Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: webstersII
So you're saying that this only decided the status of this particular case by the IRS and that next year the IRS can go after this woman once more for the taxes she owes which are not covered by the case which was just settled? They have already tried to take her to court and take everything she has and put her in jail. What method would they use to put her in jail and take her money in the future?

The trial decided the issue of criminal charges, that's all. This woman still owes the taxes. The IRS has recourse to civil process to get that money.

For example: suppose you did business with a crooked partner who stole from you. Even if the guy were acquitted of fraud charges in criminal court, he would still owe you money, money you could collect civilly.

Unlike other entities, the IRS doesn't need a trial, either. It has the power to issue liens for taxes owed, as if it had won a civil judgment. They can-- and probably already are-- garnish her wages, seize property, whatever.

They have already lost this case aganst her once because they couldn't convince a jury that there is an unequivocal statement which requires her to pay taxes. Doesn't that mean that she doesn't have to be expected to pay taxes in the future, also?

The criminal trial did not determine her tax liability. All it did was determine whether she was guilty of the crime of tax evasion. The jury acquitted her of tax evasion, but that jury has no jurisdiction whatsoever over her tax liability. She owes the money, and the trial doesn't change that.

104 posted on 08/11/2003 11:31:53 AM PDT by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Timm
I think I see what you are getting at. I didn't know that tax liability and tax evasion are considered separately, and the article doesn't make any distinction about this.

So they will put tax liens on everything she owns and garnish her wages. Then she's gonna have to go back to court with them to try and get all that stuff back. In other words, her fight is really just starting. The civil penalites can get really ugly.

I assume that she will use the same argument she used in this case to prove that she is not liable for any taxes. It should be interesting to see if she has any success in the future with that argument.
105 posted on 08/11/2003 12:06:07 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson