« PIONEER PRESS: “MORE FUROR OVER FRANKEN’S TAXES” | Home | MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA FILES PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES OF ALAN FRANKEN INC.” »
FRANKEN’S TAX PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIA: A TALE OF TWO LETTERS
By Michael B. Brodkorb | April 17, 2008
My post set off a flurry of activity from Team Franken yesterday as they desperately searched for answers as to why Al Franken’s corporation has been “forfeited†since August 1, 2007 in California. Over 24 hours later, there are still more questions than answers.
The initial spin from Team Franken was that Franken’s corporation hadn’t done business in California and the business’ registration had expired:
“That’s because the matter isn’t significant, said Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh. Franken hasn’t done business in California in years, and his business registration there ultimately expired for that reason, she said.” Source: Star Tribune, April 16, 2008
The quote above is from the Star Tribune’s story time stamped at 12:40 P.M. I published a post at 12:37 P.M., labeling Team Franken’s spin “ridiculous and desperate.”
The Pioneer Press also wrote about Team Franken’s spin:
“On Wednesday morning, the Minnesota Republican Party held a news conference to point out that the Frankens’ California company was listed as ‘forfeited.’
At that time, the designation was simply because the Frankens were no longer doing business in California and, therefore, hadn’t filed taxes there after 2002, said campaign spokeswoman Jess McIntosh.” Source: Pioneer Press, April 16, 2008
An hour after the Republican Party of Minnesota press conference, the Associated Press confirmed that Franken’s corporation failed to file tax returns from 2003-07. Team Franken’s spin quickly changed.
“Later in the day, they discovered that according to the California Franchise Tax Board, they were wrong about that.” Source: Pioneer Press, April 16, 2008
Late yesterday afternoon, Team Franken produced a letter from Franken’s accountant that they claimed was filed in 2003. The letter was published by the Star Tribune last evening. Click here to view a copy of the letter:
“However, the campaign released a statement from Franken’s accountant, Allen Chanzis, who said his office sent a letter to the state of California in 2003 asking it to remove AFI from its tax records as AFI ‘will no longer be doing business in California.’
In his statement, Chanzis said: ‘We made an honest and reasonable attempt to inform the state of California that we wished to terminate our corporate status within the state.’
‘Today I learned that the action intended may have required a different technical form than the one that I sent. I have contacted the state of California in order to rectify the situation and bring this matter to a conclusion.’
However, state records show that Chanzis filed corporate disclosure forms for AFI with the California Secretary of State’s office in 2004 and 2006. Barr said he didn’t know enough about the matter to explain the possibly conflicting documents.” Source: Star Tribune, April 16, 2008
Please note the section highlighted in red. Chanzis filed disclosure paperwork with the California Secretary of State’s office in 2004 and 2006. Click here to view the disclosure paperwork from 2004 and here for the disclosure paperwork from 2006.
If the Franken’s account had sent a letter in 2003 to California stating that Franken’s corporation “will no longer be doing business in California” why did he send file paperwork with the California’s Secretary of State in 2004 and 2006?
I have no evidence to believe the letter provided to the media by Team Franken from their account wasn’t actually sent to the state of California.
But based on public records about Franken’s problems with the state of New York regarding his failure to provide workers’ compensation and disability insurance to his corporation’s employees, the letter is perplexing.
Click here (or picture at top of post) for a comparison of letters sent by Franken’s accountant to the state of California and the state of New York. I have circled my questions in red.
The letter sent by Franken’s accountant to the state of California is not on letterhead and it was addressed “To Whom It May Concern” The letter contains grammatical mistakes, it is not signed, nor is it Cc: to any officer of Franken’s corporation. Franken’s corporate identification number contains three extra zeros at the end. Finally, the letter isn’t from Franken’s accountant, Allen Chanzis, but rather someone named “Monifa Benison.”
Again, click here for a comparison of letters sent by Franken’s accountant to the state of California and the state of New York.
Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on this developing story.
UPDATE: The Republican Party of Minnesota has filed a public records request with the state of California regarding Al Franken’s business problems. The party’s request mentions concerns about the letter:
“The letter itself is curious in that it lacks a signature, any evidence of corporate letterhead and doesn’t copy any of Alan Franken Inc.’s corporate officers, including Mr. Franken himself.” Source: MN GOP press release, April 17, 2008
###
This post also appears on Blogs for Norm!, an online community and blog covering the 2008 U.S. Senate campaign in Minnesota. The primary goal of Blogs for Norm! is to organize bloggers who support U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.
Topics: Uncategorized | 43 Comments »
43 Responses to “FRANKEN’S TAX PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIA: A TALE OF TWO LETTERS”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
There’s a “Monifa Benison” who is a a tax accountant. She was with Marcum & Kliegman in 2000, but now appears to be with “he AM Associates (www.theamassociates.com) have been providing professional Tax and Accounting services to a who’s who list of people in the entertainment industry.”
Google it.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Franken should take Monica Benison’s advice:
“Like it or not, you have to pay your taxes, and understanding taxation requires more than intelligence†states Monifa Benison, Partner, The AM Associatesâ€
http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42584&Itemid=28
April 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thanks Chestnut, I didn’t doubt that Monifa existed. The letter from California does lack the level of professionalism contained in the letter to New York.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
This reminds me an awful lot of those documents that Dan Rather had fabricated for the 60 Minutes Story that made bloggers famous.
I appreciate the way you put these side by side for comparison and let us come to conclusions MDE.
At best, this raises serious professionalism questions.
I think more likely, however, is that it raises very serious authenticity questions.
If the worst is discovered, and the second document is found to have been fabricated to make it look like they addressed the issue, Franken is done as an aspiring politician, and will have lost the small amount of credibility he has as a spokesman for the far Left.
This went from serious to fatally damaging (politically) if Franken doesn’t address these questions.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
There is no doubt in my mind the CA letter is an attempt at fraud. No professional accountant would ever – EVER – send a letter like that. I don’t know of any part time bookkeepers who’d put out something so unprofessional, so poor.
To me it looks like the work of some zit-faced, uneducated college staffer trying to “help” the cause. “Hey Trevor, go put something together – quick!”
April 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Why didn’t the Franken campaign submit a copy of the Form 100 that they referenced in the letter?
April 17th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Question: What accountant believes that he can send in a legal document to a state licensing agency and not sign it?
Answer: The same one that sends documents a state licensing agency for three years after supposidly dissolving the clients company.
Man, I smell BS…keep digging Mike, there’s more here.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Michael, have you thought about upping your insurance after this one?
Something tells me you have a few folks pretty upset over digging this one up.
Geez, 7 posts and where is puddles?
He is usually the first to try and change the subject. Maybe he is still licking boots and getting his oreder of what to post? 
April 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
So, Michael. If you truly are not doubting the authenticity of the letter, where is the controversy here? It seems to me, this is a misunderstanding of what it takes to dissolve a corporation in California, an offense that even the guy you spoke to out there described as commonplace.
If you honestly are not doubting the letter, than you are simply accusing his accountant of using an incorrect form to dissolve the company several years ago.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I think what I also enjoy is how hard it is for the MN Pooplius boys to try and find other stories to write about so they can keep this little tidbit off their blog.
Like I said before, they really should call themselves the DFL blog.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“where is the controversy here?” Your kidding, right? The original mistake MAY have been an honest one, all be it a stone stupid mistake by someone, but it sure is starting to look like a clownish cover up is brewing. As Swiftee says, you can smell it.
Al graduated Harvard, huh?
April 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Personally, I consider this trivial, as would anyone who has run a business. However, this is another socialist who rants constantly about “business” running afoul of their precious every law. Let he who sins not cast the first stone.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Skipper, I agree. Really I can’t get upset with someone who is having problems dealing and keeping up with Big Gov’t rules. But if you represent the anti-business segment of society, I do have to laugh when you can’t keep up (see George McGovern as a text book case when he tried to run a bed and breakfast in his retirement).
This is one of the reasons I disliked Paul Wellstone. He never went out there and created something out of nothing. No inventions, no new service, no small business. He never had to deal with the crap that those who go out there and do things have to.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I’m publicly challenging Michael to call this anything but a case of incorrect paperwork being filed by the business professionals retained by Franken.
Remembering, of course, that since Blois outed you, defamation cases will be much easier to substantiate.
Or, are you finally willing to admit that you have blown all the smoke you can, and people are starting to notice the distinct lack of fire.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Frank: As I wrote above, I have no evidence to believe the letter provided to the media by Team Franken from their account wasn’t actually sent to the state of California.
The Republican Party of Minnesota just announced that they filed a data practices request and the letter may likely show up in their request.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Frank Alan, you HAVE GOT to be kidding me. Shittheads like you were saying the same thing about the phony Dan Rather documents… Who knows how this will turn up, but Michael is ABSOLUTELY correct to question the veracity of these documents.
This issue smells to high heaven. Idiots like you are the only ones buying the manure Franken is selling.
By the way, as these stories trickle out, why do you think it is that Al Franken’s story changes by the hour?
Man you are stupid.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Folks: The Republican Party of Minnesota’s press release raises questions about the letter:
“Furthermore, on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008, Mr. Franken’s campaign produced a letter from a tax accountant named Monifa Benison that they claim shows the corporation should have been dissolved in 2003. The letter itself is curious in that it lacks a signature, any evidence of corporate letterhead and doesn’t copy any of Alan Franken Inc.’s corporate officers, including Mr. Franken himself.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Geez, 7 posts and where is puddles?”
Oh, I’m watching, little stones; I’m watching.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Michael, don’t you feel a bit silly continuing this charade like you and the MNGOP are totally separate and independent entities, when in fact you are one and the same? It’s like the Great Oz shouting from behind the curtain “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
April 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Michael’s not hiding it; it’s right there on the side bar: “Paid for by Coleman for Senate – 08″
April 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Easy Tommy,
I do use Google Ads on my blog. I don’t keep a list of the campaigns that advertise on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Candidates of all political parties advertise on Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
How about keeping a list of all the political candidates and parties that pay you to blog?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
This is fun. Comrade Puddles is starting to sweat on this one. From his lack of comments I can only assume that the DFL hasn’t given him his talking points yet – they are probably rattled by yet another FAILURE by their boy Angry Al. Don’t worry Comrade, they will be getting those talking points(lies)to you any minute now and you will be off and running.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Then the Exposer guy (that just sounds wrong) tries to divert attention from the real issue here. Typical liberal tactic. To bad their boy is going down (that don’t sound right either…)!!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
rePete, I’m not sweatin’ this one a bit.
It don’t matter who wins in November; you guys are runnin’ ol’ Smokescreen so no matter what happens I get a Democrat.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Sorry, Michael – I forgot to stick one o’ them
in there, and you don’t let us go back and edit!!!
April 17th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Puddles, you go with that – LOL!
April 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I wonder if some of this money will go to help some of my relatives who live in California.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:30 am
If they’re waiting on Al to get their money, they’re gonna be waiting a long time, ep.
Un hombre que roba de niños no deberÃa ser contado en ayudar a alguien, pero él!
April 18th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Frank Alan issued a “challenge” to MDE. (Comment #14)
Ooooooh. That’s like me challenging Tiger Woods.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am
You like that one, rePete?
I’m tellin’ ya, I went to ol’ Smokescreen’s campaign kick-off, and he sounded – once again! – like a Democrat!!!
He sounded so dam good, I almost whipped out the check book right then and there, to give him some dough!!!!
Fortunately, it was my business checkbook, and Lord knows ol’ Smokescreen would never take any corporate dough…..
April 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Another curious aspect of the CA letter is the absence of any reference to an enclosed check in payment of the taxes assessed. If I were drafting the letter, I would certainly reference the fact that I was including a check (which appears to be required under the CA instructions for filers of form 100), as well as a reference to the amount of the check.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Swiftee, with syntax like yours you could travel the Spanish-speaking world and be understood.
Perhaps the next letter that Ron Carey sends out to New York [perhaps about the children and Air America Radio] could be sent by you, and could be in the Spanish language.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
[...] As I wrote yesterday, Team Franken produced a letter from Franken’s accountant that they claimed was filed in 2003 stating that Franken’s corporation “will no longer be doing business in California.†The letter was signed by a Monifa Benison. [...]
April 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Geez, what happened to the good, intelligent libs that used to post here? It’s been like a year since we’ve had a good, solid, fact based debate. I remember Bluegal and others who would actually make me stop and think or at least double check my facts. El P hits a few good points now and again but Twoput posts like a three year old who is over due for his Ritalin; posts that have nothing to do with the topic and often incomprehensible.
Example: This thread is about stories that show how Al COULD be a tax dodger or inept business man. TPTom’s argument is that Michael is a tool of the GOP.
True or not, that makes Al’s possible corruption or incompetence irrelevant how?
Or the Smokescreen this, Smokescreen that makes Al a great Senatorial candidate how exactly?
Seriously Twoput, when I first started reading your posts I thought you were really a right wing blogger satirizing the left! I thought you were hysterically funny until I realized you were real.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
As a CPA in Dallas, I do have an issue with the non compliance in New York, especially dealing with compensation issues. On the other hand, I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to Franken with regard to the California issue. It is common, though not always correct to cease filing state income tax returns when the corporation ceases doing business in that state. Every state has different procedures for withdrawal from the state, some procedures as simle as checking a box on the final state return. It would appear that frankens office simply failed to file the final return which would likely have shown zero activity. In regard to the letter, Most likely, the letter was reprinted vs. using a photocopy of the original letter. While non well documented, the california issue appears to be a non issue.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
[...] reason I’d like to speak with Ms. Benison regarding this letter is that to my knowledge, nobody in the media has talked to her and determined why she — of [...]
April 19th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
There ya go! Joe from Dallas says this not an issue so lets forget about it. Thanks Joe for opening our eyes. Right…
April 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
[...] “forfeited†in California since August 1, 2007, I’m sure Team Franken now understands that a sloppy letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern†is not the proper way to shut down a [...]
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
[...] send in any form to close the corporation down. According to Team Franken, Ms. Benison sent in this letter which contained numerous [...]
April 24th, 2008 at 9:59 am
[...] As I wrote yesterday, Team Franken produced a letter from Franken’s accountant that they claimed was filed in 2003 stating that Franken’s corporation “will no longer be doing business in California.” The letter was signed by a Monifa Benison. [...]
April 24th, 2008 at 10:05 am
[...] in California since August 1, 2007, I’m sure Team Franken now understands that a sloppy letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern” is not the proper way to shut down a [...]
April 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
[...] send in any form to close the corporation down. According to Team Franken, Ms. Benison sent in this letter which contained numerous [...]