You are on page 1of 10

Tax Group International

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: david greenberg <> Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:04 AM Fwd: JUAN ROUDES FTB THREAT OF COLLECTION AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION OF GREENBERG RESULTING IN CARDIAC ARREST OF YOUNG DAUGHTER/ LIES DO MATTER hamersley for FTB tax shelter promoter is a liar and despicable thief.pdf

Thank You for your consideration. Regards David Greenberg Phd, MSA, CPA, EA. Tele: (561) 749-0461 Cell: (646) 705-2910 Fax: (561) 431-0750

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: david greenberg <> Date: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM Subject: Re: JUAN ROUDES FTB THREAT OF COLLECTION AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION OF GREENBERG RESULTING IN CARDIAC ARREST OF YOUNG DAUGHTER/ LIES DO MATTER To: Cc:,, Lorraine Ferrari <>, Paul Brinkmann <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bret Baier <>,,,,,,,, Mr. Roudes; I do herby formally request you advise me if Michael Hamersley former FTB tax shelter promoter was involved in your illegal and fraudulent assessment of me which resulted in the near death of my young daughter who had a heart attack as a direct result of your fraudulent assessment including according to the Doctors dying 10 times and now lays half dead. Seriously what kind of people are you to hold out to the public I made over $3,000,000 in 2009 (unf...kin believable, I f...kin wish), resided in California (when I did not) and that I was a lying tax cheat.

Your behavior and the FTB's behavior is despicable and it sounds like something former FTB tax shelter promoter Michael Hamersley may be behind especially given the attached letter. Do not worry I will get to the bottom of this and again hereby demand the names of all parties in the FTB involved. Thank You for your consideration. Regards David Greenberg Phd, MSA, CPA, EA. Tele: (561) 749-0461 Cell: (646) 705-2910 Fax: (561) 431-0750

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM, david greenberg <> wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:35 AM, david greenberg <> wrote: Mr. Roudes: I have received the notices you mailed me but I note the following: 1. They are addressed to residences I do not reside nor have ever used with the FTB , so how would I even be on notice under RTC 19033 which requires the Notices be sent to the last address used on my California tax return (which would have been in 2002)? 2. Too add insult to injury, you and the FTB have assessed me over $300,000 for 2009 and I have no idea on this earth why? I do know my daughter lays dying in bed as a direct result of your illegal and false notice. Can you at least tell me what the basis for your phony assessment is? I again reiterate my request for the name of every person at the FTB involved in attempting to extort monies from me and the potential imminent death of my daughter. Please advise me if you refuse to provide me any information on any matter except blanket assessments sent to addresses where I do not reside. In case you pretend to not receive my correspondence, below is a website on SCRIBD I created for you where I post all of our correspondence and transcripts from our discussions and your voice mails. I also am in the process of uploading the audio recordings of our discussions and you r voic mails to me just so there is no mistake on who said what. I will be providing you a much more detailed letter over the weekend and again reiterate my request that you respond to my questions in my FAX to you early this week which you can also find on the referenced scribd website below and this letter. Likewise, if you are not going to respond please advise. For the record, assessing me $300,000 for 2009 is completely and utterly ludicrous and proves you and the FTB are complete and utter liars, of course it would be laughable if my daughter was not lying half

dead right now as a direct result of your lies. I wish I made $3,000,000, what is wrong with you people, do you just enjoy destroying lives with your intentional lies? Thank you for your consideration and have a great weekend. Lies matter and your lies destroy lives and you know it (maybe you will get lucky and I will stroke out of go into cardiac arrest 10 times like my daughter did (which I would not survive) dealing with your massive set of lies in this matter. You can go to the following sites for documentation of all of our discussions. CTICES%20INTENTIONALLY%20KILL%20CITIZENS%20WITH%20NASTY%20LIES (type into the google) JUAN ROUDES AND SCRIBD Thank You for your consideration. Regards David Greenberg Phd, MSA, CPA, EA. Tele: (561) 749-0461 Cell: (646) 705-2910 Fax: (561) 431-0750

