How much will Snipes pay back before sentencing?

[Joey Smith]

Place yer bets, place yer bets ...

[Joey Smith]

I think he will pay a little, and not even half, very begrudgingly and will claim that the IRS grossly overstated his income and thus amounts due, etc., and will hint around that he is not "constitutionally liable" without saying that outright.

BTW, the more that I think about this case, and especially Bernhoff's false statements after the case ("this proves that questioning one's taxes is not a felony"), the more I think that Snipes deserves the full three years as an example to others.

[Investor]

I doubt he has the liquid assets to pay 100% within 2-3 months. I think he'll pay something (less than 50%) before sentencing. After sentencing, he will settle with the Service for something less than the full amount of tax, interest and penalties, but (assuming he has the ability) not less than the original tax.

[The Observer]

If you mean by "settle" that the IRS will accept an offer-in-compromise, I highly doubt that the IRS would want to be seen in a position where they appear to be knuckling under to the guy who "beat" them in court. Not to mention that Snipes is going to have to prove that over time his career earnings will not allow full repayment of the liability. At the very least, the IRS would probably insist on a collateral agreement as part of any offer settlement to ensure that no future windfall allows Snipes to escape paying his fair share.

On the other hand, as a part of the court proceedings, if the IRS and Snipes' team are still contending about the accuracy of the assessment, there may be a good deal of horse trading going on before the numbers are engraved in stone.

[webhick]

I'd prefer that he'd pay at least something, since it's the smart thing to do but I don't think he will so I voted that he won't pay anything.

When I was younger, I harbored a favorable opinion of Snipes, that I incidentally hadn't updated since he didn't really spark my interest again. But with the tax trial, I started reading up on him again. The favorable opinion has pulled a 180. I won't elaborate, since I don't think Branscum will like me expressing that opinion here, or my reasoning for thinking he won't pay anything.

[Investor]

If you mean by "settle" that the IRS will accept an offer-in-compromise, I highly doubt that the IRS would want to be seen in a position where they appear to be knuckling under to the guy who "beat" them in court. Not to mention that Snipes is going to have to prove that over time his career earnings will not allow full repayment of the liability. At the very least, the IRS would probably insist on a collateral agreement as part of any offer settlement to ensure that no future windfall allows Snipes to escape paying his fair share.

I am not suggesting OIC. I am suggesting a litigation settlement. After adding the interest and penalties to the tax bill, it is highly unlikely that Snipes will pay the full amount within the collection statute (is the collection statute tolled if he's sitting in prison? I've never had occasion to research such an issue - thankfully).

[The Observer]

If you mean by "settle" that the IRS will accept an offer-in-compromise, I highly doubt that the IRS would want to be seen in a position where they appear to be knuckling under to the guy who "beat" them in court. Not to mention that Snipes is going to have to prove that over time his career earnings will not allow full repayment of the liability. At the very least, the IRS would probably insist on a collateral agreement as part of any offer settlement to ensure that no future windfall allows Snipes to escape paying his fair share.

I am not suggesting OIC. I am suggesting a litigation settlement. After adding the interest and penalties to the tax bill, it is highly unlikely that Snipes will pay the full amount within the collection statute (is the collection statute tolled if he's sitting in prison? I've never had occasion to research such an issue - thankfully).

Which is what I was referring to in my second paragraph. I didn't follow closely how the IRS came up with the figures (and not even sure if they got around to completing an SFR on Snipes). But I agree with you that this is where Snipes will get a chance to argue for a lower dollar figure. I just don't think he can argue that the assessment should be lower because he can't pay it. But perhaps someone else can chime in with experience that differs.

[Investor]

Which is what I was referring to in my second paragraph. I didn't follow closely how the IRS came up with the figures (and not even sure if they got around to completing an SFR on Snipes). But I agree with you that this is where Snipes will get a chance to argue for a lower dollar figure. I just don't think he can argue that the assessment should be lower because he can't pay it. But perhaps someone else can chime in with experience that differs.

Ah, I didn't properly read your second paragraph. What I am saying is that part of the thought process for the "horse trading" you allude to may be the IRS getting to a number which is not unrealistically low, without need for a trial, and which Snipes could reasonable pay within the ten year statute.

[Demosthenes]

The IRS' calculations of the amount due will be a factor in the sentencing report. The defense will have a chance to contest the figures (by filing accurate returns), and then the judge will make the total amount due part of the sentence in the form of required restitution to the government.

Not a lot of wiggle room there. To see an example, here's Schiff sentencing memo.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/schiff396.pdf

[Joey Smith]

Demo: What are your thoughts on if Snipes doesn't pay, or at least doesn't make significant progress in paying, in relation to the sentencing hearing?

[Nikki]

The Willie Nelson rule should apply here.

Assess everything due,

Lien everything that can be traced to him.

Take 100% of the proceeds from his royalties, residuals, and next films (if he gets work again) until it's paid off.

[Demosthenes]

My guess, if he makes no effort to pay, he's looking at the full 36 months. If he makes an honest effort (and this judge is quite experienced in typical dishonest, disengenuous tax denier efforts), the judge may cut him a little slack, but I don't see how the judge can go as low as some of the sentences predicted here.

[LPC]

The IRS' calculations of the amount due will be a factor in the sentencing report. The defense will have a chance to contest the figures (by filing accurate returns), and then the judge will make the total amount due part of the sentence in the form of required restitution to the government.

I predicted "zero" because I expect to see a lot of foot-dragging by Snipes. The judge will finally get tired of it and enter a sentence, and by that time Snipes's opportunity will be gone.

He might surprise me and cooperate and begin to make payments, but (as I said) it will surprise me.

[LAprosecutor]

The IRS' calculations of the amount due will be a factor in the sentencing report. The defense will have a chance to contest the figures (by filing accurate returns), and then the judge will make the total amount due part of the sentence in the form of required restitution to the government.

Not a lot of wiggle room there. To see an example, here's Schiff sentencing memo.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/schiff396.pdf

Unlike Schiff, Snipes was convicted exclusively of Title 26 charges, which means no mandatory restitution (don't ask me about why tax cases are excluded, as I can't figure that out). The Court was required to impose restitution on Schiff because of the 18 USC 371 conspiracy count (18 USC Section 3663A, mandatory restitution in fraud cases).

In fact, the permissive restitution statute, 18 USC Section 3663, states that restitution can be imposed in a misdemeanor only in lieu of a sentence (even if Title 26 offenses were included within its ambit). I'm reasonably sure the government won't want to ask for mandatory restitution if it meant no jail time. . . .

[jcolvin2]

While Title 26 convictions are not subject to an order of restitution (which order remains in force until 20 years after release from prison), payment of restitution can be a condition of probation or supervised release. This means that if a convicted defendant does not make arrangements to pay after release, the Probation Officer can bring this to the attention of the court, and the court may order additional jail time.

[Demosthenes]

Thanks for the clarifications, guys.

[Dr. Caligari]

I predict zero. He will claim that he is going to pay everything he owes, but that he disputes the Government's calculations and is going to pursue his rights in Tax Court.

[AFTP]

He'll pay it all.

[BBFlatt]

If he had any brains, he would have paid every nickel before the jury was seated.

If he had any sense, hed pay it all before sentencing.

He has to this point demonstrated a glaring lack of the above mentioned commodities, so I predict he will pay nothing.

[Gregg]

He'll pay it all.

With bags of pennies...

I believe, but am not sure, that a payment in pennies or nickels can be refused, although they must take dimes, quarters etc....
Back when coinage was specie, there was an underlying value in these coins, the metal, whilst the smaller denominations are from a legal point of view mere "markers" and fall somewhere short of legal tender....I heard this many many years ago at a coin collector event and the argument was at the time very compelling.....am I believeing old wives tales?