The Illegal Trust Tax Scam All Over Social Media

Hey, guys. Toby Mathis here. And today I'm going to be talking with John Strohmeyer an attorney that, we both been kind of active with some of these folks online that are pitching this illegal trust scheme in TikTok and Instagram and, and YouTube, and we both deal with the fallout of the folks that actually listen to these folks. So first off, welcome John. Toby, great to be here. Thanks for having me on. Yep. And we are going to be going over everything from what are these schemes.

The 643 trust the hey, I don't have to pay tax on it. What the ultra rich do and never pay tax, which isn't true. But we're going to go over what it is, what 643 actually deals with why they're misinterpreting it. And when they say, hey, you don't have to pay tax, what they're actually misinterpreting and how that works, we're going to go over, what the IRS is doing about it, because John and I both have experience with the IRS on these, and we've seen we'll show you kind of what happens to people when this happens, not just to the promoter, but to the people that actually engage in the transaction. And we'll finish it off. If you know anybody who's been doing this, or if you've ever heard one of these things, A put it in the comment and B share this video with them so that they don't make a mistake that comes back, to ruin their life later. And so if that's good, we're going to dive right on in. So good. For people who are hearing about this the first time, what is this? 643 trust. And what are promoters claiming that it does?

So the 643 is referring to Internal Revenue Code section 643, which deals with definitions that are part of income trust taxation. And it can also be called non grantor complex your revocable spendthrift discretionary trusts or some combination of that. The short version is people think that by putting this magic trust into place, they don't have to pay any income tax on a variety of things. And kind of depends on who the promoter is. Sometimes it's no income on anything. Sometimes they just dial it into. It's really just dividends and capital gains that you're not going to be taxed on. The short version is it's a too good to be too, true tax scheme where people aren't paying tax when they should be paying taxes. Well, let's break it down. So they're doing this big old pitch and they're saying, hey, under certain code provisions and they're pointing to 643, which I'll pull up here in a second. They're saying, hey, there's these cool things where, hey, if you allocate it to corpus, you don't have to pay tax if it's, you know, so if it's capital gains, you sell a house, you sell some real estate somehow that now we don't have to pay tax on it at all, including the trust or any of the beneficiaries. And, if we just call something extraordinary dividend, I've seen them do this where they have the trust held by or a business held by the trust, and then they go, oh, if that business makes money, then you don't have to pay tax on it, because we're going to call it an extraordinary dividend. And they do it all under this code provision. Actually, let me pull that code provision up so people can actually see it. Yeah. And kind of go through it. Yeah. They're looking specifically at 643 B where there are two sentences and they focus in on that second sentence that says, well, if the item of gross income that are extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends or

you know, if the trustee or if the fiduciary determines that it should be applicable to corpus, well, then it's not going to be considered income. What they skip over is the sentence for that says income. If it's not preceded by the words know specifically here taxable taxable, then they're talking about what is a concept called fiduciary accounting income. problem. And where we get this confusion is it's a similar system for talking about what comes in. But it is distinct from taxable income. And the way I think about it is we've got a two by two grid. When we have a fiduciary dealing with income tax, there's taxable income, which it's just like you and me as individuals stuff we receive a year. We're going to pay income tax on that the following year. Fiduciary accounting income is less concerned with taxable income. And it's allocating between just what's available for current distributions to current beneficiaries and what's being held for remainder beneficiaries. And yeah go ahead. No I'm just going to say it just so people can follow the trust makes money. And under this subpart it's saying what portion is going to be included in distributable net income that that's going to be taxable to the beneficiaries. So let's say John you know let's use an example. Let's say that John has a client that sets up a trust and there's a beneficiary. And every year the trust makes money. And it's a maybe it's a simple trust where it just has to allocate all the income to the beneficiary. Or perhaps it's a complex where it's either the trust or the beneficiary is going to receive it. But this is basically saying this code provision is like, hey, for simple trusts, we're going to let you allocate it to the trust corpus and pay tax on the trust. And not to the beneficiary because the trust kept it, which is this is what's kind of weird, right? When you have a simple trust, isn't it, that the beneficiary has to receive that income. Right. Simple trust. You know, every time I give a talk to other professionals about this, I always ask if anybody's done a simple trust return. And usually it's a no. That's their too complicated to hit the target to be a simple trust. And so nobody really does it anymore. But yeah, essentially all the income has to go out to the beneficiary every year. And then they pay income tax. And so when this provision and I'll put it back up here just for a second. So when we're looking at this provision and it's talking about these different types of income sub charts, you know the subpart we are talking about is this being allocated to the beneficiary and taxable to the beneficiary automagically. Or can we keep it in the trust itself and let the trusts pay tax on it. Right. And that's really all we're talking about. But they misconstrue it and say oh it's not taxable because it's not included in this definition of distributable net income. Is that accurate. That's about the way that they are describing it. It's accurate in yes that's what they say. But no it's not accurate for not getting you in trouble with the IRS. Yes. And that's the thing. You know the underlying justifications of why they think it works varies. You know sometimes it's well it's not income therefore it's not taxable income. I did see one recently where they said, well, because fiduciary concepts are much older than the internal Revenue Code, then that has to come first. And the reality is doesn't matter first or second because they're coming, they're both being determined. And then you put them together for a concept, who that tax gets allocated distributable net income. But yeah. It's just we're going to have to run through both of them there. It's not one after the other. It's you determine each and then use those to determine the result of who pays tax. And I want to pull up I mean I'm going to find the rag here. So I'm going to pull up the rag here. And this is law because this is one of the arguments you get from these folks is that, hey, the plain language of the statute says it's not included all in taxable income and it's not included in income for purposes of distributable net income. So it's not taxable. The beneficiary doesn't mean it's not taxable to the trust. And then they always say well the plain language. And the IRS misinterpreted it. And the courts you know they always back us up. Well no it's actually law here. We have a rag. And I think it's pretty clear here I highlighted the distributions of principal as being paid from capital gains realized

during the year. Therefore the capital gains realized during the capital year are not included in distributable net income, which is what the statute says. It's not included in DNI and the $10,000 of capital gains tax to the trust. And this is a case where they allocated it the capital gains to corpus. And so when they say we allocated it to corpus and therefore it's not taxable, that is not true. They allocate it to corpus and therefore it's not taxable. As distributable net income is true. But that does not mean that it is not taxable. Is that fair. I mean yeah, I guess to kind of sum it up in one word or one sentence in a given year it's going to be taxable to somebody, whether it's the trustee, because it's either held in the trust or excluded from DNI, or it's taxable to the beneficiary because it was included in DNI and then distributed with the beneficiary, somebody paying tax on it in a year. There's no deferral. There's no nontaxable option right now. Let's go over a few of these folks online. And I'm just going to pull up our you know we have different names for these folks. But I'm going to pull up a few people. I call them cowboy hat guy. Let's listen to what he has to say. Why don't more people operate out of trusts? Short answer is because they don't know how. Some explain it in three steps. First thing to set up a non grantor irrevocable discretionary complex and spendthrift trusts. Second, so 95% of your LLC not a C or S corp to the trust. As a non officer. Third drive all the income into the LLC and pay the trust via K-1 distributions. Just like that the trust offered 95% of the taxes in perpetuity. Why don't more okay John

what the heck is he saying here and in for the folks that are listening, understand how this is going to interplay with what we just talked about. Right. And so here he spelled it out the non conflict you know non grantor complex irrevocable spendthrift discretionary trust hit in the words. That's you saying that again. Again we're going to put everything in here. Or 95% of it I don't know why he was holding back on 5%. But there we are. But presuming that you can then get yourself into a trust and then not pay any tax on it, it's not going to work that way. The other thing that comes up is, well, how do you get it in there? You sell your LLC? Well they're calling this a non brain for trust. But the reality is because this is someone where the economic substance hasn't changed between, you know, whoever the person is creating the trust and the trust like you're still in control, you're still making, changes. That's a grant or trust. And so it's going to be what, not recognized for a sale. But the other thing you always see with these sales is we're going to sell it for basis. And that's going to trigger something we really don't have time to talk about, which is part sale and part gift transactions where, you know, something's happened. We have to recognize that for tax purposes. So what is it? And usually it's well, nothing actually happened, right? This is something you just hit on that I want to make sure a lot of practitioners out there going saying, these guys still have control, they're still running things. It's a grant to our trust. So all this is a moot point. And the IRS would probably take that same position. They would look at it and say, you can't just say something as a non grant to our trust to magically sprinkle some fairy dust on it. And now it's nontaxable a that's not true. The trust still pays tax on its income fact it's worst taxed. And you and I it gets up into the high brackets like boom and 15 grand or so. Yeah it is really low before it's in the top brackets. And people don't understand that. But because they misconstrue these provisions on distributable net income and they say it's not distributable net income, therefore it's not taxable income. Those are two very different things and they misconstrue it. And that's what this gentleman is doing. Cowboy hat guy is he's saying hey if you have all that money come into the trust, we're going to call it an extraordinary dividend. And then because it's an extraordinary dividend, it's not taxable. And that is not true. It might be an extraordinary dividend and you might be able to use some tortured theory that profits out of your business or somehow an extraordinary dividend, which is not what an extraordinary dividend is. But let's assume argue. I know that they were correct. It just means that it's taxable to the trust, which is way worse than if you had received it. Right. Which again is that's why this is so nonsensical. But these guys, their response and I know you've had some comments with some of these folks, their responses that the plain language, well, we'll get into the IRS memorandum, etc. and what they say, which you should actually be listening to, and what the law actually says. But there's a rag on it and it's pretty darn clear.

And the fact that a bunch of people have been prosecuted, we'll get into all that later. I want to go over another one. I call him, kind of stoner guy. Let me share this out so you guys can just see. There he is. And I'm going to play his video here as well. Just to be fair, if true, trustee, most people are stuck chasing after income, but what they really need is a trust that holds that income because here's the truth that they will not teach you in school, on YouTube, or even at your CPA's office. Personal income is taxed. Business income, including LLCs and S Corp is taxed. But trust income inside of a properly structured non grantor, irrevocable, discretionary, complex and spendthrift trust can be deferred 100% legally. Let that sink in. The goal is not just to protect your assets. The goal is to convert your personal income and business income into trust income that can be legally deferred. That means that your business no longer pays you personally. It pays the trust you no longer own your LLC. The trust owns it. And because the trust owns everything, it has legitimate trust expenses, which now cover what used to be your personal lifestyle. You become a sovereign trustee. You control the entity, but you've legally relinquished ownership. Remember, ownership is the scam. Ownership is the trap, which means that you step into a new tax category entirely. I'm just going to stop it. There because I don't know, I feel like an orange jumpsuit is just going to chase this guy and he's going to get three hots and a cot and all that fun stuff, but eventually they're going to catch up. But can you just kind of dissect what he just said? There? I mean, I'll start with the reason they don't teach this in school or your CPA office or anywhere else is it's not accurate. You know, like

you're not stepping into a new form of ownership. It's just reallocating and ultimately not only for income taxation. But, you know, he's implying asset protection, benefits as well. These are things where they're saying, look, you're just going to put some paper. We're going to reorganize who owns this, but ultimately you're still the owner. You're in charge. And if you haven't changed the economic reality, the law is not going to recognize whether it's the IRS or your creditors. You have to have meaningfully shifted something. If you sell it, you need to get money back, not just a note that's never paid. Well, I would just go over this. He's saying you can legally defer income. Here's the extraordinary dividend thing under 643, which does not mean what he thinks it means. He's saying, oh, trustee in good faith can call this thing and let me pull that statute back up just because I just these guys kind of drive me nuts sometimes. And I want to make sure I'm showing everybody exactly what the law is here. Well, good. And so let's go. So what they're talking about is this provision right here. And what it says is for purposes only of subpart B, which is a simple trust, which means it's forced to distribute and not distribute, but it's forced to tax all the income to the beneficiaries every year. What it is saying is there shall be excluded from those items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividend dividends or taxable stock dividends, which the fiduciary acting in good faith does not pay or credit to any beneficiary. I just want to point that out, by the way, because he's talking about, hey, you take the profit and then you live off of it. That sounds like the beneficiary received it, but you know, we'll let that go away. But that such dividends are applicable to corpus. And again, this is simply they're allocating it for distributable net income purposes. And now they're saying hey if you're calling it extraordinary dividend, it's not DNI. Therefore it's taxable to the trust. Is that right. That fair. I mean again they're trying to get around by wordsmithing and saying well look it's excluded from income. Well it's excluded from a DNI calculation. And however the interesting part is the next subsection tax exempt interest, where it says there shall be included tax exempt interest. Well, by their logic, then we're going to be paying income tax on tax exempt interest. If we were to follow that kind of follow their, their train of thought there and this is should be kind of signaling to people it was tax exempt interest. But now the trust has to pay tax on it. It's included as a calculation for income. So if it's brighter than it's excluded if it's tax free congratulations. But the IRS still is recognizing that income guys that's all this is saying is who pays the tax. If I am the trust and John is the beneficiary, what they're saying is, hey, how are we allocating the income between Toby, the trust who's in he's paying tax really horribly, and John, who might be getting a little bit of a better deal. But a trustee is sitting there saying, hey, I'm not distributing this out to John. I'm going to keep it in the trust. That means it's taxable to me, not to John. If it's taxable is distributable net income then it's taxable to John. Not to me. That's all it is. It doesn't mean that it's magic. Doesn't mean it's not taxable. It just means that it's, it's that little nuance that these guys never seem to want to look at. Hey, I'm going to play one more, I call her, I shouldn't say what I call her, but she's dispensing some very interesting advice. So let's let let's listen and let her words do all the, the talking. U. S. industries never again pay dividend income taxes on any of your profits again, legally, we dispense with trusts. It's legal. It's in the IRS tax code 643. Be. Personally, I work for a private law firm that was started

77 years ago by a Harvard law professor. He wrote five specific trusts to say specific taxes, beneficial trusts for all investors. You'll no longer pay, dividend income taxes on profits. You'll no longer pay capital gains when you sell something at profit, you'll no longer pay interest income taxes. You're a passive investor. You'll no longer pay rental income taxes. If you're a real estate investor, you'll no longer be royalty income taxes. If you have talent or if you're an NFT world. Now, dividends are taxed just like federal income taxes, between 10% to 37%. In effect, you if you're in the stock market, your day trader, if you just trader during commodities trading, you're living off the dividends. You're going to find out more. Because I know this sounds too good to be true. I have a free masterclass at the trustees. You. com. All right. Let's just stop that. Me again. You know the thought that because it's been categorized as a certain way that a trust will magically allow you to defer, delay, not pay tax now on it. And if it just doesn't work that way, look, having worked for billionaire clients, they would love to not pay taxes on them. This is not something any of them are doing. I would say this because you just hit on something because people say the rich do this. I work with like we do over 10,000 tax returns a year for investors that are wealthy investors. Guess how many people do this? Zero. There's none. And we work with people that are in those circles. You said you had billionaire clients, 100 millionaire clients, probably a lot of very wealthy people. Do you have a single client that has ever done this strategy? No. Yeah. No. And I mean, at this point when clients come in, you know, new clients come in and say, hey, we've got this. It's a we're cleaning this up or we're not working together. It's not a, there's not an option on this. I, you know, I can't be a part of this because it is so far beyond the pay. Yeah, it's funny how that works. And then when you bring that up, that boy, do they get mad. Yeah. And they say, well, you know, you don't know. Here I'm going to put up another thing here. And this is the IRS memorandum that they like to say you can't cite it is precedent because it is a chief counsel memorandum. It is not a court case. It is the IRS literally telling you how they interpret this, you know, this strategy. And they felt so strongly that they wrote, do you want to touch on the memorandum and what it meant? Right. It you're getting it. The first part of I mean, it's explicit on the, you know, sentence one, it's not precedential. It has no precedential value. And nobody who knows what they're doing would say that it's precedent. What it's doing is laying out the precedent that exists both in court cases and how the statutes work. And so they you know, that's usually the first line of attack from them as well. It says you can't fight it's price. Nobody is. You know, it's just like saying, well, just because somebody has laid out the logic, it doesn't mean that particular explanation is precedential. It's you look at what that support is and to walk through like, does it follow along because courts are going to follow this. This is not because it's memo, but because the logic is set. But so what they're setting out and I'm just going to highlight

the summary so people can kind of look at it themselves. But it's they're right out the gate. This memorandum discusses a marketed trust structure that mistakenly interprets 643 of the Internal Revenue Code to remove certain trust income from current taxation. You couldn't be more clear about that. And it says this memorandum describes the structure and explains why it does not provide the claimed benefit. This is the IRS telling you the strategy does not work. So you and then they go and say, but it's not a court case. It is literally the police officer saying, if you spit on that guy, I'm going to call it assault. And you're saying, but the statute, it's it doesn't talk about spit or, you know, whatever it is, it there's an exclusion as to whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony. Right. And they're trying to argue that. And it's like it's still crime, my friend. It's still a crime. It's still a crime, and you can still get a whole lot from. And people keep saying that you could do it. And so they're saying, hey, by the way, if you spit on somebody, we're going to arrest you. Oh, but that's not a court case. I'm just telling you, the policemen, the IRS who goes out and collects taxes for the Treasury, is saying, you're wrong. Quit doing this, and then we'll talk about the ramifications is if they catch you. And again, I like this for simplicity. This memorandum is limited to rebutting the promoter's misinterpretation. I we do not address whether some of these structures could be re characterized as grantor trust. So in the very beginning we talked about here we think this is probably grantor trust is not going to be it's going to be ignored anyway. What this is saying is hey we're just saying you're wrong here. But that's not the only argument we have. We could also say this to grant or trust because you're maintaining control. Now, John, what happens when they catch up? Because I've heard these promoters all say if it was wrong, they would have arrested us by now. Or if it was wrong, you know, they they usually say that there's a court case which then they try to cite, which is an actually a court case, and it's usually made up, or it's just means something else. Or they say we've never you know, we all of our clients are doing it. Therefore it must be okay. Right. You know that. Yeah. The court cases that usually get cited are well, yes. The trustee has the authority to allocate between trust and income and principle or corpus. I don't disagree with that. Ultimately, the IRS doesn't care if it's allocated to trust income or corpus, because that just tells them who is going to be paying the tax. But this is one of the difficult things of, you know, people may be doing this. And because of the way that the IRS processes returns

