Court Rulings regarding Tax Returns

[The Operative]

Okay, here is what I don't understand probably because I have not done my own taxes in years. What part of the 1040 would potentially incriminate you? I remember being asked for occupation and putting down things like "wage slave", "migrant parks worker" and "other", but what else is there? Is there some check box for: "If you have committed an act of terrorism and would like to confess check here and attach form 1049FBIPNJ". (FBI Probable Nut Job)

Seriously.

Schedule C of Form 1040, line A, asks for the self-employed person's principal business or profession. If you write "Home-made pharmaceutical sales and manufacture", then you might have a problem.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Schedule C of Form 1040, line A, asks for the self-employed person's principal business or profession. If you write "Home-made pharmaceutical sales and manufacture", then you might have a problem.

So basically you'd have to be a grade-A moron to incriminate yourself.

[wserra]

So basically you'd have to be a grade-A moron to incriminate yourself.

Well, there are other possibilities. "Freelance demolition"? "Self-service bank withdrawals"? "Unlimited test drives"?

One must be careful with words.

[The Observer]

So basically you'd have to be a grade-A moron to incriminate yourself.

Well, there are other possibilities. "Freelance demolition"? "Self-service bank withdrawals"? "Unlimited test drives"?

One must be careful with words.

Does "Involuntary euthanasia initiator" pass the smell test?

[LPC]

Does "Involuntary euthanasia initiator" pass the smell test?

Probate lawyers sometimes refer to "estate maturity services."

Seriously though, I don't know that a return is in any way incomplete or invalid just because you haven't identified your occupation or the exact nature of the source of the income or the services rendered, so a return would be complete and valid if you just left those lines blank.

Putting it another way, I can't imagine how the IRS could possibly prosecute anyone for tax evasion, failing to file a return, filing a false return, or any other tax crime if the person accurately reported their income but failed to identify the source of the income. Filing such a return is simply not a crime.

I don't even think it will invoke any scrutiny. I'm sure that the IRS has better things to do than poke around trying to figure out why the occupation of the taxpayer isn't described.

[Brandybuck]

Just to throw some fuel on the fire: I spent several years not signing my return, for basically 5th amendment reasons. I still filed them, I just didn't sign them. Every month like clockwork I would get a notice that I didn't sign my form and could I please sign this other form they included. I didn't sign that one either. But that's all that came of it. They still cashed my check.

So if you're serious about the 5th Amendment incrimination, then just don't sign your 1040. But do file it anyway. Don't make the 1040 the hill you die on, because there's much more deserving battles out there.

[jcolvin2]

Putting it another way, I can't imagine how the IRS could possibly prosecute anyone for tax evasion, failing to file a return, filing a false return, or any other tax crime if the person accurately reported their income but failed to identify the source of the income. Filing such a return is simply not a crime.

I don't even think it will invoke any scrutiny. I'm sure that the IRS has better things to do than poke around trying to figure out why the occupation of the taxpayer isn't described.

Certainly, there could be no prosecution for evasion if no tax is due and owning. However, filing a false tax return is another matter. While simply misidentifying the soucrce of income is unlikely to be prosecuted, it is still a felony. If the money was from a criminal activity (e.g. extortion), I can imagine the IRS/DOJmight prosecute based on a failure to list the source. (One reason that the IRS requires sources be listed is so it can better evaluate whether the return should be audited.) The DOJ has won 7206(1) convictions were MORE income was REPORTED than actually earned (taxpayer was apparently endeavoring to commit loan fraud). US v Bouzanis, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 3289 (ND Ill. 2003).

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Was Roger Clemens at risk by disclosing on his 1040 form the fact he used steroids?

Did he risk losing the opportunity to be in the baseball hall of fame or risk the loss of advertising contracts?

Did he risk any investigation by the irs into whether he deducted expenses for steroid use on the 1040 form?

How should he have protected himself from loss or even further investigation in regard to the 1040 he submitted?

There's unintended risks associated with making disclosures on the 1040 form. It's not all about "income" or the reporting of "income". Sometimes it's about other things. Take the case of a delinquent parent.

