Pete won't be too happy with Harvey.

[LOBO]

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2581

Allan, I will take a break from poking the Quatlosers* and answer you. I attempted to answer a similar question last year here. Box 7 of the brokerage's Form 1099-R will indicate the type of distribution received. Short answer, Yes, I agree that reporting the gain (distribution minus cost basis) as INCOME is the safest route. We were deceived into that IRA/401k scam, not realizing that investments otherwise non-taxable would here be presumed INCOME under the Revenue Acts. I too have taken every dollar out (lemme outta here!). Of course you could challenge/rebut the presumption of income that the 1099 creates (need Navarro link here), but then you're likely looking at a courtroom appearance.

You could? You could?!?!?!? But..but...Harvey...I thought you were a CTC Warrior? You mean you DON'T file as shown by your favorite future-criminally-incarcerated blowhard, Peter Hendrickson? Are you going to let a little thing like a courtroom appearance frighten you? You say you know the law, why don't you face them like the other worriers, er, warriors?

C'mon Harvey...STAND TALL WARRIOR

Also, be thankful you're an independent contractor like myself. It appears we 1099 folks have it much easier escaping the Income Tax scam as represented and collected by the IRS.

Good job Harvey! It will take longer to get an SFR filed that it will be to get a CP2000 notice. Way to delay the inevitable! This is what you learned to do from Petey, right?

*Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt at home without . .

Haven't been able to get any posts approved, eh?

---------------
edit: OK I found the Navarro link.
http://www.losthorizons.com/TaxTip.htm :

An allegation on an "information return" is "reasonably disputed" merely by a sworn rebuttal, each being of the same legal stature-- Joe's affidavit v. Sam's affidavit. A tribunal is not in a position to unilaterally honor one and dishonor the other. As held by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in reversing a Tax Court decision and ruling a deficiency determination invalid:
Quote:

“The Commissioner's determination that Portillo had received unreported income of $24,505 from Navarro was arbitrary. The Commissioner's determination was based solely on a Form 1099 Navarro sent to the I.R.S. indicating that he paid Portillo $24,505 more than Portillo had reported on his return. The Commissioner merely matched Navarro's Form 1099 with Portillo's Form 1040 and arbitrarily decided to attribute veracity to Navarro and assume that Portillo's Form 1040 was false.”
"Therefore, the judgment below regarding unreported income must be reversed." Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Fifth Circuit, 932 F.2d 1128 (1991)

http://openjurist.org/988/f2d/27/portil ... al-revenue

The court was correct, but not for the reason Harvey thinks. (shock) From the above link...

Ramon and Dolores Portillo live in El Paso and own a small house painting business. The 1984 tax return filed by the Portillos reports that $10,800 was received from Mr. Navarro, a general contractor. Mr. Portillo used his receipt books to reach this figure, since Navarro had not supplied him with a timely 1099 report. When Navarro's Form 1099 was filed (in 1985) it revealed a substantial discrepancy from the information provided by the Portillos. Navarro reported that he paid $35,305 to Portillo in 1984.

During an investigation into this matter, the IRS was informed by Navarro that he could not provide documentary support for the amount reportedly paid to Portillo. Despite the apparent unreliability of the 1099 reporter (Mr. Navarro), the IRS issued a notice of deficiency to the Portillos. When the Portillos requested a redetermination of the deficiency, the IRS took the position that their notice of deficiency was presumed to be correct. The burden of proving that the excess payments were not received was imposed upon the Portillos.

So, on a legitimate claim, one backed up by actual records, and not by frivolous dung, someone CAN get a judge to rule against the IRS.

STAND TALL WARRIORS!

Or STAND ON THE SIDELINE WHILE OTHERS PUT THEIR BUTTS ON THE FIRE WARRIORS. Whichever is more convenient for you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Petey's got his own problems right now.

[Harvester]

.but...Harvey...I thought you were a CTC Warrior? You mean you DON'T file as shown by .. Peter Hendrickson?

Yes! I'm a CtC Warrior, thank you very much. But you mistakenly believe CtC describes a particular method of filing. Primarily, and you would know this had you read the book, CtC describes the income tax laws in America and the true nature of INCOME under the Revenue Acts. What one does with that truth is entirely up to him/her. After learning the truth revealed by Pete, I subsequently filed a knowledgeable return and received a full US Treas refund of everything paid in. I'm now a non-filing non-taxpayer, fully lawful and with no IRS problems.