From: david greenberg <> Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:52 PM Subject: JUAN ROUDES FTB THREAT OF COLLECTION AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION OF GREENBERG RESULTING IN CARDIAC ARREST OF YOUNG DAUGHTER/ LIES DO MATTER To: Cc:,, Lorraine Ferrari <>, Paul Brinkmann <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bret Baier <>,,,,,,,,

Mr. Roudes: Thank you for your messages on 3-17-14 and 3-14-14 . I am having it transcribed and will send it back to you to confirm it is what you meant to say. Please confirm to me the correct spelling of your name. Please confirm to me the FTB is asserting I owe them over $400,000 notwithstanding I moved to Florida in 2002 and filed a California part year resident tax return for that year (and have had tax losses ever since in any event). Please confirm to me that notices of audit and assessment were previously sent to me and to what address. Please provide me with the names of all FTB employees involved in determining my assessments and notices of collection. Please provide a legal or procedural cite that provides I am unallowed to record our conversations upon notification to you of the recordings and your right to discontinue any such conversations. Please note I find that many times in dealing with government personnel they say things and then deny saying them and thus, find recording all conversations eliminates any unnecessary time and expense to be incurred on determining who said what. This will help to reduce costs the FTB will incur when I file claims under California RTC Sections 19033, 19717, 21013, 21021 and 21022. I have retained counsel to assist me and have spent over $50,000 on this matter thus far just getting up to speed on the rules related to the FTB assessing and advertising assessments without prior notifications. I do hereby make a request for all my administrative costs to date and estimate they could approach $250,000 by the time we are done here (of course the more lies told by the FTB the more expensive this will b e. I have not yet received the information you claim to have sent but have been out of town dealing with my young daughter who flat lined 10 times and now lays half dead after learning of your assessment of me and likely publication to the world of your assessment causing severe humiliation and distress to her. Please keep in mind every lie you tell has consequences and when you tell someone they owe over $400,000 and you are going to notify the world they are a tax criminal, the consequences are devastating to those the FTB decides to persecute but it is even worse when you decide to implement the persecution based on lies. I am having all my mail forwarded to me and hopefully I will receive what you sent to me in the next few days. Assuming my daughter does not die, I hope to begin communication with you on Friday based on the information you claim to have provided. In the meantime if there is any information I can presently provide you please advise me. If you refuse to discuss this telephonically, I will be happy to receive faxes or emails at this email address or Fax # 5614310750. Again I do hereby request the names of all parties at the FTB involved in this matter related to the illegal assessment of me as I am going to begin next week a lawsuit under the RICCO statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961 to 1968 and Civil Rights statutes, Section 1981 for the immense damages I have already incurred based on the FTBs illegal actions.

If you are not going to provide me with the information I seek, please advise me and I will begin proceedings immediately. Thank You for your consideration. Regards David Greenberg Phd, MSA, CPA, EA. Tele: (561) 749-0461 Cell: (646) 705-2910 Fax: (561) 431-0750

Tax Group International

From: Sent: To: Tax Group International <> Friday, March 21, 2014 8:58 AM ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; '' ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; 'Richard Wolfe'; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; '' SO CALLED EXPERT WITNESS MICHAEL HAMERSLEY COMMITS PERJURY IN YUNG V. GRANT THORNTON/ THE ONLY REAL QUESTION IS DID THE LAWYERS FROM "Graydon, Head & Ritchey" SUBORN THE PERJURY????? EXHIBIT 3 hamersly tax fraud 2000 rgiotf.pdf; hamersley spicer tax fraud.pdf; hammersly7216violationsotf.pdf; gantman hamersley criminal disclosures.pdf; hamersley downing criminal vilolations of 6103.pdf




Dear Messrs. Murphy and Landen: I do hereby report your expert witness Michael Hamersley for committing perjury in the case referenced below related to Yung v. Grant Thornton. The only meaningful question left is did you gentleman suborn his perjury. I have not yet received the transcripts from the Qui Tam of Hamersley (dont worry I will) but the Judges recitation of purported facts related to Hamersleys qualifications is sadly laughable and transparently false. Not only while at KPMG was Hamersley advising clients to take phony foreign tax losses from multiple step foreign transactions (and advising clients to back date such transactions, see attached email): 1. Hamersley was never going to be promoted to tax partner, in fact, it was quite the opposite; 2. Hamersley was most certainly never approved to be a tax partner (in fact I was at the meeting where everyone said no); 3. Hamersley was charge of any practice while at KPMG: 4. Hamersley was never in charge of any subset of a practice while at KPMG; 5. Hamersley was never in charge of any practice in the Los Angeles Office let alone the firm; 6. Hamersley most certainly was never in charge of KPMGs M&A practice;

7. Hamersley advised clients to take phony foreign tax losses emanating from sham transactions and provided an opinion that such losses could be taken at a substantial authority level (i.e., 50% chance of success if challenged by the IRS in court), see attached email documenting Hamersleys fraudulent advice; 8. Hamersley advised clients to backdate transactions to support his phony foreign tax shelters (i.e., he told clients they could draft documents and pretend the transactions generating the loss occurred almost one year before the loss was incurred, see attached email); 9. Hamersley advised clients they could take phony noneconomic tax losses not once but twice for the same transaction, see the attached spicer email; 10. Hamersley illegally disclosed confidential taxpayer information to his wife and Lathim and Watkins in clear criminal violation of Sections 6103, 7212 and 7216, see attached email. 11. In March of 2003, Hamersley met with Kevin Downing of the USDOJ claiming to blow the whistle on Occidental Petroleum for engaging in a tax shelter and backdating the transaction, illegally disclosing and criminally violating Sections 6103, 7212 and 7216 not to mention no backdating occurred and the transaction was not a tax shelter which the USDOJ eventually concluded notwithstanding all of the Hamersley lies and false statements and absolutely no action or tax redetermination was taken against Occidental Petroleum, see attached excerpts from USDOJ brief where USDOJ lawyer Downing provides a declaration of meeting with Hamersley in March of 2003 regarding Occidental; 12. Hamersley illegally and criminally disclosed confidential information to the IRS with his associate and former KPMG Senior Tax Manager Andrew Gantman, see attached email amongst IRS officials discussing Gantmans (and Hamersleys criminal disclosures); and 13. Hamersley apparently admits he is criminally violating California statutes regarding practicing law in California as he is neither licensed CPA, Lawyer of CTEC in California and therefore is willfully and knowingly violating California laws regarding dissemination of tax advice. Gentleman, the only real question is did Hamersley the faux whistleblower fool you with his lies or did you guys suborn his perjury? Keep in mind Hamersley will lie if cornered about what transpired (so I would suggest beating him to the punch, so to speak). The thought that you guys would rely on Hamersley, a proven liar, as an expert is laughable and you should immediately notify your client or I will. Hamersley is a despicable human being and has caused the ruination of many innocent lives and families. Why do you perpetuate his deceitful behaviors and in fact, apparently encourage them? I have published this type of information on Hamersley for years and all one has to do is a quick internet search and the information is easily and readily available. In fact, Hamersley has never denied the above stated facts and never sued me, I wish he would but he wont because he knows he is a liar and a tax cheat. You gentleman must have known at a minimum that Hamersley is a liar and cheat, just review his lawsuit against KPMG over Occidental Petroleum which did not even engage in a tax shelter yet Hamersley deceitfully claimed it did. In fact, I suggest someone make a citizens arrest of Hamersley because he clearly is a danger to the community and his intentional criminal actions have already resulted in at least one suicide (leaving a child motherless). EXCERPTS FROM: COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY KENTON CIRCUIT COURT FOURTH DIVISION CASE NO. 07-CI-2647 PAGE 95, PARA. 238 The court finds the testimony of Plaintiffs expert Michael Hamersley to be most persuasive on the issue of whether Grant Thorntons issuance of the more likely than not

opinions fell below the standard of care applicable to federal tax practitioners. PAGE 103, PARA. 240 In light of Mr. Hamersleys expert testimony, and Grant Thorntons unauthorized practice of law in connection with the Lev301 opinions, the court concludes that Grant Thornton failed to exercise even slight care in issuing its opinions to the Yungs and the 94 Trust, and that its conduct constituted gross professional negligence. PAGE 113 Hamersleys prior employment included a position as advisor at Ernst & Young and later in the National Tax Office for KPMG. He acted as lead corporate tax advisor on hundreds of domestic and cross-border corporate transactions. He taught internal and external training courses at KPMG on subchapter C. In 2000 he headed the Mergers and Acquisitions Tax group at KPMG. He was nominated and approved for partner of KPMG just prior to his whistleblower act regarding an audit he believed was unlawful behavior and promotion of tax shelters. He was placed on administrative leave from KPMG until the matter was resolved. PAGE 114 In 2009 he established Hamersley Partners, a business and tax advisory firm which provides tax-related services in tax planning and structuring transactions, as well as tax controversy representation. HAMERSLEY TAX SHELTER EMAILS FURTHER PROVING HIS PERJURY

To: Date: From: Folder: Subject:

Hi Mike,

Hamersley, Michael C 05/24/2000 07:06:53 PM Ellich Vera - , . . Inbox RE RGI Transaction

Thank you for the prompt answer. For reporting the transactions in the tax return would you report it as the individual transactions as I presented it earlier to you or would you report it pursuant to your comments below? Also, do I need to disclose this transaction in the tax return or the capital loss carryback return? Thank you for your assistance. Vera

Vera ---,

-----Original Message----From: Hamersley, Michael C Sent: W ednesday, May 24, 2000 3:33 PM To: Ellich, Vera Subject: RGI Transaction

Here is the basis for concluding that there is substantial authority for treating the PYSA distribution as other than a section 332 liquidating distribution if the form of the transaction is not respected Note the facts have been simplified somewhat and it has been assumed that PYSA does not retain any significant assets after the transfer of assets to NPYSA. RGI (P) wholly owns foreign subsidiary, PYSA (S). P has a $20M basis in S. S has significant contingent liabilities. P tried unsuccessfully to sell the stock of S. Instead, S transferred all of its assets (minus the liabilities) to NewCo (also a foreign subsidiary) in exchange for solely voting stock of NewCo. S then distributed the NewCo stock to P. P immediately sold the NewCo stock pursuant to a binding commitment. 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 substanti la 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 Page: 1 of 2

The transfer of all S assets by S to NewCo followed by the de facto liquidation of S is a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(C) or (F). Characterization of S's drop-down of its assets to Newco and distribution of the Newco stock in de facto liquidation as a section 368(a)(I)(F) reorganization relies principally upon the "alter ego" theory espoused in Te/ephone Answering Service Co. v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 423 (1974), affd 546 F.2d 423 (4th Cir. 1976) ("TASCO") (P sold the stock of whollyowned subsidiary (Sl) to an unrelated party for cash; transferred its directly-owned operating assets to a newly-formed subsidiary (Newco); and then distributed the cash proceeds from the sale, the Newco stock, and the stock of its other wholly-owned subsidiary to its shareholders pursuant to a plan of complete liquidation. The Tax Court held (and the 4th Circuit affirmed) that P had not really effectuated a complete liquidation and Newco was merely the alter ego of P with respect to all of its directly owned business assets). The post-reorganization disposition of the NewCo stock pursuant to a binding commitment will not prevent characterization of the transaction as a reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(C) (See the Continuity of Interest (COI) regulations under section 1.368- 1(e), specifically section 1.368- 1(e)(6), Example (1) for sale pursuant to a preexisting binding contract) or under section 368(a)(1)(F) (Even assuming an identity of interest (100% COI) is required in an "F," the IRS has ruled that step-transaction principles should not be used to integrate post-reorganization transactions that would destroy COI. See Rev. Rul. 96-29, 1996- 1 C.B. 50). P takes a $20M basis in the NewCo stock under section 358; Upon sale of the NewCo stock to a third party for $3M, P recognizes a $I7M loss; The subsequent sale of S stock to the lawyer is disregarded.

~Los Angeles (Mergers & Acquis'ltions Group) Telephone: (213) 630-0814 Fax: (213) 955-8746 Cell: (818) 209-0380 Email: mhamersley@kpmg com ..

iChaI C. Hamersley

Thank you for your consideration Regards David Greenberg Phd, MSA, CPA, EA Tax Group International 1730 S Federal Hwy, 140 Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Emails:; Tele: (561) 749-0461 Cell: (646) 705-2910 Fax: (561) 431-0750 DISCLAIMER: Circular 230 Disclosure: Any advice contained in this email (including any attachments unless expressly stated otherwise) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.