Bush/CIA/Mafia Mind Control Victim
One Way to Plan for the Elite’s Planned Global Depopulation
Sun Jul 6 16:18:08 2003

One Way to Plan for the Elite’s Planned Global Depopulation
Bush/CIA/Mafia Mind Control Victim

Planned Sustainable Community Development and the use of
Co generation Fish Friendly Hydro Turbine Localized Utilities.

Consider "Planned Sustainable Development Communities,"
that is, communities that are foreseen now, and onward into the future, being developed as "Sustainable Community Development Local Co generation Utility Associations." Where the home buyer, the commercial property developer will build into and onto the Planned Sustainable Development as an associate member of a Planned Sustainable Community Development, as a member/associate who will be the owner/proprietor/user of their own community's co-owned, controlled, and operated community developed co generation utility development program.

Such as communities that are planned and that are built near rivers, and water fronts that provide both low head and high head water current capability and that are suitable for Fish Friendly Micro, and possibly large scale Hydro Turbine co generation technology applications.

It would seem that simply laying out the ground work, the planning, the concept, the blue prints, the viability, the market analysis, the operational statistics, the primary criteria, the network of professional research and published observations, and the findings of all final installation and actual operation of such Fish Friendly Hydro Turbine Co generation Technology will only lead the way into this arena as that all Planned Sustainable Community Developments will become the rule of thumb
and the standard for all future Planned Sustainable Community Development World Wide.

Building the strategic consortium whereas the interested and involved Network will only contribute to this momentum of Planned Sustainable Community Development Co generation Hydro Turbine Utilities.

This phenomena than will set in motion the necessary inertia that is essential to what will become the on going trend that will be known as: "Planned and Sustainable Community Development Co generation Utilities."

Once this inspiration is sent onward into the mind set of the present developer, architect, builder, financier, banker, buyer, member, and owner/operator or thereof, all participatory elements who will become the benefactors and who will be the end users and community members of these Planned Sustainable Community Development Co generation Utility Programs, the result will be the unstoppable arena of local community co generation, and this will in a very monolithic perspective include the leading edge in Fish Friendly, Hydro Turbine Co generation Technology Currently there are more then two hundred billion dollars in legal actions involving utility companies, local and regional governments, and various private and commercial interests mostly due to the known fact that more then one fourth of the North American fish stock is destroyed annually by the now existing and outdated hydro turbine technology.

Below are links for people and companies who are interested
In finding out more about the Eco Safe EPA Spec approved
Hydro Turbine Industry, and Wind Energy Industry:

the H.O.P.E. program:

Ecology and Other Resources. Abalone Alliance Clearinghouse
More Results From: www.energy-net.org 



Bush energy budget boosts fossil fuels, cuts renewables

Monday, April 30, 2001

The WorldNews Network - Energy

Gateway to Sources of Global Information

Hydro Electric News:

World Energy News:

Power Plant News:

electricity News:

Hydrogen Guide:

Renewable Energy News:

International Journal on Hydro Power and Dams:

Various Related Links:

Bush's Nuclear Doctrine: From MAD to NUTS
William D. Hartung
July 01, 2003

IRS examining legitimacy of coal synfuel tax credits
The Internal Revenue Service has begun investigating lucrative coal synfuel tax credits.For the first time, the federal agency appears to be taking a close look at the processes that synfuel producers claim make the required “chemical changes” in raw coal. The IRS is also looking at how other companies, hired by synfuel producers, are conducting “tests” to prove the validity of those “chemical changes.”A two-page memorandum, “Test Procedures and Significant Chemical Changes,” will be published July 28. In its memo, the IRS notes that all companies applying for synfuel credits must “present evidence that all, or substantially all, of the coal used as feedstock undergoes a significant chemical change.”- advertisement-

