Wesley Snipes tax protest case heads to court

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Okieslims Actually, you can let your taxes ride for 3 years if you wish to. That's perfectly legal. So you didnt break the law unless it was one month after the three year max.

Well because I was due a return, it didn't really matter. But if you owe money, you most certainly cannot "let it ride" for three years.

Neither here nor there though, it was just an example.

I understand the difference between civil and criminal actions. That said, what Wesley Snipes did was no worse than what Schultz did.

In your opinion. Not the court's.

They both avoided taxes with knowledge of what they were doing.

Again, in Snipes' case, the prosecutors proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. Against Schultz, they have not. I don't see what your argument is except that Schultz did a better job convincing a jury he's insane.

You seem to not understand the nature of the crime that both of these guys committed is exactly the same, yet the punishment is different.

According to the law and the standards of evidence (i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt), they are not the same.

Furthermore, your logic does not work with other crimes. Can I get out of a speeding ticket by claiming I did not know the speed limit? No. Citizens are responsible for knowing the laws of the land. The government is responsible for making information on those laws available to the public.

The requisite mens rea for tax evasion is different than speeding.

For speeding, the mens rea is strict liability (or knowingly in some states). This means that if you speed, you're guilty.

For tax evasion, the mens rea is WILLFULLY. This means it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you specifically intended to violate the tax laws by your actions and knew the methods and consequences of doing so.

In Snipes' case, they were able to prove the willfulness requirement. In Schultz, they were not. Regardless of what you "think" of their actions, that is what happened. The facts of the two cases were not the same (as no two cases are).

Schultz found a technicality and that is the only reason he is a free man.. because the courts could not disprove his interpretation of the printed law beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wrong. It had nothing to do with his "interpretation" of the law. As I said before, in the civil cases - the cases where Schultz' legal theories about the legal duty to pay taxes are tested - he has lost, just as every tax protester does. His interpretation of the printed law has been proven wrong every time.

In criminal cases, the issue is not whether or not someone is liable for taxes. The issue is whether someone who was liable for taxes purposefully (willfully) did not pay them.

[Okieslims]

Quote by: GHook93 That is the direction you seem to lean towards, no? (1) Bush is about being a bad President. Many of times it doesn't matter which party you subscribe to you can be a good or bad leader. Bad or good Presidents can come out of either party. Most would agree, regardless of them being right or left, that Carter was one of the worst Presidents in history. What you are utterly wrong about in comparing lawyers to cops a lawyer has a high level of vested interest in reporting a lawyer for ethics violations and there is always a polar opposite in every trial. There is also not the same stigma when a lawyer "snitches" on another lawyer as a cop snitching on another cop. Compare apples to apples.

Have you ever been in the court room? I'm assuming you have, because you seem to be intelligent and I'm sure you wouldn't make claims that weren't backed with experience, but I have been to court on several occasions as a juror once and to help convict people I assisted in the arrest of otherwise... The common thread in my court experience is that the opposing factions seem to be good pals. They chat it up and joke around with each other during jury selection. They don't have to have a reason to represent one side or the other. It's like a debate club. One side takes the negative, one side takes the pro, and they don't really care what the truth is because their job is to argue the negative or pro.
That said, there's no hard evidence that these people are generally friends, so I can't stand behind the statement, but there is no hard evidence that says otherwise either. From my experience, they seemed very chummy together .. Furthermore, they are in the same line of work(and forced to work closely with each other) and have a lot in common, so it is not so far fetched that they could be pals.


I still don't get what you brought up politics for. Yes I am slightly left of center. Is that an insult to me considering the right wing elected a bad leader 2 times over the course of the last 8 years? That said, if I thought Ron Paul had a chance in hell, I would vote for him. He is straitest shooting politician I have seen since McCain ran against Bush back in 2000 before he lost his respect and became a blind Bush following sheep like the rest of the right wing.

[Okieslims]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well because I was due a return, it didn't really matter. But if you owe money, you most certainly cannot "let it ride" for three years. Neither here nor there though, it was just an example. In your opinion. Not the court's. Again, in Snipes' case, the prosecutors proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. Against Schultz, they have not. I don't see what your argument is except that Schultz did a better job convincing a jury he's insane. According to the law and the standards of evidence (i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt), they are not the same. The requisite mens rea for tax evasion is different than speeding. For speeding, the mens rea is strict liability (or knowingly in some states). This means that if you speed, you're guilty. For tax evasion, the mens rea is WILLFULLY. This means it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you specifically intended to violate the tax laws by your actions and knew the methods and consequences of doing so. In Snipes' case, they were able to prove the willfulness requirement. In Schultz, they were not. Regardless of what you "think" of their actions, that is what happened. The facts of the two cases were not the same (as no two cases are). Wrong. It had nothing to do with his "interpretation" of the law. As I said before, in the civil cases - the cases where Schultz' legal theories about the legal duty to pay taxes are tested - he has lost, just as every tax protester does. His interpretation of the printed law has been proven wrong every time. In criminal cases, the issue is not whether or not someone is liable for taxes. The issue is whether someone who was liable for taxes purposefully (willfully) did not pay them.

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that because Schultz was willing to cite his interpretation of the written law as his reasoning for not paying taxes, he was able to remain free. So they weren't willing to take away the mans life because he demonstrated an understanding of the law that was not distinctly forbidden in the written law. i e a loop hole. That does not mean he still wasn't liable for the money despite the "misinterpretation", but imo his interpretation and the prosecutions lack of an ability to dispute it is the reason he is free. If Wesley used the same tactics, he would probably remain free as well.

But, were going around in circles. I don't think were too far off of agreeing here. You opened my eyes one a few things. I just think it's pretty clear that there actually was a loophole in the written law that Schultz exploited.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Okieslims I understand what you are saying. I am saying that because Schultz was willing to cite his interpretation of the written law as his reasoning for not paying taxes, he was able to remain free.

It had nothing to do with that.

Schultz' lawyers' argument at trial was that Schultz did not know what he was doing was wrong - essentially an insanity defense - because he truly believed his line of BS.

So they weren't willing to take away the mans life because he demonstrated an understanding of the law that was not distinctly forbidden in the written law. i e a loop hole.

That is not at all what happened. What he demonstrated was an understanding of the law that was batshit insane. On that basis, a jury concluded that he had not WILLFULLY evaded taxes because his understanding was so batshit insane that he could not have formed the requisite intent to commit the crime of tax evasion.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "loophole".

That does not mean he still wasn't liable for the money despite the "misinterpretation", but imo his interpretation and the prosecutions lack of an ability to dispute it is the reason he is free. If Wesley used the same tactics, he would probably remain free as well.

Wesley's lawyers DID use the same tactic, which is why he was acquitted of the felony charges (but found guilty of 5 misdemeanors for willful failure to file a tax return). Snipes' lawyer's, like Schultz, argued that he didn't believe what he was doing was wrong and therefore was not WILLFUL in his tax evasion. In the tax evasion charges it worked, but the jury looked at his past history of filing returns (albeit bogus ones) and recognized that he knew that one had to file tax returns, hence a conviction of willful failure to file a tax return for each year he did not file within the statute of limitations - 5 in total.

But, were going around in circles. I don't think were too far off of agreeing here. You opened my eyes one a few things. I just think it's pretty clear that there actually was a loophole in the written law that Schultz exploited.

There was no loophole. If you think there is one, explain to me where it is and I will explain why there is no loophole there.

[Okieslims]

Quote by: tivodan1116 It had nothing to do with that. Schultz' lawyers' argument at trial was that Schultz did not know what he was doing was wrong - essentially an insanity defense - because he truly believed his line of BS. That is not at all what happened. What he demonstrated was an understanding of the law that was batshit insane. On that basis, a jury concluded that he had not WILLFULLY evaded taxes because his understanding was so batshit insane that he could not have formed the requisite intent to commit the crime of tax evasion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "loophole". Wesley's lawyers DID use the same tactic, which is why he was acquitted of the felony charges (but found guilty of 5 misdemeanors for willful failure to file a tax return). Snipes' lawyer's, like Schultz, argued that he didn't believe what he was doing was wrong and therefore was not WILLFUL in his tax evasion. In the tax evasion charges it worked, but the jury looked at his past history of filing returns (albeit bogus ones) and recognized that he knew that one had to file tax returns, hence a conviction of willful failure to file a tax return for each year he did not file within the statute of limitations - 5 in total. There was no loophole. If you think there is one, explain to me where it is and I will explain why there is no loophole there.

Batshit insanity doesn't take away liability. If somebody living in the backwoods selling wood carvings and not paying taxes for 20 years, claims he didnt know any better, even if he is being honest, he is going to get locked up because it is the citizens job to know the laws of the land.

I wish I could look up his loophole, but as you said, it is no longer legal for them to share that information. If it was worthless information that didnt work at all, I doubt they would go so far as to deny him his right to share it.

I'm going to concede, because I'm basing my argument on common sense and not technical expertise and I have no access to the actual information that would make or break my argument..+ Im not willing to pay to gain access to the case files as you suggested. All I can really say about Schultz is that he made national news a few years back and discussed his successes while facing the IRS.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Okieslims Batshit insanity doesn't take away liability. If somebody living in the backwoods selling wood carvings and not paying taxes for 20 years, claims he didnt know any better, even if he is being honest, he is going to get locked up because it is the citizens job to know the laws of the land.