As to the 401k/IRA scam - I realized that I could withdraw my investments piecemeal and never exceed the annual statutory exemption. Therefore no need to contest that the amounts distributed & reported on 1099-R were INCOME, and no need to pay tax on it. No need for a kangaroo court if you can avoid it.

So, on a legitimate claim, one backed up by actual records, and not by frivolous dung, someone CAN get a judge to rule against the IRS.

Why thank you for that; sometimes warriors DO win in court. History will record Pete Hendrickson as a great American hero. I wonder how many of you Quatlosers realize the full extent of the evil you're caught up in.
STAND TALL WARRIORS!
______________________________________________________
Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

[Famspear]

.but...Harvey...I thought you were a CTC Warrior? You mean you DON'T file as shown by .. Peter Hendrickson?

Yes! I'm a CtC Warrior, thank you very much. But you mistakenly believe CtC describes a particular method of filing. Primarily, and you would know this had you read the book, CtC describes the income tax laws in America and the true nature of INCOME under the Revenue Acts. What one does with that truth is entirely up to him/her. After learning the truth revealed by Pete, I subsequently filed a knowledgeable return and received a full US Treas refund of everything paid in. I'm now a non-filing non-taxpayer, fully lawful and with no IRS problems.

As to the 401k/IRA scam - I realized that I could withdraw my investments piecemeal and never exceed the annual statutory exemption. Therefore no need to contest that the amounts distributed & reported on 1099-R were INCOME, and no need to pay tax on it. No need for a kangaroo court if you can avoid it.

So, on a legitimate claim, one backed up by actual records, and not by frivolous dung, someone CAN get a judge to rule against the IRS.

Why thank you for that; sometimes warriors DO win in court. History will record Pete Hendrickson as a great American hero. I wonder how many of you Quatlosers realize the full extent of the evil you're caught up in.
STAND TALL WARRIORS!.....

Harvester, honest taxpayers win in court. A CtC Warrior is not honest. And no CtC Warrior has ever won in court on a CtC argument, and none ever will.

And yes, CtC is a tax return filing method. It is an illegal tax scam. And nothing you or Peter Hendrickson can say will ever change that.

[Pottapaug1938]

As to the 401k/IRA scam - I realized that I could withdraw my investments piecemeal and never exceed the annual statutory exemption. Therefore no need to contest that the amounts distributed & reported on 1099-R were INCOME, and no need to pay tax on it.

How interesting. I've worked in the financial services industry for over 12 years, and have held two securities licenses. Six of those were spent dealing entirely with retirement plan accounts. I don't see how you could have taken money out of your 401k except through a hardship withdrawal, or a loan, unless you are at least 55 and have left your job. If you leave your job with the loan unpaid, the loan becomes a premature distribution and incurs INCOME tax plus a 10% penalty In other words, 20% comes off the top for Uncle Sam. Premature distributions from IRAs also incur penalties and withholding for taxes. Those distributions are reported to the IRS; so Uncle Sam knows all about your withdrawal game.

Once again, you show your posts to be refreshingly fact-free and devoid of anything real.

[Gregg]

you mean he's lying.

shocking

[Doktor Avalanche]

Yes! I'm a CtC Warrior, thank you very much. But you mistakenly believe CtC describes a particular method of filing.

Like hell it doesn't.

[Harvester]

I'm not lying. Took money out of my IRA and paid no tax on it, owed no tax on it. Apparently I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. Either that or you're just too quick to believe the Quatloos decepticons [Famspire] over the facts.

Is CtC a filing method? How would we begin to answer this question? Anyone? No one? Perhaps by . . . Oh I dunno . . READING THE BOOK. Famspear has publicly admitted to having NEVER READ THE BOOK; said he doesn't own a copy. This is the guy you're listening to as the definitive authoritative source on Hendrickson.

I've read the book, several editions several times. Most of the book deals with the tax code, it's limited application, and the deception involved in getting most of the population to believe they have INCOME under the Revenue Acts. Near the end of the book, a tiny chapter is devoted to 1040s and refunds. It's here that Form 4852 is described and it's purpose for dealing with an incorrect Form W-2 or an incorrect Form 1099-R. Use of this form, along with rebutting incorrect 'information returns' are the only practices which could be considered Hendricksonian. But he doesn't advocate or promote these methods; he merely describes them.

