Doreen Hendrickson's $5.00 victory!

[Quixote]

On her 2008 returnDoreen Hendrickson said she was single. For a second I thought she might have dumped Pete, but the filing status is probably just one more lie on her return. She got a $5.00 refund. It is posted as yet another CTC victory.

That $5.00 check is slightly less pathetic than the offset notices posted by Lucinda Shephard. The overpayments referred to in the notices cannot be from prepaid credits (withholding, etc.) and are probably proceeds from a bank levy that were not allocated properly.

[The Observer]

You have failed to do the proper math according to the CtC method, so it is no wonder that you think that a $5.00 refund is pathetic. Now please pay close attention as I step you through the calculation:

(1) It is a well known fact that a loss for any CtCer in court is counted as a victory.
(2) Any reasonable person would agree that it is preferable to be given $5.00, even temporarily, than to go to jail on a conviction
(3) So it follows that a $5.00 refund must be bigger than a victory and therefore cannot be pathetic.

[jg]

Although it is not clear where the $5 payment was made, this return seems to be in violation of the court order:

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendants are prohibited from filing any tax return, amended return, form (including, but not limited to Form 4852 (“Substitute for Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement, etc.”)) or other writing or paper with the IRS that is based on the false and frivolous claims set forth in Cracking the Code that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws (26 U.S.C.); and it is further
ORDERED, that within 30 days of the entry of this Amended Judgment and
Order of Permanent Injunction, Defendants will file amended U.S. Individual Income Tax
Returns for the taxable years ending on December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003
with the Internal Revenue Service...

The order can be seen at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_Am ... ermInj.pdf

Why bother to issue an injunction if it will not be enforced? Or, does it have no teeth?

[Demosthenes]

Hmm. I wonder why all of the standard info on the form was typed in (First name, middle initial, SSN, address, etc.) but the last name of Hendrickson was written in later.

[The Observer]

If the printed information was the result of using software, it may be as simple as Doreen (or whoever entered the information) failing to provide her last name. Then when the return was printed out, the omission was noted and the last name was written in. The best argument against that scenario is that most tax return prep packages would check for that omission and not let the user omit the last name.

[Quixote]

The last name on the signature lines on both forms is definitely not Hendrickson.

[webhick]

If the printed information was the result of using software, it may be as simple as Doreen (or whoever entered the information) failing to provide her last name. Then when the return was printed out, the omission was noted and the last name was written in. The best argument against that scenario is that most tax return prep packages would check for that omission and not let the user omit the last name.

I initially thought that she might have used her maiden name for the IRS submission and then whited it out and handwrote her married name for website submission, but the check is written out to her married name. Now, I just think that there was a typo in the name and she hand corrected it, rather than reprint the return.

[Imalawman]

The last name on the signature lines on both forms is definitely not Hendrickson.

My first impression - maybe Doreen wants out and is refusing to violate the court order, so her return was done "for her". Just a suspicious mind at work....

[webhick]

The last name on the signature lines on both forms is definitely not Hendrickson.

I agree, but the check is made out to Hendrickson.



Then that would it only plausible if the return cleared fine with the wrong name, but was caught before the check was cut. In any case, I imagine that would have raised red flags somewhere.

Anyone else think it's a little sad that Doreen only earned like $70 last year?

[Quixote]

The last name on the signature lines on both forms is definitely not Hendrickson.

I agree, but the check is made out to Hendrickson.



Then that would it only plausible if the return cleared fine with the wrong name, but was caught before the check was cut. In any case, I imagine that would have raised red flags somewhere.

All that means is that the name was changed to Hendrickson before the return was filed.

[LPC]

Two questions that just occurred to me:

1. Why isn't Doreen on the list of "frivolous filers" that the IRS has supposedly been keeping, and why wasn't her return caught for that reason alone?

2. Why is the IRS sending her a check for a refund while it has a judgment against her for an erroneous refund?

[Quixote]

Two questions that just occurred to me:

1. Why isn't Doreen on the list of "frivolous filers" that the IRS has supposedly been keeping, and why wasn't her return caught for that reason alone?

2. Why is the IRS sending her a check for a refund while it has a judgment against her for an erroneous refund?

1. If there ever were a list, RRA98 would have made it contraband.

2. The following applies to offsets under IRC §6402(c).

TOP Offset Tolerance
Any refund under $25 is not offset by TOP. This tolerance applies to both IMF and BMF.

IRM 21.4.6.4.2.4 (revised 01-01-2001)

I did not find a similar tolerance for offsets under IRC §6402(a), but it seems likely that there is one.

[jkeeb]

$25 is probably less than the cost of offset notices. IRS is smart to go ahead and refund.

Kinda like if Bill Gates, during his better years, would be better off not picking a $100 bill off the ground.

[LPC]

Two questions that just occurred to me:

1. Why isn't Doreen on the list of "frivolous filers" that the IRS has supposedly been keeping, and why wasn't her return caught for that reason alone?

1. If there ever were a list, RRA98 would have made it contraband.

There is a "frivolous return program" that is described (and approved) in IRS National Center Service Advice No. 200107034 (2/16/2001). I had thought that the program identified not only frivolous returns and frivolous arguments, but also frivolous filers. I may be mistaken.

2. Why is the IRS sending her a check for a refund while it has a judgment against her for an erroneous refund?

2. The following applies to offsets under IRC §6402(c).

TOP Offset Tolerance
Any refund under $25 is not offset by TOP. This tolerance applies to both IMF and BMF.

IRM 21.4.6.4.2.4 (revised 01-01-2001)

I did not find a similar tolerance for offsets under IRC §6402(a), but it seems likely that there is one.

That makes sense.

It also occurred to me that, because of arcane technical-legal stuff (that you would think that I would like, but actually don't always), the IRS can offset tax refunds against other taxes *assessed*, but not other taxes for which there are *judgments* without assessments. (Not saying that's true, but just that it's a possibility that occurred to me.)

[jcolvin2]

It also occurred to me that, because of arcane technical-legal stuff (that you would think that I would like, but actually don't always), the IRS can offset tax refunds against other taxes *assessed*, but not other taxes for which there are *judgments* without assessments. (Not saying that's true, but just that it's a possibility that occurred to me.)

I think it would be a very rare set of circumstances in which there would be a judgment without an assessment. Ordinarily, the existence of an assessment is necessary for the IRS to obtain a judgment. In a suit to reduce an assessment to judgment, the taxpayer ordinarily can can challenge the assessment on the merits (whether or not the original proposed assessment was contested in response to a SNOD). Perhaps there may be some circumstances in bankruptcy where there are no administrative assessments, but judgments are entered. However, I am not familiar with such situations.

[LPC]

It also occurred to me that, because of arcane technical-legal stuff (that you would think that I would like, but actually don't always), the IRS can offset tax refunds against other taxes *assessed*, but not other taxes for which there are *judgments* without assessments. (Not saying that's true, but just that it's a possibility that occurred to me.)

I think it would be a very rare set of circumstances in which there would be a judgment without an assessment.

My recollection/understanding is that the US sued Hendrickson for recovery of an erroneous refund without first assessing any deficiency.

[Imalawman]

It also occurred to me that, because of arcane technical-legal stuff (that you would think that I would like, but actually don't always), the IRS can offset tax refunds against other taxes *assessed*, but not other taxes for which there are *judgments* without assessments. (Not saying that's true, but just that it's a possibility that occurred to me.)

I think it would be a very rare set of circumstances in which there would be a judgment without an assessment.

My recollection/understanding is that the US sued Hendrickson for recovery of an erroneous refund without first assessing any deficiency.

Please correct me, but I thought that if you let the 90-day letter lapse, then the deficiency is assessed via a form 26 (or something like that). Then you can sue for a refund, based on the payment of the assessment. Thus, I thought in most cases and all cases in tax court, there hasn't been an assessment yet before there would be a court judgment. In a recovery for a wrongful refund, I'm not sure of the procedure, but it doesn't strike me as necessary that there would have to be an assessment.

[Quixote]

IRM 3.17.80 covers recovery of erroneous refunds and collection of court ordered restititution in excruciating detail. The IRS does offset refunds to recover erroneous refunds even if there is never an assessment.