Taxes and condensed data as appears to be

[Sharing Lights]

influence and control, the same way a Judicial Committee Judges Judges.

Let's get serious, dear Shoonra, - you may be that naive - not the Sovereign minds,
as we have the ability to
analyze precisely and not be manipulated.

Let's get to it.

SuiJuris mode in action for those who doubt our abilities.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

For info about the audit of the Federal Reserve:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/genera...q/faqfrs.htm#9

I imagine a copy of the audit report can be found at the Federal Reserve Bank in your district.

Are you for real?

Imagination is the keyword.


Let's dissect in the style of precision vs. accepting propaganda for evidence.

Step No One:

Definition.

Now from the FR's
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...ual03/ar03.pdf

Audits of the Federal Reserve System
The Board of Governors, the Federal
Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve
System as a whole are all subject to
several levels of audit and review.

Step No Two:

Argument by logic:

The
Board’s financial statements, and its
compliance with laws and regulations
affecting those statements, are audited
annually by an outside auditor retained
by the Board’s Office of Inspector General.

end of step no two.

Step No Three:

A) The Office of Inspector General
also audits and investigates the Board’s
programs and operations, as well as
those Board functions delegated to the
Reserve Banks.


Oops, dear Shoonra,
didn't these nice fellows from the FR just contradicted themselves outright?

Look, they just have stated that "The Office of Inspector General"...


when earlier they, themselves, admitted that the
"The Office of Inspector General"
hires an outside firm to audit.


Well, let's quote,
B)

end of the step no three.

Step No Four:

Argument by math.

end of step no four

Step no Five:

end of step no five.

Step No Six:

end of step no six.

Federal Reserve operations are also
subject to review by the General
Accounting Office.
295

I would come back to that as it requires few posts.
Please watch for few key phrases I would outline.

Step no Seven.

Check this "independent" auditor.

end of step no seven.

to be continued

[Sharing Lights]

If you, dear Shoonra, checked the provided by you link,
you would notice that the so called - independent audit firm is KPMG.

If you disagree, please let us all know that.
I stated to all how fraud works, regarding the "independent" and honest firms auditing the Federal Reserve.

Let' take a closer look - shall we?

Here is your, honest auditor - KPMG.

Since you insist, I would give you more precision on your honest auditor and Friend of the Federal Reserve.

Maybe it's time to wake up and smell coffee or you, still, naively,
believe in the FR angelical nature and independent auditors?

Watch SuiJuris mode in action and may all discern who provides more credible evidence?
Shall we continue?

Day to Day, June 17, 2005 · Alex Chadwick talks with John Dimsdale of Marketplace about a possible deal between accounting titan KPMG and federal prosecutors investigating the firm. KPMG officials acknowledged responsibility for allowing partner organizations to sell dubious tax shelters.

Nooo, probably wicked lies vs. the honest auditor who
of course is honest as it audits the FR.

Accounting Firm Apologies
by Jim Zarroli

Morning Edition, June 17, 2005 · A large accounting firm, KPMG, is being sued by some of its clients over tax shelters it created. The Justice Department has declared the shelters illegal and is considering criminal charges.

Look at that,
the honest, independent auditor apologizes.
Why in the world?

[Sharing Lights]

Contents
1 Name
2 History
3 Legal Structure and Executives
4 Audit Clients
5 Tax shelter fraud
6 See also
7 External links

KPMG is one of the largest professional services firms in the world. KPMG employs 104,000 people in a global network spanning 144 countries. Composite revenues of KPMG member firms in 2005 were $15.7 billion USD. KPMG has three lines of services: audit services, tax services, and advisory services. KPMG is a Big 4 accountancy firm, along with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

Name
K stands for Klynveld. This originates from the accounting firm Klynveld Kraayenhof & Co. founded by Piet Klynveld in Amsterdam in 1917.
P is for Peat, originating from the accounting firm William Barclay Peat & Co., which was founded by William Barclay Peat in London in 1870.
M stands for Marwick. James Marwick founded the accounting firm Marwick, Mitchell & Co. together with Roger Mitchell in New York City in 1897.
G is for Goerdeler. Dr. Reinhard Goerdeler was for many years chairman of the German Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft (DTG) and later chairman of KPMG. He is credited with laying much of the groundwork for the KMG merger.

History
In 1870, William Barclay Peat formed an accounting firm in London, England
In 1911, William Barclay Peat & Co. and Marwick Mitchell & Co. merged to form what would later be known as Peat Marwick International (PMI).
The Peat Marwick logo.In 1979, Klynveld merged with Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft (DTG) and McLintock Main Lafrentz to form Klynveld Main Goerdeler (KMG).
In 1987 both firms joined forces in the first mega-merger of large accounting firms and formed KPMG.
In 1997, KPMG and Ernst & Young announced that they were to merge, in a maneuver largely seen as a spoiling tactic over the merger of Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand. However that merger, to form PricewaterhouseCoopers, was granted regulatory approval and the KPMG/Ernst & Young tie-up was later abandoned.
In 2001, KPMG divested its US consulting firm through an IPO of KPMG Consulting Inc, which is now called BearingPoint, Inc.. A song that was produced for KPMG, Our Vision of Global Strategy, experienced a brief period of Internet notoriety.
In 2002, the UK and Dutch Consulting arms were sold to Atos Origin.
In 2003, KPMG divested itself of its legal arm, Klegal.
In 2005, KPMG LLP admitted criminal wrongdoing in multi-billion dollar tax shelter fraud.

The KPMG logo used by member firms in the 1990s[edit]
Legal Structure and Executives
Each national KPMG firm is an independent legal entity and is a member of KPMG International, a Swiss Verein headquartered in the Netherlands.

KPMG International is led by:

Michael D.V. Rake, Chairman, Senior Partner of KPMG in the United Kingdom;
Dominic C.F. Ho and John B. Harrison, Chairman-Asia Pacific Region, Partner of KPMG in China and Hong Kong;
Timothy P. Flynn, Chairman-Americas Region, Chairman of KPMG in the United States;
Ben van der Veer, Chairman-Europe, Middle East and Africa Region, Chairman of KPMG in the Netherlands.


Audit Clients
KPMG member firms serve as the Independent Auditors for a large number of major corporations:

Retail & Consumer Products: The Home Depot, PepsiCo, J.C. Penney, Nestlé, The Hershey Company, Yum! Brands, Supervalu, General Mills, CVS Pharmacy, Carlsberg, ConAgra Foods, Burger King, Jack in the Box, Diageo, Heineken, Federated Department Stores, Winn-Dixie, Publix Super Markets, Hasbro, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Levi Strauss & Co.
Travel and Transportation: US Airways, Cathay Pacific, Norfolk Southern Railway, easyJet, Amtrak
Technology: Apple Computer, CA Inc., EDS, LG, Samsung, Motorola, Philips, Siemens, Electronic Arts, Dolby Laboratories, CNET Networks, Electronic Data Systems
Media: NBC Universal, Sony BMG, Bertelsmann, RH Donnelley, BBC, ITV, RealNetworks
Telecoms: Qwest, SprintNextel, Embarq, CenturyTel, Citizens Communications, PCCW, China Mobile, Cable & Wireless
Energy: Citgo, Murphy Oil, Valero, Occidental Petroleum, Reliant Energy, Halliburton, Sinopec
Industrial Products: General Electric, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, BMW, Matsu****a Electric Industrial Co., Mitsubishi Electric, Weyerhaeuser, Siemens AG, Cemex, Navistar International, BMHC
Financial Services:

Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, HSBC, H&R Block, Standard Chartered Bank, ING Group, Deutsche Bank, Allianz, Munich Re, Credit Suisse, Nationwide Financial, Countrywide Financial, Visa International, Salomon Brothers, Hang Seng Bank, First Republic Bank, MassMutual Financial Group

Consulting: Accenture
Mining: BHP Billiton
Healthcare: Kaiser Foundation

[Sharing Lights]

Tax shelter fraud

Main article: KPMG tax shelter fraud


In early 2005, the United States member firm, KPMG LLP, was accused by the United States Department of Justice of fraud in marketing abusive tax shelters.

Under an agreement,

KPMG LLP admitted criminal wrongdoing

in creating fraudulent tax shelters to help wealthy clients avoid $2.5 billion in taxes

and

agreed to pay $456 million in penalties in exchange for a deferred prosecution agreement.

KPMG LLP will not face criminal prosecution as long as it complies with the terms of its agreement with the government.

Another word a typical justice the modern Us style.
We caught you, criminals, and you are facing what criminals should.


However, do you know what?
Not to worry...
You are in the most just country in the world,

"pay the Government $456 million in penalties and, that would buy
you a title - " no longer a criminal but an honest firm."


Justice has a price, as they say, "ain't' that so?"


Abba, the most popular group in Europe, had
a song,

"money, money, money
always sunny
in the rich man's world!"

Before the settlement, the firm, on the advice of its counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, removed several tax partners and admitted "unlawful conduct" by those partners.

The firm agreed to cooperate with DOJ's investigation and help prosecute former partners who had devised and sold the tax shelters.

Additionally, the firm hired former U.S. district judge Sven Erik Holmes to monitor its legal and regulatory affairs.


KPMG audit of the Development Fund for Iraq
KPMG audit of Clearstream "bank of banks"

External links
KPMG International
KPMG Insiders
KPMG Anthem



Show me your "independent" audit firm doing the FR, and I would show you the fraud on that side by facts, as just did here.

Please remember the FR would never allow any firm to touch a page of its books, unless a total control was assured.

Do not underestimate the Federal Reserve.

If, still, do, then you are still sleeping.

I did offer some coffee earlier, didn't I?


Here is Abba's song and a fine one, I admit.

Money, Money, Money (ABBA)
Abba

Song infos | Lyrics | Chords
Lyrics
I work all night, I work all day
to pay the bills I have to pay
ain't it sad
and still there never seems to be
a single penny left for me
that's too bad
in my dreams I have a plan
if I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all
I'd fool around and have a ball

Money, money, money
must be funny
in the rich man's world
money, money, money
always sunny
in the rich man's world
aha, aha
all the things I could do
if I had a little money
it's a rich man's world

A man like that is hard to find
but I can't get him off my mind
ain't it sad
and if he happens to be free
I bet he wouldn't fancy me
that's too bad
so I must leave, I'll have to go
to Las Vegas or Monaco
and win a fortune in a game
my life will never be the same

Money, money, money
must be funny
in the rich man's world
money, money, money
always sunny
in the rich man's world
aha, aha
all the things I could do
if I had a little money
it's a rich man's world.


PS. Hey, the officials in the Government, do you want more millions in penalties?

Forget the tax shelters as tax is mostly fraud anyway, go for the, so called,
independent audit of the FR, then you would learn what real fraud is.

Yet, you are afraid to touch the Feds.
Why?


You know well that they appear to be stronger than Mafia, as they maybe it,
only in the financial world.
You are afraid of them and most of you are bought by them.

For those of you, who are musically blessed: the Chords,
as the melody is trully awesome.

Money, Money, Money (ABBA)
Abba


Chords
Am E

1. I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay,

Am

ain't it sad.

E

And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me,

Am

that's too bad.

G-F

In my dreams I have a plan, if I got me a wealthy man,

Dm B7 - E

I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd fool around and have a ball.



Am B7 E Am

Money, money, money, must be funny, in the rich man's world.

B7 E Am

Money, money, money, always sunny, in the rich man's world.

Dm E- A Dm FE

Aha-ahaaa, all the things I could do, if I

Am Dm E Am F - Dm

had a little money, it's a rich man's world.

E Am

It`s a rich man`s world.



Am E

2. A man like that is hard to find, but I can't get him off my mind,

Am

ain't it sad.

E

And if he happens to be free, I bet he wouldn't fancy me,

Am

that's too bad.

G - F

So I must leave, I'll have to go, to Las Vegas or Monaco,

Dm B7 - E

and win a fortune in a game, my life will never be the same.



+ CHORUS + CHORUS

[Sharing Lights]

SEC Charges Three Former KPMG Auditors for Altering Audit Working Papers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2006-45

Washington, D.C., March 30, 2006 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled administrative actions finding improper professional conduct by a former KPMG engagement partner and senior manager for failing properly to complete the audit of Tenet Healthcare Corporation's fiscal year 2002 financial statements and for making after-the-fact modifications to the audit working papers which created the false impression that the audit had been adequately performed.

The KPMG manager on the Tenet audit was also charged for his role in the improper modifications to the audit working papers.

The Commission found that the improper modifications included adding substantive comments to the working papers, backdating documents, and creating audit documentation after the fact.

SL: Ar there are any questions left whom the FR hires?

The Commission further found that certain of the improper modifications occurred even after the issuance of a subpoena to KPMG by Commission investigators.

SL: They just don't stop, do they?


The Commission's orders charge Clete D. Madden, age 45, of Dallas, Texas, the KPMG partner in charge of the Tenet audit; David L. Huffman, age 40, of Apopka, Fla., the KPMG senior manager on the Tenet audit; and Aron R. Carr, age 30, of Dallas, Texas, a former KPMG manager. Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Madden, Huffman, and Carr settled the SEC's charges by agreeing to be denied the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as accountants. The orders provide that Huffman may apply for reinstatement after four years while Carr may apply for reinstatement after three years.

"By failing to perform a proper audit and then altering documents, thereby concealing their audit failures, the KPMG auditors were derelict in their most basic gatekeeping functions," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement.

"The KPMG auditors' repeated misconduct reflects a lack of competence to perform audits for public companies, and the orders in this case will ensure that they cannot do so without the Commission's approval."

Randall R. Lee, Director of the SEC's Pacific Regional Office, stated, "An auditor's working papers constitute the principal record of the work the auditor has done and the conclusions he or she has reached in rendering an opinion on a company's financial statements. The KPMG auditors' misconduct in this case undermined the very integrity of their audit and impeded our ability to determine whether a proper audit was conducted. We rely on audit working papers in our investigations and expect auditors to abide by their professional obligation to safeguard and protect them."

This matter arises from the KPMG auditors' conduct during and after Tenet's fiscal year 2002 audit. In August 2002, Madden released an audit report stating that KPMG had performed an audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (also known as GAAS). When the audit report was released, however, Madden and Huffman knew, or should have known, that the audit team had not finished several procedures in critical audit areas. Many of the incomplete procedures concerned "outlier" payments, a component of Medicare revenue.

In October 2002, an industry analyst reported that Tenet had been exploiting the Medicare program through an aggressive pricing strategy designed to trigger an increase in outlier payments. The publication of these reports led to a 47% loss in Tenet's market capitalization, or more than $11 billion. Government investigators, including from the SEC, began inquiries into Tenet's pricing strategies.

In November 2002, the Tenet audit team, led by Madden and Huffman, began altering the 2002 audit working papers, principally as they related to outlier payments, creating the false impression that the audit was complete when the audit report was issued and that Madden had concluded that Tenet's outlier pricing strategy did not need to be disclosed. In all, the audit team spent over 500 hours altering more than 350 working papers. The audit team continued to alter the 2002 working papers even after receiving a Commission subpoena in July 2003. Carr not only participated in altering the 2002 working papers, but under the supervision of Huffman he also improperly created audit evidence, such as by taking a 2002 document, backdating it to 2001 by cutting and pasting over the title and date, copying it, and then placing it in the audit working papers for 2001.

