[Broker15015]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Is it because filing constitutes self-incrimination when your return is used against you in "court" proceedings? First, who says it's voluntary? It is mandatory in some circumstances, voluntary in others (i.e. no tax liability, but wish to claim EIC), or not required at all in others.

Filing can not constitute self-incrimination, unless you knowingly file a return which is materially false. Criminal prosecution of tax evaders is pretty rare (compared to the total number of possible candidates). That's because the government recognizes that criminal conviction requres a pretty high threshhold of unlawful conduct in order to prove that the violations of tax laws were both material and knowing.

What happens if you dont file? Can Congress punish us for refusing (filing is "voluntary") to file, i.e., refusing to provide Congress with evidence to prosecute us? There's no prosecution involved in a normal, correct, filing. The right to not answer to avoid "self-incrimination" has been held to be restricted to matters where there is a prospect of criminal prosecution for the conduct. Merely not wanting to answer that you made 50 grand last year so you pay taxes on 50 grand is not criminal prosecution - it's tax assessment.

Another thing, Congress can levy taxes but does that mean Congress can tell us to figure out how much we owe with mistakes possibly resulting in criminal proceedings? You don't have to figure your tax. You can just state your income and deduction and let the IRS figure your tax. "Mistakes" do not lead to criminal proceedings. They lead to interest and penalties (only sometimes) if there's an underpayment of taxes. They lead to refunds and interest if there's an overpayment of taxes.

I dont think so, if Congress levies a tax its up to
Congress to tell us what we owe, it is not up to us to tell Congress what we owe. I see they've still got great weed in Kansas. Congress does tell you what you owe. You know what a tax table is? It's that little thing in back which says if your taxable income is this much, you owe that much. It's up to you to tell the IRS what you made, and what you claim to deduct, but they tell you what you owe.

If Congress cannot require me to testify against myself, why do the courts let Congress get away with this "voluntary" filing? More You're not "testifying" "against" yourself. Been there, done that, courts have defined the terminology. And again, filing is only "voluntary" under certain circumstances. If I hadn't settled my prospective litigation and collected back wages and penalties through an administrative proceeding last year, I would not have been required to file a return, since I spent most of the year on disability.

If those two events hadn't happend, I could have "voluntarily" filed a return to get a refund on the withholding from the three weeks I worked at the end of the year, but I wouldn't have been required to. If I wanted to let the government keep my money, that would be my problem.

However, since I did get an administrative order against my ex-employer and collect back wages and penalties, and since I did convince my ex-employer to see the light and decide it really wasn't worth fighting me, I made enough taxable income that I am required to file as a matter of statute. Voluntary no longer applies.

Because its "voluntary" we have waived our right against self-incrimination by filing, but if we dont file they go after you for not filing. If it is voluntary in your circumstances, don't lie, and no possible self-incrimination can occur. If it isn't voluntary in your circumstance, that you still don't have to worry about "incrimination" if you don't lie.

Now if you want to say that it was an honest "mistake" to write off 50 grand in business losses from the meetings in Hawai'i and all the sushi, booze and hookers you paid for in going to a convention for your Amway business which grossed sales of $100 to yourself, then you have a bit broader definition of "mistake" than the courts usually allow.

Still, that isn't blatant enough behavior to get you into the Federal criminal system unless you (a) do it on a much bigger scale, (b) do it on that scale for several years without even going through the motions of attempting to really be in business and make a profit, or (c) act as a business or tax consultant and take fees from clients for promoting them into or inducing them to engage in such fraudulent/frivolous deductions. If you don't meet (a), (b) or (c), what you get into is back taxes, penalties (non-payment and fraud) and interest, not criminal prosecution.

[Rememavotscam]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Tell that to Al Capone. Non-payment wasn't Al's problem.

It was the total failure to declare income, i.e. not filing returns and not reporting as required. Non-payment would have just triggered civil assessments against his business enterprises.

[griddle]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sometimes the accused can prove their innocence... I don't get your point

[Voitramma]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where in the 5th does it say that? No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process - civil is property. Maybe you better reread it. The Self-incrimination clause is separate from the Due Process clause.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

IRS liens, levies, and penalty assessments (including civil penalty assessments) all meet the requirements of due process - there are administrative and judicial procedures for challenging those assessments, and appellate procedures in event the original challenges are unsuccessful.

[OWV9LSxH]

KH told us how intelligent he is. This thread can now be closed.

[daguy]

Originally posted by Kidicious
KH told us how intelligent he is. This thread can now be closed. If filling out a tax return is difficult for anybody not in an incredibly complicated financial position then they're an idiot.

I don't have to be smart to be able to file my own ****ing taxes. That's like saying I have to be smart to drive myself to work.

[Marinausa]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The 5th Amendment says we dont have to incriminate ourselves, what happens when income is gained illegally? We gotta report it, thats self-incrimination. And the 5th doesn't require us to have something to hide, just that we dont have to provide the gov't with evidence to be used against us. You have to report the amount of the income, but should you be afraid that the disclosure of its source could be used to convict you, it is possible to refuse to specify the source of the income due to your 5th amendment rights.

[loan4younow]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If filling out a tax return is difficult for anybody not in an incredibly complicated financial position then they're an idiot.

I don't have to be smart to be able to file my own ****ing taxes. That's like saying I have to be smart to drive myself to work. Libertarians make things difficult for themselves.

[MiniBoy]

They like to get you to fill in a return so that if you have extra income and fail to report it they can get you for lying on the form.

[gugqgbyzlp]

Actually that's unfair, inland revenue are as desperate to give you your money back as they are to take it. It's only former customs and excise that are bastards that are take, take, take.

[Niiinioa]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The IRS Really? Where, and in what (non-edited for convenience) context, and under what conditions? When I look at my form 1040 instructions booklet, it gives three charts setting forth under what circumstances you must file a return. Doesn't say "its voluntary" anywhere.

The 5th Amendment says we dont have to incriminate ourselves, what happens when income is gained illegally? We gotta report it, thats self-incrimination. See Leary v. United States 395 US 6 (1969)
If you're going to make silly arguments, you might want to at least go through the motions of looking for the factual basis.

Reporting the existence and amount of income is not in itself incriminating. Answering questions about the source of the income may be, and such answers are subject to Fifth Amendment protections.


And the 5th doesn't require us to have something to hide, just that we dont have to provide the gov't with evidence to be used against us. You can play all the semantic games you want. The language is clear, and so are the court interpretations. The right against self-incrimination only applies in criminal proceedings.

Its criminal prosecution when the IRS decides you made more and didn't report it, and there is always a prospect of prosecution when filing a return, says so right on the form. Really? I've been to tax court, and had disputes with IRS on jurisdiction over foreign earned income, applicability of certain deductions, and other issues, involving quite a bit of money. Never the slightest threat of prosecution.

And the return says: "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and accurately list all amounts and sources of income I received during the tax year."

I don't see a threat of prosecution. I see an acknowledgement that there is potentially a legal penalty (which may lead to prosecution) for knowingly making false statements or omissions. Real "mistakes" don't meet that criteria, nor the more detailed criteria under the Federal perjury statutes.

I dont know where you get your tax forms but there's all sorts of stuff I gotta report. Mistakes dont lead to prosecutions? Depends on your personal (or is it common the Liberterrarium) choices of convenient definitions of "mistake" and "prosecution." I guess you could argue it would be a "mistake" to flagrantly violate the law to the point where you get prosecuted, but semantic masturbation is your gig, not mine.

A "mistake" where you "forgot" to mention that extra million bucks you made from winning Survivor, because you "thought" that the show's producers would pay the tax for you, despite signing several documents acknowledging you were responsible for all taxes on winnings, isn't too credible of a "mistake."

They tell me what I owe after I tell them what I made and what I owe and they disagree. It aint my job to tell them what I made and what I owe, thats their job. Amendment XVI and a whole bunch of legislation under its authority says otherwise. You have to report what you made. If you refuse, they will get it from their own sources and fill out returns for you, but they don't have to look into whatever deductions you might have, so they'll short form you and determine tax on income only, without respect to credits or deductions, if you really want to push it.

You offer the information on a tax form as a testimonial of your conduct. Semantic masturbation again. You're not making a "testimonial" of any "conduct." You're answering questions about how much you made, not how, or why, or whether it was made legally or otherwise, and about any deductions or credits you want to claim. Conduct doesn't enter into it.

That aint the point, the 5th protects against self-incrimination and it dont matter what you have to hide, or anything to hide. That is the point entirely. There is no "self-incrimination" in accurately listing your income and claimed credits and deductions in a tax return. Therefore, invoking the Fifth Amendment can not be a defense to refusing to file or accurately quantify income, credits or deductions, or to sign a return when required to do so by law.

The definition of "sources" of income doesn't include if/how it was obtained illegally. It simply means whether it was employment income, self-employment income, interest income, capital gains, etc. Sell dope for a living? Call yourself a salesman and report the amount of income on your Schedule C, and voilá, no self-incrimination.

[avaiptutt]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Also, what about those whose salary changes throughout the year (as most people's do at least slightly)

The way it works (both in US and in Canada) is that on any given pay period (say the period is biweekly) your salary for that period is multiplied by the number of such periods in a year (26). The government calculates the total taxes due based on this projected annual salary. It then divides this total by the same number (26) and withholds this amount. Due to the progressive nature of the tax system, anybody whose salary is not perfectly even throughout the year has more taxes withheld than was necessary, and must file to get his refund.

I generally get at least a few hundred dollars back every year. It makes no difference under the UK system unless you earn less than your personal allowance

Using simplified tax brackets and rates..

Say you have a salary of £36k for 6 months, you get £3k income for each month. Personal allowance, say £6k/year, or £500 a month. You are therefore taxed @ 20% on £2,500 = £500 for 6 months. This is collected by your employer.

You have a salary of £48k for the next 6 months and your tax band changes (you pay 40% on the £36k-£48k portion), you get £4k income for each month. Personal allowance remains at £500 a month. You are therefore taxed @ 20 % on £2,500 and @ 40% on £1,000 = £900 for 6 months, still collected by your employer.

End of year, you have earned £42k. Your personal allowance is £6k so you should have paid 20% on £30k and 40% on £6k = £8,400. You have paid £500 x 6 + £900 x 6 = £8,400.

No tax still to pay or be rebated.

[Edifsdubs]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Isn't this like saying that you could lie about your age to avoid the draft - because telling them would be handing over evidence for them to charge you with "Charge you" or "draft you?" Two totally different things, each with completely different basis in the Constitution.

[Kokomoxddcvcv]

It would actually be

0.2*(30k - 6k)*6/12 + 0.2*(42k - 6k)*6/12 = 2400 + 3600 = 6000.

The higher rate wouldn't kick in until you surpassed your basic rate earnings limit for the time apportioned amount (this is where it differs from the personal allowance). Assuming your payroll know what they are doing - that and any accidental over or underpayments can be rebated or deducted by payroll.