Quatloos!

Peter and Doreen Hendrickson filed a petition in U.S. Tax Court on March 26, 2014. The government filed an answer on June 2, 2014.

The case number is 006863-14.

Trial to be in Detroit, but I see no other details yet.

Oh, here's another detail.....

The Dubious Duo filed pro se.

Of course, when you are Video Arcade Manager Man, who needs representation when you go to court?

Famspear wrote:Oh, here's another detail.....

The Dubious Duo filed pro se.

Of course, when you are Video Arcade Manager Man, who needs representation when you go to court?

Well, imagine that! They must have run out of sketchy attorneys who were willing to shill for them, or would put up with Pete.

notorial dissent wrote:They must have run out of sketchy attorneys who were willing to shill for them, or would put up with Pete.

...or ran out of money to hire sketchy attorneys?

I tried to find some mention of this on Lost Horizons. I can't find an archive of the LH newsletter to see if Pete mentioned filing the petition in March, but if he had, there would have been some forum postings concerning it, at least by Harvester/Libre/Homie. It's almost as if Pete didn't want the faithful to know he had filed. Which is strange because it doesn't matter how the court decides, it will be a CTC win. For example, in the latest edition of "The News" Pete explains how his December, 2013 loss in the 6th Circuit was really a win.

notorial dissent wrote:I don't remember anyone every claiming any of their other attorneys ever got paid, with what??? I can't imagine that Videoarcademanagerman made enough off his silly book to even pay the light bill. I always wondered how they made ends meet as it was.

This case may be a plain vanilla income tax deficiency case. It will be interesting to see what tax year or years is/are involved, and how much income it took to generate the tax liability.

And, I'd like to see who generated how much of the income (Peter or Doreen). Maybe I'm perverted, but I'm curious to see how Video Arcade Manager Man, the ex-con, is generating cash flow for the family now.

Quixote wrote:I tried to find some mention of this on Lost Horizons. I can't find an archive of the LH newsletter to see if Pete mentioned filing the petition in March, but if he had, there would have been some forum postings concerning it, at least by Harvester/Libre/Homie. It's almost as if Pete didn't want the faithful to know he had filed....

I had the same thoughts.

....Which is strange because it doesn't matter how the court decides, it will be a CTC win. For example, in the latest edition of "The News" Pete explains how his December, 2013 loss in the 6th Circuit was really a win.

Pete's tortured, turgidly tendentious tome on the subject of how his loss at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals should somehow be viewed as a "win" for him is just too boring for me to slog all the way through, at least right now.

Prevaricatin' Pete is pretty much a one-trick pony -- but the trick never has worked, and never will.



Poor guy. He will never wise up.

notorial dissent wrote:So the actual filing isn't on pacer?

I have to admit, I'm curious too.

The U.S. Tax Court web site isn't part of the PACER system, and the capabilities at the Tax Court web site are limited. Only certain documents can be downloaded (and no documents are currently available in this Hendrickson case).

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say maybe it's his 2009 tax year that's involved here. Of course, it could be multiple years. He entered prison on June 29, 2010 and was released on June 13, 2012, which makes me think this case might not involve tax year 2010 or any years after that.

The court is concerned about making petitioners' financial information widely available on the internet. But the filings in the case are public documents, so if someone living in Washington has insatiable curiosity about the contents of the petition and some free time, they can go to the Tax Court and request the physical file. I believe they'll let you make copies.

operabuff wrote:The court is concerned about making petitioners' financial information widely available on the internet. But the filings in the case are public documents, so if someone living in Washington has insatiable curiosity about the contents of the petition and some free time, they can go to the Tax Court and request the physical file. I believe they'll let you make copies.

I have ordered copies of documents from the Court by phone, and had them mailed to me. I can't remember whether I had to pay up front or whether the Court sent me a bill.

Lambkin wrote:

notorial dissent wrote:They must have run out of sketchy attorneys who were willing to shill for them, or would put up with Pete.

...or ran out of money to hire sketchy attorneys?

Or ran out of brothers who are lawyers and willing to put up with them?

LPC wrote:

Lambkin wrote:

notorial dissent wrote:They must have run out of sketchy attorneys who were willing to shill for them, or would put up with Pete.

...or ran out of money to hire sketchy attorneys?

Or ran out of brothers who are lawyers and willing to put up with them?

Touché!

A trial has been set for June 22, 2015, in Detroit.

Famspear wrote:Peter and Doreen Hendrickson filed a petition in U.S. Tax Court on March 26, 2014. The government filed an answer on June 2, 2014.

The case number is 006863-14.

Okay, there's a June 22, 2015, trial date.

But we still don't know what tax years are at issue. It seems to be a challenge to a notice of deficiency, and not a collection due process case.

So is it a year for which Pete and Doreen actually filed, or a year for which they did not file.

On motion of the government, the Court has granted a general continuance in the Hendricksons' Tax Court trial.

The case likely involves either the fraud penalty, or a fraudulent failure to file penalty (or perhaps an extension of the statute of limitations - which might also involve fraud - or the assertion of an increased deficiency over and above that set out in the Notice of Deficiency). I base my guess on the fact that the government made affirmative allegations in its Answer, and subsequently made a motion to have the undenied allegations in the Answer deemed admitted. This is the normal practice in the types of cases described above.

09/02/2014 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C) by Resp. (C/S 09/02/14) (OBJECTION)

The Hendricksons avoided the issuance of the requested order by filing a reply on or before the set response date.

09/08/2014 ORDER PETR. BY 9/29/14 SHALL FILE A REPLY AS REQUIRED BY RULE 37 (A) AND (B).

09/29/2014 REPLY TO ANSWER by Petrs. Peter E. Hendrickson & Doreen M. Hendrickson

11/18/2014 DENIED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER THAT UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 37(C)

jcolvin2 wrote:The case likely involves either the fraud penalty, or a fraudulent failure to file penalty (or perhaps an extension of the statute of limitations - which might also involve fraud - or the assertion of an increased deficiency over and above that set out in the Notice of Deficiency).

Which would be consistent with a proceeding involving a year in which the Hendrickson's actually filed returns, because the returns would produce the fraud (or negligence) penalty that might be at issue.

The trial in Tax Court has been re-scheduled for November 2, 2015, in Detroit.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, the government filed a motion for continuance in this case.