How many times did I hear in federal prison, people convicted of tax fraud claiming that they were just patriots imprisoned by a government gone amok. Fact was – they were in prison for their misguided belief. Considering that today the closing arguments were being made in the Wesley Snipes tax fraud case, we will likely see either a conviction (my prediction) or the miracle of the century – Snipes acquittal.
Federal prosecutor M. Scotland Morris portrays Wesley Snipes as a common criminal with worked with idiots like Eddie Ray Kahn to defraud the government of their duties as a citizen to file and pay their taxes. While Robert Barnes, Snipes attorney, portrays Snipes as a patriotic American who was legitimately seeking information about his tax liability. (If the jury buys that one – well, there’s some outstanding property in the Everglades for sale.)
According to Rick Cundiff with the Star-Banner:
Prosecutor Morris went first, telling jurors Snipes conspired with Kahn and Rosile to file a fraudulent refund claim for $7.3 million in taxes on his 1997 return, and sought to illegally deny his ongoing tax liability for 1999 through 2004.
“Nobody likes paying taxes. Nobody,” Morris said. “But paying taxes is the privilege we pay to live in a civilized society … That’s what this case is about – three men who believe they are above the law. They’re not above the law. Tell them that.”
Barnes invoked the Founding Fathers and said the Internal Revenue Service deprived Snipes of his civil rights by not responding to his letters seeking information.
“It may have been protest,” he said of filings by Snipes and by Kahn on Snipes’ behalf. “Protest is not criminal. It may have been disagreement. Disagreement is not criminal. It may have been frivolous. Frivolous is not fraud.”
Barnes urged jurors to acquit Snipes in the name of American freedoms.
In the name of American freedoms? What American freedom is it that allows us to avoid filing tax returns? What American freedom is it that allows us to avoid paying income taxes on the money we earn? What is Barnes talking about?
“The liberty to ask questions … the liberty to challenge your government. The liberty to engage your government. These liberties are American liberties,” Barnes said. “The Liberty Bell may be cracked in Philadelphia, but it can still be heard in Ocala.”
The last time I checked, challenging your government was perfectly legal as long as it was done through the legal legislative or judicial process. Here Snipes is taking the judicial road to challenge something he will lose and ultimately end up paying the price with his freedom. Sorry, but that to me is the mark of a plain idiot.
Every choice has a consequence. Snipes (unless I’m dramatically wrong) will pay the price of his choices with his freedom and while he spends time in federal prison, perhaps will come the knowing that he was duped by the likes of Kahn. But, maybe not, maybe they’ll share a cell together so they can experience the joy of knowing they took a stand for the civil liberties of us all.
For now, I’m going to do my tax return.
January 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
I totally disagree with our system of Tax Evasion prosecution… fine, if Wesley Snipes owes the IRS taxes, let them settle it in Civil Court like most other civilized countries do, where the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Government. Don’t send someone to prison over personal finances, destroying his ability to repay the very taxes in dispute. If he is found guilty in civil court, he will surely pay dearly with the IRS in penalties and interest, instead of removing a decent person from society; it is simply counter-productive and I can’t believe our Government has brain-washed so many people with tax charges that they are able to get criminal convictions not just for a high-profile, large $11M case but cases as low as $150,000 over 4 years…
WAKE UP America, don’t convict for criminal charges, a tax evasion case, instead, force it to civil where everyone in normal society, excluding prosecution and Government disillusioned types, benefit from the result.
The only argument the Government can use in these criminal tax evasion cases is one of deterrence… IT DOES NOT WORK and is extremely flawed. Maybe with this philosophy, in order to prevent people from speeding, which easily kills more people in this great country than tax evasion, we should create deterrence by spot checking the violators and punishing them with the death penalty…hmmm…great idea.
Maybe the people of America will wake up, the people who are on juries in these types of cases, and stop allowing the Government to control them and send a message that some of their policies are ridiculous and realize the next person under the Federal IRS microscope may be them…
January 31, 2008 at 11:04 pm |
OK.. here’s and ethical question for Mr. Gallagher. Lets assume that what is at stake here is the Constitution. Mr. Snipes has a question. He has numerous times over the years, presented it to the IRS, evidently pretty strange at times.
The IRS by its own mission statement claims it will assist the “taxpayer” in understanding the laws and meeting the peoples tax burdens while applying the tax laws with integrity and fairness to all.
The IRS has never answered the question ” What law (usually answered by a cite of the code) imposes a liability for a direct tax on our labor? Title 26 provides liability cites for tobacco, firearms and alcohol, specific cites, they are without question and very clear, easy to understand, and easy to find for anyone who reads them.
But in section 1 there is the taxpayer, taxable income, gross income from sources (but not limited to) but never a statement of the like ” there is hereby imposed on every individual a tax on any money, property or the like ever received.”
The courts in numerous decisions and opinions have stated many times the mechanics of the 16th Amendment. The mechanics of the amendment gave congress the power to tax gains derived from many different sources, and put the tax in the class of indirect excises. Totally constitutional, and within the law.
But here is the problem, and the source of all this scrutiny. The IRS has been for 60 years collecting a tax from the American laborer that is applied directly to their labor. This application is not withing the language of the act. The legislative draftsmen of the treasury department have rewrote Title 26 many times over the years and it is very doubtful that any mistakes have been allow to persist.
So if no mistakes exist in Title 26, then where’s the cite of liability? If no liability exists for a direct tax on labor, then no requirement to file exists. If no requirement to file? Then why are we here?
How ethical is the legal community for allowing the IRS to get away with prosecuting people for a non crime. A lawyer is an officer of the court, a responsibility exits for the attorney to inform the court of the lack of merit in a case. In these type of cases, silence by both sides of the bar to the fact that no crime exists and allowing the case to progress is tantamount to judicial fraud, and leaves the court as an institution, damaged.
So I put the question here again, So that perhaps a lawyer that is smarter than all the lawyers before her/him can set the record straight and end the discussion, free the courts of all the litigation and put the question to rest:
What USC 26 cite imposes a direct tax on the compensation for labor performed by an individual.
Should be pretty simple….right?
January 31, 2008 at 11:14 pm |
Mr. Harrold…thanks for your comments. And I agree…it really is pretty simple. Let’s say (for example) that I’ve been living with someone for 12 years (not really true, but again it’s an example). In some states I would be deemed to be “common law” married. But, we had no papers to support that. POINT: You don’t have to have a citation from the law to establish law. My guess is you and I are similar, we both file and pay our income taxes. (If you don’t – for God’s sake don’t admit it here). We may not like it, but we recognize that the law of the land requires as much. Snipes did too. Well that is till he met the likes of Eddie Kahn. Somewhere, he got brainwashed (drank the koolaid if you will) and decided that he wasn’t required to pay his taxes. As I have said too many times, I spent time in federal prison with people who argued the same point as Snipes. My fear – Snipe will end up where I was – just to prove a point. This battle has been fought before. You change the law through legislation, not by becoming a one man protest. Wish Snipes the best, but expect the worst.
Although I am surprised that the jury hasn’t yet come back with a verdict.
January 31, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
But Title 26 is not common law, it is a enumeration of specific cites pertaining to liabilities for a tax.
House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
by F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Dept. legislative draftsman:
“The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income `from whatever source derived’– thus taking in investment income–`without apportionment among the several States.’… So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on an activity or owning any property which produces income. The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the tax.”
The liability must be cited to exist…right?
February 1, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
How about 26 USC 861(3), which defines gross income to include compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States?
Simple enough for you?
February 1, 2008 at 5:52 pm |
Close, but misread. 861(3) refers to gain derived from labor. for example:
A temp labor firm that hires contract labor and pays the laborer 20.00 an hour but charges the company requiring the laborer 40.00 an hour. The temp firm produces 20.00 an hour gain for the labor someone else performs. The temp firm has a gain derived liability for the 20.00 profit.