I think all of us understand that tax returns alone cannot prove the efficacy of his methodology. What tax returns will show is if he really won what he claimed he won.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Printable View
I think all of us understand that tax returns alone cannot prove the efficacy of his methodology. What tax returns will show is if he really won what he claimed he won.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
No need to speculate, we'll know for certain as soon as arci's transcripts are received...right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But how are you gonna handle this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by james40
Alan, I wish you would read what I've been saying so I don't have to repeat myself.
Transcripts alone ARE NOT WHAT YOU, OR WHOMEVER, WANT OR WANTS. Only arci wants them for his own reason, and he's cajoled you into believing in them. They do not show gambling losses on Schedule A. DO YOU GET THAT? Further, on a Schedule C they show even less of a breakdown. That leaves me wide open for more foolish criticism by the hacks here who would absolutely hate to see my full returns showing exactly what I've said they would throughout the years. I offered the same Returns as well as audit reports in the Fezzik challenge, which is exactly why he and the Huntington Press group along with Dancer, Jean Scott and others could not and would not put up, humiliating them publicly and sending them into emergency face-saving mode. Arci can send in whatever he wants to you and then claim whatever he wants. But it's not only disingenuous, it's dishonest and based entirely on a lie.
You can either continue to be messed around with by arci....or you can man up and stick to what arci originally said he wanted in his challenge. By you allowing him to pussy-foot around this shows me you are also out to "get me". And that is a mistake.
Again, it's FULL RETURNS FOR EITHER 2008 thru 2014 (absolutely possible) or FULL RETURNS FOR 2005-2014, if possible. Everything else is nonsense. Remember the value of always doing what you say you are going to do. Hold arci to that and we have a deal. Waver, flutter and dance and it's over.
When I get Arc's transcripts I will video tape me opening the envelope from the IRS to show clearly that the envelope is from the IRS and has not been previously opened. I will record opening the envelope and showing the transcripts but I will be careful not to show any personal info on the transcripts on the video. Frankly, if anyone is going to doubt that those are Arc's transcripts at that point (without showing his name and social security number on the forms) there is nothing I can do.
I will then put that video of me opening the envelope and removing the transcripts on YouTube. I will post the link and describe the contents of the envelope here. That will constitute proof that I have received Arc's transcripts.
It will then be up to Rob to send his transcripts or his returns -- unless of course Rob wants to say the transcripts "don't count" and he refuses to participate any further?
In the meantime, I've already asked Rob to let me know if he will accept "transcripts" and so far he hasn't posted a response. In fairness to him, he might be out cruising in his RV or playing video poker, or enjoying life and may not be by his computer or smart phone and hasn't seen the forum.
EDITED TO ADD:
While I was writing the above Rob responded:
Okay forum members and Arc: what do we do now? I have no dog in this race and I leave it to the rest of you to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
This appears to be Rob's objection to transcripts. Can anyone here tell us with certainty, if Rob's objection is valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
If no one here can tell us, then as soon as I receive Arc's transcripts I will let you know what they show.
You're asking that question of people who have no knowledge of the procedure. The transcript I have shows nothing about gambling losses--only what I put in for wins. There is no clear picture of what actually happened. And that's exactly what arci wants--obfuscation so he can claim victory. Just like any seasoned liar. And since he's been researching this like a crazed, caged animal, he already knows if I submit transcripts then schedule C will be heavily summarized, leaving me wide open for hate-driven interpretations and speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm not much surprised, but one would expect you, as a journalist, would want something like this to be as comprehensive as it can get. It makes no sense to diminish the requirements mid-game just to make it look like we're doing this to "save money". That's why I'm offering to pay his fee if he comes out of hiding and lives up to his original challenge.
Just to be clear...I am neither a fan, supporter, buddy or acquaintance of Rob Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I got involved in this when arci called him a liar...I asked "what is the lie?"...and it boiled down to Rob's claim to have won consistently at VP.
Since then I've been trying to find out for certain if Rob has done what he says...namely win at VP for several years in a row.
