Thursday, October 19, 2006

Wesley Snipes indicted

You tell me this is good news or bad news. On Tuesday, Wesley Snipes was indicted on 8 counts of tax "fraud" and not filing tax forms. If he is found guilty on all counts, Snipes could face 16 years behind prison.

Now, I am no attorney, but I am interested in the law, especially tax law. I ask that question in the beginning because there are positive things and negative about Snipes being indicted. U.S. Attorney Paul Perez charged Snipes with one count of 18 USC 371, one count of 18 USC 287, and six counts of 26 USC 7203.

Now, I am not familiar with charges from Title 18, but it has to do with Snipes amending a tax return to tax less (or no) money on the same income.

"Snipes", according to the Los Angeles Times, "began dubious (sic) tax refunds, including a $7.4-million claim for the 1997 tax year. Snipes originally claim an income of $19.2 million that year, authorities alleged, but in an amended return said his income was zero."

I have two questions (actually one question and one comment). The question is what kind of income does the paper refer--gross income or taxable income? I can guess (from looking at the law) that $19.2 million is his "gross income", and zero is his "taxable income". And looking at 26 USC 1 and 26 USC 3, you pay a tax on your taxable income only.

The comment is if you already file a tax return and pay taxes, let it be. You can get into trouble correcting it in the future. If you know now the truth, start with today.

But I'm familiar with 26 USC (or IRC) 7203, titled "Willful failure to file...". In fact, I have a specific defense on the charge of IRC 7203. If Snipes doesn't file (and he doesn't amend his past tax returns), all the government can charge him is IRC 7203. Also, Snipes got involved with Eddie Ray Kahn, owner of American Rights Litigators and its successor, Guilding Light of God Ministries. Kahn uses the "861 argument" which says only foreign sources of income are taxed. Remember, I gave you a version of the 861 argument in my post last March, and I believe in it wholeheartedly (i.e., the law itself tells the REAL truth). The defense of willfulness is found in the Supreme Court decision, Cheek v. United States.

Now, I am poor, but Snipes is rich. He can have any attorney he wants, including multiple attorneys. If it was me, I will choose Jeffrey Dickstein, Larry BeCraft, and/or Robert Bernhoft. Dickstein and Bernhoft represented Joseph Banister in the Banister tax trial in 2005, and BeCraft represented Vernice Kuglin in the Kuglin tax trial in 2003. By the way, both won their cases.

And in case, Snipes should watch the movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. This is the ENTIRE movie (1:45 to 2 hours long). But it's broken down into 4 segments: if the movie should run in it's entirely, I will replace it here. UPDATE: It's here! Wait for "Buffering..." to end, and wait until 10 seconds for the movie to start. Like I said, the movie lasts less than 2 hours, but taxes last the first hour.

But, as I am writing this, Snipes is no where to be found. Maybe he realizes the chances of winning at trial. The charges under Title 18, I can't help you. The charges under Title 26, I can help you. Title 18 is "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE"; Title 26 is "INTERNAL REVENUE CODE". If both Titles are distinct, that means Title 26 is not a crime, is it not? If he is found guilty of only charges under Title 18, he will face a maximum sentence of 10 years. And the jury is bias against rich people "getting away" by "not paying taxes". And running away is not good. But which way the trial goes, the major media is watching closely.

I wish Wesley Snipes all the luck, especially when he battles the government on taxes.

2 Comments:

At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As late as this comment is, a wake-up call is necessary here. I don't know much at all about Snipes' case, but I know this:

1) "Income" is corporate profit, and nothing else. Anybody who doesn't work for the US government doesn't earn "income" in their normal job activities. How does the so-called government get away with calling everything it gets "revenue," and everything everybody else gets "income?"

2) There is no liability established by law for income taxes, so nobody is required to pay them. Why doesn't the IRS simply assess income taxes on its own, instead of going through this ridiculous farce of printing up tens of millions of forms, instruction booklets and the like, and mailing to them to residences, post offices, and libraries? Because IT CAN'T. And the reason that it can't is because income taxes are VOLUNTARY, because there is no liability which would legally require people to pay them. That's why they have to deceive, intimidate and threaten "taxpayers" into assessing the taxes themselves, and then sending them a signed confession. If they don't do that, then legally, the IRS is dead in the water.

3) IRC 7203 CANNOT APPLY TO INCOME TAXES, because of the word "required" in the first sentence. Refer to #2 above.

 
At 5:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't notice the part before about the 861 defense. Larken Rose used this, and got himself convicted as a result.

The provisions of the IRC only apply to "taxpayers," who are people LIABLE for a tax. It's probably not a good idea to claim you're not a taxpayer by citing a section of the IRC that applies to taxpayers.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home