TP DC Police Detective

[Demosthenes]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TAX
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007 http://WWW.USDOJ.GOV

WASHINGTON, D.C. POLICE OFFICER INDICTED FOR TAX FRAUD

WASHINGTON - A federal grand jury in Washington returned an indictment charging Michael C. Irving with federal and District of Columbia tax fraud charges, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. The nine-count indictment alleges that Irving, who is a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective, filed false claims for refunds with the IRS, evaded federal income tax, and committed District of Columbia felonies of fraud in the first degree and tax evasion.

According to the indictment, Irving earned wages from the MPD in the amount of $155,211 in 2002, $152,153 in 2003, $136,962 in 2004 and $181,913 in 2005. The indictment alleges that in 2002, Irving filed two false claims with the IRS seeking refunds to which he was not entitled, and failed to file tax returns and pay federal income taxes for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

If convicted, Irving faces a maximum sentence of up to 25 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the federal charges. He faces an additional maximum sentence of up to 40 years in prison on the District of Columbia felonies.

The charges contained in the indictment are only allegations. A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Today’s indictment resulted from a joint investigation by the IRS and the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue. More information about the Justice Department’s efforts against income tax evaders can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2007.htm .

[Duke2Earl]

I must say being a DC police detective pays a lot more than I thought.

[Demosthenes]

I must say being a DC police detective pays a lot more than I thought.

More than the IRS Commissioner or a Congressman or a Federal Court Judge.

[John J. Bulten]

According to the indictment, Irving earned wages from the MPD in the amount of $155,211 in 2002, $152,153 in 2003, $136,962 in 2004 and $181,913 in 2005.

Thank you, Demo! This indictment sounds thoroughly credible. Sounds like this guy never denied that he was a worker for the MPD (and thus clearly a 3401(c) "employee" working for a 3401(d) "employer"), and never denied it being an agency of the "State" DC (and thus clearly a 3121(h) "American employer"). Why of course he had better pay a tax on all his payments for work from that agency, which are privileged 3401(a) and 3121(a) "wages". And judging by the amounts, that "income" is indeed privileged and taxworthy. We CtC readers always applaud the indictment of those who try to hide true "wages" paid in true "States".

[Imalawman]

According to the indictment, Irving earned wages from the MPD in the amount of $155,211 in 2002, $152,153 in 2003, $136,962 in 2004 and $181,913 in 2005.

Thank you, Demo! This indictment sounds thoroughly credible. Sounds like this guy never denied that he was a worker for the MPD (and thus clearly a 3401(c) "employee" working for a 3401(d) "employer"), and never denied it being an agency of the "State" DC (and thus clearly a 3121(h) "American employer"). Why of course he had better pay a tax on all his payments for work from that agency, which are privileged 3401(a) and 3121(a) "wages". And judging by the amounts, that "income" is indeed privileged and taxworthy. We CtC readers always applaud the indictment of those who try to hide true "wages" paid in true "States".

Oh good lord, shut up.

As to how much he was paid...wow, that is very good, even in D.C. Too much, in my opinion.

[Nikki]

According to the indictment, Irving earned wages from the MPD in the amount of $155,211 in 2002, $152,153 in 2003, $136,962 in 2004 and $181,913 in 2005.

Thank you, Demo! This indictment sounds thoroughly credible. Sounds like this guy never denied that he was a worker for the MPD (and thus clearly a 3401(c) "employee" working for a 3401(d) "employer"), and never denied it being an agency of the "State" DC (and thus clearly a 3121(h) "American employer"). Why of course he had better pay a tax on all his payments for work from that agency, which are privileged 3401(a) and 3121(a) "wages". And judging by the amounts, that "income" is indeed privileged and taxworthy. We CtC readers always applaud the indictment of those who try to hide true "wages" paid in true "States".

And we Quatloos readers always applaud the indictment, enjoining, and/or suits for recovery of refunds against the CtC LoserHeads.

[Red Cedar PM]

According to the indictment, Irving earned wages from the MPD in the amount of $155,211 in 2002, $152,153 in 2003, $136,962 in 2004 and $181,913 in 2005.

Thank you, Demo! This indictment sounds thoroughly credible. Sounds like this guy never denied that he was a worker for the MPD (and thus clearly a 3401(c) "employee" working for a 3401(d) "employer"), and never denied it being an agency of the "State" DC (and thus clearly a 3121(h) "American employer"). Why of course he had better pay a tax on all his payments for work from that agency, which are privileged 3401(a) and 3121(a) "wages". And judging by the amounts, that "income" is indeed privileged and taxworthy. We CtC readers always applaud the indictment of those who try to hide true "wages" paid in true "States".

Of course he didn't win, he didn't use his secret CtC decoder ring to make his wages come from a state and not a "state."

[John J. Bulten]

And we Quatloos readers always applaud the indictment, enjoining, and/or suits for recovery of refunds against the CtC LoserHeads.

