Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"should YOU also be charged with selling unregistered shares?"
LOL.
No, I shouldn't be charged.
But, there was the small matter of filing an Objection to Attorney General Eric Holder's SpongeTech stock forfeiture motion. Oh, and that other thingy, about asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny the appointment of Loretta Lynch as Holder's replacement.
But, from what we see from her, it seems that I may have a racial bias lawsuit I could file, if I was charged. That's assuming that most of these charges are filed against white people. I was really hoping that she wouldn't get political. Hopefully, she's in her last few months as serving as the US Attorney General. And hopefully, again, the next US Attorney General won't be a Democrat from the Eastern or Southern District of New York.
But wait, you also have admitted to buying SPNG shares then selling them into the market at a profit
should YOU also be charged with selling unregistered shares?
So again, if the SEC's charges are correct, members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network, who bought shares from the company at prices as low as 10% of the market price, should be disgorged of their profit, regardless of scienter, and they should be charged with selling unregistered shares.
All of the stock was sold through RME, to a well-defined SpongeTech stock distribution network.
There was one instance when RME issued a certificate to an investor who was NOT part of the stock distribution network. When Moskowitz realized his mistake, the shares issued to that investor were canceled, and new shares were issued to the investor from the cancellation of a Cede cert, which was beneficially owned by the company (as many such Cede certs are/were).
So again, if the SEC's charges are correct, members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network, who bought shares from the company at prices as low as 10% of the market price, should be disgorged of their profit, regardless of scienter, and they should be charged with selling unregistered shares.
Yes, they no doubt filed the 8-A to cover up what they'd been doing.
As I recall, they'd been issuing tons of stock to an entity they controlled. Presumably they were then selling that stock into the market illegally, using fraudulent opinion letters claiming exemptions for which the stock did not qualify.
These Amendments, going back to March 2007, were filed 10 days after the company was notified that the SEC was progressing to the Formal Investigation level. The Informal Investigation was commenced in May 2009.
"Item 8.01. Other Events
On September 18, 2009, the Company received a formal order of investigation issued by the SEC regarding possible securities laws violations by the Company and/or other persons..."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050122/v161351_8k.htm
The Complaint itself was initiated one full year after the Formal Investigation was commenced. The Complaint began as follows:
"1. This case involves a scheme to increase demand illegally for, and profit from, the unregistered sale of publicly-traded stock in Defendant Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. ("Spongetech" or the "Company")...
6. Defendants Metter, Moskowitz, and Spongetech illegally distributed approximately 2.5 billion Spongetech shares in unregistered transactions through Defendant RM Enterprises and other affiliates, which acted as conduits for the Defendants to distribute restricted shares in unregistered transactions to the public."
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf
Registering the stock "as of 28 September 2009" is kinda like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out, isn't it?
As far as the SEC's charges regarding the sale of "...2.5 billion Spongetech shares in unregistered transactions..," I usually say "if the SEC's charges are correct," when I speak of things like charging those who resold the shares they received. You're not saying that, too, are you? Because my reason for saying that really has nothing to do with these Amended filings.
All of Spongetech's common stock as of 28 September 2009 was registered:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050269/v161426_8a12g.htm
Obviously, the shares were resold by members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. Are you saying that they did nothing illegal by selling those shares?
When you discuss this case with your students, does that include the subject of selling unregistered shares? What are your students' views about the lack of US-based prosecutions for this violation?
Selling unregistered stock is not illegal. If a company isn't an SEC filer, all of its stock is unregistered. But if a company sells unregistered stock and does not subsequently register it, or make certain that a legitimate exemption from registration is available, it cannot be RESOLD on the open market.
Would be...and on how, in basically just going about doing his thing he got into this whole whirlwind of a whole bunch of wackos calling him the greatest manager and investor of all time - and throwing rose petals under his feet wherever he went - to the complete manifestation of the devil and throwing the most bizarre accusations at him in no time at all.
Personally - I think as a fair and sort of fringe fund manager he was catching on to the SPNG stuff too....and basically figured he's take a fling (with what would be a small investment for a fund anyway)...bought institutionally - and then tried to cover/reverse (maybe short) as it unwound. Took a loss, licked his wounds with a martini and went on.
