$300,000 Income Tax Reward (Peymon Mottahedeh)

[JamesVincent]

I am not sure what you meant by this comment, i.e. what insulted Pink Floyd.

Payme using one of their songs for his false advertising. Kinda insulting to the people who worked their keisters off writing some of the greatest songs of our time.

Guess the irony that he uses a song about greed to label himself escaped him.

[jcolvin2]

I am not sure what you meant by this comment, i.e. what insulted Pink Floyd.

Payme using one of their songs for his false advertising. Kinda insulting to the people who worked their keisters off writing some of the greatest songs of our time.

Guess the irony that he uses a song about greed to label himself escaped him.

Thanks for the explanation. I do not watch promoter advertising.

[wserra]

Payme retweets (very) old Kent Hovind video to show how "This world is controlled by a dark satanic cult that nobody knows about". Bet none of you knew how D.C. was designed so that the White House is at the apex of a Satanic symbol. Pierre "Adrenochrome" L'Enfant, right?

Scammerdee, Scammerdum. How cute.

[JamesVincent]

If there is a YouTube video about it then that kinda negates the whole "nobody knows about it" theory.

[wserra]

This is very ironic, given that Peymon is Jewish.

It wouldn't be the first irony by any means. After all, he did blame Israel for 9/11.

[wserra]

And Mottahedeh won't stop with the lies. It appears that the latest sycophant to attempt to claim otherwise has -appropriately - given up.

A couple of days ago, Mottahedeh tweets an old interview with former Nevada senator Harry Reid. He describes it as "Former Senator and Lawyer Harry Reid confirming that the income tax is 100% Voluntary".

Well, no. Reid makes the claim easier than he should - he plays a silly political game by distinguishing a system based on "voluntary" compliance from one based on distraint. Still, it is perfectly clear from the interview he posts that Reid isn't saying that the income tax is "voluntary" in the sense Mottahedeh wants it to be - that there is no requirement to pay. Indeed, at 1:50 of the clip, Reid says that anyone who doesn't pay "is subject to civil and criminal penalties", which the interviewer confirms with "they'll put you in jail". Sounds voluntary to me, right?

Were it not for taking advantage of people who are both stupid and greedy, Mottahedeh would be (in Chris Rock's phrase) livin' la vida broka. That's why he's a con man.

[JamesVincent]

It appears that the latest sycophant to attempt to claim otherwise has -appropriately - given up.

Well when you get your figurative ass handed to you over and over sooner or later it's gonna have to sink in.

Payne couldn't stop even if he wanted to. He's addicted to the accolades and easy money soaking off of suckers. And as long as people pay for his seminars and watch his videos he's on easy street. Be interesting to see if he's actually filing his returns since companies like YouTube will be reporting his royalties to the IRS from channel traffic. Even if he hides his seminar income and FLS dues no other company is going to risk getting into trouble over the little bit of money he makes and will issue his 1099 or whichever form they use, guess it would be a 1099. Too bad you can't legally find that out.

[wserra]

The Peymon Mottahedeh lie train shambles on. A couple of days ago, he breathlessly tweets "Wow! Damning letter sourced by a seated IRS Commissioner back in April 1985". Below, he posts an image of a document purporting to be a memo from then CIR Roscoe Eggers "To All District Directors" about how a tax case in Indiana had just been dismissed based on our friend Larry Becraft presenting "irrefutable evidence" that the 16th Amendment has never been properly ratified.

Only one problem: the "memo" is a forgery, and everything in it is a lie. Somebody sent a Utah newspaper a copy of it some time ago, and some enterprising reporter investigated. The reporter actually spoke to Becraft. He not only said that no such memo existed - calling it a "clear forgery" - but that his client had in fact been convicted.

I then identified the case. The District Court proceedings occurred pre-PACER (in 1985), but Becraft's appeal of the conviction resulted in a published opinion: United States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828 (7th Cir. 1986). Completely unsurprisingly, the Circuit not only affirmed the conviction, but refused to discuss the 16th A. claim, noting that it had been previously decided on multiple occasions.

So Mottahedeh's "damning letter" is an obvious forgery, and the claims in it are completely false. No matter - whatever brings in the marks and their bucks, right, Peymon?

[wserra]

This is very ironic, given that Peymon is Jewish.

Maybe somebody ought to tell Mottahedeh that he's Jewish.

As noted above, he blames Israel for 9/11 and rants about "international bankers". More recently, he endorsed a Laura Loomer video called "The Great Replacement". Y'know, as in "Jews will not replace us", chanted by the neo-Nazi "very fine people" in Charlottesville. The "Great Replacement" that the AJC, ADL and SPLC identify as an antisemitic trope. That "Great Replacement".

But he does get in a plug (1:33 of the video) for his pet theory - the one he wants to sell you for a lot of money but mysteriously fails to use himself - that there is no legal requirement for the overwhelming majority of Americans to pay income tax. Jewish, Shmoowish. Pay me.

[wserra]

In an endorsement that I'm sure will influence everyone here, Mottahedeh believes that you should vote for Trump in November. Why? Because the "Democrat Party" should be renamed the "Communist Party". Clearly most real Americans support Trump, and he will win, "if they don't do widespread election cheating again". We can "help this process" by not paying income tax - although he doesn't exactly explain how that would help Trump win. You can help even more by "going to our website" - and while there, of course, paying Peymon.

Oh, Joe Banister agrees - Trump "is certainly my man", as he puts it. How could anyone argue with such eminent people?

[wserra]

The nonsense from PatrickHenryInHisOwnMind1913 - having nothing to do with Mottahedeh - is now here. Patrick gets one more chance, if he wishes, to defend Mottahedeh substantively. More bullshit and Patrick - like the original - is history.

Prediction - he won't. After all, Mottahedeh himself was unable to defend Mottahedeh.

[Number Six]

I'm a little surprised this guy is still on the loose. Most every tax protester leader who are also misinformation specialists, legal sophists, and vexatious litigants, have been bled dry of money.

[Moderator: The Observer] Part of this post had a gratuitous political comment aimed at a political candidate that had no relevance to the topic. As before, the Quatoos policy is that no post should have political or religious commentary unless it bears directly and factually on the topic.]

[wserra]

I'm a little surprised this guy is still on the loose.

I understand the sentiment. Look, for example, at Mottahedeh's Twitter feed approaching April 15. (No, I won't help his SEO by linking to it.) Frequent posts - sometimes more than one per day - hawking how, if you just pay him, he can free you of the income tax. As part of the sale, he lies not only about numerous parts of the tax law, but also about himself. He promotes ideas that he won't use for himself or his wife, because he knows they're stone-cold losers. As "proof", he provides only documents that are filled with redactions, making them impossible to verify. I can provide proof of equal worth that I'm the Emperor of the Galaxy.

So why is this bottom-feeder still, well, bottom-feeding? Although no one outside DOJ can be sure, DOJ's policies and past charging decisions provide some insight.

Criminal charges. This one, I think, is fairly easy. For the sake of nationwide policy uniformity - and, likely, to avoid setting bad precedent - Tax Division of DOJ tightly controls prosecutions. A local US Attorney cannot even open a grand jury investigation of a tax crime without prior authorization from Tax Division, and TD can take over the prosecution once begun. As a result, the large majority of tax prosecutions occur against individuals or companies who file fraudulent returns on their own accounts.

Prosecutions against preparers do occur - we've covered several on this board - but they're relatively infrequent. Moreover, when they occur, the only ones of which I'm aware are against preparers who actually prepare the fraudulent returns themselves. I can't cite a reliable source for this - Obs? - but an examination of Tax Division's press releases supports this conclusion. In a press release from a couple of years ago, Tax Division basically said as much.

