alpert@chovax.DEC (01/23/86)
[] > >Well, as a tax lawyer (albeit Canadian) I think I *will* jump all >over you. I would like to see more details before I am prepared to >believe your assertions about "political prisoners" and "guilty of no >crime other than...". > The simple fact is that the majority of persons in the U.S. who are convicted of "tax crimes" are political prisoners. For example, as Schiff points out, nowhere in our tax code is anyone "required" to file "income" tax returns, nowhere is the language "mandatory" or "required" used in connection with "income" tax returns, nor is failing to file such returns specifically made a crime with specific penalties. In addition, our tax agency regularly breaks all laws, from the Constitution to the tax code itself, in the normal course of their business. The reason a jury could be persuaded to convict Schiff is quite simple, it is the principle of the Big Lie at work, with a good dose of fear of the IRS thrown in for good measure. Justice in tax cases is nearly unknown in the U.S., one is presumed guilty by the IRS until proven innocent, the IRS has the courts in their pocket and uses judges as hatchetmen, and they are certainly not above lying to a jury in a court of law. Possibly in Canada things are done differently, but in the U.S. the IRS has nearly unlimited powers that go far beyond their actual legal authority. For more details, see my original Schiff postings, plus the books by Schiff, "The Biggest Con" , "The Great Income Tax Hoax", and "The Social Security Swindle". Bob Alpert ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/24/86)
>> >>Well, as a tax lawyer (albeit Canadian) I think I *will* jump all >>over you. I would like to see more details before I am prepared to >>believe your assertions about "political prisoners" and "guilty of no >>crime other than...". >> > The simple fact is that the majority of persons in the U.S. who > are convicted of "tax crimes" are political prisoners. For example, > as Schiff points out, nowhere in our tax code is anyone "required" > to file "income" tax returns, nowhere is the language "mandatory" > or "required" used in connection with "income" tax returns, nor > is failing to file such returns specifically made a crime with > specific penalties. In addition, our tax agency regularly breaks > all laws, from the Constitution to the tax code itself, in the normal > course of their business. > The reason a jury could be persuaded to convict Schiff is quite simple, > it is the principle of the Big Lie at work, with a good dose of > fear of the IRS thrown in for good measure. Justice in tax cases > is nearly unknown in the U.S., one is presumed guilty by the IRS until > proven innocent, the IRS has the courts in their pocket and uses > judges as hatchetmen, and they are certainly not above lying to a jury > in a court of law. Possibly in Canada things are done differently, > but in the U.S. the IRS has nearly unlimited powers that go far beyond > their actual legal authority. > For more details, see my original Schiff postings, plus the books > by Schiff, "The Biggest Con" , "The Great Income Tax Hoax", and > "The Social Security Swindle". > > Bob Alpert Unfortunately, Schiff's claims are very hard to verify, because in order to do so one would have to read the entire tax code! And, I suppose, most people convicted of "tax crimes" are political prisoners because Shiff says so. Or is it because you say so? How about some evidence? So far, everything I've seen about Schiff is consistent with two very different possibilities: (a) the government has indeed railroaded him, in violation of all the applicable laws, or (b) he is a criminal lunatic who has gotten what he deserved. Now, I don't have at my disposal any experiment that I can do to distinguish between these two cases. For instance, even if I knew how to obtain a transcript of the trial, that wouldn't help! -- if case (a) were true, the transcript would be a fraud. I certainly don't have the time or knowledge to read the entire tax code! So how do I distinguish? What independent evidence can I use?
shad@teldata.UUCP (01/27/86)
In article <4874@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > Unfortunately, Schiff's claims are very hard to verify, because > in order to do so one would have to read the entire tax code! Well, you better read and understand the entire code (USC Title 26) because, if you are a taxpayer, it is the only 'law' that is acceptable to the courts. Even the tax court has thrown out IRS publications as non-admissable evidence. A U. S. Supreme Court case (U.S. vs. Helvering) stated that one accepts the advice of an IRS agent at his own peril, meaning that you are on your own: even IRS agents are not accountable for their advice. Remember the well founded legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, the other principle of substantive due process (that the law should be understandable by one of average intelligence) not withstanding. --- Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. If you need legal help hire a shyster. --- -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (01/29/86)
(net.legal readers: this started in net.taxes but is getting into general legal issues as well) In article <662@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes: > > (David Sherman writes:) >>Well, as a tax lawyer (albeit Canadian) I think I *will* jump all >>over you. I would like to see more details before I am prepared to >>believe your assertions about "political prisoners" and "guilty of no >>crime other than...". > >The simple fact is that the majority of persons in the U.S. who >are convicted of "tax crimes" are political prisoners. Why is that a simple fact? I see nothing in your posting which makes clear that it is a fact. > For example, >as Schiff points out, nowhere in our tax code is anyone "required" >to file "income" tax returns, nowhere is the language "mandatory" >or "required" used in connection with "income" tax returns, nor >is failing to file such returns specifically made a crime with >specific penalties. I would assume it's up to the courts to determine what is or is not required by the laws of any given jurisdiction. There is no question that there is an Internal Revenue Code in your country, and that it was enacted by your federal legislators. Whether it requires filing, and what filing it requires, can obviously be determined by the courts. > In addition, our tax agency regularly breaks >all laws, from the Constitution to the tax code itself, in the normal >course of their business. Again, if this is so, the courts should be there to protect you. >The reason a jury could be persuaded to convict Schiff is quite simple, >it is the principle of the Big Lie at work, with a good dose of >fear of the IRS thrown in for good measure. I have some difficulty with this analysis. First of all, this "Big Lie" that you allege could certainly be counteracted with appropriate proof by Schiff's lawyers, assuming they have a legal basis for argument. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that jurors are fearful that they personally will be harassed by the IRS if they come down with a decision adverse to that agency? I find that suggestion somewhat repugnant, and would like to see evidence of such activities. I have no doubt that if any government agency were to try to interfere with the jury system in this way, there would be an uproar in the media. > Justice in tax cases >is nearly unknown in the U.S., one is presumed guilty by the IRS until >proven innocent, What the IRS presumes is irrelevant once you're into the court system. The court, not the IRS, makes the determinations of any tax and criminal liability. > the IRS has the courts in their pocket and uses >judges as hatchetmen, Again, I have some problems with this statement, and I think many judges would be offended by it. Can you provide examples? > and they are certainly not above lying to a jury >in a court of law. Lying to a jury, eh? Well, the issue in the Schiff case, to my knowledge, is not facts but law - whether, as a matter of LAW, Schiff is guilty given certain facts. I'm mystified as to how counsel for one side could "lie" to a jury about the law, when the other side has all the tools of argument at its disposal. To put it another way: if it's as clear as you allege that Schiff is no guilty, then surely Schiff's lawyer should have been able to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of one of the twelve jurors. The fact that this apparently could not be done suggests, to me, the obvious. And I will say the same about most criminal convictions. > Possibly in Canada things are done differently, >but in the U.S. the IRS has nearly unlimited powers that go far beyond >their actual legal authority. Again, I have some problems with that statement. Americans are not known for being reluctant to litigate. If the IRS attempts to exercise powers which "go beyond their actual legal authority", then taxpayers, obviously, will attempt to stop them by injunction or otherwise. If the taxpayers succeed, then the IRS's powers have not been shown to exist. If the taxpayers do not succeed, then the courts have determined what the legal authority is of the IRS, and hence they are not going beyond their legal authority. Q.E.D. Remember that, whether you are talking about the IRS's powers or the obligation to file, or anything else involving statutory interpretation, that the plain words of the statute may not say all there is to say. It is the job of the courts, in any case, to interpret the statute in the context in which a dispute arises. >For more details, see my original Schiff postings, plus the books >by Schiff, "The Biggest Con" , "The Great Income Tax Hoax", and >"The Social Security Swindle". > > Bob Alpert > ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Osgoode Hall Toronto, Canada M5H 2N6 (416) 947-3466 -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/29/86)
>In article <4874@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> Unfortunately, Schiff's claims are very hard to verify, because >> in order to do so one would have to read the entire tax code! > Well, you better read and understand the entire code (USC Title 26) > because, if you are a taxpayer, it is the only 'law' that is > acceptable to the courts. You are right, of course. Unfortunately, I don't know what to do about this because I'm sure I'm not going to live long enough to finish it, at least if I try to understand it. Doesn't leave me with many choices, doesn't it?
kaepplein@amber.DEC (02/01/86)
I lost respect for the court system when the Supreme Court upheld draft registration. Yeah, it was sexual discrimination, but they thought it in the government's best interest. Perhaps the US government is a little less lawless than others, but there is no sense pretending there is justice. Maybie you would like to talk to my co-worker about IRS harassment. He gave his lawyer a $nK pay-off to the IRS to make them stop, but the jerk lawyer didn't get the IRS to sign saying they had their pound of flesh. Consequently, the IRS is out for more. They are in tax court now. An IRS agent even told my co-worker that his lawyer was a jerk, because they would have signed and left him alone. Mark Kaepplein decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!kaepplein
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/10/86)
In article <1082@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: > >In article <662@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes: > >> For example, >>as Schiff points out, nowhere in our tax code is anyone "required" >>to file "income" tax returns, nowhere is the language "mandatory" >>or "required" used in connection with "income" tax returns, nor >>is failing to file such returns specifically made a crime with >>specific penalties. > >I would assume it's up to the courts to determine what is or >is not required by the laws of any given jurisdiction. There is >no question that there is an Internal Revenue Code in your country, >and that it was enacted by your federal legislators. Whether it >requires filing, and what filing it requires, can obviously be >determined by the courts. > Actually, I think you missed a bet here. Schiff's statements are actually irrelevent, at least in my understanding of legal language. The true relevent question is whether the tax code contains the single word "shall" anywhere in reference to filing returns. As I understand the accepted usage in legal documents, the word "shall" by itself is sufficient to create a legal requirement, no other terminology is needed. I rather strongly suspect that the tax code *does* use the word "shall" quite frequently throughout, in which case any court in the US, and probably most other countries as well, would rule that the code is setting up required actions, even in the absence of explicit criminal penalties. Also if the language of the sections of the code creating the IRS is anything like it is for such bodies as the Copyright Office and the FCC the powers of the IRS are indeed quite broad as far as making rules and regulations about the income tax. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) (02/14/86)
I don't remember where I heard this, but I believe that: 1. it is *not* mandatory to file an income tax return 2. if you don't, the IRS can "estimate" your income using whatever information it can get its hands on, an then send you a bill - it *is* mandatory that you *pay* (as opposed to filing) - note: of course if your taxes are withheld, and you don't want any refund, I'll bet the IRS would be happy to keep the excess if you don't file
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/17/86)
In article <1707@bbncc5.UUCP> mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) writes: > >I don't remember where I heard this, but I believe that: > > 1. it is *not* mandatory to file an income tax return > > 2. if you don't, the IRS can "estimate" your income using > whatever information it can get its hands on, an then > send you a bill - it *is* mandatory that you *pay* (as > opposed to filing) - note: of course if your taxes are > withheld, and you don't want any refund, I'll bet the > IRS would be happy to keep the excess if you don't file I think you're wrong - I belive it is mandatory to file a return, but that's not why I'm posting. This message just reminded me of an amusing story that I thought might provide a chuckle or two... I know a guy who, for a seven year period, decided that he didn't have to file a return. He figured that the IRS was withholding money from his paycheck, and since they already had his damned money, they had no business making him file a return - so he didn't. So the IRS finally decides that this is not a situation of which they are fond, so they audited him. The funny part is - the audit showed that over those seven years he had *overpaid* $11,000. (and this is a lower-middle class guy living in the poor part of town - $11,000 is a BIG chunk of money to him) His big problem was that he filled out his W-4 form claiming two kids as deductions. Over the next several years there came another 4 kids (his wife was pregnant as long as I knew her), but he never bothered to update his exemptions. The kicker is - because of statutes of limitations, he could only collect about $3,000 of that 11,000. I hope he learned something from all of this, but I doubt it. --MKR
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/26/86)
