Snipes Verdict

[iplawyer]

Let's see...Snipes is a movie star, there're seven women on the jury...no way he's going to prison.

No fair. I'd put him away in nano second.

[Bill E. Branscum]

I'm going to predict deliberations will take more than an hour but less than two.

I also predict the defense testimony will degenerate quickly into a train wreck, the judge will admonish their side for arguing the law, contempt charges will be handed out like Hollywood swag, and Snipes will not take the stand.

I'm sorry - I have wasted much of both of our time trying to discuss this with you. I haven't been as active here on Quatloos as I was in times past and I didn't realize that you were a nutcase.

I suppose the fact that all your predictions as set forth above have proven ludicrous makes the point better than I could.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I'm sorry - I have wasted much of both of our time trying to discuss this with you. I haven't been as active here on Quatloos as I was in times past and I didn't realize that you were a nutcase.

I suppose the fact that all your predictions as set forth above have proven ludicrous makes the point better than I could.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize you were humor-impaired. But then you're paid to take this rather seriously, aren't you?

I don't begrudge you that, Mr. Branscum - we all have to eat and keep ourselves in the manner and lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

By the way, I was right about Snipes not taking the stand but you know what they say?

Chicken Little only has to be right one time.

Besides, I'm not the only one who made the prediction that the deliberations would be short - and you're not calling that person a nutcase. Am I to infer that I've been selected for special consideration?

As for being admonished and slapped with contempt charges...well, there was no danger of that happening as the defense never took the stand, called any witnesses or rebutted the government's case in any way.

I believe that was the plan all along.

[Bill E. Branscum]

I'm sorry - I have wasted much of both of our time trying to discuss this with you. I haven't been as active here on Quatloos as I was in times past and I didn't realize that you were a nutcase.

I suppose the fact that all your predictions as set forth above have proven ludicrous makes the point better than I could.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize you were humor-impaired. But then you're paid to take this rather seriously, aren't you?

I don't begrudge you that, Mr. Branscum - we all have to eat and keep ourselves in the manner and lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

By the way, I was right about Snipes not taking the stand but you know what they say?

Chicken Little only has to be right one time.

Besides, I'm not the only one who made the prediction that the deliberations would be short - and you're not calling that person a nutcase. Am I to infer that I've been selected for special consideration?

As for being admonished and slapped with contempt charges...well, there was no danger of that happening as the defense never took the stand, called any witnesses or rebutted the government's case in any way.

I believe that was the plan all along.

I didn't see anyone else arguing that this would be resolved in a few hours - but I would most definitely say that nobody with a clue could reasonably expect this jury to be out a few hours in rendering a guilty verdict in this case. There are too many defendants, too many charges, and too many issues.

For example, you heard that Snipes sent bogus checks to the IRS. That is an outright lie.

Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts. I admit, and we all admit, that this was ludicrous, but accept as fact, for purposes of argument, that bona fide attorneys and CPA's assured him it was true.

Forget about checks - there were no checks - instead, Snipes sent letters to the IRS saying that he was getting conflicting advice that he did not understand, explicitly asking for an audit, and asking that any money in any secret account be applied to his tax bill.

Silly? Stupid? Maybe, but how is that more stupid than the American citizen who sends everything he has to some Nigerian who promises him the moon?

Snipes bought into bullshit (and paid for it) and sent letters - simple, ordinary correspondence - albeit a little nutty.

Snipes never sent anyone a check - that was something Kahn and his band of merry kooks started doing later. They actually bought check stock and began printing checks - but the evidence is unequivocal that Snipes never had anything to do with that.

How do you put a man in prison for that?

How do you allege that a victim of a Nigerian scheme is a co-conspirators with the Nigerians?

Let me ask you another thing. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you sat in a juror's chair and heard that the IRS evidentiary documents as presented to the Grand Jury were, shall we say, "incomplete."

Suppose you heard IRS agents admit that there were a great many documents that were destroyed - and further suppose that those documents included anything that quoted from any case, or cited ANY STATUTE, or demanded that they be kept in the taxpayers permanent file . . . basically, anything other than the routine goes to the "Funny Box" and on to "Classified Trash" to be sent to the shredder.

Don't presume that this was limited to voluminous nut case tax protester garbage - that isn't what the evidence showed.

