Another Edition of Stupid CTC Questions answered!

[grixit]

There's a bar here in Santa Maria called "The Office".

[Noah]

Well, it's been about time. But before we begin, I have to say I went over to LH2 today and I'm ready to say that Richard614 is officially nuts. Check it out if you get a minute.

Today's first question is from New Up and Coming OWL candidate, Mountain of Fire. In the past we've seen that this genius is out of work, itinerant, has been offered a job but refuses to take it because they insist he fill out a W4, I9 and other forms. He doesn't want health insurance because he thinks Doctors are big scammers in the employ of drug companies and have no interest in keeping us healthy. In short, he's got the full on deluxe conspiracy delusion package. He's also racked up $20,000 in friv penalties so far! Today, he asks advice for going deeper into his own version of professional success, and we pick it up there....

On the 1040 we see the wages section. It directs us to attach the W-2's if we indeed have wages (wages=income). So all of the form states "NO INCOME" but then we want to send the W-2's as a safety factor thinking they will not process the 1040.

If we send conflciting information a W-2 when indeed we had NO "wages", and stated ZERO, we are creating a controversy and thus a chance at a big fat friv pen.

It seems to my young ctc mind this is a BIG mistake.

You may have had an intelligent thought there, you may not have recognized it.

Now the 4852 issue. The 4852 corrects errors I contend on the so called "employers" part, so I try to correct THEIR record, just to help them out (sarcastic) and bring me back my property, BUT they have not issued a W-2c and therefore we have another conflict, or controversy.

So the process (irs) sends a letter, they can't process (due to NO W-2's) this is our invite to engage in frivilous situational words and their arts (don't wanna do that), so they never get around to it. We want our property so we inquire, asking why, who, how, what, and where.

See the (irs) is confused if we send the W-2 and wonder if we have lost our minds (rightfully so). Why would we ask to have our wages returned to us IF indeed we claim ZERO, and have none on our own self assessment 1040?

I say they are confused easily enough, stop sending conflicting reports. If you do have wages be sure to send the W-2, if the comapny "employer" as they say incorrectly filed the wrong numbers and yours do not match YES correct that, but do not base your claim on their making a mistake and filing a W-3. Let the irs take that up with those guys, That is NOT your business at all. If they still don't send your property back notice them.

How's that working out for ya?

What's everyones experience about this? I mean it seems common sense. I think we get frivilous when using documents that create conflict, and are charged the friv pens. What else can they do until we unspin the web we have confused them with?

The irs is simply asking DID YOU have wages and or income, are you federally connected? When we right zero I think they know our answer, and it's our assessment, and it's true and correct to the best of our knowledge. We cannot contradict ourselves and not expect them not to be confused.

They're not confused, you're just retarded

If they want to follow this into another realm we remain neutral, we aren't legal sidewinders (we may be) but we don't claim to be and spout laws, mostly ones which are not even positive. We just ask questions, and keep asking them to send us our property, no demands, no legal disputes, just ask them where the activity is that makes us liable, and agreeable to pay any liablity as long as they can support their claim.

The "activity that makes us liable" is getting a paycheck, Sparky. Y'all need to wrap your brain around that.

The irs is not the holders of the property, nor is the social security admin. The US treasury unknowingly took hold of our money, and they just need to know, and then once they realize they need to send a draft on their account so we can redeem it. Am I oversimplifying? I suspect as much as I analyze everything, for once I may be on a simple less complex path here. I feel relaxed and I'm not pissed off right now, which makes me unable to see my options and opportunies at times. Hey I just want my property.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

MOF

Oversimplifying? nah....

This is an excellent thread... I hope the person who asked the question had access to this thread. I think his question was in good faith and seeking any insight. Half of his question was answered here and the other half he stated he was agreeable to if tax liability could be established. Give him a chance without reference to retard. He admitted to his ignorance and apparently was willing to learn.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Noah:

This is a disciple of Peter "Blowhard" Hendrickson and Cracking The Code we're referring to here.

Hang out on Quatloos long enough and you'll understand why the "retard" label is not only warranted, but necessary.

It's going to get real interesting when Pete is found guilty of tax evasion.

Watch and learn.

[Noah]

DA,
I had to do a little research on Pete Hendrickson to find out where he is coming from and what he is charged with. Pete should have sued his employer if the wages withheld was without his consent, since, a refund is not a option unless there is an overpayment. I agree that his wages MAY not be subject to withholding at the source. Thats an issue he should battle with his employer.

The outcome may be the same as Tommy Cryer, Joe Bannister and Vernie Kuglin. I would not be surprised, if it continues, the outcome will be based upon whether Hendrickson can convince a judge/jury he was not willful. The Government may back off the tax evasion charges for the same reasons they did in Tommy Cryer's case. The outcome is going to be interesting whether he is convicted or not.

Has the Government plugged the refund loophole yet, or, is it still sending out refunds? From Pete's website he is still selling books, claiming that the refunds are still coming in.

I would like to borrow your copy of Cracking the Code when your done with it...

[Thule]

Has the Government plugged the refund loophole yet, or, is it still sending out refunds? From Pete's website he is still selling books, claiming that the refunds are still coming in.

"Plugging the hole" as you call it, would require the IRS to inspect and audit every single claim that comes in. It can of course be done, but it will require enourmous resources.

The system works on the principle that people are basicly pretty honest, and an overwhelming majority of claimed refunds are correct. So most refunds are paid out, without anyone as much as looking at them. In order to plug the hole, you would need to examine millions of legitimate claims, to find a few thousands that should be denied.

This would of course be expensive, and really not that productive. But of course, this leaves a weakness in the system; if you file a bogus claim, you have a chance at getting some money, and even getting away with it.

Peel back all the quasi-law in CtC, and you have the core of the scam. There is a weakness in the system concerning refunds, and Pontificating Pete advises his followers to exploit this.

[LPC]

I had to do a little research on Pete Hendrickson to find out where he is coming from and what he is charged with.

A Google search for "Peter Hendrickson" takes you right to http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

Pete should have sued his employer if the wages withheld was without his consent,

Which would have been useless, because employers are required to withhold regardless of whether or not the employee consents. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#withholding and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#W-4 for additional information.

I agree that his wages MAY not be subject to withholding at the source.

Sorry, but wages ARE subject to withholding at the source.

The Government may back off the tax evasion charges for the same reasons they did in Tommy Cryer's case.

Hendrickson hasn't been charged with evasion, but with filing false returns, which is a different statute (26 USC 7206(1) instead of 26 USC 7201).

Cryer was charged with both failing to file and with evasion, so when the government withdrew the evasion charges there were still the failure to file charges to go to the jury. But Hendrickson has been charged with nothing but filing false returns, and if the government withdraws those charges then there are no charges left. I doubt that the government would go this far and then change its mind and dismiss the entire indictment unless something very unexpected happened.

[LPC]

"Plugging the hole" as you call it, would require the IRS to inspect and audit every single claim that comes in.

Couldn't the IRS find a way to flag returns that include a Form 4852 that reports $0 in wages and then review (not audit) those returns before issuing the refund?

It seems to me that the number of legitimate returns that report taxes withheld on $0 wages paid would be very, very small, and would be easily differentiated from a CtC return because they would have a coherent explanation for how it happened.

[Noah]

The Government may back off the tax evasion charges for the same reasons they did in Tommy Cryer's case.

Hendrickson hasn't been charged with evasion, but with filing false returns, which is a different statute (26 USC 7206(1) instead of 26 USC 7201).

Cryer was charged with both failing to file and with evasion, so when the government withdrew the evasion charges there were still the failure to file charges to go to the jury. But Hendrickson has been charged with nothing but filing false returns, and if the government withdraws those charges then there are no charges left. I doubt that the government would go this far and then change its mind and dismiss the entire indictment unless something very unexpected happened.

LPC
Thanks for the referenced sites.

26 USC 7601(1) depends upon the willful filing of false returns. Same willful issue as in Cryer, Bannister and Kuglin.

It would not be the first time the Government completely dropped charges against Pete. Just because they drop the charges does not mean they will give up on him. Thousands of people have bought his CTC books resulting with over 10 million dollars of refunds and climbing, one would think selling 12 jury members would be a given.

[Famspear]

26 USC 7601(1) depends upon the willful filing of false returns. Same willful issue as in Cryer, Bannister and Kuglin.

A typo? I think you meant 26 USC 7206(1).

It would not be the first time the Government completely dropped charges against Pete.

Yes, it would. The government has never dropped any charges against Peter Eric Hendrickson. You may be thinking of some lies that Hendrickson put on his web site.

EDIT: As Daniel B. Evans has noted:

........In 2004, the IRS issued several summonses to Hendrickson and third-party payors, seeking information about Hendrickson's personal finances and financial transactions involving his Lost Horizons website. The United States initially sought to enforce the summonses against Hendrickson, but then withdrew the summonses and moved for voluntary dismissal of the enforcement petitions without prejudice. United States v. Peter Hendrickson, No. 2:04-mc-72323-VAR (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 7/8/2004); United States v. Peter Hendrickson, No. 2:04-mc-73591-NGE (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 3/11/2005). Hendrickson filed two petitions to quash summonses issued to PayPal, and the United States withdrew the summonses. Peter Hendrickson v. United States, No. 3:04-mc-00177-MMC (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 3/11/2005); Peter Hendrickson v. United States, No. 5:04-MC-07023-MMC-JCS (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 3/11/2005). Although Hendrickson has described these voluntary dismissals as victories, it appears the United States withdrew the summonses because it had decided to transfer the investigation of Hendrickson from a civil proceeding to a criminal proceeding, as shown in the 2008 indictment .....

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

(bolding added).

An administrative summons by the IRS is not the filing of "charges." The withdrawal of the summons is not the dropping of "charges." And obviously, the withdrawal of the summons is not a "victory" for Hendrickson -- it's a step in the process that has led to his current predicament: he is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. Hendrickson wasn't even charged (on this go-round) until November 2008 --another reason why the withdrawals of the summonses in 2005 cannot possibly be the "dropping" of "charges" against him.

Hendrickson's followers, of course, are not particularly bright as a group, and this kind of thing sails right over their heads, in large part.

[Noah]

Famspear,
Yes its a typo.............

The Government petitioned to enforce the summonses issued to Pete. I took that as a charge that he failed to comply with the summonses and "......then withdrew the summonses and moved for voluntary dismissal of the enforcement petitions without prejudice." There might be a difference between voluntary dismissal and dropping charges I really don't know. My bad.

How bright is the Government that it took them over three years and 10 million dollars in refunds to get ready for this go-a-round. They still have not stopped refunding and the books are still for sale.

Looks like the score is Christians 10 million plus, Lions 0. But it is not over til it's over. Like DA said watch and learn.

[Nikki]

You seem to have missed the half-dozen cases where the government won its suits to recover invalid refunds from CtCers.

[Famspear]

Famspear,
Yes its a typo.............

The Government petitioned to enforce the summonses issued to Pete. I took that as a charge that he failed to comply with the summonses and "......then withdrew the summonses and moved for voluntary dismissal of the enforcement petitions without prejudice." There might be a difference between voluntary dismissal and dropping charges I really don't know. My bad.

How bright is the Government that it took them over three years and 10 million dollars in refunds to get ready for this go-a-round. They still have not stopped refunding and the books are still for sale.

Looks like the score is Christians 10 million plus, Lions 0. But it is not over til it's over. Like DA said watch and learn.

You seem to have missed the half-dozen cases where the government won its suits to recover invalid refunds from CtCers.

Yes, Noah, Hendrickson's Heroes claim each tax refund as a "victory" -- yet they have lost every single case in court. The losses in court are counted by many of Hendrickson's Heroes as "victories."

That should tell you something.

Part of the problem with these people is that they're just not familiar with the scope of the problem of systemic incompetency at the Internal Revenue Service. If you've dealt with the IRS for many years as a practitioner, you know that millions and millions of dollars in erroneous refunds are issued each year -- and not just on tax scams, like Cracking the Code. Hendrickson falsely claims that the volume of refunds in his followers' cases somehow means that he is "right." His followers are so dense that many of them probably do "believe" that the refund volume somehow "means" that Hendrickson is "right."

Again, each and every one has lost in court -- no exceptions. Hendrickson lost in court -- on his own tax refunds using his own scam on his own tax return. Yet he claims that his court loss is either "void" or is "really" a "victory."

Now he is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison.

And even if he were to be acquitted, his tax problems will continue. For more information on how your federal income tax problems will continue even after you are acquitted in your federal criminal tax case, please contact Tommy Cryer and Vernice Kuglin.

EDIT: And Noah, the issue is not whether there is a difference between "voluntary dismissal" and "dropping charges." I just want to emphasize what I think you now realize: There were no "charges" to drop. The point is that Hendrickson falsely tries to paint the dismissal as a VICTORY for him. It wasn't a victory. He is now facing a criminal trial -- set to begin in October.

[LPC]

The Government petitioned to enforce the summonses issued to Pete. I took that as a charge that he failed to comply with the summonses and "......then withdrew the summonses and moved for voluntary dismissal of the enforcement petitions without prejudice." There might be a difference between voluntary dismissal and dropping charges I really don't know. My bad.

I don't think that there's any meaningful distinction between "voluntary dismissal" and "dropping charges."

But there is a very important distinction between criminal charges in an indictment and a civil action to enforce a summons.

When we say "charges" we're usually talking about the counts in an indictment in a criminal prosecution, not allegations in a civil suit.

[Noah]

You seem to have missed the half-dozen cases where the government won its suits to recover invalid refunds from CtCers.

Nikki,
No I did miss those cases...Pete distingushed those cases in his motions to dismiss. Did you miss his motions and the Governments responses?

I do not agree with Pete on everything , nor is he my hero. But if the Judge hints/signals he is about to grant the Motions to dismiss the Government will drop or withdraw the charges before the Judge officially makes his ruling. With whats been filed so far the convincing of a sincere belief would seem to be a no-brainer.

[Nikki]

You seem to have missed the half-dozen cases where the government won its suits to recover invalid refunds from CtCers.

Nikki,
No I did miss those cases...Pete distingushed those cases in his motions to dismiss. Did you miss his motions and the Governments responses?

I do not agree with Pete on everything , nor is he my hero. But if the Judge hints/signals he is about to grant the Motions to dismiss the Government will drop or withdraw the charges before the Judge officially makes his ruling. With whats been filed so far the convincing of a sincere belief would seem to be a no-brainer.

Which he'll do just as soon as the President admits he's not a natural-born American citizen.

Pete may have "distinguished" those cases, but how did he address the identical case which HE lost?

[Noah]

And even if he were to be acquitted, his tax problems will continue. For more information on how your federal income tax problems will continue even after you are acquitted in your federal criminal tax case, please contact Tommy Cryer and Vernice Kuglin.

True, but I don't think Pete is aware of that . If Pete walks from these charges, it will be most interesting how he deals with the notices of deficiencies that will surely follow.

[Lambkin]

And even if he were to be acquitted, his tax problems will continue. For more information on how your federal income tax problems will continue even after you are acquitted in your federal criminal tax case, please contact Tommy Cryer and Vernice Kuglin.

True, but I don't think Pete is aware of that . If Pete walks from these charges, it will be most interesting how he deals with the notices of deficiencies that will surely follow.

I don't buy it. Pete is not that dumb, he just happens to be a narcissistic lying con-artist (I know, triple-redundant). He may fancy the idea of evading punishment, just like he fancies himself the smartest guy in the room, and I'm sure he hopes to keep the con going as long as possible, but I can't believe he's unaware of what happened to other players in the field.

[Nikki]

And even if he were to be acquitted, his tax problems will continue. For more information on how your federal income tax problems will continue even after you are acquitted in your federal criminal tax case, please contact Tommy Cryer and Vernice Kuglin.

True, but I don't think Pete is aware of that . If Pete walks from these chargesinsert picture of flying pigs, it will be most interesting how he deals with the notices of deficiencies that will surely follow.

Pete will not walk away from the charges AND he will still be subject to civil action regarding his historical tax evasion.

[Noah]

Pete may have "distinguished" those cases, but how did he address the identical case which HE lost?

In his reply brief in support of motion to dismiss the indictment. And footnote 3 of the brief states that a petition of cert. to the United States Supreme Court is pending.....

[Dezcad]

Pete may have "distinguished" those cases, but how did he address the identical case which HE lost?

In his reply brief in support of motion to dismiss the indictment. And footnote 3 of the brief states that a petition of cert. to the United States Supreme Court is pending.....

(bolding added)

Which was denied by SCOTUS. Sure, PH filed a motion for rehearing of that denial, but there's a snowball's chance in hell it will be granted.