LOBO, your attempts to drive a wedge between Hendrickson and I (divide & conquer?) have not gone without notice.

I have used the knowledge gained from Cracking The Code to file knowledgeable tax returns. I have received full refunds (SS, Medicare, everything) from the US Treasury. I'm a law-abiding nontaxpayer with no legal problems.

As for my tax-free retirement account distributions. To begin with, you have until the following April 15th to withdraw everything contributed (for ex. until 4/15/2011 you can withdraw everything contributed for TY2010), the amounts will not be considered contributions (like saying "oops I made a mistake"). And that's what I did after first learning of the govt's scam (Remember, IRAs/401ks are designed specifically for "taxpayers").
But what about the balance of the retirement account? I realized the IRA could be liquidated piecemeal, over several years, and not exceed the statutory exemption amount. Do you know what a "statutory exemption" is? It's the amount (varies with filing status) of INCOME one can make without owing tax on it. Therefore I could withdraw the statutory exemption amount per yr without contesting the presumption (yes, a 1099R provides presumptive evidence of INCOME, but not PROOF) that the distributions were INCOME. But to me no tax was due because even if I allow the IRS to think it was INCOME, it did not rise above the statutory exemption. Why risk kangaroo court if you can avoid it. Comprende?

The beauty of the IRS scam . . it's victims fight to protect it!

STAND TALL WARRIORS!
__________________________________
MORPHEUS: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. ~ the Matrix (1999)

[Cathulhu]

That Moron said:

Buncha crap.

As for my tax-free retirement account distributions. To begin with, you have until the following April 15th to withdraw everything contributed (for ex. until 4/15/2011 you can withdraw everything contributed for TY2010), the amounts will not be considered contributions (like saying "oops I made a mistake"). And that's what I did after first learning of the govt's scam (Remember, IRAs/401ks are designed specifically for "taxpayers").
But what about the balance of the retirement account? I realized the IRA could be liquidated piecemeal, over several years, and not exceed the statutory exemption amount. Do you know what a "statutory exemption" is? It's the amount (varies with filing status) of INCOME one can make without owing tax on it. Therefore I could withdraw the statutory exemption amount per yr without contesting the presumption (yes, a 1099R provides presumptive evidence of INCOME, but not PROOF) that the distributions were INCOME. But to me no tax was due because even if I allow the IRS to think it was INCOME, it did not rise above the statutory exemption. Why risk kangaroo court if you can avoid it. Comprende?

You give your age as 34 in your profile, Worm-boy. The amounts you took from your IRA are subject to the early distribution penalty tax even when below what you call the statutory exemption amount, unless of course you are fully disabled. Source also matters in determining filing requirement. Can you say "Income Reporter Program?" It's a slow program, takes a year and a half to wake up for you, but I think you'll enjoy it a lot.

[Famspear]

I'm not lying.

You lie on a regular basis.

Is CtC a filing method? How would we begin to answer this question? Anyone? No one? Perhaps by . . . Oh I dunno . . READING THE BOOK.

No, dimwit. Nobody needs to "read the book."

Famspear has publicly admitted to having NEVER READ THE BOOK; said he doesn't own a copy. This is the guy you're listening to as the definitive authoritative source on Hendrickson.

No, Harvester. Nobody here has ever designated me as the definitive authoritative source on Hendrickson. What's wrong with you?

And nobody needs to "read the book." The issue is: What is the law? The answer to that cannot be found by reading the Hendrickson book. The answer can be found by looking at the actual decisions in federal court cases where Hendrickson and his followers have tried to use what's in the book.

Hendrickson is not a tax authority, dimwit. He's an ex-con who is now going back to federal prison -- this time for using his own Cracking the Code scheme on his own federal income tax returns. What part of that do you not understand? Under our legal system, the determination of what the law is is made in courts of law in rulings by judges. It is not made by people like you who can't even answer a simple question. It is not made by people with no expertise in law or accounting, whose experience is in apartment complex maintenance and video arcade management (i.e., Peter Eric Hendrickson).

For the umpteen gazillionth time, I don't need to read Hitler's Mein Kampf to know what historians have concluded about the claims in that book. And I don't need to read Hendrickson's book to know what the courts have ruled about the claims in that book.

[LOBO]

.but...Harvey...I thought you were a CTC Warrior? You mean you DON'T file as shown by .. Peter Hendrickson?

Yes! I'm a CtC Warrior, thank you very much. But you mistakenly believe CtC describes a particular method of filing. Primarily, and you would know this had you read the book, CtC describes the income tax laws in America and the true nature of INCOME under the Revenue Acts.

I've never read the Lord of the Rings books, but I know just enough to know they are fantasy. Just like Pete's book, which is nothing more than an unoriginal long-winded rehash of the old losing "private workers don't owe taxes" argument.

What one does with that truth is entirely up to him/her. After learning the truth revealed by Pete, I subsequently filed a knowledgeable return and received a full US Treas refund of everything paid in. I'm now a non-filing non-taxpayer, fully lawful and with no IRS problems.

Hmmm, everybody else on that sight keeps saying you need to file to "rebut" the information returns. You getter go over there and correct them.

As to the 401k/IRA scam - I realized that I could withdraw my investments piecemeal and never exceed the annual statutory exemption. Therefore no need to contest that the amounts distributed & reported on 1099-R were INCOME, and no need to pay tax on it.

Good plan. Except you have an early distribution that gets reported to the IRS and has a 10% tax even if it is below the amount needed to file otherwise. Just like if you receive a 1099 for receiving nonemployee compensation, you owe self-employment tax if you're profit (that's intake minus expenses, for our fine feline friend) is over $400.00, then a return is required. Don't worry though, the IRS will assess them for you.

No need for a kangaroo court if you can avoid it.

Ah yes, the mark of the true warrior. Taking steps to try to prevent bad things from happening.

Brave Sir Harvey ran away - (No!)
Bravely ran away, away - (I didn't!)
When danger reared its ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled - (No!)
Yes, brave Sir Harvey turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Harvey

So, on a legitimate claim, one backed up by actual records, and not by frivolous dung, someone CAN get a judge to rule against the IRS.

Why thank you for that; sometimes warriors DO win in court.

For example, Pete. No wait, he's going to jail. His wife? No, she's about to go to jail also because she's probably too dumb to file a correct return in less than two weeks. I can't recall anyone posting of a court victory on the Lostheads site. Perhaps you can link to some of the decisions you're talking about.

History will record Pete Hendrickson as a great American hero.

Believe it or not,
Pete's walking' into a cell.
I never thought he could feel so free-.
Sulking away on a wing and a prayer.
Who could it be?
Believe it or not it's just Pete

You should get Pete to wear the suit when he goes in to his comtempt hearing. There's a super secret reference in the IRM that ensures victory if he does that.

I wonder how many of you Quatlosers realize the full extent of the evil you're caught up in.

I wouln't say you're evil. Just amusingly annoying.

STAND TALL WARRIORS!

Yes, brave Sir Harvey turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Harvey

[Harvester]

Catlhuru, I didn't address the 'early distribution penalty tax' issue. I can say this - no 10% (or other) tax was withheld from my distributions, nor have I been billed any. I am under age 55 and both the brokerage and IRS know that.

Famspire, thanks for the confirmation. Do you & LOBO even realize how absurd you sound, talking of books you have no firsthand knowledge of? How will you live with yourselves if Hendrickson serves no time? Or worse yet, you come to be governed by the likes of us? What are we again - 'wackadoos'?

No matter. We have already won. I'm sorry that you cannot see it.

http://thecomingchanges.freeforums.org/ ... t4288.html

[LOBO]

Is CtC a filing method? How would we begin to answer this question? Anyone? No one? Perhaps by . . . Oh I dunno . . READING THE BOOK. Famspear has publicly admitted to having NEVER READ THE BOOK; said he doesn't own a copy. This is the guy you're listening to as the definitive authoritative source on Hendrickson.

I've read the book, several editions several times. Most of the book deals with the tax code, it's limited application, and the deception involved in getting most of the population to believe they have INCOME under the Revenue Acts.

And that's based on the book saying if you aren't connected to the government, you wouldn't owe taxes, an argument that has been legally refuted over and over. Your second paragraph above alone shows why it's not worth reading. Like I said earlier, it's fantasy.

Near the end of the book, a tiny chapter is devoted to 1040s and refunds. It's here that Form 4852 is described and it's purpose for dealing with an incorrect Form W-2 or an incorrect Form 1099-R. Use of this form, along with rebutting incorrect 'information returns' are the only practices which could be considered Hendricksonian. But he doesn't advocate or promote these methods; he merely describes them

Riiiiiight. It's just a suggestion. I can tell my all the people at Lostheads who get banned for not drinking the koolaid exactly as he wants it.

