Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bonnie]

His affairs were investigated today?  Investigated by whom?  The IRS?  Today?  It only took a day?

According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated today.

We had a simple audit, the general run of the mill. It only took about three hours at the IRS office. I did not take anyone with me as ours was pretty straight forward at the time.

Depends on the type of audit and how comples the personal finances

=====

Edited to separate original post from quoted posts.

[Bob Pickle]

Dumb typo.  I changed "today" to "as well."

His affairs were investigated today?  Investigated by whom?  The IRS?  Today?  It only took a day?

According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated today.

[Sam]

The only person that has exonerated 3ABN is ATTY Gerald Duffy!!! Obviously not an IRS specialist as he would most certainly not have needed co-counsel. And we know very well that 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton cannot be exonerated...IMPOSSIBLE!!! VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE and Duffy should know that!!!

And sister is right, not a single reference or copy of the Duffy Letter at the ASI convention. On the other hand, the huge booth with a live broadcast truck included was a big hit and Elder James Gilley clearly a hit every time he was on the convention floor or in the 3ABN Booth. They also got top billing and prime time space on stage as well.

And did everyone see McNeilus step out from behind the curtain and promote the church building campaign!!! Word is he is a new man with a new agenda and a new perspective and deeply committed to the project. Committed enough to step out and promote it himself. And he is promoting the building of seventh-day Adventist conference churches, not independent ministriy efforts. Do we see a new wind blowing in this man's retirement years?

Gailon Arthur Joy

Hardly.  Mr. M has been building churches in far away countries as long as I can remember. He is especially excited to be able to build such affordable churches.  It will not take a rich person to be able to sponsor these structures which means more new churches than ever before.

Grasping at straws to think because of his endorsements of these buildings he is turning away from 3abn.  Quite the contrary.  I saw Danny and Mr. M. having quite a time on Mr. M's Hoveround!  Playing like kids together.

You are correct that 3abn had quite a booth and a prime spot.  Enormous and eye catching globe spinning above the booth.  Danny and Jim were busy shaking hands and doing Live interviews.  Many well known 3abn people were there. Several board members stopped by.  Every person I spoke with had already heard about the IRS clearance and were very happy about the situation.

[irspro]

Any official notices of tax examinations, audits, or criminal aspects must be issued by the District Director of IRS of the taxpayer's domicile even though the tax returns may be filed on a regional basis in accordance with the administrative handling of returns filed with or without tax payments enclosed other than estimated taxes.  A federal district court attorney would not need to become involved until a presentment to a federal grand jury was necessary for a finding on criminal allegations.  Any mention of a US Attorney being involved spooks even me understanding older standard operating procedures having no need to be drastically changed.

Any taxpayer with the capability of documenting a letter from a lawyer alleging certain tax examination\investigation events with a "pdf" file should have a copy of a NO CHANGE letter and Powers of Attorney, simply stated as the best evidence without a doubt!  I have several in my files as part of the mandatory integrity program over the signature of the District Director of my domicile at examination even though some of the initial 3 may have been filed in a different district when I was in graduate school as Official Notice against subsequent examinations of the same tax years.  I'll not make a federal case out of that aspect where additional subsequent disclosures may present themselves.

The Internal Revenue Code, regulations, court cases, and the Internal Revenue Manual can be researched if one has any doubts.  Don't depend on internet message boards for either your facts or law!

Any notice of criminal investigation cessation is not esentially equivalent to the further examination of the "civil" aspects of the matter where the Revenue Agent has the responsibility of finishing the tax eamination of the case after withdrawal of the Criminal Investigator.

[Bob Pickle]

It has dawned on me that Duffy's letter indicates that he reviewed both Danny's and 3ABN's records, but he only speaks favorably of 3ABN's records. Why didn't he say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic that everything would turn out all right during the IRS investigation?

"Both the undersigned and Max Carr-Howard of the firm Husch Blackwell Sanders represent 3ABN and recommended complete cooperation with the inquiry. Upon this recommendation, 3ABN and Danny Shelton did provide complete cooperation and full access to their records. Our review of 3ABN’s financial records, as well as numerous interviews of 3ABN employees and members of your Board of Directors, made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

See what I mean? Why didn't Duffy say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic?

[anyman]

It has dawned on me that Duffy's letter indicates that he reviewed both Danny's and 3ABN's records, but he only speaks favorably of 3ABN's records. Why didn't he say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic that everything would turn out all right during the IRS investigation?

"Both the undersigned and Max Carr-Howard of the firm Husch Blackwell Sanders represent 3ABN and recommended complete cooperation with the inquiry. Upon this recommendation, 3ABN and Danny Shelton did provide complete cooperation and full access to their records. Our review of 3ABN’s financial records, as well as numerous interviews of 3ABN employees and members of your Board of Directors, made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

See what I mean? Why didn't Duffy say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic?

Prime example of your selective vision. Did you completely miss the final sentence? Take the whole unedited statement for once! Stop being dishonest in your presentation of the facts! It is clear, when reading the entire statement, that the review included all relevant documents from 3ABN and Mr. Shelton and following the review they were "optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

[Bob Pickle]

Now anyman, don't be so biased in your reactionary statements.

"Our review of 3ABN’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

Why didn't Duffy say, "Our review of Danny’s financial records," or "Our review of Danny and 3ABN’s financial records"? Why did he only say, "Our review of 3ABN’s financial records"?

Be a man (if you aren't a woman) and admit that I made a valid point.

[Fran]

Please disregard

[anyman]

Your point wouldn't hold up in even the most rudimentary debate. The statement makes the following points clear:

1. 3ABN records and the records of Mr. Danny Shelton were reviewed
2. The review had access to all records
3. The results of the review resulted in optimism about BOTH 3ABN and Mr. Shelton's outcome.

Thereby rendering your point invalid and wrong.

Att'y Duffy didn't have to be specific the way you are demanding he should have been - he made it clear that his optimism was inclusive of 3ABN and Mr. Shelton by is final statement. You are the one choosing to disregard the final statement and inject your own desire to disparage Mr. Shelton into an interpretation of the remainder of the statement issued.

By the way, your condescension is needless - my statement is not reactionary, it rather, seeks to clarify the misrepresentation you are trying to foist on readers and present an honest analysis of the statement.

Now anyman, don't be so biased in your reactionary statements.

"Our review of 3ABN’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

Why didn't Duffy say, "Our review of Danny’s financial records," or "Our review of Danny and 3ABN’s financial records"? Why did he only say, "Our review of 3ABN’s financial records"?

Be a man (if you aren't a woman) and admit that I made a valid point.

[Bob Pickle]

I see that nothing has changed, and that you remain unwilling to acknowledge a valid point.

Duffy said, "Our review of 3ABN’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

Duffy did not say, "Our review of Danny’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."

It appears to me that Duffy is saying that if the IRS looked at 3ABN's records, everything might turn out all right, but if they looked at Danny's records, it might not.

And Duffy made that statement in the context of an apparent acknowledgment that he had reviewed both sets of records.

[Mary Sue Smith]

The blind still leading the blind I see.  Mr. Pickle I almost feel sorry for you.

[Bob Pickle]

Please explain precisely where you see that my question is in error.

But I realize that that is something you struggle with. Kind of like showing outrage over Danny Shelton covering up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.

[Fran]

Anyman;

Do you have a vested interest in this lawsuit?  Did you verify this information with Duffy?  I would really like him to tell us exactly what he meant.  It seems he is the only one with the correct information.  Can you get that information from him.  I would sure appreciate it since there is a question.  

You have told us many words, but have never put forth the evidence needed to accompany your information.  It is clear that you are not Danny.  Your written sentence structure and vocabulary far exceeds that of Danny's.  Therefore, I can not help but question your authority in these matters.

I also know that many professionals word their statements in such a manner as to get something said, but still leave room to squirm to make it not mean what they previously implied.

I clearly see what Bob has said.  I saw it and took it the same way he did.  Since Danny's personal affairs were foreign to 3ABN, it would be hard for the 3ABN legal team to vouch for Danny's personal affairs and private matters.  (example:  3ABN was not informed of the income Danny was receiving on the sale of his  books)  Nick Miller told me in 2005 that Danny did not receive royalties except for a one time payment of $20.00.  They did not realize his relationship with DLS or D&L Publishing.  Oops!

I still have not heard that the IRS investigation is complete.  They very well could have finished a part of the investigation.   It takes time to investigate all of these other corporations and enterprises started by Danny.  Those may take a long time.

[Mary Sue Smith]

Fran, your own words betray you.

1. You do not have an inside track with the IRS (that you led us to believe)--otherwise you would know the CASE for 3ABN (and Danny) has been completed.

2.  Danny's "personal affairs" were closely examined by the same one and only IRS (that you and Pickle turned in to the IRS)

I mean really--think abou it. Fran and Bonnie and Joy and Pickle turn 3abn and Danny Shelton in to the IRS. (You all know that the IRS pays squeelers 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. And 3abn and Danny complied since they had NOTHING to hide.  ALL Danny's personal financial dealings were closely examined as only the IRS can do--obviously they had to find something for their troubles.

And what do you know! Nothing illegal turned up!! NOTHING.

No matter how you all want to spin it--and lie about it--the truth is there for you to see IF you want to see it. But you don't want to see it--so you will continue to spin and spin and spin more.  Like this little hamster going in circles    

So carry on with your spinning.  You are going nowhere like all spinners do.   

[Bob Pickle]

Junebug, since you have failed to produce any evidence to support your mere assertions, I think you are the one who is spinning.

Think about it: Do you really think Kristin Kingsbury would falsely indicate on Sept. 10 that 100,000 pages of documents were still in the IRS's possession if they really were destroyed like Danny Shelton claimed?

And do you really want to insult the dedicated men and women who serve in the IRS by claiming that they didn't think Danny's falsification of a figure on his 2003 tax return was a violation?