57.
Pro Se Plaintiff, “Louis Charles
Hamilton II”, Co-Plaintiff(s) “United States of America” et al, and
Co-Plaintiff “State of Texas” et al, herein “Declare”, State, and Affirm
furtherance’s before the “Honorable U.S. Justice” in that within Co-Plaintiff “United
States of America” et al Jurisdiction Namely
California
has adopted a new "doing business" standard beginning 1/1/2011
which will impact taxpayers, including corporations, pass-through entities and
their owners. Owners of
pass-through entities that did not have nexus before, may
have nexus starting in 2011. Companies that are protected
by P.L. 86-272, may be liable for the minimum tax.
For taxable years
beginning on or after 1/1/2011, a taxpayer is doing business in California if
it actively engages in any transaction for the purpose of financial or
pecuniary gain or profit in California or if any of the following conditions are satisfied:
- The taxpayer is organized or commercially domiciled
in California.
- Sales, as defined in subdivision (e) or (f) of
R&TC 25120, of the taxpayer in California, including sales by the
taxpayer’s agents and independent contractors, exceed the lesser of
$500,000 or 25 percent of the taxpayer's total sales. For purposes of
R&TC Section 23101, sales in this state shall be determined using the
rules for assigning sales under R&TC 25135, R&TC 25136(b) and the
regulations thereunder, as modified by regulations under Section 25137.
- Real and tangible personal property of the taxpayer
in California exceed the lesser of $50,000 or 25 percent of the taxpayer's
total real and tangible personal property.
- The amount paid in California by the taxpayer for
compensation, as defined in subdivision (c) of R&TC 25120, exceeds the
lesser of $50,000 or 25 percent of the total compensation paid by the taxpayer.
For the conditions above, the sales, property, and
payroll of the taxpayer include the taxpayer's pro rata or distributive share
of pass-through entities.
"Pass-through entities" means a partnership, an LLC treated as a
partnership, or an "S" corporation.
58.
Pro Se Plaintiff, “Louis Charles
Hamilton II”, Co-Plaintiff(s) “United States of America” et al, and
Co-Plaintiff “State of Texas” et al, herein “Declare”, State, and Affirm
furtherance’s before the “Honorable U.S. Justice” in that
The new law affects out-of-state corporations and pass-through entities
(partnerships, S corporations, LLCs treated as partnership) and their
partners/shareholders/members that have property, payroll or sales in this
state. Currently, they may not be
considered to be doing business in this state, but may be considered doing
business starting in tax year 2011 if they meet any of the thresholds listed
above.
An out-of-state taxpayer that
has less than the threshold amounts of property, payroll and sales in California
may still be considered doing business in this state if the taxpayer actively
engages in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or
profit in California.
In determining their property, payroll and sales in this state, the
taxpayer must also include their pro rata share of amounts from partnerships,
LLCs (treated as partnership) and S corporations. Partnerships and LLCs are considered doing business in this state if it has
general partners or members in this state. Likewise, partners and members are
considered doing business in this state if the partnership or LLC is doing
business in this state.
58.
Pro Se Plaintiff, “Louis Charles Hamilton II”,
Co-Plaintiff(s) “United States of America” et al, and Co-Plaintiff “State of
Texas” et al, herein “Declare”, State, and Affirm furtherance’s before the
“Honorable U.S. Justice More companies,
pass-through entities, and owners of pass-through entities will have nexus and
filing obligations in California.
Even if the taxpayer is protected by
P.L. 86-272, the taxpayer may still owe California's minimum tax. Also,
owners of multiple pass-through entities will have to combine their prorata
share of each pass-through entity's property, payroll and sales. Therefore,
more owners may exceed the filing threshold and have filing obligations.
58.
Pro Se Plaintiff, “Louis Charles
Hamilton II”, Co-Plaintiff(s) “United States of America” et al, and
Co-Plaintiff “State of Texas” et al, herein “Declare”, State, and Affirm
furtherance’s before the “Honorable U.S. Justice” in that
Chief Defendant “Doctor
Dinesh Chandra Khare”, Co-Defendant(s) “Geeta
International” et al, Co-Defendant(s) “Geeta International Legal Division” et
al, “Geeta International Co. Ltd.”, “Geeta
International Inc.”, Co-Defendant(s) GEETA Group LLC et al, Co-Defendant Vipul
Khare, Co-Defendant(s) “Rishu Khare”, Co-Defendant(s) Plk
LLC,
And Co-Defendant(s) “Vijay Khare” Specifically,
“International RICO Racket” to Defraud
“United States of America” as a Whole” in Violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371 with all
(Defendant(s) and Co-Defendant(s) committed to “Conspiracy to commit offense or
to defraud United States” with conspirer against California from the exact time
frame of 1/1/2011 Specifically, as described above in paragraph (57,58, and 59
above) direct (RICO) violations and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts, against
California, to avoid taxes as required in paragraph (57,58, and 59 above)
59.
Pro Se Plaintiff, “Louis Charles
Hamilton II”, Co-Plaintiff(s) “United States of America” et al, and
Co-Plaintiff “State of Texas” et al, herein “Declare”, State, and Affirm furtherance’s
before the “Honorable U.S. Justice” that Co-Defendant “Geeta International et
al” and Co-Defendant “Geeta Export Co. Ltd” kept secret in there combine legal
obligations to
“California” all legal tax obligation since
1/1/2011, to include Co-Defendant(s) Plk LLC took on more shipments and Kilograms
than both Co-Defendant(s) “Geeta International et al” and Co-Defendant “Geeta
Export Co. Ltd” from the time frame of 1/1/2011 throughout June 19th
2015 to avoid paying proper Corporation Federal and state taxes.
Co-Defendant(s)“Geeta International et
al” and Co-Defendant “Geeta Export Co. Ltd” among other (Geeta) kept secret their
physical exact location is in fact “Doctor Dinesh Chandra
Khare” California driver records maintain an address as listed 616 Bourne Ct
Danville CA 94506
Since 1998 in conspire
with Co-Defendant Rishu Khare, Co-Defendant(s) Vijay Khare and Co-Defendant(s) Plk
LLC, while Co-Defendant Rishu Khare, Co-Defendant(s) Vijay Khare herein further
(RICO) Co-Defendant Plk LLC registration for “Domestic” in California, april 14th
2014 with My Perm, My Pinocchio Inc. while owning “Kiddie Academy, with (Company)
Properties Plk LLC “Glendale AZ 85308
While Co-Defendant(s) “Geeta International
et al” and Co-Defendant “Geeta Export Co. Ltd” with Cell-Ph. (936) 900-7650 herein
(Secretly) operating address as listed 616 Bourne Ct Danville CA 94506 since
1998-August 25th 2015 notwithstanding factual Chief Defendant
“Doctor
Dinesh Chandra Khare”,
Co-Defendant Vipul Khare, and Co-Defendant(s) GEETA Group LLC et al, “Geeta Group
LLC” et al herein was not even in official existence, a state of being a legal
LLC with the Jurisdiction of the Co-Plaintiff(s) “State of Texas” et al
Between the exacts same
date of from June 19th 2015 back date to
March 30th 2015 when approximately (28) shipments at 101,211
Kilograms was being smuggling, black-market, bootleg,
under the counter, shipped into the Co-Plaintiff(s) “United
States of America” et al Jurisdiction. ” Specifically,
“International RICO Racket” to Defraud “United States of America” as a Whole”
in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
“Cmdr. Bluefin”
(USN) 18 U.S.C. § 371 “Sherlock
Holmes” case of:
“The Crooked Three Spotted Cheetah” J
No comments:
Post a Comment