LOBO, your attempts to drive a wedge between Hendrickson and I (divide & conquer?) have not gone without notice.

Yes, I'm sure he has any idea of what I'm posting over here, and I wouldn't make it through registration over there. Of course, I'm sure if you mention over there that you don't file his way, er, I mean the way he advocates, he wouldn't say anything. Although I do thank you for posting PART of my post over there. (I can hear all the lostheads thinking "huh, where'd THAT quote come from") Bet you don't gave the guts to quote the whole thing unedited though.

I have used the knowledge gained from Cracking The Code to file knowledgeable tax returns. I have received full refunds (SS, Medicare, everything) from the US Treasury. I'm a law-abiding nontaxpayer with no legal problems.

And yet, somehow you're the only one on Lostheads who is having underreporter problems, exam problems, levy problems, tax court problems, civil penalty problems. Makes one wonder what you're leaving out.

As for my tax-free retirement account distributions. To begin with, you have until the following April 15th to withdraw everything contributed (for ex. until 4/15/2011 you can withdraw everything contributed for TY2010), the amounts will not be considered contributions (like saying "oops I made a mistake"). And that's what I did after first learning of the govt's scam (Remember, IRAs/401ks are designed specifically for "taxpayers"). But what about the balance of the retirement account? I realized the IRA could be liquidated piecemeal, over several years, and not exceed the statutory exemption amount. Do you know what a "statutory exemption" is? It's the amount (varies with filing status) of INCOME one can make without owing tax on it. Therefore I could withdraw the statutory exemption amount per yr without contesting the presumption (yes, a 1099R provides presumptive evidence of INCOME, but not PROOF) that the distributions were INCOME. But to me no tax was due because even if I allow the IRS to think it was INCOME, it did not rise above the statutory exemption. Why risk kangaroo court if you can avoid it. Comprende?

As I mentioned earlier, the minimum amount required to file doesn't matter if make an early withdrawal. For example, if one is married, and both spouses are under 65, they are required to file if their gross income is at least $18,700.00. But if they make an early distribution for $18,600, and don't have anything else that is taxable (lets say the husband is in the military and serves in a combat zone and the wife is a housewife), they would still have to file due to the $1,860.00 early distribution tax even though they woudn't have any taxable income.

The beauty of the IRS scam . . it's victims fight to protect it!

Yes, those idiots at Lostheads are protecting Pete's IRS scam for some damn reason.

STAND TALL WARRIORS!

[/quote][/quote]

Harvey got your back warriors!








Waaaaaay back!
__________________________________

[.]

Some people are so delusional that they simply don't know when to just shut up.

But, for our resident punching bag it's way too late for that. He isn't just prone to admitting that he evades taxes, he actually brags about it. He apparently has never understood who pays very close attention to this and other boards and the resources at their disposal.

If he had, he probably wouldn't have been so unconcerned about the virtual certainty that every word he has uttered and every admission he has made here and elsewhere under his various aliases has been carefully cataloged and referred onward to those with investigative and subpoena power.

He seems oblivious to the fact that the US has tax treaties governing cooperation with tax investigations with almost every country on the face of the Earth, which would include the countries in which the proxy hosts that he thinks insulate him from detection are based.

Perhaps he's unaware that even the Swiss, the most famous of all defenders of banking secrecy, turned over information on thousands of possible US evaders. Unlike the Swiss, most countries where proxy hosts are domiciled couldn't care less about protecting US tax evaders like our smug little interloper. Likewise any non-US proxy host, faced with government/court demands regarding some foreign clown who paid nothing for their services.

While our twerp tax-evading friend is certainly small beer, his ego has driven him to carve out the kind of profile that can attract criminal investigation. The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but I hope he posts when CI finally knocks on his door with unpleasant news.

[Famspear]

Famspire, thanks for the confirmation. Do you & LOBO even realize how absurd you sound, talking of books you have no firsthand knowledge of?

You are a glutton for punishment, Harvester. I can keep repeating myself as long as you keep repeating yourself. I DON'T NEED TO HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT'S IN HENDRICKSON'S BOOK. I DON'T NEED TO READ HENDRICKSON'S BOOK, any more than I need to read Irwin Schiff's book or the books of any other two-bit crooks.

The issue is WHETHER I HAVE READ THE COURT CASES dealing with people who have used Hendrickson's book. And the answer is: Yes I have.

