He was found guilty today and used a little known argument in his defense that I’ve heard before from anti-tax protestors or advocates in the past.
After reading the article on Yahoo!, could someone in the tax profession (preferably a tax attorney) please explain whether or not Wesley’s defense was a valid one and that the government is simply refusing to allow anyone to successfully expose the fact that the Treasury department is not an agency of the IRS or, vice versa, and explain the actual meaning of the “861 argument?”
This Question Is Regarding The Indictment Of Actor Wesley Snipes On Failure To File Income Tax Returns…..?
18
Sep
NGC6205
September 18, 2009 at 1:28 am
The articles I’ve read seem to explain it pretty clearly that Snipe’s tax protest was unsuccessful. That’s why he was convicted of criminal activity (i.e., failing to file tax returns). This would not be a crime unless the prosecution was able to establish a legal duty to file a return, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
You’ll note that Snipe’s accountant is no longer in business as a result of participating in these bogus tax protests.
There are all sorts of inane arguments on the net about tax protests and they amount to little more than wishful thinking…dangerous for those who attempt to emulate Mr. Snipes.
john b
September 18, 2009 at 1:57 am
Re: Wesley Snipes defense.
The defense team basically didn’t present one. In short, here is the way the trial proceeded…
Both sides made opening arguments. The defense opening arguments admitted that Wesley Snipes would have to pay his taxes. They also made some unsubstantiated claims about his advisers and his thought process. The prosecution called several witnesses and entered many documents into evidence. The defense cross-examined some of the witnesses and entered a few documents into evidence. Prosecution rested on Friday. On Monday morning, the defense rested without calling a single witness. On Tuesday, closing arguments were made. The prosecution started basically rehashing the case. The defense countered and made some more unsubstantiated claims. The prosecution had a rebuttal, but missed some of those unsubstantiated claims. While opening and closing arguments are not evidence, they do appear to have swayed the jury some. Basically, the jury gave Mr. Snipes the benefit of the doubt on many of the counts, but did find him guilty of willful failure to file for the years 1999 through 2001. That carries a maximum sentence of three years.
Re: the “861 argument”
The claim is that the income tax does not apply to income of most citizens because the only definitions of “sources of income” apply only to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and income earned outside the U.S. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode…
You can read more about why that claim is wrong at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#se…