Hamersley tax fraud kpmg hamersley tax fraud kpmg

Forwarded message ----------
From: David <ernk1234@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Subject: concerned former california citizen
To: 'evan.halper@latimes.com', 'jason.wells@latimes.com', 'enforcementinfo@cba.ca.gov', 'licensinginfo@cba.ca.gov', 'dca@dca.ca.gov', 'clientservices@cba.ca.gov', 'cdavis@ueltzen.com', 'greg@jwaddell.com', 'custserv@calcpa.org', 'taxshelter@ftb.ca.gov', 'taxnews@ftb.ca.gov', 'marion.dejong@ftb.ca.gov', 'talk@talkingpointsmemo.com'

How can the FTB continue to employ Mike Hamersley, below are WSJ blog posts with the link.  Hamersley appears to at a minimum have lied to the Senate, committed tax fraud, violated Section 7216 and lied in his lawsuit of KPMG wherein he extracted a hefty settlement.  Is this the kind of person the FTB wants confiscating ordinary citizen's income under a mythical interpretation of the tax laws.   It is apparent Hamersley has two standards, one for him and another for everyone else.  Hamersley is supposed to be a corporate reorg expert yet most corporate reorgs involve at least part of the transaction having no economic substance.  Based on Hamersley's testimony to the Senate and positions he espouses for the FTB that is tax fraud because the law is irrelevant if part of the transaction is fraudulent (i.e. has no economic substance).  California is bankrupt, potentially issuing IOUs (perhaps, illegal and which has never worked in the history of this totalitarian society and always ended with massively devalued IOUs and inflation (check out what the states did in the 1700s), this is not the early 90s); and California has a fraudster, Hamersley confiscating honest citizen's income, the truth will prevail at some point.




…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/23/fed-alters-terms-on-commercial-paper-facility/
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
If anyone doubts that government agents like Hamersley a high level lawyer working for the State of California are evil and act without impunity, check out his statements below. Not only does Hamersley appear to be a scam artist and a bully but dude is definitively a criminal and a liar. How much longer will the people of this country accept malevolent rule from government agents such as Hamersley. Hamersley has destroyed many families' lives with all his lies and crimes, including illegally confiscating citizens' income in his work at the California FTB.
Hamersley Statements on WSJ Blog to whistlewhat (related to Madoff) on 1/22/09
1. "A ratinoale and reasonable person who had nothing to hide would not feel threatened from such an invitation to discuss the truth openly and honestly".
This Hamersley statement is libelous and purveyed by one in power at the government. I am looking at the emails proving Hamersley's lies right now which are incontrovertible. Hamersley, a government official is attempting to denigrate an ordinary citizen using his position of power, which when the emails are released will make the government equally responsible for such false accusations. I am devastated and do not know if I can continue to live or work since Hamersley has publicly described me as being not rational (note I can spell rational) or reasonable. Of course, anyone who knows how the government operates would never meet with them to discuss anything as anything said will be purposefully recorded improperly to reflect the government agent's malevolent views. Further, since Hamersley lies about most things, he would be given a chance to change his story. If there is any doubt about Hamersley's lies check his lawsuit against KPMG wherein he describes the OXY tax shelter as one purveyed by KPMG not withstanding KPMG was not the auditor when the transaction occurred (it occurred 3 years prior to KPMG becoming the auditor) and it clearly was not a tax shelter (every expert within KPMG and many outside KPMG concluded the same except Hamersley after charging hundreds of hours to the client (likely because KPMG would not make him partner)).
2. "Your view of the law is almost as questionable as your view of the facts you assert."
Another, set of malicious false statements by Hamersley. I never expressed a view of the law or the facts. I am pretty sure one can not have a view of the facts, as the facts are the facts. I never even expressed a view of the law, I expressed Hamersley's view of the law based on all his tax shelter crusader work and FTB positions as espoused by Hamersley, the sale of a subsidiary's stock by its parent to the parent's lawyer for $1 as part of a liquidation reincorporation to generate substantial tax losses, is a transaction wholly lacking economic substance and a sham, thus making the transaction tax fraud, this is the espoused position of the FTB and Hamersley (not mine though it does sound kind of bad).
3. "Why not just come forward into the light and make your case, disclose everything your have in a manner that you feel prevents Section 7216."
This statement proves Hamersley a government official is trying to get me to commit a crime. As Hamersley the tax expert very well knows there is no way to avoid criminal action under 7216 in the manner he describes. At a minimum he is trying to lure me into engaging in a conspiracy with him in violation of said statute. In fact, I believe he may be committing a crime by trying to lure me into a criminal act. Are there no bounds to the legal constraints on government Agents like Hamersley?
SEC. 7216. DISCLOSURE OR USE OF INFORMATION BY PREPARERS OF RETURNS.
7216(a) GENERAL RULE. –Any person who is engaged in the business of preparing, or providing services in connection with the preparation of, returns of the tax imposed by chapter 1, or any person who for compensation prepares any such return for any other person, and who knowingly or recklessly –
7216(a)(1) discloses any information furnished to him for, or in connection with, the preparation of any such return, or
7216(a)(2) uses any such information for any purpose other than to prepare, or assist in preparing, any such return, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
4. "I can assure you I had no involvement or knowledge of the transactions you are referring to."
This is a complete lie as I am staring with my own two eyes at a series of emails involving the transaction to which Hamersley refers with Hamersley's name all over the place. He could at least say no recollection and I am sure once he sees the email that is what he will say with some sort of convoluted explanation as to what he meant. It is too late for that, he outright denied a direct quote in the email. The client may allow me to release the email only after Hamersley signs a sworn affidavit that he never wrote an email with the phrase below I am referring to (that Hamersley so vehemently denies), in fact the client may authorize me to release the whole chain of emails involving Hamersley's fraudulent activities.
"Then P sold the S stock to its lawyer for $1. As a result of the transaction, S is a dormant corporation and remains dormant until it is dissolved. Pursuant to our phone conversation, there is substantial authority (at a confidence level of approximately 20 -30 percent) to conclude that the above transaction can be characterized as follows for federal income tax purposes".
5. "Why have you removed the reference to Vera Ellich as my purported coconspirator?"
This statement is a complete lie as I never in any way referred to Vera as a coconspirator as she likely believed Hamersley's fraudulent legal analysis providing substantial authority existed for a transaction involving selling the stock of a subsidiary for $1 to P's lawyer and Vera most certainly never expressed any views that such a transaction was a complete sham wholly lacking economic substance, thus, making the transaction tax fraud, under Hamersley the crusader's and the FTB's construct of the tax law.
6. "Your recent citing to a "public figure" defense is quite telling. You only need that if your statements are false."
This is another lie by Hamersley, which since he is a lawyer, he must know is untrue. A shred of truth is all that is necessary to openly discuss the activities of malevolent public figures like Hamersley (though it is irrelevant in Hamersley's case since it is all true). Of course his second statement is also a lie which Hamersley knows, if the statement is knowingly false, the public figure defense is no good.
7. "Not only are your statements patently false, they are clearly made with actual and constitutional malice–at the very least, made with reckless disregard for the truth."
This statement by Hamersley is yet another out right lie and I am unsure what constitutional malice even means in this context. Just another example of Hamersley the government agent trying to intimidate me.
8. "So, let's do all the blog readers a favor and why don't you just file a lawsuit disclosing your identity or otherwise come forward."
This statement is yet another lie and example of Hamersley the government agent trying to intimidate me. First, Hamersley has no way of knowing what the Bloggers care about, I suspect very little except those keenly aware his malevolent acts though it is unlikely they are reading the Blog. Second, another lie, what does file a lawsuit disclosing your identity even mean, I presume it is just more government intimidation tactics with lies.
How can the FTB continue to employ Hamersley? What credibility does he even have to continue to confiscate income from taxpayers most whom probably do not tell as many lies in one year as Hamersley did in the above Blog posting. I know the FTB is the government and all and you dudes stick together, but Bush is gone, the Government is supposed to start acting with integrity as opposed to using Rovian techniques of lies and intimidation. Why anyone would want to live in the state of California and be subjected to lying intimidating Government Authorities like Hamersley is beyond me.