Today, synfuel credits cut federal taxes for a handful of companies, primarily major electric utilities, by more than $1 billion a year. Most major coal synfuel plants are in central Appalachia.Progress Energy, based in Raleigh, N.C., operates seven synfuel plants in Southern West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and Southwestern Virginia. Since 1999, Progress Energy itself has claimed $1 billion in tax credits, according to reports it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.Synfuel credits were created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. Congress passed the law to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil by encouraging entrepreneurs to extract or develop new kinds of fuel, such as oil from shale or ethanol from corncobs.For years, companies like Covol Inc. tried to develop complicated processes to create synfuels from coal, with minimal profitability. Then, in late 1998 and early 1999, some companies began spraying already marketable coal with diesel fuel emulsions and pine tar residues, then claiming synfuel credits.Those synfuel tax credits were often $26 a ton, when a ton of high-quality coal itself was selling for about $22 a ton on the Kanawha River.The new IRS memo goes on to note that “taxpayers [the synfuel companies] have provided representations, as well as expert reports, asserting that their processes resulted in a significant chemical change.”In its new memo, the IRS states, for the first time, that it “has had reason to question the scientific validity of test procedures and results that have been presented as evidence that fuel underwent a significant chemical change.”In the past, Progress Energy spokesmen have stated their company’s synfuel plants use some coal waste materials to make synfuel. But they also admitted the vast majority of raw material for synfuel is coal already on its way to market.The IRS memo warns that its investigation could have major economic impacts on companies claiming the credits. DTE Energy/Detroit Edison, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., and TECO Energy, based in Tampa, Fla., are two other major synfuel producers.“If, upon further inquiry, the [IRS] determines that these test procedures and results do not demonstrate that a significant chemical change has occurred, the [IRS] will take appropriate action, including revoking letter rulings relying on such procedures and results.”Synfuel producers apply for “private letter rulings” that allow them to claim synfuel credits after they inform the IRS about the processes used in their plants.Many companies applied for new private letter rulings after they bought existing synfuel plants in the West and moved them to central Appalachia, where higher-Btu coal is eligible for higher synfuel credits. All synfuel plants must have been operating before June 30, 1998, to qualify for the credits.Until the IRS completes its current review of synfuel processes, it will not issue any new rulings allowing companies to manufacture synfuels “relying on the procedures and results being reviewed.”The new synfuel memorandum was drafted by Joseph Makurath, a lawyer who works with the IRS’ Office of Associate Chief Counsel in Washington, D.C.To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use e-mail or call 348-5164.


I.R.S. Takes Aim at Big Shelters and Hopes Message Filters Down
The government is pressing a broad assault on the flourishing tax shelter business with an array of high-profile summonses and civil suits aimed at stopping cheats who are getting away without paying many billions of dollars in taxes.

In recent weeks, the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury and Justice Departments have moved against Ernst & Young and other big accounting firms, a prominent Dallas law firm and wealthy individuals and corporations that used tax shelters that the Treasury has declared invalid.

Courts may yet uphold the validity of some of the shelters.

These actions come after a decade in which enforcement of the tax laws grew so lax that the tax-shelter industry flourished and tax crimes, like opening secret offshore bank accounts, were openly advertised.

In its attack on tax shelters the government is using a strategy known as general deterrence.

Instead of trying to catch every offender, a policy known as specific deterrence that is applied against street criminals like drug dealers, the government is going after only a few big name firms and individuals. By doing so in highly public ways the government hopes to persuade others that it is in their best interest to reform their tax shelter business, which is just what Ernst & Young has done.

Mark W. Everson, the new I.R.S. commissioner, said last month that "the I.R.S. will enforce the law across all sectors, but with particular vigor in the corporate arena and for high-income individuals who enter into abusive shelters to game the system."

Even so, the capacity of the I.R.S. to make a general deterrence strategy successful is severely limited, a number of prominent tax experts said.

After a decade in which the number of auditors, tax collectors and special agents shrank by more than a fourth even as the tax system grew larger and more complex, the capacity of the I.R.S. to press the battle is severely limited, a variety of tax law experts said. All but one of those interviewed last week warned that the I.R.S. will always be outnumbered and outgunned unless Congress spends significantly more on tax law enforcement.

