I went to the hearing knowing what I was trying to accomplish. I also went with two half-inch thick sets of copies of the same documents [one set marked-up with hi-liter for me to talk from and one identical clean set for the interviewer].
You will notice that the two parties are working at cross purposes.

It is nice to know what words legally mean, so I use BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY.

TT: Hi, there!

CI: Are you ready?

TT: Yeah, I guess.

CI: Okay, our offices are opened and the purpose — today is November 6, the year 2000, and the time is approximately seven minutes after 10 AM in the morning. So a purpose of this hearing is to allow you the opportunity to provide any information that you have to prove the Notice of Proposed Assessment that we issued on your 1998 tax return, um, that our Notice is incorrect. So I will, this will begin the purpose. So if you have anything to provide?

TT: Oh, yeah. I have tons of stuff.

CI: Okay.

TT: There’s what I got to provide.

CI: Okay, and what is that, sir?

TT: That’s evidence. That’s documents which need to be part of the record.

CI: Okay. Is that my copy? Okay, I’m glad to be done with that. [Note- I am not certain how this statement should read.]

TT: Yeah.

CI: Okay. Okay, I’ll be more than glad to take a look at it.

TT: I don’t know how the heck you build an evidence record. But as far as I know, you must have to read some of these into the record, one by one and it’s going to take a while.

TT: Oh, yeah. There’s all sorts of things. There’s a good place to start. I’ve gotta apologize ‘cause I’m not real organized.

CI: That’s okay.

TT: Here we go. I guess this is Exhibit One. This is a Statement of Principles of Tax Administration taken from the Franchise Tax Board’s Website: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/other/Mis&Prin.html I guess we call that Exhibit 1?

CI: Okay. What is it that you’re trying to do? I’m not understanding where you’re coming from.

TT: Well, my understanding is that this hearing is to build a record.

CI: This hearing …

TT: The record consists of evidence.

CI: Okay. So what are you, is this, is this part of your proof?

TT: Yeah.

CI: Okay.

TT: Now what it says, on its face, is that, "The purpose of the Franchise Tax Board is to collect the proper amount of tax revenue and perform in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency and fairness. It is the duty of the Franchise Tax Board to carry out that policy by correctly applying the laws enacted by the Legislature and, moreover, to perform this work in a fair and impartial manner with neither a government nor a taxpayer point of view." Can you do that?

CI: Let me just, let me just go back and just remind you that the purpose for this hearing, basically, is for your concern with the numerical aspects of the Notice of Proposed Assessment that we issued.

TT: Yes.

CI: Okay. And going through the law and how the law applies to your case … really, this information you’ve shown me has nothing to do with the numerical aspect of the notice that we issued.

TT: Well, …

CI: We are here to discuss the numerical aspects of the notice.

TT: Yes.

CI: If you believe that this notice that we issued is incorrect as far as the …

TT: I know it is.

CI: - numerical aspects of it, you can prove to me by showing me information that you have to prove that this is incorrect.

TT: Yeah. I cannot do that without laying a background.

CI: Okay.

TT: And I cannot do the background …

CI: If you have any problem with the law as far as how it applies to filing of your return, you have, you know, deal with that with your legislate. It’s not, that’s not why we’re here to discuss.

TT: Oh.

CI: I just want to …

TT: I don’t care.

CI: - say that to you.

TT: Well, I just will start here, then. Oh, are we going to enter this into the record or not?

CI: If you have any documentation for me to look at, you can …

TT: Okay.

CI: - give it to me and I’ll take it home.

TT: That is …

CI: That’s what …

TT: - Exhibit 1.

CI: Okay.

TT: This, I guess, is going to become Exhibit 2. This is from the Internet. It’s a BAP Opinion, which apparently is Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. It’s a case of James Ellett versus Gerald Goldberg [Note: Goldberg v. Ellett, 243 Bankruptcy Reporter 741, (BAP 09 1999):], who happens to be the Director of the Franchise Tax Board. I would say that, on the basis of this particular case, Gerald Goldberg and hence you, assuming you are working through his authority, has completely forfeited any kind of presumption of correctness or presumption of good faith or anything else, because it looks to me, from reading this case, that the Franchise Tax Board seems to be willing to violate even Federal law! So whatever your presumption of good faith is, is gone. Now, this document consists of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight pages. We will enter it into the record as my Exhibit 2, and there is your copy. I guess we probably should go to the Constitution. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve been acting under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. This is the most recent edition that I have. I realize it’s been superceded. Now, apparently most of the state agencies that I’ve had contact with seem to take the position that the Constitution doesn’t apply to anything. Well, okay, that’s fine, I guess. Except that the State Senate publishes this thing every two years. There must be a reason. I don’t know what it is, but they must have a reason. So, this is the front cover, reads Constitution of the United States, Constitution of the State of California, 1879, as last amended to November 5, 1996, published 1997-98. This consists of three pages which I consider relevant. Page 2 is Article I of the State Constitution, which says, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying, defending life and liberty, acquiring possessions and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy." That’s Article I, Section 1. Article I, Section 24 says, "Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution," and in a later part, "This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny (rights) others retained by the people." So, as far as I’m concerned, that’s the governing document.

CI: Mr. Thornhill?

TT: Yes, ma’am.

CI: We, you know, so far, we’ve –like … We’ve been at least 10 minutes into the hearing and you haven’t really shown me anything besides the tax laws that you’ll, you know, is the Constitution documents you providing to me, which has nothing to do with your case.

TT: I think …

CI: As I said before at the beginning of the hearing, this is regarding the numerical aspects of your Notice of Proposed Assessment for tax in 1998.

TT: Yes.

CI: If you have any problem with the law, you need to discuss that with your Legislature.

TT: Well, I guess we’ll go over here then [reachs for document].

CI: Did you file a tax return for the tax year 1998?

TT: I didn’t have to.

CI: And why?

TT: Well, because I read it.

CI: You read what?

TT: The tax return.

CI: You read the tax return?

TT: Yeah.

CI: What do you mean you read the tax return?

TT: I read the tax return.

CI: Did you receive any income in 1998?

TT: Nope.

CI: How did you support yourself in 1998?

TT: Okay, here is a copy of the tax return you guys sent. It’s a little old, it’s a little beat-up, but it’s the original, right?

CI: That is correct.

TT: Okay.

CI: You didn’t answer my question. Did you receive any income in 1998, Mr. Thornhill?

TT: Wait. Practice patience. This is your copy, which I guess is going to be, what, Exhibit 4? That sound right? Come on, you gotta help me out here. This is Exhibit 4. A, B, C, D, E, F, consisting of the front cover of the tax return which we’ve agreed is the original, right? … Hello?

CI: Sir, if you have any documents, describe it and put your document here; I will look at it.

TT: Have you got some idea that this is supposed to take a certain amount of time?

CI: No, but we don‘t have anything, any proof that you’re providing so far.

TT: Okay. I repeat, I cannot provide you with proof without providing a background. You guys sent this [540 Tax booklet] to me, right? I’m supposed to rely on it, right? … Hello? Yes or no. Come on, this is not hard.

CI: Did you receive any income in 1998? You’re still very evasive in answering the question! Did you or did you not receive any income in 1998?

TT: Christy — yes or no?

CI: What is yes or no?

TT: Yes or no. Am I supposed to rely on this thing which says California 540A and 540EZ…

CI: That is your tax return, uh, tax form for your return for 1998 that you were supposed to fill your return and file with Franchise Tax Board.

TT: Okay. Now, I’m supposed to rely on it, right?

CI: I don’t know exactly what you mean, what are you supposed to rely on?

TT: I’m supposed to treat it as true and I’m supposed to follow the directions.

CI: That is correct.

TT: Okay. Well, here’s your copy, marked Exhibit 4.

CI: Just put all those copies there. Just put all of them in one stack.

TT: Oh, I guess … I got this probably some time between December ’99, no, December ’98 and probably February or March of ‘99, right? I mean, I didn’t mark it up so I don’t know for sure.

CI: Okay.

TT: But that’s when it should have come out. So I sat down with my Federal form and filled it out. (I actually didn’t fill it out; I looked it over.) Now, page 4 says, "Do I have to file?" And what it says on line 1 in sort of a little block is that on 12/31/98 I was on _____[?]____ status gross income, adjusted gross income. Now, as far as I know, I used the first line which was Single including divorced and legally separated, filing status single, California gross income $10,623, California adjusted gross income $8,498. And there are all sorts of little footnotes. Footnote 1 says, "California gross income is all income you received in the form of money, goods, property and services from all sources that is not exempt from tax, including any gain on the sale of your home even if you exclude or postpone part or all of the gain. Gross income does not include any adjustments or deductions." Footnote 2 says, "California adjusted gross income is your Federal adjusted gross income from all sources, reduced or increased by all California income adjustments." Okay. So, presumably, if I don’t have either California gross income or California adjusted gross income, either equal to or above those amounts, I don’t have to file. Right?

CI: I’m listening to what you’re saying.

TT: Now then … page 7 …

CI: So what you’re …

TT: Page 7 of this booklet says, "Federal adjusted gross income. Double check that you’ve correctly transformed, transferred, your Federal adjusted gross income from your Federal TeleTax tax record, line H or Form 1040EZ, line 4 or Form 1040A, line 18 or Form 1040, line 33." Okay. So I did that. The next section says, "Attachments to your Form. W-2, W2G and 1099R. Make sure to staple all the forms (W2, W2G and 1099R) you receive to the front of your return where it says, ‘Attach copies of your Forms W2 here’." Well, since I didn’t work for anybody in ’98, I didn’t have any W-2s. Since I wasn’t paid by anybody as a contractor in 1998, I don’t have any 1099Rs. So, page 10 says, …

CI: You didn’t work in 1998, you said?

TT: Nope. Now, page 10 says, "Attach your Forms W-2 to your return. You must attach Copy 2 of all Forms W-2 to the front of your return. If you did not receive your Forms W-2 by January 31, 1999, contact your employer. Only your employer can give or correct a W-2." Well, since I didn’t have an employer, there aren’t any W-2s.

CI: Did you receive a 1099?

TT: Nope. "If you cannot get a copy of your Form W-2, you must complete Form FTB 3525, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage & Tax Statement, or Form 1099R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc. See ‘Order Forms’ on the back cover." Well, as far as I know, I didn’t get a distribution from pension, I didn’t get an annuity, I have a retirement with the State which amounts to something ridiculous like seventy-eight bucks.

CI: You have a retirement.

TT: Yeah, yeah.

CI: So you received retirement income from state.

TT: No.

CI: From, you did say from state.

TT: Well, the retirement is with the Department of Personnel Administration. The Part-time, Seasonal and Temporary Employees Deferred Compensation Program, more or less. It’s called the PST Plan. I have already determined and have a formal determination from the Office of Administrative Law, that since 1992, that Plan has held my money illegally. That is not my problem; that is a determination from the Office of Administrative Law. So whether I count that as income or not, I don’t know.

CI: So, but you did receive income from that.

TT: Don’t be ridiculous. Thirty-three to thirty-eight cents a month.

CI: You have, um, do they issue a form at the end of the year? Because if any company pays or agency pays income, they’re supposed to issue you a form, at the end of the year.

TT: Wait, I’m thinking. Last thing I remember getting was a statement.

CI: A state …?

TT: A statement. A statement of account. It probably came in something like late August, early September of ’99. It’s in the car, but they didn’t distribute anything, so …

CI: You received a statement. What was, what were, the contents of the statement?

TT: Um, it’s a, it’s a month-by-month accounting of interest paid, and it’s averaging thirty-three cents to thirty-seven or thirty-eight cents per month.

CI: They paid you 38¢.

TT: Yeah. Whoopee-doo, huh!

CI: A month.

TT: And so, as far as I know, it’s sitting in there collecting more interest.

CI: And, this is on your retirement account, you said?

TT: No, this is on a bogus PST, acquired by procuration, adhesion, or something, account for the one week out of the year that I worked for the State in 1992. It took me six and a half years to get a determination from the Office of Administrative Law that this plan was bogus from the inception, which means, if anything, that …

CI: Let me, let me understand what you’re saying. Let me understand what you’re …

TT: - they accidentally created a trust in my favor by stealing my money from my pay check. That’s what the Civil Code says, and that’s what the letter I wrote them says, and that’s tough because I didn’t do it. Questions?

CI: Yes, I do have a question for you, sir. Sir, you did receive retirement income in 1998; however, it was like 38 cents a month they were paying you?

TT: Tops.

CI: What do you mean, tops?

CI: It was …

TT: - 32, 33 cents.

CI: About 38 cents.

TT: Don’t try to pump it up. It fit in the range of 32 to 38 cents.

CI:Thirty-two to thirty-eight cents.

TT: Which cranks out to something ridiculous like, what, four dollars, per year? Gee whillikers, that’s a great rate of return and it’s a hell of a lot of income. But it’s still a bogus account The PST Plan account in my name is, at best, an effort to rip me off or it’s bogus. Now, according to the California Government [should be Civil] Code, the Department of Personnel Administration, by taking my money from my paycheck in the first place (this was in 1992), created a involuntary trust against themselves in favor of me, which means if you even think about touching that money, which is the entirety of, something like 77 dollars at this time, we will have a problem. Don’t even think about it.
And now we get to, what is is, Form 540EZ C1, 1998, page 1. It says, "Step 3. Taxable Income. State wages from your Form 32, box 17." Well, I didn’t have any. "Item 12B. Federal adjusted gross income from your TeleFile tax return, line H on your Form 1040EZ, line 4 or your Form 1040A, line 18 or your Form 1040, line 33." And I still didn’t have any! The problem I get to is, by this time I know that the Feds at least, and probably California, have said that filing a zero return is frivolous! However, by the time I get to line 16, it tells me to enter zero. So, to avoid the frivolous penalty or the frivolous returns penalty, and because I didn’t have any income (except maybe the four dollars and something), I didn’t file the damn thing because the instructions told me I didn’t have to. And, as far as I’m concerned, that should have been the end of it. The State should have said, "Oh, well, he didn’t file a return; he must not have to." I mean, I’m supposed to be presumed competent. I’m supposed to know what I’m doing. But what the law says is …

CI: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Thornhill?

TT: Sure.

CI: You said, in 1998 you received about 32-38 cents.

TT: No.

CI: A month.

TT: No. I said that the statement says that the PST Plan, whatever it is, wherever it is, …

CI: What does PST stand?

TT: I already told you that. Part-time, Seasonal, Temporary employees of the State of California, administered by the Department of Personnel Administration. What the statement said was that they credited somewhere between 32 and 38 cents a month to my deferred compensation. Whoopee-doo. I haven’t gotten my deferred compensation; it’s still sitting in the PST Plan, which is still, as far as I know, administered by the Department of Personnel Administration. However, the last return [should be statement] I got, which is for (statement I got), it’s postmarked from Connecticut. From Hartford, Connecticut, as a matter of fact. So how the State can be administering it, I swear to you I do not know.

CI: Did you have any source of, any other source of income in 1998?

TT: You have a one-track mind, don’t you? No! I do not have a trust, at least none I’ve ever set up that I know of. I do not have an annuity. I do not own any stocks. I do not own any bonds. God only knows what else I do not ...

CI: How did you support yourself in 1998?

TT: I didn’t. My parents supported me. Now, whether it’s a loan that they’re never going to be able to recover, or whether it’s a gift, it’s not your concern. It’s not going to become your concern. Okay? Your job is to correct, collect the proper amount of tax due. I did not owe any tax. I have a bad back. There’s lot of things I can’t do. I have a bad ankle. There’s lots of things I can’t do. It hurts to walk. Every damn step. I am not going to be shook down by the Franchise Tax Board anymore because I have a stack of paper here, citing laws including your own codes, and the Code of California Regulations, which says that even if I made tons of money, I still don’t owe you any.

CI: Do you have any other information to provide at this time?

TT: Yes, ma’am, I do.

CI: Okay. Please do so at this time so that we can …

TT: [speaking at same time]

CI: [speaking at same time] conclude, conclude the hearing.

TT: [Mumbling while searching through papers] You’ll like that one. _____[?]____ shuffle paper. You might like this one. This is from the Revenue and Taxation Code of 2000, Section 21021. "If any officer or employee of the Board recklessly disregards board-published procedures (which is that [Exhibit 1]), a taxpayer aggrieved by that action or admission may bring an action for damages against the State of California in Superior Court." We’ll enter that. Oh, by the way. As far as I can tell, with your denial of my request for discovery, which as far as I can tell I’m entitled to, this whole thing is probably not a meaningful hearing in the first place. So I will enter it into the record as an objection. Because — no, ma’am, I don’t intend to make this easy. Now, what this one says, this is from Volume 2 California Taxes, Second Edition, 1996, published by the Continuing Education for the Bar. And what it had to say on franchise and corporation income taxes on page 238, under Section 4.115 entitled, "B. Oral Hearing on Protest." "A hearing will be conducted by a hearing officer of the Franchise Tax Board. This person is generally an auditor but may be an attorney if the legal problems are sufficiently complicated. Testimony is not taken under oath." Well, are you an auditor?

