrickson dated June 2, 2011 and October 27,
2012

The correspondence from Doreen could be interesting (and damning).

[.]

Usually there's a lawyer around who is bright enough to say something like "Anything you say or write is potential evidence, so shut the hell up."

Apparently not in this case.

[Dr. Caligari]

Does Doreen have a lawyer yet?

[jcolvin2]

Does Doreen have a lawyer yet?

I believe so. A federal public defender represented her at the initial appearence.

[jcolvin2]

DISCOVERY NOTICE
1. The attorney for the government knows that defendant Doreen Hendrickson
made:
...

b. relevant oral statements made in response to interrogation, whether
before or after arrest, by a person then known to the defendant to be a
government agent, whether or not the statement is included in a
written record, as follows:
[...]
• In correspondence sent to the IRS on or about December 1,
2003, July 7, 2004, and June 2, 2011; and
• In a letter to the undersigned on or about October 27, 2012.
[...]
3. The following books, papers, documents, photographs and tangible objects
are within the possession, custody or control of the government and are
intended to be used as evidence in chief at trial, are known to the
government to be material to the preparation of the defense, or were
obtained from or belong to the defendants:
[...]
• Letters from Doreen Hendrickson dated June 2, 2011 and October 27,
2012

The correspondence from Doreen could be interesting (and damning).

The October 27, 2012 letter apparently was written to the undersigned - either Melissa Siskind orJeffrey Bender. Ms. Siskind and Mr. Bender both appear to be associated with the Criminal Enforcement Section of the DOJ Tax Division. It appears that Doreen may not have done herself any favors in corresponding with the prosecutors.

The government also indicated that it would offer transcripts from the civil case as part of its case in chief. Unfortunately, it appears that one of the hearings will not be available to those of us in the peanut gallery until 8/7/2013, shortly before the trial:

05/09/2013 93 TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Contempt held on 6/10/2010. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques (email: jacques@transcriptorders.com) (Number of Pages: 16) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 5/30/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/10/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/7/2013. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 05/09/2013).

Edited 5:17 pm PDT to clarify sentence beginning "Unfortunately ..."

[jcolvin2]

The December 15, 2010 contempt hearing in the erroneous refund case:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 06-11753
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON,
DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
MOTION FOR ORDER
REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE VALID TAX RETURNS
Before the Honorable Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
Detroit, Michigan
December 15, 2010
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: Mr. Daniel Applegate, Esq.
United States Attorney's Office
For the Defendant: Mr. Peter Hendrickson, Pro Se

1 Detroit, Michigan
2 Wednesday, December 15, 2010
3 2:23 p.m.
4 - - -
5 LAW CLERK: Calling Case Number 06-11753, United
6 States versus Hendrickson. Counsel, please state your
7 appearances for the record.
8 MR. APPLEGATE: Dan Applegate on behalf of the
9 plaintiff, United States.
10 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Doreen Hendrickson.
11 THE COURT: And who is with you at counsel table?
12 MS. WALTNER: Your Honor, I'm Sarah Waltner. I'm
13 a friend of the Hendricksons, here for moral support.
14 THE COURT: You're not a lawyer?
15 MS. WALTNER: No.
16 MRS. HENDRICKSON: She's a paralegal.
17 MS. WALTNER: I'm a paralegal working on the
18 team. I'm not representing, I'm just here for moral support.
19 THE COURT: Okay. But you can't sit in front of
20 the bar, then, if you're not a lawyer. Sorry.
21 Mr. Applegate.
22 MR. APPLEGATE: Your Honor, the United States
23 brought this motion basically as a successor to the motion for
24 contempt because the Hendricksons filed purported tax returns
25 in response to the motion for contempt. However, these

1 returns violated the Court's order in that, rather than
2 including a separate statement discussing their disagreement
3 with the government's position, they attach a statement into
4 the return that disavowed their signatures and the amounts
5 reported on the return. This posed two problems. Not only
6 did it violate the Court's order, but the IRS is unable to
7 process these returns because they're not valid.
8 So we're asking the Court to give the Hendricksons
9 a second chance, and more time to file proper amended returns
10 in which they can include a separate statement, but that
11 statement needs to be separate from the return, and cannot be
12 used to invalidate their signatures or the return itself.
13 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Applegate.
14 Mrs. Hendrickson.
15 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Just a second please.
16 (Brief pause.)
17 THE COURT: Step up to the podium please.
18 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Okay.
19 First off, we've already filed a response to this
20 latest authorization defi -- deficient request by the
21 government, seeking to induce this Court to participate in its
22 fraudulent and futile efforts at getting us to swear to what it
23 wants us to say for its financial and political gain.
24 As everyone here knows, this lawsuit has never
25 been about recovering government money, as is evidenced by the

1 fact that the government has never proposed deficiencies for
2 these years, made notice of any liens, conducted any audits, or
3 made any other routine effort to identify, secure, or collect
4 any debt from us, and its own treasury department certificates
5 continue to certify that we owe no taxes for the years
6 involved, and never have.
7 In that written response, which I think you have,
8 we point out that the government now wants this Court to coerce
9 us not only to testify as the government dictates, as it moved
10 this Court in its previous motions, but now wants this Court to
11 order us to conceal the coercion involved in signing the
12 amended returns the government is so eager to have.
13 But even if one overlooks that this new provision
14 obviously, inescapably, and incurably taints the amended
15 returns sought as being flatly intended for the commission of a
16 fraud, such involuntarily produced returns are incapable of
17 being actually valid or processable no matter whether their
18 coerced character is obvious or not.
19 The government's corrupt request is impossible to
20 satisfy no matter how creative or conniving its detailed
21 specifications. Even if we were ordered to write, "These are
22 voluntary returns containing our own testimony on these
23 documents," they would not be voluntary returns, nor would they
24 contain our own testimony. Thus, even with such expressions on
25 them, the products of this coercion would be neither valid nor

1 processable.
2 We also point out in that written response, that
3 in seeking an injunction upon us, the government invites the
4 Court to presume or imagine that an equity relationship exists
5 between the government and ourselves; that is, that we are
6 parties to some arrangement or agreement by virtue of which the
7 government is entitled to seek the Court's assistance in
8 compelling us to satisfy its desires.
9 At the same time, the government has notably
10 failed to offer the least evidence of any such arrangement or
11 agreement. Instead, it simply presents the Court with
12 allegations made by others that we did things which would cause
13 a debt to the government to arise, all of which allegations we
14 have categorially rebutted in a manner the government itself
15 has designed and specified for the making of such rebuttals.
16 Simultaneously, of course, the government asks the Court to
17 force us to produce instruments which would declare that we
18 have such an agreement or arrangement, but such declarations
19 would be untrue even if made. On that basis alone, an
20 equitable relief such as the government seeks by this motion is
21 manifestly improper.
22 We have one additional reason why the motion
23 brought by the government is improper and should be denied, and
24 indeed why the relief sought in this lawsuit has always been
25 improper. In its motion, the government seeks to have this

1 Court furnish it an equity remedy of commanding us to repudiate
2 our long since filed original tax returns using figures and the
3 testimony implied, thereby dictated to us by the government and
4 this Court, and to do so while concealing the coerced character
5 of these documents and their contents. The declared object of
6 this filed lawless request is to facilitate the fraudulent
7 pretense that these coerced forms constitute valid returns by
8 which we can be deemed to be liable for taxes in 2002 and 2003.
9 Actually, two frauds are thereby revealed; one,
10 that the purpose behind the government's prayer for injunctions
11 is now and has always been the perpetration of a fraud upon
12 certain agencies and actors with the United States so as to
13 cause them to unwittingly participate in the processing of
14 instruments which are known by the government to be invalid for
15 its own financial benefit, and two, that the government's
16 lawsuit has always been an exercise in bad faith since it is
17 based on the premise that a tax liability has already been
18 determined, and that thus the amounts returned to us and sought
19 to be recaptured by the government were refunds of tax, that
20 is, refunds of amounts already determined to have paid in or
21 collected as payments of tax against established liabilities
22 for tax, because recovery of an erroneous refund of tax is the
23 only thing allowed to be sought by the terms of the statute
24 under which this suit was brought.
25 Since the government now admits that by its prayer

1 for relief it has intended all along to coerce the generation
2 of instruments on the basis of which liabilities can be said to
3 exist, it thus admits that no such liabilities existed when it
4 brought this lawsuit, and it has no basis for claiming that it
5 had made erroneous refund of tax or was even owed a tax.
6 Therefore, the government admits bad faith in
7 bringing this suit, did so without the legitimate authority of
8 the statute it specifically purported to invoke, and failed to
9 provide the Court with jurisdiction from the very beginning. A
10 Court cannot acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the remedy of
11 orders after having moved forward without jurisdiction.
12 Jurisdiction must exist first.
13 THE COURT: Are you done?
14 MRS. HENDRICKSON: No.
15 THE COURT: Finish up please.
16 MRS. HENDRICKSON: I'm sorry?
17 THE COURT: Finish up please.
18 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Knowing this full well, the
19 government proceeded anyway in the commission of advancing its
20 estate fraud. Furthermore, rather than simply abiding in
21 proper respect for our long-since filed original returns for
22 2002 and 2003, the government pursues this lawsuit on the
23 premise that the returns we submitted are allegedly false and
24 fraudulent. However, this premise itself is false, and is, as
25 demonstrated by their motion, a fraud upon the Court.

1 In its admission that it seeks the creation of
2 processable returns in its October 25 motion, the government
3 reveals that it does not believe our long since filed returns
4 to be false and fraudulent, because if it really did, it would
5 produce and execute --
6 THE COURT: Excuse me, Mrs. Hendrickson. How
7 much more do you have of this?
8 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Not much.
9 THE COURT: Finish up please.
10 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Thank you.
11 -- it would produce and execute substitute returns
12 of its own as required by the statute as its available remedy
13 for its alleged legitimate but unsatisfied claims for our
14 properties.
15 As declared in 26 U.S.C. 6020(b), Authority of
16 Secretary to Execute Return, "If any person fails to make any
17 return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made
18 thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully
19 or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall
20 make such return from his own knowledge and from such
21 information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise."
22 Part 2, of that, Status of Returns, "Any return so
23 made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good
24 and sufficient for all legal purposes."
25 This, then, is the statutorily mandated mechanism

1 for the government to acquire processable returns when it
2 sincerely believes false or fraudulent returns have been filed
3 or that none have been or should have been.
4 Quote, "The purpose of Section 6020(b)(1) is to
5 provide the IRS with a mechanism for assessing a civil
6 liability of a taxpayer who has failed to file a return," and
7 that's from U.S. v. Lacy, a Fifth Circuit case citing U.S. v.
8 Harrison, a New York case affirmed by the Second Circuit.
9 The government has never created and signed
10 substitute returns pursuant to this statutory mandate, and
11 therefore makes clear that it does not believe our returns to
12 be anything but proper and legitimate, and recognizes itself,
13 therefore, under plain obligation to honor and otherwise hold
14 its peace. This being so, the bringing of this lawsuit is a
15 plain fraud.
16 On the other hand, if the government does believe
17 our returns are false or fraudulent, or if the Court chooses to
18 imagine that this is so despite the point made above, then the
19 lawsuit in general, and the government's latest motion, in
20 particular, remain invalid nonetheless.
21 THE COURT: I'll give you about ten seconds to
22 finish up. I've asked you three times now to finish up.
23 MRS. HENDRICKSON: You just asked me once.
24 THE COURT: No, I've asked you several times.
25 Finish up.

1 MRS. HENDRICKSON: There is a statutory remedy to
2 the government's complaint of distress, and it is therefore
3 the only mechanism which they may legitimately pursue. An
4 equity remedy such as the government's fraudulent lawsuit is
5 improper. An equity remedy can only be pursued by the
6 government and considered by the Court when no statutory
7 remedy exists.
8 The Sixth Circuit observed in Ardee(sp)
9 Hospitality that a common lawsuit may be entertained only in
10 the absence of a statutory remedy and where statutory relief is
11 afforded and clearly applies to the circumstances giving rise
12 to the action. The statute constitutes the exclusive avenue
13 for seeking redress.
14 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may sit
15 down.
16 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Do you want the rest of this?
17 I have a copy for you.
18 THE COURT: I already have your written response,
19 which --
20 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Well, you don't have all of my
21 testimony in the case.
22 THE COURT: -- which you appear to be just
23 reading from. So please sit down. I've heard enough. Thank
24 you.
25 Anything further, Mr. Applegate?

1 MR. APPLEGATE: No, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Hendrickson, there
3 was a motion for contempt filed in this case. As part of the
4 decision, the Court's decision in the motion for contempt, you
5 were ordered to file tax returns, and you were ordered that if
6 you were unhappy with being, as you call it, coerced into
7 filing tax returns, you could file a separate statement
8 stating your objection. Instead of doing that, when you were
9 explicitly told that you could not file a return that had
10 markings and notations on it undermining the return itself,
11 that's exactly what you did.
12 The government is 100 percent correct in this case
13 that you have filed something that does not comply with the
14 Court's ruling on the motion for contempt, nor does it comply
15 with the IRS requirement that it be a usable tax return.
16 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Can I quote you from our
17 hearing before? You said, hearing transcript, Page 7, Line 3
18 through 6, "If you want to file something along with your
19 return that states you disagree with having to file it, and
20 that you disagree that they're wages, and you disagree that
21 there are taxes owed on it, append to it whatever you want to
22 your return."
23 THE COURT: Yes. Do you not understand --
24 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Append is --
25 THE COURT: Excuse me. Be quiet when I'm

1 speaking. Do you not understand what the word "append" to it
2 means?
3 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Actually, I looked it up last
4 night.
5 THE COURT: Excuse me. That means a separate
6 filing, and that's what I said, a separate filing.
7 MRS. HENDRICKSON: "I'm giving you the option of
8 filing these amended returns with an explanatory statement
9 that you disagree with it. You may do that."
10 THE COURT: Yes, with a separate --
11 MRS. HENDRICKSON: "-- filing an affidavit."
12 THE COURT: -- filing.
13 Mrs. Hendrickson, I am giving you until
14 January 7th to file your tax returns for 2002 and 2003. If you
15 do not file those tax returns in usable form, without any
16 notations on them that undermine the verity of what you are
17 filing or your signature, you will be held in contempt and you
18 will go to jail.
19 Now, you have pushed me to the end of my patience
20 on this. You were weeping in my office, you didn't have the
21 money, could we give you extra time, please do this, please do
22 that. We bent over backwards to try to accommodate you.
23 Now, you do what you're ordered, or you're going
24 to jail. Is that clear?
25 MRS. HENDRICKSON: I think I did what I was

1 ordered.
2 THE COURT: You did not.
3 You file a clean tax return with your signature on
4 it and no additional notations, just the information requested
5 on the tax return, and that's it. And if you don't, you are
6 going to jail.
7 MRS. HENDRICKSON: But I'm being coerced to say
8 something.
9 THE COURT: I don't care.
10 MRS. HENDRICKSON: But you're asking me to
11 perjure --
12 THE COURT: Done.
13 MRS. HENDRICKSON: -- myself. That doesn't
14 matter?
15 THE COURT: This hearing is done. You may leave.
16 MRS. HENDRICKSON: That's a felony, you know.
17 THE COURT: You may leave.
18 (Proceedings concluded 2:41 p.m.)

[LPC]

The December 15, 2010 contempt hearing in the erroneous refund case:

I knew I'd seen this transcript before and, sure enough, you can find my excerpts (and commentary) in this thread entitled (fittingly enough) "Doreen Hendrickson Still Not in Jail".

6 Therefore, the government admits bad faith in
7 bringing this suit, did so without the legitimate authority of
8 the statute it specifically purported to invoke, and failed to
9 provide the Court with jurisdiction from the very beginning. A
10 Court cannot acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the remedy of
11 orders after having moved forward without jurisdiction.
12 Jurisdiction must exist first.
13 THE COURT: Are you done?
14 MRS. HENDRICKSON: No.
15 THE COURT: Finish up please.
16 MRS. HENDRICKSON: I'm sorry?
17 THE COURT: Finish up please.

As I've said many times, I'm not really a litigator or a trial lawyer, but even I know what "Finish up please" means. It means, "You're wasting my time and I can't cut you off because of due process and other concerns, but please shut up and sit down because I'm not really listening to you any more." And you, as a lawyer, if you have any sense, say the minimum necessary to preserve the issues you want to preserve for appeal, and then you shut up and sit down.

But not Doreen.

18 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Knowing this full well, the
19 government proceeded anyway in the commission of advancing its
20 estate fraud. Furthermore, rather than simply abiding in
21 proper respect for our long-since filed original returns for
22 2002 and 2003, the government pursues this lawsuit on the
23 premise that the returns we submitted are allegedly false and
24 fraudulent. However, this premise itself is false, and is, as
25 demonstrated by their motion, a fraud upon the Court.

1 In its admission that it seeks the creation of
2 processable returns in its October 25 motion, the government
3 reveals that it does not believe our long since filed returns
4 to be false and fraudulent, because if it really did, it would
5 produce and execute --
6 THE COURT: Excuse me, Mrs. Hendrickson. How
7 much more do you have of this?
8 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Not much.
9 THE COURT: Finish up please.
10 MRS. HENDRICKSON: Thank you.

And obviously on she sailed.

12 [The Court] The government is 100 percent correct in this case

That should have been a clue.

25 MRS. HENDRICKSON: I think I did what I was

1 ordered.
2 THE COURT: You did not.
3 You file a clean tax return with your signature on
4 it and no additional notations, just the information requested
5 on the tax return, and that's it. And if you don't, you are
6 going to jail.

Is that what is meant by "scienter"?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Usually there's a lawyer around who is bright enough to say something like "Anything you say or write is potential evidence, so shut the hell up."

Apparently not in this case.

She was pro se at that time?

[Kestrel]

Just curious...

At what point might the IRS proceed to prepare a Substitute for Return?

[The Observer]

I would think that the SFR would not happen until Doreen's current trial is resolved. The IRS has plenty of time (within reason) to create an SFR, especially if they already have the necessary information to document that Doreen owes taxes for the year(s) in question.

[Kestrel]

I would think that the SFR would not happen until Doreen's current trial is resolved. The IRS has plenty of time (within reason) to create an SFR, especially if they already have the necessary information to document that Doreen owes taxes for the year(s) in question.

I agree with your assessment, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I was wondering where there was some general criteria of time, taxpayer circumstances, policy, or IRS staffing. Maybe it's a trade-off between the work required to create a reasonably realistic SFR and the expected recovery.

There seems to be an inconsistent application of the code provision directing SFRs. It would neuter Doreen's only quasi-coherent argument pretty fast if a SFR were to be produced using the facts she already provided... unless the IRS thinks she is witholding substantial material information on the bolloxed return she did file, and the agent would rather get her to cough it up than go on a hunting trip.

I've seen SFRs produced fairly quickly when certain legal matters are pending, such as in bankruptcies. The debtor has to file recent returns to qualify for filing a bankruptcy, and SFRs may be prepared by the IRS for earlier years in order to file a claim with the bankruptcy court. Other times, the IRS merely estimates the prior year taxes due when filing their bankruptcy court claim. In that case the IRS office in my district generally set the estimates high enough to compel the debtor to file the missing returns and avoid paying far more than they think they should owe.

[LPC]

Usually there's a lawyer around who is bright enough to say something like "Anything you say or write is potential evidence, so shut the hell up."

How can you be quiet when you are the possessor of fascinating truth?

[wserra]

Usually there's a lawyer around who is bright enough to say something like "Anything you say or write is potential evidence, so shut the hell up."

If there is, such a lawyer does not always have a client who is bright enough to listen.

[JamesVincent]

Usually there's a lawyer around who is bright enough to say something like "Anything you say or write is potential evidence, so shut the hell up."

If there is, such a lawyer does not always have a client who is bright enough to listen.

I was gonna say, any lawyer worth his salt would have told her long ago to sit down, shut up and listen. Not only is anything anything you say, but anything you write or post would be admissible if proven to be yours. But when you and your husband are the purveyors of all the TRUTH, how can you listen? You have to spread the word of the gubmints evil plot to destroy the common man and the common law.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I would think that the SFR would not happen until Doreen's current trial is resolved. The IRS has plenty of time (within reason) to create an SFR, especially if they already have the necessary information to document that Doreen owes taxes for the year(s) in question.

I agree with your assessment, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I was wondering where there was some general criteria of time, taxpayer circumstances, policy, or IRS staffing. Maybe it's a trade-off between the work required to create a reasonably realistic SFR and the expected recovery.

