Alan Grayson: Lies, Tax Fraud and Deceit

Lies, Tax Fraud and Deceit (Originally Published 11/03/2009)

My theory is that Alan Grayson is a liar, a fraud, and a tax-cheat. Who is this guy? How did he really obtain his wealth? It’s certainly worth further investigation in light of the following.


  1. Roll Call lists Alan Grayson’s largest asset is a claim against Derivium Capital, the now bankrupt Ponzi scheme, in the amount of $34 million.

  2. Central Florida Politics lists Alan Grayson as the Derivium Capital scams most frequent customer.

  3. Roll Call lists Grayson’s net worth at $31.12 million. Grayson’s only other asset is said to be a trust fund worth $5 to $25 million.

  4. Roll Call states that Grayson founded IDT Corp. in 1990. However, states that IDT was founded by Howard Jonas in 1990. An article from January 9, 1992, in the New York Times, entitled, “Hot-Wiring Overseas Telephone Calls”, backs up the fact that the company was founded by Howard Jonas, not Alan Grayson.

  5. Per, the IRS has targeted Derivium Capital’s loan transactions as taxable events.

Questionable Issues:

  1. If Alan Grayson was not the founder of IDT Corp., then how did he obtain $29 million worth of stock between the years 2000 and 2005?

  2. Since Alan Grayson was not the founder of IDT Corp., then why did he lie on his Congressional disclosure?

  3. What was the cost basis of the stock which Alan Grayson sold to Derivium Capital for $26 million?

  4. Did the IRS investigate Alan Grayson, and if so, how much was determined that Grayson owed in back taxes?

  5. Did Alan Grayson voluntarily amend his tax returns to report the sale of stock to Derivium Capital?

  6. What did Alan Grayson know about Derivium Capital at the time of the transaction?

  7. Did Alan Grayson knowingly profit from an illegal Ponzi scheme?


Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) $31.12 million

The Florida lawmaker’s largest asset stems from an apparent financial mistake. Grayson lists a claim valued at $25 million to $50 million against Derivium Capital. The now-bankrupt firm managed a Ponzi scheme in which investors, including Grayson, could turn over stock to Derivium in exchange for cash loans and redeem the value later if the stock prices increased. A South Carolina court ruled earlier this year that Derivium shareholders were collectively owed about $270 million in lost profits and that Grayson’s share would be about $34 million. In addition to that claim, Grayson, an attorney who founded the telecommunications company IDT Corp. in 1990, lists a trust valued at $5 million to $25 million. The same trust was previously Grayson’s largest asset, with a value of $25 million to $50 million when he filed a candidate disclosure form in November 2008.

Scam’s Most Frequent Customer

Between 2000 and 2005, Grayson was the most frequent participant in Derivium’s “90-percent stock-loan” program, transferring about $29 million in stocks to Derivium and promptly receiving 90 percent of it – about $26 million – back in cash as “stock loans,” according to his court filings. In that sense, he lost only about $3 million out of pocket. But Derivium had promised to pay Grayson profits on his stocks, if they appreciated enough over the three-year loan period to cover the amount of his “stock loans” plus interest. And Grayson picked some lucrative stocks. His $34 million in damages is based on the profits he should have received on stocks that rose in value – had Derivium not run out of cash and filed for bankruptcy.

Derivium Loan Update: IRS Targets Derivium Loan Transactions

Introduction: IRS has targeted taxpayers who have engaged in loan transactions through Derivium Capital by sending them Preliminary Notices, in late January, 2007, stating that the Derivium loan transaction may be a “tax avoidance” device. In essence, IRS claims the Derivium loan transaction is really a taxable sale of securities at the time taxpayers received the proceeds, rather than a bona fide loan. IRS has an audit project underway in Sacramento, California, involving Derivium-type loans.

How It Works: In general, Derivium arranged loans for 90% of the value of a stock for an initial 3-year period at a compounded interest rate of approximately 10%. The loan is non-recourse, which means that at the end of the loan term, if the borrower cannot repay both principal and interest, the lender forecloses on the stock in full payment for the loan. The borrower has the option of rolling over the loan at maturity for an additional fee.

Note: Derivium has filed for bankruptcy and its client list has become public, thereby providing IRS with a road map of taxpayers who engaged in the loan transactions. Derivium is no longer in business.

Tax Consequences: IRS challenges the transaction and maintains a sale occurred in the initial year of the transaction on the following grounds:

  1. The taxpayer was obligated to transfer the stock to Derivium, but repayment was optional because the purported loan was non-recourse to the taxpayer.

  2. Taxpayers eliminated the risk of loss.

  3. Principal payments are prohibited during the entire term of the transaction.

  4. Legal title to the stock was transferred to Derivium.

  5. The stock was treated as belonging to Derivium.

  6. Derivium sold the stock to fund the transaction.

When the loan matures and if the borrower does not repay it, the lender forecloses on the security (the stock) and the borrower has a taxable event at that time. The stock is treated as sold for the full amount of principal and interest outstanding. Thus, the borrower has a gain equal to the difference between the sales price (the full amount outstanding on the loan) and the borrower’s basis in the security. The gain will usually meet long-term capital gain requirements under federal law and be taxed at 15%.


U.S. Tax Compliance Costs $44B, not $400B

Tax Foundation’s Runaway Compliance Estimates

By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” ~ Mark Twain –

According to the Tax Foundation, federal income tax compliance costs were projected to reach $392 billion by 2011, and $483 billion by 2015. Now they say it’s probably in the ballpark of $400 billion as of 2011. So in other words, they figure that it costs taxpayers an additional 20 to 40 percent of the amount paid in income taxes just to fill out and file the forms. However, what people echoing these numbers overlook is the fact that these figures are based on Internal Revenue Service estimates made during an era in which tax forms were completed with a tax booklet, pencil and calculator, a methodology that even the IRS discontinued in 2006.

The fact that the Tax Foundation assigned a dollar value to outmoded time estimates, based on a taxpayer’s average hourly earnings, is even more appalling. The real eye opener ought to be that a huge chunk of the dollar cost mentioned is not money that anyone actually spends. It is rather the value placed on the time each taxpayer would spend preparing their income tax return if (1) they actually prepared their own tax return, (2) they prepared their return with a tax instruction booklet, paper forms, a pencil, and calculator, and (3) they were compensated for their time.

To prove just how bogus this figure is, I pored over the Tax Foundation’s 2005 report. The first thought that occurred to me is that the reason the report hasn’t been updated since then is because the IRS stopped estimating the time it takes to manually fill out tax forms in 2006, and without these estimates, the Tax Foundation’s theoretical foundation disintegrated. And why did the IRS stop making these estimates? Well, primarily because since it began accepting electronically filed returns in 1990, and set a goal of achieving – “80% of all tax and information returns filed electronically by Filing Season 2007″, and with the advent of personal computers and cheap software, the amount of time spent and cost of preparing income tax forms has declined dramatically. Thus, the idea of one toiling for 17 to 23 hours, or longer, over a 2 to 3 page tax return is passé.

One section of the report states that: “When examined by income level, compliance cost is found to be highly regressive, taking a larger toll on low-income taxpayers as a percentage of income than high-income taxpayers. On the low end, taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) under $20,000 incur a compliance cost equal to 5.9 percent of income while the compliance cost incurred by taxpayers with AGI over $200,000 amounts to just 0.5 percent of income.”

What the Tax Foundation is saying is that a person with $20,000 of adjusted gross income would incur a cost of $1,180, or 5.9% of their income, in preparing their income tax return, and a person making $200,000 would expend $1,000, or 0.5% of their income. Does that match your experience, because it’s complete nonsense from my vantage point? Is this even remotely reasonable? Let’s examine this theory in more detail.

Following the Tax Foundation’s logic, we could assign a cost to virtually everything we do, as a function of our annual income. Never mind the fact that we only get paid for the time we actually work. So in other words, if you make $9.61 per hour on the job, and it takes you 2 hours per week to wash your clothes (on your time off), then according to this theory, the real cost of clothes washing is more than $1,000 per year ($19.22 times 52 weeks; plus washing powder, water, electricity, and depreciation of your washing machine and dryer), or more than 5.0% of your annual income.

Carrying this through to its illogical conclusion, for a person who works 8 hours per day, the cost of sleeping 8 hours per night would be equal to their annual income, right? So one can only ponder the cost of watching television, driving to and from work, mowing the yard, etc… You can see how silly this is. To drive the point home, under this theory, if you work 8 hours per day, and have 16 hours of free-time, then the cost of everything you do outside of work would be twice as much as your annual income. In other words, you’re not actually making $20,000 per year, heck, you’re not even breaking even; you’re going in the hole by $20,000 every year. Well, so much for that theory.

Ask an Accountant

I have had the fortune of preparing income tax returns, both in the early 1980’s, before the advent of personal computers, and in the 21st Century with high speed internet and gigabytes of random-access memory. In the early 1980’s it took literally days to complete a complex income tax return. Information would be gathered and written onto data forms in pencil, then shipped off to a main-frame computer processing center. The printed return would then be mailed back in about 3 business days, although a typographical error would easily double this time-frame. Then the taxpayer(s) had to be summoned to come in and sign the return before it could be postmarked.

The cost of preparing an itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A, plus a state tax return, back then averaged around $150. Most non-itemized returns were completed on the spot, with pen and calculator, for around $85. What some people miss is that since $150 in 1981 had the same buying power as $380 today, annual inflation over this period being 3.16%, and since the average cost is still around $150 today (in the Southeast), the cost of preparing income tax returns has actually declined by around 61%, over the past 30 years. But you won’t hear about this from today’s rubber stamps.

It was in 1990 that IRS e-file became operational nationwide, and that year 4.2 million returns were filed electronically. I was working for the IRS at the time. Later on, when I started my own practice back in the year 2000, after doing other things for a few years, part of my mission statement read, “To assist the Internal Revenue Service in its goal: ‘To have 80% of all tax and information returns filed electronically by Filing Season 2007’”.

By the year 2007, as per the table below, the percentage of electronically filed returns had only reached 57%, however, many practices, such as mine, were already near the 100% mark. As a result, ever since then, that part of my mission statement has read, “To file 99.9% of all income tax and information returns electronically”. Nowadays, a tax preparer, who prepares more than 10 returns per year, is required to file all returns electronically.

From personal experience, these days it takes about an hour to prepare and e-file the same income tax return that used to take 3 days or longer. Like in many other industries, technology has made tax compliance both cheaper and more efficient. While prices have risen dramatically in other sectors, such as Education and Health Care, the cost of professional income tax preparation has plummeted, on an inflation adjusted basis. Most notably, the time it takes to prepare a return has been reduced from days to minutes. Similarly, the time it takes to receive an income tax refund has been reduced from 6 to 8 weeks, down to 7 to 10 days. This is precisely why the IRS no longer publishes obsolete manual computation time-frames.

The 2005 1040 Instruction Book, on page 79, states, for example, that the time and cost of preparing a Form 1040 with Schedule A and other schedules, but no Schedule D, was as follows (see table below, 3rd row from the top):

  • Self prepared without software – 16.7 hours | $18
  • Self prepared with software – 22.7 hours | $51
  • Prepared by Professional – 12.1 hours | $174

In analyzing this, does anyone out there seriously believe that it would take 6 hours longer to self-prepare a tax return with software, than without? Like that makes sense. And what kind of practice would a professional be running, if it took 12.1 hours to complete each itemized 1040 return? At that pace, a professional would only be able to complete around three 1040 returns per week, and since the regular season only lasts about 12 weeks, would only be able to prepare around 40 returns per season, with a seasonal income of around $6,900. If it really took a professional 12.1 hours to prepare each an every itemized Form 1040, we would indeed have a problem. However, since actual facts and figures reveal that tax preparation really takes a fraction of the time it used to, and costs less than half of what it did 30 years ago, perhaps we don’t have a problem after all, at least not a ‘cost of income tax compliance problem’.

According to Nickel, over at the, his research coming from the National Society of Accountants biennial survey, the average tax preparation fee for an itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A, plus a state tax return, was $229 in 2010. And for a Form 1040 and state return without itemized deductions, the average price was $129. But keep in mind that tax preparation fees vary regionally, so the above averages aren’t necessarily applicable depending on where you live. The lowest costs are in the Eastern South Central region (AL, KY, MS, and TN) where a Form 1040 with a Schedule A and state return averages $137. And the most expensive region is the Pacific (AK, CA, HI, OR, and WA) at $292.

He also found that for those with more complex returns, modern day costs average as follows (again, prices will vary by region):

  • $212 for Form 1040 Schedule C (profit or loss from business)
  • $551 for Form 1065 (partnership)
  • $692 for Form 1120 (corporation)
  • $665 for Form 1120S (S corporation)
  • $415 for Form 1041 (fiduciary)
  • $2,044 for Form 706 (estates)
  • $584 for Form 990 (tax exempt)
  • $58 for Form 940 (federal unemployment)

Here in the Southeast, a professionally prepared itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A, plus a state tax return, takes about an hour to prepare, and the fee averages $150. The question of whether a person making over $200,000 will pay more, or less, is actually not based on their income, but rather on how many forms need to be prepared? So if an itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A, plus a state tax return, costs an average of $150 to prepare, that’s generally how much it costs no matter how great one’s income. That’s because the time it takes to prepare such a return would be about the same. If it costs more, it’s most likely due to additional form filing requirements. Thus, the true modern day cost of $150, to prepare such a return, is a far cry from the Tax Foundation’s estimate of $1,000.

At the same time, a basic Form 1040-A, plus a state return, would take around 30 minutes to prepare, with an average fee of $85 ($60 without the state). This is also a major discrepancy from the Tax Foundation’s estimated cost of $1,180, for a person making $20,000 per year. If we were to follow this artificial tack, then we would have to believe that it would take something in the order of 122.7 hours to prepare a basic 2 or 3 page 1040-A return, at a cost of $9.61 per hour (the hourly wage for a person making $20,000 per year). Therefore, the Tax Foundation’s purported $400 billion per year estimate is grossly overstated.

The act of basing an entire tax reform platform on factitious information is called, “fraud”. So who’s been out on the stump quoting these make-believe numbers? Of late, it’s been Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, previously Herman Cain, and a host of others. But it’s time for the public to wake up and realize that the Tax Foundation’s figures are completely bogus.

Sure, some returns take longer than others, some cost more than others, and most businesses require monthly or quarterly accounting and payroll tax services on top of income tax return preparation. But what’s the alternative for a business, to not have any record of whether it is profitable? Can businesses just do away with all record keeping and financial reporting for the sake of skimping on an ordinary and necessary business expense? I don’t think that would be a wise move.

A Gross Overstatement

To conclude, the Tax Foundation’s estimate is a made-up number, based on obsolete data. The true costs of complying with federal income tax laws have declined dramatically over the past 30 years. Thus, anyone floating figures ranging from $400 billion to $500 billion per year must have their head in the sand.

There’s no way you could ever convince me that it takes 122.7 hours, to enter the amounts contained on a W-2 Form into a computer program, or onto a paper form, in order to file a simple 1040-A return. Nor can you persuade me to believe that the cost of preparing such a return could ever reach $1,180. But that’s essentially what the Tax Foundation’s report says.

The correct method of determining any cost is to add up the actual outlay in cash, but since the Tax Foundation has not chosen this method, I must conclude that their estimate is overstated by as much as 88.9%. How did I arrive at this percentage? By sampling.

The 2005 IRS out-of-pocket cost estimates reveal that the most one would pay is charged by tax professionals. Since the fee charged for a simple 1040-A, plus a state tax return, completed by a paid preparer, is actually $85, not $1,180 as they would have us believe, the Tax Foundation’s estimate is off by 92.8% ($85 vs. $1,180). And since the cost of a professionally prepared itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A, plus a state tax return, is actually $150, instead of $1,000, they are off by 85% ($150 vs. $1,000). Averaging these two percentages together results in an overstatement of 88.9%. Thus, I conclude that the Tax Foundation’s estimate, that federal income tax compliance is costing Americans around $400 billion per year, is in reality probably less than $44.4 billion (11.1% of $400 billion).

