|
Quatlosers
> Thurston
Bell
These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for
themselves in their particular business endeavors.
 100
Q
Thurston Bell
Our 100Q Woopoo chips commemorate promoters of
tax scams.
 Tax
scam artist and Quatlooser Thurston Bell (no relation to millionaire Thurston
Howell III, pictured right) has become known as the chief advocate of the “861
Argument” which is basically that nobody knows what “income”
is, therefore nobody except a foreigner has to pay tax on it. Presumably, if
nobody could define what “air” is, Thurston and his follows would
immediately stop breathing.
Well, we’re not going to waste our breath
exploding Thurston’s theory – that is done below along with the U.S.
Department of Justice’s press release announcing that they are seeking
an injunction against Thurston Bell’s tax scamming activities.
It is a lot more fun to
talk about the dispute between Thurston and fellow Qualtooser Rick Haraka a/k/a
Rick Bryan. You see, Haraka runs a website at http://www.taxgate.com
and Thurston participated. They had a falling out, Thurston left and formed
http://www.tax-gate.com
and the National Institute for
Taxation Education (a/k/a “NITE” or “We Are In The Dark”).
After the split-up, things turned acrimonious, with Thurston claiming that Bryan
hacked into his computers, and Bryan claiming that Bell has a serious
mental disorder. Thurston now claims that he was the original author of
the www.taxgate.com scam,
but Haraka claims that he was the one who originally came up with the scam.
We encourage those who have worked with Thurston Bell
or are currently working with Bell and are:
-
fed up with Thurston Bell's poor and unprofessional
casework.... usually done and delivered to you at the very last
minute so that you don't have the time to proof-read it and correct the
bad grammar, misspelled words, filter out the obnoxious comments towards
the very people he is trying to elicit help from, etc. etc. (Very well
documented!)
-
afraid of being left out on a limb when it comes
time for your IRS meeting or interviews (it is well documented by those
who have used Thurston Bell in the past how he left them in a severe bind
and all alone when the time came for very important meetings and IRS responses)
-
tired of his immature, paranoid, and volatile
personality
-
worn-out by his continual and unexpected severe
'mood swings'
-
weary of being embarrassed by him amongst your
friends, family, and associates for his tirades and his 'superior' attitude
-
tired of wasting hours on the phone to get a simple
2 minute question answered... if you can reach him at all!
-
having to continually apologize for and remedy
his damaging and careless actions..... much to your surprise and dismay,
as he is busy at work doing the same thing somewhere else..... and
while you are still getting the first one patched up!
Thurston Bell has repeatedly made it know that he
expects researchers 20+ years his senior in experience to drop what they are
doing and help him 'perfect' his unproven tactics and then recognize him as
the leader!
Thurston Bell also has a relentless push for a "Unified
Leadership".... which ANYONE would agree is a good strategy...... no
argument there at all! Except for one problem...... Thurston Bell is not content
unless it is..... guess who?...... You are right..... BELL HIMSELF!
Thurston Bell wants to be the nationally recognized LEADER of the income tax
law research field! Folks, in the words of 98% of the income tax community.....
this 'BELL' is CRACKED.
________________________________
Thurston Bell’s Argument Exploded
For federal income tax purposes, "gross income"
means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for
services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1- 1(b)
provides, "[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever
resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes
imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
without the United States." I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources
of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention
of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country.
These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine
or define gross income. Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary
to well-established legal precedent.
Relevant Case Law:
Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States,
678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl 1982) - the court stated that "[t]he determination
of where income is derived or 'sourced' is generally of no moment to either
United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are
subject to tax under I.R.C. § 1 and I.R.C. § 11, respectively, on
their worldwide income.
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138
(2000) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that his income was not
from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing
it as "reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally
rejected by this and other courts.
Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18,
83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) - the court rejected the taxpayers' argument
that his income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f),
stating that the "source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude
from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the
United States." The court further required the taxpayers to pay a $2,000
penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because "they . . . wasted limited judicial
and administrative resources.
Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40,
69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that
the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section
861.
Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370,
80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) - the court labeled as "frivolous" the
position that only foreign income is taxable.
Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509,
66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument
that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911,
noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that "compensation
for labor or personal services performed in the United States . . . are items
of gross income.
Thurston Bell’s argument is also thoroughly de-bunked
starting at http://evans-legal.com/
dan/ tpfaq.html#section61
Oh, and almost forgot:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001
WWW.USDOJ.GOV |
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888 |
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS INJUNCTIONS
AGAINST THREE PROMOTERS TO HALT
NATIONWIDE BOGUS-TAX-REFUND SCHEME
Promoters Of Frivolous "Section 861"
Scheme
Ignored Repeated Warnings To Stop
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Department of Justice
today filed lawsuits in federal courts in three states to crack down on a
nationwide bogus tax refund scheme based on a misinterpretation of Section
861 of the Internal Revenue Code. Two of the suits named leading promoters
of the "Section 861 argument"—Thurston Bell of Hanover, Pennsylvania
and David Bosset of Clearwater, Florida. In the third case the government
sued an Atlanta accountant and tax return preparer, Harold E. "Hal"
Hearn, alleging that he has prepared federal income tax returns for taxpayers
in 11 states that improperly claim tax refunds or report no income. The three
suits were filed in U.S. district courts in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Tampa,
Florida; and Atlanta, Georgia.
"Bell, Bosset, and Hearn have preyed on uninformed
taxpayers, convinced them to pay exorbitant fees for erroneous advice, and
sold them a theory that has been rejected as frivolous by every judge who
has examined it," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General
in charge of the Justice Department's Tax Division. "The Justice Department
filed these three injunction suits because the Section 861 argument is frivolous.
We will take the action that is necessary to stop people who attempt to defraud
the public using this and other abusive tax plans."
The Government's court filings allege that Bell has
promoted the Section 861 argument through a website on which he states that
Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations exempt
from taxation all domestic income earned by United States citizens. The United
States Tax Court has on numerous occasions rejected that argument and recently
fined a taxpayer $25,000 for asserting it. Court papers further allege that
Bell sells recordings of his seminars and charges hourly fees for giving erroneous
tax advice and preparing documents for clients to use in asserting the argument.
The government complaint estimates that Bell may have more than 100 individual
and corporate clients throughout the United States. One Bell client cited
in the complaint is No Time Delay Electronics, a Huntington Beach, California-based
company that has been featured in national print and television news media
for refusing to withhold taxes from its employees' wages.
According to the complaints filed in Pennsylvania
and Florida, another Bell client—David Bosset—improperly claimed
tax refunds for his company using Bell's materials. The IRS erroneously refunded
$21,916.45 to Bosset's company but has sued to recover the refund. According
to the complaint filed against Bosset in Florida today, Bosset has sold false
or fraudulent Section 861-related promotional materials and has charged clients
over $100 per hour to show them how to use the Section 861 argument to falsely
claim that they owe no payroll or income taxes. Recently, the complaint alleges,
Bosset began preparing income tax returns falsely reporting no income for
some clients, while charging them thousands of dollars for his services.
The third man sued today—Harold E. "Hal"
Hearn—is an Atlanta accountant and tax return preparer. Court papers
allege that Hearn learned of Bell's tax-refund scheme and paid Bell $1,000
to purchase materials that Hearn then used to assist his own clients in filing
improper refund claims and tax returns. The government complaint notes that
the IRS erroneously refunded at least $168,782 to Hearn's clients before discovering
the bogus nature of the claims.
The IRS has issued four public announcements in 2001
informing the public that the Section 861 argument is frivolous. The three
complaints filed today allege that Bell, Bosset, and Hearn have ignored these
and other warnings and continued to solicit clients, collect fees for erroneous
tax advice, and hamper IRS efforts to collect proper tax liabilities. The
Justice Department has asked the three federal courts to enjoin the three
men from further promoting the frivolous Section 861 argument and to bar Bosset
and Hearn permanently from continuing to prepare federal income tax returns.
###
01-597
What Jonathon B. Kotmair, Jr., of the Save-A-Patriot
Fellowship, says of Thurston Bell:
Mr. Bell's statements speak for themselves.
Since each of his fallacious allegations either betrays any possible understanding
of the most basic elements of English grammar and statutory construction,
or; lacks any fundamental ability to discern clear fact and reason when presented
with such, or; evidences a serious shortcoming of the basic, common sense
necessary to the most fundamental ratiocination, or; simply displays a petulant
and sophomoric nature fueled by a megalomaniacal ego, or; all of the preceeding
in toto, we can only conclude - and sadly so - that his specious reasoning
and pejorative invective can only be attributed to the feckless acts of a
hubristic blatherskite.
What Steve Fitzgerald says about Thurston
Bell
Subject: 861 Argument -- Dead & Stinkin'
You have been repeatedly informed of the fact that
you cannot resort to Code of Federal Regulations section 1.861-8 unless
you have ALREADY DETERMINED that you have gross income as defined in section
61 of the Internal Revenue Code, yet, you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
How mature.
"1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United
States and from other sources and activities.
(a) In general-- (1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and
863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income from sources
within the United States AFTER GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES HAS BEEN DETERMINED."(Emphasis added)
CFR sections 1.861-1(b) and 1.863-1(a) are sections
that deal with and refer respectively, to the subject matter found in 1.861-1(a)(3)
income "partly within and partly without" the United State. In
other words, when an individual receives income from both foreign and domestic
sources, you need to resort to the mechanical rules found in Section 861
that apply!!
If that is not enough to explode your silly theory,
right at the beginning of "your" hobby section CFR 1.861-8(a)(3)
"Class of gross income" states very clearly that the "class
of gross income" may consist of one or more ITEMS enumerated in section
61 of the Internal Revenue Code, and then proceeds to reproduce the entire
list found in section 61 at 1.861-8(3)(i). So you cannot escape section
61, in the manner you propose with "YOUR" infantile THEORY!
Additionally, if, in the first place, you are claiming
you don't have gross income, what in the blue blazes are you doing arguing
the merits of a code section designed to aid in the determination as to
what specific deductions and credits apply to income deemed partly from
within and partly from without the United States!?? "Your" silly
theory falls flat on its face before it gets off the ground. You consequently,
defeat your own argument when you wander into 861, and begin invoking the
rules therein!!
EITHER YOU HAVE GROSS INCOME OR YOU DON'T EINSTEIN!!
As I told you in July of 1999, when I met you at
your armory in Pa., PLEASE BUY A DICTIONARY! You cannot resort to section
861 AFTER you have already determined you HAVE gross income! For the ten-thousandth
time, the word "AFTER" when used as a preposition, is defined
as " 1: BEHIND IN PLACE." (see Webster's New American Dictionary
1995, pg. 10.) And the word "item" means a "separate particular
in a list." (Ibid. pg. 278). Your arguments are frivolously infantile,
and "your people" will be either fined and/or imprisoned when
they go to any kind of hearing chanting the inane ditties you espouse.
When Stephen Williams used "your" 861
argument he was fined $5,000.00 for being frivolous, and promoting previously
rejected tax-protestor rhetoric before the court. (see below). Professor
Richard A. Westin completely shatters to pieces "YOUR" argument
when he states on page 383 of his 1984, "Lexicon of Tax Terminology":
"Item of gross income: a particular component
of a taxpayer's gross income. (e.g., salary, interest income, etc.)."
So an "item of gross income," can never
be separated from the SOURCE from which it issues as you foolishly posit.
The SOURCE of the ITEM of gross income, "e.g., salary, interest income,"
"wages, " windfall gains, or any of the components of gross income
that are listed as being subject to federal income taxation, are inseparably
dependant for a clear and comprehensive definition. To attempt to forcibly
separate the two words does violence to every rule of English grammar, and
renders the definition meaningless.
Is it that you are such a crook, or are you so dense
that you cannot comprehend the clear foolishness in the old muddleheaded
861 THEORY? The THEORY that you now CLAIM AS YOUR OWN, as you do whenever
anyone shares their research or ideas with you. You distort everything with
which you come into contact, then claim to be the origin of the material.
You used my laboriously acquired research, which took years to formulate,
in violation of our mutual agreement concerning non-disclosure, and displayed
certain data, given to you in confidence, on your website as if such material
was the product of your own efforts. How sad you cannot be honest with your
own intellect.
You stated on your website in July of ‘99
that American citizens were made liable at section 1 of the Internal Revenue
Code, and that the requirement to file a return was at 6011, then you removed
it in November ‘99, and you now have gone back to spouting your old
861 BS again because you saw an opportunity to be a shooting star on the
heels of the Bosset Marketing fraud you engineered. Now, instead of offering
Bosset the protection he needs, you refuse to make it available by repudiating
"your" pet THEORY. You will surely face destruction for your greed
and lust to be POPULAR.
Face it, the fact is, you cannot shake the inclination
to twist IRS statutes out of context, to support the basically woodenheaded
theory that Kotmair inculcated in your brain. Twisting revenue statutes
out of context was a technique taught to you by the "ex-cop" John
Kotmair of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. Old teachings die hard I guess.
In reality, the fact is, the 861 THEORY you claim
as your own, was actually first evinced in the early 80s. A product of the
meandering and imaginative mind of the songwriter F.Tupper Saussy, conceived
when your mother was still walking you to school. The theory was bounced
around by the incompetent "lawyer" Becrafty, further revised by
James Shakleford, who submitted it to John Kotmair, who summarily rejected
it as being so patently frivolous, that even the master word manipulator
Kotmair couldn't find a way to twist it out of context to fit HIS own equally
silly theory.
As far as the flat-out lie you tell about saving
the poor Mr. Webb from prison, I only have this to say to you.
By Mr. Webb's own admission, when he went before
the judge in a hearing aimed at violating his parole for failure to file
an income tax return, all the judge was concerned with was whether he would
file a return, period. It is not the duty of the judge to determine the
validity of the contents of the return, and the judge demonstrated as much
in open court, despite the government's objection that Webb clearly filed
3 false information returns filled with tax-protestor rhetoric. Mr. Webb
however, does not remember what the judge said after he handed the three
returns to her because it "is still a blur," to use Mr. Webb's
own words. But that does not stop Mr. Webb from giving Thurston Bell credit
for saving him from prison, even though he is suffering from amnesia regarding
the event.
To be sure, it was simply a matter of fulfilling
the obligation to file, and not what information the returns contained.
Which, mind you, will surely be deemed false returns after the IRS processes
them, as they stated as much in open court, according to Mr. Webb's recollection.
It is clearly the duty of the IRS, and not the judge,
to initiate another criminal prosecution against Mr. Webb for filing false
returns, which you can bet your cold hearted mercenary little arse, THEY
WILL.
Note: Mr. Webb stops short of saying that he argued
and convinced the judge of the merits of the gross income malarkey marketed
by NITE and yourself.
When Mr. Webb realizes that you set him up for another
stay in the friendly confines of Federal Prison, and is also entitled to
another wonderful prison bus ride around the country-side trussed up with
about five pounds of chains and hand-cuffs, I will personally urge him,
and then assist him, in seeing that you get all the just recognition for
"YOUR THEORY" as you deserve. We will see if Mr. Webb gives you
the credit for garnering him a new case as a result of your advice. If I
ever have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Webb, he would be turned around
in a few minutes after hearing about your background.
Also, we do not cite Ward!? We cited the Walker
case from the 9th Circuit Appellate Court decision. The fact that you are
unaware of any cases, including the 1990 Walker case, as well as the other
cases that dealt with the 861 issue, is just the point, and highlights your
incompetence. You spout some nonsense to the effect that 861 is "Your
ARGUMENT," that you invented it, and you are not even aware that is
has been argued in the courts before you even adopted the THEORY as your
own invention. Nor do you even care. You are Like Becraft, Kidd, Conklin
Schulz and Kotmair, etc., who lie for hire, misrepresent their theories
as fact, and claim their arguments have never been heard by any court.
You added a little BS extracted from Kotmair's theories,
gave the frivolous 861 argument a new name, the "gross income argument"
and voila, it become "yours". How convenient! Renaming someone
else's theory, does not make it "YOURS" you silly boy!
The 861 THEORY has been circulating for approximately
16 years. Do you honestly think that the Williams case in March of this
year was the first case ever to raise the 861 argument? Come now, are you
going to look "YOUR" people right in the eye and tell them that
Williams was the first one to be to be trounced and fined for using the
ridiculously inane 861 defense?
Your brazen and outright fraudulent characterization
of the Williams case, wherein you claim the argument wasn't even addressed
is reprehensible. Further, we do not base our statements on anyone else's
observation but our own, least of all the observations of the untrustworthy
individual who posts on tax-protestor forums under the name Ed Senter.
In the case of "114 T.C. No. 8 UNITED STATES
TAX COURT STEPHEN W. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent Docket No. 23179-97. Filed March 1, 2000." in part, beginning
on page 5, the court stated:
"- 5 - Discussion I. Deficiency Liability
Petitioner does not challenge either the facts on which respondent's determination
is based or respondent's calculation of tax. In fact, respondent based
the computation of the deficiency on the amounts reported by petitioner
on the altered1040 and the disclaimer 1040. Petitioner, nevertheless,
contends he is not liable for the deficiency. Petitioner claims that (1)
he did not volunteer to self-assess or pay his taxes, and he therefore
cannot be held liable for any deficiency; (2) HIS INCOME IS NOT FROM ANY
OF THE SOURCES LISTED IN SECTION 1.861-8(A), INCOME TAX REGS., AND THUS
IS NOT TAXABLE; and (3) the notice of deficiency was improperly issued
because petitioner disclaimed the tax liability shown on the return. PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENTS ARE REMINISCENT OF TAX-PROTESTER RHETORIC THAT HAS BEEN UNIVERSALLY
REJECTED BY THIS AND OTHER COURTS. We shall not painstakingly address
petitioner's assertions "with somber reasoning and copious citation
of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable
merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the deficiency
determined by respondent." (Emphasis added)
In other words, since the issues raised by Williams
had already been "universally rejected" by other courts, it was
rejected in the Williams case, the court was not compelled to specifically
address the merits of the old, frivolous, tax protestor rhetoric. The court
was concerned that by rejecting such a ridiculous contention with "copious
citation," it might lend the appearance that the 861 argument, and
others employed by Williams, are rational, or viable arguments, so they
just dismissed it all as "tax-protestor rhetoric." The court also
specifically stated that other courts have rejected these arguments. If
the court will not address them, how can you offer it to people as a viable
defense. This is what you offer as security to "your people?"
Do you think the court will listen to "YOUR" silly defense that
depends on torturing and perverting the rules of English grammar? I hope
you have $5,000.00 dollars in your pocket when you open your big bazoo!
Your so-called wins with the 861 argument are no
different than Irwin Schiffs isolated instances were people occasionally
receive checks back for filing -0- returns. These IRS forms are processed
by low-level bureaucrats, which almost certainly, do not understand all
the issues involved. Either an elaborate sting is being conducted, or they
will certainly be audited later, and rest assured, "your people"
will be fined and or prosecuted.
On page 14, it is revealed, in addition to Mr. Williams'
other problems, that he was fined an additional $5,000 for raising, among
other tired old rejected tax protestor theories, the 861 "sources"
nonsense:
"Petitioner's arguments concerning the underlying deficiency amount
to tax protester rhetoric and are MANIFESTLY FRIVOLOUS AND GROUNDLESS. He
has wasted the time and resources of this Court. Accordingly, we shall impose
a penalty of $5,000 pursuant to section 6673." (Emphasis added)
When arguments reach such a degree of frivolity,
the court is perfectly justified in refusing to address them, and does so
as a rule. More importantly, if the court rejects the arguments, and proceeds
to exact huge fines and penalties, it is recklessly criminal to continue
telling people that "your" pet theory has not been ruled upon,
when it has. "Your" little ride on the gravy train is over Thurston
Bell, now how are you going to pay back all the individuals, like Ray Berglund,
whom you fleeced out of approximately $10,000 for so-called "legal"
help you knew you could not provide. I dare say, you will now have to sell
your little armory at in Hanover, PA, to pay all the
people back. I think you will need to sell your personal arsenal purchased
with the money you have unlawfully taken from all the sincere patriots you
have unlawfully hoodwinked.
Also, save your self the trouble by responding,
like Kotmair trained you to do, by saying that Tax Court is not a real court
like the District Courts and such. The administrative tribunals have been
integrated into the constitutional structure with the advent the New Deal
program called Social Security:
"The Court's role in the administrative state
has been that of both facilitator and sceptic. The Court assumed leadership
in the CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION THAT INTEGRATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
INTO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE. The Courts acceptance of lawmaking powers
to the administrative agencies is now settled, yet it remains an important
factor in the growth of the administrative state. Having allowed the establishment
of the administrative state, the Court assumed a role in supervising the
agencies."(Oxford's Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States)
(emphasis added) (See also "Constitutionalism After the New Deal,"
Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law Review 101 (1987)
So the Tax Court is a force to be reckoned with
you foolish boy.
Also, be forewarned Bell, we are currently assembling
a list of individuals who have been damaged by you with an aim to file a
group action suit against you that will soon, unfortunately, put your poor
family in the street, and you behind bars. Quite the responsible family
man aren't you? So keep on telling the people "your" theory is
still viable, and has not been addressed or rejected by the courts. You
have proven yourself to be as low-down, vile, and mercenary, as the fraud
– Becrafty. I have been discussing this situation with a legal group
you have recently offended. Given these guys contempt for fraudulent people
in general, but to be a flag waving fraud. . . Well. . .lets just say I
bet it wouldn't be too hard to convince them to help arrange for Becrafty,
Kotmair, and the rest of your ilk, to pay your members back, and then hung
out to dry in a prison somewhere.
As far as your comment about TTS "selling the
truth," we would much rather be "selling the truth," than
selling a lie--as is clearly your preference.
Also, as far as results are concerned, we have assembled
a formidable legal team that will be presenting TTS research for M.I.R.S.L.
members. "Your" NITE members and the entire patriot movement will
soon see what you, and the other avaricious tax-quack gurus have been denying
them.
Despite your pledge to distance yourself, you will
not be able to distance yourself far enough away from us, because many of
our members have been convinced that you have intentionally damaged them
with your so-called results, so they want to now damage you.
You damaged Mr. Tiffany and others. Mr. Tiffany
is fighting to keep a roof over the heads of his family, because of your
fraudulent misrepresentations. Then as a result of the obvious rejection
of "your argument that ends all arguments" by the government,
you publicly smeared the man in order to save face and go on committing
fraud. That will be your undoing young laddie.
We expect to see that your poster-boys, who represent
the so-called "wins" you claim, we expect they will be joining
our ranks sometime around when they receive their indictments for conspiracy
to defraud the United States government. Then they will all be coming after
you, as such action will suddenly be part of their defense – don't
you know -- and I wouldn't want to be in YOUR shoes.
When we turn up the heat on you PAL, prison will
sound like a pleasant alternative. But don't worry, you will have plenty
of company when Kotmair and Becrafty join you. What we would like to know,
when and where would you like your indictment delivered, we will instruct
your ex-members to give that address when they file their complaint with
the Justice Department.
You seem to fancy comparing your activities to that
of famous military leaders, however, one immediately springs to the mind
of TTS. When we think of you, we see a leader like General Grant. The general
who earned the nickname the "Butcher," with his reckless Wilderness
campaign wherein the Union Army suffered 17,000 casualties in two days–more
than twice as many than the Confederates. Or Grant's Cold Harbor campaign
wherein he allowed his troops to run frontal assaults straight into the
Confederate Army's entrenched positions, only to have 5,000 men killed in
one hour.
Like the cold-hearted Grant, you are comfortable
sending "your people" straight into artillery fire, not giving
a whit if you turn them into sausage. If you have your way, countless soldiers
will be needlessly massacred.
However, you would probably attempt to profit off
the carnage, and run for president. Why not" It worked for Grant. Who
knows, you might just get elected. Sound farfetched? Not really. Leaders
who have no compunction about sacrificing humans for glory, have always
been right popular!
