Cases involving Pete Hendrickson's scam

[grixit]

I believe that's a variant of "Count". So how about the Count of Monte Cristo?

[Imalawman]

I notice that my title has changed from "Admiral" (me like that one, visions of Horatio Nelson, John Paul Jones and Bill Halsey in my mind) to "Conde sumptin other" which sounds like some wimpy french bedpan washer....

How do y'all get snazzy NWO titles,,,,and can someone pick and assign me a suitable avatar, I have tried and I guess it's just beyond my skills...

Once named, you are stuck with that name. Do not complain or your name shall be removed from Quatloos never to be mentioned again. Hence, I am the consultant of a stapler.

[webhick]

Once named, you are stuck with that name. Do not complain or your name shall be removed from Quatloos never to be mentioned again. Hence, I am the consultant of a stapler.

Stop being modest. You command an army of elite Swingline staplers. One word from you and someone - anyone - will be covered with millions of tiny holes. And metal cuts hurt worse than paper cuts, which makes your job way cooler than the posty-note perpetrator. You know, I kind of miss that guy. If only you hadn't pushed him into the vat of adhesive while you fled from the battalion of bald cockroaches. Of course, we only have your word to go on about that incident, since you wiped out the video tape by mooning the camera. Seriously, you need to have your cheeks recalibrated. The left one looks a little lower than the right. Maybe try to sit on the right half more often than the left or...have you tried to make it listen to motivational speeches? Sometimes all a cheek needs is a pick-me-up. Or a put-me-down. Be really mean to your right cheek. It'll thank you later.

Ahem, but back on topic.

Shouldn't we also list Hendrickson's case? Like the one from 2006, since he lost the appeal? And the current criminal case (unless we're waiting on a result)?

[The Operative]

Be really mean to your right cheek. It'll thank you later.

Be careful when being mean to your cheek, it may get defensive.

[Gregg]

Once named, you are stuck with that name. Do not complain or your name shall be removed from Quatloos never to be mentioned again. Hence, I am the consultant of a stapler.

Stop being modest. You command an army of elite Swingline staplers. One word from you and someone - anyone - will be covered with millions of tiny holes. And metal cuts hurt worse than paper cuts, which makes your job way cooler than the posty-note perpetrator. You know, I kind of miss that guy. If only you hadn't pushed him into the vat of adhesive while you fled from the battalion of bald cockroaches. Of course, we only have your word to go on about that incident, since you wiped out the video tape by mooning the camera. Seriously, you need to have your cheeks recalibrated. The left one looks a little lower than the right. Maybe try to sit on the right half more often than the left or...have you tried to make it listen to motivational speeches? Sometimes all a cheek needs is a pick-me-up. Or a put-me-down. Be really mean to your right cheek. It'll thank you later.

Ahem, but back on topic.

Shouldn't we also list Hendrickson's case? Like the one from 2006, since he lost the appeal? And the current criminal case (unless we're waiting on a result)?

Oh, I have to figure out an excuse to come to New Hampshire and party with you, you sound like you're more fun than the back room at Zaphod Beeblebroxes new years eve party.

[Gregg]

I believe that's a variant of "Count". So how about the Count of Monte Cristo?

I believe this might be more appropriate:

If you're making aspersions on my weight, I'm actually getting downright svelte these days.
Oh, but maybe I'm very sandwich like in other ways....

[wserra]

you sound like you're more fun than the back room at Zaphod Beeblebroxes new years eve party.

But does she serve 18-oz. Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters?

[Nikki]

She used to, but the customers preferred the hard stuff.

[LPC]

New one:

Scott Williams Smith et ux. v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2009-52, No. 4616-08S (4/15/2009).

Doesn't mention Hendrickson or CtC, but it has the usual features (i.e., Form 4852). No sanctions.

[Famspear]

Here's one I had forgotten to check on. Joe Fennell, another CtC user, lost his appeal back in March. I've updated the "Fennell" area of Dan's dossier on Pete Hendrickson to read as follows:

In another case, Joseph Alan Fennell's arguments — that the compensation he received in exchange for non-federally privileged private sector labor was not taxable, and that non-federally privileged private sector labor is not the subject of an excise (the U.S. federal income tax) — were rejected by the United States Tax Court. See Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, Docket No. 26285-07L, United States Tax Court, Order of Dismissal and Decision (June 17, 2008). Fennell appealed his Tax Court loss, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Tax Court correctly determined that Fennell was barred from challenging the existence or amount of his tax liability, and that Fennell's challenges were "frivolous on the merits in any event." Joseph Alan Fennell v. Commissioner, no. 08-1314, March 12, 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per curiam).

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

EDIT: Added "per curiam" notation on last citation.

[Nikki]

It's astonishing that they were so stupid as to attach boiler-plate from LoserHeads site to their Petition without even bothering to make necessary changes:

12. IRS error in the presumption that Social Security Taxes withheld by Private Company Name was authorized by Proper Name signing a W-4 Voluntary Withholding Agreement. When the fact is no W-4 was every signed by Proper Name and any withholding made have been unlawful extortion.

It's also somewhat surptising that the Court didn't officially recognize this.

None the less; a VICTORY in that no sanctions were imposed -- this time.

[Dezcad]

New one:

Scott Williams Smith et ux. v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2009-52, No. 4616-08S (4/15/2009).

Doesn't mention Hendrickson or CtC, but it has the usual features (i.e., Form 4852). No sanctions.

This statement by the Smiths also indicates that they are "CTC-educated"

Explanation Section of form CP 2000, does not match what was reported, unless the form 4852 was taken into consideration. As mentioned above we have, Under the
penalty of perjury, declared that our corrected 4852 form is true and correct to the best of our knowledge. This is our sworn testimony. It could be construed that you are tempting us to change this testimony or other wise tamper with our evidence.

[LaVidaRoja]

Smith filed a "S" case, which means he has NO appeal rights! I wonder what's going to happen when he either attempts to file an appeal, or petitions his CDP notice.

[Famspear]

Here's a case from nearly three years ago that might be one using Hendrickson's scam:

T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-89
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

KEITH M. FELDER, Petitioner
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 12794-05S.
Filed May 25, 2006.

Keith M. Felder, pro se.

Gordon P. Sanz, for respondent.

[ . . . . ]

The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of respondent’s determination proposing levy action with respect to his income tax liability for 2001. The issue for decision is whether respondent’s determination to proceed with collection action was an abuse of discretion.

Background

The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioner resided in Friendswood, Texas.

Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2001 reporting as zero, wages, total income, and adjusted gross income, yet claiming a refund of $13,049.60 of Federal tax withheld. He attached to the return a statement containing tax protester arguments. Respondent sent to petitioner a letter advising him that the document he had sent as a Federal tax return was frivolous and was subject to the frivolous return penalty under section 6702. Respondent also sent to petitioner a so-called 30-day letter proposing for 2001 adjustments to income and an addition to tax under section 6651 for failure to file timely.

On December 10, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency, Letter Number 3219 (SC/SG), determining for 2001 a deficiency and additions to tax. On March 2, 2004, petitioner sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service Center at Ogden, Utah, in which he stated that he was responding to “your Letter 3219 (SC/SG) dated 12/10/2003.” In his “response” to the notice of deficiency, petitioner expressed his refusal to submit to “any IRS jurisdiction by responding to your claim letter”.

Petitioner timely replied to respondent’s notice of intent to levy by requesting a hearing at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals. Enclosed with his request for a hearing was a document entitled “Keith M. Felder’s Offer to Pay” (Offer). Contained in the Offer is petitioner’s personal view of why he is not subject to Federal income tax.

Petitioner subsequently sent to the IRS on March 28, 2005, a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2004 that was intended to be a revised Federal tax return for 2001. The form reported interest, capital gains, IRA distributions, and adjusted gross income, but no wages. He requested a refund of $17,217.19 in Federal tax withheld.

Petitioner also provided respondent with a Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2001 dated March 28, 2005, that reverted to reporting zero adjusted gross income, and claimed a refund of $18,915.07. Petitioner attached to the Form 1040X three Forms 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, Etc. Each of the Forms 4852 from Solomon Smith Barney, Inc., E Trade Securities, Inc., and Digital Island, Inc., was signed by petitioner, and reported wages as zero. Petitioner replied to an Appeals offer of a telephonic conference, declining the conference and stating that he had documented his position that he was not an “employee” who had received “wages”, citing section 3401(a) and (c).

Discussion

[ . . . . ]

The only issues communicated by petitioner to Appeals were “garden variety” tax protester arguments. Petitioner testified that the Forms 4852 showing zero wages that he submitted to the IRS were offered to “dispute and correct” the Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2001 sent by petitioner’s employers to the IRS. When asked by the Court how Federal tax had been withheld if he had no wages, petitioner testified that tax was withheld from his “compensation”. He further testified that he was not an employee or an independent contractor but was instead “a worker”. As such, he concluded, the amounts reported by the payors of his “compensation” were erroneously reported as wages. Because petitioner received a statutory notice of deficiency for the year for which collection is at issue here, he may not raise his frivolous challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Petitioner did not raise any permitted argument with respect to spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of the Commissioner’s intended collection action, or alternative means of collection.

Conclusion

Respondent’s determination to proceed with collection action was not an abuse of his discretion.

Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.

To reflect the foregoing.
Decision will be entered for respondent.

(bolding added).

If this case has already been reported somewhere in Quatloos, I missed it.

[Famspear]

If I recall correctly, Hendrickson published his book in 2003. Although the Felder case involves a 2001 tax return, the dispute appears to have arisen in 2003. It is possible that Felder filed the 2001 return in 2003 after having read Hendrickson's book. The Court does mention a penalty for failure to timely file, so the 2001 return could have been filed in 2003.

[Nikki]

A LoserHead posts I could use some encouragement...

When I first learned the truth about the tax code I didn't believe it. I sat for 2 years on the information in indecision. My main fear was if I had the resources to stand up to them if they fought me on it. My conscience would not allow me to keep filing frivolous returns and so I chose to start filing according to the law as described in CtC.

This was my 4th year. I posted a victory the first year. The second year, another victory. I did have them mail me and question me about my request for refund and I wrote them a letter and they sent me a closing notice with a check. Then the fun began.

The following year they kept going round and round with me and now are going back to previously settled years and trying to drudge up issues there as well. It seems like I am in a never ending circle of them not listening and keeping my money, threatening me and harassing the people I do work for. It got to the point where I stopped responding to them because I didn't see the point. I mean at some point it is like, "What else is there to say? They provided you incorrect information and I corrected it. give me my property back you schmucks!"

So now I need to respond or they are going to start messing with my assets. I'm fried from everything else I have going on in life and so it is difficult to keep going through all of this and having to be so careful about what I say lest it be misconstrued and used against me. I need to hear about some people who have been through all of the harassment and gotten through it and had a victory.

I know it's the truth. I know the right thing to do is stand for the truth. I know I have dragged my family into this and they are going to deal with the consequences the same as me and I guess I just want to know that victory is possible and that it won't cost thousands of dollars I don't have to fight them and hopefully win. I mean truth only matters if the people you are dealing with care about the truth. Otherwise it is just whoever has the most might wins.

Talk to me.

[Dezcad]

Talk to me.

We would but Blowhard doesn't allow us on "his" forum.

[Prof]

This looks like a "CTC" based filing. Of course, the date is APRIL 15, 2009.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Back to top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





No. 08-50916

Summary Calendar




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





ROBERT W. DOUGLAS



Plaintiff-Appellant

v.



UNITED STATES



Defendant-Appellee






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC 5:07-CV-593




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Robert W. Douglas failed to pay the income taxes he owed for multiple years, including at least 1998 and 2000-2003. Between 2000 and 2003 the IRS assessed tax liabilities against Douglas based on returns prepared under I.R.C. § 6020(b) which authorizes the IRS to create returns for taxpayers who fail to file or file fraudulent returns. In May 2006, the IRS mailed Douglas a notice of intent to levy with respect to his 1998 and 2000-2003 taxable years. Douglas requested a collection-due-process hearing under I.R.C. § 6330 to contest the levies, but the IRS Appeals Office concluded that the assessments were properly made. The IRS issued notices of levy in May 2007 to two banks, reflecting a total amount due of $168,139.99; the IRS was able to collect $764.34 from Frost National Bank and $69.93 from Wachovia Bank. These levys satisfied the 1998 deficiencies. As of shortly thereafter, Douglas had unpaid federal income tax liabilities of $94,554.90 for 2000, $11,216.41 for 2001, $10,937.18 for 2002, and $12,764.23 for 2003.

Douglas filed a complaint in the district court on July 13, 2007, seeking damages for alleged unauthorized collection actions in connection with the levys on his bank account, refunds of federal income tax, and injunctive relief. The district court granted summary judgment to the IRS. We now affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo . Texas Industries, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. , 486 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 2007). Douglas argues first that the levys required his authorization or a court order. But when a taxpayer fails to pay assessed taxes, the amount he owes, plus any interest and penalties, becomes a lien in favor of the United States automatically. I.R.C. §§ 6321, 6322. The Supreme Court has held that the administrative collection scheme by means of levy is Constitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce , 472 U.S. 713, 721 (1985). Further, Douglas is mistaken in arguing that there have been no implementing regulations passed that would empower the government to make assessments or collections under the Internal Revenue Code. In fact “[n]umerous regulations have been promulgated concerning [the IRS’s] assessment and collection authority.” Stafford v. Commissioner , 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1848, 1851-52 (1997). Further, courts have consistently held that provisions of the Code do not have to be implemented by regulation in order to be effective. See, e.g., United States v. Hicks , 947 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991).

Douglas also appears to demand a refund. A taxpayer must timely file an administrative claim with the IRS before seeking a refund in court. PALA, Inc. Employees Profit Sharing Plan & Trust Agreement v. United States , 234 F.3d 873, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). A taxpayer seeking a refund must also prove that he has paid the IRS-assessed liability in full before filing suit. Flora v. United States , 362 U.S. 147, 177 (1960). Douglas has failed to do either. His argument that the IRS committed “fraud” by filling out returns on his behalf as authorized by I.R.C. § 6020(b) is frivolous. Douglas is thus not entitled to a refund for any payments made or amounts levied by the IRS.

Douglas finally argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment because he is a “non-taxpayer.” According to Douglas, he was born and domiciled in the State of Texas and has refused to “volunteer” to pay income tax, and no federal statute requires him to pay taxes because he is not an employee of the federal government. Douglas unsurprisingly cites no law in support of these claims. As discussed above, the IRS acted properly in levying his funds and Douglas is not entitled to a refund. The judgment of the district

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

[Weston White]

Wow you all really are out scavenging on a wing and a prayer, eh now.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Wow you all really are out scavenging on a wing and a prayer, eh now.

Weston, some day you might want to put your money where your mouth is.

Go to court or shut up.

When it comes to pot shots, fill your hand and go for it. Hell, Mrs. Bean could draw and get at least two rounds out of her nicely-tuned .45 Combat Commander before you could clear leather. (Watching her during the course, none other than Jeff Cooper said "Damn!" a few times some many years back, and she's still faster than most men.)

In the mean time, you're firing mental blanks at the intellectual targets here.

FYI - in combat, there's no such thing as taking pot shots. Your vacuous mental pot shots here won't work in a real world setting any more than they would in a court.