Bad Debt Sold to YOU !

Irreparable harm is caused by withholding disclosures for subrogation advantage in a fictitious foreclosure and LLP members who act with officers and directors of member banks to remove occupants from property they never owned. To date LLP fail to report to consumers , courts or their shareholders of the public entity “a national association “ the proper tax payer characterizing of earnings and cause for the appreciation of certain non-performing assets leading to the sale of bad bank debt to consumers.


Conversion Scheme

Defendants are the foreclosing interest holding the same and greater value in the same type asset as members of a certain LLC as bank officers and directors “General Partners” who are with their agents, a registered LLP, are collectively “membership and successors” as defendants in a tax matter partnership asset and liabilities conversion scheme.

D.F. Its coming you way on 5/11/2018

Dodd Frank Act Section 1063


(1) EXISTING RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND OBLIGATIONS NOT AFFECTED.—Section 1061(b)(1) does not affect the validity of any right, duty, or obligation of the United States, the Board of Governors (or any Federal reserve bank), or any other person that—

(A) arises under any provision of law relating to any consumer financial protection function of the Board of Governors transferred to the Bureau by this title; and

(B) existed on the day before the designated transfer date.

(2) CONTINUATION OF SUITS.—No provision of this Act shall abate any proceeding commenced by or against the Board of Governors (or any Federal reserve bank) before the designated transfer date with respect to any consumer financial protection function of the Board of Governors (or any Federal reserve bank) transferred to the Bureau by this title, except that the Bureau, subject to sections 1024, 1025, and 1026, shall be substituted for the Board of Governors (or Federal reserve bank) as a party to any such proceeding as of the designated transfer date.

Do not confuse the Lender and Creditors Claims

logo-cert-cfeWhen a mortgage funds the process causes the notes holder to ship its collateral “note” to the creditor meaning the bank wiring good funds into closing. The funds originate from a member bank in the name of the lender F.B.O the mortgagor. The amount wired is the obligation of the lender to creditor where the notes maker or mortgagor owes a debt to the lender as legal holder.
Holder therefore is the lender to mortgagor and the obligor to creditor a member bank .

If the lender sold the loan the purchaser is in possession of the instrument “note” evidencing the obligation. If the lender did not sell the loan by 180 days the note remains with the creditor . First Horizon is the Lender and Bear Sterns is the Creditor for lines of Credit used to fund the subject mortgage.

At 180 days but no greater than 360 days there must be a valid assignment from Lender to  a thrid party purchaser for value.

If the assignment is not from Lender to bonefide purchaser than Creditor takes assignment by its possession of the collateral it has held all along.

A corporate assignment from Lender to Creditor collateralize s the revolving lines of credit issued to lender but otherwise are worthless. The corporate assignment from Lender to :___________ and blank endorsement  never serves any other purpose.

MERS is the nominee only for the term the loan is out for sale or first 12 months and is used to replace the Seller Purchaser bailment requirements.

Take this to court or take it to the bank as fact .

We are secondary markets auditors and accountants who do not offer free home services…just facts in the secondary and capital markets handling of these legacy loans in foreclosure. The fact is in every case seen to date the debt  in controversy is NOT the consumers but the antecedent debt of a thrid party  involving the creditors and lenders .

Washington Office / Tel 202-550-8364

What You’re Missing in a Foreclosure Defense is the Foreclosure!

General Taxation of COD Income

Under the Code, U.S. persons, including corporations, are taxed on their worldwide income. Sec. 61 defines gross income to include COD income.

When a debtor recognizes COD income, the creditor may receive a corresponding Sec. 165(g) worthless securities deduction or a Sec. 166 bad debt deduction.

What does this mean ? You are sent a 1099 A for Abandonment of claims meaning the cost to charge off bad debt the lender owed its creditor and never satisfied .

Problems arise where the HUD shows the amount owed the existing lines of record were in fact paid.  The second issue is where the amount paid by borrower was never wired into closing …  or funds were rerouted into a bank depository as trust funds used to acquire a series of pass through certificates.

In either event your left holding the bag for the amount owed by the lender to the foreclosing party, the amount that failed to wire to the existing lien holders and loss of title that was irrevocably conveyed after closing

Sec. 108 provides several exceptions to the definition of COD income. For example, Sec. 108(e)(6) provides that a capital contribution [meaning homes and mortgages for stock ] issued by banks in the form of debt forgiveness by LLC officers and directors as shareholder-creditor that generally does not involve an issuance of stock of the debtor produces COD income only to the extent the outstanding debt exceeds the contributing shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in the debt.

More importantly under Sec. 108(e)(8), a member bank as Chase a Delaware Corporation recognizes COD income if it transfers stock in satisfaction of its debt….MEANING YOU PURCHASED THEIR WORTHLESS SHARES BY CONVEYING YOUR HOME and at that time A MORTGAGE WAS CANCELLED AS  IF IT WAS PAID IN FULL SATISFACTION.