I teach Finance at a university and frequently have the class look at SPNG for discussion. Part of the discussions, especially in these later years, is with what one learns be applied to being on which side of these things? Even if there was a jail term of some years - would 5 years be worth say $50,000,000...especially as that same time one would be living and working in what may well be a prison of sorts anyway.
With Greed, the Ponzi Syndrome (victims refusing to ever fully agree they taken) and Stockholm Syndrome of so many making for - in an analytical sense - a very lucrative market opportunity.
Hopefully, they will chose to use both their abilities and common sense to chose to not take nor be taken by these things, which have been and I suspect will forever be around. (Some of the characters on the Boards have become great examples...and the source of a lot of fun and humor).
I wonder if Nicolois is back from his European vacation yet.
There's a matter concerning 128,400,000 shares that needs to be dealt with, in a glaringly obvious fashion. There's another 200 million associated shares that HAVE been dealt with, or that I have accounted for. International scope, recidivist offenders, partial SpongeTech prosecutions. The SEC politely acting as if they don't see the elephant in the room. And that's just a fraction of this particular problem.
Would be interesting to see his angle.
Exactly the purchasers became the laughing stock. I remember going to a Tampa Bay football game and seeing a large advertising banner. You sold space to WHO?
The crooks bought advertising space. Then they never paid for it. PUMP and DUMP.
I've long wondered what Pike was up to. I suppose we'll never know. But it really doesn't make any difference.
I understand you....but these simple things get him completely confused, better to try and not have him respond and prove it to all again. (It comes from the TAX REQUIREMENT that to take a loss in securities as a casualty/theft loss it must be purchased directly from the sponsor of a PONZI style scam as one of the several reasons that tax treatment is denied to SPNG losers).
Yes he bought (and claims to have sold a lot for a lot of profit too) stock on open market.
Nobody owned the stock indirectly or through a mutual fund....as no institutions of any type would get near it. And investment advisors that would even bother to comment, warned against it. All things brought up by "the bashers" as warnings and questions many times - and disregarded by the true longs.
Until late on - when PIKE! PIKE! PIKE! bought some for his investment group....(and exactly what was going on with that is still a matter of dispute). But the pumpers certainly made all types of posts about how that proved (as he was the "greatest of investors") that bashers were all wrong. (Wasn't uncommon for them to float comments about how Warren Buffett was looking/calling or something....and similar with Mark Cuban.
Somebody mentioned a while back "Creditors" first to be paid. Fine. But what bothers me the most about creditors (NFL teams, MSG, Tennis Assoc,Baseball teams, etc.) is their lack of due diligence (and commissions paid to salespeople) who allowed the name to be plastered on walls all over the place in sports venues. SCOTTRADE (uses NITE) bailed my ass out with a healthy profit on the day the sky fell in at .16. Thank you. So I have no ax to grind here but again I ask what due diligence did these companies do.
In addition to that I remember a 300K check that bounced. Can't remember when the check bounced but how could so few trick so many big venues? Tells me greed is rampant and people should have been sent packing. I hope so.
Same thing. You did not, for example, buy a mutual fund that was invested in SPNG.
Indirectly, brought though a broker, not directly from SPNG.
What??? You did not "invest" in SPNG indirectly. You presumably bought SPNG stock.
He's talking about a very small AM radio station that was center in a bunch of notes that M&M and some others used while pushing notes and loans around as a way to get the cash. (Basically, take SPNG $ and loan it to another place - like the station (which not surprisingly they had some captured control over already)- and then move it to your own pocket from there). And it is true, basically, SPNG did arguably have a right to the company as the station defaulted on the note.
And was sort of successful in exerting it.
Unfortunately, it wasn't worth anything like the $Mills that they used it to transfer funds around with...and was basically insolvent....and I believe found no buyer at any price. (Business AM radio stations and licences operating in a small southern CT market are sort of like buggy whip manufacturers. I'm not sure I even have AM on any recent receiver...)
