Posted on 02/01/2008 2:08:44 PM PST by OnRightOnLeftCoast
Fox News Channel annoucing Snipes income tax trial involving millions of $$$ has been found not guilty on two felony counts, but guilty on three misdeameanor.
FNC's resident judge interviewed by Cavuto said it amounts to no time in jail and the IRS will have to sue Snipes to collect.
He also said it would be a serious set-back for the government of those that protest taxes.
Nor would I.
The IRS though, as much as we may despise them, are usually receptive to a reasonable settlement, if offered quickly and handled professionally. It is when one gets crosswise with them that they turn into the vindictive schmucks that they can be.
Let me tell you this aint gonna help guys like me. You have to have millions to fight them then you can win. Me, they came after me relentlessly when I feel behind because I was unemployeed and used the money from a real estate sale to live on. 3 years and $20K plus in penalties and interest on top of the $20k I owed has got me still flat broke. Maybe I should hire Wesley’s attorneys!
I think he still has to pay the taxes.
I'm glad he did it.
This might actually make the fair tax or a national sales tax (in place of the IRS, of course) a real possibility, especially if Wesley inspires a wave of copy-cats.
Both false.
He is facing 3 years in jail (convicted of 3 misdemeanors), and will probably get a good fraction of that if not all of it.
And the IRS can assess and collect the taxes without suing him; Snipes will have to sue in Tax Court if he wants to dispute the amount. (Penalties are mandatory for the 3 years he was convicted on, and the IRS can assess penalties for the other 3 years as well.)
The ten most frightening words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" .... Ronald Reagan
.
Man bites Dog!
I read he did not put up a defense, claiming he didn’t need one. Perhaps you are right and that the judged may have ruled against him in evidentiary proceedings, so he decided not to say much at all.
Very interesting to see him win. He’s not quite the first to win. The woman who won on basically the same arguments still ended up losing her home.
This probably will have no effect on anything, because the key issues of the tax protest movement were not ruled on. But I’m sure there will be people who will now refuse to file... the “Wesley defense”.
From the New York Times article on the case:
"In closing arguments on Tuesday, lawyers for Mr. Snipes sought to portray him as a well-intended victim of bad advice by his co-defendants. They called his tax theories “kooky,” “crazy” and “dead wrong,” but said acting on these views did not make him a criminal because he disclosed his actions. The defense also objected to his being tried by an all-white jury of seven women and five men.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that tax deniers can demonstrate the absence of criminal intent by asserting that they “sincerely believe” that they are not required to pay taxes, although they cannot escape the levies."
If you do a little research on this subject, unlike most of the f&^%*ing maroons here who think they know so much about the law but couldn’t find it in a law library, you will find that according to the Constitution, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to levy a tax on income- look up the difference between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ taxes and ‘excise’. It hasn’t been passed because it would be (hopefully) overturned by the SC as un-Constitutional, because it is.
It is much easier for the IRS to *claim* that there is a law, buried in all those hundreds or thousands of IRS regulations in the IRS manual [which are *not* laws but regulations], and work by using the fear of jack booted thugs and the fear of being taken to “tax court” [a kangaroo court if there ever was one] to extract the taxes from you. It’s worked for the better part of 50+ years hasn’t it? Just look at this or other tax or Snipes threads and see how many supposedly freedom loving, knowledgable, conservative FReepers are against Snipes on this subject, without any first hand knowledge of the actual laws or statutes. It’s very telling as to how much fear and trepidation the IRS instills in even conservative FReepers on this subject.
I’m sure I’ll get flamed on this subject by those same know-it-all FReepers, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that they cannot come up with a cite of the **actual law** that in fact does levy an income tax on earnings of U.S. Citizens. The IRS can’t, the courts can’t, the prosecutors can’t- because it doesn’t exist. So Snipes may have more going for him and his argument than he’s given credit for.
For the record, I’m not a tax protester. I don’t want the tax laws changed or a “Fair Tax” instituted. At this point, there is NO LAW levying an income tax or requiring that it be paid or reported. So I don’t want an un-Constitutional law creating an income tax passed.
I’ve donned my nomex suit and await the ad hominem attacks, but will disregard all of them if they can’t cite a law in the USC that backs up their arguments.
Have at it.
I heard on the radio that he presented no defense only stated the government had not proved its case.
Try reading the 16th Amendment sometime.
I’m sure I’ll get flamed on this subject by those same know-it-all FReepers, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that they cannot come up with a cite of the **actual law** that in fact does levy an income tax on earnings of U.S. Citizens. The IRS can’t, the courts can’t, the prosecutors can’t- because it doesn’t exist. So Snipes may have more going for him and his argument than he’s given credit for.
Start with section 1 of Title 26 of the U.S.C.: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...every individual... a tax..."
I'd rather see them just "close" the IRS, but that will never happen....
He was somehow found not guilty of fraud, but he lost the tax case. For each year he owes the full amount plus 25%, plus 7% compounded per year. Probably $15-25 million. If he hasn’t moved all his assets out of the country, (which would re-introduce the fraud case), liens will be placed quickly on his properties. If he wasn’t a celebrity, his passport would be seized. In the end, he’ll claim racism and poverty, and have an attorney offer ten cents on the dollar.
Bought into their bullsh!t, huh? Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals". This and other similar cases have never been overturned.
Start with section 1 of Title 26 of the U.S.C.: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...every individual... a tax..."
Again, still sipping the IRS kool-aid. I usually don't respond to these type of threads just for this reason. Educating people who think they know it all rapidly becomes an exercise in frustration. This is a perfect example of the deception. I could spend hours trying to edumacate you with citations from the specific USC sections, but in the end you'd just come up with more of the IRS BS. I have better things to do. Thanks for playing.
Neither quote appears anywhere in the Brushaber case.
That case actually said (on p. 12):"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine."
The Brushaber case also said, on pp. 17-18, that the 16th Amendment "does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment ..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.