CLAIMS BROUGHT BY LAWYERS IN CONSUMERS DEFENSES ARE …lets say off base and not on target. Its true the fair market value (FMV) of the stock will always be less than the adjusted issue price of the debt.

Thus, when mortgages are forgiven by a banks officer and directors shareholder-creditor and no new stock is issued, the consumer debtor recognizes gain to the extent the adjusted issue price of the debt exceeds the shareholder-creditor’s basis in the debt.

The shareholder-creditor increases its basis in the stock of the debtor in an amount equal to the adjusted issue price of the debt (see also Sec. 1016(a)(1), Regs. Sec. 1.1502-19(d)(1), and Letter Ruling 201337007).

More to follow so please stay tuned – difficult subject matter is tough to digest when its valuable to your claim.


Facebook Foreclosures, Nominee and IRS

You will find quite a crowd on Facebook these days conversing on topics ranging from foreclosure fraud to how to burn the Department of  Treasury for a lifetime membership  to unlimited wealth . Unfortunately the Treasury crowd cant differentiate welfare from stealing but they often make more sense these days than the foreclosures bottom feeders.

Seriously if the Department of Treasury wanted to ensure your wealth  they would publish a manual on just how to break into their electronic platform and describe in government fashion the method for whatever it is these folks converse about. I am more  in favor of playing 52 card pick up on the freeway or riding unicycles on tall buildings balancing off the most extreme ledges.

There is an argument for the foreclosure victims and its a difficult argument to get across conservative folks who are timely or current and those who are facing loss and eviction after years of sleepless nights.

LOST NOTE v. LOST NOTES: The note is lost and its fact but not to be confused with lack of willingness to  locate the instrument  as compared to a lack of capacity to enforce it. If you agreed to a mortage in good faith and executed  the note you  promised to pay back the money. The majority of mainstream Americans would agree with the courts as that is all the judicious appears willing to go off.   Nothing  in effect will deny an Innocent third party purchaser the  right to enforce the note he purchased. Even in the event of a default and strong counter claims to deny standing should a foreclosing party enter the court absent the note.

The note under the Legacy Brand mortage was not lost to anything incident to volume of industry shake up after the markets tanked. The note was cashed in by the purchaser who in this case is the seller.  Its called divestiture of assets and cancellation of debt for the involuntary conversion of the instrument and obligation into ordinary income .

Ordinary income is taxable In the United States at the marginal tax rates. Generally there are six “tax brackets” ranging from 10% to 35%.  However, after the 2003 Tax Cut, qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are taxed at the same rate of 15% (up to 20% after 2012). The amount withheld in certain instances can run as high as 39.4 percent of the amount paid to the tax payer.

Here is where a genuine controversy arises that  that fails to enter into counterclaims nor attention of the press or lawyers on both sides. Mortgages transfer title and the note cancelled for its full value paid over 30 years under sec 108 (i) accelerated recovery. This beg the question of why? Why would anyone make a bad loan as lenders did from 2001-2008  placing money at risk and then right it off . Add to the confusion why the lender allowed the consumer to stay in the  home  for more than five years from the day of the alleged default?

INSTALLMENT SALES – Under the requirements  of Section 453 B a tax payer lender or its successors can claim benefits of installment sale reporting  under installment sale rules. Those benefits are in the booking of phantom income  attributed to a faulted household  capitalized at 10 times the note face value.

In my professional opinion this entire mortage  crisis is due in part to the federal deficit reduction  act and 911 and includes member banks recpatuire due the IRS dating back to 10/19/87

Consider MERS for example where a “nominee” is someone designated to act for another. As used in the federal tax lien context, a nominee is generally a third-party individual who holds legal title to property of a taxpayer while the taxpayer enjoys full use and benefit of that property. In other words, the federal tax lien extends to property “actually” owned by the taxpayer even though a third party holds “legal” title to the property as nominee.

Generally speaking, the third party in a nominee situation will be either another individual or a trust.

More to report here  over the coming days !






Indebtedness to the seller not discharged at reacquisition , the basis of such indebtedness shall be zero!

THERE WAS NO MORTGAGE ORIGINATED AS YOU THINK/ Installment Sale. And in most every case we have seen the consumer is foreclosing on themselves. Under the operative tax payer code  If any indebtedness to the seller secured by such property is not discharged upon the reacquisition of such property, the basis of such indebtedness shall be zero.

(d) Indebtedness treated as worthless prior to reacquisition

The cause for your belief in fraud is because foreclosing attorneys rely on a computer systems to track back to a date prior to the loan origination . This is for an adjusted basis in asset .

The Y2 K Bug is so hidden and veiled, clandestine that there is NO CHANCE OF DISCOVERY

You need to have complete understanding of GAAP AND GAAS and alleged  reacquisition of real property with respect to the sale of which gain was not recognized under section 121 (relating to gain on sale of principal residence);

Then you need complete understanding of Sec 1038 [cite the mortage foreclosure and eviction is moot to the taxpayers claims in Sec 121 ]

Now read this for the bigger picture –Basis of reacquired real property.

