Question for the Lawyers/Accountants

[KRC]

A local Libertarian Party official has been arrested for tax evasion. He is fighting on the grounds that there is no law specifically stating that U.S. citizens are mandated to pay taxes. So, my question would be: is there such a law? If so, could you please post it?

[Alaska Darin]

A local Libertarian Party official has been arrested for tax evasion. He is fighting on the grounds that there is no law specifically stating that U.S. citizens are mandated to pay taxes. So, my question would be: is there such a law? If so, could you please post it?

129528[/snapback]

This has been tried numerous times before by multitudes of people. The internet has greatly enhanced its proliferation. One outspoken Alaskan used to sell the idea for profit. He's now serving LOTS of time for tax evasion.

 

Give Me Liberty

[Terry Tate]

A local Libertarian Party official has been arrested for tax evasion. He is fighting on the grounds that there is no law specifically stating that U.S. citizens are mandated to pay taxes. So, my question would be: is there such a law? If so, could you please post it?

129528[/snapback]

Take a visit to the Quatloos! website for a description of tax scams and some of the more successful salesmen of such.

[Campy]

I've read that many of these people believe that when the Tax Act (of 1913?) was repealed and replaced with the internal revenue code in 1939, Congress left out the part where they specifically said that you must pay taxes.

 

Something tells me that if that was accurate at one time, that's a loophole that would've been closed looooong ago..

[John Adams]

A local Libertarian Party official has been arrested for tax evasion. He is fighting on the grounds that there is no law specifically stating that U.S. citizens are mandated to pay taxes. So, my question would be: is there such a law? If so, could you please post it?

129528[/snapback]

 

From the 16th Amendment:

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

***

I guess some jackwad lawyer would say that there's no law that requires you to pay the taxes, but it seems to me like giving the feral government the power to lay and collect taxes means that you have to pay... or else.

[Campy]

An excerpt from a very lengthy article in the journal American Criminal Law Review

Violations of the United States Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") are prosecuted under an array of criminal tax statutes.(1) The "capstone of [this] system of sanctions"(2) is the felony provision of 26 U.S.C. [sections] 7201, which provides for a maximum penalty of $100,000, a prison term of five years for a willful attempt to defeat any tax obligation, or both.(3)

 

A. Elements of the Offense

 

In order to prove a section 7201 offense, the government must prove three elements: (1) the existence of a tax deficiency; (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax; and (3) willfulness.(4) The government bears the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt.(5) Once a prima facie case is established, however, the burden shifts to the taxpayer, and "the taxpayer `remains quiet at his peril.'"(6)

 

1. Existence of a Tax Deficiency

 

Generally, for a defendant to be convicted under section 7201, the amount of tax deficiency must be "substantial."(7) The term "substantial" refers to the "amount of the tax evaded" and not to the amount of income unreported.(8)

 

The existence of a deficiency may be shown by the use of either direct or circumstantial evidence. The "specific item method," a direct evidence method, is the most accurate means of proving a deficiency. According to this method, the taxpayer's books and records are used as direct proof of taxable transactions.(9) However, "[p]roof of unreported taxable income by direct means is extremely difficult and often impossible."(10)

 

Therefore, to, establish the existence of unreported taxable income, the government usually relies on three methods of obtaining circumstantial evidence: net worth, cash expenditures, and bank deposits.(11) These circumstantial methods do not require the government to prove either the exact amount of the deficiency(12) or its source.(13) The government may choose to prosecute under any single theory of proof or a combination method, including a combination of circumstantial and direct proofs.(14)

 

The "net worth" theory of proof is the most common method used by the government to establish tax evasion. In it, the Government, having concluded that the taxpayer's records are inadequate as a basis for determining income tax liability, attempts to establish an "opening net worth" or total net value of the taxpayer's assets at the beginning of a given year. It then proves increases in the taxpayer's net worth for each succeeding year during the period under examination and calculates the difference between the adjusted net values of the taxpayer's assets at the beginning and end of each of the years involved. The taxpayer's nondeductible expenditures, including living expenses, are added to these increases, and if the resulting figure for any year is substantially greater than the taxable income reported by the taxpayer for that year, the Government claims the excess represents unreported taxable income.(15)

 

It is essential that the government's analysis establish the taxpayer's opening net worth with "reasonable certainty,"(16) although it is not necessary to establish with certainty the opening net worth for each of the subsequent years under investigation.(17) The government must also demonstrate that it has conducted a thorough investigation and has negated reasonable alternative sources of nontaxable income.(18) Clear charges and formal instructions outlining the range of permissible inferences both for and against the accused are required.(19)

 

The "cash expenditures" method is a "simple variant of the `net worth method'"(20) and requires a showing that the taxpayer's expenditures were derived from taxable income which exceeded the taxpayer's reported income.(21) The government must demonstrate either a "likely source of the allegedly unreported income or that it has negated all reasonably possible nontaxable sources of income."(22) Unlike the net worth method, the cash expenditures method does not require preparation of a formal net worth statement for the period under investigation.(23) Similar jury instructions are required for both the net worth and the cash expenditures methods.(24)

 

Finally, under the "bank deposits" method, all non-taxable deposits and amounts deposited in prior years are excluded from the analysis of whether there is a tax deficiency for the year of the tax return being investigated.(25) "`[T]he jury is entitled to infer that the difference between the balance of deposited items and reported income constitutes unreported income.'"(26) As with the cash expenditures method, the government need not prepare a formal net worth statement(27) but must demonstrate that it conducted a full investigation into sources of income.(28) Formal jury instructions on the scope of proper inferences are required.(29)

 

2. Affirmative Act Constituting Evasion

 

The Supreme Court has interpreted the second element of section 7201 offenses to require a positive attempt to evade or defeat any tax rather than merely "passive neglect."(30) Thus, an affirmative act to evade tax must be a commission rather than an omission.(31) The United States Supreme Court stated that the "affirmative act" language should be construed broadly(32) to include filing false returns,(33) keeping a double set of books,(34) making false entries or alterations,(35) making false invoices or documents,(36) destroying books or records,(37) concealing assets or covering up sources of income,(38) and avoiding making records usually kept for transactions or conduct where the likely effect would be to mislead or to conceal.(39)

 

3. Willfulness

 

To prove willfulness under section 7201, the government must make "a showing of specific wrongful intent to avoid a known legal duty."(40) The government must demonstrate more than carelessness on the part of the defendant,(41) but it does not necessarily need to show bad faith.(42) The defendant's belief regarding the applicability of a legal duty is a question of fact.(43) Consequently, even an objectively unreasonable misunderstanding of the law negates a finding of willfulness if the jury believes it.(44)

 

Willfulness is inferred from both the surrounding circumstances and the defendant's affirmative acts of evasion,(45) and "proof of willfulness usually must be accomplished by means of circumstantial evidence."(46) When applied, this inference often leads to a blurring of the distinction between willfulness and affirmative acts.(47)

[Tux of Borg]

I'll put it this way... my step dad use to work for the IRS and my grandfather is a lawyer that does a lot of taxes. If there was any loopholes, I'm sure one of them would have found it by now.

[Alaska Darin]

I'll put it this way... my step dad use to work for the IRS and my grandfather is a lawyer that does a lot of taxes.  If there was any loopholes, I'm sure one of them would have found it by now.

129641[/snapback]

It's also a termination offense for an IRS employee to make a mistake when filing.

[CookieG]

There really isn't one statute that provides for the imposition, requirement and payment of income tax, its done through several code provisions:

 

For example,

 

26 U.S.C. sec. 1 imposes the tax for individuals, based on filing status:

 

" (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who

makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,

and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

 

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:"

 

etc. etc for Head of Household, individuals, and married filing separely.

 

 

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C1.txt

 

26 U.S.C. sec. 6012 specifies who must file returns;

26 U.S.C. sec. 6011 specifies that the form of return is to be established by the Secretary and that the taxpayer shall supply the nformation required on the forms;

26 U.S.C. sec. 6072 specifies when returns are due;

 

There are separate code provisions for the computation of tax, when it is due, where it is due, punitive provisions for failing to file or pay, etc.

 

The obligation itself comes from Sec. 1 however, that is thet imposition of tax provision (for individuals.).