and the way things are enforced, people can get away with this. They it for a long time until they don't, until they don't. And so let me just I'll put this up here. Here's a case I think you're familiar with this. Yes. This is what happens when you do it wrong. And what happened here. And not only did you do it wrong, but failed to heed the warnings of people telling you this is not a good idea, you probably need to stop. And over being told and at this point I forget the exact numbers. But there was, what, $41 million in restitution that needed to be paid? He's going to jail for 12 years. I think. So, and in full disclosure, in this particular case, the partner of this guy or the somebody who is a coconspirator was one that I had interacted with and that, ended up they, got to discuss with CID. They actually had my email to the guy where, like in a lot of cases here, there's an attorney who said, like, as one client put it, my attorney said it's tax evasion. I could go to jail. And there was other that he wrote to them that this was an illegal structure. So I had written to one of the coconspirators here that this was illegal. And you're, you know, what you're teaching was tax evasion. And of course, they ignore it. And then they all got prosecuted. And there was a lot of folks in this particular case, this particular guy was, was a plumber, I believe, and he was getting other people to get involved in this. And so, what do you get 12. 5 years, a 12. 5 years, for promoting and selling a tax shelter. So these guys will eventually get it. It sometimes takes a little while, but. And that's that they get it. Yeah. You know, this is the, the hard part for us coming out and saying, well look, this is a problem. We don't get these cases all the time. It's hard to say. Well look, it could happen to you when the reality is not every case is reported. You know, if these settle, you're not going to see a necessarily a press release on somebody settling, if they get prosecuted for something outside of the IRS that related, you may not see it coming up as well. Look, 643 was it upheld? So there's there are plenty of reasons why we may not see an explicit case on it. It doesn't mean that the logic doesn't work. And that's not the proof. You know, again, we're asking for where is the case for this has been upheld. One case because the IRS clearly is going to fight you on this because they've laid it out on their website. Remember, I've never seen one. Yeah. Like you ask people. Yeah I would love to see one. And there's lots of folks that have gone to jail for this. We've had a number like it's just you can just kind of Google tax evasion

trusts and you'll see that the number of folks have gotten popped. And I remember early in my career dealing with a, a group of doctors where they bunch of a me ended up going to jail because, you know, they all kind of went in, followed a guy that was like, the cowboy hat guy or that lady or or stoner guy and they all, you know, hey, this is, you know, this works and all this stuff. And then they all ended up going to jail. So that's the question. What happens taxpayers who follow this advice. Because it's not like you get a get out of jail free card just because you listen to somebody else. What happens? Yeah. But, if the IRS finds you, that's the problem. When they find you, then you're in trouble. Because at that point, even if you think it worked, one of the first things that they're going to bring up is this is too good to be true. You're telling me that just because, you know, you thought you didn't have been a tax on this? There, you know, this is where ignorance is not going to be your friend. And that will get tossed in front of. So yeah. Alternative. What if you've been doing something like this if you go in because the IRS has you know, while there may be specific programs that have different names for particular problems, voluntary disclosure is a concept. And the IRS would much rather you come in and say, look, we're sorry we fixed it, you know, get the blessing and go on. It would much rather have you come in and kind of sort things out. Before I've dealt, I've dealt with this where a client came in and they realized that they had been scammed. In this particular case, it was an offshore thing and thank goodness it was. So they talked to somebody who said, hey, this is where it's wrong. A manager returns and there's not a by the way, there's not a statute of limitation when you're committing these types of things. So in that particular case, it was they backed up and they paid up. And right when they were doing it, an audit notice came in and they were able to show that they had already started the process of rectifying it. And that's what kept them from getting into hot water was with CID. They were able to do it. Civily which, by the way, it just because you did this and you, you turn yourself in or you go in and you say, hey, I made a mistake and I was following somebody. And I think that advice is wrong. It doesn't mean you don't pay the tax, right. You're going to paying it plus penalties and interest. The only question is whether you're going to go to jail as well. Right. Yeah. When I've been involved, you know, throughout my career in cleanup. You're always going to pay the tax. That's never a question. The penalties are what you're, you know, penalties, not just financial but criminal time. That's what you're hoping to avoid. Interest. You may get away with it depending or get away with it.

You may not have it in force depending on what's going on. You know, like if look, we're sorry we figured this out. Here's everything and us. And depending on who you get, who you're working with, those are still humans. I know it's easy to just kind of turn the IRS into a faceless monolith, but it's still humans who will listen to you. Yes. And now, let's be real. You're watching this again. Put in the comments. If you've been pitched one of these, if you know anybody that has, get this in front of them. Because now if somebody has been pitched this, what should they do if they've actually taken steps, they're seeing this? What can they do to protect themselves and the rest of the public? I mean, the first and easiest thing is don't do it. There's not a version of this. There's not a new explanation that's going to come out that will make this work. If you've been involved in this and getting to people who know what they're doing, CPAs who actually prepare returns for trusts know how to clean this up, potentially a tax litigator to walk you through the process of cleaning up things with the IRS. And then finally, you know, someone like me, I don't do the tax litigation. income tax returns. But where I get involved, I'm here because you have a real trust for state law purposes. You're going to have to unwind this or turn it into something. Well, reading through, what can we do with this? How can we make it work? How can we pull things part without violating the fiduciary duties

that this irrevocable trust has imposed on, or you've imposed on yourself? So you bring up something, because I've heard some of these influencers say that it's common law. They use the sovereign buzzword and things like that. Is there any situation where state law is somehow going to trump federal law with regards to taxation, where you can actually just have a trust document that says, by the way, I'm going to give the for the trustee the ability to say this is not taxable because of some fiduciary accounting principle. Is that a thing? No, I mean it again, when it comes to federal taxation, those taxes are going to be paid. There's not a trust agreement that you're going to draft. And beyond that, there's not something that will allow you to draft a trust agreement that doesn't get around state law, because while there is common law, every state has its own statutes that govern how trusts are interpreted. And trustees know what they're doing, beneficiaries know what they're entitled to. Fair enough. All right, guys, I think we've smacked this topic around enough. If you're out there and you're still going, I don't know. I really think that cowboy hat guy, stoner dude and crazy lady are the real deal. And you're not going to listen to a couple of lawyers. I've been doing this for close to 30 years, John. You've been doing it for quite a while.

And I'm just going to go ahead and I'm going to ignore the IRS telling me that explicitly that what I'm doing is wrong and I'm just going to do it anyway. You're on your own. But if you're somebody who has some logic, go ahead and put your comments down below. If you have questions, legitimate questions, go ahead and put them in down below. John, I'll put your contact information in the show notes in case they want to write something off of you. Or, you know, again, if it's somebody who's considering advanced trust structures, make sure you have competent legal advice. A lot of these folks, they're influencers. They're not attorneys, they're not accountants. They always steal somebody else's credibility. I worked for a lawyer for do did this for 70 years. No, you didn't. That's absolutely untrue. You know, I'm sorry. It's no, I don't know of anybody who did that for that long held practice trust law for 70 years. I wouldn't want to do it. But that doesn't mean that's not a thing. You know, in any case, you might have lawyers on both sides. And guess what? Neither one of them is probably right. 100% of the time. The law is what is correct in the laws in here. It's not up for some sort of bizarre interpretation. It is what it is. It's black letter. Congress wrote. It. This is how it's used. And some tortured interpretation doesn't get you away from actually paying tax just because you think, hey, I think these words mean this. And if everybody else is saying no, that's not the case, then choose that path at your peril. Again, if you know somebody who's been pitch this, share this video with them. If you've been pitched this could reach out and get competent legal help so that you can make sure that you're going in and getting yourself out of the, out of the bullseye, so to speak. So there's not a target on your back. John, is there anything else you want to finish with? No, Toby, it's been a lot of fun. Obviously, there's a lot to talk about here, lots of other ways that we kind of hit on, but we don't have time to get into on how these can further go astray. Perfect. Well, I have you on again. We can go over some more fun stuff. I have a feeling that there's going to be more activity with the IRS on these, as these folks get brought to justice, but thank you for coming in and sharing your time. Oh, great to be here.