$300,000 Income Tax Reward (Peymon Mottahedeh)

[wserra]

Payme hits the mainstream. As you would expect, it's not very flattering.

[The Observer]

...it's not very flattering.

Nor does it go for the jugular by covering Peymon's inability to get out from underneath his own federal tax liability. It's not like this is totally unknown. A simple search of court cases should have been able to uncover the current appeal.

[wserra]

At almost unbelievably long last, the Ninth Circuit yesterday ruled on the Mottahedehs' TC appeals. To the surprise of absolutely no one who knows anything about tax law, affirmed in toto. Since Payme - actually that's Peymon Mottahedeh, Google - blathers constantly about how he kicks IRS butt, let's reproduce the entire decision here:

Peymon Mottahedeh appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies and additions for the tax years 2001 to 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented some evidence that Mottahedeh failed to report income, and Mottahedeh did not submit evidence showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous. See id. at 1004-05 (“If the Commissioner introduces some evidence that the taxpayer received unreported income, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.”).

We do not consider whether the Tax Court erred in sustaining additions for failure to file timely tax returns, failure to pay taxes, or failure to pay estimated income taxes because Mottahedeh did not address these issues in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”).

We reject as meritless Mottahedeh’s contentions that his due process rights were violated.

AFFIRMED.

That's it. All of Payme's brilliant arguments are summarized in a single word: "meritless". In fairness, I guess that it's actually two words - the other one being "AFFIRMED".

The decision in April's appeal is identical, with the addition of one sentence:

We reject as meritless Mottahedeh’s contentions that the Tax Court erred in finding that the unreported income was community property.

Two appellants, all arguments meritless.

What is it that Payme wants - $22K per year, right?

[The Observer]

What is it that Payme wants - $22K per year, right?

Well, from what I read, it was $22K for the initial package and $2,500 to renew it annually.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented some evidence that Mottahedeh failed to report income, and Mottahedeh did not submit evidence showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous

And this is more proof that Peymon does not understand the law and how the courts are going to interpret the law. He failed to address the issue that once the IRS proposed an assessment figure, the burden of proof fell on him (and April) to show why the IRS' figures were inaccurate (which his pleadings/motions/briefs alleged throughout this charade). But he provides no evidence and opens the door to the court being able to say, "We're done. We have been given nothing to look at that would allow us to rule in favor of Peymon."

That being said, this was not simply an issue of Peymon not having the evidence. It is a case of Peymon not wanting to provide the evidence since if he did provide any, it would open a can of worms with which he could never deal.

We reject as meritless Mottahedeh’s contentions that the Tax Court erred in finding that the unreported income was community property.

This is what I was hoping to see: that the court was not going to give April a chance to slide out from her liability and any potential criminal prosecution in the future. Whether the IRS and DOJ will go down that road in the future is unknown.

What happens now? Some guesses:

(1) The possibility that Peymon files a petition of writ of cert with the Supremes simply as a way to keep this tied up in litigation, delay IRS enforcement of the liens, and to show his marks how he is keeping up the fight against the ebil gubmint. The petition will, in all likelihood, be denied, as it should be since Peymon has nothing remarkable in this case to warrant deliberation by the Court.

(2) If Peymon doesn't file for the writ, will he share his loss with his customer base? Will he post news of it on his web site? Will he lecture on it at all of those seminars he holds? It's possible that he won't, since most of his customers are not likely to peruse the legal sources out there to find out whether Peymon is telling them the truth; they are more motivated by him telling them what they want to hear. If he does own up to this loss (and that is a big "if") he will come up with some of the standard responses we all know and love to explain away the loss. Expect to see claim that "this is proof of the corrupt judiciary", that "I was prevented from using Freedom Law School's methods", that "the court didn't understand the crucial points of my case", that "the IRS hid or destroyed evidence that would proven that they were wrong", that "I didn't really lose, since I am not in jail, I am not paying taxes, the IRS is not getting money from me" and similar nonsense.

(3) The IRS will continue to seek monies and assets to satisfy the assessed liabilities. We will probably see notices of liens being recorded in the county where Peymon and April are residing. There may be further litigation if the IRS decides to seek a judgment on liabilities that have a lien expiration coming up. And if the IRS decides to pursue transferee or alter ego determinations in regards to Peymon and Freedom Law School, that could result in more litigation.

But I would hope that the government pursue prosecution against Peymon like they did against Irwin Schiff. After all, Peymon pretty much did the same things as a promoter that got Irwin into jail.

[wserra]

Well, from what I read, it was $22K for the initial package and $2,500 to renew it annually.

I stand corrected. Such a deal!

The [potential cert] petition will, in all likelihood, be denied

Obs, please allow me a minor rephrase: a Mottahedeh cert petition will be granted when demons drink iced latte macchiatos.

But I would hope that the government pursue prosecution against Peymon like they did against Irwin Schiff. After all, Peymon pretty much did the same things as a promoter that got Irwin into jail.

If it didn't happen after the Grant testimony we discussed above, I don't think it's likely to happen now. Beats me as to why.

[The Observer]

If it didn't happen after the Grant testimony we discussed above, I don't think it's likely to happen now. Beats me as to why.

Lots of possible reasons that I am sure you are quite familiar with in terms of your own experience. DOJ wants to keep their 95% conviction rate intact. IRS CI doesn't have its act together in terms of perfecting a referral that DOJ would accept. Perhaps IRS executives have mandated that CI pursue the big cheaters out there (i.e., billionaires with offshore accounts, crypto evaders, former presidents or current presidents who seem to have issues with reporting monies accurately on their returns) instead of promoters marketing to small fry evaders.

If they do go after Peymon belatedly, it will be because he is in competition with 20 other promoters who came out of the woodwork when they saw that the government is leaving him alone.

[The Observer]

I was poking around to see if Peymon had taken any new or additional steps to deal with his pending tax liability after getting shot down by the 9th Circuit. In doing so, I discovered that this had not been the first time that Peymon had filed an appeal with the 9th.

There is the case of Mottahedeh vs. Leininger where Peymon appealed a federal district court case that had been dismissed. Apparently, Peymon had charged a commissioner in Orange County, CA under 42 USC 1983 with depriving him of his constitutional rights in some form or manner. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim which, if you are the least familiar with Peymon's typical filed briefs, is not surprising. Facts are just seen by Peymon as an inconvenience. And the 9th agreed since his appeal was devoid of facts as well - to the point that the court skipped oral arguments and went straight to issuing the decision.

I can't find any details of the original case, so I have no idea what moved Peymon to originally sue the court commissioner.

[wserra]

I can't find any details of the original case, so I have no idea what moved Peymon to originally sue the court commissioner.

The underlying case (99cv754 CACD) is too early for PACER, at least in that District. Therefore the complaint is not available. In fact, of the 53 documents filed in that docket, there only a few are available, mostly unhelpful minute orders.

Anyway, we're talking about Mottahedeh. You'd probably still have no idea why he sued even after reading the complaint.

[The Observer]

Anyway, we're talking about Mottahedeh. You'd probably still have no idea why he sued even after reading the complaint.

I doubt that Peymon would have any idea either why he sued. But thanks for looking. The real point of this was to point out that Mottahedeh was familiar after his first attempt with what he needed to do to sucessfully appeal (i.e., make logical arguments supported by facts and the law) and still couldn't do it.

[JamesVincent]

I just wanted to update Payme's thread with the information that he is still active on the sov'run circuit. The Observer noted in:
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=12391
that Payme attended the Red Pill Expo and had a table set up, peddling the same ol' same ol'.

[Cspeter8]

He failed to mention that Peymon had lost his own tax case this year; I wonder why.

How can you say he lost his case, if he still has not filed a single 1040 form in 30 years, never been to jail, and never paid a single dime in tax, penalties or fines to the IRS? Doesn't look like much of a loss for Peymon. Looks like continued victory.

[Cspeter8]

At almost unbelievably long last, the Ninth Circuit yesterday ruled on the Mottahedehs' TC appeals. To the surprise of absolutely no one who knows anything about tax law, affirmed in toto. Since Payme - actually that's Peymon Mottahedeh, Google - blathers constantly about how he kicks IRS butt, let's reproduce the entire decision here:

Peymon Mottahedeh appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies and additions for the tax years 2001 to 2006. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. Hardy v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented some evidence that Mottahedeh failed to report income, and Mottahedeh did not submit evidence showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous. See id. at 1004-05 (“If the Commissioner introduces some evidence that the taxpayer received unreported income, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.”).

We do not consider whether the Tax Court erred in sustaining additions for failure to file timely tax returns, failure to pay taxes, or failure to pay estimated income taxes because Mottahedeh did not address these issues in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”).

We reject as meritless Mottahedeh’s contentions that his due process rights were violated.

AFFIRMED.

That's it. All of Payme's brilliant arguments are summarized in a single word: "meritless". In fairness, I guess that it's actually two words - the other one being "AFFIRMED".

The decision in April's appeal is identical, with the addition of one sentence:

We reject as meritless Mottahedeh’s contentions that the Tax Court erred in finding that the unreported income was community property.

Two appellants, all arguments meritless.

What is it that Payme wants - $22K per year, right?

wserra, your post appears to be quite significant. As someone sympathetic to Peymon's cause, I think it would be helpful if this post was in a seperate thread rather than under this $300,000 reward thread. I'd like to find out what the reaction of FreedomLawSchool is on this appeals defeat, and if this was in a stand-alone thread, I feel that would be easier to document for the benefit of all.

[The Observer]

I'd like to find out what the reaction of FreedomLawSchool is on this appeals defeat, and if this was in a stand-alone thread, I feel that would be easier to document for the benefit of all.

I doubt that we will see a reaction from Peymon, nor his alter ego Freedom Law School. Peymon initiated this thread over 3 years ago and abandoned it quickly when we were able to demonstrate that he was lying out of both sides of his mouth regarding his personal tax liabilities. He has failed to come back and address his loss in the 9th Circuit, nor has he mentioned it anywhere else, including his websites. Based on this, I doubt that Peymon would ever engage in a meaningful and intellectually honest discussion with us regarding the events discussed in this thread.

But I understand why he wouldn't. After all, who would even consider paying Peymon money to learn how to not pay taxes when Peymon could not do the same himself? It would not help Peymon's bottom line to be seen as being on the losing end of the trial and appeal - especially when he did not use his theories and arguments about taxes to defend himself.

If a miracle were to happen and Mottahedeh were to come back here, it would only be to try to convince us that the judges and the court systems were corrupt and would not ever rule in his favor.

[The Observer]

How can you say he lost his case, if he still has not filed a single 1040 form in 30 years, never been to jail, and never paid a single dime in tax, penalties or fines to the IRS? Doesn't look like much of a loss for Peymon. Looks like continued victory.

We were discussing the fact that he lost his case because he maintained that he did not owe the liability. The court said otherwise and ruled that he was liable for the taxes. And he lost his appeals because the 9th Circuit confirmed the ruling. I would further add there was another type of loss in that he did not use the nonsensical theories he sells to his "customers" to defend himself; the implication is that he recognized that he was not going to win with that garbage.

Yes, you can go by the bottom line that he has avoided much of the disaster that befalls other tax promoters or evaders and call it a "win." But there is nothing that prevents him from eventually facing the consequences if circumstances change. And whether his getting nailed in the end happens, it still does not mean that what he has been promoting was ever right to begin with.

But I think that the real loss goes beyond the measuring of how much Peymon has paid or avoided in terms of time served in jail. There is something to be said for his loss of personal integrity, honesty, morality, and being a good citizen. Not to mention dragging his family, particularly his wife, into this mess. Or his continuing in cheating his "customers", despite knowing that they will lose in court and possibly go to jail.

If you measure the value of life by how much money you have by the time you die regardless of how you got it, then I guess that is how you define winning.

[Cspeter8]

I searched for and found this website because I wanted to carefully reflect on what every naysayer of Freedom Law School (FLS) is arguing, and I believe this website is a goldmine. It takes quite a bit of time to absorb all that is here in regard to the point/counterpoint about FLS. I find many of the arguments on each side quite interesting. There are obviously many smart people on this site, who are far smarter than myself. Yet, I think there is a dynamic here that prevents the opposing viewpoints to agree on a winner and a loser of the debate.

It seems all the posts I've seen other than peymon so far are of a certain viewpoint - you come from a law school, you joined the bar, you see only others who have similar credentials as being the only ones who have any authority to make pronouncements about the law.

Lawyers and judges did not always need to attend lawschool to fill the offices of lawyer or judge. John Adams, our 2nd president, did not have any law school he was able to attend. Also, why did the writers of our constitution give us the right to a trial by jury, a jury that can go against and prevail over the opinion of a judge regarding matters of the law? Why do you have no respect or regard for the outcome of Joe Bannister's trial, where he was aquitted by the jury in his trial, for the charge, if I recall correctly, of not filing 1040 tax returns?

I'm not sure if you are getting my point clearly. I do not have the intellect that many of you have. But I do know that, if you speak about personal integrity, morality, honesty, and being a good citizen, you have a huge blind spot in defending the cabal of attorneys and judges, who must all toe the line and maintain the scam to remain in the club, as seen for example by the jurors of Joe Bannisters trial.

[The Observer]

It seems all the posts I've seen other than peymon so far are of a certain viewpoint - you come from a law school, you joined the bar, you see only others who have similar credentials as being the only ones who have any authority to make pronouncements about the law.

There is a reason for that. But in the interest of honesty, I will first advise you that I am not a lawyer, I did not attend law school. There are attorneys that participate on this site who can respond to the rest of your post in regards to the history of law in the US and how the current system came to be.

The reason that nearly all of the people who have a viewpoint that aligns against Peymon is because Peymon is wrong. And they don't have to be lawyers or have gone to law school to arrive at that viewpoint. But to help you reason out why they have that viewpoint, here is a simple question for you to answer:

If Peymon, a person who has never been a lawyer or accountant, is so correct about his views on taxation, then why hasn't every other single tax attorney in the US gone into court and made the same arguments? After all, this would be an easy win for them to achieve according to Mottahedeh's arguments and they would have a ton of clients coming to them and paying in order to avoid paying taxes legally. Why wouldn't every single tax accountant take Peymon's theories and advise their clients to not file returns and pay taxes if Peymon is correct? Why do you suppose that is not happening?

It will be interesting to see your response. It will also tell us something about your intellectual honesty.

Also, why did the writers of our constitution give us the right to a trial by jury, a jury that can go against and prevail over the opinion of a judge regarding matters of the law?

The authors never gave the power to "prevail" over the opinion of judge. I explained elsewhere on this site why you are wrong about that. And such a phrase does not appear in the Sixth or Seventh Amendments in the Bill of Rights that establish the right to a jury trial. The 7th amendment, regarding juries in civil trials, has this text:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This establishes that the jury's sole power over the judge is the determination of facts, not determing the law.

Why do you have no respect or regard for the outcome of Joe Bannister's trial, where he was aquitted by the jury in his trial, for the charge, if I recall correctly, of not filing 1040 tax returns?

First, you do not recall correctly. Bannister was never criminally charged for not filing his returns in a criminal trial. He was charged with conspiring with his client who was committing tax evasion. So it is hard to expect us to have respect for a situation that never happened. Bannister filed suit in US Tax Court over the IRS proposing an assessment for taxes for which he had not filed a return, lost that case and the related appeal to the US 9th Circuit. In the end, Joe was found liable for taxes and penalties.

But I do know that, if you speak about personal integrity, morality, honesty, and being a good citizen, you have a huge blind spot in defending the cabal of attorneys and judges, who must all toe the line and maintain the scam to remain in the club, as seen for example by the jurors of Joe Bannisters trial.

And this is where you reveal your bias and unwillingness to deal with the reality and facts. You are alleging a massive conspiracy of lawyers, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, tax accountants, tax preparers, congressional representatives, legal analysts, journalists, jury members, tax officials, etc. who are all joined at the hip in protecting a "scam" that results in the funding of our government. In that same breath, you take no heed of the benefits that you receive as a citizen of the US in terms of having a justice system to protect your rights, your property, and life, as well as a defense system to protect you from foreign attack and invasion, an infrastructure that provides you with transportation networks, inspection of food and water, and regulation of commerce. All of these benefits exist because of that "scam" funding them.

So instead of lecturing me in regards to honesty and integrity, I suggest you should sit down and have a conversation with yourself about whether you have been honest in approaching this topic.

[wserra]

I think it would be helpful if this post was in a seperate thread rather than under this $300,000 reward thread.

This board over the 20+ years of its existence functions (such as it does) pretty much free form. Still, with a figure such as Mottahedeh, we like to keep posts together, so that a reader who comes looking for info about someone doesn't have to skip around.

I'd like to find out what the reaction of FreedomLawSchool is on this appeals defeat

Good luck with that. He'll just pretend it never happened. Or (as Obs says) come up with the tried-and-true nonsense response that the courts are corrupt - except, of course, when they rule in his favor, because then it's just simple truth and justice.

Of course, as far as I know, Mottahedeh has won exactly once, eleven years ago. I actually wrote about that here, because (unlike Mottahedeh) we don't hide stuff. Every other time they've gone to court, he and his surrogates have lost. Many of those times are documented - that is, with links to actual court documents - in this thread and one or two others, including the most recent one in the Ninth Circuit. If you know of another Mottahedeh win, feel free to post it - but make sure it's verifiable, not Mottahedeh bullshit. Because he lies - see the claim that he had no liens against him, before I posted them.

[JamesVincent]

How can you say he lost his case, if he still has not filed a single 1040 form in 30 years, never been to jail, and never paid a single dime in tax, penalties or fines to the IRS? Doesn't look like much of a loss for Peymon. Looks like continued victory.

My uncle Pete was a type of tax denier. He decided that, after serving in the US Marines during WWII and seeing 2 years of action in the Pacific theater, he had already paid his price for this country and he was never going to pay taxes again. So he spent the next 60 or so years not paying a dime in taxes and never had to go to court once. Know why? He worked for cash. All of my uncles are contractors of some type and he was no exception. In fact he was my first instructor in carpentry at the age of 7. He did, mainly, work for my other uncles. Every house that they built Pete was working on someway or another. At one point he lived in a small building behind one uncle's house, at another he lived in my Grandmothers shed but mostly he lived in his 1955 Chevy truck that he had built a small shed on the bed. So he never had to pay property tax either. Pretty sure he was in his 80s when he finally lived in an apartment with his long time girlfriend.

So spouting off that not having filed a 1040 or going to jail is no type of accomplishment, many people have done it. I personally know of several, all of them contractors who work for cash only. I've had several years where a lot of my income just didn't show up in my tax returns, oopsies. I've never been to court over it or been to jail either. None of that is the issue.

The issue is that the "advice" that Payme gives out is flat wrong and has been proven wrong. He has been proven wrong in court, with decisions upheld under appeal, and can be easily proven wrong with just common sense. So holding him up as some paradigm of tax law is going to go nowhere and earn nothing but derision from the people who actually have followed him for years. Every thing he has done is documented here in one thread or another. Doesn't take very long to count the failures.

[wserra]

I find many of the arguments on each side quite interesting.

This actually says something about you rather than the board. For anyone who knows anything about the law, there aren't "arguments on each side". There are many people here who know a great deal about the law, so your post is the equivalent of the visitor to the site of the American Geophysical Union who posts about the "arguments on each side" as to whether the Earth is flat. Mottahedeh is simply wrong. Worse, he likely knows he's wrong - that's why he doesn't use his bullshit in his own cases, but just sells it to the marks.

It seems all the posts I've seen other than peymon so far are of a certain viewpoint - you come from a law school, you joined the bar, you see only others who have similar credentials as being the only ones who have any authority to make pronouncements about the law.

Wrong. I have no authority to decide the law. A Supreme Court Justice speaking off the bench has no authority to decide the law. The President of the United States at a press conference has no authority to decide the law. The latter two only have that authority when acting ex officio. And when I write something about the law, I cite to actual authority. Mottahedeh (and you) don't. That's what gives my words meaning, not my law license.

I'm not sure if you are getting my point clearly.

You're not making a point clearly.

who must all toe the line and maintain the scam to remain in the club

What line must I toe and what scam must I maintain? If you try to answer this, please cite to something that isn't you or Mottahedeh.

as seen for example by the jurors of Joe Bannisters trial.

What was "seen" there was that, in that trial and to that jury, the govt failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact thing "seen" in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Or do you believe that the latter verdict proved that it's legal to kill your wife?

[Cspeter8]

wserra,
I envy you and many others on this site for their powerful abilities to write with such clearness and brevity. I wish I could write similarly, but I fall far short. Still I will try to be as concise as I can.

What line must I toe and what scam must I maintain? If you try to answer this, please cite to something that isn't you or Mottahedeh.

... or any other tax protestor who proposes alleged frivilous anti-income tax arguments?

Maybe there is some case law I can find from a recognized source that will back my viewpoint. I'm sure you are convinced such legal precedent does not exist. Arguing anything else that backs income tax protesters I understand will be quickly dismissed as legal gibberish.

Can you humor me for a moment to state some gibberish? Do all of you put blinders on to look at all legal truth in terms of case law and legal precedent? Do you believe in absolute truth, and in right and wrong logic, and does that carry any weight such that it might cause you to critically examine the logical soundness of potentially a huge edifice of case law that might be built on top of a logically rotton or contradictory foundation?