Wesley Snipes and the Federal Bureau of Prisons

[wserra]

Was Snipes a fraudster, or was he just trying to do what he thought the law allowed?

Snipes earned personally nearly $42M on which he paid $0 in tax. Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes failed to file returns for any of his many corporations and trusts. Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes failed to pay state taxes as well as federal taxes. Did he think state law allowed that too?

Snipes stopped withholding from his own employees, and advocated that they sign on with Eddie Kahn and his gang of thieves. Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes hid millions offshore, then lied about it. Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes bought a bunch of "pure trusts" from our friends at Commonwealth Trust. Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes submitted false refund claims totaling over $11M. Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes tried to pay the tax due with fraudulent "Bills of Exchange". Did he think the law allowed that?

Snipes threatened frivolous complaints to TIGTA against various innocent IRS employees. Did he think the law allowed that?

It all depends on who you ask.

Perhaps it does. I'm sure Kahn would agree with you.

There are some quite rational Libertarians here. Does anybody know "Wes Benedict"? Is he really this much of a moron?

Please tell him to stop using my name.

[silversopp]

There are some quite rational Libertarians here. Does anybody know "Wes Benedict"? Is he really this much of a moron?

He's not that big of a moron...he's a great organizational guy but he's not good at press releases. The idea here was to issue a press release on a popular media story in the hopes that the media would pick it up and give the Libertarian Party some exposure. It would have been a much more appropriate press release had the figure involved been truly abused by the IRS - but instead he went with a celebrity in hopes of having more exposure (unbeknownst to him that it would be view negatively by those in the know).

[wserra]

"We need some exposure, so why don't I shoot my mouth off about something of which I know nothing but which I can twist into a tale of a celebrity abused by the IRS."

Something like that?

[Famspear]

"The three-year federal prison sentence for Snipes's failure to file tax returns is absurd. Snipes is not a threat to anyone, and the judge who sentenced him clearly just wanted to scare others who might think about resisting federal taxes.

Yes, it's called "general deterrence." According to criminologists, it's one of the basic reasons that we have criminal statutes. But you're wrong, Benedict -- it's not the only reason the judge sentenced him.

"Maybe it's worth reminding people that Wesley Snipes was acquitted of tax fraud and conspiracy charges in 2008. He was only found guilty on misdemeanor charges of 'willful failure to file an income tax return.'

Maybe it's worth reminding people that he was found guilty of a crime. And thank you, Benedict, for doing that.

"Why is a failure to file a tax return a criminal non-act? Should people ever be sent to prison for not doing something?

Yes. And thank you for asking.

If the IRS wants to come after Snipes and take his money, they have power to do that. Who does it help to send the man to prison?

It helps me. And thank you.

"The tax code is incredibly vague and open to interpretation. In fact, the 'law' is largely written by IRS bureaucrats. If they decide the law says one thing, you're OK; if they decide it's something else, then you're headed for prison.

The tax code is astonishingly opaque -- especially for people who aren't thrilled by the study of the code (i.e., normal people). I am not a normal person, by the way; I am thrilled by the study of the Internal Revenue Code.

No, Benedict, whether you go to prison for federal tax crimes is not dependent on the interpretation of IRS bureaucrats. It's a bit more complex, a bit more involved than that.

"The federal tax code also allows for 'selective enforcement,' to put it mildly.

No, actually, it doesn't. Selective enforcement does not mean "only about two or three thousand people go to jail each year for federal tax crimes." That's actually about the number that do go to jail each year -- but that's not selective enforcement. Selective enforcement might be, oh, ummmm..... an official Department of Justice policy of prosecuting only people who are registered as Libertarians. Don't worry. I don't think that's the policy.

Why is it that Wesley Snipes gets a prison sentence, but known tax cheat Tim Geithner gets promoted to Secretary of the Treasury? Maybe Tim should be Wesley's cellmate. Throw tax cheat politician Charlie Rangel in the slammer too for good measure.

Because neither Geithner nor Rangel have been prosecuted and convicted. I agree that appointing Geithner to head the Treasury was a very bad idea (just my personal opinion). It sent a very poor message. I do not agree that it is absolutely clear that Geithner violated any federal criminal tax statute -- but I do agree he was a poor choice, considering his tax problems, to head the Treasury.

I believe the IRS should investigate both Geithner and Rangel, if it has not already done so. And the chips should fall where they may -- even if that means no prosecutions.

"Why do people like Wesley Snipes and Tim Geithner work so hard to avoid paying taxes? Because THE TAX IS TOO DAMN HIGH!

No. People like Wesley Snipes work so hard to avoid paying the tax because THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE TAX AT ALL - AT ANY TAX RATE.

Geithner is a different matter.

When the government wants to grab 35 or 40 percent of what a person earns, you can expect that person to spend a whole lot of time, effort, and money to get around it.

No, I can expect SOME people to spend a lot of time, effort and money to get around it. And some do. And some do use accountants and tax lawyers with their giant bags of tricks to help their clients pay less tax.

When the IRS decides that they're just inside the legal bounds, then everything's great. But when the IRS decides they're just outside the legal bounds, now the person's supposedly a horrible criminal who deserves our hatred.

No. Snipes is not going to prison because the IRS decided he was outside the legal bounds. Snipes is going to prison because the Department of Justice agreed with the IRS, and so did the jury.

Was Snipes a fraudster, or was he just trying to do what he thought the law allowed? It all depends on who you ask.

No, it does not depend on "who you ask."

"Should we simplify the tax code? Obviously. But better yet, I want to get rid of the federal income tax and replace it with nothing. A federal government limited to its proper functions would cost so little compared to today's bloated, unconstitutional leviathan, that an income tax would be unnecessary.

Wow, what an idea! Simplify the tax code! Or even get rid of it! How in the world did you come up with such novel ideas, fella?

Write to your congressperson.

Did Snipes break the law? I have no idea. Did he behave immorally? I don't know.

Yes, you do know.

What I do know is that the law is horrible, and the IRS is immoral."

No, you don't "know" those things. Those are not facts. Those are your feelings. Your emotions. Thank you for sharing them with us.

[silversopp]

"We need some exposure, so why don't I shoot my mouth off about something of which I know nothing but which I can twist into a tale of a celebrity abused by the IRS."

Something like that?

Add to it that he didn't really make a strong point about the Libertarian position of shrinking government. The release comes across as the Libertarians want to get rid of the income tax because the IRS is abusing Wesley Snipes. Even if the IRS never abused anyone, Libertarians would still want to lower taxes and simplify the tax code. Benedict needed to focus on that message, not try to portray Snipes as a victim to feel sorry for. In this economy, the average Joe isn't going to feel sorry for a multi-millionaire - even if the IRS waterboarded that multi-millionaire.

It's an all around fail of a press release, and I doubt that any major media would pick it up.

[AFTP]

He's on Larry King tonight.

[wserra]

Judge Hodges has denied Snipes' last-minute request to delay surrender until after the holidays.

The present motion (Doc. 572) seeks to defer the Defendant’s date of surrender to January 6, 2011, and recites that the United States, though solicited to do so, has declined to consent to that deferment.

The only ground stated in the motion is the fact that the Defendant has “four minor children ranging in age from 4 years old to 9 years old,” and the “surrender date is in the middle of the holiday season.” (Doc. 572, paragraphs 2 and 3). The natural and inevitable consequence of any substantial sentence of imprisonment is to separate a Defendant from his family during holidays and at all other times of significance to a particular family unit – birthdays, weddings, and the like. The sentence in this case was imposed on April 24, 2008 (Docs. 454, 458), over two and a half years ago, and the Defendant has had all of that time to place his affairs in order, including preparation for the impact that his incarceration will have upon members of his family. The sooner he begins his sentence, the sooner it will end; and, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the United States does not consent to the relief requested.

Upon due consideration, the Court concludes that no sufficient ground has been shown to further defer the execution of the judgment of commitment, and the Defendant’s present motion to stay self surrender (Doc. 572) is DENIED.

He surrenders on Thursday.

I would be more sympathetic if Snipes was spending this evening with his kids and not appearing on Larry King.

[Famspear]

On CNN’s Larry King Live tonight, Wesley Snipes will:

A. Go into full tax protester/tax denier mode, presenting the “861 argument” again, as he did on his amended returns, and railing against the federal tax law, the evil IRS, etc.

B. Assert that he was duped by Eddie Kahn and the rest, and that he has since concluded that the 861 argument or any other frivolous arguments he used on his returns are incorrect.

C. Claim that he was unfairly targeted for prosecution.

D. Claim that he should have been tried somewhere else.

E. Some combination of two or more of the above.

F. None of the above.

[Trippy]

I'll take option E for two hundred, please.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would like to know if Larry King is going to nail Snipes if he starts off in (A) or (B) mode, or if he is going to toss softball responses at him.

[AFTP]

B and C.
After all he's a victim right?

[Famspear]

CNN has a web page where you can send in email questions for Larry King's guest tonight.

Here's the question I just sent:

On his 1997 amended federal income tax return, Mr. Snipes tried to change his adjusted gross income from $19,238,192 to "zero." He claimed his tax was "zero," and claimed a tax refund of $7,360,755. In retrospect, what is Mr. Snipes' current belief about the correctness of that amended return?

I don't know that Larry King would be willing to ask that question of Wesley Snipes -- especially without some redaction of the specific dollar amounts.

Here's the link to send email questions:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.lkl.html

[grixit]

On CNN’s Larry King Live tonight, Wesley Snipes will:

A. Go into full tax protester/tax denier mode, presenting the “861 argument” again, as he did on his amended returns, and railing against the federal tax law, the evil IRS, etc.

B. Assert that he was duped by Eddie Kahn and the rest, and that he has since concluded that the 861 argument or any other frivolous arguments he used on his returns are incorrect.

C. Claim that he was unfairly targeted for prosecution.

D. Claim that he should have been tried somewhere else.

E. Some combination of two or more of the above.

F. None of the above.

G. You can't tax me, i'm white!

[bmielke]

A,C,D with a heaping helping of race card.

[Cathulhu]

I'm going with B, C, and D, but after all, I've been killing the pain today. Whee.

[wserra]

Snipes kept having trouble with the script, Meachum was frequently incoherent, "Judge" Joe Brown is an entertainer, and King was his usual useless self as an interviewer. Anyone here - not necessarily one of the lawyers - could have deep-sixed the bullshit with a well-placed sentence or two. But deep-sixing the bullshit is hardly the point of primetime television.

Pathetic.

[Famspear]

I watched all but the last 5 minutes of Larry King Live. I think Wesley Snipes did a good job of presenting himself. He of course left out lots of important adverse information; people who aren't familiar with the record in the case may, after watching the segment, feel that Mr. Snipes did not get a fair deal.

People who are familiar with the record should see that Larry King did not really ask any hard questions and may well have been unaware of which questions could have been asked. Larry's style is not necessarily one conducive to getting at the bottom of things on something like this.

At one point I thought I heard Snipes claim that the tax returns he did file -- I presume this means the amended returns with the fraudulent multi-million dollar refund claims -- were actually signed by someone else. Too bad Larry King didn't go into that further.

One caller near the end asked the typical tax protester question of Snipes's attorney (who was on the show with Snipes): "Are you aware of the law that makes you liable?", or words to that effect. The caller referenced Aaron Russo. Snipes' attorney cited section 61 and asserted that Snipes had never been a tax protester.

[wvfoos]

I watched the whole thing.

Larry owes me 40 minutes of my life back.

I'm afraid I'll never see it.

[Quixote]

At one point I thought I heard Snipes claim that the tax returns he did file -- I presume this means the amended returns with the fraudulent multi-million dollar refund claims -- were actually signed by someone else. Too bad Larry King didn't go into that further.

Snipes never said that. Meachum stated that someone hada power of attorney for Snipes that included the power to sign returns. (I don't believe that is possible unless Snipes were actually incapable of signing his returns himself.) So Snipes thought the returns were being filed and only learned later that they weren't. What King should have asked, but did not, was why that fact did not come out at the trial. King seems to have assumed that it had and asked why the jury still convicted Snipes. Snipes and Meachum responded, of course, with shrugs and knowing smiles.

[Famspear]

At one point I thought I heard Snipes claim that the tax returns he did file -- I presume this means the amended returns with the fraudulent multi-million dollar refund claims -- were actually signed by someone else. Too bad Larry King didn't go into that further.

Snipes never said that. Meachum stated that someone hada power of attorney for Snipes that included the power to sign returns. (I don't believe that is possible unless Snipes were actually incapable of signing his returns himself.) So Snipes thought the returns were being filed and only learned later that they weren't. What King should have asked, but did not, was why that fact did not come out at the trial. King seems to have assumed that it had and asked why the jury still convicted Snipes. Snipes and Meachum responded, of course, with shrugs and knowing smiles.

I would love to see someone ask Wesley Snipes about the amended returns -- the ones that WERE FILED. I realize that he was acquitted of the felony charges, but I would like to see this line of questioning:

"Mr. Snipes, is this your signature, did you sign this amended return?"

If he answers yes, then ask him: "Do you see this line where you are claiming zero adjusted gross income for this year? Do you see this line where you are claiming a refund of over seven million dollars in tax?"

And: "Are you still claiming that you did not present any tax protester arguments?"