Snipes Acquitted!!!!

[LPC]

I think it will show that you do in fact have to file a return.

No more than a "willful failure to file" acquittal shows that you don't have to file a return.

Can't have it both ways...

Your "logic" is not like our earth logic.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I think it will show that you do in fact have to file a return.

No more than a "willful failure to file" acquittal shows that you don't have to file a return.

Can't have it both ways...

Your "logic" is not like our earth logic.

I say we adopt the rule JRB proposed that anyone who holds these beliefs to be truth should preface everything they say with "I'm from the planet Grognard, and..."

It really would simplify things.

[grixit]

Demo's book is a business endeavor, so going to trials is research, so all those southern tummy thumpers are deductable.

And the Snipes case will make a great ending chapter, as well as a good hook for starting on the next one.

[LPC]

"An acquittal doesn't mean there isn't a law, but in order to be convicted of breaking a law, there had to be a law to be broken."

Right.

How sophomoric.

Wrong.

We've just recently in Georgia had someone cleared after 30 years or so by DNA evidence, and released.

I don't know who or what you're talking about, but I'm willing to concede that might happen.

They were convicted...so there 'had to be a law broken"?

Right.

Are you sure that you want to be in print saying that?

Sure. Why not?

Let's talk about a hypothetical example. The body of a woman is found with a knife in her heart and semen in her vagina. I am convicted of rape and murder. It is later demonstrated that the fingerprints on the knife are not mine and the semen in the vagina is not mine, and I am released. Does that mean that rape and murder are not crimes?

Now let's talk about a different hypothetical example. One night, on a street corner, several people see bling. I am later accused of bling, and am convicted of bling but, on appeal, I convince the judge that bling is not a crime. As a result, I am released without ever having to prove or disprove whether or not I committed bling.

Is rape and murder a crime?

Is bling a crime?

In both cases, defendants who had been convicted walked free. What is the difference?

[The Operative]

Demo's book is a business endeavor, so going to trials is research, so all those southern tummy thumpers are deductable.

And the Snipes case will make a great ending chapter, as well as a good hook for starting on the next one.

Does a person actually have to prove they are writing a book in order to take all those business trip deductions? Also, does the book have to eventually get finished?

[jg]

Does Snipes have a date set for sentencing?

Does Demo have a release date for the alleged book?


hmmm.......

[Nikki]

"The verdict shows that promoters face serious jail time” but clients who follow their advice will face a lesser but still-serious risk, said JJ MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst who attended the trial and is writing a book about tax deniers.

**Allegedly** writing a book. They always leave out "allegedly."

She IS writing a book -- akin to The Never-Ending Story.

[Famspear]

The Operative wrote:

Does a person actually have to prove they are writing a book in order to take all those business trip deductions? Also, does the book have to eventually get finished?

Maybe we shouldn't give her a hard time, though. She might take revenge and include us as characters in the book. And the people here are real characters.

[Demosthenes]

[Demosthenes]

The next two books are fiction, one making fun of DC, the other of the cruise world, so there are lots of opportunities for characters named Captain.

[grixit]

The next two books are fiction, one making fun of DC, the other of the cruise world, so there are lots of opportunities for characters named Captain.

It's been a while, but as i recall, most of the "captains" in DC were villains.

[ASITStands]

So, it's a novel and not an expose? Not a serious work at all?

[LPC]

From the NY Times:

February 2, 2008
Wesley Snipes Cleared of Serious Tax Charges
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

OCALA, Fla. — A federal jury returned a mixed verdict against the actor Wesley Snipes on Friday, acquitting him of the most serious tax charges he faced, but convicting him on three of six lesser charges. The case was the most prominent tax prosecution since the billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley was convicted of tax fraud in 1989.

Mr. Snipes, who has built a worldwide following acting in films like the “Blade” vampire trilogy, must pay up to $17 million in back taxes plus penalties and interest.

He had become an unlikely public face for the tax denier movement, whose members maintain that Americans are not obligated to pay income taxes and that the government extracts taxes from its citizens illegally.

The jury found Mr. Snipes not guilty on two felony charges of fraud and conspiracy. He was also acquitted on three misdemeanor charges of failing to file tax returns or to pay taxes from 2002 to 2004. But the jury found him guilty of failing to file returns or pay taxes from 1999 through 2001. He faces up to three years in prison. If convicted of the felonies, he would have faced up to 16 years.

JJ MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst who attended the trial and is writing a book about tax deniers, said “the verdict shows that promoters face serious jail time” but clients who follow their advice will face a lesser but still serious risk of imprisonment.

