Re: More KEBSCHULLW standoff saga

On Sep 26, 9:13?am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


SNIP

WDK wrote:

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?


lil paulie failed to answer the questions so we can assume his answer
is BOTH,


Cheers,


WDK



.