Zeek Rewards top Ponzi winners named & shamed
You invested in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme, you collectively ripped off millions of dollars from thousands of people and you got caught.
Not only that but in the aftermath of the Zeek Rewards SEC shut down, some sixteen months later, there are still those who feel they are entitled to the money they illegally obtained.
Back in August I raised the question of whether or not Zeek’s top Ponzi pimps would be named and shamed. Specifically those who made the most money in the scheme and now refuse to pay back their victims.
Things certainly looked promising in the Zeek Receiver’s third quarter report, filed October 31st:
As of September 30, 2013, the Receiver estimates that net winner Affiliate-Investors received over $283 million in fraudulent transfers from the Receivership Defendant.
The Receiver’s litigation team continues to evaluate the most efficient and cost-effective method for pursuing fraudulent transfer claims.
As reported previously, the Receiver’s clawback litigation is likely to be a combination of individual actions, group actions, defendant class actions, and other alternative dispute resolutions as approved by the Court.
Such proceedings will establish the key findings applicable to most, if not all, recipients of fraudulently transferred funds (findings such as the existence of a Ponzi and/or pyramid scheme).
The first clawback claims are now imminent, and a lawsuit against multiple named defendants along with a class of net winners will be filed during the fourth quarter of 2013.
December was almost half way through and I was beginning to wonder if the Receiver would come through. True to his word, on the 11th of December the Zeek Receiver filed a motion for “leave to file actions and setting of initial conference”.
In the Receiver’s motion, Zeek’s top Ponzi winners who are still holding onto their money are named. Ladies and Gentlemen, courtesy of the Receiver, I give you the worst of the worst Zeek Rewards thieves:
Paul R. Burks, Dawn Wright-Olivares, Daniel Olivares, Roger Plyler, Alexandre De Brantes, Darryle Douglas, Todd Disner (as himself and as trustee of Kestrel Spendthrift Trust), Trudy Gilmond, Trudy Gilmond LLC, Jerry Napier, Darren Miller, Rhonda Gates, David Sorrells, Innovation Marketing LLC, Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Global Internet Formula Inc., T LeMont Silver, Karen Silver, Michael Van Leeuwen, Durant Brockett, David Kettner and Mary Kettner.
Additional Ponzi winners who earned less than the above individuals are collectively included under the defendant title “a Defendant Class of net-winners in ZeekRewards.com”.
Most of the names the Receiver calls out are unfamiliar to me. I was kind of surprised to the Zeek Rewards executive management names pop up (Burks especially), seeing as I’d have thought it’s a given they stand to face serious criminal charges after the civil side of the case is concluded.
Conspicuously absent are Robert Craddock and Keith Laggos, who presumably have already settled with the Zeek Receiver (I already suspected as much in the case of Craddock after he awkwardly gagged himself a few weeks ago).
T LeMont Silver I know is currently hiding out in the Dominican Republic, having fled the US rather than face the Receiver’s litigation from within US borders. It’ll be interesting to see how the Receiver’s case against him progresses. Whether any of the other winner’s named are overseas I’m not sure.
Meanwhile I can only wonder what it feels like to have trusted these people, invested money in Zeek Rewards under them and now find out they are trying to hold onto the money they stole.
Some of these individuals have even gone on to market subsequent MLM opportunities following the Zeek Rewards shutdown, I wonder what their new downlines will make of this.
The Receiver’s motion requests an “initial conference” to be held in North Carolina be set sometime in January 2014. The named parties are not required to attend the conference in person, but do have to have someone there representing them (typically a lawyer).
Good luck guys, you’re going to need it.
My thanks to ASDUpdates for the heads up.
Update 20th December 2013 – On the 19th of December the Receiver’s motion was granted. The initial settlement conference date has also been set for the 27th of January at 2pm.
Disner and the other named individuals are “representative” of the class. That is why they are lumped together.
Laggos, Craddock and potentially others are not listed with Disner etc since they are not “representative” (they are consultants not affiliates)
Burk, Olivares etc are not representative of any class so they are listed as a separate action
This is only the first crack of the whip.
There may be other defendant civil cases, and perhaps others added to the initial complaint (we have yet to see the actual complaint.
Criminal charges will only be filed after the civil actions are final.
