[spacewarp]

Thank you very much for that detailed information Geezer. This is exactly what Sinkspur was avoiding either finding or admitting to not knowing off the top of his head (not knowing something is not necessarily bad, but not seeing that you don't is usually a very bad thing Sink.)

And the big $64,000 question.....

If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this? The attitude is arrogance and abuse. Still a problem. Even if they are as right as possible about the law, their attitude and actions create a bitter problem that still must be addressed.

Paul

[Hon]

"If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this? The attitude is arrogance and abuse. Still a problem. Even if they are as right as possible about the law, their attitude and actions create a bitter problem that still must be addressed."

You don't know what you are talking about. The IRS explained the law to Simkanin numerous times. An IRS agent testified in the trial about his attempts to explain the law to Simkanin. He was one of many who tried.

Simkanin's own employees, including his accounts, explained the law to him. They showed it to him. They also testified to this in the trial.

And again, it isn't case law. It is in the US Code. It would take Simkanin or any idiot who can use the internet or read a book five seconds to find it.

Simkanin knew he was in violation. Do you think he tried to get a refund of $235,000 in taxes when he hadn't paid any, accidentally?

[ancient_geezer]

then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this

They have repeatedly in prior case law, which is the point of the court in not allowing the same multiply failed arguments(frivolous is the term applied) into the jury trial stage.

The idea is to keep the facts relavent to the case in determining guilt or innocence as regards violation of the specific statutes in the complaint.

Where the statute has been previously tested in the courts and has withstood examination, there is no basis on which to enter or put the law on trial again for every defendant that wants to distract from what remains to be the central issues of the case before the jury; The specific guilt or innocence of the defendant as the facts are purviewed in light of the statutes.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this?

The IRS presented all of this to the judge. The defense wanted to raise these issues in front of the jury, which is not the way it's done.