Thursday, May 24, 2007

Settle my debt via my corporation?


WTF? Or should I say: FTB!

He's pre-announcing corporate fraud?

Somebody stop him. Please.

78 comments:

The Real Wagga™ said...

And yet another First!

Anonymous said...

PHOENIX FIRST

Jefe said...

Time for an ice cold glass of MURST

Jean Valjean said...

@TRW: That's only cuz I was at the dentist and didn't get back in time to get my F, F & M.

But fear not -- I got vicodin so in a few minutes, I won't care about a thing.

Kind of like Snowflake!

CHJTS said...

MURST--Boitches

Mouse And Pencil said...

This should be a major topic on the talkcast, the potential abuse of a corporation.

That, and he had to be bailed out by Mommy™. LOL.

I'm gonna just laugh at his post, for two reasons:

A. it's *obviously* a troll

B. the link nonsense is just cheap looking. It's hard to read when every other word is blue and underlined. It makes you feel like you're under a spotlight, with spammers and advertisers ready to pounce. Meh. It's so unprofessional...not that Casey would know about that, anyway. It will help drive away readership, if he has any left after the Haterz™.

Anonymous said...

FIST

The Original Kevin™ said...

Wait a minute - didn't he promise the Wifey he would not use corporate credit to pay off debt?

Sprezzatura said...

Doesn't he realize we all know it's his Mommy who is his 'partner' on all that corporate credit?

Poopy Serin said...

For the haterz who are actively trying to do something about Casey, we should be reporting the paid links to Google. This recent article talks about how to report paid links.

If we make the links (his only source of income) worthless, there goes his sweet passive income.

Anonymous said...

Yep he made that promise and he's obviously trolling. He needs content and this is his approach. He obviously has contempt for all of his "readers."

I hope the FTB gets him. I bet he thinks he doesn't have to pay the $800 Franchise tax for corps because he bought a Nevada/Delaware Corp.

Casey, moron...you have to pay a franchise tax in California even if you registered in another state. YOU DO ALL OF YOUR BUSINESS HERE therefore you are fucked.

mejustme said...

Re the Mommy thing, he tried to deny it on the talkathon, saying it was a relative and implying the Declan wasn't taking notes (so he must've gotten it wrong).

I e-mailed Declan and he said both Casey and She-who-must-not-be-named independently told him it was Mama.

He also said he took notes pretty much the entire time, except for one brief stretch of time, and in fact had to stop Casey when he didn't have his notepad ready.

Declan rocks!

king friday the 13th said...

rob dawg,

there is a typo in the topic -- don't you mean FBI not FTB.

Anonymous said...

Not only report the links to Google but make them aware he is taking donations in the guise of sponsorships. Sure, we can give him $50 and be called a supporterz but this little idiot can't figure out that he's still begging for donations. He's providing NOTHING for that $25-50.

Anonymous said...

King...nah...FTB is correct since they will fry him alive for failure to pay and report taxes. The dept of Corporations will finish him off by sanctioning him for using the corporation as a piggy bank.

Anonymous said...

BTW - He admits the corp is not making anything and he's already talking about loaning himself money. Did he not take out $800 or something like that to pay off a personal debt?

mejustme said...

He waits more than a month to open mail, now he thinks they're gonna hold that offer indefinitely while the charges continue to rack up? Then he trolls asking if settling isn't paying? Hey, genius, if they make the offer, they obviously think it's fair, eh?

Hasn't he learned that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul isn't getting him anywhere YET?!

131 IQ, my foot! I took that test in 22 minutes, scored higher, and I didn't even see a need for a calculator, much less used one. To take an hour and 15 minutes to answer 43 questions means he spent almost 2 minutes per question! I bet his lips move when he reads and he has to follow with his finger. He must've really crashed and burned on his SATs.

Please don't feed the troll and add to his comments.

Hobbes said...

This bears repeating.

Nothing wrong ipso facto with corporation lending him money as long as he pays market interest on the loan (otherwise its income to him to the extent the interest is below market rate) and the corporation is properly collateralized.

Think Casey's corporation has done both?

Me neither.

mejustme said...

And he's obviously ready to break his no-debt agreement (again) already. That slimebag.

BelowTheCrowd said...

Hobbes,

Exactly! It's not "corporate fraud." In fact, I don't think there's any such crime.

However, a few things:

1) As you note, the corp needs to be properly capitalized. I've borrowed from my own corp (really, just used it as a paycheck advance during tax season), but it came out of my company's retained earnings and was repaid proptly. Also, in my case I had a whole bunch of other documentation, including corporate resolutions, employment agreement, etc. behind it.

2) There probably is a case for loan fraud here in any case. IAFF contains plenty of evidence that Casey's corp is nothing but a shell to mask the true purpose of his personal borrowings.

-btc

Mouse And Pencil said...

Another line of questioning:

What did you do last week to reduce your debt? How much did you reduce your debt last week?

What did you do this week to reduce your debt? How much did you reduce your debt next week?

What will you do next week to reduce your debt? How much will you reduce your debt next week?

If we were to make a score card of his debts, according to his own words, the only debt he's paid is CashCall and Yulina

The only debt we can infer he's paying is the cell bill, and hosting.

Credit cards: no payments
Lines of credit: no payments
Utah missing payment: nothing done
22K note: he'll think about doing something about it.

I've seen no "I paid MasterCard XXX this week."

I see no plan of attack, other than "Ill think about it", "Man I need to be more focused" and "Galina took my shiny away!".

I see no debt counseling, debt consolidation (that would have been a no brainer, reduce the % on the CCs and lines of credit) or attempts to even get a 100% accurate report of how much he owes.

I see no talk of paying off debt, except pie-in-the-sky big payoff schemes. No "I'll send MC $40, and at least pay the interest". In fact, what he said before was "$30 is a drop in the bucket, why bother?".

Just once, I'd like to see him say "I am going to do X", and then just DO IT. No accolades, no dithering for weeks online, no hemming and hawing and trolling, just DO ONE FUCKING POSITIVE, RESPONSIBLE THING that isn't coerced, bribed, nagged, or requires a promissary note.

Just ONE thing.

NoVa Sideliner said...

I hope the FTB gets him. I bet he thinks he doesn't have to pay the $800 Franchise tax for corps because he bought a Nevada/Delaware Corp.

Friend of mine did that in Texas. He hada Nevada corp, but all his income and activity were in Texas. And yes: "Knock, knock", "Who's there?", "Franchise Tax", "WTF?!@?!?"

He was nowhere near as stupid as Casey, nor as public as Casey, but they sure found him and nailed him. Seems even more likely to happen with Casey and the FTB.

mejustme said...

Whatever he borrowed from the corporation should be due soon, both from him to the corp and from the corp to whichever dummy gave him credit.

He does have a plan to pay the corp back at a market rate of interest, right?!?

Poor Mommmyyyyyy ......

bruiser said...

Dumb question, but is there any particular reason why we no longer receive the latest post copy/paste from IAFF here? At work I do not enjoy the benefits of Firefox with AdBlockerPlus. Is it possible copyright issues?

michael said...

"Just once, I'd like to see him say "I am going to do X", and then just DO IT. No accolades, no dithering for weeks online, no hemming and hawing and trolling, just DO ONE FUCKING POSITIVE, RESPONSIBLE THING that isn't coerced, bribed, nagged, or requires a promissary note.

Just ONE thing."

if he did that then you would not visit his site. the guy above you posted that the troll should not be fed yet he clicked on the IQ test link...presto validation for casey.

the only way to rid the world of this piece of shit casey and galina is to STOP GOING TO HIS SITE!!!

which i have done. i have removed it from my favorites and history. it's the only way.

mejustme said...

For the record, I typed the URL into the browser. Do you really think I would click one of his links!?

BelowTheCrowd said...

Casey's corporation, Hammar Investments, is a California corp, with both an address and an agent for service of process in California.

Hammar Investments registration

Caseypedia entry

No question about this one owing $800. In fact, it is owed as of the first of the year, so Casey really should have sent in an $800 estimate payment already, as my accountant has me do every March 15 when I file the return for the previous year.

-btc

mejustme said...

I just noticed he put a poll up. What should I do about my unsecured debt? Puh leez. He's probably getting paid by some poll software company to do that.

P.S. Where is everybody?

michael said...

"For the record, I typed the URL into the browser. Do you really think I would click one of his links!?"

i just do not even go to the site anymore.

JoanTheArch said...

So, how long does it take LE to gather evidence in a case like this?

I do wonder if Galina's daddy is starting to freak out -- hence the $1000/week contract. Her family may eventually see the light and encourage her to leave the con man.

On a different note, I guarantee that his site traffic will go down. I'll take me as an example -- I'm bored. He's obviously a complete fraud with narcissistic personality disorder, and the site is now covered by links. I'm not going back. Just checking in here every once in a while to see if anything big has happened. My guess is that nothing will *really* happen until the IRS kicks in, but I am really hoping that someone else stops him earlier.

Rob Dawg said...

King XIII,
The FBI is scared of the FTB. They are absolutely fair. They play exactly by the rules. Their rules but rules. There is very very little gray left in the areas the FTB administers. They'll listen politiely to any story you wish to tell and then present you with the list of charges, fees, penalties and administrative costs and directions to the pay window.

Arthur Wankspittle said...

Could someone ask Fliptard on his phone in what Hammar was set up to do business wise? I suspect he won't answer so just follow up with "so it was just a vehicle to get you more credit?" Hopefully, any answer will appear in evidence later.

Also, can someone push him on his "team" of "advisers". I can't believe anyone like an accountant or lawyer would currently touch Casey without payment up front.

P.S. Where is everybody?
IAFF is getting so predictable and boring we are all either watching paint dry or the lawn growing.

Arthur Wankspittle said...

Oh yes, anyone feeling nasty enough to contact the credit agency on that letter and say why are you offering Fliptard a settlement when he's making $2000+ a week at present?

(another Freudian slip in the typing there, I typed Fliptart the first time)

The Dude said...

"P.S. Where is everybody?"

I, for one, am doing some looser manual labor....aka honey do list and in between tasks, am in a death struggle with a gang of squirrels who refuse to obey the rules......

Anonymous said...

Somebody ask fliptard if he paid the FTB estimated taxes yet? When he asks why, he hasn't earned anything or Hammar is a Nevada/Delaware Corp, tell him he owes the franchise tax and that it's required for any corporation that has offices and/or does most of their revenue producing activities in the state.

LOL.

LossMitPro said...

Anon @ 10:58 AM:
”I hope the FTB gets him. I bet he thinks he doesn't have to pay the $800 Franchise tax for corps because he bought a Nevada/Delaware Corp.”


Having verified my understanding with the FTB, I believe foreign (domesticated) California corporations don’t pay the minimum requisite tax, during the first year of registration when not actively doing business in state. This is my understanding based on FTB information.