It's obvious that the only way for that to happen is for arci to send his returns....that's why I have advocated for that all along.
If arci sends his returns, then he has his foot on Singer's throat...it's checkmate...Singer then puts up or shuts up, once and for all.
That's why I support returns, because that is the only way to settle this.
I consider transcripts unacceptable, because Rob's conditions are for returns...not transcripts...so transcripts won't get it done.
Rob makes his own case why transcripts are not acceptable:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It would be true up to a point, if not a professional and not using Sch C, line 21 on the 1040 form would only show the amount claimed. You would not see the deductions used to arrive at the amount. For example: I win $10,000, but I have $9,500 in ATM receipts, my 1040 line 21 would read $500. So if filing as a professional, the schedule C information would be included in the transcripts, if not as a professional, the transcripts don't do you much good without seeing the gross winnings before deductions.
Well that should seal the deal...what's arci's excuse now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Edited: I want us to both request 10 years just in case we can get them back that far. If not, no harm/no foul. So I will pay up to $500 to get arci to comply with his original challenge.
Imagine that--I have to PAY to get the Internet's biggest liar to do what he said he would do on his own. Now maybe everybody sees why I mock this fool and his wreck of a life so often....and have fun doing it!
This is finally light at the end of the tunnel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You have stepped up and put your money where your mouth is...well played, sir.
Hopefully a dragonslaying visit to Montana is in your future, to collect an easy $10K.
It's very simple, Alan. I already told everyone that Singer would never provide his tax returns. Now he is telling outright lies ... "They do not show gambling losses on Schedule A." Here is what you really get according to Intuit ... "A transcript is a listing of the line numbers and information entered on the tax return, and any forms filed."
https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/18...-of-tax-return
So, who to believe? LOL. Is there any reason to go any further? We now know Singer will do anything to avoid providing Alan with his tax information. Yet, I will go one step further. I will send in the regular 4506 to get the real returns for 2008 and 2009 which are the only years available in Singer's so-called professional play. But, I will only spend the $100 if Singer agrees to do the same (fat chance). If he declines I think we can all assume I've been right all along.
This is a stall, Singer already offered to pay $500 for 10 years worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If you decline, the assumption is that you've been wrong all along.
Nice try.
Just to be clear...I am neither a fan, supporter, buddy or acquaintance of Rob Singer.
Well then you better get his thing out of your........thing.
What kind of person thinks like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Good lord...try to keep you homoerotic fantasies to yourself.
If you want to make people believe you won when you didn't you could easily file a tax form reflecting any amounts you want as long as you zero out your schedule C. Then you can claim a "documented" win without that nasty tax bill. IRS forms don't mean jack in that scenario. I wonder if anyone on this forum is cunning enough to go through the trouble. Hmmm
Go home, belly. The village is missing its idiot. BTW, didn't your parents ask you to run away from home? As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Yes, he's Rob's representative masquerading as a mediator.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyj
Slingshot, for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Hold on a second. We don't need a Schedule C to show someone's wins or losses from gaming. Wins go on Form 1040. Losses go on Schedule A. If the transcripts include a Schedule A with a line for other losses (Line 28, gambling deductions go there) that's all we need.
Now, if the transcripts don't show us what is on Line 28 then we won't have a clear picture of whether or not Rob won money.
If he filed using a Schedule C then we need to see the Schedule C. But when we look at Schedule C we aren't going to care about his deductions for travel, entertainment, tips, advertising, meals, books, Internet, cell phone and other "business expenses." On Schedule C we are going to look at ONLY how much he won and how much he actually lost. And that would be, on Part 1, Line 1. All of the other lines on Schedule C involve "business deductions" that are not directly related to how much he actually won or lost playing.
If the transcripts show the amount won gambling on the 1040 form, and how much was deducted on Schedule A Line 28, and/or Part 1, Line 1 of Schedule C -- then the transcripts have all the information needed to see if Rob really won what he claimed he won.
Remember -- and this is VERY IMPORTANT -- Rob told us that he told the IRS that he had ZERO taxable profit from gambling and paid NO taxes on his wins. So what we are looking for is NOT his net (because the net will be ZERO). What we are looking for are his GROSS WINS from gambling and what was lost gambling -- and we are NOT looking for those Schedule C business deductions that wiped out his taxable gambling income.
Tell Rob to bring cash. Lets get it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
This is not correct. On 1040 Line 21 you enter your gross wins. Losses go on Schedule A Line 28. You subtract your Schedule A total later on the 1040 form on Line 40.Quote:
Originally Posted by james40
You are correct.
No, its not the only way. Rob can simply deliver his returns to Alan Mendelson, a professional journalist. Imagine all the mud Singer can put on the falQuote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Complete BS. How can Singer provide 10 years worth when the only years available of his supposed professional career are 2008 and 2009? He can't. That makes his offer nothing but a diversion. The fact you would even make such an idiotic claim shows just how far gone you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
[QUOTE=coach belly;34590]
Since then I've been trying to find out for certain if Rob has done what he says...namely win at VP for several years in a row.
It's obvious that the only way for that to happen is for arci to send his returns....QUOTE]
No, its not the only way. Rob can simply deliver his returns to Alan without conditions. If Alan confirms that Rob's claims are true it will spread across all the gambling forums and Rob will have put mud in the faces of all his critics. But why is he not chomping at the bit to do this? Have you ever seen Rob not willing to rub mud in his critics faces. Why is he unwilling to do it now? Why is he hiding the information?
While the yelling continues, I will be getting Arc's TRANSCRIPTS and if they show gambiing wins on his 1040 and losses on Schedule A I will report that. I will hold off on reporting the $ amounts until Arc gives me the go-ahead and presumably that will be when I receive Rob's tax papers.
If the transcripts do not show that detailed information then I will report that as well.
And I will video tape opening the IRS envelope.
This is a nothing but another smokescreen.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Rob has said , several times, to request all the years, and see if they can be supplied....and he's even willing to pay the extra $ to try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You have been backed into a corner, and continue to stall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It seems like Rob is trying to teach his longtime detractor a lesson while fulfilling this challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by slobdinger
Soon, Rob will be either forced to provide his tax returns, or face the humiliation of failing the challenge.
But for now, arcimede$ is faced with the same fate...and he's stalling.
Rob has offered to pay his fees for the returns, so the expense excuse is no longer valid.
So then what could the excuse possibly be now?
I've requested 11 years worth of data. Get serious. Paying money is unnecessary and provides no more data. Another diversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
What Singer says and what he does are two different things. We've seen that many times. Still waiting for those papers.
Besides, there is no "see". We already know what years can be requested. It is made perfectly clear right on the form 4506. The only reason you would continue to make such an idiotic claim is you are doing it at the request of Singer (or you are Singer). Why do you continue this deception?
This is a typical lie that Singer would spew. I'm not even close to being backed into a corner and everyone knows that. I'm the one that has filled out the forms and already have then in my mail box to be picked up tomorrow. Singer is still making a fool out of himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Paying money gets your tax returns sent to Alan...the fees are absolutely necessary...the fees must be paid for the returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Rob wants returns, not transcripts....he will pay your fees.
You insist on sending only transcripts, when returns are available at no cost to you.
You are not paying the money, so why are you balking?
If you want to force Rob's hand, send the returns...nothing else will work.
You are so close to exposing Rob Singer, and you are the only one who can accomplish this.
But you are failing miserably with all this constant backpedalling and stalling.
Why won't you come through?
It's not perfectly clear...the IRS website info posted earlier says the following...Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
"Copies are generally available for the current year and past six years."
"generally" is the operative qualifier, which indicates that it's not crystal clear what can be retrieved.
Returns are NOT available at no cost. Transcripts contain the EXACT same information. I've already exposed Singer. Let me know when you decide to quit babbling nonsense. When are you going to stop the silly diversions?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
It's already been pointed out that forms older than 7 years are destroyed by law. You silly sentence means there may be times when forms are NOT available, not that older forms are available. Why do you continue with these silly diversions?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I missed this. Where did Rob say he will pay Arc's fees for the tax returns? If that's the case let's get that check in the mail to Arc, have Arc receive it, and get the back tax returns ordered. And then we can all wait to see exactly what the IRS can provide.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what he meant below...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
...but what does "I'm offering to pay his fee" mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
The entire argument about getting photocopies of the original forms is baseless. There is nothing on those forms that isn't on a transcript. The ONLY reason Singer keeps bringing it up is to avoid sending Alan his tax forms. That is beyond obvious. As long as he continues that nonsense all he is accomplishing is making it obvious he never won anything gambling. He's been lying about everything for years.
It's like saying you will only pay for something in quarters rather than dollars because it provides some extra value. Face palm.
Singer even got caught lying about what you get back in a transcript making his motives more than obvious.
Let's get this directly from Rob, please. Exactly what does he mean, and if he is paying Arc's fee to the IRS exactly how is he going to do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Maybe so...OK, we'll have to wait for Alan to report if the transcripts pass muster.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Yes it would be great if Rob confirmed my interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He could, of course, send you the fee and you could forward it to arci...or would that be a problem too?
But I don't think it matters, arci appears steadfastly opposed to returns...even if Rob pays for them.
Oh well, I tried...looking forward to your examination of arci's transcripts.
I don't think Arc is opposed to the returns. I think Arc has simply looked at the IRS website and found (as I did) that the full returns that Rob wants are NOT available and there is a cost of $50 each for those that are available. Arc has also discovered, and I confirmed, that there is a fast and ZERO cost option to get the same information PROVIDED the transcripts have what we believe they will have.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I am simply going to wait for Arc's transcripts. If they have the info we want to see then Rob will have to come up with a darn good reason why he can't have the IRS send his transcripts. I am not going to accept his song and dance that it has to be the original terms. If the original terms don't work or can be replaced by new terms, then why not use the new terms.
Alan, you continue to allow yourself to be manipulated by a series of arci backpeddals, misleading statements loaded with spin, and his usual array of lies. And why aren't you reading my relatively few posts on this? Something must be wrong with you if you don't see it. Arci keeps changing the original terms because he has his reasons. Why do I want original terms? Because arci knows his changes benefit him in one or more ways. Why do you keep saying "original terms won't work"? OF COURSE they will. Nothing is as complete as returns.
1. Schedule A, Line 28 shows up as OTHER on the transcript, just as it does on the Schedule itself, where you can write in however many "other" deductions you are taking as long as they are named. The transcript does not identify what "other" is comprised of. Now please tell us how in the world that helps a thing here. And you can be sure, with all of his obvious scrambling around, that arci clearly knows this. His big mistake was guessing what Line 28 says on the transcript. Then he was stupid enough to turn it into another big lie.
2. On Schedule C, which I filed from 2000 thru 2009, I believe Part I was for Gross income, which for a professional gambler includes all wins (W2G's and any other wins) minus any losses. My expenses were deducted in another part, and I think you said that in your post. I do not know what a Schedule C transcript shows or tells because I don't have an actual one here. So, again I'll use the word "comprehensive". And even if it does identify Part I, any critic can say that I "made up" a gross income in preparation of this day of reckoning, and mitigated it with a bunch of fake expense deductions. Actual tax returns eliminate that nonsense since they arrive with copies of W2G's. So transcripts are not an option for me with a Schedule C just as they are not an option for either of us when using Schedule A. Is that so hard to understand?
3. For the 5th time, read form 4506. It clearly states that some earlier year may still be available. Why do you keep parroting him by saying they are "absolutely destroyed by law after 7 years"? I'm all for trying our best to retrieve 2005-2007. It makes no sense not to even try to get 10 years of data for this.
4. Arci keeps balking at the cost of returns. I get it--his wife died and with that her SS & IBM pension were buried with her. That's why out of the kindness of my heart I've offered to pay his $500. How? The only fair way of course. Once you receive his RETURNS identifying whatever you deem appropriate proof, I'll either send you a cashiers check or give you cash and you can send it to him, and I'll immediately send my form in. Giving it up front to a proven welcher is like inviting the cat into a bird cage.
I understand why arci keeps dancing around doing what he said he would do from the start. But if you just don't get everything I keep repeating or don't want to get it for your own reasons, this effort is pointless. One more time: I will do nothing unless arci asks for & submits returns to you. We both need to be held to the same standard that HE proposed from the start. And as I said, I know you have a hair on your butt over me at this point, but if you want a free dinner from me you'll champion this effort in the right way. If you worked for me I'd be firing you right now. I only deal with people who care about doing what they say they will do.
If you only deal with people who do what they say they are going to do then you would have fired yourself long ago. Smoke and mirrors, Robbie boy. That's all you have. Smoke and mirrors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'm still with the coach on this whole thing. Two guys can put the squeeze on the other by taking the first step and neither will do it. I can confirm one thing--the returns are not automatically destroyed after 7 years. This is our government that we are talking about--returns are available for many years beyond the seven year period just due to the way our government/IRS operate. I have been able to get returns for decedent's well beyond 7 years when necessary. There is no guaranty--but what's the harm in requesting them.
Since Rob has agreed to pay the cost, where is the downside Arci?
If I were as certain that Singer is a liar as most of you are, I would do anything I could to expose him once and for all. Get the effin returns, in full, ordered from the IRS!!
By the way, does nobody save their old returns? I have returns in my file for about 30 years. It doesn't take up much space. Also, if you had an accountant do the returns, the accountant probably still has copies.
It's certainly easy to spend someone else's money. I wouldn't rush to spend $500 with a promise of being reimbursed from a non business with no recourse.
Since Rob is convinced he's right why isn't he sending his returns to me first and saving the $500 for Arc's returns? Of course I am being selfish here -- I don't want anything to get in the way of that dinner I've waited a year to get.
If you send in the form requesting the returns with a check...
Why can't arci send Alan his completed and signed form, Rob can send Alan the check that goes with it payable to the IRS, and then Alan can combine the two and send them to the IRS?
If postage is a problem then maybe Rob can throw some forever stamps in with his check?
How long before arci accuses you of being me...and that we are all Rob Singer...you know...new testament stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I would suggest that Rob send Alan a cashier's check in advance of arci's returns being delivered, and once Alan has the returns in hand, he forwards the fee to arci.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
US mail takes 2 or 3 days, Alan will have Rob's check in hand in a week at most. Arci's returns will take some time to arrive.
Oh, who am I trying to kid?...arci's not sending his returns...he's hiding something...that's obvious.
So, Alan can hand Rob's check back to him in person when they meet for dinner.
The noise you just heard was the sound of arci's head exploding, as the weasel struggles to escape the snare.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
No, Rob is teaching you a lesson, belly. In a decade and a half Singer has never ever fulfilled a bet or a challenge. Do you really think he is going to start now. As Rob's backer you are naive to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I'm not backing Rob...I'm working to verify what he has claimed for a decade and a half.Quote:
Originally Posted by slobdinger
Your mind is already made up, so you can't handle the possibility that he has done what he says.
I'm new to this...so I don't know, and I'm trying to find out.
But I'm not taking your word for it...you're nuts...you and your regurgitated Don Rickles schtick.
Alan, you won the dinner fair and square. If Rob uses any kind of excuse not to pay you off he is a welsh plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Belly, you are giving me a belly full of laughs. Rob is never going to send his returns to Alan no matter how many conditions arci fulfills. You are a fool for thinking that he will.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
If arci sends his returns to Alan, and Rob does not, then Rob is exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by slobdinger
You couldn't figure that out?
READ what I have told you about Schedule A, Line 28 Alan. Read what coach has said. Then, read what regnis just said about 7 years. And most of all, READ all the circle-jerk excuses about why arci changes HIS OWN conditions mid-game. What's all that spell to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You wouldn't rush to do this--more encouragement & apologizing for arci. But I'll sure believe you'd rush out to hit the vp machines.
Get real--he's playing you. A liar like him will do anything to hope he looks good in front of the most important people left in his world.
belly, you are off the mark. If Rob's strategy works then more power to him. I've never tried his tactics so really can't say one way or the other. I just know this. My scientific methodology has worked well for me for 19 years and I've done it enough to know it will work well in the future. My poor old daddy told me "if it ain't broke don't fix it." When I showed up in the forums 10 years ago Rob told everyone I was a phony and a fake and he has held that position ever since. That's what he says about all AP's. Only the great Singer's tactics can beat the game. Nothing else works. That's the real phony and fake in this ongoing fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
When I bought my house, I did not have to pay first then "trust" the seller that I would get a Deed to the property. We simply opened up an escrow with an intermediary. The deal was the documents, money and what not, were deposited with an escrow agent then and ONLY when everything was inputted, did anyone get anything released.
Alan is volunteering to be the escrow agent and presumably will hold the cash reimbursement (or certified funds) and receive and release the respective IRS returns obtained. So no payment is really at risk if the sequencing is logically worked out.
The fact that Rob and Arci are still debating the details instead of moving forward indicates to me that no deal will ever be made.
FAB
arci HAS moved forward. It's in the mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by FABismonte
Since Rob has not accepted my challenge to date I'm changing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
1. There is no way in hell Rob and I could tolerate each other for 10 days.
2. Rob will see the handwriting on the wall on the first day and will abscond by the second day.
So l'm making it a one day affair. I will start when the casinos open at 8 AM. Rob can follow me around and monitor how much money I put in the machines and how much I cash out. He is not to touch a machine. He is not to interfere in any way. I will only use legitimate strategy and all available information. And I certainly will not use Singer's martingale. The bet is whether or not I produce a $500 win by midnight. I'll most likely have it done by early afternoon but I'm giving myself a lot of leeway.
Rob can take anywhere from $1000 to $10,000 action on the bet.
As you can see in the link. I'm ready to go.
http://www.imgur.com/6mLJc9z
If you think I pirated this photo then take a look at the next one. You can see today's date on the Great Falls Tribune, Thursday, December 17, 2015.
http://www.imgur.com/dOECMyd
Let's go. I'm ready to rumble.
I didn't want to say it before, but those insults that slobdinger wrote before had me laughing out loud. I must have had a sheltered life because I never heard them before. Very funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
No one is playing me because I have no stake in this. If anything, it's a pain in the ass for me because it means Jason and I will have to spend time shooting the video and uploading to Youtube. Since I moved in with Linda I am now an hour away from Jason and the studio -- so add travel time to this exercise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
By the way Rob, I didn't overlook your little rib about running to VP machines. You really don't give up, do you? Is that steak house's menu online?
Oh yes...very funny when others get insulted...but when you get insulted you cry and threaten to take your ball and go home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Wrong. I send the others home. This is my house.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Who is Linda? And what did you do with Gwen? I'm losing track of houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Maybe this is your "man cave's" raison d'etre. A sort of constant.
Gwen and I broke up some time ago and I would rather not discuss the reasons publicly. My buddy Rob knows and Jason knows of course.
Linda I met shortly afterwards. She is not a gambler.
Silly lies. The only thing that is on the form that is not provided by the transcript is the form itself. All information that is provided by the taxpayer is found in the transcript. A transcript provides everything you entered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Let's assume you are right (you're not), but since you claim to have filed Sch. C then this won't affect you in the least. In my case I only enter "gambling losses" under Line 28 so it won't be at all confusing. Next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
A transcript provides everything you entered on the tax form. Nothing is missing. Next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
From form 4506: "Copies of Forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ are generally available for 7 years from filing before they are destroyed by law". Nothing here says they are available for longer than 7 years. What is implied is they may not be available even if it is less than 7 years. Next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Save your money. I've sent in my request to the IRS. Alan will likely get the data in around two weeks. It will provide everything needed to show that I've been a winner just as I have claimed. Your scrambling has made it more than obvious that my prediction was 100% correct. If you really had won anything at all you would have sent Alan your returns already. You have proven to everyone that you are nothing but a failed loser who has been lying for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
LOL. The panic in your writing is so obvious. You know you have no defense. You know you can't send Alan tax forms without proving you are a complete fake. You know this is it. You might as well run away now. It's not going to get any easier for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I almost feel badly for Rob.
Alan, he can change his conditions, send in for "transcripts" for his selective years, and lie all he wants because he's used to it. The only one who doesn't have to listen to them is his eternally happy wife. But it's obvious his strategy all along was not to stay with what he said so he could spin it around as a way out, and you helped him do it. That's what I mean by him playing you. He's made it into a Jr. High School "I'm smarter than you are" event because he has no life to look forward to so why not. I OTOH would have only moved forward on this if he didn't have this other agenda. And notice how he's whining about me not sending my form in first when I did it last time before he chickened out. Now he's doubling up on his lies by claiming, without the same type of transcript I have in hand right now, that transcript Line 28 shows all deductions categorically--then in full-fear mode announces how he only puts one item in "other" and we should take his word for it. And you've supported this weasel both times? Shame on you.
Maybe you can finally see that the suffering he went thru was just another righteous case of what goes around comes around.
The dinner menu is online.
This sentence stuck out:
Does this mean you will not send your tax returns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'm wondering why. Because I want full disclosure with everything visible including W2G's? Or is it because you cringe every time I mock & humiliate arci over how his wife is eating dirt....and mine's eating grilled salmon with teriyaki marinade?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Please do tell!
Tell me you've been paying attention. How many times have I told you I'm standing with the original conditions that he set? He's hiding behind these transcripts now because his strategy was to create chaos. Are you getting his last ten years of transcripts? Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If arci has 7-10 years of tax returns sent to you, the moment you confirm receipt then I will send my form in. Very simple.
The fact that you're oddly enuf supporting his wiggling & lies tells me you have no idea what you're doing and it would have been better left to someone who comprehends the situation, like regnis. While arci won't identify what 4506 says about older than 7 years possibly being available and actually tries to pass multiple lies off as valid, I read it & posted it & regnis confirmed that they could be available....yet you're flying by the seat of your pants and pretending it's "OK" for arci to corrupt the conditions of his own bet. I'm not sure how or why you're doing that but everyone has free will. It just confuses me that as a journalist, you've haven't heard me, cared about what regnis said, and you're being led around by the hand by arci. Strange.
I will wait till I see what I get from the IRS. I will report back what it shows.
Irrelevant. For me to present indisputable proof means you'd need my full tax return with W2G's, and for more than a year or two. Arci required those from both of us when presenting the challenge. Then you let him alter the terms down to a few meaningless selective years of incomplete info on transcripts, and you said that would be just frugal & fine. It's kind of funny really. He must have spent days worrying about how to manipulate you into accepting something we don't want.
I wonder....did arci send you his form so YOU could mail it in like I would? Or are you trusting a pathological liar to do it his way?
For the record:
1. Tax returns and reported taxable gains cannot prove that anyone's strategy or play is better than anyone else's or that any system or methodology works.
2. Tax returns and reported taxable gains could be fudged. In other words, we don't know who is telling the truth when they filed and someone could have won a lot more than is reported.
Rob the ironic thing is I never doubted that you won what you said you won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
But now I have to wonder why you simply won't send in the same forms, including transcripts, that Arc wants to send in?
Your profits will show up either way -- on 1040 forms and Schedule C forms as well as on transcripts.
Specifically what is the problem? Or, are you just standing on ceremony, meaning, it MUST be done the way it was initially set up? And if that's the case, why is there no flexibility?
Frankly, we are all interested in seeing this wrapped up. If there is a faster way to show your profits, why not take the faster road? Think of it as a "casino hit and run" as if you walked into a casino, hit your win goal, and drove back to Phoenix. In this case, you would be sending the transcripts (much faster than 1040 forms) hit your win goal and drive off in your RV to meet me and Linda for dinner.
First Alan, our RV is in storage miles from here. Did you think we invited you & Linda for Thanksgiving in an RV??
