dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/16/86)
In article <918@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >The IRS has also been known to fine people $500 (for a frivolous return) >> >for doing things like writing checks to "internal ripoff service." >> >Watch your step. >> >> I would be interested in further details on this, since I find >> it difficult to justify from a legal point of view. In Canada, > >Most everything IRS does is difficult to justify from a legal point of >view. I've heard this view expressed before, in net.taxes (which group I've now added to this discussion). I admit I don't know that much about the U.S. tax system, but I still find it hard to believe. Americans are the most litigious people on earth, and you have a solid constitutional framework which can be, and is, used to attack laws and procedures which are unjust. Now maybe the IRS really is so powerful that no-one can risk attacking it, but I still have my doubts. >> the filing of the return is independent of the payment, although >> of course they're usually done together. But a return filed with >> no cheque is just as valid as one with a cheque, and although >> interest will run on unpaid balances, penalties for not filing >> don't apply once the return is filed. How could writing an >> invalid cheque have any effect on this process? >> >> I could understand a charge of attempted fraud, perhaps. >> But filing a frivolous return? >> >> Dave Sherman > >About three years ago, IRS had Congress pass a law making it illegal >to file a "frivolous" return. I'm not sure exactly how Congress defined >"frivolous", but the way IRS has enforced this law is to discourage any >political comments that question their validity. Again, what does the payment have to do with the return? Where is this legislation - part of the Internal Revenue Code? Section number? Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo seismo!mnetor utzoo hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (07/17/86)
> I've heard this view expressed before, in net.taxes (which group > I've now added to this discussion). I admit I don't know that much > about the U.S. tax system, but I still find it hard to believe. > Americans are the most litigious people on earth, and you have > a solid constitutional framework which can be, and is, used to > attack laws and procedures which are unjust. Now maybe the IRS > really is so powerful that no-one can risk attacking it, but I > still have my doubts. In principle, anything the IRS does can be challenged in Federal court. The trouble is that before you can do that, you must first bring your case to Tax Court, which is operated by -- you guessed it -- the IRS. Once you lose your case there, I *think* you have to pay the money they claim you owe and then go to Federal court to get it back. This is extremely time-consuming and expensive.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/18/86)
> In article <918@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> >The IRS has also been known to fine people $500 (for a frivolous return) > >> >for doing things like writing checks to "internal ripoff service." > >> >Watch your step. > >> > >> I would be interested in further details on this, since I find > >> it difficult to justify from a legal point of view. In Canada, > > > >Most everything IRS does is difficult to justify from a legal point of > >view. > > I've heard this view expressed before, in net.taxes (which group > I've now added to this discussion). I admit I don't know that much > about the U.S. tax system, but I still find it hard to believe. > Americans are the most litigious people on earth, and you have > a solid constitutional framework which can be, and is, used to > attack laws and procedures which are unjust. Now maybe the IRS > really is so powerful that no-one can risk attacking it, but I > still have my doubts. > There's a long history of IRS "leaking" tax returns of Congressmen who start investigations into their practices -- they usually lose the next election. If you are truly interested, mail to me, and I will send you the text of a newspaper article reporting how IRS obtained a prior restraint order prohibiting a legal publishing house from publishing a judge's opinion which criticized the conduct of Justice Department Tax Division lawyers in a tax fraud case. No more articles have appeared anywhere I look about it, and law students I no who have tried to locate the citation can't find it. 1984? Maybe. > >> the filing of the return is independent of the payment, although > >> of course they're usually done together. But a return filed with > >> no cheque is just as valid as one with a cheque, and although > >> interest will run on unpaid balances, penalties for not filing > >> don't apply once the return is filed. How could writing an > >> invalid cheque have any effect on this process? > >> > >> I could understand a charge of attempted fraud, perhaps. > >> But filing a frivolous return? > >> > >> Dave Sherman > > > >About three years ago, IRS had Congress pass a law making it illegal > >to file a "frivolous" return. I'm not sure exactly how Congress defined > >"frivolous", but the way IRS has enforced this law is to discourage any > >political comments that question their validity. > > Again, what does the payment have to do with the return? > Where is this legislation - part of the Internal Revenue Code? > Section number? > > Dave Sherman I've never seen anyone charged with a "frivolous" return for making out the check wrong, but I've seen newspaper accounts of people charged by IRS with this for sending in a tax return which contained no numbers but said, "TAXATION IS THEFT". Note that no one could possibly be confused into thinking this was a filled in tax return. Newspaper articles NEVER tell you the section number under which someone is charged. Clayton E. Cramer
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (07/20/86)
In article <927@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >There's a long history of IRS "leaking" tax returns of Congressmen >who start investigations into their practices -- they usually lose >the next election. If you are truly interested, mail to me, and >I will send you the text of a newspaper article reporting how IRS >obtained a prior restraint order prohibiting a legal publishing >house from publishing a judge's opinion which criticized the conduct >of Justice Department Tax Division lawyers in a tax fraud case. >No more articles have appeared anywhere I look about it, and law >students I no who have tried to locate the citation can't find it. >1984? Maybe. Is this referring to the Orwellian 1984 or the historical 1984? Also what citation is being looked for: the citation of the judge's opinion which supposedly criticized the tax lawyers, or the citation of the prior restraint order? Go ahead and please type in the article for all of us (name the newspaper and date, too, so that interested parties can write or call direct to the newspaper). This news group is well asbestos- lined and can stand the flames :-). Let's put our efforts where our mouths are; the people are the only safeguard against ANY government's misdeeds. While the allegation about IRS exposing the tax returns of Congresscritters which seek to defang the IRS smacks (the exposing) of foul play, it also seems to me that if a Congresscritter managed his/her financial affairs totally honorably and meticulously (is that congenitally impossible for a Congresscritter :-)?) that an exposed tax return or even the most intensive of audits would provide el zippo (zilch, none) ammunition for the IRS, and that any despicable behavior on the part of the IRS would provide that much more ammunition for the Congresscritter's case. Surely if the IRS is that naughty, there MUST be someone somewhere with a simon-pure tax record who would be willing to make that sacrifice as a member of Congress in order to correct those alleged KGB-like IRS abuses. > >Newspaper articles NEVER tell you the section number under which someone >is charged. > Maybe that is an example of Big-Botherism :-). >Clayton E. Cramer -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy
ark@alice.UUCP (07/20/86)
> I've never seen anyone charged with a "frivolous" return for making out > the check wrong, but I've seen newspaper accounts of people charged by > IRS with this for sending in a tax return which contained no numbers > but said, "TAXATION IS THEFT". Note that no one could possibly be > confused into thinking this was a filled in tax return. I've also heard of someone socked with a frivolous return penalty for sending in a properly filled out return with a note on the bottom saying "I am signing this return involuntarily under threat of punishment."
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (07/20/86)
>>There's a long history of IRS "leaking" tax returns of Congressmen >>who start investigations into their practices -- they usually lose >>the next election. Yes, of course. And why not? After all, what better way for the IRS to retaliate against their enemies? How better for the IRS to retain and strengthen their position of power? "We'll show the S.O.B.'s, just let them try and mess with US!" You forgot to mention use of the IRS by the party in power to harass the party out of power though. "All's fair in love and war (ie politics) ... " Seriously, the point is, the IRS like any group should be expected to act in their own self-interest. If they have the power to use tax information against their enemies, and their incentive is to do so, who can blame them? The laws that let them do such things are the underlying cause. They created the monster, now it is up to us to figure out how to slay it. >While the allegation about IRS exposing the tax returns of Congresscritters >which seek to defang the IRS smacks (the exposing) of foul play, it also >seems to me that if a Congresscritter managed his/her financial affairs totally >honorably and meticulously (is that congenitally impossible for a >Congresscritter :-)?) that an exposed tax return or even the most intensive >of audits would provide el zippo (zilch, none) ammunition for the IRS, Surely you are joking! :-) It takes (usually) a fair amount of wealth to gain political office. We live in a competitive society, where there is dog-eat-dog competition for wealth. Anyone who wants to become wealthy has to deal with the tax system. Our tax system is notoriously badly designed, full of loopholes, ambiguities, etc. The system *FORCES* an individual who wishes to suceed in the struggle for wealth and power to use the tax system to his/her own best advantage, otherwise the individual will be at a competitive disadvantage in the monetary rat race. Trying to make the most favorable deal for oneself when working in the tax jungle one has to push towards the limits of what the system allows, hence one is always on the edge of doing things that may not stand up to the light of day. Hence one would *EXPECT* to be able to portray almost any wealthy individual in a bad light given sufficiently close scrutiny of his tax and financial situation. Even if everything is *PERFECTLY LEGAL* one can expect to be able to generate unfavorable publicity, and subject the victim of the investigation to heavy legal expenses until the matter is resolved. If Cramer is discussing the same congresscritter I think he is, this congresscritter was *DRIVEN OUT OF OFFICE*, criminally charged, and finally *COMPLETELY ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES* after several years of legal battles that wrecked his health and his finances. In conclusion, the tax system is *BADLY DESIGNED*. It *ENCOURAGES* corrupt practices, and *PENALIZES* what most of us (or at least what I) would consider ethical behavior. The corrupt individual who is willing to pursue devious tax schemes has a *POSITIVE INCENTIVE* to do so, built into the tax system. The "honest" citizen pays a higher proportion of his income in taxes and is at a disadvantage in the competition for wealth.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/21/86)
> In article <927@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >There's a long history of IRS "leaking" tax returns of Congressmen > >who start investigations into their practices -- they usually lose > >the next election. If you are truly interested, mail to me, and > >I will send you the text of a newspaper article reporting how IRS > >obtained a prior restraint order prohibiting a legal publishing > >house from publishing a judge's opinion which criticized the conduct > >of Justice Department Tax Division lawyers in a tax fraud case. > >No more articles have appeared anywhere I look about it, and law > >students I no who have tried to locate the citation can't find it. > >1984? Maybe. > > Is this referring to the Orwellian 1984 or the historical 1984? Orwellian. Remember the "memory hole"? > Also what citation is being looked for: the citation of the judge's > opinion which supposedly criticized the tax lawyers, or the citation > of the prior restraint order? Go ahead and please type in the article for Both. > all of us (name the newspaper and date, too, so that interested parties can > write or call direct to the newspaper). This news group is well asbestos- > lined and can stand the flames :-). Let's put our efforts where our mouths > are; the people are the only safeguard against ANY government's misdeeds. > You asked for it: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Book barred from publishing judicial opinion New York Times Service WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department has obtained a highly unusual temporary order from a federal appeals court barring a law book company from publishing an opinion by a federal district judge in Colorado that was critical of the department. Glenn L. Archer Jr., the head of the department's tax division, said in an interview that the prior restraint on publication was necessary because the "slanderous" judicial opinion unfairly charged three of his prosecutors with misconduct in a grand jury investigation in Denver into suspected tax fraud. Lawyers involved in the case and other legal experts said they knew of no previous instance in which a private publisher had been barred, on pain of contempt of court, from publishing a judicial opinion. It is not unusual, on the other hand, for courts to designate certain of their own opinions as having no precedential value and thus unsuited for publication, or for law book companies to refrain voluntarily from publishing those opinions. James C. Goodale, a New York lawyer who has represented news organizations in First Amendment cases, said in an interview that the order could not "have withstood the mildest breeze from the First Amendment" and was "frightening" in its implications. "If legal opinions can be as easily enjoined as this, any kind of publication would be fair game for court injunction," Goodale said. The brief censorship order was issued Jan. 3 by Judges William J. Holloway Jr. and Stephanie K. Seymour of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and Federal District Judge Luther L. Bohannon, who was sitting specially on the appellate court. The court has its headquarters at Denver, but these three judges sit in Oklahoma. The order required the West Publishing Co. of St. Paul, Minn., "to delay temporarily" publishing the Aug. 25 opinion by Federal District Judge Fred M. Winner of Denver in the permanent bound volumes of West's series, Federal Supplement, pending further consideration of the matter by the appellate court. The order is still in effect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The article appeared in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, sometime in 1983 or 1984. Note that it is a wire service story -- should be readily locatable. > While the allegation about IRS exposing the tax returns of Congresscritters > which seek to defang the IRS smacks (the exposing) of foul play, it also > seems to me that if a Congresscritter managed his/her financial affairs totally > honorably and meticulously (is that congenitally impossible for a > Congresscritter :-)?) that an exposed tax return or even the most intensive > of audits would provide el zippo (zilch, none) ammunition for the IRS, > and that any despicable behavior on the part of the IRS would provide that > much more ammunition for the Congresscritter's case. Surely if the IRS > is that naughty, there MUST be someone somewhere with a simon-pure tax > record who would be willing to make that sacrifice as a member of Congress > in order to correct those alleged KGB-like IRS abuses. > Even a simon-pure tax record can appear embarrassing -- especially if you leak information selectively. > > > >Newspaper articles NEVER tell you the section number under which someone > >is charged. > > > > Maybe that is an example of Big-Botherism :-). > No. It's usually not relevant. > >Clayton E. Cramer > -- > ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are > | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- > | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer > | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. > | skokie, illinois | > -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, > go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy Clayton E. Cramer
eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) (08/02/86)
>While the allegation about IRS exposing the tax returns of Congresscritters >which seek to defang the IRS smacks (the exposing) of foul play, it also >seems to me that if a Congresscritter managed his/her financial affairs totally >honorably and meticulously (is that congenitally impossible for a >Congresscritter :-)?) that an exposed tax return or even the most intensive >of audits would provide el zippo (zilch, none) ammunition for the IRS, >and that any despicable behavior on the part of the IRS would provide that >much more ammunition for the Congresscritter's case. Surely if the IRS >is that naughty, there MUST be someone somewhere with a simon-pure tax >record who would be willing to make that sacrifice as a member of Congress >in order to correct those alleged KGB-like IRS abuses. I have heard of a book by a former Congresscritter (I like that name :) who challenged the IRS. During his next election, the IRS started investigating him for tax fraud and tax evasion. He lost the election and the IRS declared that their investigations uncovered nothing and all charges were dropped. I believe the book was suppose to be autobiographical, anyone know who the congresscritter was and what his book was called? E.Eades
alang@masscomp.UUCP (Alan Groupe) (08/06/86)
In article <2002@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > >I have heard of a book by a former Congresscritter (I like that name :) >who challenged the IRS. During his next election, the IRS started >investigating him for tax fraud and tax evasion. He lost the election >and the IRS declared that their investigations uncovered nothing and >all charges were dropped. I believe the book was suppose to be >autobiographical, anyone know who the congresscritter was and what >his book was called? >E.Eades I believe you are talking about George Hansen of Idaho. The book is called "To Harrass our People".
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/08/86)
> In article <2002@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > > > >I have heard of a book by a former Congresscritter (I like that name :) > >who challenged the IRS. During his next election, the IRS started > >investigating him for tax fraud and tax evasion. He lost the election > >and the IRS declared that their investigations uncovered nothing and > >all charges were dropped. I believe the book was suppose to be > >autobiographical, anyone know who the congresscritter was and what > >his book was called? > >E.Eades > > I believe you are talking about George Hansen of Idaho. The book is > called "To Harrass our People". He's not the most objective source, as he's currently in the slammer for assorted criminal violations of the House Ethics Act. Given how many of his little sins involved shifting money around between his campaign and himself, I'd say the IRS was quite justified in taking a closer look... Moral: you may not like the IRS, but they're not *always* wrong or dishonest.