Does a parent with delinquent child-support risk any investigation(s) when disclosures are made on the 1040 form whether lies or not, and does the government use those disclosures to penalize individuals for things other than taxes?

None of these uses of the information disclosed on a 1040 form are disclosed in the instructions for the form.

[RyanMcC]

Was Roger Clemens at risk by disclosing on his 1040 form the fact he used steroids?

Not that it's worth responding to you since you won't read it, but there would be no place for Clemens to disclose his steroid use on a 1040. Get real.

Did he risk losing the opportunity to be in the baseball hall of fame or risk the loss of advertising contracts?

No, because there is no place to disclose steroid use on a 1040.

Did he risk any investigation by the irs into whether he deducted expenses for steroid use on the 1040 form?

Probally not, but why would a baseball player who makes millions try to deduct a couple hundred dollars of steroids?

How should he have protected himself from loss or even further investigation in regard to the 1040 he submitted?

By not being a moron who discloses his steroid use on a form that doesn't request the information.

--

In short, no court has agreed that the requirement to file a 1040 violates your 5th amendment protections. The issue is settled, the courts disagree with you, that is the end of it. Learn to accept reality.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th

[fortinbras]

Schedule C of Form 1040, line A, asks for the self-employed person's principal business or profession. If you write "Home-made pharmaceutical sales and manufacture", then you might have a problem.

Yes, that's about the only way a form 1040 could be incriminating. The major case on this topic, Sullivan, dealt with a bootlegger who evidently announced his business on his tax forms. Simply saying "retail sales" would have sufficed. The IRS is not so concerned about the precise vocation so long as all the money is reported. Al Capone described his business as "used furniture" -- he wasn't nailed about the furniture but over the amounts of money he wasn't reporting.

Here's one thing that is consistent: The Fifth Amendment doesn't enable anyone to skip filing their tax returns or under-reporting their taxable income. The courts have said this often and very consistently.

[LaVidaRoja]

With respect to a parent delinquent on child support, the support is a STATE obligation. There is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code for the Feds to disclose information to the State EXCEPT the result of Federal Tax audits. Then, the information may only be disclosed to and used by the State Income tax authority. If the State has no income tax, there is no disclosure. If the State has a judgement against the person for unpaid child support, the refund may be garnished by the state, but that does not trigger any disclosure of any item on the Federal return.

[The Operative]

Was Roger Clemens at risk by disclosing on his 1040 form the fact he used steroids?

Where on the 1040 form does it require disclosure of the use of steroids? Since there is no such requirement, your example is without merit.

Did he risk losing the opportunity to be in the baseball hall of fame or risk the loss of advertising contracts?

He did not bear any risk in regards to filing his 1040.

Did he risk any investigation by the irs into whether he deducted expenses for steroid use on the 1040 form?

Only if he was stupid enough to include the cost of the steroids in his medical deductions AND only if the IRS asked to see his medical expense receipts during an audit. However, at the request to see his receipts, he can then raise the 5th amendment argument. At that time, the IRS would simply disallow the portion of the medical expenses for which he did not provide receipts.

How should he have protected himself from loss or even further investigation in regard to the 1040 he submitted?

See above.

There's unintended risks associated with making disclosures on the 1040 form. It's not all about "income" or the reporting of "income". Sometimes it's about other things. Take the case of a delinquent parent.

Does a parent with delinquent child-support risk any investigation(s) when disclosures are made on the 1040 form whether lies or not, and does the government use those disclosures to penalize individuals for things other than taxes?

The state does not need to even look at a person's 1040 form in order to enforce a court order for child support payments. Therefore, regardless of whether or not a delinquent parent files a 1040 form, the penalties of not paying the child support will be enforced. BTW, the initial court order for one parent to pay child support to another is a CIVIL action. The 5th amendment does not provide any protection against CIVIL actions.

None of these uses of the information disclosed on a 1040 form are disclosed in the instructions for the form.

Since none of your examples are valid, instructions are not necessary.

[Duke2Earl]

Perhaps you wouldn't have all these questions if you did even the slightest amount of actual research and investigation... for your latest, you might start with section 7213 of the Code.

[MSA]

I think I've figured it out. GaSEBag has been looking at Form 1040-CM, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for Certified Morons. Perhaps he could post scans of the document, so we can see the lines where it asks about steroid use and child-support payments.

[LPC]

Certainly, there could be no prosecution for evasion if no tax is due and owning. However, filing a false tax return is another matter. While simply misidentifying the soucrce of income is unlikely to be prosecuted, it is still a felony.

I didn't suggest that the income be MISidentified. I suggested that the source shouldn't be identified at all.

What crime is that?

[Nikki]

I think I've figured it out. GaSEBag has been looking at Form 1040-CM, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for Certified Morons. Perhaps he could post scans of the document, so we can see the lines where it asks about steroid use and child-support payments.

Not so. He's just discovered Sooey.

[grixit]

Pyrite for Brains won't be happy until he's actually figured out a way to get himself arrested, conficted and imprisoned.

[Famspear]

OK, my turn.

Was Roger Clemens at risk by disclosing on his 1040 form the fact he used steroids?

Yeah, I guess if he were loopy enough to want to mention "steriods" on his tax return for some reason. Theoretically, you know. Also, if a serial killer were to happen to mention on his tax return that he's a "serial killer," that would be putting the serial killer at risk for prosecution. I'm not sure why someone would want to disclose either steriod use or "serial killer-ness" on a tax return, though. Sounds like a pretty stupid question.

Did he risk losing the opportunity to be in the baseball hall of fame or risk the loss of advertising contracts?

I think we're getting into a weird area, here. What does this have to do with the requirement that you disclose something on a federal income tax return? Why, Gold, would you think there would be a requirement that you disclose "steriod use" on a federal income tax return?

Did he risk any investigation by the irs into whether he deducted expenses for steroid use on the 1040 form?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How should he have protected himself from loss or even further investigation in regard to the 1040 he submitted?

See above question regarding angels and pins.

There's unintended risks associated with making disclosures on the 1040 form. It's not all about "income" or the reporting of "income". Sometimes it's about other things. Take the case of a delinquent parent.

Do we have to?

Does a parent with delinquent child-support risk any investigation(s) when disclosures are made on the 1040 form whether lies or not, and does the government use those disclosures to penalize individuals for things other than taxes?

OK, I get the drift. This parent is, for some reason, going to disclose on his tax return that he is late on child support payments? What, with a red crayon entry in large letters, requesting that the IRS please contact the child support authorities, with a phone number?

None of these uses of the information disclosed on a 1040 form are disclosed in the instructions for the form.

Maybe that's because there's no reason for "these uses" to be mentioned in the instructions, as there's no particular reason to disclose the information in a federal income tax return, since there's no requirement that this kind of information be disclosed in a federal income tax return.

Gold, are you by any chance using your federal income tax returns as your memoirs? Are you writing your life history on your tax returns, complete with lists of all your debt delinquencies, complete with a list of whatever crimes you have committed, etc., etc.?

Is this a new sub-category or cult within the tax protester-tax denier community? People who have an uncontrollable, compulsive urge to disclose everything about themselves on their federal income tax returns and who then argue that the tax laws are unconstitutional -- because.... what? Because the things they disclose are incriminating them?

Take a haloperidol and call me in the morning.

[Joey Smith]

This issue has only been resolved dozens and dozens of times, and always against tax protestors.

Sure you can believe what you want, but it will not keep the Marshals from coming out and giving you a free place to stay and a nice bright orange jumpsuit for a few years.

Nor will it protect you in civil proceeds to levy bank accounts, garnish wages, etc.

So scream "Fifth Amendment" all you want, but it doesn't work as to the returns in tax cases. Never has, no reason to suspect that it ever will.

[Arthur Rubin]

It does leave open the question of what a "hit man" should report as occupation on his Schedule C. I think I like "estate maturity services"....