Transcripts are faster, that we know. But they are incomplete--we also know that, or at least I do because of the one I have here. And as I've said, transcripts alone will leave my submission open for far more stupid criticism than his. I have no interest in doing this if it won't close the books in critics' faces for good. Only tax returns will do that, complete with W2G's. Arci knows this, which is one reason why he changed terms mid-stream. He simply cannot go on without his criticisms and lies about me, so he had no other choice.
He asked for this tax return challenge not me. So when I accepted he should have honored what he said. The fact that he is allowed to arbitrarily alter things to his liking alone makes no sense. You don't see that? Why am I not flexible from his original terms? Ask yourself what he's hiding. I strongly suspect he opened his mouth too soon and his foot went right into it.
He is far from a trustworthy person Alan. Too bad Deb isn't around to explain that to you. Everything he does is calculated, ego-driven, and cloaked in deceit. If he's now doing this outside the original box that he brought to the party, you can be certain he has a reason.
Do you even know what years you're getting from arci?
Yes I firmly believe in holding to the original terms when they are reasonable & doable--and the request for tax returns are.
Hold it Rob. When you order a 1040 the IRS does not send you copies of W2Gs. In fact, there is NO requirement to send a W2G to the IRS unless it shows you had tax withheld by the casino.
This has turned out the way every single person said it would.
This has been a silly exercise. If a lottery player touting a system produced tax returns proving he/she won money IN THE PAST, how is that "slamming the door in critics' faces?" It's not.
Rob, why don't you spell out exactly how the use of transcripts will enable arci to fool Alan? That's what you're saying here. Exactly how would the obfuscation work? I'm asking because I have read all of your responses, and you do not spell it out or present a theory of how he would fool anybody.
This isn't you versus arci. This is you versus credibility. If you're going to tout a system on someone else's forum. and the system cannot be shown mathematically to work (and it can't), then what you are left with is demonstrating that at least it worked FOR YOU FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. But you can't even do that.
No math prove. You seem to trust Alan, but would prefer not giving him historical evidence.
Let's stop spinning this as Rob vs. arci and start calling it Rob vs. Alan. Does that motivate Rob to send in income tax evidence or does it simply enable him to categorize Alan as a "critic" who is therefore unworthy of seeing any evidence?
Personally, I think this is all silly. If Rob lost for five or seven years before his 10 years of winning, how or why do the losing years not count? Because he was wearing a blue shirt rather than a gray one?
I'd love for Rob to explain how a W2G makes any difference at all. All that tells us is a person hit one or more big jackpots. It says nothing about their results for a year. In almost all cases if a person plays any amount of $1 and above VP they will generate several W2Gs. In almost all cases their winnings for a year will be lower than the W2Gs. This would be even more likely playing a positive progression such as Singer does where your wins typically come from higher denominations. For example, I've received 101 W2Gs so far this year for about $275K. My actual winnings are no where near that total. I've heard of gamblers getting millions in W2Gs and losing a lot of money.
Asking for your tax returns will NOT provide any W2Gs. I have no idea if you can even request them from the IRS. However, whatever you can do with form 4506 you can also do with form 4506T. There is no need for the tax return itself. Singer could try it at no cost.
As for what years Alan is getting, I send in forms for 2004-2014. However, upon reading the instructions again I suspect Alan will not get them all. However, I thought it would be good to try to see exactly what shows up.
As anyone can see, this is just another silly excuse for Singer to avoid sending Alan his information. There is nothing left to discuss. By not sending Alan his tax forms Singer has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that all his claims of winning over the past 10-15 years have been lies.
Agree. I never doubted for a second that Singer would find some way to back out. There was a time I thought he might have had a lucky year or two that fooled him into thinking his system was valid. And, after all the name calling and bragging there was no way he could back down after the losses started to show up.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Now, I doubt he ever had any winnings of any substance.
Hey, I admitted long ago that my winnings were never very big. My only claim was that I had winning years 2004-2013. Singer is the one who claimed to have won a million dollars while his wife was earning just as much (all the while living in a small apartment).