US actor Wesley Snipes has pleaded not guilty to failing to pay tax since the 1990s, and for claiming millions of dollars in refunds. He has been released on a $1 million bond.
It seems as though our esteemed taoiseach isn't the only one with tax problems.
And people thinking tax problems aren't serious.
If convicted, Snipes faces up to 16 years in jail.
story here
He should count himself lucky he's not Chinese.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.c ... d=10498179
Originally Posted by Economist
Isnt it the case (and was tested in the US Supreme Court) that it is constitutionally illegal to tax a person's labour. Only that the IRS has guns and the Judges in the courts go along with this fraud.
-As per "America Freedom to Fascism". There is essentially no law requiring people to pay income tax only tax on corporate profits.
Youngdan what do you say?
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK
It said so in that conspiracy film Zeitgeist anyway.
But, are you happy? Support 'Mozalini's Law'
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Wesley Snipes "Please don't send me to prison. They pee in a cup and then throw it on you, I saw it in a movie."
FBI AGENT "You won't be seeing any prison movies where you're going, PRISON."
The only links I could find googling that support that view (and none I came across quoted a ruling by the Supreme Court to the effect you state) seem to be weird blogs from loonies with more opinions than facts
Never heard of the movie before, but Wiki entry on it is quite entertaining...
Russo's promotional materials state that the film was shown at "Cannes" in France. As of July 31, 2006, the web site (at www.freedomtofascism.com) states:
America: Freedom to Fascism Opens to Standing Ovations at Cannes!
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading [ . . . ]
According to a New York Times article by David Cay Johnston on July 31, 2006, however, the film was not "on the program" at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival itself; Russo actually rented an inflatable screen and showed the film on the beach at the town of Cannes during the time of the film festival. The New York Times article states: "Photographs posted at one of Mr. Russo's Web sites depict an audience of fewer than 50 people spread out on a platform on the sand."[16]Through interviews with various individuals including former IRS agents, Russo sets forth the tax protester argument that, "there is no law requiring an income tax", and that the personal income tax is illegally enforced to support the activities of the Federal Reserve System. The film refers to both article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to impose taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment, which removes any apportionment requirement. The film disputes the legitimacy of the Amendment and contends, through a series of interviews, that there is no law imposing the income tax.
One of the listed stars of the film, Irwin Schiff, was sentenced on February 24, 2006 to 13 years and 7 months in prison for tax evasion and ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution.[6] In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation. Initially, the film portrays Mr. Schiff as a tax "expert," though his qualifications and those of many other "experts" in the film are not mentioned. It is not until later that the film reveals Mr. Schiff has gone to jail.
Mr. Schiff appears in the film for another reason as well. The filmmaker lampoons Judge Kent Dawson's reaction to Schiff's defense. The film alleges that the judge "denied Irwin the ability to prove to a jury that there was no law requiring Americans to file an income tax return. He denied Irwin the right to attempt to prove to a jury there was no law . . . by stating, 'I will not allow the law in my courtroom.'" At 0:48:28 of the film, Mr. Russo introduces the judge and his statement.
Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule (with exceptions) is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted. Disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge, and only the judge, instructs the jury on the law.[7]Excellent stuff!!As of late July 2006, Aaron Russo's biography on his website for the film stated: "The film is an exposé of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor." [9] [12]
The New York Times article of July 31, 2006 states that when Mr. Russo asked IRS spokesman Anthony Burke (who according to the article was credited by Russo in the film) for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), filmmaker Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress. The article reports that in an interview in late July 2006, Russo claimed he was confident on this point. In the United States "statutes" are enacted by Congress, and "regulations" are promulgated by the executive branch of government to implement the statutes. The statutes are found in the United States Code; and the regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Treasury regulations to which Mr. Russo may have been referring are found at title 26 ("Internal Revenue") of the Code of Federal Regulations [10], not title 26 of the United States Code.[13] The argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not law, the argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "positive law," and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[14]
The article also discloses that Russo had over $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service, the state of California, and the state of New York for unpaid taxes. In an interview with the New York Times; however, Russo refused to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film.[15]
Opinion Polls Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wesley claims the tax authorities are racist
What does the Irish President spend their time doing. Work in progress
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
He should get his ass over to Ireland asap - there's no way he'd be extradited from Ireland to the US for something as trivial as tax evasion.
'It would actually give me the greatest of pleasure watching non-compliant taxpayers going to jail. That's the kind of person I am.' Bertie Ahern, 1993.
From what I hear the US tax people are starkers. They regularly raid people's homes armed to the teeth.
Thank god the good people at revenue.ie are more civilized.
"Who will bailout the IMF after FF is finished with them?"
<Mod>Moved to Foreign Affairs.</Mod>
Heavy words are so lightly thrown.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote