Celebrity Tax Evasion

Of course, that defence could only ever be used once..... unless you could prove you had amnesia.
 
Walter Ego said:
According to Jeffery Toobin, a former federal prosecutor, that’s correct:
Click to expand...

What's correct? I'm not clear which side of this you're trying to support. If you're saying that Viper is correct then you'll need more than that.

Transcript Anderson Cooper 360, January 14, 2008

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.
Click to expand...

Toobin doesn't say the prosecution has to "prove that he knew he had to pay taxes". The burden is on you to convince the jury that you honestly believed that.

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."
Click to expand...

And in this particular case, Snipes didn't bother to try to convince the jury of anything. He didn't put up any defense.
 
Mince said:
Thanks. That's quite a revelation, and rightfully referred to by Toobin:

I don't reckon you have a reference to the Supreme Court opinion?
Click to expand...

Ah, no, but I'm sure Toobin is correct. (Aside from being a former U.S. attorney, he wrote a book on the Supreme Court.)

I hope you're not getting any bright ideas for April 15. ;-)
 
I cannot be prosecuted for failing to file a tax return if I have a good faith belief that the tax laws do not apply to me.

This is valid in theory, but it almost never works in practice.

The general rule is that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance is an excuse in prosecutions for tax crimes. The statutes defining the criminal penalties for violating the tax laws all use the word “willful” or “willfully” to describe the crime. So, for example, I.R.C. section 7203, which is titled “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax,” applies penalties to anyone who “willfully” fails to file a required return or pay a required tax. In United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1933), the Supreme Court held that the word “willfully” in tax statutes requires proof of a “bad purpose,” stating that:

“Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Much more info at the above link.
 
Also,

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#victories :
John Cheek was a classic tax protester. He was a pilot for American Airlines who filed no tax returns for 5 years. He was convicted of willfully failing to file and appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The opinion of the Supreme Court is rather confusing, and deals entirely with the issue of whether Cheek should have been allowed to present evidence that he sincerely believed that he was not required to file a tax return. The opinion is confusing because the court characterized his beliefs as “absurd” and ruled that he could not argue that the income tax was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, but that he must be allowed to present evidence (and arguments) that he did not understand his statutory duty to file tax returns. United States v. Cheek, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). He was therefore allowed a new trial, but it didn’t do him any good, because he was convicted again at his second trial. See United States v. Cheek, 3 F3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993).

Tax protesters will often try to claim that their violations of the tax laws were not “willful” because they had a “good faith belief” in what they were doing, but it didn’t work for John Cheek and it rarely works for anyone else.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Klase said:
What's correct? I'm not clear which side of this you're trying to support. If you're saying that Viper is correct then you'll need more than that.

Toobin doesn't say the prosecution has to "prove that he knew he had to pay taxes". The burden is on you to convince the jury that you honestly believed that.

And in this particular case, Snipes didn't bother to try to convince the jury of anything. He didn't put up any defense.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Since Snipes didn't use that defense, the point is moot. He could have used the defense that he honestly believed income earned overseas was not taxable but for whatever reasons his lawyers chose not to go that route.
 
Walter Ego said:
Ah, no, but I'm sure Toobin is correct. (Aside from being a former U.S. attorney, he wrote a book on the Supreme Court.)
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm sure he's correct too. I just want to read the opinion...the justices' mentality and rationalizations.


I hope you're not getting any bright ideas for April 15.
Click to expand...


Ha! No. I couldn't, even if I wanted to, because I've not earned income for four years. I am a veteran going to school (on a tuition waiver) and living exclusively off my tax-free GI bill. However, when I do earn money, I recognize the need to pay our soldiers. Even if all of the evaders were right, and there was no legal obligation to pay taxes, I'd still happily give up a portion of my income because I'm realistic and realize the benefit I receive from a standing military, among many other things, and would happily provide compensation.
 
Bob Klase said:
Toobin doesn't say the prosecution has to "prove that he knew he had to pay taxes". The burden is on you to convince the jury that you honestly believed that.
Click to expand...
i dont see it that way, it seems the basis of the decision is criminal intent, in which case the burden would (or at least should) be on the prosecution
 
I would point out that the prosecution has the burden of showing a willful failure to comply with the tax laws whether that was by failing to file and/or failing to pay. Also I believe Mr. Snipes also tried to get refunds from some prior years as well for which the government said he was not entitled to.

The question of whether he in "good faith" believed that some or all of a given income was not subject to taxation is (to me) an affirmative defense, "I truly did not believe that such and such was subject to taxation [for these reasons]". If the defense is not made, it does not apply.

It would be important for the prosecution to make the case that there was no "good faith" belief and that his behavior was willful. All part of its burden.

I understand that he may have paid back taxes with bad checks. It might be that if he were to testify as to why he believed what he says he believes that it would allow for cross-examination about the depth of that belief. If he paid for taxes at all for the period in question, he acknowledged that he owed taxes. Using bad checks to pay shows inclination to be dishonest. Such might undermine any benefit of the doubt that the jury might have.
 
Whether Snipes is guilty of criminal tax evasion is questionable,his total stupidity is not.
And I find his attempt to drag race into this disgusting.
The only problem with Snipes getting off is it will give a whole new wave of energy to the dumbasses of the Tax Protest movement.
 
....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.....
Click to expand...

Oh, great! With my luck he'll get this year's Johnny Cochrane who will mesmerize the judges with lines like "if the statue don't fit, ya gots to acquit..", and I'll wind up paying for all you freeloaders.:spjimlad::spjimlad::spjimlad:

(don't ask how many thousand of my earnings here are currently exempt)
 
Foolmewunz said:
Oh, great! With my luck he'll get this year's Johnny Cochrane who will mesmerize the judges with lines like "if the statue don't fit, ya gots to acquit..", and I'll wind up paying for all you freeloaders.:spjimlad::spjimlad::spjimlad:

(don't ask how many thousand of my earnings here are currently exempt)
Click to expand...
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a hollywood celebrity, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
 
I wonder how long the anti-tax woos will see this as a victory...

The New York Times said:
The jury found Mr. Snipes not guilty on two felony charges of fraud and conspiracy. He was also acquitted on three misdemeanor charges of failing to file tax returns or to pay taxes from 2002 to 2004. But the jury found him guilty of failing to file returns or pay taxes from 1999 through 2001. He faces up to three years in prison.

Mr. Snipes will pay all of his income taxes plus penalties and interest, said Robert E. Barnes and Robert G. Bernhoft, who defended him.
Click to expand...

Linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02tax.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom