Re: More KEBSCHULLW standoff saga

On Sep 25, 3:50 pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<KEBSCHU...@xxxxxxx> wrote

SNIP

lil paulie, you are stonewalling

I can think of only two reasons that a CPA would support IRS's
fraudulent instructions related to section 56(b)(1)(D) or 111(a) and
and those are (1) the CPA is benefiting from the fraudulent
instructions through a fraudulent scheme of his own, or (2) the CPA's
clients are benefiting from IRS's fraudulent instructions.


So, lil paulie, in your case, which is it?


Why don't you answer my question?


Cheers,


WDK



.