And to the "shell" (which really no original stockholder has a part of as that is forfieted when the stockholder is excused from paying the debts of the company that it couldn't pay (understanding it had way more debts tah assets and the debts must be paid first)... hence stockholders only losing the investment. Its called protection.
Weren't many assets of course either...if there was something valuable - the promoters stripped it.
Inventory (which there really wasn't much of...remember how small the Dicon warehouse was)...along with all the "assets" were sold in auction to the only bidder for $500K (in what can only be called a politically expedient (offer from one of the defendents) and generous (10X more than any previous offer (which was from Moskie I believe). But the inventory part of it cost more to transport (and that had to be to another place to then incur costs to store and re-ship, as no market for it...old enough it was soon to expire, existed) than the fee's it cost to do so. And the amount received, well, well under the accumulated costs due for the legal proceedings for the C-11 and C-7 case. It was administratively bankrupt...didn't have enough to aminister itself...certainly nothing for others.
Totally totally worthless.
That was its entire purpose in life.
Any worth it had was taken by those that created it....so they could take everything it could be.
AND THEY SAID SO IN COURT!
AND IT S PROVEN BY THE ACCOUNTING..
It was always a fact, even while they were making the lies it showed that it cost more for them to make a sponge than it sold for...
You can run a search ("shell company or sale") and find lots of sites selling THOUSANDS of them. Most all with very good and histories and many with existing creditable bank relationships, established and compliant reporting history, etc. etc. for a few thousand bucks.
make a new one for .... HUNDREDS.
So which is better: The shell with one of the most contaminated names and worst history's in business, requiring tens of thousands (if not more) of accounting and catch up just to be restored to compliant (and as of delisting, virtually impossible)....how much is that worth? I suggest, any connection to it is actually... a liability!
Here is a few places to buy thousands of good shells: and it would be all yours.....not shared with all the US Public!
http://wyomingcompany.com/aged-corporation/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwxI24BRDqqN3f-97N6egBEiQAGv37hFQwAjvZ0LWVYJaDWC4w_ZjDrdKlCwX_pjLFvt61xwAaAtGE8P8HAQ
http://www.vfinancialgroup.com/shell-companies-for-sale.html
Well, I'll try again after TDA gets word that FINRA has deleted the ticker symbol. TDA still shows the ticker.
Once TDA "gets word", the ticker will no longer work. That's because it no longer exists. So you won't be able to enter an order that fails; you won't be able to enter an order at all.
What??? You did not "invest" in SPNG indirectly. You presumably bought SPNG stock.
You do understand, don't you, that YOU have already admitted to selling SPNG stock into the market, while at the same time posting false pump and hype messages about criminal enterprise SPNG?
If a couple of such promoters exist, then yes, by all means.
If a couple of such promoters exist, then yes, by all means.
You mean like the promoters that were pumping and hyping the stock with false and misleading information while selling shares into the market?
Kinda curious about whether or not we'll finally see dozens of Relief Defendants named.
Another mind boggeling thought of yours....
Just consider your precedent idea--- that the decision was AGAINST the investors....a precedent that if it was one - would be bad for SPNG holders anyway.
And in an entire scheme very different than SPNG concerning how much MORE than the initial investment (even when over a Mill) will be paid back (that amount already was).
And as to one of your other more recent mis-understandings, in regards to a Ponzi scheme not a stock sold through a broker.
I just tried, and failed using TDA, to enter a sell order that would have generated $1 million in proceeds to yours' truly.
Well, I'll try again after TDA gets word that FINRA has deleted the ticker symbol. TDA still shows the ticker.
And maybe by then, the DTC will get word that the ticker is deleted, also. What will happen to the global trading lock then?
I'm anxious to see how Nicolois' trip to Europe may affect the goings-on. I'm interested in knowing how things may be setting up. Kinda curious about whether or not we'll finally see dozens of Relief Defendants named.
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
THE END
SPNGQ: CUSIP suspended. Finra deleted symbol:
http://otce.finra.org/DLDeletions
huh?
what radio station?
criminal enterprise SPNG never owned a radio station
Radio station had value
Yea Drug somebody walked with 52 million. Hid it. And now can retrieve it. That can't be right in any society with laws. JMO
You sent a bunch of emails...which showed such misunderstanding of most all things it was amazing. And I'm not even sure as a "guest" member I can respond to them by email.