The Commission's orders find that Madden, Huffman, and Carr engaged in improper professional conduct within the meaning of Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. Specifically, by failing to complete the 2002 audit before the issuance of the audit report and by modifying working papers after the issuance of the audit report, Madden and Huffman engaged in repeated instances of unreasonable conduct, each resulting in a violation of applicable professional standards, that indicate a lack of competence to practice before the Commission. Further, by modifying the working papers after learning about the government investigations into Tenet, all three former auditors engaged in highly unreasonable conduct in circumstances in which they knew, or should have known, that heightened scrutiny was warranted.


# # #

For further information contact:

Briane Nelson Mitchell
Associate Regional Director
Pacific Regional Office
(323) 965-3864

Michele Wein Layne
Associate Regional Director
Pacific Regional Office
(323) 965-3850

Additional materials: Administrative Proceeding Nos. 53573 and 53574.



http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-45.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 03/30/2006

[Sharing Lights]

Four Current or Former KPMG Partners Settle SEC Litigation Relating To Xerox Audits


Three Partners Agree to Permanent Injunctions, Record Penalties and SEC Suspensions; Fourth Partner Agrees to SEC Censure
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2006-23


Washington, D.C., Feb. 22, 2006 - The Commission today announced that all four remaining defendants in an action brought against them and KPMG LLP by the agency in connection with a $1.2 billion fraudulent earnings manipulation scheme by the Xerox Corporation from 1997 through 2000 have agreed to settle the charges against them. Three partners agreed to permanent injunctions, payment of record civil penalties and suspensions from practice before the Commission with rights to reapply in from one to three years. The fourth partner agreed to be censured by the Commission.

"This case represents the SEC's willingness to litigate important accounting fraud allegations against major accounting firms and their audit partners, even where the accounting was complex," said Linda Chatman Thomsen, the SEC's Director of Enforcement. "The settlements announced today, including the largest penalties ever imposed on individual auditors, reflect the seriousness with which the SEC regards the responsibilities of gatekeepers."

"The Xerox fraud was a wide-ranging, four-year scheme to defraud investors," said Paul R. Berger, Associate Director of Enforcement. "The cases brought by the SEC, including its cases against Xerox, KPMG and the settlements against the audit partners announced today, have resulted in over $55.2 million in penalties and disgorgement. Investors and the marketplace are the victims and deserve better from their corporate executives and auditor gatekeepers."

The settlements relate to Xerox's fraudulent scheme that involved various manipulations of accounting for leases of Xerox office equipment. The Commission alleged that the manipulations were necessary for Xerox to meet promises it made to Wall Street that its earnings would continue to grow. The manipulations helped Xerox to "close the gap" between its actual performance and what it promised analysts. KPMG was Xerox's independent auditor each of those years. KPMG issued unqualified audit reports asserting that Xerox's financial statements were consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and that KPMG had conducted an audit each year in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). The SEC alleged in its complaint against KPMG and five KPMG partners filed in 2003 that these statements were materially false and misleading and aided and abetted Xerox's filing of false financial reports with the Commission. When Xerox retained new auditors in 2002, it restated $6.1 billion in equipment revenues and $1.9 billion in pre-tax earnings for 1997-2000. The complaint alleged that KPMG and its partners knew or should have known about the improper topside adjustments that resulted in $3 billion of the restated revenues and $1.2 billion of the restated earnings.

The defendants whose settlements were announced today are Ronald Safran, the KPMG engagement partner on the Xerox audit for 1998 and 1999; Michael Conway, the senior engagement partner on the Xerox audit for 2000; Anthony Dolanski, the engagement partner on the Xerox audit for 1997; and Thomas Yoho, the SEC concurring review partner for KPMG on the Xerox engagement from 1997-2000. Safran, Conway and Dolanski each consented to the entry of final judgments against them by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Yoho agreed to the entry of a Commission order imposing a censure pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the SEC's Rules of Practice. Each defendant entered into his settlement without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations or findings.

The final judgments, which are subject to approval by the Honorable Denise L. Cote, order the engagement partners to pay civil penalties that are the largest penalties ever imposed by the Commission against an individual auditor: Safran and Conway to each pay a civil penalty in the amount of $150,000, and Dolanski to pay a penalty in the amount of $100,000. The final judgments also order that Safran, Conway and Dolanski be permanently enjoined from violating certain provisions of the federal securities laws (Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933) and from aiding and abetting violations of other securities laws (Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder). Safran, Conway and Dolanski each also consented to the issuance of an SEC Order based on the entry of the injunctions which will suspend them from appearing or practicing before the SEC as accountants. Safran will be suspended with a right to reapply in three years, Conway in two, and Dolanski in one.

The SEC alleged in its federal court complaint that, in the course of serving as engagement partners for Xerox, Safran, Conway and Dolanski allowed Xerox to impose topside accounting adjustments that they knew or should have known did not comply with GAAP. The SEC alleged that these partners failed to adequately test, or require Xerox to test, the assumptions Xerox used to justify its topside adjustments, nor did they test, or demand that Xerox test, to determine if the topside adjustments resulted in financial statements that fairly presented Xerox's financial results. The SEC further alleged that, as a result of this conduct and other conduct alleged in the complaint, the engagement partners failed to exercise the professional care and skepticism required under GAAS and instead authorized the issuance of the KPMG audit reports that contained the false and misleading representation that KPMG conducted its audits in accordance with GAAS, and that Xerox's financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, Xerox's financial position and results of operations in conformity with GAAP.

The settled SEC Order against Yoho finds that he engaged in improper professional conduct by failing to exercise appropriate due care and professional skepticism when he conducted an "in depth" review during the 2000 audit. The Order finds that Yoho failed in his obligations as concurring review partner when he was informed of missing work papers, audit results that differed from reasonable expectations, lack of testing of significant topside revenue adjustments and unresolved differences between KPMG auditors in Brazil and those leading the engagement in Stamford, Conn. The Order finds that rather than pursue these issues, Yoho prepared a brief report that did not disclose any of the issues found in the "in depth" review.

The Commission previously announced settled enforcement proceedings against KPMG LLP, a KPMG relationship partner on the Xerox audit, Xerox and six former senior executives of Xerox, all in connection with the fraudulent manipulative accounting. See Litigation Release No. 19191 / April 19, 2005 /Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 2235 / April 19, 2005 (KPMG LLP settlement); Litigation Release No. 19418 / October 6, 2005 / Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 2350 / December 2, 2005 (KPMG relationship partner settlement); Litigation Release No. 17465 / April 11, 2002 / Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 1542 / April 11, 2002 (Xerox settlement); Litigation Release No. 18174 / June 5, 2003 / Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 1796 / June 5, 2003 (settlement of six former Xerox executives). The Commission obtained civil penalties and disgorgement in all of these actions in excess of $55 million.


# # #

For further information contact:

Paul R. Berger, Associate Director of Enforcement - (202) 551-4910
James A. Kidney, Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel - (202) 551-4441

Additional materials: Litigation Release 19573



http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-23.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Previous Page Modified: 02/22/2006

[Sharing Lights]

IRS and California Franchise Tax Board -
Redemption Use Update

by Barton Albert Buhtz

Investigative Journalist and Consumer Advocate


My continued investigation of the redemption plan has revealed a very interesting pattern and curious phenomenon in relation to discharge of public taxing agencies (IRS and (California) FTB assesments).
For a number of months now I have been comparing experiences and sharing information with a number of others who are involved in and researching the mechanics of the UCC filings and the Redemption plan. One of the common experiences has been we have received reports and documentation that assessments were made by public agencies (even county tax assessors). When the patriot processed the necessary paperwork through the Dept. of the Treasury and then some weeks later called for a printout were told that the assessment was now "0."

However, we have had others who were receiving subsequent notices which showed that the original amount of assessment had been changed either to "0" or to a lesser amount. Looking at the supporting detail presented often the recipient was confused because the book-keeping did not make sense.

Now I personally observed several instances where the original assessment accepted for value has been reduced to "0" but not with any open acknowledgement of "discharge". Instead the accounting has been very creative by the IRS or the FTB to reduce the amount to either "0" or to a much lesser figure than originally assessed.

We think we are beginning to understand what is going on here. The public taxing agencies (IRS, FTB, etc.) apparantly are accepting the Accepted for Value and Discharge process through the Federal Window, but do not want it to be openly known. Let me give just four examples :

1) Mr, Forbes is retired. He Accepted for Value an IRS assessment for 1999. This came some months ago. Then recently he received a Notice that the IRS had changed his account. They stated that Mr. Forbes had miscalculated his Social Security figure on his return and thus (through their creative book-keeping) the IRS now actually showed a credit owed to Mr. Forbes. However, they did not send a refund - but noticed him that credit was being applied to another year!

2) Mr. Holland is a chiropractor in Southern California. Around July 2000, he received a number of assessments from the FTB. They were coming to him at the rate of about two per week. He accepted them for value at that time. Well, in October Dr. Holland contacted me and wanted to know if it would be allright to call the FTB and get a printout of everything they might claim he owed. So he called and the gal brought up his name and SS# in her computer. Dr. Holland owed NOTHING! So he asked for a printout. She said they generally do not provide printouts and especially not when there is nothing due. So he got her name which he has in his file in case in case the FTB changes hteir mind.

3) Paul works with the agriculture industry in the San Joaquin Valley. He is close to retirement age. Recently the IRS sent him a Notice of Deficiency for several thousands of dollars. He responded by notifying the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court that he was accepting that Deficiency for value. Just before the end of November 2000, he received a Notice that the IRS had changed his account. At first he was upset because he thought they were continuing to assess him for the Deficiency. However, upon closer examination, we discovered some very creative book-keeping which reduced the amount of Deficiency to "0". But they now claimed that Mr. Young had neglected to include a Self-Employment Tax assessment. So they were now charging him with that, plus a penalty for not timely reporting that. So now he is accepting that for value and we will see how they crunch the numbers on this one!

4) Ken lives in Northern California. Last year the local county assessor had sent a claim for unsecured past due Property Taxes. Ken accepted the taxes for value and also included a Notice of Defect of Process form with the notification. Shortly, thereafter, Mr. Lake received a letter from the County stating the assessment had been reduced to "0". However, now things get very interesting. An associate of mine called the County Assessor's office and inquired about the discharge. He was quickly referred to a superior who told him that they had rejected the Accepted For Value and that Mr. Lake had satisfied the obligation in another way. So we contacted Ken Lake and Ken assured us he had taken no other action to satisfy the assessment in any other manner.

For some reason, these public taxing agencies are doing everything they can to keep from openly admitting or acknowledging that the Accepted For Value discharge process is being accepted by them. We continue to investigate this to see if we can come up with answers as to why.

One other observation : If you have an assessment that has gone to a Notice of Lien, Levy or Order to Withhold the public agency will not necessarily rescind the action when the original assessment is accepted for value. Our evaluation of that reluctance seems to be that they are getting their money from the employer or the bank and are not willing to acknowledge that the discharge is valid. When the employer or the bank cooperates with the employee or depositor we have found that the taxing agency will quickly back off. So on we go working our way through the labyrinth of deception continually dished out by these taxing agencies. If more and more would hold them accountable and discharge these assessments I believe we would force them to openly acknowledge the validity of the UCC filing and discharge process.

For a copy of my latest investigative report on the Redemption Plan send a donation to Truth Radio.

Barton A. Buhtz
c/o 8050 Le Berthon St.
Sunland, California [91040]
eclok@juno.com