Laggos himself admitted to being an affiliate pulling in 40K a month. Craddock is probably an affiliate, as he said he was many times, though he also worked for Caldwell.
Burks, Dawn, Douglas, etc. are “insiders”.
I might be wrong but I believe they’re trying to make this as much of a “one size fits all” whip crack as possible.
The receiver’s request divides the insiders from the net winners which makes sense, but it looks like they’re trying to be as inclusive as possible when addressing the net winners.
It might not be possible to include everyone with net winnings of $1K+ (the number mentioned in the request) but the outcome of this case should prove to be a rather strong precedent in confronting any stragglers.
My real question is just how effective the disclaimer “Dr” Keith Laggos puts at the bottom of the “Company of the Month” advertorials in his Network Marketing Business Journal really are.
I mean Troy got slapped for not disclosing that he was paid PR for Rex Ventures but Laggos has been down that rabbit hole before, did just a little fine print really keep “Compensation Keith’s” bulbous butt from being bitten again? (Outside of clawbacks that is)
Time and hopefully court documents will tell.
On Craddock… maybe the more obvious reason here is that Craddock wasn’t a “top winner” and only made a few thousands from Zeek itself.
So he’ll be included in the class action but not individually named.
The Receiver is one step closer to starting payouts. Disappointing to read that lots of greedy affiliate investors are claiming far in excess of what they actually invested. I’m guessing these are the people who were running around the internet telling everyone they were making eleventy billion dollars a day… in points.
The Receiver is looking to appoint a “Special Master” to deal with the expected ‘waah you’re paying me less than my Zeek Rewards Ponzi points balance’ affiliates, lest the court be inundated with the blowback from 170,000 affiliate claims.
http://www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com/pdf/DistributionMotion.pdf
One one person I want to see in handcuffs… T Le Mont! Biggest hype man preaches on how his ‘following’ is his family blah blah blah. Stole millions in Zeek, GoFun Places, and Jubirev then leaves the country. Heck Ken Bell can pay my travel cost and little extra I will go find him myself!
I’ll go with you Erik!
One question, I dont understand that they want to sue Paul when he already gave up Zeek to the SEC. Some one esplain ?
The shutdown itself was an emergency action to preserve assets, not a complete trial. The case is still on going.
Paul Burks did only settle that specific part of the case.
This is the receiver suing the “insiders” of RVG, not SEC vs. RVG. Very different cases.
SEC vs. RVG is to close the fraud
Receiver vs. RVG is to get them to give up their money they earned through the Ponzi, and as insider, they face additional fraud charges other than just “Ponzi participant”.
ok thanks! =)
Do you have a link to the complete motion ??
Thanks
https://sites.google.com/a/asdupdates.com/files-website/zeek-rewards-sec-case
All case documents, found at ASDupdatefiles (Don Ryan).
“Proposed ORDER for Leave to Institute Actions”
= Zeekdoc169-1.pdf
“Receiver’s Request for leave to Institute Actions”
= Zeekdoc169-main.padf
Is there a way to search and see what some of the other Net winners are being told to pay back ??
No, not yet, and I don’t think it will be.
Zeekdoc119.pdf “Protective Order” has some definitions for confidential information.
The documents leading up to that Protective Order are many, but they revolve around Robert Craddock’s opposition against the subpoena, e.g. Zeekdoc108.pdf “Response in Opposition to Receiver’s Motion To Compel”.
Hmm….had to pay taxes on the money hubby got, since 1099’s were issued, which was quite a hefty sum. Plus all the money in one of the payment processors was seized back by the receiver. So hubby certainly doesn’t have the total that they might try to sue him for.
So don’t know how all that is going to work in the scheme of things.
The tax form part should have been corrected in April / May?
moneymakergroup.com/Zeekrewards-Zeekrewards-t398669.html&st=9975
I asked people who had some specific tax issues to contact the Receiver and ask for corrections.
The result:
He can still make a settlement? Most civil claims are settled outside court, only a few will go through a full trial. Claims can be settled before a trial or during a trial.
I analysed a few different settlements (low, medium, high amounts). The ones who were able to pay all at once generally made the best deals, e.g. I found several similar settlements in the range $40,000 – $80,000 that all were settled at around 67% of the original claim. I found enough of them to see a patten.