Now, suppose, again for the sake of argument, that the evidence showed that Snipes' attorney and his CPA followed the IRS published procedure for asking for a "controversial" refund - the IRS has a special form for that. There was nothing sneaky, they filled out the IRS Form 8275-R that says, "Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury regulations."

Suppose that there is an IRS publication that outlines the procedure that the IRS must follow when they get this 8275-R form, and suppose that the IRS didn't follow it, and in fact, refused to follow it, shredding the relevant correspondence.

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that you as a juror saw the IRS as being the most hi-handed, arrogant, bunch of Nazis that you could imagine.

If I am a little testy, chalk it up to resentment at the unfairness I see here and lack of sleep. Justice is a sword that cuts both ways and the Prosecutor who got up and asserted that "The IRS is not on trial here," evidently had no clue what was going on.

Snipes owes the government a lot of money, and he's going to have to pay it but, IMHO, this is a civil case from which the IRS deliberately chose to create a criminal case, in an effort to make an example of a misguided celebrity.

It's no secret that I have no use for tax scheme promoters, and I fully expect this jury to hang Rosile and Kahn unless they are so fed up with the crap they saw in the courtroom that they refuse to convict anyone.

[Dezcad]

Since you were there and I was not, could you add a little to your statement of facts so that I can be more fully apprised of what happened at trial?

Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts.

What attorney with impeccable credentials testified to that?

Forget about checks - there were no checks - instead, Snipes sent letters to the IRS saying that he was getting conflicting advice that he did not understand, explicitly asking for an audit, and asking that any money in any secret account be applied to his tax bill.

Were Bills of Exchange that Snipes sent to the IRS admitted into evidence?

Silly? Stupid? Maybe, but how is that more stupid than the American citizen who sends everything he has to some Nigerian who promises him the moon?

Was there any evidence presented that Snipes sent any money for the years in question to the IRS?

Now, suppose, again for the sake of argument, that the evidence showed that Snipes' attorney and his CPA followed the IRS published procedure for asking for a "controversial" refund - the IRS has a special form for that. There was nothing sneaky, they filled out the IRS Form 8275-R that says, "Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury regulations."

Suppose that there is an IRS publication that outlines the procedure that the IRS must follow when they get this 8275-R form, and suppose that the IRS didn't follow it, and in fact, refused to follow it, shredding the relevant correspondence.

Are these suppositions based upon testimony or documents admitted into evidence?

[Famspear]

Dear Mr. Branscum:

As someone who had a great great grandfather (from Ohio) who was a heavy cannoneer on the Union side in the Civil War (he was imprisoned at Libby Prison in Richmond at one point), and who had another great great grandfather (from south Louisiana) who owned two slaves and who fought for the Confederacy, I just want to say that I really don't care about the Civil War issues right now, and I hope things are cooling down here a bit.

Back to the subject.

On the two amended returns (or, I should say, purported amended returns, since the jurat was altered) - the ones showing the change in the income amount to zero, with multi-million dollar refund claims at the end of the form, what are the facts on those? Specifically:

1. Did Snipes actually sign those purported amended returns?

2. If yes, did Snipes file the purported amended returns (or cause them to be filed) with the Internal Revenue Service?

3. If yes, was it Snipes' position that he essentially did not know the purported amended returns were false or fictitious or fraudulent? (Or, and this is a separate question, is it Snipes' position that the purported amended returns simply were not false or fictitious or fraudulent?)

[Bill E. Branscum]

Since you were there and I was not, could you add a little to your statement of facts so that I can be more fully apprised of what happened at trial?

Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts.

What attorney with impeccable credentials testified to that?

Forget about checks - there were no checks - instead, Snipes sent letters to the IRS saying that he was getting conflicting advice that he did not understand, explicitly asking for an audit, and asking that any money in any secret account be applied to his tax bill.

Were Bills of Exchange that Snipes sent to the IRS admitted into evidence?

Silly? Stupid? Maybe, but how is that more stupid than the American citizen who sends everything he has to some Nigerian who promises him the moon?

Was there any evidence presented that Snipes sent any money for the years in question to the IRS?

Now, suppose, again for the sake of argument, that the evidence showed that Snipes' attorney and his CPA followed the IRS published procedure for asking for a "controversial" refund - the IRS has a special form for that. There was nothing sneaky, they filled out the IRS Form 8275-R that says, "Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury regulations."

Suppose that there is an IRS publication that outlines the procedure that the IRS must follow when they get this 8275-R form, and suppose that the IRS didn't follow it, and in fact, refused to follow it, shredding the relevant correspondence.

Are these suppositions based upon testimony or documents admitted into evidence?

I'll try to answer these as best I can.

I didn't expound on the secret account notion, primarily because I don't know enough about it. I do know that it is hogwash - a point stipulated by everyone involved in the case. You might try googling "Bill of Exchange"

ARL and Kahn did create Bills of Exhange resembling checks, but the evidence was clear that Snipes wasn't involved in that. He never sent those to the IRS, and none were sent on his behalf.

As for the money issue, it is clear that he never sent any in during the period in question, but the evidence is equally clear that he specifically told the IRS that he was confused, asked them for an audit, and expressed the intention to pay whatever he owed.

The suppositions I proposed are absolutely based upon the testimony and evidence. The jury may completely disregard, or disbelieve whatever they choose, but I believe that the evidence and documents adduced at trial support those suppositions.

As we are going into the afternoon of the jury's second full day of deliberation, it must be clear that this is not a "slam dunk" case.

What will they do specifically? I haven't a clue - but whatever they do. this jury is going to make a statement in this case. I believe that they are going to say that they are not willing to accept the arrogant way that the IRS treated Wesley Snipes, and tell the IRS that they expect better of them than that.

[Disilloosianed]

When our state-level taxpayers are "confused" they have the option of paying under protest. This stops the interest from running, acknowledges the disagreement and lets everyone continue to conference, trial, etc. I would assume that the IRS has something similar?

I understand the argument that such an arrangment might not be possible for some lower income individuals, however, in this instance, we are talking about someone with the means. If this truly was a result of confusion, why not work within the system and take care of the confusion by litigating any additional issues, after paying the taxes?

[Bill E. Branscum]

Dear Mr. Branscum:

As someone who had a great great grandfather (from Ohio) who was a heavy cannoneer on the Union side in the Civil War (he was imprisoned at Libby Prison in Richmond at one point), and who had another great great grandfather (from south Louisiana) who owned two slaves and who fought for the Confederacy, I just want to say that I really don't care about the Civil War issues right now, and I hope things are cooling down here a bit.

Back to the subject.

On the two amended returns (or, I should say, purported amended returns, since the jurat was altered) - the ones showing the change in the income amount to zero, with multi-million dollar refund claims at the end of the form, what are the facts on those? Specifically:

1. Did Snipes actually sign those purported amended returns?

2. If yes, did Snipes file the purported amended returns (or cause them to be filed) with the Internal Revenue Service?

3. If yes, was it Snipes' position that he essentially did not know the purported amended returns were false or fictitious or fraudulent? (Or, and this is a separate question, is it Snipes' position that the purported amended returns simply were not false or fictitious or fraudulent?)

Again, I'll answer as best I can.

The amended returns were completed by CPA Douglas Rosile, and filed on behalf of Wesley Snipes, BUT they jurat was altered because Snipes was not sure that what he was told was true, AND they were accompanied by IRS Form 8275-R, the form you are supposed to use (and I quote from the form) "Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury regulations."

If a CPA and an Attorney that you pay to advise you tell you that [you fill in the silly argument] is the gospel truth, how is it criminal to use the very form that the IRS provides for making controversial claims to see what they say?

If it is a crime to file a controversial claim, why does the IRS have a form specifically for that?

The jury has a lot to consider.

[Bill E. Branscum]

When our state-level taxpayers are "confused" they have the option of paying under protest. This stops the interest from running, acknowledges the disagreement and lets everyone continue to conference, trial, etc. I would assume that the IRS has something similar?

I understand the argument that such an arrangment might not be possible for some lower income individuals, however, in this instance, we are talking about someone with the means. If this truly was a result of confusion, why not work within the system and take care of the confusion by litigating any additional issues, after paying the taxes?

Good question -- but what if they evidence reveals that there is a published IRS policy that provides that a person who requests a determination letter is not required to file or pay until he gets one?

Government-Exhibit_087-28 is a Letter dated October 15, 2001, addressed to the IRS Chief ACS, Atlanta, GA, in which Attorney Milton Baxley notified the IRS that a request for a Determination Letter had been made and cited, Internal Revenue Manual at section 1.2.1.11.2, Policy Statement (Approved 6-14-67), as support for the contention that Snipes was not required to file a return until they received it.

Whatever else Baxley was, he was an attorney licensed to practice law at the time.

By the way, the vast majority of Attorney Milton Baxley's correspondence went to the "Funny Box" and then on to the "Classified Trash" to be shredded without any review process by the legal department notwithsanding the fact that it was stamped with a demand that they be kept as part of Snipes records.

[Dezcad]

Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts.

What attorney with impeccable credentials testified to that?

You didn't tell me who the attorney with impeccable credentials was. Were you referring to Attorney Milton Baxley?

If so, then "impeccable" is quite misleading.

If not Baxley, then to what attorney were you referring?

[Famspear]

Bill E. Branscum wrote:

Again, I'll answer as best I can.

The amended returns were completed by CPA Douglas Rosile, and filed on behalf of Wesley Snipes, BUT they [sic] jurat was altered because Snipes was not sure that what he was told was true, AND they were accompanied by IRS Form 8275-R, the form you are supposed to use (and I quote from the form) "Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury regulations."

If a CPA and an Attorney that you pay to advise you tell you that [you fill in the silly argument] is the gospel truth, how is it criminal to use the very form that the IRS provides for making controversial claims to see what they say?

If it is a crime to file a controversial claim, why does the IRS have a form specifically for that?

The jury has a lot to consider.

Thanks. If I'm understanding correctly, essentially Snipes' position would be that he did not have the mens rea, the "guilty mind", element required to be guilty of filing a false claim under the 18 USC 287 charge.

I agree that including the Form 8275-R with the purported amended returns/refund claims might or might not help Snipes with the jury on the mens rea thing. (And I hasten to add that I am definitely not going to make a prediction one way or the other.)

On a separate question, if you know: Had Rosile already had his CPA certificates (or either of them, since I think he was a CPA in two states) revoked when any of this went down, and was Snipes aware of the revocation(s) at the time the purported amended returns were filed? I'm wondering if the prosecution tried to argue that "hey, look, Snipes knew that Rosile was problematic as a tax adviser" or something like that. The argument would be that if Snipes knew of Rosile's and Kahn's past problems, it might work against Snipes on the mens rea issues if Snipes was trying to argue that he relied in good faith on expert tax people. Was any of that kind of thing introduced in the trial and, if so, what would Snipes' position be on that?

[Cpt Banjo]

Government-Exhibit_087-28 is a Letter dated October 15, 2001, addressed to the IRS Chief ACS, Atlanta, GA, in which Attorney Milton Baxley notified the IRS that a request for a Determination Letter had been made and cited, Internal Revenue Manual at section 1.2.1.11.2, Policy Statement (Approved 6-14-67), as support for the contention that Snipes was not required to file a return until they received it.

Whatever else Baxley was, he was an attorney licensed to practice law at the time.

And if he thought that's what the IRM said, he's illiterate.

[jkeeb]

I don't know when Milton Baxley II was disbarred or exactly when he was determined to be "not allowed to appear for clients to the IRS", but he was known at the Atlanta Service Center in the mid-nineties and at the time known to be an idiot.

If he was not dis-barred then, it was probably because no one could believe a lawyer was that dim.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts.

What attorney with impeccable credentials testified to that?

You didn't tell me who the attorney with impeccable credentials was. Were you referring to Attorney Milton Baxley?

If so, then "impeccable" is quite misleading.

If not Baxley, then to what attorney were you referring?

Wowm now that's clever. Ask me what I meant, proffer an option and then tell me how misleading that is.

Ray Pope is the attorney I was referring to. At the time, he had impeccable credentials, but he has since been convicted and disbarred.

[jkeeb]

Ray Pope is another that no one at the service center could believe was really an attorney.

[Quixote]

Government-Exhibit_087-28 is a Letter dated October 15, 2001, addressed to the IRS Chief ACS, Atlanta, GA, in which Attorney Milton Baxley notified the IRS that a request for a Determination Letter had been made and cited, Internal Revenue Manual at section 1.2.1.11.2, Policy Statement (Approved 6-14-67), as support for the contention that Snipes was not required to file a return until they received it.