What I find most appalling is Hamersley continues to maliciously lie and impugn my character as a representative of the Government yet I have given the California FTB, the exact time and date and the to from on the emails which most certainly KPMG would provide to the FTB if requested (the FTB would probably not have to even threaten KPMG as the FTB would do under normal circumstances) since KPMG still has the emails and a whole separate file on everything Hamersley ever did, absolutely incredible, the malfeasance of the government knows no bounds.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Whistlewhat: I am sorry if you feel threatened by being called to the mat on your absurd and libelous claims. A ratinoale and reasonable person who had nothing to hide would not feel threatened from such an invitation to discuss the truth openly and honestly. Your view of the law is almost as questionable as your view of the facts you assert. So, once again, why not just reveal your true identity–DR, DG, perhaps? Save us all some time in getting to the truth. My attorney will surely learn your identify eventually from your rather feeble attempts to mask your IP address (portugal, San Diego area) on your blog and Wikipedia postings. So, why put us through the effort of issuing subpoenas. Why not just come forward into the light and make your case, disclose everything your have in a manner that you feel prevents Section 7216. No, the term "PYSA" or "YSA" do not ring a bell. I have no idea of where you got those excerpts (assuming you didn't author them yourself), but I can assure you I had no involvement or knowledge of the transactions you are referring to. Why have you removed the reference to Vera Ellich as my purported coconspirator? Why don't we just give her a call and see if she knows what the heck you are talking about. You are right about one thing. If your allegations are true, you have an absolute defense against libel. So, again, why not come forward? Your recent citing to a "public figure" defense is quite telling. You only need that if your statements are false. Please know, that in addition to demonstrating that I am indded a "public figure" under libel law and/or this is a current "public issue," you will have to demonstrate an absence of malice to prevail on this defense. I've got news for you. Not only are your statements patently false, they are clearly made with actual and constitutional malice–at the very least, made with reckless disregard for the truth.
So, let's do all the blog readers a favor and why don't you just file a lawsuit disclosing your identity or otherwise come forward. Thank you. I am not interested in replying to anymore of your posts unless you are willing to disclose your true identity.
Michael Hamersley
Comment by Michael Hamersley - January 22, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Comment by whistlewhat - January 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The recent comments posted by Whistlewhat on this and other WSJ blogs are "offensive" and have no place on this blog. Please review and remove these comments ASAP. Thank you.
Comment by CONCERNED WSJ READER - January 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Concerned, exactly what did you find offensive, Hamersley's behavior? Also, if you are Hamersley or one of his government agents, you have just violated my first amendment rights, I will get the IP address and sue you and the government, thanks for all the money dude. Check out below and please explain your concerns.
As a high level government lawyer for the California FTB, Hamersely, a tax fraudster by his own definition, has threatened me with investigation, making me fear for my life and unable to continue working in any capacity. Hamersley has publicly stated my accusations against him are patently absurd and said many other nasty personal things not withstanding his position of power in the government. Well as I am now unable to work and in fear for my life I have decided to investigate Hamersley even more and it seems this Government thug may have either lied to the Senate based on his description of fraudulent transactions or committed outright tax fraud if his statements to the Senate truly reflect his state of mind, based on the excerpt from the email below sent to a client of KPMG from Hamersley. I am sure if I dig enough I will find even more lies as I now have plenty of time due to my incapacity brought on by the stress of Hamersley's government threats. I also noted an LA Times article below summarizing Hamersley's lawsuit against KPMG wherein it states Hamersley alleges "Hamersley claimed he was placed on administrative leave after he refused to sign off on allegedly illegal tax shelters sold to an audit client that involved millions in fees." This is a complete lie. KPMG never sold the client Hamersley was referring to the purported tax shelter he described. How much longer can Hamersley continue his life as a government intimidator and fraudulent tax fraudster crusader? Did Hamersley lie to congress or to his client (and which is worse)?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
"The abusive tax shelters referred to herein are merely "window dressed" with a contrived façade of economic substance that is engineered into the tax shelter by the tax shelter promoters."……………………………………….
"My decision to "blow the whistle" was an easy one. I was placed in a position of having no other choice but to participate in the unlawful conduct and bear the associated risk."
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HAMERSLEY
THE UNITED STATES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 21, 2003
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
"Then P sold the S stock to its lawyer for $1. As a result of the transaction, S is a dormant corporation and remains dormant until it is dissolved. Pursuant to our phone conversation, there is substantial authority (at a confidence level of approximately 20 -30 percent) to conclude that the above transaction can be characterized as follows for federal income tax purposes".
Direct quote by Hamersley from an email dated 5/24/00 to a KPMG Senior Manager.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
"Michael Hamersley's attorney last week filed papers, with no explanation, in Los Angeles County Superior Court to drop the 8-month-old suit against KPMG. The attorney, Nathan Goldberg, didn't immediately return a call for comment. New York-based KPMG has denied Hamersley's allegations.
Hamersley claimed he was placed on administrative leave after he refused to sign off on allegedly illegal tax shelters sold to an audit client that involved millions in fees."
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/14/business/fi-rup14.4
Comment by whistlewhat - January 25, 2009 at 6:54 pm