Celebrity Tax Evasion

[Alareth]

As you may already know, Wesley Snipes is on trail for tax evasion along with two other men.

Around 2000, he fell in with Eddie Ray Kahn (Also on trial), who has formed and run several organizations that promote tax protesting.

From this article at foxnews.com:

In lengthy filings to the IRS, the three defendants claimed they did not legally have to pay taxes, citing an obscure section of the tax code that establishes that foreign sources of income for U.S. citizens are taxable. Protesters take that to mean only foreign sources are taxable, and wages made in this country are not.

This case will be notable due to the high profile of Snipes and the effect it will have on those that promote these shenanigans.

 

[MikeyMetz]

Quote:
In lengthy filings to the IRS, the three defendants claimed they did not legally have to pay taxes, citing an obscure section of the tax code that establishes that foreign sources of income for U.S. citizens are taxable. Protesters take that to mean only foreign sources are taxable, and wages made in this country are not.

Wow, what a weak tax fraud argument. What's the problem-- all the "16th Amendment was never formally ratified" and "the Constitution prohibits unapportioned taxes" arguments don't stand up in court?

Of course, troofers and income tax opponents will use Mr. Snipes' defense to pile on top of their other BS claims.

 

[Corsair 115]

I can't figure this out. Surely Mr. Snipes is wealthy enough to afford some really good accountants who could find all sorts of legal tax loopholes and tax shelters to take advantage of to reduce the amount of taxes he pays.

 

[Alareth]

I can't figure this out. Surely Mr. Snipes is wealthy enough to afford some really good accountants who could find all sorts of legal tax loopholes and tax shelters to take advantage of to reduce the amount of taxes he pays.

The woo is strong in Hollywood. At least he dodged the Scientology bullet ...

 

[Totovader]

I can't figure this out. Surely Mr. Snipes is wealthy enough to afford some really good accountants who could find all sorts of legal tax loopholes and tax shelters to take advantage of to reduce the amount of taxes he pays.

Wealthy enough... but not smart enough.

My favorite part about this whole mess is that every claim they have made has already been addressed in previous litigation- and rejected.

That and the whole part about them not having a single witness "because they don't need any" and the guy who refuses to recognize the power of the court... it's just hilarious.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ya gotta wonder what's going on in the heads of the lawyers here who as part of their job research previous cases to work on their own case.

"Well, here's a case that failed miserably, let's go with that!"

I guess they get paid either way so why should they care if their client isn't very bright.

 

[tomwaits]

Snipes fired his original accountant because he was telling him this anti-tax stuff was bogus, and he purposely shopped around for guys that would tell him he didn't have to pay. Then, he withheld taxes from his employees and told them that nobody had to pay taxes anymore. This guy is going to jail.

 

[timhau]

Of course, troofers and income tax opponents will use Mr. Snipes' defense to pile on top of their other BS claims.

Yes, it does sound like someone (cough, cough) really has it in for Mr. Snipes. Anybody know what he did to piss the NWO off? The destruction of San Angeles in Demolition Man?

 

[Mince]

Amazing. So many people live in a magical happy land where they think soldiers get shot at for free and roads build and maintain themselves. I say, do not pay taxes if you do not want to, but then you're not allowed to drive on the interstate highways and will not enjoy the protection of the military.

 

[Walter Ego]

As you may already know, Wesley Snipes is on trail for tax evasion along with two other men.

Around 2000, he fell in with Eddie Ray Kahn (Also on trial), who has formed and run several organizations that promote tax protesting.

Some of these 'you don't have to pay income tax' people like Freedom Law Center are involved in the 'truth' movement. The American Free Press which is published by the Freedom Law Center was one of the 'sources' in the early versions of Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/03/911-deniers-attending-conference.html

 

[Viper Daimao]

Snipes fired his original accountant because he was telling him this anti-tax stuff was bogus, and he purposely shopped around for guys that would tell him he didn't have to pay. Then, he withheld taxes from his employees and told them that nobody had to pay taxes anymore. This guy is going to jail.

Not necessarily. The govt has to prove that he knew he had to pay taxes and didn't. If he can show that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay taxes, he will not be convicted. He will however, have to pay back all the taxes he owes.

This is where many sites, (like consumerist) have gotten these trials wrong. All they hear is the verdict of not guilty, so they think "wow, so he was right?" no, he was just stupid enough to actually believe the idiocy honestly. Ignorant press will run with a decision they know nothing about, simply buying the lies of the defendant while the truth is never reported.

 

[CurtC]

Some of these 'you don't have to pay income tax' people like Freedom Law Center are involved in the 'truth' movement.

Yeah, and I've been in discussions at the LC Forum about the income tax. Simply suggest that maybe those tax evader guys are con men, and you'll get shouted down by pretty much all the regulars at that forum. It seems like every single one of them buys into the idea that the income tax is not valid.

That shouldn't be surprising - their Trooth Movement has already selected for people who will believe ideas without proper evidence.

 

[tomwaits]

Not necessarily. The govt has to prove that he knew he had to pay taxes and didn't. If he can show that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay taxes, he will not be convicted. He will however, have to pay back all the taxes he owes.

Well, they showed how he was paying all the way up until 2000, when suddenly he stopped filing. And they also showed that he fired or rejected any employees that were trying to tell him this was a scam. He also threatened IRS employees that tried to pursue him. He was told by the IRS to pay up, and he instead decided that sending them 300 page books of tax protester nonsense was sufficient.

This is the problem with tax protesters. Even when told hundreds of times they are wrong and convicted, they still refuse to believe they have to pay taxes. So it's hard to say whether he "knew" he had to pay, but in my opinion, all his actions show he was trying reeeallly hard to avoid filing.

 

[Viper Daimao]

Here's some more news.

Odds have been posted on the outcome of the Wesley Snipes tax fraud trial:

Will Wesley Snipes be convicted of tax fraud?

YES – 1/10
NO – 3/1

The Blade star’s lawyers caused a stir in the Florida courtroom yesterday when they reeled off a list of 82 names including Muhammad Ali, Goldie Hawn, Spike Lee, Paul Simon, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters.

also, this is a very good tax law resource, debunking all tax protester claims.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

This is where many sites, (like consumerist) have gotten these trials wrong. All they hear is the verdict of not guilty, so they think "wow, so he was right?" no, he was just stupid enough to actually believe the idiocy honestly.

not even that, to get a guilty verdict you have to prove he believes has to pay taxes but doesnt file, to prove whether someone believes something or not would be near (if not actually) impossible unless he was dumb enough to say on record that its a scam, lol

honestly id be surprised if you could ever get a guilty verdict with that burden of proof, and thats why so many people go with it, at worst you break even and pay the taxes you would have anyway, at best you get off scot-free

 

[Bob Klase]

Not necessarily. The govt has to prove that he knew he had to pay taxes and didn't. If he can show that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay taxes, he will not be convicted.

But you really have to put up a defense if you want to show that he honestly believed anything.

 

[Bob Klase]

not even that, to get a guilty verdict you have to prove he believes has to pay taxes but doesnt file, to prove whether someone believes something or not would be near (if not actually) impossible unless he was dumb enough to say on record that its a scam, lol

I don't think that's quite accurate. They just have to prove that he didn't file. If he can convince the jury that he honestly believed he didn't have to file then they might acquit, but the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything about his beliefs.

honestly id be surprised if you could ever get a guilty verdict with that burden of proof, and thats why so many people go with it, at worst you break even and pay the taxes you would have anyway, at best you get off scot-free

I suspect that if you researched all the cases where they weren't convicted of the criminal charges, they still lost the civil case and had to pay the taxes plus interest and penalties. So the worst case is that you go to jail and you still owe the taxes, etc. The best case is you walk free from the criminal charges and don't have to pay the taxes- that's rare.

 

[Mince]

Not necessarily. The govt has to prove that he knew he had to pay taxes and didn't. If he can show that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay taxes, he will not be convicted.

This is patently incorrect, and I'm curious what your source is that would allow you to make this statement.

 

[fezzic]

I think the idea is that there has to be criminal intent (e.g. he knew he had to pay taxes and didn't).

I have heard of a few cases where there was an acquital on tax evasion but (it is my impression) those tended to where be the defendant actually got confusing or conflicting information and an actual intent to evade taxes would be somewhat murky. The defendant still was liable for the taxes and applicable penalties and interest.

No links though, so this is probably apochryfal.

 

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao
Not necessarily. The govt has to prove that he knew he had to pay taxes and didn't. If he can show that he honestly believed that he didn't have to pay taxes, he will not be convicted.

This is patently incorrect, and I'm curious what your source is that would allow you to make this statement.

According to Jeffery Toobin, a former federal prosecutor, that’s correct:

Transcript Anderson Cooper 360, January 14, 2008

COOPER: All right. I'm not a tax expert, clearly. I do know I have to file my return. So how could Wesley Snipes honestly not know about it? And does he actually have a chance? Let's bring back our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, who's actually prosecuted tax protesters and knows how difficult it can be. How can it be difficult?

TOOBIN: Well, because the Supreme Court said, in a very bizarre opinion, that good faith is an absolute defense to criminal tax charges. That means, if you honestly believe in your heart that your interpretation of the Constitution or the laws or whatever it is, that you're not obliged to pay taxes, you cannot be convicted of tax evasion. Now, I hasten to add you still have to pay the taxes. Good faith is not a defense to paying the taxes.

COOPER: OK.

TOOBIN: But the criminal charge, you can be acquitted if you go to the jury and say, "No, I really -- I studied the Constitution, and I believe I don't have to pay."

COOPER: But in the end you're still going to have to pay the taxes.

TOOBIN: Always.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/14/acd.02.html