The IRS agent

[odie1962]

Stan,

As I was also wondering about what you posted in the OP of this thread, I decided to quote the post you made here over at Advent Talk.

Here is the link to my post there:

http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index. ... l#msg18341

You will find some interesting replies to my post in that thread.

PS - If it is against the rules here to link to my post over there, feel free to remove the link from my post here.

How much of a chance is it that an unknown person or one unknown to Stan approaches Stan and "Says,by the way,did you know the IRS agent was fired for conducting an audit without just cause?? Stan should have probably asked a few more questions of this "informant"

1 agent going on a witch hunt against 3ABN/DS for a length of time,obtained how many thousands of pages of documents and not till it is over is said IRS agent fired.

That is as likely as the IRS telling 3ABN/DS not to discuss their audit

[Cynthia]

How much of a chance is it that an unknown person or one unknown to Stan approaches Stan and "Says,by the way,did you know the IRS agent was fired for conducting an audit without just cause?? Stan should have probably asked a few more questions of this "informant"

1 agent going on a witch hunt against 3ABN/DS for a length of time,obtained how many thousands of pages of documents and not till it is over is said IRS agent fired.

That is as likely as the IRS telling 3ABN/DS not to discuss their audit

AsI said, I know nothing myself about anyone being fired, and don't know how outsiders would even know about it, if that was true which sounds unlikely.

I also don't think the IRS told 3abn/DS not to discuss their audit, not sure where or who you got that from???

They have discussed it, and even published an announcement about it. That's how I know there was much more than just one agent involved. 3abn complimented them on their professionalism and courtesy in the letter which they wrote. We have that in the file forum here.

Maybe you were thinking about the letter from the irs, which they would not issue?

Although 3ABN and Danny Shelton have always used the services of outside accounting firms to make sure that their tax returns and other filings are accurate and in full compliance with the laws, the Internal Revenue Service conducted a thorough review of 3ABN and Mr. Shelton which included a review of their financial records for the audit period, 2000 to 2006.

The investigation took more than a year, and in July 2008, 3ABN’s attorneys related that the IRS investigation had ended. After reviewing over 100,000 pages of financial records, and interviewing numerous witnesses, the investigation simply ended without requesting 3ABN or Mr. Shelton to change their tax returns in any way, or to pay additional taxes.

The Board views this IRS action as a vindication of its position that both 3ABN and Danny Shelton fully complied with tax laws. Had the IRS found any violations it would have, at the very least, ordered them to file corrected returns. Instead, there was no finding that 3ABN, or Mr. Shelton, had committed any wrongful act.

The Board had hoped for a letter from the IRS indicating that 3ABN and Mr. Shelton were in full compliance with the law, but the attorneys informed us that the IRS does not issue such letters, no matter what their investigation shows.

[odie1962]

Someone from the pro 3ABN camp very specifically stated that "The Irs told 3ABN/DS not to discuss their audit" And added for emphasis, "Of course no one will go against the IRS" or something to that effect. It was stated that the "IRS apologized for conducting the audit" which really doesn't happen. This took place on adventtalk. As I am not free to search I cannot tell you exactly who said it. I do know it was said
However this audit came about there was something that raised a flag. Whether or not that played out is quite beside the point. Something of the information they received triggered the audit. They don't do this willy nilly,or just to satisfy someone like Fran or ??
They also have at their disposal all the documentation that has been filed. Don't you think they look just a bit further before jumping into a full scale lengthy audit simply based on what someone said.
One man did not go off half cocked based on a complaint. That complaint led them to something that triggered a red flag

Seeing as how those from the other side are pretty good at tracking what is said here maybe they will find it and post it

[Cynthia]

Someone from the pro 3ABN camp very specifically stated that "The Irs told 3ABN/DS not to discuss their audit" And added for emphasis, "Of course no one will go against the IRS" or something to that effect. It was stated that the "IRS apologized for conducting the audit" which really doesn't happen. This took place on adventtalk. As I am not free to search I cannot tell you exactly who said it. I do know it was said
However this audit came about there was something that raised a flag. Whether or not that played out is quite beside the point. Something of the information they received triggered the audit. They don't do this willy nilly,or just to satisfy someone like Fran or ??
They also have at their disposal all the documentation that has been filed. Don't you think they look just a bit further before jumping into a full scale lengthy audit simply based on what someone said.
One man did not go off half cocked based on a complaint. That complaint led them to something that triggered a red flag

Seeing as how those from the other side are pretty good at tracking what is said here maybe they will find it and post it

Hmmm, well I don't know. I seem to remember that it was the Illinois Attorney General's office who were supposed to have verbally apologized to 3abn for having to go through it all, not the IRS.

But as you said, maybe someone will post a link.

As far as going off willy nilly because of one person's say so.. No, that didn't happen, it was alot of people and stuff, haven't you seen the save 3abn site and what they have there about the house, the horses, the ten commandments book, the 990s, private inurement etc?

Somewhere there is a letter from Gailon Joy referring to them and their complaints and the IRS, Pickle filed it in court. I'll see if I can find it again. There is also another filing claiming that their main source of financial allegations was Darrell Mundall, not Fran. Pickle and Joy wanted to add him and LS as co defendants in the lawsuit with them. But although it only originated with a few. Snoopy the volunteer accountant at 3abn being one, their whole group was writing about and making complaints, and passing on papers that had been illegally seized, and quoting anonymous sources...

Yes it looks legit and makes 3abn and DS look guilty, that's the idea. Many have just assumed that with all that smoke there has got to be a fire and don't bother investigating all, being blinded by all the rhetoric and apparent documentation. I certainly don't blame 3abn for suing, nor the IRS for investigating it all, with all the accusations and allegations, and anonymous sources claiming this and that, they needed to. I'm actually glad they did as what was meant for ill turned out for the good. Nobody can claim the IRS is biased, or not efficient and thorough.

[odie1962]

I found this. Whether the original statements I was referring to are still there(they should be unless for some reason deleted) I referred to it in response to Junebug who seemed to think I was after money for being one that turned DS in. I don't recall it was she who said it but I clearly referred to it. Had that not been correct someone surely would have been quick to point it out.

On adventtalk.......
nie
Veteran Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1240




Re: 3ABN exonerated by IRS investigation
« Reply #153 on: September 25, 2008, 08:31:06 PM »

I mean really--think about it. Fran and Bonnie and Joy and Pickle turn 3abn and Danny Shelton in to the IRS. (You all know that the IRS pays squealers 10% of the booty right? up to around 5 million dollars!!! They thought they could make some big money!! ). The IRS looked at what they presented and decided to do an inquisition not only of 3abn but also Danny Shelton.

The more I read this the less respect I have for anything you have ever posted.
As for me thinking I would make big money,you are laughable and not truthful. That seems to be the ping pong ball tossed back and forth between the two sides. I saw nothing of substance in what you posted. I saw no reason to believe you were above what you were accusing others of. Quite frankly there are elements on both sides that flat out deserve each other.

You are completely ignorant when you say the "IRS looked" and decided to do an inquistion. They don't decide unless they see something of substance. Then they do something called an audit or investigation. Nor do they apologize for conducting an investigation. That is their job. That was another totally ignorant statement or a deliberate untruth. Nor can they or do they demand silence from the taxpayer concerning his own financial affairs. That is another untruth.
I do believe there was a resolution but not quite the way DS described.

If the IRS has an IQ that reaches double digits of course they would or will investigate DS personal finances.

Just make sure when you decide to speak for me or tell me and the online community what I have done,you make some attempt at confirming before you run off at the mouth. You won't need to guess, say something that is not true.
I would tell you if you had the integrity to ask before you accuse

[Cynthia]

Thanks Odie.

I obviously can't speak for Junebug.

In my opinion whoever, whether she or another, originally said that 3abn was told they couldn't speak about their audit was either confused about something else which they heard or simply mispoke, as I don't think that was the case, nor is it likely imo. It is more likely to me that it was the IRS who would not speak to others about someone's audit or an ongoing investigation due to privacy issues etc.

If I am wrong about this , I am sure someone will speak right up. smile.

I have nothing to prove it, but for what it's worth I am quite sure that is the case with the apology as I know it wasn't the IRS, but the AG office who apologized. The person repeating that was either told wrong, or they simply and mistakenly attributed the apology to the wrong party.

Unfortunately when things keep getting repeated they often get more muddled
with each retelling. One more reason it is best to stick to what can be documented.



Good Night

[Stan]

Well, that generated a lot of comments, more than I expected.

I did not ask the source of this if I could give his name, so I did not. When people post under alias they can say anything and are sometimes crude and rude to any time given.

I also do not know what level the agent, or what ever his title is, is at.

It will be interesting if all this comes 'out in the wash'.

If folks believe it that someone told me this, or not, I really don't care that much. I do know that the person who told me does come to the sites, and is a CEO of a ministry.

He can say something if he wants to or not.

[odie1962]

Well, that generated a lot of comments, more than I expected.

I did not ask the source of this if I could give his name, so I did not. When people post under alias they can say anything and are sometimes crude and rude to any time given.

I also do not know what level the agent, or what ever his title is, is at.

It will be interesting if all this comes 'out in the wash'.

If folks believe it that someone told me this, or not, I really don't care that much. I do know that the person who told me does come to the sites, and is a CEO of a ministry.

He can say something if he wants to or not.

You requested comments. Comments concerning a "story by a reliable source unnamed"
Something that you have condemned others for and called them rumor mongers,going so far as to begin threads on ClubAdventist, labeling any that have done what you did with this.
Why would the comments surprise you? What does someone having an alias have to do with this or being rude and crude?

One thing that you did make clear is that a CEO of a ministry is not to be trusted with sensitive or private information. And that he will spread rumor as a "reliable source".

[Stan]

Sometimes I wonder why you can be so bitter needlessly.. almost all of your posts reflect that.

Where did I say that it was sensitive or private?

If he wants to say more he can... that is up to him.

You may view it as a rumour, go ahead...

[odie1962]

Sometimes I wonder why you can be so bitter needlessly.. almost all of your posts reflect that.

Where did I say that it was sensitive or private?

If he wants to say more he can... that is up to him.

You may view it as a rumour, go ahead...

I wasn't bitter in the least. I have many times wondered the thought processes that allow you to condemn and ridicule for the very same you do.

If it wasn't private or sensitive you would not have had any problem saying "John Doe,who I consider a reliable source said the IRS agent was terminated for conducting this audit without cause".
I can guarantee you the source coming out of that IRS,if this was truly said would consider it very private. Someone from the IRS office had to make this known if true,it would be interesting to see how quickly names would deny saying this to anyone.
So I do believe it to be sensitive and private. Have you another word for it? It comes from a man you do not know,and yet consider reliable and a CEO from a ministry. Bet he considers it private.

Previously you have condemned those who do this very thing. But more than that you have ridiculed them on your forum by beginning threads that was ridicule. A topic you forbid unless everything was positive.
So no, I am not bitter in the least,just curious how for some it is so very wrong to spread rumor by "reliable sources" and for you there is another set of rules