Are Court orders to file tax returns uncommon?

[jg]

Peter and Doreen Hendrickson have been ordered by the court to file returns that shall include their earnings.
From http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/hendrickson34.pdf

ORDERED, that within 30 days of the entry of this Amended Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction, Defendants will file amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns for the taxable years ending on December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003 with the Internal Revenue Service. The amended tax returns to be filed by Defendants shall include, in Defendants’ gross income for the 2002 and 2003 taxable years, the amounts that Defendant Peter Hendrickson received from his former employer, Personnel Management, Inc., during 2002 and 2003, as well the amounts that Defendant Doreen Hendrickson received from Una E. Dworkin during 2002 and 2003.

This particular order does not seem common, in my recollection, and so I would be interested to know of other instances wherein similar orders have been issued and if such orders are common practice, or not.

[wserra]

Interesting question. They are quite common as conditions of probation or supervised release in criminal tax cases. I believe Rosie was ordered to do so. I have never been involved in a tax-related injunction case like Hendrickson's, though, so can't say.

But, in theory, isn't it just a direction to the defendant to comply with the law as the court has determined it to be? Isn't that what an injunction is in the first place?

[Disilloosianed]

At my (state) level, I see them fairly frequently. Don't know about federal, though.

[ASITStands]

And, if there is noncompliance, is there risk of criminal sanctions [perhaps for contempt]? Inquiring minds want to know.

[wserra]

And, if there is noncompliance, is there risk of criminal sanctions [perhaps for contempt]?

Exactly for contempt.

[Dr. Caligari]

Section 7402. Jurisdiction of district courts

(a) To issue orders, processes, and judgments
The district courts of the United States at the instance of the
United States shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in
civil actions, writs and orders of injunction, and of ne exeat
republica, orders appointing receivers, and such other orders and
processes, and to render such judgments and decrees as may be
necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal
revenue laws. The remedies hereby provided are in addition to and
not exclusive of any and all other remedies of the United States in
such courts or otherwise to enforce such laws.

[Demosthenes]

This civil case also knocks the hell out of any good faith belief defense when his criminal case comes along. He's toast.

[John J. Bulten]

wserra and Disilloosianed claim to see this all the time? Don't you think Pete's case is unique? I mean, not unique in that justice is being deferred, but unique in that the court is ordering the change of testimony. Isn't that subornation of perjury and witness tampering? That doesn't sound like it's going to be "what happened with Rosie". It's a whole new ballgame.

Looks like the whole rest of the forum has no collective experience of this ever happening before either. This case gets better all the time.

[wserra]

wserra and Disilloosianed claim to see this all the time?

Right. Years and years of federal criminal experience.

Don't you think Pete's case is unique?

Not in the least.

I mean, not unique in that justice is being deferred, but unique in that the court is ordering the change of testimony.

What is it that you believe happens when someone is convicted of a tax crime other than failure to file and directed to file accurate returns? The first ones were filed under oath, and the court directs new, different ones filed, also under oath.

Now, I realize of course that Hendrickson's case was civil, but the court determined that the returns he filed were not accurate due to his conclusion that his income was not taxable. That should be a hint and a half as to why you do not state a real issue: the difference between facts and legal conclusions. That he was paid $X is a fact; whether that amount should have been included in gross income is a legal conclusion. The court ruled that it should, and directed Hendrickson to file accordingly. Not a thing in the world to do with "ordering the change of testimony".

Isn't that subornation of perjury and witness tampering?

Not in the least.

It's a whole new ballgame.

The daily double: gibberish and grandiosity.

Looks like the whole rest of the forum has no collective experience of this ever happening before either.

Why don't you ask those who have experience in prosecuting or defending federal tax cases? BTW, how much such experience do you have?

This case gets better all the time.

At least up until your turn in the barrel.

[John J. Bulten]

Now, I realize of course that Hendrickson's case was civil, but the court determined that the returns he filed were not accurate due to his conclusion that his income was not taxable. That should be a hint and a half as to why you do not state a real issue: the difference between facts and legal conclusions. That he was paid $X is a fact; whether that amount should have been included in gross income is a legal conclusion. The court ruled that it should, and directed Hendrickson to file accordingly. Not a thing in the world to do with "ordering the change of testimony".

Huh? The 1040 requires one to swear or affirm whether one's facts AND conclusions are correct, true, and complete. (If it didn't we'd just report the payments and have someone else conclude what they were, rather than assigning them ourselves to classes of "income".) If Pete's conclusions have not changed, how can he swear that they have?

[Nikki]

How about because he knew his original return was a lie?

[Quixote]

How about because he knew his original return was a lie?

But Bulten's premise is that Pete doesn't know it was lie.

I hate to say it, but Bulten has almost stumbled across a valid point. If a taxpayer can be ordered by a district court to report his income as determined by that court, that seems to sidestep the Tax Court's exclusive jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies determined by the Secretary. The IRC authorizes the IRS to assess the tax shown on a return filed by the taxpayer. If the IRS determines that the correct tax exceeds the tax on the return, additional tax can be assessed via deficiency procedures. A key part of those procedures is the taxpayer's opportunity to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Having a court order the taxpayer to file a return consistent with the IRS's determination of the correct tax bypasses the statutory scheme for assessment of deficiencies.

The taxpayer's opportunity to petition the Tax Court ensures due process. A district court's order to re-file a return after the taxpayer has had an opportunity to contest the IRS's determination serves that purpose, so perhaps no harm is done. On the other hand, the Tax Court does nothing but taxes, so the judges are the acknowledged experts. The Tax Court has some unique rules concerning burden of proof. The outcome in PH's case would be the same, but I think the IRS ought to go through the motions of issuing PH a stat notice and proceeding from there.

[LPC]

How about because he knew his original return was a lie?

But Bulten's premise is that Pete doesn't know it was lie.

I hate to say it, but Bulten has almost stumbled across a valid point. If a taxpayer can be ordered by a district court to report his income as determined by that court, that seems to sidestep the Tax Court's exclusive jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies determined by the Secretary. The IRC authorizes the IRS to assess the tax shown on a return filed by the taxpayer. If the IRS determines that the correct tax exceeds the tax on the return, additional tax can be assessed via deficiency procedures. A key part of those procedures is the taxpayer's opportunity to petition the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Having a court order the taxpayer to file a return consistent with the IRS's determination of the correct tax bypasses the statutory scheme for assessment of deficiencies.

The taxpayer's opportunity to petition the Tax Court ensures due process. A district court's order to re-file a return after the taxpayer has had an opportunity to contest the IRS's determination serves that purpose, so perhaps no harm is done. On the other hand, the Tax Court does nothing but taxes, so the judges are the acknowledged experts. The Tax Court has some unique rules concerning burden of proof. The outcome in PH's case would be the same, but I think the IRS ought to go through the motions of issuing PH a stat notice and proceeding from there.

You're right. Hendrickson and Bulten have a constitutional right to be assessed a penalty for willful disregard of rules and regulations by the Tax Court.

[Nikki]

Pete hasn't reached the Stat Notice stage, yet.

Once he does (and he will, because his returns were, at best, evasive) he will have the opportunity to petition the Tax Court.

That said, the Service might take the alternative route and turn Pete's case over ti CI. Then, he won't be spending much time in Tax Court at all.

[Quixote]

Pete hasn't reached the Stat Notice stage, yet.

Once he does (and he will, because his returns were, at best, evasive) he will have the opportunity to petition the Tax Court.

That said, the Service might take the alternative route and turn Pete's case over ti CI. Then, he won't be spending much time in Tax Court at all.

If Pete is forced to file correct returns, he will never reach the stat notice stage.

[wserra]

How about because he knew his original return was a lie?

Although the district court vacated the firearms prohibition on this basis, it affirmed the conditions requiring Sheldon to file accurate tax returns and to comply with the SEC order. On appeal, Sheldon renews his challenge to the two remaining conditions of his probation.... In any event, contrary to Sheldon's contentions, neither the district court nor the magistrate judge erred in finding that the condition of filing accurate income tax returns was reasonably related to Sheldon's offense and past conduct, which involved deliberate and persistent efforts to conceal his assets and income by, among other things, failing to file income tax returns.

United States v. Sheldon, 27 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2001) (summary order).

[Quixote]

LPC:

You're right. Hendrickson and Bulten have a constitutional right to be assessed a penalty for willful disregard of rules and regulations by the Tax Court.

I wouldn't want to deny them any opportunity to dig their holes deeper.

[David Merrill]

ONE WEEK AGO, a district court judge accommodated a DOJ interest by issuing (for the second time) a clearly lawless and utterly unprecedented order purporting to require my wife and me to perjure ourselves on past and future tax returns, so as to provide the federal government with a pretext for pursuing a claim to tax debts which otherwise do not exist and could not arise.

It would appear, I'm sorry to say, that upon hearing this news, some have reacted with a mindless, "I didn't know they could do that..."

Word to the wise: "They CAN'T do that."

Word to the wise II: "They're pretending to be able to do that because they very much wish to plague with doubt, and frighten into inaction and silence, everyone already so cowed and befuddled as to think, "I didn't know they
could do that...!"

So to answer your question. Courts cannot compel perjury.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Imalawman]

Well, with such a proper authority as that, who could disagree? The question, or rather lack of one, in this case is whether it would be purjury to fill a government form correctly. I say not.

[David Merrill]

Well, with such a proper authority as that, who could disagree? The question, or rather lack of one, in this case is whether it would be purjury to fill a government form correctly. I say not.

You are no Lawman (at least you are not very learned in the law);


It is plain that any real judge would simply convict for perjury on the current evidence. No real judge would order a truthful form be replaced with perjury.



Regards,

David Merrill.