Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What is a "Copy-not pen"?
725 views
Skip to first unread message
george pearl
Feb 13, 2012, 10:44:12 PM2/13/12
to
I've been reading text about a dude slugging
it out with the IRS over fraudulent tax returns.
They accuse him of using a copy-not pen.
What is it?
it out with the IRS over fraudulent tax returns.
They accuse him of using a copy-not pen.
What is it?
John Levine
Feb 14, 2012, 8:20:42 PM2/14/12
to
They're well known in the graphics biz for for
> annotations on artwork.
R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com,
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
rudolf
Feb 14, 2012, 8:21:40 PM2/14/12
to
shade of blue) that photocopiers cannot copy.
Maybe this is a reference to that?
D.F. Manno
Feb 14, 2012, 8:23:27 PM2/14/12
to
and other methods of reproduction. (In my journalist days,
we used pens with those shades to write notes, etc. on
layouts that we did not want to appear on the final printed
page.) I assume the IRS is accusing the taxpayer in question
of using such pens to prepare returns, which would leave the
IRS unable to photocopy the documents.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of
plotting to make me happy. (J.D. Salinger)
deadrat
Feb 14, 2012, 8:24:02 PM2/14/12
to
george pearl <geope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been reading text about a dude slugging
> it out with the IRS over fraudulent tax returns.
> They accuse him of using a copy-not pen.
> What is it?
It's a pen that uses a light-blue ink that won't
> I've been reading text about a dude slugging
> it out with the IRS over fraudulent tax returns.
> They accuse him of using a copy-not pen.
> What is it?
show up in a photocopy or microfilm.
Dave M.
Feb 14, 2012, 8:25:34 PM2/14/12
to
George,
Copying machines have always had problems with
blue ink. I'd guess scanners have similar problems.
Many businesses require that folks use black or
blue-black ink because of this.
'
Copy-not pens are blue ink pens where the ink has
been chosen for it's optical properties, i.e. it's
really hard to copy. They sell blue pencils too.
Dave M.
Copying machines have always had problems with
blue ink. I'd guess scanners have similar problems.
Many businesses require that folks use black or
blue-black ink because of this.
'
Copy-not pens are blue ink pens where the ink has
been chosen for it's optical properties, i.e. it's
really hard to copy. They sell blue pencils too.
Dave M.
Mike
Feb 14, 2012, 8:34:35 PM2/14/12
to
_20028_blue/content_285308063364
It's a pencil, not a pen, and (supposedly) it can't be
picked up by the light from a copying machine (possibly
they aren't sensitive to that specific shade of blue.
Older copiers had problems with red ink, I know.)
However, I can't find any mention of "use only blue or
black ink" or even "use ink, not pencil" anywhere of
the 1040 form (and would hazard a guess that it's not
on the 1040-A or 1040-EZ, either.)
Is this the person you're speaking of?
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
"The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
gain from sales of properties over which he had
control was not a mistake of law but a scheme of evasion
of taxes. His fraudulent intent is further evidenced by
his refusal to cooperate with respondent's agents, his
use of the Copy- Not pen, use of multiple bank accounts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
styled in numerous names, and his use of the taxpayer
defense program. Further evidence lies in the fact that
petitioners owned almost no assets in their own names,
but rather all assets were held by the trusts they had
established. Their prior and current residences were
paid for and furnished with funds deposited to the trust
accounts. All cars driven by petitioners and their
daughter were titled in the names of trust organizations.
Boats and motors Mr. Dahlstrom used were also owned in
the names of trust organizations. He reported no income
from the purchase with funds from the trust bank accounts
of these assets for his personal use. His fraudulent intent
further is evidenced by the fact that he alone decided what
amounts he would report as trustee fee income on
petitioners' income tax returns. Through his role as trustee
of the trusts he used for his own purposes any property
transferred to the trusts."
If so, the "copy not pen[cil]" wasn't what was used to say
the return was fraudulent but simply one PIECE of evidence
used to show that fraudulent intent was present (as opposed
to "Oops, I made an honest mistake. My bad.")
Gene E. Utterback, EA, ABA
Feb 14, 2012, 8:40:20 PM2/14/12
to
If you could give us a reference to what you're reading
I'd be interested in checking it out.
A Copy-Not pen is just that - a pen that does NOT copy
on a photocopier. These were used in the accounting
and tax business for years, long before we had
computers to do the heavy lifting. Typically a job would
be assigned to a junior level accountant, let's say it was
a tax return. When they finished the return it was
passed on to a supervisor for review. The supervisor
would use a very light blue pen or pencil to "check off"
the work as he reviewed. When he was finished if the
return was OK to go to the client it could then simply
be put through a photocopier. The light blue copy-not
would NOT show up on the copy. So the client gets a "
clean" copy and the reviewed copy, with marks and
notations goes in the client's file.
With the advent of the personal computer and the ability
to review, mark up and comment digitally, not to mention
reprinting on site, "copy-not" pens/pencils have fallen
out of use. They were also fairly expensive compared to
regular pens/pencils - about three times as much AND
you couldn't get them just anywhere. We had to order
them from an accountant's supply company - back in
the day.
HOWEVER, many firms, mine own included, use a yellow
highlighter to "tick off" the items from client documents
as they are entered into a computer program. It gives us
a way to see where we left off and the yellow highlighter
doesn't show up on a copy either.
Thanks for the walk down memory lane,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA
Robert Bonomi
Feb 14, 2012, 8:42:35 PM2/14/12
to
Not to belabor the obvious, *but* did you TRY Google?
or _any_ other major search engine? Does
www.google.com/search?q=copy-not+pen> answer
your question.
Barry Gold
Feb 16, 2012, 2:24:40 AM2/16/12
to
certain shades of light blue, because of the way
the light used for scanning interacts with the
ink(*). However, a color copier will almost
certainly copy it fairly accurately. The only way
for an ink to "look white" to all three (RGB) or
four (CMYK) colors is to either be white, or
reflect so much light that you would need a
magnifying glass and very bright light source to
see it against paper even in the original.
Hmm... most copiers these days throw the light
pretty much straight down onto the original. So
an ink that generates specular reflection (like a
mirror) would probably "look white" (might even
be brighter than the surrounding paper :-) but be
quite visible to the naked eye.
Notes: "specular reflection" is what a mirror does.
RGB = red/green/blue (additive colors, for what you
see on your screen). CMYK = Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black
(subtractive colors, for printing with ink).
(*) Basically, the ink reflects about the same amount
of that color of light as the un-inked paper does. So
unless you can get the contrast level incredibly high
*and* the black/white distinction level just right,
it looks "white" to the copier.
Gordon Burditt
Feb 16, 2012, 2:39:55 AM2/16/12
to
> Is this the person you're speaking of?
>
> http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
>
> "The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
> Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
> of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
> interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
> gain from sales of properties over which he had
> control was not a mistake of law but a scheme of evasion
> of taxes.
> His fraudulent intent is further evidenced by
> his refusal to cooperate with respondent's agents, his
Assuming that "cooperate" means "anal intercourse, taxpayer
>
> http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
>
> "The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
> Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
> of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
> interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
> gain from sales of properties over which he had
> control was not a mistake of law but a scheme of evasion
> of taxes.
> His fraudulent intent is further evidenced by
> his refusal to cooperate with respondent's agents, his
receiving", "cooperating" could be interpreted as a bribe
to the IRS. If it means something else, where is that
required? Obviously he did file a return or the type of pen
used would not be an issue.
> use of the Copy- Not pen,
Where in the law is it illegal to file a copyrighted tax
return with copy protection under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act? (There have been some much lamer
technological means to prevent copies being made, such as
the canonical joke encryption ROT13. Also, game companies
in the past have included non-copyable sheets of code
words which the game would ask for occasionally, using
roughly the same method as the Copy-Not pen).
And by what authority does the IRS photocopy such a tax
return?
I have to wonder why different variants of scanning
technology seem to have the same "blind color". Is it
perhaps *legal*, not technological (any more)?
It wouldn't surprise me if the writing of the Copy-Not
pen could be recovered from a scanned image (not really
an issue for the IRS since they have the original). I
have managed to recover printing from faded receipts
which look white by setting a threshold and varying it
(in GIMP. Photoshop would work too). For a few values,
the written area turns black and the background white.
You might have to adjust the threshold many times to
cover the whole receipt. You don't really get a good
image without a lot of effort but you may be able to
recover most of the text.
It could be really embarassing if some published image
turned out to have a supposedly non-copyable "comment"
"Do you think anyone will believe this BS"? that
someone recovered from the published version.
When I was in college (1970's), the ink to use was a
light green pen on a dark green check, which suppoedly
wouldn't microfilm well. I never got to see such a
microfilm to justify that claim.
> use of multiple bank accounts
Why is this illegal? It seems to be *encouraged* by
the way FDIC insurance works to provide a fixed amount
of insurance for each combination of names. For
example, husband H, wife W, and children A, B, and C can
have "college accounts" in the names:
H,A; H,B; H,C; H,A,B; H,A,C; H,B,C; H,A,B,C;
W,A; W,B; W,C; W,A,B; W,A,C; W,B,C; W,A,B,C;
H,W,A; H,W,B; H,W,C; H,W,A,B; H,W,A,C; H,W,B,C;
H,W,A,B,C; and setting the accounts up this way gets you
21 times the limit on FDIC insurance. You might be able
to get more combinations by using "in trust for "vs"joint
account".
> and his use of the taxpayer
> defense program.
illegal to use it?
> Further evidence lies in the fact that
> petitioners owned almost no assets in their own names,
> but rather all assets were held by the trusts they had
> established.
correctly) and charge huge amounts to help you set it up
right. Why is using a tax loophole written into the law
by Congress for their masters illegal?
> Their prior and current residences were
> paid for and furnished with funds deposited to the trust
> accounts.
> All cars driven by petitioners and their
> daughter were titled in the names of trust organizations.
> Boats and motors Mr. Dahlstrom used were also owned in
> the names of trust organizations.
> He reported no income
> from the purchase with funds from the trust bank accounts
> of these assets for his personal use. His fraudulent intent
> further is evidenced by the fact that he alone decided what
> amounts he would report as trustee fee income on
> petitioners' income tax returns. Through his role as trustee
> of the trusts he used for his own purposes any property
> transferred to the trusts."
>
> If so, the "copy not pen[cil]" wasn't what was used to say
> the return was fraudulent but simply one PIECE of evidence
> used to show that fraudulent intent was present (as opposed
> to "Oops, I made an honest mistake. My bad.")
of "suspicious behavior", say, at an Internet cafe when
the exact same actions (such as covering the screen
against people around them) could and should be put on a
list of "How To Protect Yourself From Identity Theft At
an Internet Cafe".
deadrat
Feb 16, 2012, 8:16:18 AM2/16/12
to
gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>> Is this the person you're speaking of?
>> http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
>>
>> "The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
>> Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
>> of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
>> interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
>> gain from sales of properties over which he had
>> control was not a mistake of law but a scheme of evasion
>> of taxes.
<snip/>
>> Is this the person you're speaking of?
>> http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
>>
>> "The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
>> Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
>> of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
>> interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
>> gain from sales of properties over which he had
>> control was not a mistake of law but a scheme of evasion
>> of taxes.
>> use of multiple bank accounts styled in numerous names,
> Why is this illegal?
<snip/>
> Why is this illegal?
>> Their prior and current residences were
>> paid for and furnished with funds deposited to the trust
>> accounts.
> Why is this illegal?
>> All cars driven by petitioners and their
>> daughter were titled in the names of trust organizations.
> Why is this illegal?
>> Boats and motors Mr. Dahlstrom used were also owned in
>> the names of trust organizations.
> Why is this illegal?
None of these things is illegal per se. The recitation
s you're asking about provide evidence that the people
in question were arranging their affairs according to
Mr. Dahlstrom's instructions, which I will try to
outline as follows:
Set up three trusts, A, B, and C. You are the trustor,
trustee, and beneficiary of each. A and B are domestic
trusts; C is a foreign trust.
Transfer all your income to Trust B. You can do this
by paying B fees for consulting services. Have
Trust B transfer certificates of beneficial interest
representing all of B's assets to Trust C.
Have Trust C loan the value of its corpus to Trust B,
for which Trust C receives a demand promissory note.
Have Trust C gift the note to Trust A.
Have Trust A present the note to Trust B for payment.
Trust C is beyond the reach of the IRS, loan proceeds
aren't taxable income, and neither is a gift.
The problem is that although A, B, and C have actual
names that make it sound like they're engaged in
businesses of some sort, they're not. The entire
thing is just shuffling paper to create pro forma
non-taxable events. Since you have complete control
of all the trusts, they're just a smokescreen for
tax evasion. Or so says the gov.
> I get awfully tired of the government circulating lists
> of "suspicious behavior", say, at an Internet cafe when
> the exact same actions (such as covering the screen
> against people around them) could and should be put on a
> list of "How To Protect Yourself From Identity Theft At
> an Internet Cafe".
parallel to listing stipulations of fact in a tax case?
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 17, 2012, 9:55:31 AM2/17/12
to
gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> Where in the law is it illegal to file a copyrighted tax
> return with copy protection under the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act? (There have been some much lamer
> technological means to prevent copies being made, such as
> the canonical joke encryption ROT13. Also, game companies
> in the past have included non-copyable sheets of code
> words which the game would ask for occasionally, using
> roughly the same method as the Copy-Not pen).
