|
Firrst off, Farmer's rhetoric ("accusing him of receiving" and "libelous") is inaccurate, but at least it tells you where his sympathies lie.
Second, the "facts" are too vague. I'd want to talk to the relative and find out exactly what his relationship with the sender of the W-2 was. Further, I'd want to know exactly what guy's story is. Good grief, the excuses are so inconsistent, it'd be like representing a murder defendant who says, "I didn't do it; I was out of town when it happened. And if I was in town, I wasn't anywhere near the scene. And if I was at the scene, I saw someone else do it. And if I did do it, it was self-defense. And if it wasn't self-defense, I was insane. And if I wasn't insane, the guy's not really dead. And if he is dead, he'll be resurrected any day now." I don't represent clients that I know are lying to me.
Third, to the extent the excuses are merely different legal theories that might be applied to a given set of facts, he'd need to explain what the heck they mean. The first sounds like the standard tax denier argument that since the value of his labor equaled the value of the money he received, he had no income. I'd explain that this argument is not and never has been the law; has been rejected by every court; and that if he were to raise it, he'd likely be sanctioned.
The last 4 excuses are totally incoherent, except that the last one might be a claim that the $100,000 represented the repayment of a bona fide loan of money, although the phrase "lent his value" suggests that this isn't what Farmer had in mind. If, however, the $100,000 really represents the repayment of a loan, then I'd ask him if he has any documentary evidence that we could show the payor so that we could get it to prepare an amended W-2.
I suspect that what we really have here is that Farmer is looking for any kind of legal excuse not to report $100,000 of salary as gross income, and he expects that an attorney is supposed to come up with one. If the attorney fails, then it's obviously not because there's no legal basis for Farmer's position, it must be because the lawyer's in cahoots with the IRS or that the court was corrupt by not accepting some inane argument.
Farmer, you need to realize that every legal rule doesn't contain a loophole somewhere. Your previous post harped about remedy, as if every legal problem you encounter has to have a remedy that coincides with your desires. It doesn't.
|