Frankly, I would be more concerned about real and verifiable IRS statistics, such as the number and amount of refunds being doled out. For example, in 2010, out of the 142,449,000 returns that were filed, 109,376,000 received refunds totaling $328.4 billion, for an average refund of $3,003 per return. Now that’s real money, which, if you think about it, is being summarily piled on to the national debt. So what’s up with that?


Cross posted at: Free Republic

What Does $40 per Week Mean To You?

– Let’s see, to me one thing it means is that the federal government will be adding another $120 billion to the national debt. For my friend Jeff, at Liberty Works, it means – we’ve been bamboozled again. –

By: BoomerJeff | Liberty Works

“… On Thursday Obama ramped up the theatrics and gave us a preview of his New Year strategy for diverting attention away from his manifest failures. He stepped to the microphones to prove he identifies with the struggles of the helpless against those cruel Republican Scrooges (transcript). His tone dripping with pious solicitude, he began:

We’ve been doing everything we can to make sure that 160 million working Americans aren’t hit with a Holiday tax increase on January First…If you’re a family making about $50,000 a year this is a tax cut that amounts to about a thousand dollars a year. That’s about forty bucks out of every paycheck.

So far the President’s math is correct, since most employees are paid either bi-weekly or semi-monthly.

It may be that there are some folks in the House who refuse to vote for this compromise because they don’t think forty bucks is a lot of money. But anyone who knows what it’s like to stretch a budget knows that at the end of the week or the end of the month forty dollars can make all the difference in the world…

So on Tuesday we asked folks to tell us what it would be like to lose forty bucks every week.

Wait a minute! “Every week?” He just changed it from $40 out of every paycheck to $40 every week! But the temporary tax cut is worth only $19 every week to his hypothetical $50,000 per year family.

You’d have to earn $104,000 a year for Obama’s Social Security tax markdown to be worth $40 every week.

Obama then quoted some of the emails from his “folks” about how they would deal with the loss of $40 per week.

Joseph from New Jersey would have to sacrifice the occasional pizza night with his daughters. My 16 year old twins will be out of the house soon – I’ll miss this.

Richard from Rhode Island wrote to tell us that having an extra $40 in his check buys enough heating oil to keep his family warm for three nights. In his words, and I’m quoting, If someone doesn’t think that 12 gallons of heating oil is important invite them to spend three nights in an unheated home.

Pete from Wisconsin told us about driving more than 200 miles each week to keep his father in law company in a nursing home. $40 out of his paycheck would mean that he could only make three trips instead of four.

Dinner out for child who’s home for Christmas, a pair of shoes – these are the things that are at stake for millions of Americans. They matter a lot.

Obviously these emails are absurd. If you earn $104,000 and have to give up $40 per week, are you really going to have to deny your kids a pizza or a pair of shoes? Will you shiver for three nights without heating oil?

Of course, there are some folks to whom $40 every week would be make a real difference:

  • A hotel maid who works full time for $8.50 per hour

  • A construction worker who has been cut back to half time work at $17 per hour

  • A self employed business owner whose customers were hammered by the recession and now barely survives by depleting his savings. He generated only $17,700 profit this year after paying his employees and the employer’s half of the payroll tax which was not reduced by the Obama payroll tax markdown.

To each of these people Obama’s temporary payroll tax cut is worth not $40 but $6.80 per week.

But much of the media have already begun to help Obama plant a false perception in the minds of uninformed voters that Republicans would deny everyone $40 per week. (For example, see the headline here.)

Obama knows that informed voters will figure out the deception. But he doesn’t care about informed voters. They won’t vote for him anyway.”