You had a chance to do the right thing. Good luck
to you and "YOUR" own DEVICES, may they be your undoing.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 2002
WWW.USDOJ.GOV |
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888 |
JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT FILES LAWSUIT
IN TAX FRAUD SCHEME
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Justice Department filed suit today
in Denver against Colorado Mufflers Unlimited, Inc., of Northglenn, Colo.
According to the suit, the company, which does business as Exhaust Pros, filed
false claims for refund with the Internal Revenue Service for 1997 and 1998.
Colorado Mufflers sought a refund of payroll taxes
it had paid by asserting the so-called 861 argument. That argument says that
only income from foreign sources is subject to U.S. tax, and not amounts U.S.
employers pay to U.S. citizens. The Internal Revenue Service mistakenly paid
the refund, and the suit filed today seeks to recover that refund plus interest,
nearly $90,000 in all.
"The 861 argument is nonsense. People who file
false claims for refund are breaking the law and will be held accountable
for their actions," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General
for the Justice Department's Tax Division.
In a related case, the Department previously filed
suit in federal court in Harrisburg, Pa. against Thurston Bell. Bell is the
founder of the National Institute for Taxation Education (NITE). According
to the papers filed in that case, Bell uses NITE's Web site to promote his
corrupt 861 scheme to potential clients. The Web site claims that the tax
refunds Colorado Mufflers received were the result of "information, data
and training" that is made available exclusively through NITE membership.
Contrary to that assertion, however, the refunds were merely the result of
an administrative error which today's lawsuit seeks to reverse.
According to the government's filings against Bell,
he charges customers $195 for membership in NITE. The suit against Bell seeks
to bar him from promoting his corrupt 861 scheme and to require him to remove
from the NITE website all materials promoting tax evasion.
Bell's case is one of four cases the Justice Department
has filed recently to stop the promotion of the foreign-source income scheme.
Earlier this month, a federal court in Tampa banned Douglas P. Rosile, Sr.,
a Venice, Fla.-based former accountant, from preparing tax returns and from
promoting the foreign-source income argument. Last month the federal court
in Tampa ordered David Bosset to stop preparing tax returns and promoting
fraudulent tax schemes based on the Section 861 argument, which it called
"absurd on its face." In January, the Department obtained an injunction
against Harold E. "Hal" Hearn, an Atlanta-based CPA, prohibiting
him from preparing returns based on, or promoting, the foreign-source income
argument.
Tax evasion schemes cost United States taxpayers billions
of dollars a year. According to a report the General Accounting Office issued
in May 2002, however, IRS and Justice Department efforts have led to increasing
numbers of convictions for promoters and individuals involved in tax fraud
schemes.
###
02-382
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 2002
WWW.USDOJ.GOV |
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888 |
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES FLORIDA
MAN
TO HALT TAX SCAM
St. Petersburg Man Alleged to Promote
Frivolous "Section 861" Scheme
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department
of Justice today filed a lawsuit against Everte C. Farnell of St. Petersburg,
Fla., alleging that he is promoting an illegal tax scheme. The lawsuit, filed
in federal court in Tampa, is part of the Justice Department's continuing
crackdown against a nationwide tax scam in which promoters falsely claim that
income from sources in the United States is not subject to federal income
tax. The scam is known as the "Section 861 argument," after the
tax code provision it misinterprets.
"The courts have uniformly rejected the Section
861 argument, penalized those who assert it, and enjoined those who promote
it," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice
Department's Tax Division. "Promoters of this scam line their pockets,
while getting their customers in serious trouble."
The government's complaint states that Farnell touts
himself as the "Chief Tax Consultant" of the "Problem Resolution
Group" of the so-called "National Institute for Taxation Education"
or "NITE." According to court papers filed in a government suit
against NITE's owner, Thurston Bell, NITE and Bell operate a website promoting
the Section 861 argument. The complaint also states that Farnell prepares
tax returns for clients who declare their income is zero, regardless of how
much money they earned.
The Justice Department has already obtained injunctions
against three other promoters of the bogus "Section 861 argument"
- Harold Hearn of Atlanta, David Bosset of Spring Hill, Fla., and Douglas
Rosile of Venice, Fla.
###
02-555
Bell's own lawsuit thrown out of court --
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/kane/01v1725.pdf
Some interesting reading about Thurston --
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TBellmail.html
Devvy Kidd Trashes Thurston
By the way, our good friend and felon on the run for
bank fraud, peddler of the "social security is a contract" bilge,
Steve DeLuca, phoned in during the show and calls Larry Becraft a traitor.
Darn, I'm the only one who didn't get attacked. I feel so left out, but I
thoroughly enjoyed this interview and I thank an e-mailer named Bill for making
me aware that the interview had been posted. Although, I must say, Bill is
slightly peeved at one individual:
Subject: Re:
Vote Fraud
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:01:00 -0600
From:
To: "devvy kidd" <wallace@devvy.com>
When you meet that Thurston Bell
of NITE, tell him to go straight to the devil. He's not what I thought
he was. Read Kotmair v. Brown. http://www.save-a-patriot.org/index.html.
Now I understand why you had trouble with NITE. I'd like to hear about
your analysis of the vote tabulations in California.
Bill |
As a matter of fact, I will be seeing Mr. Bell on the 11th in Huntington Beach
at a function we're both attending, but he's already sent me an e-mail with
a dire threat that has me shaking in my boots:
Subject: Re:
You have missed the point
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:01:35 -0500
From: " NITE" <somebody@nite.org>
To: "devvy kidded" <wallace@devvy.com>
"When you see me on Saturday, do not bother
to try to speak to me, or send anyone to speak to me on your behalf....You
are a half-witted woman and disinformation spreader. If this were the
year 1776 and you my wife, I would exercise the rule of thumb by putting
you on public display in a stockade for being a gossip."
Thurston Bell |
This is the kind of stuff Larry and I have to deal with, but mostly we try
to ignore. It does nothing but interrupt our workday and we will not be deterred
from the legal work The Wallace Institute is doing on behalf of all Americans.
More Devvy Kidd on Thurston Bell
July 1, 1999, National Press Club:
The day was long but it got even longer when an ugly incident occurred with
a person by the name of Thurston Bell; all was captured
on video. Right after Joe Banister resigned from the IRS, Mr. Bell wasted
no time in slandering and defaming this decent man. Right on the front page
of his web site was this ugly stuff and loud proclamations
that he would "have to immediately hire 10 people to help those that
Joe got in trouble with his methods." First of all, Joe Banister, not
once, ever, has told people what to do as far as their own personal situation
with the IRS. Bell's green gas plastered all over his web site said a lot
about him.
After the luncheon, during which Congressman Jim
Traficant showed his true colors as another phony politician who refused
to directly answer any question, Mr. Bell and an associate
of his (a man named Steve DeLuca who goes by the alias of Fitzgerald, who
has apprently served time in prison on bank fraud and is wanted for credit
card scams), barged into the symposium. To say that Bill Benson, Joe, Larry,
Bill Conklin and I had our mouths drop open all at the same time, is putting
it mildly. What brass, but then again, Bell probably thought he was going
to be on C-SPAN. Thankfully that wasn't the case. He didn't appear on Friday
when C-SPAN did televise live and missed his 15-seconds of fame.
Anyway, one thing led to another and there was a
floor vote by the directors of the foundation to force Bell and his associate
to pay their attendance fee and for the lunch they mooched. They didn't
like this request because I guess they thought they were better than everyone
else. I guess they felt that we should all get on our knees and genuflect
to the mighty one, Thurston Bell and guest. Didn't fly.
And to show you what kind of person Joe Banister is, he said that Bell and
his bud should have the opportunity to express their opinion.
A shouting match of sorts ensued and finally Bob
Schulz, who spearheaded this project, got things under control. Thank God
this wasn't the day that C-SPAN was filming! After listening to Bell huff
and puff for awhile and then his pal stand up at the podium and further
confuse people, Bill Conklin and I went out into the hallway to finally
breathe some fresh air. It truly was pathetic.
 Comment
on this!
Back
to Quatlosers Exhibit |
