News Is Wikileaks Justified in Exposing Tax Evaders?

[nismaratwork]

I used to know someone who never signed his returns, and got them rejected and returned by the IRS every year. He said they can never bust him for a tax crime that way, since a signed return is a prerequisite for prosecution. And each return had all the information required by law, so he met the requirement to file a return, and has proof of it.

And he said they have never demanded a signature, since a coerced signature isn't legally valid.

Don't know if he was pulling my leg or not, but I do wonder how many people do that.

If it could be proven that he did all of that with the intent to avoid paying taxes, it's a crime. If someone is say... illiterate?... and doesn't HAVE a signature, maybe. I suppose you could have another do your taxes each year, then given them to you to sign, and forget each year.

Again, I think it's probably still a crime; the IRS and "fair" are not synonymous, so I doubt a loophole like that really exists. Then again, no one ever accused them of being a brain-trust either... so... ?

 

[WhoWee]

I used to know someone who never signed his returns, and got them rejected and returned by the IRS every year. He said they can never bust him for a tax crime that way, since a signed return is a prerequisite for prosecution. And each return had all the information required by law, so he met the requirement to file a return, and has proof of it.

And he said they have never demanded a signature, since a coerced signature isn't legally valid.

Don't know if he was pulling my leg or not, but I do wonder how many people do that.

He must enjoy being audited?

 

[Al68]

If it could be proven that he did all of that with the intent to avoid paying taxes, it's a crime.

My understanding was that that was not the case, and that his returns were accurate, just not signed.

He must enjoy being audited?

I don't think he ever got audited, but what's to audit? Audits are for returns. I would be more afraid of being charged with failure to file, which is why he keeps proof that he sent them in with all info required by law.

Just glancing at the http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006686----000-.html" , it appears that it's only illegal to not file, or to not show required information.

I'm no expert, so there may be a law against refusal to sign a return, but such a law would seemingly render a signature invalid, since coerced signatures can't be used in court. Perhaps someone else can shine some light on the issue?

 

[WhoWee]

My understanding was that that was not the case, and that his returns were accurate, just not signed.I don't think he ever got audited, but what's to audit? Audits are for returns. I would be more afraid of being charged with failure to file, which is why he keeps proof that he sent them in with all info required by law.

Forgetting to sign - might indicate he's prone to making errors?

 

[nismaratwork]

My understanding was that that was not the case, and that his returns were accurate, just not signed.I don't think he ever got audited, but what's to audit? Audits are for returns. I would be more afraid of being charged with failure to file, which is why he keeps proof that he sent them in with all info required by law.

Just glancing at the http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006686----000-.html" , it appears that it's only illegal to not file, or to not show required information.

I'm no expert, so there may be a law against refusal to sign a return, but such a law would seemingly render a signature invalid, since coerced signatures can't be used in court. Perhaps someone else can shine some light on the issue?

Does refusing to sign a traffic citation accomplish anything? I'm not prepared to wade through tax-law to be sure, but if there is some intent to commit fraud even through an existing loophole, I don't think the IRS plays "oooh, you got us" an fairs fair...

 

[Al68]

Forgetting to sign - might indicate he's prone to making errors?

He didn't forget to sign, or claim to forget. He purposely failed to sign.

Does refusing to sign a traffic citation accomplish anything? I'm not prepared to wade through tax-law to be sure, but if there is some intent to commit fraud even through an existing loophole, I don't think the IRS plays "oooh, you got us" an fairs fair...

There was no such intent in this case, AFAIK.

We all know tax fraud is illegal, that's not the question. At least it's not mine. I'm interested in whether failure to sign a return is illegal, assuming that no other law was broken.

As far as signing a traffic ticket, the (coerced) signature is not used as the defendant's testimony, or as evidence of perjury or fraud, or as a valid signature for any contract or legal purpose, AFAIK. The signature is merely evidence that he was present for the citation, it doesn't indicate an agreement to anything, or certify that anything is true.

 

[nismaratwork]

He didn't forget to sign, or claim to rget. He purposely failed to sign.There was no such intent in this case, AFAIK.

We all know tax fraud is illegal, that's not the question. At least it's not mine. I'm interested in whether failure to sign a return is illegal, assuming that no other law was broken.

As far as signing a traffic ticket, the (coerced) signature is not used as the defendant's testimony, or as evidence of perjury or fraud, or as a valid signature for any contract or legal purpose, AFAIK. The signature is merely evidence that he was present for the citation, it doesn't indicate an agreement to anything, or certify that anything is true.

JUST failing to sign a return?... Wow... I can't imagine that it is illegal. What would be the point; after all no one is going to take someone to court for failing ot sign a document without any ill intent. Judges have more than enough leeway to laugh that out of court, even if some insane prosecutor took it.

I think the issue is that it would be very odd to fail to sign your returns more than once. If you're failing to do so as a result of some injury or illness, that would fall under the ADA and such a person should be getting free assistance anyway.

As for the ticket, you're exactly right; often signing isn't even done anymore, and failure to sign isn't grounds to invalidate the citation. Knowing the IRS, the amazing part here is that they don't further pursue matters. Again, knowing the IRS, they probably have him at the bottom of a big stack, and when they DO get to this guy he'll owe so much it's going to be painful.

I think we'd have to ask a tax attorney to even be sure that info from a decent site is accurate.

 

[WhoWee]

He didn't forget to sign, or claim to forget. He purposely failed to sign.There was no such intent in this case, AFAIK.

My best guess is that intentionally not signing would (ultimately) be the same as not filing - forgetting to sign (more than once) - as I said - might trigger an audit.

 

[Al68]

I think the issue is that it would be very odd to fail to sign your returns more than once. If you're failing to do so as a result of some injury or illness, that would fall under the ADA and such a person should be getting free assistance anyway.

In this case, the failure to sign is not due to inability or accident. The guy just wanted to see if the IRS would ever coerce him to sign a return, rendering the signature invalid.

I think we'd have to ask a tax attorney to even be sure that info from a decent site is accurate.

You would trust a tax attorney?

 

[russ_watters]

You can't have it both ways: if the IRS won't accept an unsigned return then he can't claim his returns were filed.

 

[Al68]

My best guess is that intentionally not signing would (ultimately) be the same as not filing...

You may be right, but I didn't find that in the section of law I read and linked to earlier. It requires only that the required information is provided on the return.

Maybe someone in the know could link to an applicable law. I couldn't find anything with a quick google that made failure to sign a tax return (or anything else) illegal.

 

[Al68]

You can't have it both ways: if the IRS won't accept an unsigned return then he can't claim his returns were filed.

Right, he can only claim that the IRS received them, and has the IRS letters to prove it.

 

[PhilKravitz]

back to the OP should criminals be exposed or should we respect their right to privacy?

 

[nismaratwork]

back to the OP should criminals be exposed or should we respect their right to privacy?

In most countries, a criminal is someone convicted of a crime, and they don't have a right to privacy. The OP is really asking: is it OK to expose the records of many including SOME criminals. I'd say: vet the information to journalistic standards, then publish. Wikileaks doesn't do that.

 

[PhilKravitz]

In most countries, a criminal is someone convicted of a crime, and they don't have a right to privacy. The OP is really asking: is it OK to expose the records of many including SOME criminals. I'd say: vet the information to journalistic standards, then publish. Wikileaks doesn't do that.

My understanding is that the IRS has a finder fee if you turn in tax evaders. How about turning the list over the the tax authority and publicly publishing the info that you get paid rewards on?

 

[nismaratwork]

My understanding is that the IRS has a finder fee if you turn in tax evaders. How about turning the list over the the tax authority and publicly publishing the info that you get paid rewards on?

Who said these were US tax evaders?

edit: In the US, you can't profit from a criminal enterprise anyway... so no, even there, it doesn't wash.

 

[mugaliens]

Bugger all. It's a wash of grossly unacceptable personal info being flushed throuhout the world.

This is the point being debated. Please debate the point.

Thank you.

- Mugs

 

[Jasongreat]

back to the OP should criminals be exposed or should we respect their right to privacy?

Suspected criminals should have their privacy protected, until the point where there is probable cause to release such information, atleast according to US law, imo. If all we are concerned with is catching criminals there is no sense in protecting any rights, let's all submit to DNA swabs, fingerprinting, and phone taps. Why should it be any other way?

 

[nismaratwork]

Suspected criminals should have their privacy protected, until the point where there is probable cause to release such information, atleast according to US law, imo. If all we are concerned with is catching criminals there is no sense in protecting any rights, let's all submit to DNA swabs, fingerprinting, and phone taps. Why should it be any other way?

Why should it be that way?

 

[WhoWee]

Bugger all. It's a wash of grossly unacceptable personal info being flushed throuhout the world.

This is the point being debated. Please debate the point.

Thank you.

- Mugs

Indeed!

 

[nismaratwork]

Ahhh... the price of treachery...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/01/wikileaks.manning/index.html?hpt=Sbin

After more than six months in maximum confinement in the U.S. Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia, the prime suspect in the WikiLeaks case "seems frazzled," says one of the few people to visit Army Pfc. Bradley Manning.

He is "sometimes simply catatonic, unable to have conversations about anything really," said David House, who has visited his friend in the brig.

House said Manning is physically deteriorating. "He hasn't exercised in seven or eight months since he was confined," House said.

The Pentagon disputes the idea that Manning is being mistreated. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters during a news conference last week that reports "that he is being mistreated, or somehow treated differently than others, in isolation, are just not accurate."

Manning is held in his cell 23 hours a day. He is allowed out of his cell to exercise, for an hour a day.

I think Elmer might want to take note, and Assange should be however afraid he is now, plus a bit. No shortage of lockups for special cases...