{ "formatVersion": "notary-geek-public-claims-audit-v1", "title": "Public Website Claims Audit: Attorney Wu Articles", "canonicalUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU/audit", "investigationUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU", "status": "published-for-public-review", "publishedAt": "2026-09-14", "lastUpdated": "2026-09-18", "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-18-04", "robots": "index, follow", "notice": "This is an evidence-based audit of identified public website claims. It is not legal advice and does not establish intent, reliance, harm, or professional misconduct.", "originContext": { "trigger": "Notary Geek's firsthand operator record states that a complaint characterized the website as harmful without identifying a specific page, statement, or claimed consequence.", "source": { "type": "Notary Geek firsthand operating evidence", "recordedAt": "2026-09-18", "repositoryRecord": "docs/evidence-records/attorney-wu-complaint-scope-operator-record-2026-09-18.md", "limitation": "First-party context from the person who received and reviewed the complaint; not independent corroboration. The complaint and private filing material are not published." }, "response": "Rather than answer that generalized allegation with another generalization, the audit preserved the relevant public claims, checked them against primary authority, and published bounded findings so the review can be examined and the investigation can continue from a documented record.", "investigativeQuestion": "Whether the generalized criticism displaced scrutiny rather than identifying substantiated harm, where the complaint supplied no specific harmful statement but the complainant's own public material supplied statements that could be preserved and checked.", "boundary": "The audit does not publish or attempt to adjudicate the complaint. Its findings support further investigation but do not by themselves establish motive, intentional projection, reliance, harm, professional misconduct, or that the complaint was knowingly false." }, "methodology": { "summary": "The review preserves the published page, identifies a specific claim, compares that claim with primary authority, states the correction in ordinary language, distinguishes controlling law from guidance, and records limitations.", "sourceRevision": "Pinned research source revision 8b145b3d76aa73c033566d759dad71b705f48149", "scope": "Four identified claim errors and one context-only reporting clarification drawn from reviews of five public articles published on January 30, February 2, and February 3, 2025.", "outOfScope": [ "Private communications or client matters", "Intent, knowledge, reliance, loss, or disciplinary conclusions", "A complete review of every page or video on the captured site", "Individualized legal or tax advice" ], "authorityTreatment": "Statutes, regulations, controlling decisions, agency guidance, form instructions, and internal agency manuals are identified by type and are not treated as interchangeable." }, "captureProvenance": { "capturedAt": "2026-08-29", "method": "Read-only review of publicly accessible pages, without form submission, authentication, or access-control bypass", "requestedPublicPageRecords": 423, "uniqueFinalUrls": 404, "http200Responses": 411, "http404Responses": 12, "http404Qualification": "The 12 observed 404 responses were malformed repeated test-surface links and were not treated as proof that substantive articles were missing.", "recordSha256": "5285C92D165599962F4F7B305897FF854D04BB01E7DB19862E1541DC8AAAA646", "preservationBoundary": "The complete captured record is retained separately. Each finding publishes bounded dated source excerpts and captured-body hashes; these excerpts do not reproduce the complete articles or prove omissions by themselves." }, "corrections": [ { "id": "fbar-willful-balance-measure", "anchorUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU/audit#fbar-willful-balance-measure", "sourcePages": [ { "title": "Understanding FBAR Penalties", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/understanding-fbar-penalties/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:49.707Z", "capturedBodySha256": "7e646f0344a3cf2ea1e992f7f1ce9f16a521551bea5cbbc0dae5f252932ca641", "excerpts": [ "Willful Penalties: The penalty is calculated as 50% of the highest account balanceduring the year of the violation." ] } ], "summarizedPublishedClaim": "The captured FBAR penalties page describes the willful percentage measure using the year's highest account balance.", "assessment": "incorrect", "correction": "For a failure to report an account, 31 U.S.C. section 5321(a)(5)(C)-(D) uses the account balance at the time of the violation. Highest annual balance can appear in separate mitigation or administrative calculations, but it is not the statutory percentage measure.", "primaryAuthorities": [ { "title": "31 U.S.C. section 5321", "type": "federal statute", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title31-section5321" }, { "title": "Internal Revenue Manual 4.26.16.5.5", "type": "internal agency guidance; not binding substantive law", "url": "https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-016" } ], "practicalSignificance": "The highest balance during a year and the balance on the violation date can differ materially, so using the wrong measure can produce a materially different maximum.", "limitations": "This finding addresses the stated statutory maximum measure. It does not calculate a penalty for any person or resolve mitigation, reasonable cause, assessment timing, or administrative caps.", "reviewStatus": "underlying-primary-authority-review-complete; public-review-ongoing", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-12", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "fbar-framework-current-amounts", "anchorUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU/audit#fbar-framework-current-amounts", "sourcePages": [ { "title": "Understanding FBAR Violations: Non-Willful, Willful, and Criminal Penalties", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/understanding-fbar-violations-non-willful-willful-and-criminal-penalties/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:46.743Z", "capturedBodySha256": "eee50bc8157667826d7264ad4e024f2ccb6a6ce350ac79c205640cee016ed624", "excerpts": [ "between non-willful, willful, and criminal FBAR violations, how these violations are determined, and the associated penalties, based on the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)" ] } ], "summarizedPublishedClaim": "The captured FBAR violations page describes its violation and penalty discussion as based on the Internal Revenue Code.", "assessment": "incorrect principal statutory framework", "correction": "Identify Title 31 as the principal framework for the FBAR reporting duty and civil penalties. The separately linked decision and historical adjustment rule provide additional background; this finding does not allege citation or amount omissions from the bounded excerpts.", "primaryAuthorities": [ { "title": "31 U.S.C. section 5314", "type": "federal statute", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title31-section5314" }, { "title": "31 U.S.C. section 5321", "type": "federal statute", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title31-section5321" }, { "title": "Bittner v. United States, 598 U.S. 85 (2023)", "type": "controlling United States Supreme Court decision", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1195_h3ci.pdf" }, { "title": "FinCEN 2025 inflation adjustment final rule", "type": "federal final rule", "url": "https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-01374.pdf" } ], "practicalSignificance": "A reader needs the correct body of law, the operative date, date-applicable adjusted amounts, and controlling precedent before relying on a penalty summary.", "limitations": "Quoting statutory base figures is not inherently false when they are labeled as base figures. The 2025 rule supports the comparison with the articles published in early 2025; it is not presented as a checked September 2026 penalty table. This finding does not state current penalty amounts or calculate an assessment for a particular reporting year or person. For an actual assessment, check the rule and amount applicable to its date.", "reviewStatus": "underlying-primary-authority-review-complete; public-review-ongoing", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-12", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "section-684-scope-taxpayer", "anchorUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU/audit#section-684-scope-taxpayer", "sourcePages": [ { "title": "IRC section 684: The Deemed Sale Rule on Foreign Grantor Trust", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/irc-%c2%a7-684-the-deemed-sale-rule-on-foreign-grantor-trust/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:43.808Z", "capturedBodySha256": "6fa2f4163ae56ff91bf5097ed252e7ba6e88f3cb8431c8258251e0ede62edbf0", "excerpts": [ "However, this section does only apply to foreign grantor trust.", "The trust must recognize any capital gains on the deemed sale" ] } ], "summarizedPublishedClaim": "The page states that section 684 only applies to foreign grantor trusts and that the trust must recognize capital gains.", "assessment": "incorrect categorical scope; gain-recognition statement requires transfer-specific analysis", "correction": "Section 684 generally addresses transfers by a U.S. person to a foreign estate or trust. Under section 684(a), the transferor recognizes gain. Grantor-owner treatment can provide an exception; cessation of that treatment can produce a deemed transfer, subject to applicable exceptions. This finding does not claim that gain recognition at death is automatic.", "primaryAuthorities": [ { "title": "26 U.S.C. section 684", "type": "federal statute", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A26+section%3A684+edition%3Aprelim%29" }, { "title": "Treasury Decision 8956 and final section 684 regulations", "type": "Treasury final regulation and explanatory material", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2001-07-20/pdf/FR-2001-07-20.pdf" }, { "title": "IRS Notice 2011-66", "type": "federal agency guidance", "url": "https://www.irs.gov/irb/2011-35_IRB" } ], "practicalSignificance": "Categorical descriptions can obscure who recognizes gain under the applicable transfer rule and whether an exception applies.", "limitations": "The article correctly identifies a real section 684 risk in a completed-gift fact pattern where owner status ends and section 1014 basis is unavailable. Individual results depend on the trust and transfer facts.", "reviewStatus": "underlying-primary-authority-review-complete; public-review-ongoing", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-12", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "trust-classification-court-control", "anchorUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU/audit#trust-classification-court-control", "sourcePages": [ { "title": "Understanding the Grantor Trust Rules Under IRC section 679: Key Considerations for Foreign Trusts", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/understanding-the-grantor-trust-rules-under-irc-%c2%a7-679-key-considerations-for-foreign-trusts/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:34.882Z", "capturedBodySha256": "a080332926cf12444d233e413865f4652196bd69718a539c243b22ebccbf88db", "excerpts": [ "Court Test: A foreign court can exercise primary supervision over the trust’s administration." ] }, { "title": "Foreign Grantor Trusts: Tax Implications for Grantors and Beneficiaries", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/foreign-grantor-trusts-tax-implications-for-grantors-and-beneficiaries/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:37.766Z", "capturedBodySha256": "66f178367dfbbd09e1f7167f68f3ff78924763011f10e68753e4d5d0a389b6f0", "excerpts": [ "Court Test: A foreign court can exercise primary supervision over the trust’s administration." ] } ], "summarizedPublishedClaim": "The pages label as the court test a foreign court's ability to exercise primary supervision over the trust's administration.", "assessment": "incorrect", "correction": "A trust is domestic only if a U.S. court can exercise primary supervision over administration and one or more U.S. persons collectively control all substantial decisions. A trust is foreign if it fails either domestic-trust requirement. Foreign-court jurisdiction alone does not decide the court test.", "primaryAuthorities": [ { "title": "26 U.S.C. section 7701(a)(30)-(31)", "type": "federal statute", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section7701&num=0&edition=prelim" }, { "title": "26 C.F.R. section 301.7701-7", "type": "Treasury regulation", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title26-vol20/pdf/CFR-2025-title26-vol20-sec301-7701-7.pdf" } ], "practicalSignificance": "Domestic or foreign classification affects which tax and reporting rules apply. Reversing the test can classify a trust incorrectly before the rest of the analysis begins.", "limitations": "This correction states the federal court-and-control test. Applying it to a particular trust requires its governing instrument, administration facts, decision-making powers, and relevant safe harbors.", "reviewStatus": "underlying-primary-authority-review-complete; public-review-ongoing", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-12", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "foreign-owner-reporting-roles", "anchorUrl": "https://notary.cx/WU/audit#foreign-owner-reporting-roles", "sourcePages": [ { "title": "Foreign Grantor Trusts: Tax Implications for Grantors and Beneficiaries", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/foreign-grantor-trusts-tax-implications-for-grantors-and-beneficiaries/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:37.766Z", "capturedBodySha256": "66f178367dfbbd09e1f7167f68f3ff78924763011f10e68753e4d5d0a389b6f0", "excerpts": [ "35% of the gross reportable amount" ] }, { "title": "Understanding the Grantor Trust Rules Under IRC section 679: Key Considerations for Foreign Trusts", "capturedUrl": "https://attorneywu.com/understanding-the-grantor-trust-rules-under-irc-%c2%a7-679-key-considerations-for-foreign-trusts/", "capturedAt": "2026-08-29T17:02:34.882Z", "capturedBodySha256": "a080332926cf12444d233e413865f4652196bd69718a539c243b22ebccbf88db", "excerpts": [ "35% of the gross reportable amount" ] } ], "summarizedPublishedClaim": "The pages describe a 35 percent measure based on the gross reportable amount.", "assessment": "context-only; quoted 35 percent measure is supported; no error demonstrated by these excerpts", "findingType": "context-only-clarification", "correction": "Identify the reporting party and transaction under section 6048. Section 6677(a) supplies the initial 35 percent measure; for a return required under section 6048(b), section 6677(b) substitutes 5 percent and makes the specified U.S. person liable. Section 6677(c) defines the gross reportable amount by reporting role. These percentage measures remain subject to the statutory minimum, applicable additional-penalty rules, and the reasonable-cause exception; this is not an assessment of any person's liability.", "primaryAuthorities": [ { "title": "26 U.S.C. section 6048", "type": "federal statute; controlling reporting duties", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section6048", "checkedAt": "2026-09-15" }, { "title": "26 U.S.C. section 6677", "type": "federal statute; controlling reporting penalties and gross reportable amounts", "url": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section6677", "checkedAt": "2026-09-15" }, { "title": "Instructions for Form 3520", "type": "federal form instructions", "url": "https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i3520" }, { "title": "Instructions for Form 3520-A", "type": "federal form instructions", "url": "https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i3520a" } ], "practicalSignificance": "Role-specific filing rules affect who files, what is reported, and how an initial penalty base is described.", "limitations": "The excerpts do not demonstrate universal application or application to a section 6048(b) owner return. This is context, not an identified error, and not a determination of any trust's status or person's filing duty.", "reviewStatus": "underlying-primary-authority-review-complete; public-review-ongoing", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-12", "confidence": "high" } ], "authorshipIndicators": { "assessment": "The public excerpts establish the audited claim errors, not AI use or authorship.", "indicators": [ "Sections 1–4 identify claim errors; section 5 is context only. The errors do not establish who drafted the articles or whether AI was used" ], "evidentiaryLimit": "These indicators do not identify a person, vendor, model, or drafting workflow. Human drafting, outsourced content, templates, search-engine optimization practices, copying, and later editing remain possible. The audit conclusions rest on verifiable content and authority comparisons, not on proving authorship or intent." }, "revisionHistory": [ { "revision": "WU-PREPUBLICATION-2026-09-12-01", "date": "2026-09-12", "status": "prepublication-review", "summary": "Prepared the first web adaptation and machine-readable companion from the pinned, reviewed research sources." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-14-01", "date": "2026-09-14", "status": "published-for-public-review", "summary": "Approved for public indexing, established the canonical short route, and added public discovery feeds. Later changes require a dated revision entry." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-15-01", "date": "2026-09-15", "status": "source-clarification", "summary": "Linked each Title 31 section separately and limited the 2025 penalty source to the historical articles, without claiming a current penalty table." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-15-02", "date": "2026-09-15", "status": "evidence-clarification", "summary": "Published bounded dated source excerpts with captured-body hashes and limited authorship observations to the public evidence." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-15-03", "date": "2026-09-15", "status": "claim-scope-clarification", "summary": "Limited attributed claims to the published excerpts, qualified section 684 gain recognition by transfer rule, and aligned HTML/JSON correction text." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-15-04", "date": "2026-09-15", "status": "reporting-authority-clarification", "summary": "Matched summary and structured finding labels to the bounded reporting finding; cited controlling sections 6048 and 6677 and qualified the 5 percent condition." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-16-01", "date": "2026-09-16", "status": "evidence-scope-clarification", "summary": "Reclassified section 5 as context, not an identified error; corrected JSON metadata and canonical machine links." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-16-02", "date": "2026-09-16", "status": "evidence-scope-clarification", "summary": "Added initial bounded context for the court-test finding; the next revision replaced disconnected fragments with a contiguous statement." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-16-03", "date": "2026-09-16", "status": "evidence-scope-clarification", "summary": "Replaced disconnected fragments with each page's contiguous Court Test statement." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-16-04", "date": "2026-09-16", "status": "evidence-scope-clarification", "summary": "Expanded each FBAR excerpt to the contiguous Willful Penalties statement that establishes the attributed calculation." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-18-01", "date": "2026-09-18", "status": "evidence-scope-clarification", "summary": "Allocated the two FBAR articles to separate findings and published contiguous context showing what the Internal Revenue Code phrase modifies while keeping each source within the 25-word quotation limit." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-18-02", "date": "2026-09-18", "status": "evidence-scope-clarification", "summary": "Replaced disconnected section 684 fragments with two short complete source statements identifying the claimed rule and the deemed-sale transaction." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-18-03", "date": "2026-09-18", "status": "provenance-scope-clarification", "summary": "Removed a stale repetition indicator after the two FBAR articles were allocated to separate findings; the public record makes no authorship or AI-use determination." }, { "revision": "WU-PUBLIC-2026-09-18-04", "date": "2026-09-18", "status": "investigation-context-and-route-clarification", "summary": "Placed the audit under the broader investigation index, documented the complaint-triggered review context, and preserved the boundary against conclusions about motive or intentional projection." } ] }