Therefore, the minimum FTB tax basis is only due if Hammar Investments, Inc. is active and doing business within state during the first year of domestication. It should be noted that a foreign corporation can be registered but, might not be doing business in California or elsewhere. I am NOT claiming this is the case with Hammar Investments, I don’t know for sure whether or not it is doing business here. Whereas the latter (“doing business”) is the key distinction, not whether it is or isn’t registered.

If the corp is not doing business, it’s not subject to taxation.

Anon @ 10:59 AM:
”Not only report the links to Google but make them aware he is taking donations in the guise of sponsorships.”


Why? After all, he is TRYING to make an honest living so why potentially damage that by attempting to have Google drop his SE generated links? (The only reason to report Serin’s activity to Google, is in the hope such will cause an Ad-Sense termination.)

Certainly people are upset with Casey, and definitely have desires for his demise (jail, extended ruin, etc.). But to sabotage his more legitimate efforts to make money is overly vindictive, not to mention dirty and underhanded. Some lines should not be crossed, karma being reciprocal.

By the way, I do intend (now that he’s made it public) to bring up this corporate borrowing concept tomorrow night. In the interim I’ll say... BAD idea, if the corp isn’t making significant money on its own yet!

~Mark

Rob Dawg said...

Random mind farts:

Casey has a canned answer about Hammar. He "intends" to do more investment and RE deals.

I tired to look at transaction activity on Goldspring Mining and there was a spike in activity at the time and 1.3m shares trading again just recently. Pure speculation but it looks like either shorting activity or getting out of a loosing position. And man what a looser it has been.

Question to ask: How are you paying your attorney? PayPal? I believe he is making up that he has one. The logic is inescapable. If he tried to retain one they'd TRW his butt so fast he'd have "Sub 400 FICO" tattooed on hiz azz by the receptionist before he got past the front desk.

Same with the family. If they knew the truth about how underwater he is and that he is right at this very moment further endangering their own security they'd be forwarding his mail to "c/o V-Dubs."

Question: to whom does he owe the $22k balloon and what has been their reaction to not getting one dirty penny?

Question: Have you read the Yahoo TOS? Yes or no.

I wonder if we all kept pinging the Hammar Corp registration link if a little bell won't go off over in the FTB? Just thinkin'. ;-)

king friday the 13th said...

bob dawg,

oh if the FTB is anything like the NY state equivalent, then Casey is toast. I honestly fear the NYS Dept of Taxation and Finance more than the IRS.

But, seriously, short of Bubba "piercing the corporate veil", will Casey ever change?

JimBobJoeBobJim said...

If he rolls ownership of the Utah wrap into Hammar, the State Board of Equalization is going to want to have a chat, too.

In fact, I bet they will anyway.

And they do not play nice.

lurker said...

@LossMittPro

Casey is selling links. Google does not like this because it undermines the creditability of Google searches. If Google is actively trying to suppress activity like his, I do not consider his activity to be "making an honest living" or a legitimate business.

It also appears his family is actively trying to get Casey to drop the blog and join the real world. When we support Casey we are enabling an addict and hurting his family.

His pushing the corporation is pretty much as criminal as you can get. You just know he gets a big commission off every criminal he gets to buy a corporation. He might be just trolling, but he is bragging about getting free money for illegitimate activity.

In short it is an incredible stretch to say he is attempting to make an honest living

Honestly Wondering said...

@LossMitPro: After all, he is TRYING to make an honest living so why potentially damage that by attempting to have Google drop his SE generated links? (The only reason to report Serin’s activity to Google, is in the hope such will cause an Ad-Sense termination.)

I agree that swamping Adsense links with clicks to get Casey banned is vindictive. Fun, but vindictive. This is something altogether different.

What Casey's doing now is something that Google frowns on, and actively takes steps to prevent from happening. It's one thing to sell ad space - that's fine - but he's directly selling links now for the explicit purpose of gimmicking Google.

Google doesn't like to be gimmicked; paid links futz up the engine and generally makes the quality of those SE results less reliable. That diminishes (albeit in a very small way) Google's ability to make money, and also hurts those people who legitimately compete for that same organic SE space. (In fact, it hurts everyone competing for PR, since ranking is computed globally on a relative scale. If the wrestling promoter gets a PR3 by linking to Casey's PR5, that makes it slightly harder for me to cleanly jump from PR5 to PR6.)

So I don't see anything at all vindictive about reporting what amounts to link spam to Google. Casey has the right to make money.. the problem is that he thinks he has the right to do it by cheating the system. If Google doesn't agree that he's doing that, then they'll ignore the spam reports.

I say report it to heart's content.

Anonymous said...

@LossMittPro:

Does CA not have a test for corporate presence based on the residency of the company's principals? Especially since the only actions that the corp seems to have made is to grant loans to one CA-based principal?

BJ said...

@LossMitPro
Even worse if he has done all of the business outside of the corporation, and only added debt to the corporation to finance himself.

Anonymous said...

@LossMitPro:

In a prior comment, you stated that if you need not reveal your identity because others here had not.

I think there is a huge difference -- you are holding yourself out as an expert on the subject. Most other posters here do not claim to be experts. In order for people to evaluate your claim of expertise, some validation is required.

Fascinated said...

Talking of links, paid and otherwise. I have limited understanding of how Google ranks pages, but it is in part based on how many other pages link to you right? Hence the benefit of paying for links. Caseypedia, while pretty funny has lots of links to IAFF, doesn't that help his PR and hence the value of the links he is selling? Is that really something you want to do?

LossMitPro said...

lurker @ 1:23 PM:
”In short it is an incredible stretch to say he is attempting to make an honest living.”


Well I’ll have to agree with you (and others, honestly wondering, Rob, et al) because making money from Google/Yahoo ads isn’t my bailiwick, as it seems lots of effort for little return. Just my view that doing so is too labor (mental) intensive. Not that there is anything wrong with hard work, mind you.

Yet my point remains. At least he’s not out obtaining more mortgages, defaulting on those, and repeating the cycle. Yet I won’t comment on the Google/Yahoo ad rules, because (again) those aren’t my thing. Although, hey, I’ve been out-of-the-loop for several days so what do I know?

...I could be totally wrong about him gaining more mortgages! :)

~Mark

Rob Dawg said...

Wouldn't it be interesting if some of his unsecured creditors were under the impression that their loans were backed by the some of Casey's many houses?

"Of course I'm good for it. I own 8 houses."

Honestly Wondering said...

@Anon: In a prior comment, you stated that if you need not reveal your identity because others here had not.

I think there is a huge difference -- you are holding yourself out as an expert on the subject.


LossMitPro.. I gotta jump in here and agree. I'm sure you mean well and all, but you're the one planning to do the expert tapdance on Friday night, not us. The folks here are just the Peanut Gallery; we don't carry the burden of proof. Don't you think it's a little.. odd.. to counter "What makes you an expert?" with "Who are you to say I'm *not* an expert?"

Can anyone here imagine a doctor or attorney (or any other sort of licensed professional) willing to do this kind of "anonymous expert" nonsense?

lurker said...

If I were LMP (LossMittPro), I would be hesitant to put my real name in here. If it was just the regulars here, it would be a non issue, but we also have a fair number of annonymous trolls that stop by (e.g. Nigel). Some of them are pretty slimey.

Even if it turned out LMP was an award winning mortgage broker that was not Nigel, his statements would have to stand or fall on their own accord. I just don't think many of us are convinced by credentials.

LossMitPro said...

Anon @ 1:39 PM:
”I think there is a huge difference -- you are holding yourself out as an expert on the subject. Most other posters here do not claim to be experts. In order for people to evaluate your claim of expertise, some validation is required.”


I see your point, makes good sense. And I’ll probably spill the beans and offer some backing to (my) the talk, so folks know I can walk-the-walk. Geeze, been around with a certain wanna-be hip hopper too long... Duane, it’s happening!

All kidding aside, I hear you and understand. My only concern was not to get into a pissing match per se, where folks disagree with my positions and start attacking my practice. Because I’ll tell ya, THAT won’t happen without serious consequences resulting... Disagree with me, yes, attack my work without cause and for no sound reason? Not gona happen without consequences, appropriate and in proportion to the issues (if there be any).

So my failure to reveal who I am to date hasn’t been because I’m trying to hide, but avoid needless conflict that could negatively affect my practice. Now having said that I’m a reasonable person, and your comment IS very reasonable. So I’ll very likely disclose all, hoping folks understand where I’m coming from when commenting here or elsewhere.

~Mark
PS – Honestly Wondering/Lurker, see above. I hear yas, you both make sense too.

C-Corp Man said...

" At 1:04 PM, LossMitPro said...

Anon @ 10:58 AM:
”I hope the FTB gets him. I bet he thinks he doesn't have to pay the $800 Franchise tax for corps because he bought a Nevada/Delaware Corp.”

Having verified my understanding with the FTB, I believe foreign (domesticated) California corporations don’t pay the minimum requisite tax, during the first year of registration when not actively doing business in state. This is my understanding based on FTB information.

Therefore, the minimum FTB tax basis is only due if Hammar Investments, Inc. is active and doing business within state during the first year of domestication. It should be noted that a foreign corporation can be registered but, might not be doing business in California or elsewhere. I am NOT claiming this is the case with Hammar Investments, I don’t know for sure whether or not it is doing business here. Whereas the latter (“doing business”) is the key distinction, not whether it is or isn’t registered.

If the corp is not doing business, it’s not subject to taxation."

Not true Mark. I own a C-Corp and it was registered towards the end of 2003. Because it was approved by the SoS 15 days before the end of the year, it was exempt from filing according to their own rules. My FIRST full year of business, I lost money and STILL had to give the state $800. Sorry, I hope you aren't advocating tax evasion.

I have an LLC I started last year. I STILL had to pay the minimum Franchise tax even though the company made ZERO dollars last year. Explain that? I called them to quote what you just did and they told me that what you mentioned is only applicable in extreme circumstances.

Please don't question this as the fact remains...the FTB requires payment of the franchise fee regardless and here is the quote:

Generally, you compute the tax on your corporation’s
return for its first taxable year by multiplying your
corporation’s California net income by its appropriate tax
rate. There is no minimum tax for the first year, if you
incorporated or qualified to do business in California on
or after January 1, 2000, unless the entity is a foreign
corporation and began doing business in a year prior to
which it qualified with the Secretary of State.
The tax on
your second and subsequent year tax returns is subject
to the greater of the minimum franchise tax or your
corporation's California net income multiplied by its
appropriate tax rate.
If your corporation meets the following requirements we
will not require you to file a tax return or pay the
minimum franchise tax.
• You incorporate it within the last 15 days or less of its
taxable year.
• You do no business in the state.
• You receive no income from sources within the state.


Example: Corporation DEF incorporates on December
20, 2003 and elects a year ending December 31. The
corporation does no business and earns no income from
December 20 to December 31. We do not consider this
11 day period a taxable year. The corporation’s first
taxable year will start on January 1, 2004.
------------------------------------

Ok...Take the first bolded item. He BOUGHT a shell that was at one time active in California. This is NOT a new corporation. HE WILL have to pay the minimum.

Don't agree...okay, your right but look at the second bolded item. None of those apply to Casey and even if you say he made no money, fine BUT he has DONE business in the state since he is BASED here.

This will be tough to argue. And please do not think I am mocking or teasing you. Just debating, that's all.

lawnmower man said...

@Dawg: Question to ask: How are you paying your attorney? PayPal? I believe he is making up that he has one.

He had "consultations" with "corporate attorneys" back when he was buying Hammar from Corporation Brokers. He's probably still parroting advice he received, or that he thought he received, back then. He didn't answer any questions on whether these "attorneys" were associated with Corporation Brokers. I strongly suspect that any legal "consultation" he got was part of the Corp Brokers package.

mejustme said...

Lost Mittens, I do agree with you about Casey finally trying to earn money and at least mostly honestly and we shouldn't begrudge Casey his legitimately earned money.

The link buyers' SEO may or may not be hurt from this; honestly, I did a search for van rental and bandago wasn't anywhere at the top, so if he goes from #300 to #250, it's his money.

We can say people buying links are on the side of a criminal, and I guess they are. Well, a lot of people take up causes to, say, get a *guilty* man off death row, and that's their problem. Live and let live. I imagine most of the link buyers are not motivated by a desire to help Casey as much as they see it as a cost-effective purchase, whether it's to get customers or to boost SEO. I did report the paid links to Google, but to go beyond that just seems like a waste of my time and energy. So they support Casey, big deal. That's just life in the big city.

I mean, I hate™ Casey just as much as the next person, but let's not get carried away ...

I for one would advise you to stay anonymous. If people wonder what makes you an expert, they can just verify the information themselves. I think you come off as pretty credible in your field of expertise; knowing your name and company wouldn't prove anything more to me. It's not necessary to disclose your identity, and you might be opening yourself up to some unwanted attention.

bemused guy said...

@1:39 Lossmiltpro

I can understand anonymity until you go online as an expert. But in the last post you basically said you wouldn't divulge anything about yourself until others do. The blade swinging both way.

Two other people (SAC Realtor & R Boy) promptly identified themselves or told you where to find their info. You then provided nothing in return.

THAT bothers me and makes me question motive and background.

Anonymous said...

I've been meaning to ask, don't corporations have to pick an industry code?

Honestly Wondering said...

@LMP: All kidding aside, I hear you and understand. My only concern was not to get into a pissing match per se, where folks disagree with my positions and start attacking my practice.

Mark, you seem like a decent guy, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but why are you getting yourself tangled into this mess? I mean, you know what's going to happen. You have to know. It's happened to everyone who's made the mistake of buying a ticket on the Casey Train. From Duane on.

On Friday night, you're planning to appear on the financial equivalent of Jerry Springer. You think that you'll be the one episode that somehow doesn't end up in a blood brawl with inbred Nazi lesbian midgets?

bemused guy said...

Okay. According to his post the fliptard has a "credit partner." Why can't he just call her MOM?

For those who don't go over there , here's a clip from his latest. Creditors are offering deals...

It’s a debt settlement offer for one of my credit cards. So, I’m wondering… (Poll Added)

Is that the best they can do? I’m guessing it’s 8-9 months late at this point. I can call and negotiate but I don’t have the money to pay them. And I don’t want to be playing games. Remember, I asked CashCall how much they will settle the debt for. The guy wouldn’t answer because he knew I didn’t have the money.

I’ve also received a verbal debt settlement offer from Wells Fargo on my 30K line of credit. They’re offering to settle for 80%. I told them I’ll think about it.

I can probably settle my debt via my corporation… should I?

Here is the thing. It’s no secret that I found a way to borrow money via a corporation. I’m able to do it regardless of my awesome credit using a credit partner.

The credit partner helps me get started by personally guaranteeing my first couple of loans. After 6 months of successful payments I can take the credit partner off and the credit lines become non-recourse. (Sweet!)

The only problem is that I’m not sure if I should be refinancing or settling personal debt via the corporation. There is nothing technically wrong with taking a draw or or borrowing from the corporation according to my attorney.

As long as the corporation was not created with the sole purpose of transferring debt. For everything to be “kosher” the corporation needs to be making money and carrying on some kind of legitimate business activity.

Corporation not making sweet returns… yet.

Well, that’s the goal. I bought the corporation in order to continue doing real estate and other types of investing inside it. Not just to get corporate credit.

However, I’m not quite there yet. We’ve already been approved for some starter credit which allowed me to pay off (refinance) the seed money.

We’re finally in the process of getting our first set of juicy lines and investing that money. But it hasn’t happened yet. So the corporation is not making any money, just borrowing. That’s why I’m not sure I want touch it yet.

Don’t want any perceived shadiness!

However, even if the corp DOES start making some money, it may STILL look a little shady for me to pay off my personal debt with corporate funds. (Even if I do everything right).

I need to get some additional advice to make sure I’ve covered all angles. I don’t want to be accused of co-mingling, “alter ego” or any kind of corporation fraud. That can’t be too good.

There is my “reputation” too.

I mean, a lot of you unfortunately think that just ‘cuz I’ve made some mistakes on loans before, I must be some kind of a criminal or fraudster - always up to no good! Some people are quick to judge, what can I say.

That’s why I want to do everything above-board and be as CLEAN as possible.

And another question…

Is settling debt same as paying it off in full?

I know, I know. I’m not stupid. It’s NOT the same number wise. I’m settling for LESS THAN full amount. That’s the whole point of it. I’m actually wondering about the moral issues and my credibility:

Is me saying “I settled all my debt” same as “I payed off all my debt - every single dirty penny of it!

Do people really care how I did it? Settling debt requires the agreement of the creditor by the way. So it would be a WIN-WIN agreement. But still… I’m wondering what the “right thing” to do is.

There is still the question of filing bankruptcy…

Let’s try a vote:

Rob Dawg said...

Let's just get one thing absolutely clear. Crystal. No discussion required. Casey has no new legitimate sources of credit. He cannot honestly "settle" any of the outstanding debt. The idea of the corporate loan at market rates has been floated. The market rate is set. 24-96% interest. Anything less and he is breaching his fiduciary obligations and thus piercing the corporate veil. The settlement offers are trolls he dug out of the pile of mail for entertainment value.

Anonymous said...

Exactly Dawg. He admitted the other day he'd get back to "entertainment" soon. He admitted numerous times on the last call in show that he trolls and uses stuff for "entertainment" purposes.

Uzbecki Durak said...

Casey may have no other skills, but he's really good at trolling...:

"There is my “reputation” too."

Meanwhile, in other news...

France to Pay Immigrants to Return Home

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,484716,00.html

Hmmmnnnn.... hmmmmmm.... Interesting idea for a certain fliptard, da/nyet?

Anonymous said...

From Les Jones:

Casey Serin, Failed Real Estate Mogul and Web Hustler
PDB tipped me off to this. Casey Serin was a 22 year old college student who read a couple of real estate books and got himself several million dollars in debt as the real estate boom came to a whimpering close.

Facing financial ruin, he created a Web site, iamFacingForeclosure.com, to attract attention and advice. Some would say more for the attention than for the advice, which he seems to have mostly ignored. The banks have since foreclosed on some of the properties, and the others are still in jeopardy.

USA Today used Serin as an example of what not to do in 10 mistakes that made flipping a flop.

LessUrban has a less-than-flattering account of Serin's real estate and blog dealings, and suggests that Serin broke the law in his mortgage transactions.

I have no opinion on whether Serin broke the law, but if he did it wouldn't surprise me. John T. Reed - a no-nonsense real estate guru I actually trust - has this to say about many of the nothing-down plans:

Many of the nothing-down techniques, like Allen’s “second-mortgage crank,” require you to commit a felony. He does not tell you to break the law. But he tells you to do something which cannot be done without breaking the law. It’s as if I told you to drive from San Francisco to LA in four hours and admonished you not to break the speed limit. It is impossible. For example, Allen’s “second-mortgage crank” has you getting a new 80% loan from an institution and the seller taking back a second for the rest.
Simple, right? Wrong. Institutional lenders are generally not allowed to make such a loan and they will not knowingly do so. They ask where the down payment is coming from and “seller” is not the right answer. Allen says the key is finding “the right lender.” Joe Land, whom I debated on the 3/16/86 60 Minutes’ “Nothing Down” segment, said the same thing. Land said he had done these deals. I asked Land for the name of a lender who was willing to do such a deal. At my behest, Morley Safer and a Time magazine reporter asked Land the same question and even promised anonymity for the lender. Land refused to name one. He cannot. Neither can Allen or any other nothing-down guru.


In his real estate guru ratings Reed notes that many of them have gone bankrupt, gone to jail, or both.

You might want to review Reed's disection of Robert Kiyosaki, one of Serin's gurus. Kiyosaki, like many other real estate gurus, claims he's made fantastic deals, yet refuses to give the property addresses so that someone can confirm that those incredible deals really happened. Reed's properties are listed on his about page.

Serin is likewise an acolyte of Carleton Sheets, and paid big bucks for expensive classes from Russ Whitney.

P.S. One fascinating thing about Serin is his precious belief that if enough people hear his story that cash money will somehow appear in his bank account, his financial problems will be solved, and he can live the good, unemployed life his real estate gurus promised him. That he's willing to do anything but get an honest job is the reason I consider him a hustler.

P.P.S Serin links to a San Fransisco Chronicle article about him. He seems to be unable to tell the difference between good attention and bad attention. From the article:

Still, he doesn't seem to see those birds crashing to the ground. Serin estimates that even if he can sell all of his properties with short sales, he'll still be $200,000 to $400,000 in debt. "It's pretty scary," he concedes, sounding not at all scared. How will he escape? "I could go back and get a job and just work for a living, but even if I get a Web designer position that pays $50,000 to $70,000 a year, my payments on my debt are still going to be $3,000 to $3,700 bucks a month. I could file for bankruptcy," he pauses. "Or I could see if I can do a few more real estate deals."
Suddenly his voice has the buoyancy of a true believer. "To succeed in real estate you have to have the right knowledge and the ability to take action. I fell down this year. But I'm not going to go out without a fight."


Shorter Casey Serin: naively believing real estate guru horseshit got me into this mess, and naively believing real estate guru horseshit will get me out!

LossMitPro said...

C-Corp Man @ 2:07 PM:
”There is no minimum tax for the first year, if you incorporated or qualified to do business in California on or after January 1, 2000, unless the entity is a foreign corporation and began doing business in a year prior to which it qualified with the Secretary of State.”


Agreed, however, perhaps you misunderstood what I stated above. The key distinction is “doing business.” Almost all SHELF (not shell, folks) corporations are clean, as you likely know. Meaning that they have no liability and have not transacted business prior to being sold; business virgins for all intent and purpose.

So it seems your understanding is as mine, with the primary difference being what constitutes the term “doing business” (a subjective thing). To me (and apparently the State of California) that means generating revenue, which subjects the corp to taxation. One penny generated (dirty or otherwise) by applied effort is revenue, no matter how one cuts it.

Mejustme @ 2:20 PM:
”I think you come off as pretty credible in your field of expertise; knowing your name and company wouldn't prove anything more to me. It's not necessary to disclose your identity, and you might be opening yourself up to some unwanted attention.


Thanks, appreciate the sentiment. And please note it’s not that I’m scared (not one of my flaws, believe me) only that I tend to choose my battles. That is why I can afford (financially and otherwise) to do the things I do, and promote the causes I promote (non-profit stuff).

One thing I might do as an alternative to address both concerns, the folks who want to know I’m real and remaining not so exposed. Is to inform selected folks like Rob Dawg, and a few others here on EN who I really am so they can check me out. This seems an equitable compromise and I’m presuming would be satisfactory to ease concerns.

Other than that or completely spilling my guts, I suppose whatever I state can be checked out? If folks do so, I know they’ll find my takes accurate and in-line with probable recovery efforts.

Honestly Wondering @ 2:24 PM:
”Mark, you seem like a decent guy, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but why are you getting yourself tangled into this mess?


Comes with the territory, the nature of my business, you’d be surprised how financially (and sometimes emotionally) messed up people in foreclosure situations (generally) can be. Besides, Casey has basically asked me to comment on his mortgages tomorrow night. I see no harm in that, and this would give you good folks a different take on issues that may or may not be understood clearly. So yours is a fair concern, but to me..? Serin’s situation isn’t so much a mess as it is requiring attention.

Casey’s problems (the mortgage fraud, etc.) CAN be remedied, if only they were addressed logically and with some coherence. I tried that, but unfortunately didn’t get very far along.

~Mark

C-Corp Man said...

Mark -

If Hammar signs ONE contract or ATTEMPTS to do business in the state, it won't matter if makes ZERO revenue. As I said, if you RUN a business in California you have to pay the minimum franchise tax for corporations. It's quite simple.

Very few get away with not paying their first full year. All he needs to do is file and show he had expenses and no revenue and that would cause the state to assess the fee.

Trust me on this. If he gets out of it for whatever reason, great, but he better make sure the state agrees.

C-Corp Man said...

BTW - I will clarify something in the last post. Doing business does NOT have to mean earning one dime of revenue. The state is pretty tricky on that one.

I think the Franchise Tax is pretty onerous on new developing companies, but who am I? The point is that the state REQUIRES it per the rules I posted earlier. He ONLY needs to be DOING business as HAMMAR in year one to be dinged. He will have to file with the IRS which means he will have a hard time arguing out of the tax. Even a loss on ZERO revenue counts as doing business.

Thanks.

Yomama said...

CASEY HAS A LIVE CHAT ROOM UP!

Property Flopper said...

C-Corp Man & LossMitPro

Wouldn't Casey's loan to himself constitute "doing business"? I am assuming he is charging himself market interest, otherwise he has different problems.

AR counts as revenue.

LossMitPro said...

C-Corp Man @ 3:05 PM:
”The point is that the state REQUIRES it per the rules I posted earlier. He ONLY needs to be DOING business as HAMMAR in year one to be dinged..”


Ok, I’ll yield to your apparent experience. Corporate taxation isn’t one of my strong points, which is why I called the state (FTB) earlier today. (I’m just one to learn particulars of what I don’t know or when I’m uncertain, so therein was my motivation.) And now that you mention it, an executed contract would appear to constitute transacting business (methinks it can be argued).

Property Flopper @ 3:13 PM:
”Wouldn't Casey's loan to himself constitute ‘doing business’? I am assuming he is charging himself market interest, otherwise he has different problems.”


That’s more or less what I flashed on when considering C-Corp Man’s comments. Even if no interest is charged (which could be improper) a loan or extraction or transaction involving corporate credit might be deemed transacting business. As C-Corp Man pointed out, the state could get sticky about such things.

~Mark

C-Corp Man said...

Mark,

You may be right, but I will bet he will pay. LLCs and Corps both have to pay the Franchise tax. If my LLC did ZERO business in 2005 (started in November of that year) and we had SOME expenses. Guess what happened...we had to pay it the state did NOT agree with us.

If it happens to us, it can happen to Casey. BTW - I have a really reliable tax guy/accountant.

BelowTheCrowd said...

Property Flopper,

Per my understanding of FTB rules, he has already "done business" in California:

He has secured credit lines. This is "business activity."

He has already given himself a loan to pay rent. This is "business activity."

He has used his corporate credit card to pay for a "business trip" to Tahoe. This is "business activity."

And if he fails to charge himself a market rate of interst (which -- if we use his credit cards and other lines as a sample of fairl market rates for him -- would be 30% or more) then he's in a world of hurt from the IRS and FTB over the undeclared income he got from the corp.