CI: Yes, I am.

TT: What are your qualifications?

CI: I’m a tax auditor.

TT: Are you a CPA?

CI: I’m not a CPA. I’m a tax auditor. I’m just a tax auditor.

TT: Are you an attorney?

CI: I’m not an attorney.

TT: Do you have any capability of making any determination whatsoever?

CI: Yeah, I have the training on what conducting protests.

TT: Where’d it come from; who’s trained you?

CI: Sir, that’s not part of this hearing. As I said before, if you do not have any other information to provide …

TT: Okay. Objection.

CI: We’ve been here almost 45 minutes and so far you haven’t really provided me with any evidence. In 1998, you did not file the return.

TT: I did not have to file …

CI: 2000.

TT: … a return.

CI: In the year 2000, we wrote you and demanded that you file the return. When you did receive that, uh, letter for demand to file the return. If you are not required to file the return, you would have replied to our letter stating, "This is the facts. I’m not supposed to file a return because I didn’t receive income up to a threshold." You refused to do that and then we issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment.

TT: Excuse me. Most of those statements …

CI: You didn’t …

TT: Excuse me! Most of those statements are inaccurate.

CI: What’s inaccurate?

TT: [sigh] Uh. I happen to have copies of every letter that I sent to the Franchise Tax Board concerning this matter, including the one from December 31, 1999, which, as far as I’m concerned, is where this started. (Actually, it started with you guys mailing the return.) Now. That’s an interesting position, I’ll grant you that, but it’s not …

CI: Do you have a occupational license?

TT: Pardon?

CI: Do you have an occupational license? This is a copy of the letter that I wrote you on October 26th.

TT: Okay.

CI: And I did inform you in that letter that our notice was based on the fact that you did have an occupational license from the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services.

TT: Yes, that’s true, but irrelevant.

TT: Yes, I’m aware of that.

CI: Okay.

TT: Now, what the law says is that you have been willfully and knowingly and deliberately, for a long time, misinterpreting the law. It’s always in favor of the Franchise Tax Board. It’s always against the taxpayer. I’m tired of being always wrong. Thank you very much. So I am attempting to establish a record …

CI: You know, as a taxpayer, you do have the right, you have the right…

TT: Excuse me … I am attempting to establish a record here. That record proves, at least to me, that, one, you did not have the right to send the original form 1040 [should be 540], according to your own regulations. Anything that follows from that is bogus, or everything that follows from that is bogus. Now, you guys have cost me a lot of time and a lot of effort and I bitterly resent it. I am going to establish a record. I’m going to establish a record that is going to give people heart attacks. But you guys started it. Do you understand that? Can you respect that? As far as I am concerned, you are deliberately interfering with my efforts to establish a record. Now, under Witkin [9 CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE 4th, p. 1102, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, Section 52] under Due Process, it says that it’s my responsibility to establish a record.

CI: So far you haven’t provided me with any information, and we’ve been here 45 minutes into the hearing!

TT: So what! We can be here for the rest of the day, and then we can continue it tomorrow. And then we can continue it the next day until I establish a record to my satisfaction.

CI: Sir.

TT: Do you have a problem with that?

CI: Yes, I do have a problem with that, and I will…

TT: What is the problem?

CI: I … will explain to you. I have explained to you [sigh] at the initial ___[?]____ in the beginning of this protest …

TT: Yes?

CI: The purpose is to discuss the numerical aspects of the NPA.

TT: No. That is your position.

CI: If you disagree …

TT: The purpose is to establish a record.

CI: If you don’t allow me to speak…

TT: Yes, and I have the same problem. [two people speaking at once]

CI: … none of us will understand the prob, uh, what’s going on here.

TT: Okay, continue.

CI: If you have any information to give me so I can look at it…

TT: I am …

CI: … I can go home and look at that information.

TT: I am attempting to do that.

CI: Okay. As a taxpayer, you do have the right that if we do not, uh, on this information you’ve provided, if we still recommend for some ___[?]____ or proposed assessment after the hearing, you still have the opportunity to file with the Board of Equalization.

TT: Well, I’ve already done that and, as far as I’m concerned, from the last hearing at the Board of Equalization, the facts are not substantially different, so I don’t really know what the heck we’re doing here. I’m almost tempted to start treating the darn thing as, uh, plain old harassment.

CI: What do you mean, the facts are not the ___[?]____. You attended a hearing in prior years?

TT: Yeah, and there aren’t any substantial facts and basically I got a hearing from the Franchise Tax Board, no, a hearing before the Board of Equalization, as a result of which hearing [http://www.oocities.org/tthor.geo/boe.html] the Franchise Tax Board withdrew their claim for that particular year. And as far as I can tell, the facts are the same as they were that year and I really don’t see that it’s gonna get any different!

CI: Is that your information?

TT: What information?

CI: Do you want me to take this home?

TT: Yes.

CI: Take it back to the office?

TT: Yes.

CI: Okay.

TT: And I want to add some more, too. On your — let’s see — this is from the Internet. This is Revenue Taxation Code Section 19501 through 19533 from the Website http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./cig-bin/displ…n=rtcdgroup=19001-20000&file=19501-19533 which I guess we will enter as Exhibit 7. Consists of one, two, three, four, five pages. Now …

CI: Put it over there.

TT: Okay. Now then, let the record show that that was refused. Now, what section 19501, which I think is from an official government Website, says is, "The Franchise Tax Board shall administer and enforce Part 10, commencing with Section 17001, Part 10.7, commencing with Section 21001, Part 11, commencing with Section 23001 and this part.
This section, 19503(a) says, "The Franchise Tax Board shall prescribe all rules and regulations necessary for the enforcement of Part 10commencing with Section 17001, Part 10.7, commencing with Section 21001, Part 11, commencing with Section 23001 and this Part and may prescribe the extent to which any ruling including any judicial decision or other administrative determination other than by regulation, shall be applied without retroactive effect."
Now then, this is from Barclays California Code of Regulations. It says, in Chapter 2.6, Administration of Franchise and Income Tax, want to change it? [CI’s recorder stops, CI turns tape over] Subchapter 2 under Returns, Article 1, Individuals and Fidiciaries. Now, this is the regulation that the Franchise Tax Board has adopted, claiming the authority of Section, Revenue and Taxation Code 19503, and they are returns by married couples, return by guardians —whoops— section or … California Code of Regulations Section, Title 18, Section 18501 is returns of married couples. Title 18, California Code of Regulations, Section 18505-1 is fiduciary returns. Title 18, California Code of Regulations, Section 18505-2 is return by guardian or committee. Title 18, California Code of Regulations, Section 18505-3 is return by receiver. Title 18, California Code of Regulations, Section 18505-4 is time for filing returns of decedent and returns for year in which an estate is closed or trust terminated. Title 18, California Code of Regulations, Section 18522-18531 is joint returns after filing separate returns. And Title 18, California Code of Regulations, Section 18566, time for filing returns. And that’s all! It doesn’t seem to, anywhere, mention that a return is required for a single person or single people or a single man or single anything else, unless that person happens to be a fiduciary which, as far as I know, I’m not, or a guardian, which as far as I know, I’m not. Or the receiver of all property of an individual who is a resident of this state and, as far as I know, to be a receiver you have to be appointed by a court and, as far as I know, I haven’t. I’m also not acting as the agent or representative or whatever for a decedent. It looks to me like, from Section 18501 [C.C.R.], that the only people that the Franchise Tax Board has claimed to have any taxing authority over, is married couples and various people acting in some sort of representative capacity. So, I have to conclude that you probably didn’t have the authority to send me the 505 [should be 540] in the first place! __[?]__. Now, the Franchise Tax Board has apparently taken the position that, because I am supposedly licensed by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services of the State of California that …

CI: Is that your license?

TT: No, that’s a photocopy.

CI: A photocopy of your license.

TT: It’s a photocopy of a license. (Now I’ve gotta find your copy. Oh, there.) Okay, and I guess this is Exhibit 8. This is a photocopy of a license card, issued by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, which says on its face, Guard Registration. It was issued in the name THOMAS M. THORNHILL III. It is endorsed "without prejudice". This is from Business and Professions Code 2000, Section 7582.1, which says that "a private patrol operator or operator of a private patrol service within the meaning of this chapter is a person other than an armored contract carrier who, for any consideration whatsoever, agrees to furnish or furnishes a watchman, guard, patrol person or other person to protect persons or property or to prevent the theft, unlawful taking, loss, embezzlement, misappropriation or concealment of any goods, wares, merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, notes, documents, papers or property of any kind or performs a service of a watchman, guard, patrolman or other person for any of these purposes."
Section 7582.1(e),"A security guard or security officer within the meaning of this chapter is an employee of a private patrol operator or an employee of a lawful business or public agency who is not exempted pursuant to Section 7582.2., who performs the functions as prescribed in subdivision (a) on or about the premises owned or controlled by a customer of a private patrol opeerator or by guard employer or in a company of persons being protected." Well, that’s what I think I am licensed or registered as. So under 7582.1 of the Business and Professions Code for 1982 —good morning— for the year 2000, which is the most current one, I am supposedly a security guard, certainly what the piece of paper says.
From the Business and Professions Code 2000, Section 7582.3, "Unless specifically exempted by Section 72, cancel that, 7582.2, no person shall engage in the business of private patrol operator as defined in Section 7582.1" (which we just read) "unless that person has applied for and received his license to engage in that business pursuant to this chapter —that’s what it says. Now, from Barclays again. Barclays California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 6, which is the regulations adopted by the State agency for the governance of guards. Private security, Article 6 reads, "Private security services, alarm company operators, guards, patrol persons, alarm agents, parentheses (and installer/responders). Section 625, Definitions: "For purposes of this article, licensee means a private patrol operator or an alarm company operator." Subsection (b), "For the purposes of this article, ‘guard or registrant’ means a uniformed employee of a private patrol operator, alarm agent, or alarm company operator, and any person employed or compensated by the private patrol operator or in a lawful business as a security guard and who, in the course of such employment, carries a deadly weapon." Well, my conclusion from this is that, according to the regulations adopted by the State, I am, at best, registered as a guard or registrant and not licensed at all! So I have to assume the Franchise Tax Board has, again, knowingly and willfully, misinterpreted the regulations and laws of this state in order to create some sort of taxable entity. Well, that’s fine and dandy, I guess. But I don’t consent to that. I was not employed for 1998 as a security guard; I did not receive any income as a security guard; and you cannot prove otherwise!
Now, what, there’s a nifty little case called Wertin … ah, yeah [pause for looking for something]. This is a case called "Wertin vs. the Franchise Tax Board." It is cited as 68 California Appellate Reporter 4th…

CI: Mr. Thornhill.

TT: Section, or page 961. Please do not interrupt me. On page 974, "The rationale for such a decisional constraint is to provide some grounding for the Franchise Tax Board’s calculations of the taxpayer’s tax liability. And the plain meaning of these statutes is to build the taxpayer’s tax return, upon the definition of deficiency to prevent the kind of haphazard resort to arbitrary outside sources and inaccurate deficiency computations as in this case.

CI: [Stands, goes to rear door, speaks to unidentified male.]

TT: … … You back? Hello, are you back?

CI: Sure. Mr. Thornhill?

TT: Yes, ma’am.

CI: As I said before, you haven’t really provided me with any information, and I cannot continue sitting here looking at these documents that is … [end of my tape]

[Approximately 5-7 minutes missing at end of the hearing. This was the first time I had ever used that recorder all the way to the end of one side and I did not realize that it did not have an auto-stop feature to it. Hearing ended at 11:12 a.m., by CI’s watch.]

I Certify, under the penalty for Perjury in the law of the United States of America and of California, that I (1) cut-and-pasted this transcript from the transcriptionist's HTML edition on disk and removed much of the redundant HTML coding; (2) compared this printed transcript with the original audio tape recording twice by reading the transcript while I simultaneously listened to the tape; and (3) believe the transcript to be as true and accurate as I can make it.

Signature: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III.