I came to the conclusion that there had to be two different people working with the settlements, one of them eager to close the deal as fast as possible in the range 50-80% of the claim, one of them more eager to negotiate about down payment deals.
If the amount is high enough, but not too high, it should be relatively easy to make an acceptable deal. “Too high” is mainly about some of the main organizers / main Ponzi pimps.
The Receiver’s first priority should normally be to protect the interests of the victims, i.e. if he CAN make a settlement in the range 50-80% of the initial claim he probably HAVE to do it, if that will be the best way to protect the interests of the victims.
“Money in hand” settlements typically gave the best deals, but the absolute lowest limit was 50%.
If the alternative is to sell the claims in groups to debt collectors, the value of the claims will be heavily reduced, maybe down to 10-20% of the initial value.
If I had money in hand, more than 50% of the initial claim, I would clearly had gone for a settlement and would have tried to make an “easy deal” for the other party (I would have accepted a deal we both could accept, rather than trying to get the “best” deal). I would have tried to come out of the negotiations as a “winner”, but not too much.
In a case where people don’t have money in hand to make an acceptable deal for both parties, settlements negotiations may still be worth a try, but don’t make voluntarily down payment deals you can’t afford to pay.
The Receiver can probably accept down to 35% settlements and maybe even lower than that, but settlements in the range lower than 50% will be much tougher to negotiate.
The important factor isn’t about how much the initial claim is about, but about how much of it the Receiver realisticly can be able to recover. If he can’t realisticly expect to recover more than 35% of a claim, he will clearly have to accept that deal.
You will find examples where the Receiver even have DROPPED claims (erased them), e.g. when they’re simply not worth the efforts. If people CLEARLY can’t afford to pay and WON’T be able to pay, the only reasonable option is to erase the claim. Selling claims like that to debt collectors will reduce the overall value of all the claims.
If someone clearly CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to afford to pay anything, they should try to get the claims erased.
If people CAN afford to pay something, they should offer to pay what they reasonably can AFFORD to pay, preferrably “money in hand” (don’t make any agreements with the Receiver about “pay it down over 12 months”, those deals were typically not very good deals).
“I can’t afford to pay, and I will not be able to pay” may actually be a good argument if it reflects the realities. “I can afford to pay SOMETHING, and I won’t be able to pay more than that” may also be a good argument.
A claim isn’t worth more than what the debtors REASONABLY can be expected to pay. “Money in hands” settlements are worth much more than “pay it down over 12 months”.
If he can afford to pay SOMETHING, he should probably look at the different options for settlements. He probably has more than enough “money in hands” to offer an acceptable deal, if I have interpreted the situation correctly (I will also see it from the other party’s viewpoint).
“Acceptable deal” from the Receiver’s viewpoint is about what he reasonably can expect to be able to collect. It’s about REASONABLY rather than hypothetically.
2 of the claims in the range $170,000 – $180,000 were settled at 50% “money in hand”. “Money in hand” has a much higher value than any “pay it down over 12 months” deals. High amounts “money in hand” has a much higher value than low amounts, that logic is rather obvious.
If people have used some of the money, the Receiver will simply need to accept it. He will need to look at the REALITIES, e.g. he can ask people to sell “valuables” they have bought for the money but he can’t ask them to reverse certain other payments they have made.
Your husband should look at “What amount can the Receiver REASONABLY expect to collect from me, limited to the earnings from ZeekRewards?”.
* If some of the money was lost in Profitable Sunrise, the Receiver can’t reasonably expect to collect that.
* If some of the money was used to pay taxes, the Receiver can’t reasonably expect to collect that.
* If some of the money was invested in “normal assets classes”, the Receiver can reasonably expect to collect that.
* If money was spent on luxury items, the Receiver can reasonably expect to collect some of that value.
* If money was used to pay down other debt, the Receiver can reasonably expect to collect that value.
* If money was used to to support normal day to day livelihood, the Receiver can’t reasonably expect to be able to recover much of that.
Anyone who CAN offer some “money in hands” deals should probably look at the different options for settlements. But they should also look at it from the OTHER PARTY’s viewpoint, what the Receiver REASONABLY can expect to be able to collect and what his other options are. But people will need to look at the REALITIES rather than their own ideas.
Your husband is probably in a much better situation than most others, if he’s able to handle it correctly. He HAS valuable “money in hands”, i.e. he does have something of value to offer. It’s not about the money he doesn’t have, it’s about what he has to offer.
He had most of the ZeekRewards earnings SEPARATED from his other money most of the time. It will probably be relatively EASY to make a settlement for him, based on the amount he has left of the total winnings. The money he doesn’t have isn’t really important (e.g. taxes, lost in schemes).
If the total claim was $200,000 and he only has $100,000 to offer (of the net winnings) in a settlement, he should look at it from the Receiver’s viewpoint. $100,000 in a single case is clearly something valuable, something the Receiver SHOULD try to settle.
I picked up something from a Google search on “Ponzi clawback”, page 2 in the search hits:
It’s from Ponzi defense lawyer Jonathan Scwartz.
http://www.nasdlaw.com/Practice-Areas/Clawbacks.shtml
He’s actually trying to attract clients. There’s nothing wrong in that, but people should probably try to get an overview themselves before hiring an attorney.
I picked out the section of areas he see as “defendable in court”, e.g. real sales people (not recruiters) may have good defense arguments. If people truly did something to market the business itself, e.g. drive customers to the penny auction website, that argument can be used to reduce the claim.
I wouldn’t have used arguments like “I recruited a huge downline” as defense argument.
I tried several times to recommend the general part of Howard Kaplan’s tax advices = “run it like a real business, and keep your own records for all the activities (work and time, transactions, etc.)”. It’s possible to “sell” the idea that some of the expenses actually were a normal part of the earnings (that some expenses should be deducted).
“Sell an idea” is about making people accept the idea. The normal way to do it is to tell the truth as it really is (not constructed ideas about truth, not one sided ideas about truth).
It’s possible to sell the idea that taxes can’t be included in the settled amount, e.g. if net winnings were $20,000 and you paid $5,000 in taxes from that net winning, the amount the Receiver reasonably can expect to collect will only be $15,000. He may not accept it easily, but he sure CAN accept it.
Jonathan Scwartz also listed that it’s possible to sell the fact that money was spent prior to the clawback claim (prior to the shutdown), i.e. that people can’t reasonably be expected to reverse certain types of transactions. “Money spent” is normally not about all sorts of transactions. Debt reductions and investments shouldn’t be included in “money spent”.
Here’s an argument for why the taxes paid from the net winnings can’t be included in the claim …
I’m only TESTING some arguments to see if they hold water or should be avoided. If an argument clearly reflects the realities, it can normally be used as a defense argument. But you will also need to look into the arguments the other party can use, i.e. the Receiver may have valid arguments too.
ZeekRewards was shut down on August 17 2012. Claims could have been settled before December 31, and money could have been returned to the Receiver in the same tax year the money were received, i.e. the taxes wouldn’t have become any issue if the claims had been settled in 2012.
The normal way to handle monetary claims is to inform the debtors about the claim ASAP without delay. Information should normally be the first step, long before any subpoena or other pre trial actions.
Several claims could probably have been settled and finished in the 4 months between August 17 and December 31, but the Receiver didn’t have any system in place where people could settle the claims. Most people didn’t know whether or not they would be affected by clawback claims before April 2013.
If people had to pay taxes on the total net winnings, those taxes have probably been paid from the net winnings = reducing the amount that reasonably can be expected to be recovered in a “money in hands” settlement.
The important factor here is whether or not he actually could have informed people much earlier about the claims, i.e. if he could have opened up for a settlement solution already in the 4 months from September 1st to December 31st.
People could actually have deposited their net winnings in a settlement account controlled by the court, and they wouldn’t have needed to pay any taxes on the disputed net winnings.
INFORMATION should normally be the first step from a creditor to a debtor. People expect to be informed about the claim as soon as possible, about the size of the amount and how to pay it back. They clearly don’t expect subpoenas and other pre trial actions, those are only common in disputes. The Receiver has actually MADE it become a dispute by handling the claims in a specific way.
The idea here is not to blame the Receiver for delaying the claims, but to look at the whole scenario from a different perspective. Taxes would and could have been avoided if some claims had been handled differently, as normal claims rather than as disputes.
Analysing the tax issue correctly will also give the Receiver the correct arguments for WHY some claims will have to be reduced. He can’t reasonably be expected to recover money that has been used to pay taxes (in a “money in hands” settlement). If he want to include that part of the net winnings in a claim, he will need to find different solutions than “money in hand”.
Regarding taxes… I seem to recall an IRS (for Americans of course) that Ponzi losses are deductible (against income) for taxes, either backdated to the actual loss year (amended filing) or whatever the “current” year is.
Those who are considering settlement should contact their CPA for tax implications. You *may* have to claim the “discount” you received as income lest the IRS comes after you. (If you settle an 10000 debt for 5000, IRS considers that as $5000 income, really)
That’s rather logical. The IRS is using some “taxable event” logics, e.g. if you have received / constructively received income in the tax year.
The net winnings from ZeekRewards were received in the tax year 2012. The taxes would have been reduced if the Receiver had handled the claims like ordinary debtor claims, e.g. if he had informed the debtors about the amounts and how to pay it back.
INFORMATION should normally be the first step in a claims process. The creditor will need to inform the debtor about the claim, what it is about, how the amount has been calculated, payment methods, deadline for payment, other relevant info.
Even partial information can have some importance, e.g. “You have been registered as a net winner in ZeekRewards, and you will be subject to a claim from us. The size of the amount hasn’t been calculated yet, but we will inform you about the process and the different solutions”.
Generally speaking, the less information you give to people the more confused they will be. And people have clearly become confused by how the case has been handled.
People expected a different type of claims, i.e. they didn’t expect the subpoenas sent out to 1,200 net winners. The subpoenas CONFUSED people rather than initiating a payback solution. People probably expected more ordinary methods.
All the delays confused people even more. When a creditor has a claim, people will expect him to inform them without delays. They will expect the creditor to initiate the process, i.e. people don’t usually know anything about the creditor’s methods and logics for how to calculate the claim, so he will need to inform them about it.
For some of the debtors, the taxes they had to pay will be an indirect result of how the claims were handled. If they had been properly informed ASAP in 2012, they would probably have been able to settle the claim and finish the process in 2012, i.e. they could have returned money in the same tax year as the money had been paid out.
Note:
I’m still TESTING arguments here, to see if they can be defendable in court and can be used in a settlement. Some of the net winners will need a complete solution they can believe in before they can be interested in a settlement, and I’m trying to analyse some of the factors people have mentioned.
There you go being all logical again :).
I just can’t explain the extent of hubby’s denial and true belief that he earned the money, fair and square. I don’t think he will EVER voluntarily give up anything. We will see when he gets official paperwork.
He hasn’t paid a bit of attention to anything going on with this, and closes his ears if I bring it up. Yes it sure would have been nice not to have been hanging, wondering what was going on with the receiver, and if things could have gone in a more timely manner. Confusing it certainly has been.
I could just say oh well not my problem, but I’m still left wondering how much blowback could end up affected my life overall, then it is my problem, and I’m left to clean it up…as usual.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. It’s a phase of grief that your hubby had not come to terms with.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief
All I can say is, what a mess. I’m so glad we didn’t get involved with our own money. I’m also glad we didn’t profit at all.
Article updated to acknowledge granting of Receiver’s motion. Initial settlement conference has been set for the 27th January at 2pm.
Ooops. Not som at least as far as the first and weakest link.
Dawn Olivares and her son have been charged. Plea bargain appears to be in the works. I’d guess twelve years at medium security state prison in the Carolinas (with time off for good behavior and continuing cooperation about 8. She and her son pocketed about $10 Million which will be forfeited and redistributed to net losers by a Special Master (probably Bell).
My bet is that she will be singing like a song bird for her “deal” which will help ensnare more of the currently unindicted co-conspirators (Such as, but not necessarily, limited to P.B.).
Good work Dawn. Take the plea early, roll on everyone else and get the best deal you can.
Got a source for this?
Could be a precondition of her working for that iWowwe thing. 🙂
My gut tells me she will be stamping license plates not working at Wowee thing. She’s in pretty deep sushi…. as she should be.
The story is breaking on Google now concerning her son “the Zeek tech” as he has apparently plead guilty (she may soon follow) I can send the filings to you if you have an e-mail for the purpose. I think Oz is already in the loop.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20131220/ARTICLES/131229993?Title=Former-ZeekRewards-COO-tech-officer-plead-guilty-in-ponzi-scheme
I just woke up, got back from walking the dogs and going through the docs now.
All the interesting newsy stuff happens when I’m asleep. Will have an article up soon.
And we’re live – https://behindmlm.com/companies/iwowwe/dawn-wright-olivares-pleads-guilty-to-fraud/
I submitted my Zeek claims determination acceptance today, but it allowed me to submit it without asking for the tax information with the W-9 first. It is an additional button there after claim submission. Now I am so confused.
Clearly I am suppose to complete the W-9… but am I exempt from withholding or not exempt? I never made any money, my money is just being returned to me.
If I am exempt, what is the code number? I have not a single tiny clue as to whether I am exempt from withholding or not, and am lost as to how I am to proceed with submitting this.
It plainly says that if I don’t return it with my tax ID for their verification purposes, then I will be subject to a possible withholding. But if I submit it and my info is wrong, (like whether I am or not exempt from withholding) it is perjury and subject to fines and imprisonment. 🙁
You can probably report a LOSS?
The IRS have a collection of information for different types of Ponzi victims. Try to google “IRS Ponzi loss”, “IRS Ponzi clawback” and similar search strings.
Here’s “IRS Ponzi loss”:
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Reporting-Losses-Resulting-from-Ponzi-Schemes
If you find more information, please share it.
I would have to wait until the receivership has given me back all they are able to, and then claim the DIFFERENCE as a loss. But I would also have to wait until 2015 to claim it on my taxes, because you can’t collect your loss and then claim a loss at the same time. And then I would not be able to collect any further distribution should the receivership find anymore.
In other words, if they were able to give me back $1000 out of the $2000 I invested, I could wait until the following year to claim the remaining $1000 as a Ponzi loss on my taxes. But if Mr. Bell and his team should find more money during that interval to distribute, then I could not claim it of course.
But that is not what I was talking about. When those who have valid claims submit them as agreeable through the claims portal, we also have to fill out and submit a W-9. This is what’s confusing me.
I have to tell them whether or not I am exempt from withholding, and no matter how many times I have read over the explanations, I don’t know if I am or not, and am scared willy nilly if I answer it wrong. I am a wuss.
There is a possibility I am wrong about being able to claim the loss difference 2 years out from the time it occurred. So please ask your tax person when you go to do your taxes, if you lost in Zeek and are reading this.
I am going to have to ask the person who did my taxes last year about my dilemma with the exemption thing, they are the ones who advised me on my Zeek Ponzi loss when I filed in January. I am going on memory on what they told me and my memory is wobbly.
You’ll find some information here:
http://www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com/claim#33
Yep, that is what I am talking bout 🙂 My dilemma is swearing under penalty of perjury that I either am tax exempt, or I am not. I do not know if I am or not. Thanks Norway!
I don’t think I’m allowed to post links, but it isn’t internet etiquette to post other peoples stuff without giving them credit. This is from About.com, by William Perez:
http://taxes.about.com/od/taxglossary/g/backup_withhold.htm
It made some sense, but did it answer your question?
I tried to look at some PDF documents at the IRS website, and they have probably been written by aliens from Outer Space. Tax rules will often create a feeling like that.
Normally, returning people’s OWN money should not generate any “taxable event”. Tax rules are about that, about taxable events and about the TYPE of taxable events.
From the quote in post #39:
Normally (in my opinion), you should receive a 1099 showing your principal investment AND the amount you receive from the Receiver. That’s the only way you can be able to document your net loss.
A net loss should normally not be taxable. It’s deductible as “loss to theft” (rather than loss on investment). The payout has to be REPORTED in a tax form, but I don’t believe the payout should be taxable in itself.
Yep, it answered my question! Personally, I am allergic to numbers and accounting matters, so I have to first calm down before I can think clearly. Here is how it goes: Everyone is sent a W-9 that made over $600.00. (They are required to do this by the IRS.) If you are out of the country, a from 1099 is sent to you. Why? Something about having to withhold US taxes. The tax question I was confused about was confusing to me because I had the terminology and definitions mixed up. They are referring to “withholding”.That is different from being tax “exempt” like a charity organization. As far as what I can claim as a loss, I will have to wait and see what I get back, then you know what I’m gonna do ? I’m gonna give it all to my tax preparer! 😀 I detest this kind of stuff.