In recent years, many of the best auditors and special agents have retired.

"The I.R.S. vastly overstates their enforcement efforts," said John J. Tigue Jr., a tax defense lawyer at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg in New York. "They just do not have the manpower to really do the job, so they make a lot of bold pronouncements. And this works with the big accounting firms because the more sober partners are saying: `We don't need this bad publicity. Get these tax shelters out of here.'

Elliott H. Kajan, a tax defense lawyer in Beverly Hills, Calif., said that unless taxpayers incur penalties, which can range as high as 75 percent of the taxes evaded, there is little reason to reject a tax shelter deal.
"The worst that can happen is no harm, no foul," Mr. Kajan said. "You just pay the taxes and the interest," which is often a better deal than paying the taxes when they were originally due.

Several tax lawyers urged the government to make an example of one of their peers to deter tax shelters. One of them also proposed a no-cost way to deal a serious blow to the most lucrative aspect of the tax shelter business: changing the rules governing the opinion letters from lawyers that taxpayers use to escape paying penalties when tax shelters are demolished. These lawyers charge up to a million dollars for an opinion letter, which the lawyer can repeatedly resell.

The attack on tax shelters has begun to have some impact.
Ernst & Young, the big accounting firm, agreed last week to pay $15 million for violating tax shelter registration rules. The firm said it had not sold any tax shelters in more than a year and it agreed to cooperate with the I.R.S. to abide by tax-shelter rules. Mr. Everson called this a model agreement to stem the tax shelter business.
I.R.S. Takes Aim at Big Shelters and Hopes Message Filters Down
(Page 2 of 2)
PricewaterhouseCoopers, another of the Big Four accounting firms, and the investment firm Merrill Lynch earlier paid sums they described as substantial to settle the same issues. The figures were not disclosed.

The KPMG and B.D.O. Seidman accounting firms, along with the Dallas law firm Jenkens & Gilchrist, are fighting disclosure of the identity of their tax shelters' clients. The I.R.S. is suing in federal courts for the disclosure. The law firm said it is defending the right of clients to seek legal advice without government intrusion.

The top two executives at the Sprint telephone company, William T. Esrey and Ronald LeMay, lost their jobs earlier this year over tax shelters they bought to delay taxes on stock option gains for three decades. Their cases were widely believed to have a chilling effect on other executives considering such deals.

The I.R.S. has also obtained records of hundreds of thousands of credit card accounts at offshore banks and is now identifying some tax cheats through spending records, like hotel registration records.

Along with bad publicity, the firms also have to deal with potentially costly lawsuits by the clients who bought shelters that, they say in court papers, were promoted as sturdy enough to withstand any I.R.S. audit. KPMG, Ernst & Young and the Jenkens & Gilchrist law firm are already being sued by more than a dozen purchasers of failed shelters that had been devised to save them tens of millions of dollars in taxes.

John M. Peterson, the chairman of the global tax practice group at the Baker & McKenzie law firm, said that "clients suing over tax shelters that went awry will, I think, take a bigger bite out of the" firms that sold these shelters than government actions.

Stefan F. Tucker, who testified before Congress against tax shelters when he was chairman of the American Bar Association's tax section, and Mr. Tigue faulted Congress for not providing enough money to enforce the tax laws fairly and then hobbling the I.R.S. with procedural rules that tax cheats exploit.

One policy change could seriously damage the tax shelter business, Mr. Tucker said.

Tax shelters are typically sold to individuals who suddenly have a large amount of income, often from selling their business. "The sale starts with someone they trust, often their banker," Mr. Tucker said. "The banker says, `Let us introduce you to someone you can trust.' And that somebody is usually a salesman from one of the big accounting firms who says we have this device that works and we even have a 50-page letter from a law firm that says it works."

Critics have long noted that these letters teem with caveats that only a tax lawyer could comprehend, yet the I.R.S. typically waives penalties for anyone

Main Page - Wednesday, 07/09/03

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)