TaxFool.Net

[Nikki]

I have very little experience with how the IRS operates, or how it chooses what cases to investigate for criminal prosecution, but I would expect that the IRS would want to limit prosecutions to people who *deserve* to be prosecuted, not just in the sense that they clearly broke the law, but also in the sense that the general public would agree that what the person did was bad enough to warrant jail time.

Otherwise, the IRS would run the risk of (a) acquittals by sympathetic juries, (b) bad press from sympathetic reporters, and (c) hearings in front of sympathetic Congresspeople.

The IRS does not choose who will be prosecuted. The IRS only makes recommendations to Justice who then makes the determination.

Given that Justice has been all tied up trying to figure out which US Attorneys to fire and how to justify torture, they haven't had the time to go after tax evaders.

[Quixote]

Yeah, you really have to be doing some bad stuff to get charged criminally on the state level from what I've seen. I'd be curious about what the feds do as well.

According to one of the DoJ prosecutors, it's pretty much the same deal. You don't have to worry about going to jail if you make an honest mistake, even if it's a bad one - just pay tax owing and penalties.

Unless you work for the IRS. Then, you have to worry about losing your job.

A friend, employed by the IRS, was due a refund on his Maryland state income taxes. He filed the Maryland return two days late. Maryland sent him his refund without imposing any penalties or late filing fee.

A year later, he was brought up on disciplinary charges for "failing to meet his tax filing obligations." He was lucky and only received a one-week suspension.

If it had been his federal return, he would, in theory, have been terminated unless granted a lesser punishment by the Commissioner personally.

[Gregg]

I have very little experience with how the IRS operates, or how it chooses what cases to investigate for criminal prosecution, but I would expect that the IRS would want to limit prosecutions to people who *deserve* to be prosecuted, not just in the sense that they clearly broke the law, but also in the sense that the general public would agree that what the person did was bad enough to warrant jail time.

Otherwise, the IRS would run the risk of (a) acquittals by sympathetic juries, (b) bad press from sympathetic reporters, and (c) hearings in front of sympathetic Congresspeople.

The IRS does not choose who will be prosecuted. The IRS only makes recommendations to Justice who then makes the determination.

Given that Justice has been all tied up trying to figure out which US Attorneys to fire and how to justify torture, they haven't had the time to go after tax evaders.

Why don't we torture the tax protestors and fire the polititcian, solves a lot or problems all at once, dontcha think?

[LPC]

I have very little experience with how the IRS operates, or how it chooses what cases to investigate for criminal prosecution, but I would expect that the IRS would want to limit prosecutions to people who *deserve* to be prosecuted, not just in the sense that they clearly broke the law, but also in the sense that the general public would agree that what the person did was bad enough to warrant jail time.

Otherwise, the IRS would run the risk of (a) acquittals by sympathetic juries, (b) bad press from sympathetic reporters, and (c) hearings in front of sympathetic Congresspeople.

The IRS does not choose who will be prosecuted. The IRS only makes recommendations to Justice who then makes the determination.

I over-simplified. And saying that the IRS "does not choose who will be prosecuted" is also an over-simplification.

My understanding is that there are at least three steps:

1. Someone within the IRS decides whether or not to begin a criminal investigation.

2. At some point during or after the criminal investigation, someone within the IRS decides whether to make a referral to the Department of Justice.

3. After a referral is made to the DoJ, someone within the DoJ decides whether or not to prosecute.

The final decision is made within the DoJ, but there are preliminary decisions within the IRS that are just as important, because most referrals from the IRS to the DoJ result in prosecutions.

[Weathervane]

It annoys be a bit that neither Taxfool nor the other reformed TP ever says he was wrong. He only says that the courts don't agree with him. To the lawyers here, he was wrong because the courts didn't agree with him. To we laypeople, the courts didn't agree with him because he was wrong. But his target audience think they are right even when the courts disagree with them. Telling them they're going to lose without telling them why might just appeal to the TP's inner martyr.

In not so many words, they both quite eloquently admit their errors while maintaining their dignity. Plainly, both individuals have gone above and beyond in admitting their mistakes and trying to send a message of caution to anyone else considering going down the same path.

If nothing else, they give other TP's a chance to reflect and perhaps change their minds without losing face. As long as someone who violates the law pays the price and may perhaps convicence others not to make the same mistakes, what difference does it make?

Besides, who likes to explicitly admit they were wrong about anything? Especially people as thick-headed as the average conspiracy nut, fortune 500 ceo, religious fanatic, dictatorial president, or TP.

Give 'em a break, Q.

[Imalawman]

It annoys be a bit that neither Taxfool nor the other reformed TP ever says he was wrong. He only says that the courts don't agree with him. To the lawyers here, he was wrong because the courts didn't agree with him. To we laypeople, the courts didn't agree with him because he was wrong. But his target audience think they are right even when the courts disagree with them. Telling them they're going to lose without telling them why might just appeal to the TP's inner martyr.

In not so many words, they both quite eloquently admit their errors while maintaining their dignity. Plainly, both individuals have gone above and beyond in admitting their mistakes and trying to send a message of caution to anyone else considering going down the same path.

If nothing else, they give other TP's a chance to reflect and perhaps change their minds without losing face. As long as someone who violates the law pays the price and may perhaps convicence others not to make the same mistakes, what difference does it make?

Besides, who likes to explicitly admit they were wrong about anything? Especially people as thick-headed as the average conspiracy nut, fortune 500 ceo, religious fanatic, dictatorial president, or TP.

Give 'em a break, Q.

I agree. I think the mere fact they posted the websites is an acknowledge that they were wrong.

[hartley]

Unless you work for the IRS. Then, you have to worry about losing your job.

A friend, employed by the IRS, was due a refund on his Maryland state income taxes. He filed the Maryland return two days late. Maryland sent him his refund without imposing any penalties or late filing fee.

A year later, he was brought up on disciplinary charges for "failing to meet his tax filing obligations." He was lucky and only received a one-week suspension.

Yep. Until I went back to college last year, I used to work for the IRS out of their Nashville, TN call center. A co-worker of mine was in the process of appealing to the Commish on this issue. She had filled out the return and given it to her husband to mail, and he didn't.

Since it was her Federal return, she was facing termination if the Commisioner didn't reduce it, even though their return was due a refund.

Now that I think about it, I think I've mentioned her here before. And I now find myself wondering what happened to her.

[jg]

As I read your account, I was wondering what happened to the husband that neglected to mail the joint return. Methinks it was not good, in the least.

[LPC]

As I read your account, I was wondering what happened to the husband that neglected to mail the joint return. Methinks it was not good, in the least.

Husbands. Can't live with them. Can't live without them. Can't chop them up into small pieces and tell the neighbors that they went to visit a brother in Toledo.

[webhick]

Can't chop them up into small pieces and tell the neighbors that they went to visit a brother in Toledo.

You can if you freeze the body before chopping it up. And remember to dispose of it in asbestos bags. No one looks in there.

But you're better off telling everyone he ran off with a male stripper. It's more satisfying, and you don't run the risk of anyone calling the brother.

[LPC]

Can't chop them up into small pieces and tell the neighbors that they went to visit a brother in Toledo.

You can if you freeze the body before chopping it up. And remember to dispose of it in asbestos bags. No one looks in there.

But you're better off telling everyone he ran off with a male stripper. It's more satisfying, and you don't run the risk of anyone calling the brother.

Thanks for the tips.

[Weathervane]

I've shared a couple of emails with Greg. He's just now getting his notice of referal to DOJ and hoping his website will calm the raging sea a little. I told him it won't stop his indictment, but also if he's filed all his delinquent returns and has started paying back taxes as well it will pay off at plea-bargain time.

He said he's pretty tied up at the moment, but would like to start dropping by over here sometime.

[wserra]

Good work, TG. Helping someone in the eye of the storm stay calm, and feel that he has support, can mean a lot.

[ASITStands]

Has he retained an attorney? He should be working through an attorney. And, why would not filing delinquent returns and paying in total plus cooperation defer indictment?

Don't know of specific cases, but it seems if done early enough it could have an effect. At the very least, it should lead to a plea agreement. I've seen that result.

[Weathervane]

Has he retained an attorney? He should be working through an attorney. And, why would not filing delinquent returns and paying in total plus cooperation defer indictment?

Don't know of specific cases, but it seems if done early enough it could have an effect. At the very least, it should lead to a plea agreement. I've seen that result.

We haven't delved into too many details yet, so I'm not sure if he's retained anyone yet. I would assume so, but I'm not 100% on that.

I would imagine that if he had filed and cooperated before he recieved notice of his DOJ referal, it may have stopped the referal and/or indictment. But if his case is similar to mine and he waited until after he became aware of potential criminal prosecution its not going to help him one bit. That ball is already rolling...

[ASITStands]

I would imagine that if he had filed and cooperated before he recieved notice of his DOJ referal, it may have stopped the referal and/or indictment. But if his case is similar to mine and he waited until after he became aware of potential criminal prosecution its not going to help him one bit. That ball is already rolling...

Not to pry too deeply, as I've not read your complete history, but didn't you have notice of potential criminal prosecution prior to the referral? In other words, during investigation.

In the cases I've looked at the Investigating Agent scheduled an appointment with the target and tried to get compliance or some other agreement prior to referral.

But even after referral, it would seem to be possible to stop the indictment if you cleaned up your act and displayed the appropriate cooperation and/or restitution.

I've seen a case recently in which the agent took exception to some deductions taken by the target's accountant (who was an enrolled agent) and made the referral. He's working with an attorney and the enrolled agent to try to show the DOJ the agent was hasty.

Specifically, they want to know if the agent forwarded a copy of the return. The charge is either false and fraudulent statements or evasion, can't remember.

Anyway, after referral, a show of cooperation could lead to an acceptable plea agreement.

[Weathervane]

Of course, I'm sure sometimes things get lost in the shuffle, but by the time someone gets their notice that CID has recommended DOJ prosecute them, I think its pretty fair to say that the individual has thus far proved uncooperative.

In my case, I did get my letter notifying me that my case was being sent up after I had filed all my late returns (3) , but at that point it was too little too late, as the saying goes.

But as you suggest, Asitstands, the fact that I had filed and begun paying long before my court date arrived did manage to put something in the plus collumn for me and I think it did sway the judge in accepting my plea.

At this point, stopping the DOJ referal and/or stopping the DOJ from seeking indictment while not impossible, is still very unlikely. (Its kind of like trying to back your way through an intersection that you just blew a red-light through and asking the cop not to give you a ticket. Especially since he was trying to wave you off while you were busy yaking on your cell phone).

As you probably know, going to trial to try and "Cheek" it out would be a long shot based on two things...
1. Greg was previously a regular filer/payer.
2. He began submitting his returns again under threat of prosecution.