Hey Nikki, let me know, with a cite, when we are indicted or enjoined or refunds are recovered from us. I've looked at debunking CtC for over 3 years, and so far I've only been able to correct one little section number. Oh, and I think I saw a punctuation mark out of place once. I'm open to all disproofs.

[jg]

Hey Nikki, let me know, with a cite, when we are indicted or enjoined or refunds are recovered from us. I've looked at debunking CtC for over 3 years, and so far I've only been able to correct one little section number. Oh, and I think I saw a punctuation mark out of place once. I'm open to all disproofs.

Were not all of the refunds recovered (except for Hendrickson's which is pending) from the suits to recover the erroneous refunds mentioned in the press release at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_219.html ? Perhaps you missed this in your absence, but there were some threads on these here and at Lost Horizons, methinks.

Are there not posters on Lost Horizons that have said they have been subject to liens, levies and other collection action (presumbably that has recovered erroneous refunds to some degree) after following CtC methods?

[The Observer]

Were not all of the refunds recovered (except for Hendrickson's which is pending) from the suits to recover the erroneous refunds mentioned in the press release at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_219.html ? Perhaps you missed this in your absence, but there were some threads on these here and at Lost Horizons, methinks.

Are there not posters on Lost Horizons that have said they have been subject to liens, levies and other collection action (presumbably that has recovered erroneous refunds to some degree) after following CtC methods?

What? Are you going to insist on trivialities like the truth and fact as some sort of proof that CtC doesn't work?

[Demosthenes]

Hey Nikki, let me know, with a cite, when we are indicted or enjoined or refunds are recovered from us.

You mean like when Larry and Debra Golson had to repay $69,760.85? And yet, Hendrickson refuses to remove that amount from his running total and check trophy display...

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/golson2.pdf

Or how about Sharon Artman who repaid $8,597.39 to the IRS and then tried to sue the government for issuing her erroneous refunds and making her think that Hendrickson's scheme had merit? Of Hendrickson didn't reduce his running total by this amount either...

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/artman1.pdf

How about Michael Dowling, who repaid $26,520 plus penalties and interest plus a $500 penalty?

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/dowling.pdf

And we mustn't forget Melvin Gerstenkorn who had to repay his $2,275.47 plus interest to the IRS. No adjustments were made by Hendrickson, though...

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gersten.pdf

Joy M. Ferguson lost her court battle to keep her CTC refund less than a month ago:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/ferguson30.pdf
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/ferguson31.pdf

Same with CTCer James Spitzer:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/spitzer37.pdf

And numerous other CTC marks have had their refunds taken back outside of the Federal Court system.

So how come Hendrickson hasn't lowered his tally by these amounts, or removed the copies of their checks from his successes, John?

[Demosthenes]

And as far an injunctions are concerned, how about the fake CPA that Pete was promoting on his CTC website, Donald A. Gray?

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/gray15.pdf

viewtopic.php?p=1074

[Imalawman]

Trust me there are many more at the state level as well. Remember that for each of the above persons cited by Demo, they most likely had tax troubles on the state level too. I could list a few to you that I've dealt with as well, but I don't discuss my own cases online.

Hunn's citation of I.R.C. §§ 3121 and 3401, his use of Forms 4852 and so-called "corrected" Forms 1099, the alterations he makes to those forms, and his characterization of Social Security and Medicare taxes as income taxes, all follow a scheme promoted by Peter Hendrickson of Michigan. … Hendrickson claims that under I.R.C. §§ 3121 and 3401, only income received from the federal government is subject to federal tax. Id. Federal courts have uniformly and repeatedly rejected this argument. See, e.g., United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir.1985) (characterizing the argument "that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of 'employee' does not include privately employed wage earners [as] a preposterous reading of the statute."); Abdo v. United States, 234 F.Supp.2d 553, 563 (M.D.N.C.2002) (noting at the claim that wages are not income "has been rejected as many times as it has been asserted."), aff'd 63 Fed. Appx. 163 (4th Cir.2003). (emphasis added)

2006 WL 2663783, *3 (D.Ariz. 2006).

[Nikki]

And we Quatloos readers always applaud the indictment, enjoining, and/or suits for recovery of refunds against the CtC LoserHeads.

Hey Nikki, let me know, with a cite, when we are indicted or enjoined or refunds are recovered from us. I've looked at debunking CtC for over 3 years, and so far I've only been able to correct one little section number. Oh, and I think I saw a punctuation mark out of place once. I'm open to all disproofs.

Demosthenes beat me to posting the cotations and records.

Ball's in your court.

[John J. Bulten]

Thank you all, this is tremendous ammo in my hands! Yes, I was very specific. Of indictments and injuctions I am still unaware (though perhaps some lurk beneath one of Demo's links). Of refunds being recovered, I meant the proof that the refunds were recovered, not the proof of a judgment.