There seems to be an inconsistent application of the code provision directing SFRs. It would neuter Doreen's only quasi-coherent argument pretty fast if a SFR were to be produced using the facts she already provided... unless the IRS thinks she is witholding substantial material information on the bolloxed return she did file, and the agent would rather get her to cough it up than go on a hunting trip.

I've seen SFRs produced fairly quickly when certain legal matters are pending, such as in bankruptcies. The debtor has to file recent returns to qualify for filing a bankruptcy, and SFRs may be prepared by the IRS for earlier years in order to file a claim with the bankruptcy court. Other times, the IRS merely estimates the prior year taxes due when filing their bankruptcy court claim. In that case the IRS office in my district generally set the estimates high enough to compel the debtor to file the missing returns and avoid paying far more than they think they should owe.

Given we (the world/the court) are waiting for a signed series of Tax Returns then the issuing of a SFR would just be complicating things at this point, wouldn't it? Surely the IRS has to wait for the return as ordered by the court, then decide if it is a load of BS, then go for the SFR. There's nothing presumably the court requires in terms of it being accurate, just that it is filed in the correct manner.

[jcolvin2]

The Hendricskson's SFR argument is just silly. Pete and Doreen filed false returns; they didn't fail to file a return. Section 6020(b) only applies when the taxpayer fails to file a return. While I do not doubt it could happen, I have never even seen the SFR used with respect to persons who actually have filed frivolous returns (the kind the IRS argues do not count as tax returns for purposes of starting the statute of limitations).

With respect to persons who have filed incorrect returns, if this is discovered on audit, the IRS ordinarily issues a notice of deficiency, asserting the additional tax. I think the government was attempting to avoid having an Examiner expend substantial resources to determine the actual tax liability by having the Hendricksons take the first stab at it.

The SFR is usually based solely on information items provided to the IRS - W-2s, 1099s, 1098s, etc. In my experience (the bulk of which is outside the bankruptcy context) the IRS often prepares SFRs a couple of years after the tax return was initially due, ordinarily after soliciting tax returns from the taxpayer and receiving no response.

The preparation of the SFR does not allow the IRS to assess and collect tax; it must first issue a Notice of Deficiency (and wait for the taxpayer to default or have the matter resolved in the Tax Court). The filing of an SFR does serve a couple of important functions: it allows the IRS to assess a late payment penalty from the date of the SFR, and it prevents the taxpayer from discharging any tax due from that year in bankruptcy (even if later correct returns are filed). In at least one gift tax case, we had a taxpayer file a protective return disclosing the existence of the transaction (and explaining why it was not a gift) prior to the preparation of a SFR, in order to ensure that a late payment penalty would not apply should the IRS ultimately prevail.

[.]

Yeah, but a paid lawyer telling a client to knock it off would probably add something to the effect of "if you don't, you're gonna have to get yourself a new lawyer."

As a general rule, could a court-appointed public defender do that? As a PD, are you forced to represent someone who is operating at cross-purposes to their own interests and refuses to stop and/or cooperate with you?

The December, 2010 proceeding where she wouldn't shut up was a contempt hearing -- was it criminal contempt? If so, would that have entitled her to a public defender? She showed up pro se, with a "paralegal" in tow and no PD in sight.

There's also Pete's lawyer-brother, who made some appearance in '09 and who presumably has had some sort of input during their travails. He probably doesn't like talking to brick walls, either.

[jcolvin2]

The December, 2010 proceeding where she wouldn't shut up was a contempt hearing -- was it criminal contempt? If so, would that have entitled her to a public defender? She showed up pro se, with a "paralegal" in tow and no PD in sight.

There's also Pete's lawyer-brother, who made some appearance in '09 and who presumably has had some sort of input during their travails. He probably doesn't like talking to brick walls, either.

The 2010 hearing was on a motion for civil contempt related to the civil erroneous refund action brought against Pete and Doreen.

The brother was involved in Pete's later criminal case.

[AndyK]

SFR:

Since the IRS does not have ANY information from the taxpayer, the SFR is exceptionally ugly.

First, (in most cases) the taxpayer's status is either single or married filing separately.

Next, the IRS (lacking appropriate information) does not include any of the itemizable deductions or credits in the SFR.

Also, in the case of things like stock sales, the IRS doesn't attempt to research the taxpayer's basis in the items sold.

Thus, an SFR usually ends up being the worst possible case for the taxpayer.