The one I would have used to respond isn't seen on the board for some reason - but here it is:
drugmanrx has replied to a post you made on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. on Investors Hub:
Isn't it funny that if a automaker make a car with bad brakes and they know it bad before they sold it.
And you purchased that auto from a dealer (a broker). You can still recoup your loses from that manufacturer without buying directly from them.
or say a generic drug company knowing sells a product that fall below the FDA guidelines.
and you purchase that drug from a pharmacy (a broker) you can still collect damages from that drug company without purchasing from them directly.
Double standards?
THE REPLY:
Yes double standards exist all over the place (heck, in some situations there is recourse for making bad decisions)...not here though.
You recover (and almost certainly only if the Court requires it) from the drug maker, the auto company....the stock fraudster.....NOT from the IRS, FDA, Auto Mauf Assos., etc.
(And to be clear....in the things you picked which are commonly personal use, non-income producing items...(in virtually all cases)....there would be NO TAX DEDUCTION of any type (certainly not under Sect 165), and to the degree there may be in some....it must meet a number of specific thresholds and qualifications.
He, you, everyone should certainly be pursuing recovery in the courts against the fraudsters.
The rest of your retorts are at least as wrong and just nonsense as this...
BANKRUPTCY YYYYAAAAYYYYY
http://otce.finra.org/DLBankruptcy
It was always a scam. Many, many people pointed that out, and backed up what they said. But still, with cult stocks, there are always some who refuse to open their eyes.
I confess I was deeply disappointed when the Supremes declined to grant cert to Krazy Al. I'd have gone to D.C. to hear him argue his case. He's capable of presenting absolutely insane theories in a creepily lucid way.
Yes....I believe I noted that right afterward...they wouldn't give it Certiori.
And most importantly there is no reason to....probably no ground for appeal....and certainly no question of law involved.
Probably a simple case of those thinking there is any basis for the tax reporting they demand are so familiar and comfortable with making bad decisions they don't know or understand a correct one when they see it.
Bye Bye Birdie
But let him bring it to the Supreme if he wants…
It isn't really his choice. He can file a writ of certiorari if he wants, but unless he successfully raises a legitimate constitutional issue, the Supremes won't grant it. And that means there'll be no hearing. Just an announcement that cert was not granted.
That is exactly what happened to Xer Krazy Al Hodges when he tried it on.
Now it's intermission.
No. Now it's finally over.
Well, that ends the story here about selling anything
Couple of things.
Actually that's the thing about Supreme Court rulings...they are generally on points of law which there is not clear guidance or have not been previously addressed....and virtually certainly - personal belief does not carry the finding[/i].
Precedent
SPNGQ: CUSIP suspended. Finra deleted symbol:
http://otce.finra.org/DLDeletions
As I post this it says you already deleted your comments on judges do what they want and feel....and thats why supreme court decisions are not always 9-0. Etc. Even too off base for you to stand behind for long?
Actually that's the thing about Supreme Court rulings...they are generally on points of law which there is not clear guidance or have not been previously addressed....and virtually certainly - personal belief does not carry the finding....and most importantly only that court does not have to follow the precedent of prior rulings (in its district), since it supercedes all others.
(That in it's district is important as it is common that because of precedent the exact same facts in one district will be required to have a different result in another.
Precedent defined: "Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as binding precedent (alternately mandatory precedent, mandatory or binding authority, etc.). Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In the United States state and federal courts, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional appeals court, and all regional courts fall under a supreme court. By definition decisions of lower courts are not binding on each other or any courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on each other or on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings."
But let him bring it to the Supreme if he wants (or could actually find a lawyer that would do so - or can find grounds to appeal, as there is no disputable part of the holding adhering to the lower courts findings and prior cases that a loss in a transaction (especially one subject to the reduced capital gains rate) which was not entered into directly with someone found to act criminally intentionally making a fraud/theft (so if a broker is used) is allowed Section 165 relief against gains of the same type (and an unlimited cutout for the 3K a year against not even other investment income, but ordinary income) Entirely unlikely they will set new precedent to the very well established and held to (uncountable cases trying to find a way theirs is different than the other many) Tax Laws out of compassion for this party. Actually, they most certainly won't take certori of it. There simply is nothing to argue.....he gets 165 relief, but not as a casualty.
Also, while they sometimes find humor and validity in some arguments...and certainly show it in their responses:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19147_5-awesomely-sarcastic-supreme-court-decisions.html
And as is stated here - even when a party acts reprehesibly - "unfortunately the courts are there to declare only what is illegal, not what is merely shitty. The lesson is apparently that the next time you're up against the government, maybe you should hire Superman as your lawyer."
And the Supreme Court is probably part of the whole conspiracy against the destiny that was to make all the SPNG longs successful too....they probably have NSS tatoo's under their robes. Heck as part of the Government....they MUST have a great deal to lose if any SPNG lusa gets something. As you say...it's personal.
Staying to that argument, as it is: That courts just make decisions independently based on what some judge personally feels.....
In this case once again what you felt should happen was not shared by the Judge --- so it didn't.
I guess it's fortunate that it adhere's to all the requirements the courts must follow and he doesn't have to explain doing something else.
In all seriousness...if this guy gets the offer to settle up with only a minor penalty (and interest only at the statute rate)...he should jump on it. At this point the IRS has every legal right and could most certaily collect the treble damages for what is essentially considered a tax protester and tiredsome costly litigation.
And also - in total seriousness....I think the tax rules on this and especially in this instance suck big time.
You did see Penson Financial charged with naked shorting, didn't you?
You did see IIROC go after Canaccord and the stock beneficiaries from Panama, didn't you?
You did see the DOJ fail to achieve any substantial criminal convictions against M&M, didn't you?
Perhaps you also recall that the SEC's Settlement Agreement with the Trustee was DENIED.
Why do you think Cavanagh and Nicolois were allowed to go to Europe? And why were certain defendants from Europe lured into the US, where they were arrested? Do you think those are truly separate actions? Do you think that's the only relevant case that undercover agent worked? Do you think think these actions are unrelated to the IIROC case?
And yet, you say that you are still waiting for one of my "...positions, prognostications or pronouncements to be realized, successful or agreed to and supported by anything of authority."
This case is continuing to unfold. I think we will see a financial recovery for shareholders, to include funds retrieved from Europe. I want to see shareholders receive every penny of compensation they are entitled to receive, by law.
Still waiting for one of your positions, prognostications or pronouncements to be realized, successful or agreed to and supported by anything of authority.
Again, your back with the hidden things only you understand and know.
And everyone is a conspirator...out to get you and the SPNG victims....for some reason its so much fun - and they have so much to gain its worth all th time and effort required of them. Probably the NSS paying them all off too? You know they all are a really well organized crowd.
You have proven your point....YOUR RIGHT ON THAT...EVERYBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU. No one likes any of you. Your too smart and informed....all of you...a danger. SO DON'T MAKE YOURSELF A TARGET ANYMORE AND SACRAFICE FOR THE REST OF US. SIT BACK QUIETLY WAITING FOR THE NAMING OF YOUR RELIEF DEFENDANTS. But please, post again when it happens.
I can only surmise the SEC (who you still refuse to wake up to - and the chorus of others here generally agree with - certainly did what it could to alert and protect investors....and those that heeded the warnings (good decision) when the questions were asked, even before the suspensions were made, before failure to file was announced, etc. bailed out and protected themselves. OK - some maybe after one of those.
Instead - the records show many clearly decided to remain true longs (bad decision)....and take the advice of those that they followed to get in the investment....maybe even taking advantage of that great buying opportunity they were pumping.
And as you said...you know the rules. The tax court (or whichever tribunal it was) doesn't have the legal authority to go contrary to the laws and prior holdings. I gather it diligently inquired about the way the stock got to be owned by the defendant to make sure the decision was in line with the law and all others that abide by it.
