Back to jail for Doreen Hendrickson

[notorial dissent]

All things considered I think I'd rather dig out my eyes or cut off my ears. I can't imagine the next round will go any better than the previous efforts have.

[fortinbras]

Perhaps we should start a betting pool on how many weeks/days before she's behind bars again?

[Famspear]

…..Isn't there another trial coming up for Pete and Doreen?

Yes, their U.S. Tax Court case on tax deficiencies and penalties. See:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 96#p261996

[notorial dissent]

Well, that ought to be exciting, and more of their usual fun and games, and them swearing they won't swear to a "false" document.

[Uilliam]

I just have a simple question looking for a real answer.

If Doreen's tax filing was actually fraudulent then why didn't they just prove that in court and send her to prison on something like tax fraud charges?

Why did they have to resort to an illegal contempt of court charge (it's illegal because it is unlawful to try and compel someone to change their testimony or to try and get them to lie in their testimony - yes, there are statutes against this) to put her behind bars?

[Famspear]

I just have a simple question looking for a real answer.

If Doreen's tax filing was actually fraudulent then why didn't they just prove that in court and send her to prison on something like tax fraud charges?

Why did they have to resort to an illegal contempt of court charge (it's illegal because it is unlawful to try and compel someone to change their testimony or to try and get them to lie in their testimony - yes, there are statutes against this) to put her behind bars?

For the same reason that the vast majority of people that the government KNOWS are committing Federal tax crimes are never even charged: It is the policy of the United States Department of Justice to charge only a very few people, and this has been the policy for many years.

I have personally seen a case where the IRS knows that someone is cheating to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal income tax, and the person is not charged with a tax crime. (Yes, the IRS does go after that person for the back taxes, penalties and interest.)

The IRS itself has NO POWER to charge anyone with a Federal tax crime. The IRS does have pretty much sole authority to INVESTIGATE Federal tax crimes, and to recommend to the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice that a specific person be charged. The United States Attorney in each Federal district, who is the chief officer of the Department of Justice in that district, has NO AUTHORITY to even go to a Federal grand jury and ask for an indictment on a Federal tax charge WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING APPROVAL from the Tax Division of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC. That's how tight the control is.

Only about 2 or 3 thousand people are prosecuted each year in the United States for Federal tax crimes. The Department of Justice is very picky. We can argue about whether this is a good policy or not, but that's the situation.

EDIT: PS. As far as your specific question about Doreen Hendrickson, you would have to ask the prosecutors in her case. Her husband, Preposterous Prevaricating Pete Hendrickson, who is really the promulgator of the "lost horizons", "Cracking the Code" tax evasion scam, has already spent two terms in Federal prison for Federal tax crimes, etc., including the use of the phony "federal privilege" scam on his own tax returns (joint returns with Doreen), so it is almost certainly the case that the government didn't feel the need to prosecute her for the same stuff. But, you would have to ask the prosecutors. As I said, a lot of people are cheating for a whole heck of a lot more in Federal tax dollars than the Hendricksons did, and those people are not being charged.

[Famspear]

Why did they have to resort to an illegal contempt of court charge (it's illegal because it is unlawful to try and compel someone to change their testimony or to try and get them to lie in their testimony - yes, there are statutes against this) to put her behind bars?

That's not what happened. She was ordered to file amended returns according to what the law actually is. She is well aware that under the Internal Revenue Code, compensation received for services performed is includible in gross income of the person receiving the compensation under the Code, except as otherwise excluded. She and her husband Pete are also well aware that there is no Code exclusion for the type of compensation they received. She and her husband are well aware that there is no law that limits "income" to amounts received in connection with the exercise of a Federal privilege. She and her husband simply refuse to accept that this is the law. There is a difference between "belief" in the sense of being AWARE of something and "belief" in the sense of ACCEPTING that same something.

The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have to some extent helped create a little confusion by the use of terms such as "belief" and "believe." It would be better if the courts stuck to the formal language that the courts use to describe "willfulness" in connection with U.S. Federal tax crimes: the "voluntary, intentional violation of a KNOWN legal duty" -- a duty of which the defendant is AWARE, regardless of whether the defendant accepts the idea that he or she has that duty. The wording of the statute on perjury (which includes the word "believe") also contributes to this confusion.

Just as is the case in every day life, words mean different things in different contexts in the life of the law.

Although tax protesters and tax scammers like Peter Hendrickson often claim not to "believe" that their income is not limited to amounts received in an activity connected to the "exercise of a Federal privilege", juries of their peers in actual Federal criminal tax cases usually are not fooled by a tax protester's claim of non-belief.

Too bad for the tax protesters!

[notorial dissent]

In other news, sucks to be a Hendrickson, on all fronts.