>
> And by what authority does the IRS photocopy such a tax
> return?
Unless a tax return is fraudulent, it is unlikely to be
> Where in the law is it illegal to file a copyrighted tax
> return with copy protection under the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act? (There have been some much lamer
> technological means to prevent copies being made, such as
> the canonical joke encryption ROT13. Also, game companies
> in the past have included non-copyable sheets of code
> words which the game would ask for occasionally, using
> roughly the same method as the Copy-Not pen).
>
> And by what authority does the IRS photocopy such a tax
> return?
copyrightable since it is purely factual and has no element of
creativity in its creation.
> I have to wonder why different variants of scanning
> technology seem to have the same "blind color". Is it
> perhaps *legal*, not technological (any more)?
color copiers shouldn't have that limitation.
>> Their prior and current residences were
>> paid for and furnished with funds deposited to the trust
>> accounts.
>
> Why is this illegal?
can get a court to unwind the transaction and treat the property as
that of the person to whom it in reality belongs.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Robert Bonomi
Feb 22, 2012, 4:33:20 PM2/22/12
to
Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
[sneck]
>> I have to wonder why different variants of scanning
>> technology seem to have the same "blind color". Is it
>> perhaps *legal*, not technological (any more)?
>It's technological rather than a conspiracy. As Barry pointed out,
>color copiers shouldn't have that limitation.
I actually tested this with a standard editorial 'blue pencil' a number of
years ago. At that time *many* color copiers did have the same 'blind
spot' in their spectral response that monochrome copiers did. These
were all true 'optical' units -- as distinct from the modern 'digital'
imager/printer combinations.
A fair number of color copiers also had a very selective blindness for one
of the lighter shades of green use on U.S. currency. _Expressly_ to make
them unusable for counterfeiting.
I've seen reports -- from sources -I- consider 'credible', albeit *not*
'authoritative' -- tha modern digital color copiers have built-in 'smarts'
to recognize the 'pattern' of U.S. currency, and 'brick' (disable it until
a repairman services it) the copier _if_ someone attempts to run currency
through it.
> gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
[sneck]
>> I have to wonder why different variants of scanning
>> technology seem to have the same "blind color". Is it
>> perhaps *legal*, not technological (any more)?
>It's technological rather than a conspiracy. As Barry pointed out,
>color copiers shouldn't have that limitation.
years ago. At that time *many* color copiers did have the same 'blind
spot' in their spectral response that monochrome copiers did. These
were all true 'optical' units -- as distinct from the modern 'digital'
imager/printer combinations.
A fair number of color copiers also had a very selective blindness for one
of the lighter shades of green use on U.S. currency. _Expressly_ to make
them unusable for counterfeiting.
I've seen reports -- from sources -I- consider 'credible', albeit *not*
'authoritative' -- tha modern digital color copiers have built-in 'smarts'
to recognize the 'pattern' of U.S. currency, and 'brick' (disable it until
a repairman services it) the copier _if_ someone attempts to run currency
through it.
george pearl
Feb 26, 2012, 1:30:45 AM2/26/12
to
Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> ...
salesman in 1991 and he was giving his roadshow presentation
about the benefits of a living family trust. A sharp guy,
but just couldn't fly straight legally.
>
> Is this the person you're speaking of?
>
> http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
>
> "The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
> Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
> of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
> interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
> gain from sales of properties over which he had ...
> Is this the person you're speaking of?
>
> http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/purecase/dahlstm2.htm
>
> "The sole purpose of the trusts was to reduce or eliminate
> Mr. Dahlstrom's Federal income tax liability. The failure
> of Mr. Dahlstrom to pay tax on income that he earned,
> interest earned on money that he controlled, and capital
> to "Oops, I made an honest mistake. My bad.")
Yes, It was Karl Dahlstrom. I met him whilst an insurance
salesman in 1991 and he was giving his roadshow presentation
about the benefits of a living family trust. A sharp guy,
but just couldn't fly straight legally.
george pearl
Feb 26, 2012, 1:45:36 AM2/26/12
to
bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> your question.
Maybe I don't know the finer points of certain Commands
that assist the Google Engine. If you could belabor the
way to make a specific search, I'd appreciate it.
> Not to belabor the obvious, *but* did you TRY Google?
> or _any_ other major search engine? Does
> www.google.com/search?copy-not+pen> answer
> or _any_ other major search engine? Does
> your question.
Maybe I don't know the finer points of certain Commands
that assist the Google Engine. If you could belabor the
way to make a specific search, I'd appreciate it.
0 new messages