Snipes is in the hands of the jury II

[Joey Smith]

Which is about right. Snipes will pay his back taxes, interest, substantial understatement penalties, and attorney fees, spend a year or so in jail. He will not be a convicted felon, but he will be known as a moron who didn't pay his taxes and spent time in the joint for it.

[Demosthenes]

The DOJ release:

Jury Finds Wesley Snipes Guilty on Three Misdemeanor Charges and Acquits Him of Two Felony Charges

Two Others Found Guilty On Felony Charges

OCALA, Fla., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A jury today found Wesley Trent Snipes guilty on three misdemeanor charges for failing to file income tax returns. Snipes was acquitted on felony charges of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and presenting a fraudulent
claim for payment to the IRS. He was also acquitted on three other charges of failing to file income tax returns. Eddie Ray Kahn, of Sorrento, Fla., and Douglas P. Rosile, of Venice, Fla., were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the IRS and presenting a fraudulent claim for payment to the IRS.

A sentencing date has not been set. The conspiracy and false claim charges each carry a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. Snipes faces up to one year imprisonment on each charge of failing to file income tax returns.

Kahn was the founder and leader of American Rights Litigators (ARL), a tax protestor organization based in Lake County, Fla. Rosile prepared returns for ARL clients, such as Snipes.

U.S. Attorney Robert E. O'Neill stated, "Filing tax returns is not
optional. It is a legal requirement. Mr. Snipes now faces up the three years in federal prison for his willful failure to comply with the law."

"The jury's conviction of Wesley Snipes today represents the latest in a long string of criminal convictions by the Justice Department and the IRS against tax protestors," said Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Tax Division, "Those who unlawfully dodge their
tax obligations should know that they face long prison terms and stiff financial penalties."

"Our criminal justice system has once again determined that there are no legal grounds for failure to file or pay federal taxes. There is no secret formula that eliminates a persons' tax obligations -- the law is very clear: people must pay their taxes," said acting Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Linda Stiff. "Today's conviction again reminds all honest taxpayers that arguments from those who promote tax schemes are simply wrong and do not stand up to the scrutiny of the law."

This case was investigated by the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI). It is being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Robert E. O'Neill, Assistant United States Attorney Scot Morris, and Trial Attorney Jeffrey A. McLellan, U. S. Department of Justice Tax Division.

[jg]

The DOJ release:

Kahn was the founder and leader of American Rights Litigators (ARL), a tax protestor organization based in Lake County, Fla. Rosile prepared returns for ARL clients, such as Snipes.

emphasis added

I sure wish the DOJ would get another term that is better suited to the truth of the matter.
Using the term protestor gives a hint of legitimacy where there is absolutely none.

[Joey Smith]

Frivolous filer and/or frivolous non-filer

[notorial dissent]

I personally kind of lean towards tax cheat. Simple, succinct, and to the point, and even the dumbest should be able to comprehend it.

[Disilloosianed]

I tend to just call mine "wingnuts," except in the pleadings.

[Judge Roy Bean]

"Scam promoter" works for me.

[iplawyer]

Bill E. Branscum wrote:
The verdict is in.

The jury convicted on three MISDEMEANOR failure to file counts and acquitted on the rest.


Congratulations.

Personally - I don't think there is anything to congratulate Bill on here. Snipes will go to jail, he will have to pay back taxes, interest and penalties, he won't be able to work while he's in jail, and imagine how different his life is going to be in jail? He won't get as many years as he could have, but I imagine 3 years to Snipes is pretty much the same as 16.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

I sure wish the DOJ would get another term that is better suited to the truth of the matter.
Using the term protestor gives a hint of legitimacy where there is absolutely none.

I like to use the term "tax fundamentalist", or "tax fundie", which stems from "religious fundamentalist". Both groups are willing to take their entire argument from a single, or few source(s) and treat is as unerring truth. Any challenger to their position, even when supported by volumes of verifiable evidence, is written off as a paid shill, ignorant, or as being part of a vast conspiracy. Of course, the really kooky ones have no qualms tossing a little rant about the Illuminati in just for good measure.

(This is in no way intended to be derogatory of religious fundamentalists.)

[Dezcad]

I sure wish the DOJ would get another term that is better suited to the truth of the matter.
Using the term protestor gives a hint of legitimacy where there is absolutely none.

I like to use the term "tax fundamentalist", or "tax fundie", which stems from "religious fundamentalist". Both groups are willing to take their entire argument from a single, or few source(s) and treat is as unerring truth. Any challenger to their position, even when supported by volumes of verifiable evidence, is written off as a paid shill, ignorant, or as being part of a vast conspiracy. Of course, the really kooky ones have no qualms tossing a little rant about the Illuminati in just for good measure.

(This is in no way intended to be derogatory of religious fundamentalists.)

Although I understand the point you are making, I think it is inaccurate to equate religion to law.

In law, there are provable truths and a final arbiter on what the law says - in the US it is the SCOTUS.

In religion, there is neither provable truths nor an abiter to resolve disputes.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Although I understand the point you are making, I think it is inaccurate to equate religion to law.

In law, there are provable truths and a final arbiter on what the law says - in the US it is the SCOTUS.

In religion, there is neither provable truths nor an abiter to resolve disputes.

You make an excellent point with which I agree. My comparison speaks more towards their "debate" technique, rather than to the nature of the root issues. In all seriousness, I think "tax denier" is the most descriptive term.

[jg]

Although I understand the point you are making, I think it is inaccurate to equate religion to law.

In law, there are provable truths and a final arbiter on what the law says - in the US it is the SCOTUS.

In religion, there is neither provable truths nor an abiter to resolve disputes.

Agreed, there is indeed no human arbiter.

And, there are those that believe there is no final arbiter. Others, however, "know there ain't no heaven but pray there ain't no hell".

[Demosthenes]

From PEOPLE's website:

When asked if he plans on paying his taxes when the trial is over, Snipes told PEOPLE he remains confused as to what the IRS wants of him.

"I've always been paying my taxes and I've always been trying to comply," he says. "This question is, did they tell you what you're supposed to do to comply? We should be able to go to our government and get clear answers."

[LPC]

From PEOPLE's website:

When asked if he plans on paying his taxes when the trial is over, Snipes told PEOPLE he remains confused as to what the IRS wants of him.

"I've always been paying my taxes and I've always been trying to comply," he says. "This question is, did they tell you what you're supposed to do to comply? We should be able to go to our government and get clear answers."

So there's going to be a sequel?

[Dr. Caligari]

"know there ain't no heaven but pray there ain't no hell".

The actual quote (from "And When I Die," by Laura Nyro) is "I can swear there ain't no Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."

[webhick]

From PEOPLE's website:

When asked if he plans on paying his taxes when the trial is over, Snipes told PEOPLE he remains confused as to what the IRS wants of him.

"I've always been paying my taxes and I've always been trying to comply," he says. "This question is, did they tell you what you're supposed to do to comply? We should be able to go to our government and get clear answers."

Reminds me of a crazy-bitch client I was forced to deal with for over two years.

Me: They're saying that they rejected the form because you didn't check the yes or no box.
T: I didn't know what they wanted!
Me: They wanted a check mark in the yes or no box. Did you earn income outside the state of NH?
T: No! But I don't know what they want!
Me: Then check the little box next to the word "No". That's all they want.
T: How was I supposed to know what they wanted!?
Me: Did you read the form?
T: Of course I read the f***ing form! But they didn't say what they wanted! I'm not stupid! Don't call me stupid!

Edit: The sad part is, I'm not exaggerating for effect. That was an actual conversation I had.