Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WESLEY SNIPES TAX EVASION TRIAL
Fox News Channel | February 1, 2008

Posted on 02/01/2008 2:08:44 PM PST by OnRightOnLeftCoast

Fox News Channel annoucing Snipes income tax trial involving millions of $$$ has been found not guilty on two felony counts, but guilty on three misdeameanor.

FNC's resident judge interviewed by Cavuto said it amounts to no time in jail and the IRS will have to sue Snipes to collect.

He also said it would be a serious set-back for the government of those that protest taxes.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: hollywood; irs; snipes; taxevasion

1 posted on 02/01/2008 2:08:45 PM PST by OnRightOnLeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

Geez, this is a popular topic :)


2 posted on 02/01/2008 2:09:15 PM PST by ECM (Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM

Hmmmmm ... I’m happy for Mr. Snipes, but it sure does pay to be a celebrity.


3 posted on 02/01/2008 2:11:22 PM PST by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast
This is amazing.

I bet the Feds really do regret going after Wesley now, because this sets a precedent.

The IRS's stock-in-trade is fear.

They may be the ones feeling the fear now.

4 posted on 02/01/2008 2:12:14 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

“He also said it would be a serious set-back for the government of those that protest taxes.”

Are you saying that it’s a set back for the government?


5 posted on 02/01/2008 2:13:51 PM PST by okiejack (Thank GOD for Grunts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast
But, but, but, the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, therefore the IRS has no legal authority to tax income! I read it in an email somewhere.
6 posted on 02/01/2008 2:14:21 PM PST by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

bttt


7 posted on 02/01/2008 2:14:23 PM PST by JamesP81 ("I am against "zero tolerance" policies. It is a crutch for idiots." --FReeper Tenacious 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM

This looks like a MASSIVE victory for Snipes. Whether it will embolden the tax-resistor movement is unknown at this time. But, where in the IRS code DOES it make every INDIVIDUAL liable for taxes on earnings, as earnings are defined by that code? It does seems that that detail is missing, or obscured - the IRS never seems able to point it out, by page, paragragh, sub-chapter, etc., in these “trials”.


8 posted on 02/01/2008 2:15:13 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

Always bet on Black!


9 posted on 02/01/2008 2:16:00 PM PST by gridlock (Proud Romney Supporter since January 20, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
I’m happy for Mr. Snipes,

Why?

Sounds like he pulled one over on the juror and that means it will cost us money.

10 posted on 02/01/2008 2:17:48 PM PST by Michael.SF. ("democrat" -- 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses " - Joseph J. Ellis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I bet the Feds really do regret going after Wesley now, because this sets a precedent.

A reason many were routing for him, most likely! (including me).

11 posted on 02/01/2008 2:18:01 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

OK, but what I don’t understand is if this is the case, why doesn’t Congress just fix that problem and just close the loophole?


12 posted on 02/01/2008 2:19:13 PM PST by ECM (Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

Intriguing results - BUMP


13 posted on 02/01/2008 2:19:47 PM PST by Xenophon450 (I guess I'll never know, some things under the sun can never be understood...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

Blade!


14 posted on 02/01/2008 2:22:14 PM PST by toddlintown (Building More Highways For Children---Huckleberry Talking Point)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

bttt


15 posted on 02/01/2008 2:22:51 PM PST by Deaf Smith (Dear IRS, I would like to cancel my subscription. Please remove me from your mailing list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM

Because that would mean that all other taxes paid fom 1913 to date were paid to a government wothout the authority to collect them! Federal tax fraud on the RECEIVING end!


16 posted on 02/01/2008 2:26:51 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Actually, it's the IRS that has been playing fast and loose with the truth.

Their stock-in-trade is fear.

Wesley is indeed a man of steel. I would never go against the IRS.

17 posted on 02/01/2008 2:28:24 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

What was Snipes’ defense?


18 posted on 02/01/2008 2:36:28 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Benedict Arnold was against the Terrorist Surveillance Program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

He was not ALLOWED to present he defense he wanted to....only an abridged version.


19 posted on 02/01/2008 2:38:52 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

Not guilty (of the felonies) by reason of celebrity.


20 posted on 02/01/2008 2:40:03 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I would never go against the IRS.

Nor would I.

The IRS though, as much as we may despise them, are usually receptive to a reasonable settlement, if offered quickly and handled professionally. It is when one gets crosswise with them that they turn into the vindictive schmucks that they can be.

21 posted on 02/01/2008 2:42:45 PM PST by Michael.SF. ("democrat" -- 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses " - Joseph J. Ellis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Let me tell you this aint gonna help guys like me. You have to have millions to fight them then you can win. Me, they came after me relentlessly when I feel behind because I was unemployeed and used the money from a real estate sale to live on. 3 years and $20K plus in penalties and interest on top of the $20k I owed has got me still flat broke. Maybe I should hire Wesley’s attorneys!


22 posted on 02/01/2008 2:42:56 PM PST by marlon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

I think he still has to pay the taxes.


23 posted on 02/01/2008 2:43:12 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
It is when one gets crosswise with them that they turn into the vindictive schmucks that they can be.

I'm glad he did it.

This might actually make the fair tax or a national sales tax (in place of the IRS, of course) a real possibility, especially if Wesley inspires a wave of copy-cats.

24 posted on 02/01/2008 2:52:11 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast
FNC's resident judge interviewed by Cavuto said it amounts to no time in jail and the IRS will have to sue Snipes to collect.

Both false.

He is facing 3 years in jail (convicted of 3 misdemeanors), and will probably get a good fraction of that if not all of it.

And the IRS can assess and collect the taxes without suing him; Snipes will have to sue in Tax Court if he wants to dispute the amount. (Penalties are mandatory for the 3 years he was convicted on, and the IRS can assess penalties for the other 3 years as well.)

25 posted on 02/01/2008 2:57:30 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast
just another government bully agency whose end is long over due

The ten most frightening words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" .... Ronald Reagan

.

26 posted on 02/01/2008 3:01:11 PM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast

Man bites Dog!


27 posted on 02/01/2008 3:13:11 PM PST by sono (You fight campaigns with the politicians you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive; VeniVidiVici

I read he did not put up a defense, claiming he didn’t need one. Perhaps you are right and that the judged may have ruled against him in evidentiary proceedings, so he decided not to say much at all.

Very interesting to see him win. He’s not quite the first to win. The woman who won on basically the same arguments still ended up losing her home.

This probably will have no effect on anything, because the key issues of the tax protest movement were not ruled on. But I’m sure there will be people who will now refuse to file... the “Wesley defense”.


28 posted on 02/01/2008 3:23:43 PM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
What was Snipes’ defense?

From the New York Times article on the case:

"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,” “crazy” and “dead wrong,” but said acting on these views did not make him a criminal because he disclosed his actions. The defense also objected to his being tried by an all-white jury of seven women and five men.

"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."

29 posted on 02/01/2008 3:27:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast
Good!
30 posted on 02/01/2008 3:36:32 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM

If you do a little research on this subject, unlike most of the f&^%*ing maroons here who think they know so much about the law but couldn’t find it in a law library, you will find that according to the Constitution, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to levy a tax on income- look up the difference between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ taxes and ‘excise’. It hasn’t been passed because it would be (hopefully) overturned by the SC as un-Constitutional, because it is.

It is much easier for the IRS to *claim* that there is a law, buried in all those hundreds or thousands of IRS regulations in the IRS manual [which are *not* laws but regulations], and work by using the fear of jack booted thugs and the fear of being taken to “tax court” [a kangaroo court if there ever was one] to extract the taxes from you. It’s worked for the better part of 50+ years hasn’t it? Just look at this or other tax or Snipes threads and see how many supposedly freedom loving, knowledgable, conservative FReepers are against Snipes on this subject, without any first hand knowledge of the actual laws or statutes. It’s very telling as to how much fear and trepidation the IRS instills in even conservative FReepers on this subject.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed on this subject by those same know-it-all FReepers, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that they cannot come up with a cite of the **actual law** that in fact does levy an income tax on earnings of U.S. Citizens. The IRS can’t, the courts can’t, the prosecutors can’t- because it doesn’t exist. So Snipes may have more going for him and his argument than he’s given credit for.

For the record, I’m not a tax protester. I don’t want the tax laws changed or a “Fair Tax” instituted. At this point, there is NO LAW levying an income tax or requiring that it be paid or reported. So I don’t want an un-Constitutional law creating an income tax passed.

I’ve donned my nomex suit and await the ad hominem attacks, but will disregard all of them if they can’t cite a law in the USC that backs up their arguments.

Have at it.


31 posted on 02/01/2008 3:39:47 PM PST by hadit2here ("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

I heard on the radio that he presented no defense only stated the government had not proved its case.


32 posted on 02/01/2008 3:47:31 PM PST by scottteng (Proud parent of a Life scout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hadit2here
If you do a little research on this subject, unlike most of the f&^%*ing maroons here who think they know so much about the law but couldn’t find it in a law library, you will find that according to the Constitution, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to levy a tax on income- look up the difference between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ taxes and ‘excise’. It hasn’t been passed because it would be (hopefully) overturned by the SC as un-Constitutional, because it is.

Try reading the 16th Amendment sometime.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed on this subject by those same know-it-all FReepers, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that they cannot come up with a cite of the **actual law** that in fact does levy an income tax on earnings of U.S. Citizens. The IRS can’t, the courts can’t, the prosecutors can’t- because it doesn’t exist. So Snipes may have more going for him and his argument than he’s given credit for.

Start with section 1 of Title 26 of the U.S.C.: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...every individual... a tax..."

More here, and much more here.

33 posted on 02/01/2008 4:27:12 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ECM
"close the loophole?"

I'd rather see them just "close" the IRS, but that will never happen....

34 posted on 02/01/2008 4:33:13 PM PST by KoRn (CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

He was somehow found not guilty of fraud, but he lost the tax case. For each year he owes the full amount plus 25%, plus 7% compounded per year. Probably $15-25 million. If he hasn’t moved all his assets out of the country, (which would re-introduce the fraud case), liens will be placed quickly on his properties. If he wasn’t a celebrity, his passport would be seized. In the end, he’ll claim racism and poverty, and have an attorney offer ten cents on the dollar.


35 posted on 02/01/2008 5:56:49 PM PST by T. Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Try reading the 16th Amendment sometime.

Bought into their bullsh!t, huh? Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals". This and other similar cases have never been overturned.

Start with section 1 of Title 26 of the U.S.C.: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...every individual... a tax..."

Again, still sipping the IRS kool-aid. I usually don't respond to these type of threads just for this reason. Educating people who think they know it all rapidly becomes an exercise in frustration. This is a perfect example of the deception. I could spend hours trying to edumacate you with citations from the specific USC sections, but in the end you'd just come up with more of the IRS BS. I have better things to do. Thanks for playing.

36 posted on 02/01/2008 6:13:58 PM PST by hadit2here ("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hadit2here
Bought into their bullsh!t, huh? Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals". This and other similar cases have never been overturned.

Neither quote appears anywhere in the Brushaber case.

That case actually said (on p. 12):"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine."

The Brushaber case also said, on pp. 17-18, that the 16th Amendment "does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment ..."

37 posted on 02/04/2008 11:00:02 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OnRightOnLeftCoast
The rest of the story is here.
38 posted on 04/24/2008 3:44:05 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson