That took me awhile to figure out.grixit wrote:Senehtsomed!
(Okay, not that long. I fell back on my second way of reading things.)
That took me awhile to figure out.grixit wrote:Senehtsomed!
Exactly. The Browns were convicted of fraud and money laundering. Ed long ago discovered the secret to avoiding income tax and tax related crimes: no income.Famspear wrote:On January 18, 2007, Edward Lewis Brown was found guilty by a jury in a Federal District Court in Concord, New Hampshire of:
---one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 USC 371;
---one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 USC 371, 31 USC 5325 and 31 USC 5324(a)(3), and
---one count of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 USC 5324(a)(3) and 18 USC 2.
On that day the same jury found Elaine A. Brown guilty of:
---one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 USC 371;
---five counts of tax evasion and aiding and abetting under 26 USC 7201 and 18 USC 2;
---eight counts of willful failure to collect employment taxes under 26 USC 7202 and aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2;
---one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements in violation of 18 USC 371, 31 USC 5325 and 31 USC 5324(a)(3), and
--two counts of structuring financial transactions to evade the Treasury reporting requirements and aiding and abetting under 31 USC 5324(a)(3) and 18 USC 2.
See Jury Verdict, docket entry 133, Jan. 18, 2007, ''United States of America v. Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown, Defendants''; case no. 1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord); and Indictment, docket entry 1, April 4, 2006, ''United States of America v. Elaine A. Brown and Edward Lewis Brown, Defendants''; case no. 1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL, United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord).
Yeah, and Ed is fortuitously not living in a community property state -- where half of Elaine's dental practice income would actually be his income, and would be reportable by him, and would therefore result in Federal income tax liability for him.Exactly. The Browns were convicted of fraud and money laundering. Ed long ago discovered the secret to avoiding income tax and tax related crimes: no income.
The Heterosexual Male Tax Protester's Guide to Avoiding Taxes:Quixote wrote:Ed long ago discovered the secret to avoiding income tax and tax related crimes: no income.
Awww, that would never happen!The Heterosexual Male Tax Protester's Guide to Avoiding Taxes:
Locate divorced/widowed female dentist who owns successful practice
Convince dentist that income taxes are illegal
Use this excuse to spend more time with dentist to buy time to...
Brainwash dentist into believing everything you say
Convince dentist that she loves you
Marry dentist
Gain access to dentist's money
Make dentist stop paying taxes so you can have more money
Structure your financial transactions so it takes longer for the IRS to find out about dentist's illegal activities
Use dentist's money to build unpermitted house of your dreams (remember to ignore dentist's wishes - she's no longer allowed to have an opinion separate from yours)
Get indicted
Make a few appearances in court
Get angry at court and spend rest of trial at home. Let dentist do what she wants, which if you have her under control like you should, she will stay in court and then eventually meet you at home.
Molest Randy Weaver
Make exaggerations about what you will do if "they" come and get you
When Feds show up, cave instantly.
Throughout the process, remember to maintain your credibility by: threatening authorities, pretending the laws and courts don't exist, throwing parties, and ranting about every conspiracy theory that comes to mind.
Either she did not file returns at all or she filed separate returns. I doubt that Ed would sign a tax return.Even though the income was Elaine's income, he would still be guilty of willfully attempting to evade HER TAX (on her income) if he willfully signed and filed a joint return (which I assume is what happened). There is no requirement in the law that the tax being evaded actually be Ed's own tax.
Depends on the target of the petition.Harrison Bergeron wrote:Doesn't a real petition require addresses?