As the government points out, the sentencing guidelines specifically refer to the *intended* tax loss, not the actual tax loss.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:First, the conduct underlying Mr. Hendrickson's conviction resulted in little or no actual tax loss. The Probation Department, at the Government's urging, has calculated the sentencing guidelines on a half-hearted "intended loss" theory premised on inaccurate assumptions and a lack of evidentiary support.
Hendrickson filed tax returns claiming refunds. He can't now claim he didn't intend to get a refund. That's ridiculous.
Except his income. He filed FALSE returns, with numbers on them that weren't true.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:Unlike a "typical" tax case, this case involves no "misrepresented facts."3 Mr. Hendrickson hid nothing from the Government.
Footnote 3 states:
Hendrickson presented his "legal conclusions" as though they were facts and hid the true facts from the government by failing to disclose the amounts received from Personnel Management. The jury found that the falsity of the returns was willful. That's the end of the matter.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:The Government argues that Mr. Hendrickson's statement that he received no wages from Personnel Management, Inc. constitutes a misrepresentation. This is not a misrepresentation of fact as commonly understood. Mr. Hendrickson's statements, however, represent only his view concerning certain legal conclusions.
Then there's footnote 4:
What? The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the returns were false, and they're now claiming that there was NO evidence that Hendrickson ever received any wages? Are they out of their minds?Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:Nonetheless, in light of the absence of evidence concerning the characterization of the remuneration paid, it remains impossible to determine tax loss and, consequently, this case should be treated as a zero tax loss case having a corresponding base offense level of"6."
His old friend Scott Scarborough would beg to differ, as would many of the lemmings who have asked for help dealing with frivolous return penalties and other actions by the IRS and have been banned from Lost Horizons for their questions.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:Mr. Hendrickson is considered by those who know him best to be a man of great integrity.
The 12 jurors who found him guilty of filing false tax returns would beg to differ.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:Regardless of whether one agrees with Mr. Hendrickson's ultimate conclusions on this issue (remuneration paid for non-federally-connected conduct does not constitute wages as defined under the Internal Revenue Code) or any other conclusion set forth in "Cracking the Code," it cannot be credibly dispute that Mr. Hendrickson's conclusions are based on thorough and detailed analysis of the Internal Revenue Code, Internal Service Regulations, and case law interpreting both.
Nonsense. Like Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, and other nuts who preceded him, Hendrickson believes that the federal income tax is unconstitutional as applied, and constitutional "as written" only because they distort the meaning of the tax law as written.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:Nowhere in "Cracking the Code" does Mr. Hendrickson subscribe to or advocate that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
But wait, there's more. Hendrickson once again trots out his "the refunds show I'm right" argument:
Footnote 8 is also outrageous:Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:Mr. Hendrickson's belief on the very narrow point at issue in this case, i.e., the characterization of remuneration paid to him by Personnel Management, Inc., is supported not only by his analysis, but also, to some extent, by government action or inaction. For example, on four (4) separate occasions, the United States commenced summons enforcement proceedings in connection with whether "Cracking the Code" constituted an abusive tax shelter. All four (4) of those matters were ultimately dismissed by the Government.8 Additionally, until April, 2006, when the United States commenced a civil action captioned at United States v. Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, (E.D.MI. Docket No. 00-CV-11753) the United States had not taken any affirmative steps to impede or interfere with Mr. Hendrickson's personal implementation of his studied views set forth in "Cracking the Code." Finally, as the Court knows, in managing his website: losthorizons.com, Mr. Hendrickson routinely received information concerning refunds paid by the Government to individuals based upon positions taken in "Cracking the Code." Some of those who have successfully implemented positions articulated by Mr. Hendrickson in "Cracking the Code" and/or on his losthorizons.com website include lawyers and accountants. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" are copies of correspondence from several lawyers and accountants confirming not only their adherence to and implementation of "Cracking the Code" based positions, but also confirming that the Internal Revenue Service responded favorably. The fact that lawyers and accountants have considered, used and, to some extent, successfully employed, "Cracking the Code" based theories supports Mr. Hendrickson's believe [sic] in his positions.
What possible "binding effect" could be read into withdrawals of petitions to enforce administrative summonses? This is the same kind of crap Hendrickson puts on his website, and he found a lawyer to sign it?Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:8 The legal implication of these dismissals and whether they have any "binding effect" on the issues presented in this case are not necessarily relevant to sentencing.
If this were a civil case, Cedrone would be sanctioned for this kind of crap.Cedrone/Hendrickson wrote:First and foremost, Mr. Hendrickson asserts there exists no tax loss because he received no earnings from the conduct of federally excised taxable activities, regardless of whether sourced from Personnel Management, Inc. or elsewhere.
I think that, taken as a whole, this memorandum is more likely to anger the judge and reinforce the need for an upward departure than produce any positive result.