I wrote: >>I would assume it's up to the courts to determine what is or >>is not required by the laws of any given jurisdiction. There is >>no question that there is an Internal Revenue Code in your country, >>and that it was enacted by your federal legislators. Whether it >>requires filing, and what filing it requires, can obviously be >>determined by the courts. And friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) replies: > Actually, I think you missed a bet here. Schiff's statements >are actually irrelevent, at least in my understanding of legal >language. The true relevent question is whether the tax code contains >the single word "shall" anywhere in reference to filing returns. As I >understand the accepted usage in legal documents, the word "shall" by >itself is sufficient to create a legal requirement, no other terminology >is needed. I rather strongly suspect that the tax code *does* use the >word "shall" quite frequently throughout, in which case any court in >the US, and probably most other countries as well, would rule that the >code is setting up required actions, even in the absence of explicit >criminal penalties. No, I didn't miss that point. But those who claim the tax is unconsti- tutional are entitled to have their claim heard, and that is precisely what the court is for. As has been pointed out by another poster, the use of "shall" will not necessarily create an obligation (for example, if that obligation is in conflict with your Constitution). Again: that's why we have courts, to interpret the statute. And the courts in the U.S. have obviously interpreted the Internal Revenue Code and determined that the obligations it appears to create are indeed valid. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) (02/27/86)
In article <1707@bbncc5.UUCP> mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) writes: > >I don't remember where I heard this, but I believe that: > > 1. it is *not* mandatory to file an income tax return > > 2. if you don't, the IRS can "estimate" your income using > whatever information it can get its hands on, an then > send you a bill - it *is* mandatory that you *pay* (as > opposed to filing) - note: of course if your taxes are > withheld, and you don't want any refund, I'll bet the > IRS would be happy to keep the excess if you don't file On top of that, if you don't file, and you DO owe, rather than get a return or break even, the IRS tacks a charge that accumulated 5% monthly. This is in Maryland, I'm not sure if that applies to Federal.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/04/86)
In article <65@randvax.UUCP> jeanette@rand-unix.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) writes: >In article <1707@bbncc5.UUCP> mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) writes: >> >>I don't remember where I heard this, but I believe that: >> >> 1. it is *not* mandatory to file an income tax return >> >> 2. if you don't, the IRS can "estimate" your income using >> whatever information it can get its hands on, an then >> send you a bill - it *is* mandatory that you *pay* (as >> opposed to filing) - note: of course if your taxes are >> withheld, and you don't want any refund, I'll bet the >> IRS would be happy to keep the excess if you don't file > >On top of that, if you don't file, and you DO owe, rather than get a >return or break even, the IRS tacks a charge that accumulated 5% monthly. >This is in Maryland, I'm not sure if that applies to Federal. The IRS charges penalties on STATE taxes? The IRS behaves differently in different states? Hmmmm. -- --MKR If Man were meant to use the metric system, Jesus would have had 10 disciples.
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (03/06/86)
In article <1707@bbncc5.UUCP> mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) writes: > >I don't remember where I heard this, but I believe that: > > 1. it is *not* mandatory to file an income tax return > > 2. if you don't, the IRS can "estimate" your income using > whatever information it can get its hands on, an then > send you a bill - it *is* mandatory that you *pay* (as > opposed to filing) - note: of course if your taxes are > withheld, and you don't want any refund, I'll bet the > IRS would be happy to keep the excess if you don't file I'm not sure that is correct. I think that sometimes they are more concerned with following protocol according to the rules rather than keeping your money. Bureaucrats get very disturbed when things don't go according to the book ...
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (03/10/86)
In article <12204@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >In article <1707@bbncc5.UUCP> mfidelma@bbncc5.UUCP (Miles Fidelman) writes: >> >>I don't remember where I heard this, but I believe that: >> >> 1. it is *not* mandatory to file an income tax return >> >> 2. if you don't, the IRS can "estimate" your income using >> whatever information it can get its hands on, an then >> send you a bill - it *is* mandatory that you *pay* (as >> opposed to filing) - note: of course if your taxes are >> withheld, and you don't want any refund, I'll bet the >> IRS would be happy to keep the excess if you don't file > >I'm not sure that is correct. I think that sometimes they are more >concerned with following protocol according to the rules rather >than keeping your money. Bureaucrats get very disturbed when >things don't go according to the book ... It is not reauired that you file a return, provided you pay your taxes, BUT: The statute of limitations (for auditing purposes) is: 3 years, provided you filed and paid at least 75% of what you should have, 6 years if you filed but underpaid by 25% or more. For fraudulent returns, or cases where no return is filed THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. In general it is in your interest to file. Michael Lonetto UUCP:(allegra!phri!lonetto) USMAIL: Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016