Wesley Snipes in court today

[Radar]

Those who use the reliance defense (which Snipes didn't) aren't found guilty of anything (including failing to file) and aren't forced to pay any taxes.

[Clodfobble]

Except for the part where they are sometimes found guilty, and always forced to pay all the back taxes they owe in any case, usually with late penalties. Like this guy. Or these people.

[classicman]

From the above link:

The Rizzos also admitted that they provided opinion letters, materials and documentation that claimed, among other things, that taxpayers could lawfully stop filing income tax returns and stop their employers from withholding income taxes from their wages. This claim was based upon the long-rejected notion that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution had not been legally ratified.

I found this interesting, goes along with some "discussion" we had in another thread too.

[deadbeater]

Radar, why were his advisers found guilty then?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Except for the part where they are sometimes found guilty, and always forced to pay all the back taxes they owe in any case, usually with late penalties. Like this guy. Or these people.

You're linking to a webpage run by a moron who doesn't know shit. The only real loser at Quatloos is the guy who made the website.


John Turner, Joe Bannister, Peymon Mottahedeh, Bob Schulz and many others have successfully used the reliance defense and were never made to pay a single penny of income taxes.

Bob Schulz actually took out full page ads in the USA Today telling the IRS that he would not pay income taxes, and he had employers state that they would not withhold income taxes from the paychecks of their workers. Not one of them has ever been made to pay taxes.

All of the tax protesters shown on that website are correct with the law, though Judge Rizzo screwed up his defense and by doing so, made it tougher for others.

The government violated several laws in its attack on Irwin Schiff. They even said he couldn't publish his book (violation of the 1st amendment) Irwin was wrong to suggest that people file zero returns. They shouldn't file any returns because we are not compelled to do so by the law and because the bottom of the 1040 tax form says the information will be shared with law enforcement officials. If we make a mistake on our taxes it will be viewed as a violation of the law, and according to the 5th amendment, we are not required to do anything that might incriminate ourselves.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by classicman

From the above link:



I found this interesting, goes along with some "discussion" we had in another thread too.

That site has no credibility. The 16th amendment actually was not legitimately ratified, and contrary to the lies told on that website, this was never "debunked".

When you ask the IRS to provide the law that compels individuals to pay income taxes, they refuse to do so.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Radar, why were his advisers found guilty then?

Because the courts are corrupt. Judges get their paycheck from the government and do put the interests of the government ahead of the interests of the people. They claim to have the authority to allow unconstitutional laws when they are in the interest of government despite not being given this kind of power by the Constitution.

[Radar]

Here's a little information about the guy who made quatloos.

http://www.proadvocate.org/Master_Deceiver.htm

http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/01-...on.cgi.37.html

http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive2004.html

http://famguardian1.org/Subjects/Tax...onQuatloos.htm

[TheMercenary]

[Cloud]

So, I'm not sure I understand. They acquitted him on felony conspiracy and tax fraud charges, but they've sentenced him to 3 years in prison on misdemeanor charges?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/bu...snipes.html?hp

[TheMercenary]

Tax dodger gets 3 years in prison. Sounds good to me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They couldn't prove he was not just misled, and not a conspirator, when he violated the law.
From Wiki...

This distinction is principally used in criminal law in the United States legal system, where the federal government generally considers a crime punishable by more than five days up to a year in jail to be a misdemeanor, while considering crimes punishable by greater than a year in prison to be felonies; crimes of five days or less in jail, or no jail at all, are considered infractions

[Cloud]

up to a year, yeah, but they gave him 3.

[xoxoxoBruce]

One for each count.

[Cloud]

okay, that makes sense. but, geesh.