Hendrickson's Trial - Conviction? Sentence?

[wserra]

I'll wait to predict until I know what the govt's estimate of the tax loss is.

[LPC]

I think we can estimate Hendrickson's income, and the potential tax loss, from the erroneous refund suit.

According to the complaint in the refund suit, Hendrickson earned about $60,000 in each of 2002 and 2003, for which his witholdings were about $5,600 for income tax, $3,650 for FICA, and $850 for Medicare. Because he claimed refunds for FICA and Medicare, I think that those taxes have to be included in the calculation of the tax loss.

What we don't know is Doreen's income, because she received Forms 1099-MISC and her earnings were not reported in the complaint. And her income, net of expenses, would have been subject to self-employment tax.

We also don't know if the Hendrickson's might have been entitled to itemized deductions for mortgage interest or real estate taxes (although someone who is real industrious could figure that out from public records).

But we can be fairly sure that they had minimal unearned income. And I think we can ignore royalties from "Cracking the Code."

So my guess is that the tax loss is fairly minimal, perhaps $10,000 to $15,000 for each of the five years included in the indictment.

[LPC]

I feel at a disadvantage in these kinds of polls, because I really have no idea what the federal guidelines would provide.

The statutory maximum is three years for each of the ten counts, or 30 years.

But the government is double-dipping here, because we're talking about two documents signed under penalties of perjury which together constitute one tax return for each of the five tax years. It doesn't seem altogether right that the penalty should double just because there were two pages in the return that needed to be signed. (If someone robs a bank, should it make a difference whether they are carrying one gun or two?)

The fact that Hendrickson has been convicted of a tax crime before has got to make things worse for him.

And even after his civil loss in the refund suit, he has been obstinately defiant and unrepentent, which has got to result in an upward departure.

On the down side, the tax loss seems low, as explained above.

So my SWAG is something more than one year in prison for each tax year.

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree with LPC on this, but my gut feeling is that ole Petey is such a wonderful, charming, cooperative and pleasant individual that he will probably get the maximum the gov’t can through at him, unless of course he has decided to throw his followers under the bus for mitigation, and I really don’t see that happening since the gov’t should have more than enough to put the whole bunch of them away, thanks to them all bragging about what they have done on a public web sight.

Personally, I just can’t see the blowhard sitting quietly on his hands and biting his tongue throughout the proceedings, no matter how good his lawyer is. He has too much ego to not get up and proclaim his wonderfulness for all to hear, he has swallowed too much of his own snake oil for that to be a possibility.

My personal feelings are, that no matter how good or how well intentioned his lawyer is, that she will not be able to keep him from digging the hole ever deeper with each utterance he makes, short of a serious gag and a muzzle I just don’t see him being silent throughout the proceedings. Pete has too big a need to be center stage, be someone important and more importantly to be “right” for him to ever shut up.

I’m betting that between being an inveterate liar and serial perjurer, coupled with his sterling character and prior bad acts, and always assuming he doesn’t royally PO the judge during the trial, that he will not only the maximum, but most likely an upward departure because of his ongoing campaign, and predilection for violence, if he goes after the judge, all bets are off.

After all, Pete has walked around all these years claiming “they can’t touch me because I've discovered their deep dark secret”, well, they have finally reached out and touched him, and I just can’t see them letting him off lightly. And besides, he is such a warm and endearing person anyway, that has to count for something doesn’t it????

[Doktor Avalanche]

That he will throw everyone he knows under the bus is a foregone conclusion.

[Trippy]

That he will throw everyone he knows under the bus is a foregone conclusion.

Maybe I'm a sick, sadistic person ... but I can't wait to see how many of those CtC'ers he throws under the bus. (In addition to Doreen -- who just might haul him back out and throw HIM under the bus.)

[Nikki]

Pete, unlike many of the other scam merchants, doesn't have much leverage in terms of sacrificing his disciples.

He's already posted lovely copies of their fraudulent refunds or offsets on a web site which is now one of the favorites of many tax enforcement authorities. In fact, there's at least one agency which makes daily backups of the site just in case anything "happens" to it.

Also, unless he's been smart enough to thoroughly destroy all of his records related to the sales of his book, he will (in the follow-up civil action) find himself unsucessfully attempting to quash various orders to produce those records.

[Joey Smith]

Pete's going down hard:

(1) Promoter

(2) Large tax loss

(3) Brazen

(4) Prior conviction

[funwithsafety]

Also, unless he's been smart enough to thoroughly destroy all of his records related to the sales of his book, he will (in the follow-up civil action) find himself unsucessfully attempting to quash various orders to produce those records.

He already beat that one in court a couple of years ago when he beat the abusive tax shelter charge....

Wipe the drool from your gapping mouth ugly Nikki!

Humanities classes at the local JC anyone? You all could use them.

[Famspear]

Also, unless he's been smart enough to thoroughly destroy all of his records related to the sales of his book, he will (in the follow-up civil action) find himself unsucessfully attempting to quash various orders to produce those records.

He already beat that one in court a couple of years ago when he beat the abusive tax shelter charge....

No, Peter Hendrickson has never beaten an "abusive tax shelter charge."

Wipe the drool from your gapping mouth ugly Nikki!

It's "gaping mouth," not "gapping mouth."

Humanities classes at the local JC anyone? You all could use them.

No, what's needed here is not "humanities" classes for Quatloos regulars. What's needed here (among other things) is a remedial English class for you-know-who.