This is not an "ignorance of the law" case. You're confusing a general legal principle with a specific element of a specific crime.

The crime of tax evasion, like all crimes, requires a specific mens rea (guilty mind - mental state) as an element necessary for conviction. In the case of tax evasion, the mens rea is WILLFULLY. To be "willful", one has to know an act is wrong and do it anyway. In Schultz' case, the prosecution could not prove that Schultz knew that what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway.

I wish I could look up his loophole, but as you said, it is no longer legal for them to share that information. If it was worthless information that didnt work at all, I doubt they would go so far as to deny him his right to share it.

No, it didn't work at all, and was illegal, which is PRECISELY why it is not allowed to be disseminated. If it worked, and was legal or ambiguous, the First Amendment would protect his right to spread such information.

The law his corporation was brought under prohibits the promotion of fraudulent tax advice (or what is called an "abusive tax shelter"). That's why it is shut down.

The IRS has no reason to cover up "loopholes" in the law. They are paid to collect what the statutes authorize them to collect, no more, no less. As long as they do that, they keep their jobs. They don't work on commission or get a certain % for every dollar they collect. If there was some loophole, it would be Congress' fault (or goal), not the IRS or the Treasury.

I'm going to concede, because I'm basing my argument on common sense and not technical expertise and I have no access to the actual information that would make or break my argument..+ Im not willing to pay to gain access to the case files as you suggested. All I can really say about Schultz is that he made national news a few years back and discussed his successes while facing the IRS.

Of course he did, because a folder called "theories that get you fined by the IRS and possibly thrown in jail" would not sell many copies.

I am running into the difficulty here in the difference between knowing the tax law (being a graduate of law school with a concentration in tax) and being able to teach the tax law (like my professors). Maybe since I want to adjunct I should go back and take some teaching courses so I can figure out how to explain to others what the laws are.

[GloriousCause]

I find one of the great ironies of the Snipes verdict to be that the court opted to send him to prison instead of issuing him a huge fine (which not only saves us money but also fits the crime).

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: GloriousCause I find one of the great ironies of the Snipes verdict to be that the court opted to send him to prison instead of issuing him a huge fine (which not only saves us money but also fits the crime).

A civil tax case includes penalties, fines, and interest. This was a criminal case, which includes jail time if convicted.

Am I assuming, then, that you oppose jail time (and want only fines) for all other property crimes? Larceny? Burglary? Arson?

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: tivodan1116 A civil tax case includes penalties, fines, and interest. This was a criminal case, which includes jail time if convicted.

We're talking about how things ought to be here, so I'm positing how things ought to be.

Am I assuming, then, that you oppose jail time (and want only fines) for all other property crimes? Larceny? Burglary? Arson?

That depends. Martha Stewart did not belong in prison. An arsonist probably would - but it depends on the circumstances of the case. It's really a matter of taking it case by case and asking if the person needs to be removed from the "general population" so to speak, or if there's a better solution. Prison, IMHO, should be something we have to resort to, not something we go to first and foremost - because prison is horribly expensive, inefficient, prone to corruption, and key to the creation of criminal networks and recidivism.

[tivodan1116]

While I sort of agree, I think that to fine a millionaire is not a punishment. Jail time is the only thing someone with the means to pay any fine is going to listen to, unless we switch to the Scandinavian system of assessing fines as a percentage of a person's income.

In their system, fines are not assessed in dollar amounts but in "# of days of labor"... Take annual earnings, divide by 365, multiply by number of days specified in punishment = fine.

When that happens, I will be in favor of fines and/or restitution for property crimes. Until then, jail time is the only way to make a lot of people listen.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: tivodan1116 While I sort of agree, I think that to fine a millionaire is not a punishment. Jail time is the only thing someone with the means to pay any fine is going to listen to, unless we switch to the Scandinavian system of assessing fines as a percentage of a person's income. In their system, fines are not assessed in dollar amounts but in "# of days of labor"... Take annual earnings, divide by 365, multiply by number of days specified in punishment = fine. When that happens, I will be in favor of fines and/or restitution for property crimes. Until then, jail time is the only way to make a lot of people listen.

That's a good idea. The only way to make a fine work is to make it proportional rather than absolute. So since we're talking about the way things ought to be that's a good alternative. Perhaps even better would be to fine a person a percentage of their net worth. 1 year in prison for Martha or 95% of her net worth?

But even without fines, there are better ways than jail. For instance, community service. Wesley Snipes could be put to work cleaning garbage up on the streets or bathing 80 year olds in a charity hospital. For a rich person, and better yet a celebrity, this is a perfect way to shame them into submission.