Obama on Oil | Living a Lie

Trust The Lies

“We’re actually producing more oil here than ever.” ~ Barack Obama (05/06/2011) ~

The truth: We are producing fewer barrels of oil here than we did in 1951. ~

Obama would be correct, if our nation was founded in the year 2003. But of course anyone born before 2003 knows that Obama’s statement is – in fact – not true. For those more interested in truth, than in the shallow words of lying politicians, we are actually producing fewer barrels of oil today than we produced in the year 1951, and 42.3% fewer than we produced in 1970.

It’s time to start drilling, and time to stop lying. If Obama won’t do it, then let’s find someone who will.

References (Check the facts):

Slick Barack’s Oil Spill | White Lies | IXTOC I

History Lesson: Sedco 135F – IXTOC I

Compiled by: Larry Walker, Jr.

So if the Gulf Oil Blowout is going to take 3 to 10 month’s to cap, then why lie? I’m tired of the lies. If it took Red Adair nearly 10 month’s to cap IXTOC I, why would Obama think his disaster could be resolved in a few weeks? The only way that’s going to happen is through the use of military ordinance to blow the well, creating an underwater seismic event. Any thing short of this is wishful thinking.

In the IXTOC I accident the U.S. had two months to prepare the coast with booms and still failed to prevent a disaster. The Obama administration has wasted a month already. The IXTOC I dumped 3.5 million barrels into the Gulf making it the worst oil disaster ever, until now. Obama could blow the well, but he won’t. Obama could do more for the Gulf States, but he won’t. All Obama knows how to do is run his mouth (with a teleprompter), tell white lies, and make us think everything is F.I.N.E. Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. Deja Vu…



In 1979, the Sedco 135F was drilling the IXTOC I well for PEMEX, the state-owned Mexican petroleum company when the well suffered a blowout. The well had been drilled to 3657m with the 9-5/8″ casing set at 3627m. Reports then state that mud circulation was lost (mud is, in essence, a densely weighted drilling fluid used to lubricate the drill bit, clean the drilled rock from the hole and provide a column of hydrostatic pressure to prevent influxes) so the decision was made to pull the drill string and plug the well. Without the hydrostatic pressure of the mud column, oil and gas were able to flow unrestricted to the surface, which is what happened as the crew were working on the lower part of the drillstring. The BOP was closed on the pipe but could not cut the thicker drill collars, allowing oil and gas to flow to surface where it ignited and engulfed the Sedco 135F in flames. The rig collapsed and sank onto the wellhead area on the seabed, littering the seabed with large debris such as the rig’s derrick and 3000m of pipe.

The well was initially flowing at a rate of 30,000 barrels per day (1 barrel = 42 US gallons = 159 litres), which was reduced to around 10,000 bpd by attempts to plug the well. Two relief wells were drilled to relieve pressure and the well was eventually killed nine months later on 23 March 1980. Due to the massive contamination caused by the spill from the blowout (by 12 June, the oil slick measured 180km by 80km), nearly 500 aerial missions were flown, spraying dispersants over the water. Prevailing winds caused extensive damage along the US coast with the Texas coast suffering the greatest. The IXTOC I accident was the biggest single spill ever, with an estimated 3.5 million barrels of oil released.


In the next nine months, experts and divers including Red Adair were brought in to contain and cap the oil well.[6] Approximately an average of ten thousand to thirty thousand barrels per day were discharged into the Gulf until it was finally capped on 23 March 1980, nearly 10 months later.[7] Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets. Eventually, in the US, 162 miles (261 km) of beaches and 1421 birds were affected by 3,000,000 barrels (480,000 m3) of oil.[7] Pemex spent $100 million to clean up the spill and avoided paying compensation by asserting sovereign immunity.[8]

The oil slick surrounded Rancho Nuevo, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is one of the few nesting sites for Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles. Thousands of baby sea turtles were airlifted to a clean portion of the Gulf of Mexico to help save the rare species.


Office of Response and Restoration: IXTOC I

The Royal Society of Canada: Report on Science Issues Related to Oil and Gas Activities

1. Encyclopaedia of New Zealand
2. NOAA Photo Library
3. New Hope, PA
4. ORR Incidents Gallery