I cannot speak for Don Gray from knowledge other than that Pete once listed his contact info as a CtC resource, so I cannot tell offhand whether he thoroughly upheld CtC or combined it with vitiating "patriot myths". That might appear in the link. I believe Hunn, however, was a thorough mixer of all truths and myths.

However the lot of the Hendrickson Nine (i.e. Pete and Doreen, plus all Demo's links except Gray) is indeed significant. If I recall correctly, the first four (or five including spouse) abandoned CtC principles and can be ignored; however I will review the links. I have spoken with Joy's husband and with Jim, and can testify that they understand and would not abandon CtC revelations. Assuming that they did not abandon CtC in the filings, the courts made remediable errors that should be appealed. Which of course also prevents refund recovery for now.

The remediable error in Joy's case was the statement "Ferguson's interpretation of SS3401(c) has been considered and rejected numerous times by many courts." Since Joy's interpretation was not itself stated, only the conclusion she asserted from the interpretation, there is no proof that her interpretation was the one rejected by the courts.

The remediable error in Jim's case was the statement "Defendant contends that a federal income tax should only be paid by federal employees." I have good confidence that Jim would not have asserted that in exactly those words. However, I could entertain the possibility that he made a slip of tongue and did so. Even though I am not sure of the method of remedy if you make a mistake in your own pleadings which is serious enough to vitiate your case, I would think that in this country you could appeal on that ground.

As for why Pete does not subtract these totals, I think his meaning is obvious by the phrase "retained or taken back" on his homepage; but I cannot speak for him. This would be an excellent question to email to phendrickson@losthorizons.com, and I am sure he would briefly answer a polite question. Please post if you hear.

Side issue to jg and lawman: liens and levies and collections (whether or not they recover funds) are not able to recover erroneous refunds because the IRS (or state agency) must reassess or file suit for recovery first, n'est ce pas?

Side issue to Demo: how can a refund be taken back outside federal court, unless taken in the form of collections for unrelated years, which is due to not following CtC for those years?

In short, I am still awaiting proof of indictments, injunctions, and actually recovered refunds from CtC users. I am keenly thankful to Demo's consistent editorial professionalism, and was unaware CheatingFrenzy kept such a thorough dossier. This was exactly the info I was trolling for (fishing reference); I'll need to link them.

[Demosthenes]

Of refunds being recovered, I meant the proof that the refunds were recovered, not the proof of a judgment.

Read the links, and you'll find that the repayment is in the past tense, as in

After the United States filed the complaint in this case, defendants Larr B. Golson and Debra G. Golson paid back to the United States the full amount of the $69,760.85 erroneous 2003 federal income tax refund they received, and also paid the United States interest on the
erroneous refund as required by law.

[John J. Bulten]

Oh, I'll read them.

I see that my original post used Nikki's term "CtC LoserHeads" as its antecedent. I took this to mean those who understand, follow, and do not abandon CtC, but I suppose if it meant anyone who sounds anything like CtC your point is valid.

Moderatorial noblesse oblige to you.

[Quixote]

Side issue to jg and lawman: liens and levies and collections (whether or not they recover funds) are not able to recover erroneous refunds because the IRS (or state agency) must reassess or file suit for recovery first, n'est ce pas?

No. Recovery by suit is only one avenue to recover erroneous refunds. Levies can be used if the money that was not refunded is insufficient to pay the assessed tax.

For example, suppose the correct income tax is $3500 and the correct withholding credit is $4000. A standard CtC type return is filed showing $0 tax and $7000 income tax withheld. A refund of $7000 is issued. Through deficiency procedures, the IRS assesses the $3500 in income tax and the $3000 in erroneously claimed withholding credit. That $6500 can be recovered by suit or through enforced collection activity.

[John J. Bulten]

Hey Quixote, couple contradictory assumptions, both of which stem from your assumption that a CtC filing does not show the correct tax.

First, you assumed that a CtC filing would show $0 tax when the correct income tax is $3500. Nice try.

Second, you assumed that a CtC filing would claim refund of an additional $3000 withholding when the correct income tax was $3500. Since income tax includes 3101(a)-(b) tax on incomes (commonly called SS/Medicare tax), either the correct income tax was $6500 (including that $3000), or a CtC filing would not claim the $3000.

Those aside, permit me to adjust the example to describe someone else, so I can ask my question. If a low-down dirty criminally culpable tax evader fraudulently obtains an IRS assessment of $0 but the correct tax was $6500, then since IRS has already assessed a tax of $0, how can the collections process collect the $6500 without a reassessment to that effect? Reassessment is not a collections function but an examination function.

[Imalawman]

And there's the problem with CTC and TPs in general. You all disagree. I've met several CTCers that would disagree with what you just wrote and call you a fake CTCer. I've often said, put two TPs in a room and in an hour they'll be at fisticuffs. Just look at lost horizons and count how many new theories there are as to why you don't have to pay income taxes everyday. I've heard about 8-10 diferent spins on why you don't have to pay income taxes based on CTC and each one swears they're doing it right and everyone else is screwing it up.