Perjury/False Statements – Page 2

June 2, 2021December 22, 2022

Attorney General Lied to the Judge in Our Hearing!

The blog has been quiet lately because I’ve been so busy with the case that I haven’t had time to update the blog. On Monday, May 24, 2021, I filed another Motion to Compel Further Information, this time on Specially Prepared Interrogatories #001: Clarification of FTB’s Policies and Procedures. The Motion + exhibits was 495 pages. It’ll take me a long time to redact and upload them all, but I will get it uploaded eventually.

On May 28, 2021, there was a hearing on my first Motion to Compel Further Information for Additional Documents. In FTB’s Opposition to Motion that they filed with the court, Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan made numerous deceptive and several outright false statements to the judge!

May 12, 2021December 22, 2022

Fraudulent Statement By FTB Regarding Demand Penalties

So much stuff has come out recently in my court case. A longer post will come next month, but I wanted to share something that I know is a fraud that is systemically perpetuated by FTB. Below is a copy/paste of an exchange of information with FTB that I submitted as part of my court case (the full document is here). I hope other people currently facing bogus Demand Penalties can use it to help them in their own fight against FTB’s corruption. Here is the list of laws that are referenced below.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 6A: The attached page 9 is a page from FTB’s standard operations manuals entitled Demand Penalty. It states “a penalty will not be imposed if any of the following are met:… We do not assess the penalty when the return has a zero total tax liability.” Could you please clarify whether this means the penalty won’t be imposed if there was never any tax owed for the tax year or whether this means that the penalty won’t be imposed if there is no outstanding balance on that year’s tax liability.

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6A: Under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19133, a demand penalty is imposed if a taxpayer fails to timely respond to demand notices in the manner required. Demand penalties are imposed as required by law before consideration of any payments or credits. The demand penalty is computed at 25- percent of the total tax liability before any prepayments or credits are applied to reduce the tax liability. Thus, any payments and/or credits made by Plaintiff are irrelevant in the determination of the imposition of demand penalties under California law.

ARGUMENT FOR COMPLELLING RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6A: FTB has misrepresented what the law says by making two deceptive statements and one false statement in the section above. In the first sentence, Mr. Swank omitted pertinent portions of Revenue and Tax Code 19133. In the second and third sentences, he conflated two separate issues as if they were one and the same. The fourth sentence is false, and only appears to be true as a result of the deceptive and misleading statements that preceded it.

February 9, 2021December 26, 2022

Motion to Compel Further Response to Demand for Documents filed 12-15-2020

On December 15, 2020, I filed a Motion to Compel Further Response to Demand for Documents filed 12-15-2020 with San Diego Superior Court regarding the case that I have pending against FTB for a refund of penalties, fees and interest for tax years 2011, 2013 and 2014. Here are pages 1 – 21 and pages 22 – 42.

Key Points Contained in Motion:

There are 5 line items on FTB accounting ledgers that I believe are fraudulent: 2 payments that show up as refunded even though they were not refunded, and 3 bills that I believe never existed (see pages 9, 11, 12, 21, 25).

October 5, 2020December 23, 2022

California Supreme Court Declined to Take The Accusation

No explanation was given for why the judges refused to take the Accusation where I documented that FTB employee Eric Yadao conspired to cover up his employer’s criminal activities by improperly redacting documents to hide evidence. I am disappointed, but not surprised. It seems to me that if my case was weak, the CA Supreme Court would have taken it in order to clear FTB of all allegations of criminal activity. I believe the fact that the judges chose to pass on my case indicates that I would have won.

In good news, though, I got a letter from the California Auditor’s Office indicating that they have opened an investigation into the Franchise Tax Board. No word back from the FBI as of yet.

September 4, 2020December 22, 2022

CA Supreme Court Accusation Filed Against Franchise Tax Board Employee for Covering Up That FTB is Overcharging Taxpayers

I have caught California’s income tax agency, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), running multiple schemes where they embezzle taxpayer’s money, then impose penalties which would not had been imposed had the money not been embezzled. The false imposition of fees is the crime of racketeering. I’ve also caught them overcharging interest.

I have filed an Accusation in the California Supreme Court in which I detail how the schemes work, show the relevant legal codes that proves they are illegal, and then detail how FTB falsely makes these unlawful practices appear to be legitimate. I also call out the administrative court judges at the Office of Tax Appeals, as well as the California Bar Association, for their roles in covering up the criminal activities.

August 26, 2020December 22, 2022

CA Supreme Court Accusation Filed Against Franchise Tax Board Employee for Covering Up FTB’S Criminal Activities: Embezzling Estimated Tax Payments, Racketeering Taxpayers & Overcharging Interest

I have filed an Accusation with the California Supreme Court against Eric Yadao, who is employed by the Franchise Tax Board as an attorney (part 1, part 2).

An Accusation is basically a request to revoke Mr. Yadao’s license to practice law because of unethical and/or unlawful behavior.

In this Accusation, I clearly detail that FTB is running multiple embezzlement and racketeering schemes, and that they are also overcharging interest. On pages 5 – 20, I detailed how the schemes work. On pages 4 – 16, I listed the legal codes that these schemes violate and why. On pages 23 – 38, I showed exactly how Mr. Yadao covered up FTB’s unlawful activities via improper redactions, improper omissions, false arguments and false statements..

February 17, 2020December 22, 2022

Rebuttal to FTB’s Response to My Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights Request

FTB’s response to the 13 policy change requests that I made is short, terse and riddled with problems.

Item 1: End Policy of withholding estimated tax payments made via credit elects

FTB wrote: The Franchise Tax Board previously addressed this issue in the 2018 Taxpayer Bill of Rights response to you, dated January 25, 2019.

Rebuttal: In my written submission, I clearly detailed how they had committed one count of collusion to cover up racketeering by misrepresenting what the law said in Commissioner V Lundy. I also re-sent them a copy of the 2018 letter to Governor Brown in which I cited several more times that the FTB committed the crime of collusion to cover up racketeering on this topic. In this response, FTB did not dispute my interpretation of the assorted laws they falsely cited, nor offer any valid laws.

February 16, 2020December 22, 2022

Written Submission for the FTB’s 2019 Annual Taxpayers Bill of Rights Meeting

2019 Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights Requests

1. End the policy of withholding estimated tax payments made via credit elects.

This policy violates R&TC 19363, which says “Any amount paid as estimated tax for any taxable year shall be deemed to have been paid on the last day prescribed for filing the return for the taxable year (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return),” which in simple English means that no matter what date you filed the previous year’s return, the credit elect payment must be credited on tax day, which is usually April 15 or 16.

However, the FTB does not apply these payments in accordance with the law; instead, the FTB puts the credit elect money into “suspense,” which is a fancy word for the general slush fund. The credit elect money does not get moved from the slush fund until the taxpayer files that year’s return. The FTB claims this policy is in line with federal practices, but that is a lie; the IRS does not withhold payments made via credit elects.

February 1, 2020December 22, 2022

Video of Speech I Made to State Controller Betty Yee on Dec. 3, 2019

FTB Meeting Dec 2019 – Christi Section

State Controller Betty Yee is the Chair of the Franchise Tax Board’s Board of Directors. She is the woman on the stage who calls me to the podium before I speak, and thanks me at the end of my speech. The women seated at the table with her are (from left to right): Gayle Miller, who was there on behalf of Keely Bosler, who is the Director of the Department of Finance and the second FTB Board Member, Yvette Stowers, who is Betty Yee’s Deputy that normally attends the meetings in lieu of Betty, and Malia Cohen, who was at the time Chairman of the Board of Equalization and the third Board Member.

At the FTB table on the other side of the state are (from left to right): Dawn Casey, who works in the legal department; Shane Hofeling; Jozel Brunett, who is Chief, Legal Counsel; Selvi Stanislaus, who is Executive Officer; and Susan Maples, who Taxpayer Advocate. Notice that the FTB waived their right to offer a rebuttal/response to my speech — not denying what I said to be true is a tacit admission of guilt.

The text of my speech is here. Please note that the speech had a time limit, thus was shorter and less detailed than the written submission that I provided prior to the speech. The written submission is here. The video of the entire FTB meeting is here.

December 4, 2019December 22, 2022

Text of Speech I Made at the 2019 Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights Meeting on December 3, 2019

My name is Christine Grab. I have 13 requests.

1. End the Policy of Withholding Estimated Tax Payments Made Via Credit Elects Until the Taxpayer Files a Return.

This policy violates R&TC 19363, which in simple English says that no matter what date you filed the previous year’s return, the credit elect payment must be applied on tax day, which is usually April 15th.

The FTB does not apply these payments in accordance with the law. Instead, the FTB puts the credit elect money into “suspense,” which is a fancy word for the general slush fund. The credit elect money does not get moved from the slush fund until the taxpayer files that year’s return. The FTB claims this policy is in line with federal practices, but that is a lie; the IRS does not withhold payments made via credit elects.

Demand Notices are only sent to taxpayers whom the FTB believes have underpaid their tax liability. The accompanying Demand Penalty is a crippling 25% of extra additional taxes beyond what the taxpayer actually owed.

By withholding the credit elect payment, it appears that the account was underfunded and thus a Demand Penalty is assessed. However, had the credit elect payment been applied in accordance with the law, the account would not have been underfunded and the Demand Penalties would not have been imposed.