In Sec 1038 (d) If subsection (a) applies to the reacquisition of any real property, the basis of such property upon such reacquisition shall be the adjusted basis of the indebtedness to the seller secured by such property (determined as of the date of reacquisition), increased by the sum of—
(1) the amount of the gain determined under subsection (b) resulting from such reacquisition, and
(2) the amount described in subsection (b)(2)(B).

If any indebtedness to the seller secured by such property is not discharged upon the reacquisition of such property, the basis of such indebtedness shall be zero.
(d) Indebtedness treated as worthless prior to reacquisition. If, prior to a reacquisition of real property to which subsection (a) applies, the seller has treated indebtedness secured by such property as having become worthless or partially worthless—
(1) such seller shall be considered as receiving, upon the reacquisition of such property, an amount equal to the amount of such indebtedness treated by him as having become worthless, and
(2) the adjusted basis of such indebtedness shall be increased (as of the date of reacquisition) by an amount equal to the amount so considered as received by such seller.
(e) Principal residences. If—
(1) subsection (a) applies to a reacquisition of real property with respect to the sale of which gain was not recognized under section 121 (relating to gain on sale of principal residence); and
(2) within 1 year after the date of the reacquisition of such property by the seller, such property is resold by him, then, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section shall not apply to the reacquisition of such property and, for purposes of applying section 121, the resale of such property shall be treated as a part of the transaction constituting the original sale of such property
(f) [Deleted]
(g) Acquisition by estate, etc., of seller. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if an installment obligation is indebtedness to the seller which is described in subsection (a), and if such obligation is, in the hands of the taxpayer, an obligation with respect to which section 691(a)(4)(B) applies, then—
(1) for purposes of subsection (a), acquisition of real property by the taxpayer shall be treated as reacquisition by the seller, and
(2) the basis of the real property acquired by the taxpayer shall be increased by an amount e qual to the deduction under section 691(c) which would (but for this subsection) have been allowable to the taxpayer with respect to the gain on the exchange of the obligation for the real property.



1. Plaintiff is moving party _________________ “MOUVANT” who resides at _______________ in the county of ____________ for the state of ________________ files ex parte motion to “stay” scheduled unlawful detainer and eviction of occupant from the premises and above identified property.


From the Purchaser and Abandonment to the Seller.

Come now moving party “MOUVANT” citing lack of court jurisdiction in Personaum for matter of “REM” condemnation and government and state right of possession by” threat or emenanance” under counter argument in IRS tax Payer Code and IRS Taxpayer Bill of Rights as “adopted” by National Taxpayer Advocate.

Motion to stay eviction cite a genuine tax payer conflict of law that arises under the protections afforded in the fifth and fourteenth amendments and with respect of taxpayers rights under the disguised FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTORS PROCEDURES ACT “FCPA” with respect to “APPOINTED AGENTS” ALL MATERIAL DISCLOSURES AND NOTICES UNDER THE SATES CODE which shall but do not include the very basic presentment of payroll and earnings and disclosure for general ledger income assets liabilities and expenses.

In possession the right to prerequisite withholding held in a tax payers “interest bearing account remain unaffected by foreclosure or fictitious sale upon which a “lender is a vendor and vendee is the NOMINEE and upon the assignment thereof to “PAYOR” for consideration owed and never recived by the Borrower as PAYEE.

Under cancellation of debt and involuntary conversion borrower and BORROWER DOES 1-10 are the PAYEE for obligations due the Internal Revenue Service for ordinary as a RENTER OR LESSOR but denied the mandatory withholding data where nominee is a LANDLORD LESSEE “PAYOR” for income phantom or otherwise “ORDINARY” but deemed a tax deferred “fiction” Herein the moving parties cite where the courts practice and procedures for holdover and unlawful detainer are strategically timed and calendered in court dockets to circumvent US Tax payer codes for state and member bank obligations where the proceedings collectively avoid general tax payer withholding in favor of the state levying and collecting a punitive tax at time of possession.

*** The entire case pleading and motion is available by request upon our engagement providing discovery for 1099 , withholding information from constructing the general ledger for your case.
****** Sorry fee based service and not for free ****

“Linda Tirelli robo signer and Steve M ”

“Linda Tirelli robo signer” and you’ll find no less than eight hundred and forty hits highlighting my work as a consumer advocate exposing the fraud that is robo-signing and document fabrication.

That is the problem with false prophets and morons acting like foreclosure scribes. A Robo signor is anyone in the mortage bankers office with  a blanket POA allowed to sign a corporate officer’s name for purposes of the assignment and  blank endorsement. The instrument is for all  purposes and intent worthless as they are provided in file exclusive to the  Creditor.

Creditor not lender is the holder and in possession of the asset

Lenders originate loans and  commercial lenders  fund the mortgages which must be sold at 180 days. The ROBO signed document is valueless after the first 180 days and this is what we as experts want to get in front of the court for you .

Why is the court interested in hearing the assignment is valueless  as a staled date  instrument . Because the  foreclosing agents are using it as a tool to unwind loans  under a reverse purchase and sale scheme

For more info write us at