Wesley Snipes (is he required to pay back his back tax's, if so why)

[truthmovement2008]

I believe I read somewhere that even thought Wesley Snipes got acquitted of the larger charge were he was facing up to 16 year prison term he is still required to pay all of his back tax.

If so, why?.

[KevinR]

so he can pay for his trial? :)

[Mr. White]

We call this...trolling... But I'll bite, to watch the hilarity...

Snipes has to pay back taxes because failing to pay income tax is a violation of Federal Law punishable by fines and imprisonment.

[OceanBlue]

I would like to know.

[truthmovement2008]

Don't be so quick with the guns. I Love Ron Paul and ever since I became awakened
5 months ago I have been doing very little other then trying to awaken others.

This is a serious question someone posed to me and I had no answers for them.

Stop with the trolling, it's a legitimate question.

[abe447]

It's the law to pay the income tax. He was acquitted on a criminal charge for which he would have gone to jail. I'm not sure if it was fraud or failure to file, but he was acquited. However, he still legally owes the money to the IRS. Everyone who is acquited by a jury for jail time still has to pay.

[gerryb]

It's the law to pay the income tax. He was acquitted on a criminal charge for which he would have gone to jail. I'm not sure if it was fraud or failure to file, but he was acquited. However, he still legally owes the money to the IRS. Everyone who is acquited by a jury for jail time still has to pay.

show me the law

[Peace&Freedom]

show me the law

Indeed, show us the applicable, positive law AND the corresponding implementing regulations requiring most Americans to pay Schedule A income taxes. Snipes was specifically acquitted of tax evasion, meaning (if language still means anything) that it was not proven in court that he evaded taxes.

[josh24601]

Section 17.

[Peace&Freedom]

Section 17.

NO section of Title 26 is applicable, because title 26 is not positive law (law binding on all), it is private law binding only those who agree to it contractually without coercion or deception. Nor are there corresponding implementing regulations for the sections, without which the law has no force.

[Mr. White]

NO section of Title 26 is applicable, because title 26 is not positive law (law binding on all), it is private law binding only those who agree to it contractually without coercion or deception. Nor are there corresponding implementing regulations for the sections, without which the law has no force.

Guess what, the courts say otherwise. Specifically the Supreme Court.

[Mr. White]

show me the law

26 USC § 1

[ionlyknowy]

26 USC § 1

Here is the text of the law...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
Prev | Next
§ 1. Tax imposed
How Current is This?
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $76,400 $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $127,500 $17,544, plus 31% of the excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not over $250,000 $33,385, plus 36% of the excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000 $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not over $44,575 $2,767.50, plus 28% of the excess over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not over $70,000 $10,082.50, plus 31% of the excess over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not over $125,000 $17,964.25, plus 36% of the excess over $70,000.
Over $125,000 $37,764.25, plus 39.6% of the excess over $125,000.

[mtmedlin]

god I hate tax cranks.

[Peace&Freedom]

26 USC § 1

Title 26 is just a private law CODE, while the positive, U.S. LAW is what has been incorporated into the Federal Register (26 is NOT), AND is accompanied by the implementing regulations that give it force. Cite WHERE and WHEN it was included in the ferderal register and the specific implementing regulations that correspond to title 26, as well as specifically WHICH Supreme Court decision confirms this. REPEAT, SHOW ME THE APPLICABLE, POSITIVE LAW, NOT a non-applicable, private law code.

[Peace&Freedom]

god I hate tax cranks.

Are you compelled by any law to pay a tax that doesn't apply to you? If you received a letter from Russia saying you owed the Moscow Tax Authority taxes, when you know good and well you didn't, as you don't live there nor ever transacted with anybody from Russia---would you pay it? If you wouldn't, then you just became a tax crank, congratulations!

[Zippyjuan]

Snipes was not sent to jail because the court felt that Snipes was acting on bad advice from his two co- defendents who were sent to jail. He was required to pay court costs and his back taxes. The section of law they tried to argue was #861.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22871.html

January 16, 2008

Wesley Snipes and the § 861 Argument

by Joseph Henchman


The tax fraud trial of Wesley Snipes began this week in Florida, and the actor faces up to 16 years in prison for his failure to file tax returns between 1999 and 2004, or pay tax on the estimated $38 million he earned in that period.

Snipes faces an uphill battle, as few succeed in convincing juries of a genuine, good-faith belief that he or she had no obligation to pay income taxes. Snipes has relied on the "§ 861" argument, which asserts that only items listed in Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code are taxable, and therefore, the domestic income of U.S. citizens is not taxable.

If only. All income, earned inside and outside the country, of U.S. citizens is taxable under Sections 1, 61, 63, and others. Section 861, and accompanying regulation 26 C.F.R. § 1.861-8, list what income is earned "inside" the country, and that's relevant only to non-residents and foreign corporations because they only pay tax on domestic income. The list is typically not important for U.S. citizens, because they are taxed on all income, whether it is earned domestically or foreign. (One exception is that U.S. taxpayers who earn income overseas can receive a credit for taxes paid overseas, and the § 861 list can be used to determine what qualifies for the credit.)

Even putting that aside, among the taxable items on the § 861 list is "[c]ompensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States." § 861(a)(3). So any income earned in the United States is taxable even under Section 861. IRS regulations re-iterate this point, stating:

"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States."

26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b). § 861 advocates argue that regulation § 1.861-8 (which provides more detail on types of income that are to be treated as "domestic") overrides § 861(a)(3), but laws always override regulations.

Courts have conducted a similar analysis in reviewing the § 861 argument, and those who rely on it to avoid income taxes routinely face fines and imprisonment. The taxpayer often gets much harder than scammer who gives him or her fraudulent advice. For a list of cases and penalties, see here http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section861 .

[Peace&Freedom]

Snipes was not sent to jail because the court felt that Snipes was acting on bad advice from his two co- defendents who were sent to jail. He was required to pay court costs and his back taxes. The section of law they tried to argue was #861.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22871.html

The co-defendants were railroaded (Kahn specifically was seized unlawfully in another country). The court CHARACTERIZED, without PROVING, that the advice of the defendants was wrong (similar approaches in the Bannister, Cryer, Kuglin, Conklin, Nevada, et al cases have resulted in full acquittals). The arguments back and forth over a regulation in the CODE, along with the unproven PRESUMPTION that a law exists that overrides it, again ignores that the existence of an applicable, positive law requiring most Americans to pay income taxes has not been presented. The IRS's taxing authority remains very limited, despite its expansive and constant claims to the contrary.