1.2.1.11.2
(Approved06-14-1967) P–11–23


Rulings and determination letters in general: Rulings and determination letters are issued to individuals and organizations upon written requests, whenever appropriate in the interest of wise and sound tax administration, as to their status for tax purposes and as to the tax effect of their acts or transactions, prior to their filing of returns or reports as required by the revenue laws. Rulings are issued only by the National Office. Determination letters are issued only by District Directors and the Director of International Operations. Reference to District Director or district office in these policy statements also includes the office of the Director of International Operations.

Baxley thought IRS good intentions trumped the IRC?

[Bill E. Branscum]

Bill E. Branscum wrote:

Again, I'll answer as best I can.

The amended returns were completed by CPA Douglas Rosile, and filed on behalf of Wesley Snipes, BUT they [sic] jurat was altered because Snipes was not sure that what he was told was true, AND they were accompanied by IRS Form 8275-R, the form you are supposed to use (and I quote from the form) "Use this form only to disclose items or positions that are contrary to Treasury regulations."

If a CPA and an Attorney that you pay to advise you tell you that [you fill in the silly argument] is the gospel truth, how is it criminal to use the very form that the IRS provides for making controversial claims to see what they say?

If it is a crime to file a controversial claim, why does the IRS have a form specifically for that?

The jury has a lot to consider.

On a separate question, if you know: Had Rosile already had his CPA certificates (or either of them, since I think he was a CPA in two states) revoked when any of this went down, and was Snipes aware of the revocation(s) at the time the purported amended returns were filed? I'm wondering if the prosecution tried to argue that "hey, look, Snipes knew that Rosile was problematic as a tax adviser" or something like that. The argument would be that if Snipes knew of Rosile's and Kahn's past problems, it might work against Snipes on the mens rea issues if Snipes was trying to argue that he relied in good faith on expert tax people. Was any of that kind of thing introduced in the trial and, if so, what would Snipes' position be on that?

Keeping in mind that Kahn was selling his pet promotion, and Rosile was on Kahn's payroll, neither had any motivation to reveal anything negative to Snipes.

There was no claim/evidence that Snipes knew about any of this, and it seems pretty clear to me that he didn't. Unless I am mistaken, Rosile's CPA issues in FL came later - but I'd have to look that up to be sure.

In any event, it wasn't an issue at trial since the Judge didn't let them get into the CPA revokation due to the relevance v prejudice objection by Rosile's attorney.

[Dezcad]

Wowm now that's clever. Ask me what I meant, proffer an option and then tell me how misleading that is.

Ray Pope is the attorney I was referring to. At the time, he had impeccable credentials, but he has since been convicted and disbarred.

Didn't mean to be clever. You hadn't answered my question and then made a post where you referred to Milton Baxley, so I thought perhaps that is who you meant.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill E. Branscum wrote:
Had you sat in a juror's seat, you would have heard that an attorney with impeccable credentials advised Snipes that all Americans have some sort of secret account that we don't know about . . . and we can use that account to discharge debts.

So who testified to Ray Pope's impeccable credentials that the jury would have heard?

[Bill E. Branscum]

Government-Exhibit_087-28 is a Letter dated October 15, 2001, addressed to the IRS Chief ACS, Atlanta, GA, in which Attorney Milton Baxley notified the IRS that a request for a Determination Letter had been made and cited, Internal Revenue Manual at section 1.2.1.11.2, Policy Statement (Approved 6-14-67), as support for the contention that Snipes was not required to file a return until they received it.

1.2.1.11.2
(Approved06-14-1967) P–11–23


Rulings and determination letters in general: Rulings and determination letters are issued to individuals and organizations upon written requests, whenever appropriate in the interest of wise and sound tax administration, as to their status for tax purposes and as to the tax effect of their acts or transactions, prior to their filing of returns or reports as required by the revenue laws. Rulings are issued only by the National Office. Determination letters are issued only by District Directors and the Director of International Operations. Reference to District Director or district office in these policy statements also includes the office of the Director of International Operations.

Baxley thought IRS good intentions trumped the IRC?

Whatever Baxley thought, and how he came to those conclusions, the fact is, he was an attorney at the time, and he was representing Snipes.