How will you live with yourselves if Hendrickson serves no time? Or worse yet, you come to be governed by the likes of us? What are we again - 'wackadoos'?

What are you talking about? I have nothing to do with Hendrickson going to prison, and I don't need to worry about "living with myself" if he were not to go to back to prison.

And no, Harvester, people like you will never be governing the rest of us. You are delusional. And you certainly are a wackadooster.

No matter. We have already won. I'm sorry that you cannot see it.

Ah, great. We're happy for you. You won. Just like Blowhard Hendrickson won.

[Famspear]

....While our twerp tax-evading friend [Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist] is certainly small beer, his ego has driven him to carve out the kind of profile that can attract criminal investigation. The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but I hope he posts when CI finally knocks on his door with unpleasant news.

While my guess is that it's unlikely Harvester will ever be criminally prosecuted, I can just see the scene if he were to be prosecuted and sent to prison. He'll say "I won, I won! You just can't see it!"

[Imalawman]

Catlhuru, I didn't address the 'early distribution penalty tax' issue. I can say this - no 10% (or other) tax was withheld from my distributions, nor have I been billed any. I am under age 55 and both the brokerage and IRS know that.

Famspire, thanks for the confirmation. Do you & LOBO even realize how absurd you sound, talking of books you have no firsthand knowledge of? How will you live with yourselves if Hendrickson serves no time? Or worse yet, you come to be governed by the likes of us? What are we again - 'wackadoos'?

No matter. We have already won. I'm sorry that you cannot see it.

http://thecomingchanges.freeforums.org/ ... t4288.html

Harvey,

I just helped someone out that tried what you just said you did, though on bad advice from another. 4 years later, it was assessed, since the amount reported was over 25% under-reported, the SOL had not expired. Your SOL will keep running because you have committed fraud. I wish the IRS was more responsive, but they just aren't. It takes a LONG time to catch up. When it does, boo-yah! penalties and interest for many years. In fact, I just took a case dealing with an assessment that went back 10 years. (fraud involved, I'm on the I.S. side)

So, my advice to you is to be afraid, VERY afraid. You've committed fraud and it will catch up to you. It might be tomorrow or it might be 10 years. Either way, you're screwed.

[Pottapaug1938]

Harvey,

I just helped someone out that tried what you just said you did, though on bad advice from another. 4 years later, it was assessed, since the amount reported was over 25% under-reported, the SOL had not expired. Your SOL will keep running because you have committed fraud. I wish the IRS was more responsive, but they just aren't. It takes a LONG time to catch up. When it does, boo-yah! penalties and interest for many years. In fact, I just took a case dealing with an assessment that went back 10 years. (fraud involved, I'm on the I.S. side)

So, my advice to you is to be afraid, VERY afraid. You've committed fraud and it will catch up to you. It might be tomorrow or it might be 10 years. Either way, you're screwed.

Harvey should also be afraid because, unless his broker is a colossal buffoon (which, since he's following Harvey's instructions, is not outside the realm of possibility), the broker has been sending reports, to the IRS, on all the distributions AND INCOME Harvey is getting. That pretty, pretty brokerage account (if it exists) will, one day, go bye-bye, right into the hands of the IRS; and Harvery can sit in jail, virtually penniless, and cuddle his copy of CtC....

[Cathulhu]

Harvey the wormy hamster said:

Buncha crap.

No matter. We have already won. I'm sorry that you cannot see it.

Right. You've already won. The IRS is abolished, everybody is rich, and you rule the world. Now take the nice "candy" from the nice orderly.

Imalawman is absolutely correct. But I doubt you'll post when you're busted; haven't caught you being truthful yet.

[Gregg]

Therefore I could withdraw the statutory exemption amount per yr without contesting the presumption (yes, a 1099R provides presumptive evidence of INCOME, but not PROOF) that the distributions were INCOME. But to me no tax was due because even if I allow the IRS to think it was INCOME, it did not rise above the statutory exemption. Why risk kangaroo court if you can avoid it. Comprende?

You're lying. You either don't even have a 401(k) or you never took any out, because if you take out ANY amount before you turn 59 1/5 I think, maybe 55, you have to pay a penalty on the early withdrawal. No option on that, some may let you have the money without taking the penalty but you will get a 1099 for it, and you will eventually be asked to pay it. But me, I think you've never even had one, and never worked at a Wendy's that offered a plan.