Not purchased directly from a Ponzi promoter...not classified as a casualty deduction. No hardship abeyance. Agreeably harsh....but along with the many other qualifications for a stock loss to be taken as a casualty...not at all uncommon for the Tax Code. And as one gets further into the timing and class of income/losses and expenses that are required in the attempt to make taxable income (successful or not) - not even all that wild.
That was a pretty good post, Teflon.
But the bottom line is that Mr. Greenberger was victimized TWICE. First, he was victimized by buying allegedly unregistered shares. Then he was victimized by not being able to claim a theft loss deduction.
The "gracious granting of 3K a year (deduction) against ordinary income" is fine for small investors, like me. But large investors, like Mr. Greenberger, will never realize the full potential of that deduction, and there is nothing gracious about that.
I fully understand the law in this regard, and as you so well outlined. But there is more to it, as it relates to this specific case. However, over the last several months, I have said all that I can about this. The case is still open, and as I repeatedly say, I'm expecting to see dozens of Relief Defendants named.
The thing that really gets me about this specific case is that, unlike the shareholder victimization caused by corporate insiders and the still-unnamed Relief Defendants who should be facing charges, the SEC is solely responsible for Mr. Greenberger's failure to prevail in his effort to claim a theft loss. It was more important to them, and to Attorney General Eric Holder, to scratch a notch in their gunbelt by filing related cases, than it was to see justice for Mr. Greenberger. It's a national disgrace.
No, he wouldn't....and just like always...it ain't that hard.
I'll repeat it a few times more here.
Start with the Law, Rules and Notices from the Government on the topic. And go to the ones on point:
(since well before 1975) To qualify: The investor must have bought the investment directly from a seller that committed fraud under a local law. This leads to a requirement of “reliance” that the investor relied on the fraudulent information when parting with their property. This means that the investor dealt directly with the person committing the fraud, as opposed to purchasing the stock through their broker on the open market. The courts have consistently disallowed theft loss deductions relating to a decline in the value of the stock that was attributable to corporate officers misrepresenting the financial condition of the corporation, even when the officers were indicted for securities fraud or other criminal violations. Paine V. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 736,523 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1975).
So tired of having to repeat and reprove itself - and waste time and resources over the whole concept....with court and political approval the IRS wants to get punitive to anyone obstinate enough to continue after being found trying to do so. (And as a final act of fairness they would always first provide the taxpayer a chance to correct before doing so).
The IRS in Notice 2004-27, 2004-1 C.P. 782 advised taxpayers that the IRS will disallow (and may impose penalties) for theft losses claimed by taxpayers for the decline in market value of their stock caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct of the officers or directors of the corporation that committed the fraud.
If he bought the stock from a broker....NOT DIRECTLY FROM THE PROMOTER...there is no opportunity to claim the loss as a casualty. Period.
Nothing lost intranslation, nothing else that needs to be presented about how he was a victim....And we all agree....all types of terrible illegal theft and things under any number of laws did happen.
The laws also say: to take it as a casualty loss against ordinary income you must have purchased it directly from the promoter...not from a 3rd party or broker.
So did he buy directly from M&M, (or likely from any of the "network" you refer too so often and I suspect only sold to each other)?
No?
Can't take it as a casualty. Regardless of whatever else you may want to present. That is an absolute requirement (like it or not). Bought directly from the (really Ponzi/Madoff type) promoter. Without it, it simply isn't a Casualty Loss against ordinary income.
THERE IS NO ONE DENYING IT WAS A TAX DEDUCTIBLE LOSS...
Nor that it was a theft.
It is a loss....against other stock/investments....and a gracious granting of 3K a year against ordinary income.
Don't try to take it any other way. It isn't cute, clever, or novel. It is directly and explicitly explained and supported by decades of court cases and puts you at risk of not just costs of litigation....but puts you at risk of being assessed a substantial penalty for trying something that has been well explained, and re-explained, and is clear and final. Without having acquired it directly from the promoter, it simply isn't a Casualty Loss against ordinary income.
Whatever other things you say were hidden, not presented, etc are totally irrelevant.
It is, by definition - a tax deductible stock loss. Probably, because some don't read the writing on the wall either and held on too long - a long term one. (The requirements of when a loss MUST be realized, even if not sold, one reason the law also actually require it be considered the last day of the year of the qualifying event....).
Yup. Thats the way it is. And again, all those reviewing his position have denied it. I suspect some of the many other reasons and rules disallowing stock investment losses as casualty were involved too...but this one is enough.
You as always insisting it should be some other way in spite of it all...well it just sounds like another bad decision and gets the corresponding result.
And which way is it? You were arguing how the stock should be allowed to trade....(so you could sell it for hundreds of bucks a share value it has - which would mean this guy has a substantial gain coming if like you he owns some of it to sell)....at the same time your feeling that no stock of value was actually delivered and hence a casualty loss should be granted because....the whole thing was a theft...WOW...your sort of all over the place, don't ya' think?
That's all there is to it.
It seems the SEC should be protecting honest investors from you.
"So to say it was totally worthless is totally incorrect."
No, it's ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
And the Chapter 7 LIQUIDATION bankruptcy that left creditors with losses proves that SPNG was LESS than worthless - it had NEGATIVE WORTH.
"Like the IRS, verifying all tax records submitted to them are correct, the SEC has the same responsibility to verify all information submitted to them is also correct."
!!!LOL!!! REALLY??? The IRS does a FULL tax audit on all individual and business tax returns every year? They check all the receipts for all the deductions - the taxi cab receipts, the restaurant receipts?
Every year? For everyone and every business?
LOLOLOL!!!!
How UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!!! It would take every person in Eurasia and Africa working 20 hour days to do that. The IRS budget would be two-thirds of the world's economy!
Just like the SEC, the IRS relies on voluntary compliance.
The SEC does nott have any way to Czech the boolsheet put ~OUTT by criminals like STEVEN YEHUDA MOSKOWITZ and his imaginary sales invoices from imaginary companies and the fake PRs.
My gosh - does one expect a policeman sitting in the passenger seat of every car to make sure nobody speeds???
"04/01/2016 449 Order on Report of Offender Under Supervision as to Frank Nicolois, endorsed on 448 PROB-12A Report on Offender Under Supervision -- Request to travel to Spain APPROVED. So Ordered by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 4/1/2016. (Carosella, Christy) (Entered: 04/01/2016)."
So I wonder if Frank will be visiting Carolina while he's in Spain. Maybe that's the main purpose of this trip. Cavanagh has already made his European trip.
Could be, well, it's at least possible, that I'm talking about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Carolina
He might have to visit some other countries, too. while he's there, depending on where Cavanagh has already visited.
In a search for a contractor to replace my roof I had 5 estimates provided from 5 different companies. STEVEN MOSKOWITZ of Renovex LLC gave me the best price by over a couple thousand dollars. This was too good to pass on, so I hired Renovex to do the job.
Steve immediately demanded 60% of the cost to be paid upfront. I was hesitant so I told him once the material arrives on site I would give him the 60%. He rudely told me "I am not a bank, and I won't lay out that kind of money." We eventually came to an agreement. The following day, 80% of the material arrived and so I paid him in good faith. That was my second mistake. My first mistake was hiring him in the first place. I was initially promised that the entire job would be completed in 3-5 work days. Over the course of 3 weeks I've heard one excuse after the other. It went from bad weather (which never came) to family emergencies, to sick days (6 in a row, with no communication) This company left my roof unprotected which lead to a semi-major leak in multiple areas of my home. I am currently in the process of filing a claim against his insurance, which I'm beginning to think is fraudulent. I have gotten no where. After over three weeks from the start date they were only competent enough to complete 45% of the job. I had finally had enough of the excuses and contacted Steve. I told him I have no other recourse at this point. I need to hire someone else to complete the job. His response was, "Why didn't you tell me that my workers haven't been there in over 5 days? You are just trying to steal my materials and I will see you in court!" As if I'm responsible for managing his labor force. Save yourself the headache, don't use Renovex LLC for ANYTHING! It was a waste of my time and money in the long run. It was the least professional management I've ever dealt with in my entire life. PLEASE DON'T BE TEMPTED BY THE LOW COST, IT IS A FACADE THAT IS WELL WORTH AVOIDING!
Ross G. and 1 other voted for this review
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |