The Taxman Cometh
January 15, 2008 8:04 PM Subscribe
Wesley Snipes is in a lot of trouble. On trial for tax fraud, Snipes is apparently defending himself by employing the 861 argument, a longtime favorite of tax protesters, which advances the odd position that only foreign income is subject to federal income taxation.
Of course, the IRS thinks the 861 argument is frivolous, and interestingly enough, some tax protesters agree. The argument has its long-winded defenders, though, and plenty of people simply take the cynical view that the government will take a slice regardless of what the law says.
Snipes' best defense may be that he really thought he didn't have to pay, but that didn't work so well for a previous millionaire who tried it. At least if Snipes is right, none of us have to pay taxes, big or little.
So who's left on the hook? Snipes' advisers, certainly. They've had a fine run selling tax evasion advice while posing as a Christian charity, but these things have a way of catching up with you.
Of course, the IRS thinks the 861 argument is frivolous, and interestingly enough, some tax protesters agree. The argument has its long-winded defenders, though, and plenty of people simply take the cynical view that the government will take a slice regardless of what the law says.
Snipes' best defense may be that he really thought he didn't have to pay, but that didn't work so well for a previous millionaire who tried it. At least if Snipes is right, none of us have to pay taxes, big or little.
So who's left on the hook? Snipes' advisers, certainly. They've had a fine run selling tax evasion advice while posing as a Christian charity, but these things have a way of catching up with you.
Always bet on black!
posted by chunking express at 8:16 PM on January 15, 2008 [8 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 8:16 PM on January 15, 2008 [8 favorites]
I've heard this described as a "rural myth," as opposed to an urban one, that according to some odd upside-down interpretation of tax law, you are not beholden to it.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:20 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:20 PM on January 15, 2008
1. Clearly, he knew that he had to pay. Any defense to the contrary will be blown out of the water by him adding the word "no" to the words "under (no) penalty of perjury" on his refund claim.
2. I take it for granted that tax protesters are idiots; however, is there something so hard to understand about the US having a common law system? Statutes are not the entirety of the law, people. Please learn about how your government works before you protest it, folks.
posted by god hates math at 8:21 PM on January 15, 2008
2. I take it for granted that tax protesters are idiots; however, is there something so hard to understand about the US having a common law system? Statutes are not the entirety of the law, people. Please learn about how your government works before you protest it, folks.
posted by god hates math at 8:21 PM on January 15, 2008
That's right, Wesley, abolish the IRS! Libertarians unite! Ron Paul 2008! Wait, what?
posted by zardoz at 8:25 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by zardoz at 8:25 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Man, I hate tax protesters.
Every single scheme ever devised, championed, bandied about, and ultimately shot down in flames can be reduced to "I don't want to pay, so I won't."
posted by yhbc at 8:26 PM on January 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
Every single scheme ever devised, championed, bandied about, and ultimately shot down in flames can be reduced to "I don't want to pay, so I won't."
posted by yhbc at 8:26 PM on January 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
Though I agree that Wesley is quite wrong here...
If there has Ever been a time in Amican history to not pay taxes, that is now.
posted by localhuman at 8:29 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
If there has Ever been a time in Amican history to not pay taxes, that is now.
posted by localhuman at 8:29 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm nowhere near as rich as Snipes, but I hire an accountant to do my tax each year under the assumption that they know how to do it properly, and if they stuff it up so badly that I get prosecuted, they're on the hook for it at least as much as I am. Preferably instead of me. That's also why they have malpractice insurance.
It's possible these shonk merchants duped poor innocent Snipes, along with a bunch of other people, into thinking they were legitimate tax accountants, with malpractice insurance etc and it was just due to their genius understanding of tax law, using loopholes that no-one else knows about and the IRS keeps as secret as it can, that his tax bill was so low. However if they gave advice so spurious that an educated layman ought to have queried it, at least sought advice from the IRS, preferably got a second opinion from accountants and lawyers, and Snipes chose not to do so, then he ought to be punished for attempt to defraud. Even more so if he sought them out with defrauding in mind.
My guess is he'll have to pay all the back taxes, 75% more as a penalty, and two years in a country club jail with time off after three months. The IRS will definitely want to make an example of him to the public, aiming to shut this nonsense down once and for all, or at least reduce it a lot. As for the accountants, I'll bet on huge fines and at least 5 years in jail.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:37 PM on January 15, 2008
It's possible these shonk merchants duped poor innocent Snipes, along with a bunch of other people, into thinking they were legitimate tax accountants, with malpractice insurance etc and it was just due to their genius understanding of tax law, using loopholes that no-one else knows about and the IRS keeps as secret as it can, that his tax bill was so low. However if they gave advice so spurious that an educated layman ought to have queried it, at least sought advice from the IRS, preferably got a second opinion from accountants and lawyers, and Snipes chose not to do so, then he ought to be punished for attempt to defraud. Even more so if he sought them out with defrauding in mind.
My guess is he'll have to pay all the back taxes, 75% more as a penalty, and two years in a country club jail with time off after three months. The IRS will definitely want to make an example of him to the public, aiming to shut this nonsense down once and for all, or at least reduce it a lot. As for the accountants, I'll bet on huge fines and at least 5 years in jail.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:37 PM on January 15, 2008
Always bet on black! (check here if you are subject to backup withholding)
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:44 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:44 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
For the interested, here is a 40-odd item list compiled by the Service with common frivolous arguments for the non-payment or underpayment of tax.
I really hate tax protesters. These are all bad people. AND TO THINK I BOUGHT THE THREE-DISC COLLECTOR'S EDITION OF BLADE. Shame on you, Mister Snipes. You are no longer the world's awesomest vampire hunter in my book.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:48 PM on January 15, 2008
I really hate tax protesters. These are all bad people. AND TO THINK I BOUGHT THE THREE-DISC COLLECTOR'S EDITION OF BLADE. Shame on you, Mister Snipes. You are no longer the world's awesomest vampire hunter in my book.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:48 PM on January 15, 2008
Hey what is going on with Britney? Did she really write a suicide note? And that poor Katie Holmes trapped by Crazy Tom--yuck! Where are the posts about these important topics?
posted by LarryC at 8:49 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by LarryC at 8:49 PM on January 15, 2008
Also, interesting post Tex, thanks.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:54 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:54 PM on January 15, 2008
AND TO THINK I BOUGHT THE THREE-DISC COLLECTOR'S EDITION OF BLADE.
You can buy a film unraveling the complicated tax law for a mere $14.95. It features 3D animation!
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 8:55 PM on January 15, 2008
You can buy a film unraveling the complicated tax law for a mere $14.95. It features 3D animation!
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 8:55 PM on January 15, 2008
Can I get CLE credit for watching it?
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:01 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:01 PM on January 15, 2008
Just pay your fucking taxes, Wesley Snipes.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 9:02 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by MaryDellamorte at 9:02 PM on January 15, 2008
I really hate tax protesters. These are all bad people. AND TO THINK I BOUGHT THE THREE-DISC COLLECTOR'S EDITION OF BLADE. Shame on you, Mister Snipes. You are no longer the world's awesomest vampire hunter in my book.
Ah jeez, so you bought Blade Trinity? Shame on YOU, Admiral!
I know how naive this is going to sound, but...can't he just, you know, pay up? I realize the IRS would probably like to make an example of him, but I'm sure they'd like their money (plus interest) a great deal more. And fighting the charge on these grounds strikes me as...uh...doomed.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:03 PM on January 15, 2008
Ah jeez, so you bought Blade Trinity? Shame on YOU, Admiral!
I know how naive this is going to sound, but...can't he just, you know, pay up? I realize the IRS would probably like to make an example of him, but I'm sure they'd like their money (plus interest) a great deal more. And fighting the charge on these grounds strikes me as...uh...doomed.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:03 PM on January 15, 2008
Wow.
I always liked the guy, but this seems like a dick move.
posted by Artw at 9:03 PM on January 15, 2008
I always liked the guy, but this seems like a dick move.
posted by Artw at 9:03 PM on January 15, 2008
(Oh, never mind. For some reason I read that as three discs = the three Blade movies. Though why in the world there need to be three discs of Blade I couldn't tell you. One was about half an hour too much.)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:07 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:07 PM on January 15, 2008
which will go over worse with the jury: the fact that the 861 argument has never helped them avoid taxes, or the fact that wesley snipes recently called their entire community racist? the only thing worse than a tax protestor is a racemongering tax protestor.
posted by bruce at 9:10 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by bruce at 9:10 PM on January 15, 2008
Kittens, just off the top of my head, the Service may be looking at the 20% Section 6662 underpayment penalty, the 75% Section 6663 fraud penalty, Section 6601 interest on underpayment/nonpayment of tax, possibly felony criminal liability under Section 7201 (fine of up to $100,000, up to 5 years in prison, plus the gov't's clost of prosecution), his own attorney's costs--plus the actual taxes he owes.
Plus he would have to live with the fact that while he is in prison, vampires are fucking running AMOK.
This is neither tax advice, nor vampire advice. Consult your own tax or vampire adviser. This was not meant to be used by you, and cannot be used by you, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or under the Necronomicon of 730, in each case as amended from time to time, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:15 PM on January 15, 2008 [11 favorites]
Plus he would have to live with the fact that while he is in prison, vampires are fucking running AMOK.
This is neither tax advice, nor vampire advice. Consult your own tax or vampire adviser. This was not meant to be used by you, and cannot be used by you, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or under the Necronomicon of 730, in each case as amended from time to time, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:15 PM on January 15, 2008 [11 favorites]
Yo, celebrities! The IRS LOVES to make examples of y'all.
Too bad there aren't any good accountants in Hollywood. You'd think somebody there would understand tax law.
posted by mrhappy at 9:21 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Too bad there aren't any good accountants in Hollywood. You'd think somebody there would understand tax law.
posted by mrhappy at 9:21 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Some motherfuckers are always trying to iceskate uphill.
posted by adipocere at 9:25 PM on January 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 9:25 PM on January 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
plenty of people simply take the cynical view that the government will take a slice regardless of what the law says.
heh - it's like people think they have all that awesome military hardware just because they're gun collectors ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:28 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
heh - it's like people think they have all that awesome military hardware just because they're gun collectors ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:28 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Plus he would have to live with the fact that while he is in prison, vampires are fucking running AMOK.
Dude, we are so screwed if only Van Wilder and Jessica Biel stand between us and the '90s techno-lovin' vampire hordes. That is all that I am saying. I hope you're happy, IRS.
(Also, yeah, I can see that he would still owe the taxes even if imprisoned, I'm just wondering whether he might have a higher likelihood of actually paying them -- plus whatever they want to tack on for fraud, etc. -- were he actively employed. Because I have a feeling this money is gone.)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:29 PM on January 15, 2008
Dude, we are so screwed if only Van Wilder and Jessica Biel stand between us and the '90s techno-lovin' vampire hordes. That is all that I am saying. I hope you're happy, IRS.
(Also, yeah, I can see that he would still owe the taxes even if imprisoned, I'm just wondering whether he might have a higher likelihood of actually paying them -- plus whatever they want to tack on for fraud, etc. -- were he actively employed. Because I have a feeling this money is gone.)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:29 PM on January 15, 2008
John Cutter: Charlie, ever played roulette?
Charles Rane: On occasion.
John Cutter: Well, let me give you a word of advice. Always bet on black!
Memorable words, Mr. Snipes. Memorable words.
posted by killdevil at 9:30 PM on January 15, 2008
Charles Rane: On occasion.
John Cutter: Well, let me give you a word of advice. Always bet on black!
Memorable words, Mr. Snipes. Memorable words.
posted by killdevil at 9:30 PM on January 15, 2008
kittens for breakfast: I know how naive this is going to sound, but...can't he just, you know, pay up? I realize the IRS would probably like to make an example of him, but I'm sure they'd like their money (plus interest) a great deal more.
The DOJ, and not the IRS, prosecutes federal criminal cases. Once the matter has been referred to the DOJ for prosecution (at the DOJ's option), it's too late to make things nice with the IRS.
Did you know Rudy Giuliani prosecuted Leona Helmsley? Putting away celebrities is a good career move for a prosecutor.
Admiral Haddock: possibly felony criminal liability under Section 7201
My understand is that he was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the US under 18 USC 371, making fraudulent claims under 18 USC 287, and willfull failure to file under section 7203. I don't know why there was no 7201 charge, but I am not a tax crimes expert.
pyramid termite: heh - it's like people think they have all that awesome military hardware just because they're gun collectors ...
Well, whatever. Arguments that the legality of the income tax is irrelevant because the government would take it by force whether it was legal or not are kind of boring, and they almost seem to concede the tax protesters' points.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:34 PM on January 15, 2008
The DOJ, and not the IRS, prosecutes federal criminal cases. Once the matter has been referred to the DOJ for prosecution (at the DOJ's option), it's too late to make things nice with the IRS.
Did you know Rudy Giuliani prosecuted Leona Helmsley? Putting away celebrities is a good career move for a prosecutor.
Admiral Haddock: possibly felony criminal liability under Section 7201
My understand is that he was indicted for conspiracy to defraud the US under 18 USC 371, making fraudulent claims under 18 USC 287, and willfull failure to file under section 7203. I don't know why there was no 7201 charge, but I am not a tax crimes expert.
pyramid termite: heh - it's like people think they have all that awesome military hardware just because they're gun collectors ...
Well, whatever. Arguments that the legality of the income tax is irrelevant because the government would take it by force whether it was legal or not are kind of boring, and they almost seem to concede the tax protesters' points.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:34 PM on January 15, 2008
"Snipes is apparently defending himself by employing the 861 argument"
It's hard to tell the full extent of his defense from the first link, but Snipes' interests don't align with those of Rosile and Kahn and surely he has retained separate counsel. If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised if his counsel thinks asserting an 861 defense is just going to serve to piss the court off and make him look like a fraud and his attorneys look like hacks.
Mightn't his defense be limited to his good faith, honest and reasonable belief, etc..., leaving the 861 crap for Rosile and Kahn to use to embarrass themselves? In other words, couldn't he get the benefit of the one-in-a-flillion chance the court buys an 861 defense asserted by Rosile and Kahn
(because, if it won, he would have done nothing wrong) without out actually attaching his name to that defense?
If I wanted a judge and a jury to believe in my good faith I wouldn't want to put such an asinine defense out there unless I really had to, even if it meant risking losing the ability to even mention it on a potential appeal.
(i don't practice tax crimes law and these are idle and uninformed questions/speculation)
posted by psmith at 9:38 PM on January 15, 2008
It's hard to tell the full extent of his defense from the first link, but Snipes' interests don't align with those of Rosile and Kahn and surely he has retained separate counsel. If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised if his counsel thinks asserting an 861 defense is just going to serve to piss the court off and make him look like a fraud and his attorneys look like hacks.
Mightn't his defense be limited to his good faith, honest and reasonable belief, etc..., leaving the 861 crap for Rosile and Kahn to use to embarrass themselves? In other words, couldn't he get the benefit of the one-in-a-flillion chance the court buys an 861 defense asserted by Rosile and Kahn
(because, if it won, he would have done nothing wrong) without out actually attaching his name to that defense?
If I wanted a judge and a jury to believe in my good faith I wouldn't want to put such an asinine defense out there unless I really had to, even if it meant risking losing the ability to even mention it on a potential appeal.
(i don't practice tax crimes law and these are idle and uninformed questions/speculation)
posted by psmith at 9:38 PM on January 15, 2008
Gary Beacom, the iconoclast Canadian figure skater was jailed and then deported for not paying US taxes, after publically speaking about the illegality of the US income tax (he had just started doing pairs skating--which made his now partnerless skating partner very, very angry with him).
I think when you go public about it, you pretty much are guaranteed to get the IRS on your ass.
posted by eye of newt at 9:41 PM on January 15, 2008
I think when you go public about it, you pretty much are guaranteed to get the IRS on your ass.
posted by eye of newt at 9:41 PM on January 15, 2008
Mightn't his defense be limited to his good faith, honest and reasonable belief, etc..., leaving the 861 crap for Rosile and Kahn to use to embarrass themselves? In other words, couldn't he get the benefit of the one-in-a-flillion chance the court buys an 861 defense asserted by Rosile and Kahn (because, if it won, he would have done nothing wrong) without out actually attaching his name to that defense?
I absolutely agree, and I tried to touch on that in the post. They're still selecting a jury, as far as I know, and if Snipes counsel has half a brain, 861 won't be raised at trial. My understanding is that Snipes has justified his noncompliance by reference to the 861 argument in the past, though.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:41 PM on January 15, 2008
I absolutely agree, and I tried to touch on that in the post. They're still selecting a jury, as far as I know, and if Snipes counsel has half a brain, 861 won't be raised at trial. My understanding is that Snipes has justified his noncompliance by reference to the 861 argument in the past, though.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:41 PM on January 15, 2008
My favorite tax-evasion "argument" is the one where tax laws are invalid because the "US Supreme Court" that handles tax cases is actually a secret Maritime court due to the gold trim on it's flag. Therefore, the USSC in Washington only has jurisdiction over naval and shipping matters, and thus all precedent they have passed down is null and void. The real US Supreme Court is inaccessible to regular citizens because it's hidden in a secret mountain base or something along those lines.
No, I'm not making that up. Thats an actual tax-protester agrument that I've heard. Has anybody else heard this one?
posted by Avenger at 9:42 PM on January 15, 2008 [3 favorites]
No, I'm not making that up. Thats an actual tax-protester agrument that I've heard. Has anybody else heard this one?
posted by Avenger at 9:42 PM on January 15, 2008 [3 favorites]
"Snipes' best defense may be that he really thought he didn't have to pay, but that didn't work so well for a previous millionaire who tried it."
Yeah, didn't work so well for Willie Nelson, either, though he didn't try to play it off as a protest, and it sounds like he was just naive about how his investment really worked and got suckered. The IRS did nail him, though, but he got some help from people he had helped with Farm Aid and other fans, who bought his property at the IRS auction and gave it back to him. Not sure if Snipes has that sort of karma working for him.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:46 PM on January 15, 2008
Yeah, didn't work so well for Willie Nelson, either, though he didn't try to play it off as a protest, and it sounds like he was just naive about how his investment really worked and got suckered. The IRS did nail him, though, but he got some help from people he had helped with Farm Aid and other fans, who bought his property at the IRS auction and gave it back to him. Not sure if Snipes has that sort of karma working for him.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:46 PM on January 15, 2008
Talking about Gary Beacom reminded me of Weseley Snipes line in Blade, which is appropriate here:
“Some motherfucker’s always trying to ice skate uphill."
posted by eye of newt at 10:01 PM on January 15, 2008
“Some motherfucker’s always trying to ice skate uphill."
posted by eye of newt at 10:01 PM on January 15, 2008
Always black on BET.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:07 PM on January 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by Smedleyman at 10:07 PM on January 15, 2008 [4 favorites]
Oh, wait, I get it, 'cause he's a black guy.
I'd've loved to see Cutter in that movie turn to one of the henchman with the "WTF?" look on his face.
So...Snipes' turning to Scientology now?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:09 PM on January 15, 2008
I'd've loved to see Cutter in that movie turn to one of the henchman with the "WTF?" look on his face.
So...Snipes' turning to Scientology now?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:09 PM on January 15, 2008
Sometimes they win, folks paid in gold, pay taxes based on the face value not market value .
posted by hortense at 10:11 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by hortense at 10:11 PM on January 15, 2008
(and I (and others) agree with localhuman (and Thoreau's arrest was probably illegal anyway))
posted by Smedleyman at 10:15 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by Smedleyman at 10:15 PM on January 15, 2008
Arguments that the legality of the income tax is irrelevant because the government would take it by force whether it was legal or not are kind of boring, and they almost seem to concede the tax protesters' points.
but it's not really an argument about legality, seeing as those tax protesters wouldn't know a legitimate legal argument if it bit them in the ass
it's an argument about power and legitimacy - one that neither side is prepared to admit they have "lost"
and i don't know what could be more boring than a bunch of arcane bullshit about whether the yellow fringe on the flag means we're under admiralty law, or if the necessary amount of states really did ratify the income tax amendment or ...whatever
it boils down to this
government- "we have the power to make you pay the taxes or else"
protesters - "you can't catch all of us and we're going to tie up your court system with our specious arguments for propaganda purposes and there will be even more of us to hunt down"
in short the government tries to retain power and legitimacy and the protesters are trying to take it away from the government, or at least make it harder to use
and one of the keys to making the government look as if it's overstepped its bounds, at least in the eyes of those the protesters are trying to convince, is to make the government use its force against the protesters
i'm sure that you've noticed that the use of force in our society is often condemned by many who will argue that too much was used or that it shouldn't have been used at all - there have been examples many times on this website dealing with many different subjects - tasing, drug law, drunk driving, terrorism, etc etc
so arguments that reference force aren't boring - they're actually central to this time's politics and cultural battles and when they are eventually resolved, they will have major effects on our government and society
and both protesters and government know this
posted by pyramid termite at 10:16 PM on January 15, 2008
but it's not really an argument about legality, seeing as those tax protesters wouldn't know a legitimate legal argument if it bit them in the ass
it's an argument about power and legitimacy - one that neither side is prepared to admit they have "lost"
and i don't know what could be more boring than a bunch of arcane bullshit about whether the yellow fringe on the flag means we're under admiralty law, or if the necessary amount of states really did ratify the income tax amendment or ...whatever
it boils down to this
government- "we have the power to make you pay the taxes or else"
protesters - "you can't catch all of us and we're going to tie up your court system with our specious arguments for propaganda purposes and there will be even more of us to hunt down"
in short the government tries to retain power and legitimacy and the protesters are trying to take it away from the government, or at least make it harder to use
and one of the keys to making the government look as if it's overstepped its bounds, at least in the eyes of those the protesters are trying to convince, is to make the government use its force against the protesters
i'm sure that you've noticed that the use of force in our society is often condemned by many who will argue that too much was used or that it shouldn't have been used at all - there have been examples many times on this website dealing with many different subjects - tasing, drug law, drunk driving, terrorism, etc etc
so arguments that reference force aren't boring - they're actually central to this time's politics and cultural battles and when they are eventually resolved, they will have major effects on our government and society
and both protesters and government know this
posted by pyramid termite at 10:16 PM on January 15, 2008
Things that amuse me about this.
First, he is only defending himself against fraud, he doesnt get to challenge the law. Then if he wins, the IRS will sue in Civil court for the money, and he still doesnt get to challenge the law.
Basically, the Supreme court ruled, you have to PAY first, then challenge the law. Funny, kinda.
posted by IronWolve at 10:19 PM on January 15, 2008
First, he is only defending himself against fraud, he doesnt get to challenge the law. Then if he wins, the IRS will sue in Civil court for the money, and he still doesnt get to challenge the law.
Basically, the Supreme court ruled, you have to PAY first, then challenge the law. Funny, kinda.
posted by IronWolve at 10:19 PM on January 15, 2008
IronWolve writes "Basically, the Supreme court ruled, you have to PAY first, then challenge the law. Funny, kinda."
I also found out, there is a statute of limitations on money the government owes you on a return. If you don't claim it in five years, not only do they not pay you the same interest they'd charge you if you were delinquent, they don't consider the debt valid anymore and will not pay you back. There is no statute of limitations on debts owed to the government.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:27 PM on January 15, 2008
I also found out, there is a statute of limitations on money the government owes you on a return. If you don't claim it in five years, not only do they not pay you the same interest they'd charge you if you were delinquent, they don't consider the debt valid anymore and will not pay you back. There is no statute of limitations on debts owed to the government.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:27 PM on January 15, 2008
Sometimes they win, folks paid in gold, pay taxes based on the face value not market value.
It's hard to tell from that summary, but it sounds like the defendants won because the government didn't prove that their failure to file was willful.
Every crime, in addition to proscribing a particular act, identifies a particular guilty state of mind that must accompany the act (this is a quick and dirty generalization, so bear with me). To protect taxpayer from being held criminally liable for simple ignorance about the tax system, the guilty state of mind that must accompany a tax crime is usually "willfulness." This has been interpreted to mean that taxpayers must actually know that they were required to file or pay in order to be guilty of a tax crime.
Importantly, the fact that a tax protester was acquitted because "willfulness" was not proven does not indicate that the protester's underlying argument was sound. If a taxpayer genuinely believes that the law as enacted by Congress doesn't require him to pay taxes on a $3000 bar of gold bullion received as compensation for services if it's stamped with a five cent mark, then he's not guilty of a crime if he fails to pay.
There is nothing exciting about this, which the summary you linked seems to miss. The taxpayer's screwy views weren't vindicated--he's wrong, and he was always wrong, but his ignorance isn't going to be punished criminally.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 10:35 PM on January 15, 2008
It's hard to tell from that summary, but it sounds like the defendants won because the government didn't prove that their failure to file was willful.
Every crime, in addition to proscribing a particular act, identifies a particular guilty state of mind that must accompany the act (this is a quick and dirty generalization, so bear with me). To protect taxpayer from being held criminally liable for simple ignorance about the tax system, the guilty state of mind that must accompany a tax crime is usually "willfulness." This has been interpreted to mean that taxpayers must actually know that they were required to file or pay in order to be guilty of a tax crime.
Importantly, the fact that a tax protester was acquitted because "willfulness" was not proven does not indicate that the protester's underlying argument was sound. If a taxpayer genuinely believes that the law as enacted by Congress doesn't require him to pay taxes on a $3000 bar of gold bullion received as compensation for services if it's stamped with a five cent mark, then he's not guilty of a crime if he fails to pay.
There is nothing exciting about this, which the summary you linked seems to miss. The taxpayer's screwy views weren't vindicated--he's wrong, and he was always wrong, but his ignorance isn't going to be punished criminally.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 10:35 PM on January 15, 2008
so arguments that reference force aren't boring - they're actually central to this time's politics and cultural battles and when they are eventually resolved, they will have major effects on our government and society
No, they're extremely boring, because they're just sheer speculation. I'm sure you like hearing yourself pontificate on these times we live in, though, so carry on.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 10:39 PM on January 15, 2008
No, they're extremely boring, because they're just sheer speculation. I'm sure you like hearing yourself pontificate on these times we live in, though, so carry on.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 10:39 PM on January 15, 2008
Oooh, this is a whole lot of "bet on black" and "ice skate uphill" bullshit, so I'm going to add a quote from *my* favorite Wesley Snipes movie, and throw in this:
"When a straight man puts on a dress and goes on a sexual kick he is a transvestite. When a man is a woman trapped in a man's body and has a little operation he is a Transsexual. When a gay man has way too much fashion sense for one gender he is a drag queen. And when a tired little Latin boy puts on a dress, he is simply a boy in a dress!"
Do drag queens have to pay taxes? I don't think so.
posted by padraigin at 10:49 PM on January 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
"When a straight man puts on a dress and goes on a sexual kick he is a transvestite. When a man is a woman trapped in a man's body and has a little operation he is a Transsexual. When a gay man has way too much fashion sense for one gender he is a drag queen. And when a tired little Latin boy puts on a dress, he is simply a boy in a dress!"
Do drag queens have to pay taxes? I don't think so.
posted by padraigin at 10:49 PM on January 15, 2008 [2 favorites]
Contention: Taxpayers are not required to file a federal income tax return, because the instructions and regulations associated with the Form 1040 do not display an OMB control number as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy, but man, some people really hate paying taxes.
posted by gottabefunky at 10:50 PM on January 15, 2008
I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy, but man, some people really hate paying taxes.
posted by gottabefunky at 10:50 PM on January 15, 2008
I am dying to lay out some judgments on Wesley's ass, but I gotta admit, if I had that much money I would probably be tempted to play some stupid tricks too. But I flatter myself I would have the good taste to try something slicker than a tax protest. That stuff is just let's-open-a-Creation-Museum-in-Kentucky stupid.
posted by facetious at 10:53 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by facetious at 10:53 PM on January 15, 2008
Seems to me I'd be more likely to just pay up if I had a metric shitload of money like Snipes does. I'd just mail in one of the mattresses stuffed with hundreds, or something.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 11:09 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by Dipsomaniac at 11:09 PM on January 15, 2008
"No free rides!" - Wesley Snipes, Demolition man.
posted by puke & cry at 11:16 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by puke & cry at 11:16 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Do you really need to pay taxes on income when it comes from taking wristwatches off of jive honky cops who are thralls to vampires?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:19 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:19 PM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]
Here is a link to the gold-trim flag conspiracy.
The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign enclave, the same as if you are stepping into a foreign embassy and you will be under the jurisdiction of that flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America...
So, now you see the fruits of the crystal meth epidemic in Red State America.
posted by Avenger at 11:25 PM on January 15, 2008
The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign enclave, the same as if you are stepping into a foreign embassy and you will be under the jurisdiction of that flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America...
So, now you see the fruits of the crystal meth epidemic in Red State America.
posted by Avenger at 11:25 PM on January 15, 2008
That stuff is just let's-open-a-Creation-Museum-in-Kentucky stupid.
But not quite let's-open-a-Creation-Museum-in-Seattle stupid?
posted by jtron at 11:38 PM on January 15, 2008
But not quite let's-open-a-Creation-Museum-in-Seattle stupid?
posted by jtron at 11:38 PM on January 15, 2008
This is just out and out greed; I'm a man of relatively modest means, and yet by living abroad I'm able to reduce my US tax liabilities to about 15%. Someone of Snipes' resources could employ vehicles (not available to folks like myself due to cost) which would reduce his overall burden much lower than 15%. He just wants to pay no tax.
Yah, liked his movies but I've got no problem if they make an example of him. Which they are clearly gonna do.
posted by Mutant at 12:46 AM on January 16, 2008
Yah, liked his movies but I've got no problem if they make an example of him. Which they are clearly gonna do.
posted by Mutant at 12:46 AM on January 16, 2008
I just want to thank Astro Zombie for using the term "jive honky", which I don't believe has been uttered by anyone in many a year.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:59 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:59 AM on January 16, 2008
Because nobody's linked to Quatloos yet, here's a link to Quatloos. Snipes' case has been discussed on the forums.
posted by dansdata at 1:33 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by dansdata at 1:33 AM on January 16, 2008
If only he'd tried the reparations argument instead, now that would be an interesting case.
posted by psmealey at 2:13 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by psmealey at 2:13 AM on January 16, 2008
If there's one thing guaranteed to piss me off its gazillionares evading taxes. They've got buckets of cash, Scroge McDuck level cash, and they want to whine and cry because the mean ole' IRS makes them pay taxes.
Tex wrote "At least if Snipes is right, none of us have to pay taxes"
Um. No. This is specifically about *income* tax, and the vast majority of people don't pay the majority of taxes as income taxes. Take a look at your pay stub and look at the bit where it breaks down the taxes withheld from your pay. Income tax withholding is going to be smaller than the other taxes. FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Total 'em up, and even before you take into account the income tax return, you pay more of your taxes that way than you do in income taxes.
The most persistant lie in existence is that income tax is somehow bad, awful, and us normal folks pay a lot of income tax. We pay bupkis in income tax. Its the other stuff that nails normal, non-millionaire, people, and you'll notice that all the so-called "anti-tax" politicians have never, ever, proposed cutting the taxes we pay.
Also, the taxes we pay are horribly regressive. Take Social Security, for example. Only income up to around $80k per year is subject to Social Security tax, anything a millionaire makes over $80k per year is not subject to Social Security tax. You know that dread "crisis" in Social Scurity? Yeah, if they removed that cap and subjected all income, even that above $80k, to Social Security tax the system would be raking in money hand over fist and be solvant for the next thirty or forty million years.
So don't talk about income tax as if it were the only tax we pay. For most of us its the least important, least significant, and least draining tax we pay.
posted by sotonohito at 4:30 AM on January 16, 2008 [6 favorites]
Tex wrote "At least if Snipes is right, none of us have to pay taxes"
Um. No. This is specifically about *income* tax, and the vast majority of people don't pay the majority of taxes as income taxes. Take a look at your pay stub and look at the bit where it breaks down the taxes withheld from your pay. Income tax withholding is going to be smaller than the other taxes. FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Total 'em up, and even before you take into account the income tax return, you pay more of your taxes that way than you do in income taxes.
The most persistant lie in existence is that income tax is somehow bad, awful, and us normal folks pay a lot of income tax. We pay bupkis in income tax. Its the other stuff that nails normal, non-millionaire, people, and you'll notice that all the so-called "anti-tax" politicians have never, ever, proposed cutting the taxes we pay.
Also, the taxes we pay are horribly regressive. Take Social Security, for example. Only income up to around $80k per year is subject to Social Security tax, anything a millionaire makes over $80k per year is not subject to Social Security tax. You know that dread "crisis" in Social Scurity? Yeah, if they removed that cap and subjected all income, even that above $80k, to Social Security tax the system would be raking in money hand over fist and be solvant for the next thirty or forty million years.
So don't talk about income tax as if it were the only tax we pay. For most of us its the least important, least significant, and least draining tax we pay.
posted by sotonohito at 4:30 AM on January 16, 2008 [6 favorites]
I really, really hope when Wesley starts going into his rant in front of the judge, the judge yells:
"SIT YO FIVE-DOLLA ASS DOWN, BEFO I MAKE CHANGE."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:18 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
"SIT YO FIVE-DOLLA ASS DOWN, BEFO I MAKE CHANGE."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:18 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]
Aww, I wanted to be the first one to quote New Jack City!
Screw it.
"Idolator! Your soul is required in hell!"
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 5:41 AM on January 16, 2008
Screw it.
"Idolator! Your soul is required in hell!"
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 5:41 AM on January 16, 2008
Take a look at your pay stub and look at the bit where it breaks down the taxes withheld from your pay. Income tax withholding is going to be smaller than the other taxes. FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Total 'em up, and even before you take into account the income tax return, you pay more of your taxes that way than you do in income taxes.
I'd like to know how you're filling out your W-4, because when I look at my own pay stub, while FICA is indeed a considerable sum, my Federal Income tax amount is close to 2/3 of my overall semi-monthly Federal tax nut (even including my NY State, it is still more than half).
posted by psmealey at 5:42 AM on January 16, 2008
I'd like to know how you're filling out your W-4, because when I look at my own pay stub, while FICA is indeed a considerable sum, my Federal Income tax amount is close to 2/3 of my overall semi-monthly Federal tax nut (even including my NY State, it is still more than half).
posted by psmealey at 5:42 AM on January 16, 2008
No, they're extremely boring, because they're just sheer speculation. I'm sure you like hearing yourself pontificate on these times we live in, though, so carry on.
the only thing i find boring is people - especially people who can't carry on a civil conversation without deciding to personally insult those they're arguing with
of course, being bored and everything, i'm sure you won't be bothering with a THIRD answer to me, will you? not even if i point out that many of our other failures of government are due to the lack of ability to apply force properly?
after all, the slow decline of our government is so boring ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:53 AM on January 16, 2008
the only thing i find boring is people - especially people who can't carry on a civil conversation without deciding to personally insult those they're arguing with
of course, being bored and everything, i'm sure you won't be bothering with a THIRD answer to me, will you? not even if i point out that many of our other failures of government are due to the lack of ability to apply force properly?
after all, the slow decline of our government is so boring ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:53 AM on January 16, 2008
Karma's a big ol' female dog. Eff Wesley Snipes and I hope the IRS does, with gusto. I'm sure Halle Berry does too, after what he did to her.
posted by fuse theorem at 5:54 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by fuse theorem at 5:54 AM on January 16, 2008
Wes, my friend, the federal government exists to prevent the rest of us from eating the rich. Just something to keep in mind. (Did I mention I'm currently unemployed?)
posted by newdaddy at 6:13 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by newdaddy at 6:13 AM on January 16, 2008
Snipes also seems to be involved with the Nuwaubians. If you're not familiar, check it out - it's an ... um ... entertaining read.
posted by Flunkie at 6:43 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by Flunkie at 6:43 AM on January 16, 2008
sotonohito: This is specifically about *income* tax, and the vast majority of people don't pay the majority of taxes as income taxes.
Point well taken. I should've spoken more carefully.
pyramid termite: not even if i point out that many of our other failures of government are due to the lack of ability to apply force properly?
after all, the slow decline of our government is so boring ...
Go away, already. I don't care about the uninformed, baseless speculation that seems to constitute the majority of your posts.
As far as I can tell, you don't actually know anything about anything, but you like to talk, so you make grand, sweeping claims that no one can readily dispute, either because they're matters of pure opinion or not subject to easy verification.
Contrast sotonohito's post above. It focused on actual facts instead of the product of the poster's overactive imagination and consequently contributed to the thread.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 7:09 AM on January 16, 2008
Point well taken. I should've spoken more carefully.
pyramid termite: not even if i point out that many of our other failures of government are due to the lack of ability to apply force properly?
after all, the slow decline of our government is so boring ...
Go away, already. I don't care about the uninformed, baseless speculation that seems to constitute the majority of your posts.
As far as I can tell, you don't actually know anything about anything, but you like to talk, so you make grand, sweeping claims that no one can readily dispute, either because they're matters of pure opinion or not subject to easy verification.
Contrast sotonohito's post above. It focused on actual facts instead of the product of the poster's overactive imagination and consequently contributed to the thread.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 7:09 AM on January 16, 2008
As far as I can tell, you don't actually know anything about anything,
as far as i can tell, you're just trolling on a little more subtle plane that you did before as someone else
remove the personal insults and there's nothing left of your last remarks
why don't you go away until you can debate like an adult?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:17 AM on January 16, 2008
as far as i can tell, you're just trolling on a little more subtle plane that you did before as someone else
remove the personal insults and there's nothing left of your last remarks
why don't you go away until you can debate like an adult?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:17 AM on January 16, 2008
A post I put together in Metafilter, which covers some of Snipes' tax evasion story: In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxgirl
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:18 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:18 AM on January 16, 2008
I would like to commend this thread for making me aware of the gold-fringe-flag theory. That's simply delightful. Thank you, Avenger.
posted by mkhall at 7:18 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by mkhall at 7:18 AM on January 16, 2008
Take Social Security, for example. Only income up to around $80k per year is subject to Social Security tax, anything a millionaire makes over $80k per year is not subject to Social Security tax.
This was part of the deal that got us Social Security. Not understanding this means you don't understand what Social Security is.
Social Security is *insurance* -- insurance against long life. You pay premiums based on your income, up to a certain maximum. In exchange, you'll get a sum of money monthly from your retirement for the rest of your life -- one year, or forty.
The wealthy don't need this protection -- they can live off their assets. So, they were adamantly opposed to paying the premiums on it on their income. They were being sold insurance they neither needed, nor wanted, at premiums higher that the people who did need and want it. They weren't going to play along.
So, the deal. Everyone pays premiums -- 6.2% of your income, up to $102,000, in 2008. Everyone gets the payouts. The wealthy get the small checks to -- they're basically jokes, but they paid in -- often more that you did, since they made maximum contributions for most of their lives, and you didn't, and the system works.
There is a chance, if the economy grows slowly (roughly 1.5% over the next few decades) that there will be a brief shortfall, and full benefits will not be able to be paid for a couple of years. The right answer here is a small tweak (say, up the cap to $115K, or the pay in percentage to 6.5%) or to simply cover the shortfall with bonds. After that, things sort out, contributions exceed payouts, and the bonds can easily be retired.
If the economy grows at historical rates -- more that 1.5% by a fair amount -- there will not be a shortfall.
The "Social Security Crisis" is a lie. There is no crisis. There is a mandated budget crisis, but it's Medicare, not Social Security. Well, that, and the fact that Defense/Security/GWoT is spending almost $800 billion -- about 60% of the total federal budget.
posted by eriko at 7:28 AM on January 16, 2008 [5 favorites]
This was part of the deal that got us Social Security. Not understanding this means you don't understand what Social Security is.
Social Security is *insurance* -- insurance against long life. You pay premiums based on your income, up to a certain maximum. In exchange, you'll get a sum of money monthly from your retirement for the rest of your life -- one year, or forty.
The wealthy don't need this protection -- they can live off their assets. So, they were adamantly opposed to paying the premiums on it on their income. They were being sold insurance they neither needed, nor wanted, at premiums higher that the people who did need and want it. They weren't going to play along.
So, the deal. Everyone pays premiums -- 6.2% of your income, up to $102,000, in 2008. Everyone gets the payouts. The wealthy get the small checks to -- they're basically jokes, but they paid in -- often more that you did, since they made maximum contributions for most of their lives, and you didn't, and the system works.
There is a chance, if the economy grows slowly (roughly 1.5% over the next few decades) that there will be a brief shortfall, and full benefits will not be able to be paid for a couple of years. The right answer here is a small tweak (say, up the cap to $115K, or the pay in percentage to 6.5%) or to simply cover the shortfall with bonds. After that, things sort out, contributions exceed payouts, and the bonds can easily be retired.
If the economy grows at historical rates -- more that 1.5% by a fair amount -- there will not be a shortfall.
The "Social Security Crisis" is a lie. There is no crisis. There is a mandated budget crisis, but it's Medicare, not Social Security. Well, that, and the fact that Defense/Security/GWoT is spending almost $800 billion -- about 60% of the total federal budget.
posted by eriko at 7:28 AM on January 16, 2008 [5 favorites]
why don't you go away until you can debate like an adult?
I'll debate you just as soon as you start saying something.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 7:43 AM on January 16, 2008
I'll debate you just as soon as you start saying something.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 7:43 AM on January 16, 2008
sotonohito: Take a look at your pay stub and look at the bit where it breaks down the taxes withheld from your pay. Income tax withholding is going to be smaller than the other taxes. FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Total 'em up, and even before you take into account the income tax return, you pay more of your taxes that way than you do in income taxes.Conveniently, I just got my latest pay stub a few minutes ago.
"FEDERAL W/H" (federal withholding) is about about $120 more than "OASDI" (social security) + "MEDICARE". Add in state withholding and disability and federal withholding is still $25 more. So I'm not sure where you got the idea that, before a return, there's more paid more in other taxes.
posted by Godbert at 9:00 AM on January 16, 2008
Maybe I made a mistake on my withholding form, dunno. On my paycheck I usually wind up paying about $10 or so more in everything else than I do in income tax.
posted by sotonohito at 9:12 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by sotonohito at 9:12 AM on January 16, 2008
He should return that jacket he stole in Passenger 57 while he's at it. And, always remember: you gotta rob to get rich in the Reagan era.
posted by Brocktoon at 11:14 AM on January 16, 2008
posted by Brocktoon at 11:14 AM on January 16, 2008
Man, you folks sure have seen a lot of Wesley Snipes movies.
posted by box at 1:12 PM on January 16, 2008
posted by box at 1:12 PM on January 16, 2008
And again, this depends on what you make... once you get over the Social Security cap, your income tax will start to dominate. This is true even for low-six-figure earners (who are above the median, but nowhere near Snipes-land).
posted by wildcrdj at 3:26 PM on January 16, 2008
posted by wildcrdj at 3:26 PM on January 16, 2008
Sheee-it! I'll tell you something, man, the fans are like women. When you're hitting, they love you, and when you're not, they just as soon spit on you as look at you! (The Fan)
posted by Megafly at 6:33 PM on January 16, 2008
posted by Megafly at 6:33 PM on January 16, 2008
Follow-up: here's an interesting ABC News slide show that comprises 17/18 celebrities (is Al Capone really a celebrity?) who ran afoul of the relevant tax authorities (such as the Agenzia delle Entrate, the Italian tax authority that jailed Sophia Loren for 18 days for evasion). Via.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:52 AM on January 17, 2008
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:52 AM on January 17, 2008
looks like he won. Or at least was acquitted of the main charge.
posted by delmoi at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2008
posted by delmoi at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2008
He didn't win. He was convicted of three counts of failing to file a tax return. He could face 3 years in jail, though a lesser sentence is more likely.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:22 PM on February 1, 2008
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:22 PM on February 1, 2008
rich people who minimise tax should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
posted by mattoxic at 3:10 AM on February 2, 2008
posted by mattoxic at 3:10 AM on February 2, 2008
"...rich people who minimise tax..."
But everyone, regardless of personal circumstance, should strive to minimise their tax burden.
I was watching this case with some interest, not simply because I've always liked his movies but as I'm American but live abroad, under the 861 argument linked to above, I'd be one of the relatively few Americans actually liable to pay income tax.
"The regulations say that only income from specific types of commerce, all of which have some kind of connection to international commerce or federal possessions, are taxable,"
Assuming the United States budget remained the same, while the greater majority of Americans tax bills would go sharply down, mine would dramatically increase.
posted by Mutant at 4:23 AM on February 2, 2008
But everyone, regardless of personal circumstance, should strive to minimise their tax burden.
I was watching this case with some interest, not simply because I've always liked his movies but as I'm American but live abroad, under the 861 argument linked to above, I'd be one of the relatively few Americans actually liable to pay income tax.
"The regulations say that only income from specific types of commerce, all of which have some kind of connection to international commerce or federal possessions, are taxable,"
Assuming the United States budget remained the same, while the greater majority of Americans tax bills would go sharply down, mine would dramatically increase.
posted by Mutant at 4:23 AM on February 2, 2008
He didn't win. He was convicted of three counts of failing to file a tax return. He could face 3 years in jail, though a lesser sentence is more likely.
that is a huge win, as these things go
"really, I am insane enough to believe these scam artists. I was not intending to defraud; I truly believed in my insane legal position on taxes." Yeah, that sounds crazy, but sometimes crazy works, that and jurors like celebrities when they aren't being assholes, and hate the IRS, and the IRS folk are almost always being assholes.
posted by caddis at 4:55 PM on February 2, 2008
that is a huge win, as these things go
"really, I am insane enough to believe these scam artists. I was not intending to defraud; I truly believed in my insane legal position on taxes." Yeah, that sounds crazy, but sometimes crazy works, that and jurors like celebrities when they aren't being assholes, and hate the IRS, and the IRS folk are almost always being assholes.
posted by caddis at 4:55 PM on February 2, 2008
« Older Nursery School Set Goes Gaga for Gogo | A little bit of unsmoked pig jowl goes a long way.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by R. Mutt at 8:08 PM on January 15, 2008