There are thus two likely reasons why Mottahedeh has thus far escaped prosecution. First, as far as I know, he does not prepare returns at all, let alone file them. Second, he does not advise people dumb or desperate enough to pay him to file fraudulent returns; instead, he advises them not to file at all. (I would be interested in what he advises someone legitimately due a substantial refund - "Thank you for contributing to reducing the national debt"?) In the case of someone who owes tax, he is thus advising them to violate the law. There is a First Amendment line between advice and action. Arguably Mottahedeh is on the wrong side of that line, but DOJ could credibly decide that he's not worth the risk of creating bad law.

Injunction action. The same considerations apply, although to a lesser extent. I don't know of any DOJ regs or guidelines differentiating between circumstances warranting injunction vs those warranting prosecution - Obs? - but the same First Amendment and policy issues exist for both. Given the lesser burden of proof for the civil action, while I am not surprised that Mottahedeh has not been indicted, I am somewhat surprised that he has not been enjoined. After all, virtually every word out of his mouth about the tax law is a lie, and he does charge for those lies.

[The Observer]

I can't cite a reliable source for this - Obs? - but an examination of Tax Division's press releases supports this conclusion. In a press release from a couple of years ago, Tax Division basically said as much.

I have no specific information that would provide an answer along that line of thought. In my interactions with AUSAs who were doing presentations and interviews, the only thing I ever heard in regards to what the Tax Division was looking for were cases where the evidence showed that the defendant was greedy. The more greed, the better in terms of providing jury appeal. After all, it was easier to get the jury riled up at a defendant who was living the good life (better home, nice vacations, luxury purchases, huge bank accounts, etc) vs their filing and paying their taxes on time. And I think you know that DOJ is very proud of their 95% conviction rate and thus why they keep a strict control on what cases are going to be allowed to go forward to court.

That being said, in my layman opinion, I think that you are on the right track as to why Peymon hasn't faced the music yet for a criminal conviction. If we look at other promoters who were convicted big time, such as Irwin Schiff, Lindsey Springer, Lynne Meredith, Eddie Kahn, etc, they all participated in preparing returns for their marks. That is a specific crime under Title 26 section 7206 and very easy to prove. And the convicted helped matters along by failing to pay their own taxes and/or filing similar fraudulent returns for themselves. Even Cynthia Neun, Schiff's former girlfriend, got nailed for failure to file a return (26 USC 7203). But what is more important is every one of these clowns also got convicted for conspiracy to defraud the government under 18 USC 371.

I think most readers here know that leveling a conspiracy charge at a defendant is a more difficult charge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Joe Bannister and Walter Thompson beat the conspiracy rap in their separate trials, even though Thompson was convicted on the other charges. I think why the others in the above paragraph got nailed was that the evidence in each of those cases was overwhelming and it was far simpler for the jury to say, "You know what? I think they are guilty of everything." But in Bannister's case, he didn't prepare returns and thus removed evidence that would have supported physical evidence of a conspiracy. For the prosecution to be able to say, "Here are returns that Bannister prepared and attested to that preparation and Thompson signed and submitted and this shows that they were working together on this." I think that lack also helped Thompson to avoid conviction on that charge.

The other thing I think that is important is that it seems that there is no other charge other than 18 US 371 to throw at a promoter who is selling fraudulent advice to the marks. Pete Hendrickson never was charged with that statute in his various trials (he did get convicted of conspiracy for bombing under another statute) so he only went to jail for his own tax issues. Maybe you know of other cases or statutes that could be brought against a promoter but I haven't seen or remember them.

If I am right, and I admit it's a big "if", then this is where Peymon shows that he is smarter than the average tax-denying promoter. By avoiding preparing fraudulent returns for his victims and telling them to not file a return, he is not leaving much evidence of a conspiracy. Other than pursuing him for his own personal evasion (and we have seen how long that process has taken) what chance does DOJ have of securing a conspiracy conviction? I leave it for you to fill in whatever I have overlooked.

I don't know of any DOJ regs or guidelines differentiating between circumstances warranting injunction vs those warranting prosecution - Obs? - but the same First Amendment and policy issues exist for both.

Again, I am not aware of any policy guidelines that DOJ follows in determining when they pursue an injunction. But I am puzzled as to why they have not pursued enjoining Peymon. Then again, I am puzzled as to why Phil Hendrickson was not enjoined for his CtC garbage. You bring up the issues of 1st Amendment rights, but I am pretty sure there are solid examples of promoters who got enjoined for their nonsense - Kotmair and his entities, William Benson, Kent Hovind, Robert Schulz - unless there are some sophisticated differences that are above my knowledge level. I am not sure why the 1st amendment concerns did not stop the courts from granting an injunction for any of these individuals.

[jcolvin2]

Twenty years ago (2004), in a published opinion in the Ninth Circuit, the government succeeded in enjoining Irwin Schiff from selling his tax protestor book, The Federal Mafia, over a vociferous 1st Amendment defense supported by amicus curiae, the ACLU of Nevada. United States v Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004)

There are other charges (besides 18 USC 371) that the government can employ against persons who sell garbage tax protestor arguments to marks. In most cases, aiding or abetting the filing of a false return under 26 USC 7206(2) works well.

The government used to charge promoters under 26 USC 7212, but that is no longer possible in most instances in light of Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018), which held that the omnibus clause requires the existence of some sort of ongoing administrative proceedings (not including routine administrative tax procedures such as return processing) before criminal liability can attach.

[The Observer]

There are other charges (besides 18 USC 371) that the government can employ against persons who sell garbage tax protestor arguments to marks. In most cases, aiding or abetting the filing of a false return under 26 USC 7206(2) works well.

But again, Peymon is not aiding or abetting the filing of a false return - he is simply instructing his followers to not file a return. I would be interested in seeing what other charges could be considered against him. I realize that for penalty assessment purposes 26 USC 6700/6701 exist but this doesn't bring the promoter into the courtroom for a conviction.

Twenty years ago (2004), in a published opinion in the Ninth Circuit, the government succeeded in enjoining Irwin Schiff from selling his tax protestor book, The Federal Mafia, over a vociferous 1st Amendment defense supported by amicus curiae, the ACLU of Nevada. United States v Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004)

Thanks for bringing this cite up. I had forgotten that Schiff got enjoined prior to his convictions. It's another argument that I agree shows that enjoining Peymon should not be that hard.

[jcolvin2]

Perhaps 18 usc 2 “aiding, abetting or counseling” a 26 usc 7203 failure to file violation?

[wserra]

Since failure to file is a misdemeanor, aiding and abetting it is also a misdemeanor. When I wrote, above, that arguably Mottahedeh was on the wrong side of the First Amendment line, I was thinking about cases such as United States v. Phipps, 595 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2010). In that case, the Court held that "Telling his adherents that he did not report his [company] income to the IRS and encouraging them to do the same place Phipps' speech within the sphere of proscribed speech likely to incite or produce 'imminent lawless action'", citing Brandenburg (a leading First Amendment case). The statute in question is what's commonly known as "corrupt interference", 26 USC 7212. That's a felony, carrying up to three years.

Brandenburg was a Kluxer, and his conviction resulted from his participation in a Klan rally that incited violence. The civil libertarian in me questions the soundness of extending criminal responsibility for extolling violence against Jews and Blacks to violating the tax laws. No one, however, has yet appointed me a federal judge.

[jcolvin2]

If Peymon’s clients took other steps besides simply failing to file, they could be charged with Spies evasion under 26 usc 7201. The 18 usc 2 charge would then be a felony.
Marinello limited the government’s ability to charge 26 usc 7212 in the absence of an investigation.

[wserra]

Thank you, jcolvin. I was unaware of Marinello. In my defense, I have not practiced criminal law since 1998, and the SC decided Marinello in 2018. Nonetheless, I should be more careful with pronouncements about points of law I haven't practiced in so long. I noted above that I was not surprised that Mottahedeh has not been indicted; I'm now even less surprised. As for aiding and abetting an evasion, as you note, his "client" would have to do more than simply fail to file.

And I am still mildly surprised that he hasn't been enjoined. We can hope.