need good advice from a professional accredited attorney

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Lets try this test and see what happens...

The Situation

A relative has received a W2 statement in the mail accusing him of receiving about 100,000 bux of "salary", an item of gross income. His personal bank records indicate deposits in exactly these amounts on the same dates.

He says that the characterization is false, he paid for that money with equal value.

And anyway, he borrowed the money against his collateral deposit.

And besides, he was owed the money as a pre-paid credit for damages.

Further, he had a mutual assurance policy to cover his investments that paid up.

At any rate, he lent his value and was paid back with that money.



Take your pick.

What could he do to properly challenge this libelous w2 claim?

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Lets try this test and see what happens...

The Situation

A relative has received a W2 statement in the mail accusing him of receiving about 100,000 bux of "salary", an item of gross income. His personal bank records indicate deposits in exactly these amounts on the same dates.

He says that the characterization is false, he paid for that money with equal value.

And anyway, he borrowed the money against his collateral deposit.

And besides, he was owed the money as a pre-paid credit for damages.

Further, he had a mutual assurance policy to cover his investments that paid up.

At any rate, he lent his value and was paid back with that money.



Take your pick.

What could he do to properly challenge this libelous w2 claim?

1) Seeing as how, from your previous posts on this forum, you appear to believe in common tax protester/tax denier myths, you wouldn't accept a legally accurate answer even if it were given.

2) I hate tax law. I told my boss before I accepted my current job that I had one rock solid condition. I told him, if you want to handle tax law, you're on your own.

For both of those reasons, I refuse to accept your "challenge."

[Jerry Pitts]

Perhaps the refusal for cause was based upon the potential fact that there was no "good advice" to be offered by this alleged "accredited attorney" who calls himself Lawdog or sometimes "Scott"(?).

Jerry Carlos

[Shoonra]

Farmer,
You probably won't find a lawyer who will give you any solid advice because your description of the situation is so unsolid .... somehow a relative is keeping alive but without any revenue, or his revenue is being concealed by being called something else (such as "paid for that money with equal value" -- which suggests a tax protester argument that's been repeatedly and consistently rejected in the courts).

No lawyer worth his salt is going to give an opinion on the situation unless all the facts are reported clearly, without these circumlocutions. The mere fact that these circumlocutions are being used hints that your relative is in the wrong.

[mertensv16]

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.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

the 2 answers so far were at least informative by way of hints. And entirely expected.

"tax denials":

yes that's exactly it- plead a denial.

But where is the attorney who will advise on that remedy...so far no answer.

Which leads to the next point-

"revenue concealed under another name/all the facts":

I object- that's a conclusion. W2 just lists "revenue" but the accused denies it, and rebuts with testimony under penalty of perjury.

Those are all the facts and without another equivalent claim to the contrary there isn't even a controversy. This is just a case of mistaken accounting, and testimony beats mere data entry.

'mere suspicion' is wholly inadequate to establish a prima facia case.

Anyone ever hear of a "structured transaction"? Happens all the time.

Farmer 2 - Attorneys 0

[RevokeTheTrust]

with love,
Gregory-Thomas(R):

Greetings!

What could he do to properly challenge this libelous w2 claim?

You have one mighty-fine consultant to hold such an interest in one's product
of supplemental labor. From time to time, I tend to volunteer a small controversey just to
keep the eyes of their purview opened a little. But it's that little light let
in that makes them the most money, so it is to be certain their diminished capacity
is what involves the delinquency.

I sure am taking a likening to that Lawdog character. He gives us his Refusal without
any dishonor, apparently. Thinks there is an office of trust that we consult to him for
opinions from the advocacy of his dilapidated benediction. I guess you don't need a De'Lorian
to remind us of your stock.

which suggests a tax protester argument that's been repeatedly and consistently rejected in the courts).

No lawyer worth his salt is going to give an opinion on the situation unless all the facts are reported clearly,
without these circumlocutions. The mere fact that these circumlocutions are being used hints that your relative
is in the wrong.

Then he'll meat you and in the Gate of those Courts district. I don't believe what I'm hearing from these two queens of
the queer clouns. There is no boundary of jurisdiction where they would entertain a walk to their neighbor to take a measure
of their fruit without any consent reasoned other than to spread their banner. Go wave your flag elsewhere, and I got sharks
to feed on Solana Beach, Calif.

without prejudice,
m. Gregory Thomas(tm).

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Anyone ever hear of a "structured transaction"? Happens all the time.

Farmer 2 - Attorneys 0

"structured transactions", YES! At the www.msb.gov website, in their glossary section, and in the relevant statutory locations, you can read all about those pesky little devils. Seems that a lot of courtroom activities in the penal stage of a transaction, often get involved in the convoluted structured transactions in an attempt to cover-up what they are really doing.

Classic example. A lady is convicted of an alleged crime, is penalized 33,000.00 and it is not discovered until later, that the penalty imposed on the lady was nothing more than an attempt to recover the loss of money that had been misappropriated by judicial officials within the courthouse. For details on the actual story behind this.. visit www.nancygrant.info .



Jerry Carlos

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

"revenue concealed under another name/all the facts":

I object- that's a conclusion. W2 just lists "revenue" but the accused denies it, and rebuts with testimony under penalty of perjury.

You have now established a controversy: Does the alleged W2 correctly reflect income to the 'relative' or is the testimonial rebuttal correct?

Where are controversies such as this resolved? In the established courts.

Since this appears to be a controversy regarding income, hence devolving into an income tax issue, the first judicial forum, wuld be either the Tax Court (assuming the alleged tax deficiency hasn't been paid) or the District Court if it's been paid and a refund is desired.

It will come down to this: Is the Court going to believe the testimony and documentation of the disinterested party who paid the salary/wages/whatever or the testimony of a person who is attempting to characterize income as non-taxable?

I'll give you a hint: In every, repeat EVERY, case that has come before any court regarding this argument, the $100,000 has been held to be taxable income.

As a matter of fact, the characterization of the receipt of $100,000 as "paid for that money with equal value" is specifically documented by the IRS as a frivolous argument, subject to penalty and sanctions.

[indago]

KarenM wrote:

As a matter of fact, the characterization of the receipt of $100,000 as "paid for that money with equal value" is specifically documented by the IRS as a frivolous argument, subject to penalty and sanctions.

Well, why am I not surprised???


-------------------------------------------------
If you don't waive your rights and give it to us, we'll take it! — Government On The Take