As noted, profits are not a requirement. Many startups go for quite a while in the red. You still pay the $800, because just simple little things like getting a phone line, a domain name or email hosting is "considered "business activity."

-btc

LossMitPro said...

All:
While it’s been fun today, I need to get going again (duty calls). But in the interim of tomorrow night? If any of you have specific question you’d like me to focus on, EXPRESSLY concerning Casey’s mortgages or related to mortgage collections (asset recovery)? Please send your requests to NoLostHome@SBCGlobal.net. I may not reply but I’ll gather those and add them to my list.

Take care, everyone! :)

~Mark

mejustme said...

Just chatted in Casey's new supersucky chat room. Casey himself popped in!

To verify, I asked him to say the one Russian word I know, and he didn't hesitate. He followed up with some more Russian, who knows what he said.

The chat sucks! You can read the comment only until someone else comments, then they fold up, and you can't scroll up.

Anyway, I asked something about how the APR could go down when Hammar has to charge him market rate interest and the corp has to pay interest, too.

I wish I could remember the exact thing he said -- thank god it wasn't "it's all good" -- but he basically said the corp just has to have a written agreement with a reasonable payment arrangement. No mention of the interest.

I asked if he cared to share but he never did. It's really impossible to chat in there. That should slow his server down but good.

C-Corp Man said...

Below the Crowd,

EXACTLY! I see some guy on IAFF is saying the same thing (Hey You I believe). Some guy came back (another annoying Casey supporter) and said the first year is free. It's only free IF you do ZERO business and shelve it. The minute you do ANYTHING with the corp (credit, phone lines, office lease, expenses) you are now "doing business" in Cali.

One does NOT have to earn one red cent to be dinged by the FTB min. tax.

I love how people keep giving this kid the wrong advice on the IAFF site. People are telling him to not pay his debts, let them slide, ignore it, etc. Very sad and funny stuff.

But to anybody from IAFF and you too Casey who say you don't have to pay one dime to the FTB? Go ahead and tell yourself that. You still have to file a return and you'll get that 30 day notice to pay or else within 3 months.

The FTB does NOT fuck around and they will make Casey's life hell.

sweeth8r said...

Re: FTB assessment. If Casey were a little smarter, he'd just use part of his remaining corp credit to pay the damn franchise fee. That's just transferring the debt from one creditor to another, but better to wrestle with a private creditor than the FTB. But all this presumes he has a modicum of sense.

Several years ago I closed out a failed corp of mine and, everything properly settled, sent a note to the FTB that I would no longer be doing business in California. If more people did that we might find the Peoples' Republic of CA enacting more business-friendly tax laws. But then, who would pay the medical bills for all those illegal Mexicans?

BelowTheCrowd said...

Actually, I recall that you only have to pay for the first COMPLETE year of registration. Which is to say that if you register on Jan 2nd, you don't owe the $800 for that first year because it's considered a partial.

But you owe $800 on the first January 1st (or first day of your fiscal year if it's not a calendar year) unless you really don't do anything with it.

Rules may be a bit different for a C-corp or LLC. Mine is an S-corp. Casey's is type unknown.

Just went through my old returns and I didn't pay the tax in my first year of tax filing. The corp was established in June of that year. I had revenue so I had to file the tax forms, but only paid the 1.5% of my (carefully managed) net income.

-btc

C-Corp Man said...

I believe Hammar is a C-Corp. If he were an S-Corp, I'd think he'd have a very hard time of getting credit since the S-Corp is a pass through tax vehicle, right?

LLCs pay the franchise fee no matter what it appears.

C-Corps - don't matter unless they were registered with the SoS after 12/16 and ZERO business was conducted. If you registered on Jan 2, using your example, I believe if you do ZERO business (revenues, activities) you can avoid it. If you do ANY activities, you will pay. My personal experience tells me he has to pay.

C-Corp Man said...

Here's an example...

I started my corp in 2003. No business conducted in the 15 days before the end of year means Zero filing, no tax.

My first FULL year was 2004. I LOST money. I sent in my $800 just to be safe because I assumed I MAY get it back if the rules said my first year was exempt. Wrong, they kept it. They will give you back funds for overpayment, so apparently they felt I owed.

My first LLC was 2005. We started it in late November. We didn't do anything else with it. It was supposed to be a vehicle for investment opps in franchises and such. We never could agree on anything so we claimed a loss on our personal taxes since LLCs are pass through entities. We get a bill from the FTB saying we owe for 2005 even though we didn't conduct ANY business. We argued and lost.

I firmly stand by the argument that he will pay. If he doesn't, I'd be quite certain he either never filed or isn't being honest.

BelowTheCrowd said...

An S-Corp is a pass-through, but it always requires a tax filing.

The rule as I understood it (and as we filed) was that you owe $800 or 1.5% of net revenues, whichever is greater. You are exempted from the $800 for the first partial year.

So, for my first year, I paid about $50. Revenues are managed so that I pay the vast bulk of revenue to myself in the form of salary and through maximum use of legal business expenses.

For the second year, we paid $800 right up front. My accountant said that if I couldn't figure out a way to keep my net revenue under $53,333 (where the 1.5% starts to exceed the $800) then I shouldn't be in business for myself...

The net income from the corp does pass through to my own 1040/540, so the $800 is as much as I'm ever likely to pay on the corporate tax filing. Federal doesn't hit you with anything, you just have to document it and pass it through.

(And yeah, you better have a "reasonable" salary and amount of payroll taxes in there too...)

-btc

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.