Mr. Snipes’s two co-defendants — Eddie Ray Kahn, a promoter of tax denial, and Douglas Rosile, a former accountant — were convicted on the fraud and conspiracy charges.

It was the fourth major case in which the Justice Department failed to win convictions in cases against prominent tax deniers. The verdict drew whoops of joy outside the federal courthouse here from fellow tax deniers who immediately proclaimed it another victory that would draw more people to their cause.

The courts have declared the tax denier arguments are frivolous. Even Mr. Snipes’s defense lawyers, who called the denier claims “dead wrong” in their closing arguments to the jury, reiterated that statement after the verdict.

Mr. Snipes will pay all of his income taxes plus penalties and interest, said Robert E. Barnes and Robert G. Bernhoft, who defended him.

“He will make full amends and pay everything,” Mr. Barnes said.

Mr. Bernhoft said Congress should repeal criminal tax laws and treat tax evasion as a civil matter.

Robert E. O’Neill, the United States attorney here, said current law “is entirely subjective” on criminal intent because juries must decide whether a defendant “sincerely believes” he was not required to pay taxes.

The Justice Department has told Congress there is no need to revise the tax laws on intent. But when Mr. O’Neill was asked whether the laws should be changed, he said, “Absolutely.”

The defense, prosecution and Ms. MacNab all said the verdict showed that the jury recognized the promoters as criminals and saw Mr. Snipes as their victim. They also agreed that the reason the jury acquitted Mr. Snipes of not filing his tax returns in 2002 through 2004 was because he had been told he was the target of a criminal investigation and jurors believed that he was exercising his right to remain silent. The jury convicted him of failing to file his tax returns before he knew was a suspect.

Even as Congress has reduced income tax rates, the tax denier movement has spread, fueled by high payroll taxes, political attacks on the Internal Revenue Service and anger among people who have not benefited from strong overall economic growth.

Instead of prosecuting all offenders, the Justice Department brings cases against well-known individuals, hoping that widespread news coverage will encourage compliance, a policy known as general deterrence. The Snipes prosecution, like the three earlier cases that resulted in full acquittals, appears to have backfired.

The Justice Department has for months declined requests to provide an official who would discuss its tax prosecution policies on the record.

Tax deniers assert variously that the tax laws are valid but do not apply to them, that no law makes anyone liable for taxes and that the government tricks people into paying. Promoters of tax denial claim that people can legally stop paying income taxes by executing certain documents, or by not signing others, like tax returns. Courts have rejected all these arguments.

Mr. Snipes, 45, was indicted in October 2006 for filing a false claim for a $7 million refund (of taxes paid in 1997, before he stoped paying taxes), and conspiracy with his two co-defendants to defraud the government through that claim, which was not paid.

Since 1986, Mr. Snipes has appeared in more than 50 films, earning at least $103 million, court papers showed, including more than $58 million in the years covered by the indictment, 1999 through 2004.

Mr. Snipes has built a huge following, especially overseas, with his portrayals of intrepid detectives and fearless vampire slayers and his occasional comedic roles. In addition to the “Blade” series, he starred in movies like the action film “Drop Zone,” the political intrigue “The Art of War,” and, with Sean Connery, the corporate crime thriller “Rising Sun.”

The defense rested on Monday without calling any witnesses. Mr. Snipes declined to answer questions outside the courthouse on Friday, where a gaggle of reporters was surrounded by dozens of fans from this central Florida city.

In closing arguments on Tuesday, lawyers for Mr. Snipes sought to portray him as a well-intended victim of bad advice by his co-defendants. They called his tax theories “kooky” and “crazy,” but said acting on these views did not make him a criminal because he disclosed his actions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that tax deniers can demonstrate the absence of criminal intent by asserting that they “sincerely believe” that they are not required to pay taxes, although they cannot escape the levies.

Prosecutors argued that Mr. Snipes showed criminal intent when he sent the government three bogus checks to pay $14 million in taxes and an amended tax return that was subtly altered with software to insert the word “no” before “penalty of perjury.”

Defense lawyers said Mr. Snipes did not file tax returns after his indictment because the I.R.S., by making him the target of a criminal investigation, “forced” him to exercise his right to remain silent.

After his indictment, however, Mr. Snipes sent the government a series of rambling letters describing his tax theories and warning that “pursuit of such a high-profile target will open the door to your increased collateral risk.”

Mr. O’Neill, the lead prosecutor, called the filings “gibberish” whose purpose was to thwart law enforcement.

In one 600-page document, Mr. Snipes said he was legally a “nontaxpayer” and the tax laws did not apply to him because he was not a resident of the District of Columbia, was not a federal official and was not engaged in any trade or business, all common tax denier arguments.

Mr. Snipes also complained that the I.R.S. violated his 14th Amendment rights to equal protection because it would not help him establish what he said was his rightful status as a legal nontaxpayer.

Mr. Snipes joined the tax denier movement after becoming upset when told that his 1999 income tax would be more than $2 million, Carmen Baker, his former assistant, testified.

A mutual acquaintance introduced Mr. Snipes to one of his co-defendants, Mr. Kahn. Mr. Kahn operated a Christian ministry, the Guiding Light of God Ministries, and a central Florida company called the American Rights Litigators that helped tax deniers avoid paying.

Mr. Kahn, who was imprisoned for tax crimes in 1985 to 1987, fled to Panama after the 2006 indictment. He was extradited to stand trial on the latest charges but refused to attend the proceedings, remaining in his jail cell, after telling Judge William T. Hodges that the court had no authority over him.

Mr. Snipes and Mr. Rosile are free on bail.

[LPC]

There's also an earlier version of Johnston's article, from yesterday, with some additional commentaries from Demo.

[Nikki]

Please do. Anything you create HAS to be much more interesting than reality.

[Joey Smith]

The LA Times carried a story today that quoted Bernhoff as basically saying "This verdict shows that protesting one's taxes is not a felony."

Hmmm, can anybody say: Dick Simkanin, Al Thompson, Ward Dean, etc., etc., etc.

But I guess that Bernhoff is trying to keep his client pipeline full . . .

[The Operative]

The LA Times carried a story today that quoted Bernhoff as basically saying "This verdict shows that protesting one's taxes is not a felony."

The verdict also says that actively trying to convince others to not pay taxes IS A FELONY. Just ask Eddie Kahn and Douglas Rosile.

[Investor]

The LA Times carried a story today that quoted Bernhoff as basically saying "This verdict shows that protesting one's taxes is not a felony."

Hmmm, can anybody say: Dick Simkanin, Al Thompson, Ward Dean, etc., etc., etc.

But I guess that Bernhoff is trying to keep his client pipeline full . . .

I hate to keep using this comparison, but it is just so illustrative: Bernhoff's statement is akin to saying "the OJ Simpson verdict shows that murdering your ex-wife is not a felony".

[Confused!!!]

How can you be not guilty for Tax Evasion, but guilty for willful failure to file??? That makes no sense. I would have thought just the opposite. Can you help me out here?

[jg]

How can you be not guilty for Tax Evasion, but guilty for willful failure to file??? That makes no sense. I would have thought just the opposite. Can you help me out here?

The DOJ has online a prior version of their Criminal Tax Manual at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/index.htm


See these chapters to learn about the two crimes :

8.00 Attemts to Evade or Defeat Tax

ELEMENTS OF EVASION

To establish a violation of section 7201, the following elements must
be proved:

1. An attempt to evade or defeat a tax or the payment thereof.
Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965); Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 498-99 (1943).
2. An additional tax due and owing.
Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965); Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 361 (1958);
3. Willfulness.
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 195 (1991); United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976); United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 359 (1973); Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 351 (1965); Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139 (1954).
The government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Marashi, 913 F.2d 724, 735 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Williams, 875 F.2d 846, 849 (llth Cir. 1989).

10.00 Failure to File, Supply Information, or Pay Tax

FAILURE TO FILE

10.04[1] Elements

To establish the offense of failure to make (file) a return, the
government must prove three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Defendant was a person required to file a return;

2. Defendant failed to file at the time required by law; and,

3. The failure to file was willful.

United States v. Hayes, 190 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669, 671 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v.
Harting, 879 F.2d 765, 766-67 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v.
Williams, 875 F.2d 846, 850 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v.
Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v.
Gleason, 726 F.2d 385, 388 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v.
Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1980).

The manual explains at some length more than just the elements.

The charge most often brought under section 7203 is the failure to make (file) a return. A number of cases are also brought under section 7203 for failure to pay a tax. Note that the attempt to evade or defeat the payment of a tax is a felony under section 7201 of the Code. Willfulness is
the same for both misdemeanor offenses and felony offenses under the Internal Revenue Code. The difference in the offenses is that failure to file or pay under section 7203 involves merely a failure to do something (an omission), whereas there must be an affirmative act or a "willful
commission" to raise the offense to a section 7201 felony.

I hope this helps.