Discussion:Snipes update
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Snipes update
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 11 October 2007 |
| http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/people/e3ia61ae1e154c4c9b515e8f89a38e58b64
http://www.starbanner.com/article/20071010/NEWS/210100330/1001/NEWS01&MaxW=270&MaxH=200 Ain't life great. Economy must be doing well, the stock market is recovering, your tax software firm keeps increasing its yearly charge, but ole Wesley gets a few more months before the Big Slammer. | |
| 11 October 2007 | |
| I hope he gets a fair trial before he is sent to prison. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 11 October 2007 |
| I wonder if he had any idea what was going on. 20+ years ago I was lucky and won an equipment leasing audit before Appeals or Tax Court. Within a year I had 10-12 more to do, and from returns I did not prepare. The promoter, a client of my boss, began sending them to me. All were high rollers. They'd bring huge packages of dccuments, but the gist was 4-5 years of losses would be evened out in years 6-9 with phantom income, then if the equipment had any residual value, they might make back their investment. They only knew the 60-90K loss was saving them taxes. As one man explained it to me, "Sid and I would meet once a year and swap checks." No way I would recommend such a person to go to Tax Court with his case. Most of these people simply wanted the IRS to go away. I called one doctor after reaching tentative settlement to pay $107,000 now in return for ignoring phantom income in the future, and he was tickled pink. As he put it, the tax savings then helped him to get where he was now.
Then there were the London Metals Exhange deals which made equipment leasing look almost honest, which in a way it was. Passive loss rules and easier money put these deals out of existence. Most were written when it cost 15-20% to borrow, so rather than borrow, companies like Comdisco and others let individuals 'participate.' So I do wonder if Wesley even had any idea what was going on. Sometimes these 'accountants' are brought on board by the agent and work hand-in-glove with them. | |
| 11 October 2007 | |
| Look at the bright side. Snipes had to surrender his passport and give up a lucrative roll that would require international travel.
Dept of Justice has at least convinced itself that it can prove that Snipes knew he was committing fraud or it would not have brought the charges. It risks a major dose of egg on its face if it loses this one. | |
| 11 October 2007 | |
| I am curious about 1 point. Does anyone know if he actually received the $12M refund he filed the 1040Xs for? | |
| 11 October 2007 | |
| not sure why but i am more interested to know what is going to happen to this tax preparer =) | |
Glimmrmoon (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| CNN story update on Snipes trial:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/29/snipes.trial.ap/index.html My opinion, I get really hot under the collar every time I read these people's arguments. If you want to live in this country and take advantage of all the benfits it has to offer (which is why SO MANY people want to live in this country), you need to pay your share. I mean roads, police, ambulance, fire departments, other protections, not to mention the privilege of earning millions in big AMERICAN movies. Yes there is waste. The government could spend our money better but bottom line we all as citizens need to pay our share. This is lunacy. To cite one obscure passage of the tax code, a humungous volume that works as a complete whole, not portions, is ubsurd. Snipes and his group can leave the country and go live on their own private island somewhere and not pay any taxes (probably not earn any money either). From the article it sounds like all 3 of these people are mentally defective in some way. Off my soapbox for now. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| Tax Girl puts it elegantly: http://www.taxgirl.com/wesley-snipes-defense-the-prosecution-sucks/ | |
| January 29, 2008 | |
| He's going down. His excuse is lame and his attorneys are merely milking, and quite well at that. The best and brightest his money can buy can only come with "He didn't know he had to pay taxes...."? Puhleeze. | |
PostingFromWork (talk|edits) said: | 29 January 2008 |
| He's probally going down, but the Cheek defense (good faith belief he didn't have to pay taxes due to the complexeity of the code) has worked before.
The defense isn't even calling any witnesses and is relaying on only their closing arguments. It went to jury an hour and a half ago.
P.S. Check out the coverage at www.quatloos.com | |
| 30 January 2008 | |
| From the little I've read about the case, it doesn't appear that Snipes has made the Cheek argument. Surely if he were relying on that, he would have testified in his own defense.
All you have to do to see how popular the "861" argument has become is to spend a few minutes reading the posts on misc.taxes in USENET. People are eager to believe what they want to believe. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 30 January 2008 |
| That defense is only good for the criminal side. It is my understanding the civil side still collects the taxes. | |
| January 30, 2008 | |
| I'm with Glimmrmoon. It's so very discouraging for people who work their butts off and pay their taxes to hear about these people with big bucks try to wiggle their way out of the law. | |
| January 30, 2008 | |
| Adjourned for day, no verdict. Which gives me pause. That means some idiot on the jury doesn't think he should pay taxes, either. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 31 January 2008 |
| They didn't just try him, and there are a number of charges. | |
| 31 January 2008 | |
| You're right about that, Roy. In the criminal case, the question is whether a crime was committed. It has nothing to do with whether the taxpayer owed the tax. For years the Lloyd Long case (a criminal case in which the defendant was acquitted by a U.S. District Court in Tennessee because he convinced the jury that he didn't know he was required to file a return) has been hailed on the Internet as a victory for tax protesters -- but of course Mr. Long still owed the tax and still had to pay it. As will Mr. Snipes, the result of the current proceeding notwithstanding.
Due to confidentiality requirements, the ultimate disposition of the tax liability in these cases usually isn't public information, which helps the scammers convince their victims. By the way, Mr. Cheek, who got the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that he had the right to make his cockamamie arguments in court no matter how silly they were, was convicted on the second go-round. Larken Rose spent 13 months in jail (of a 15-month sentence) for promoting the 861 argument. That doesn't seem to have discouraged Messrs. Kahn and Rosile. | |
| January 31, 2008 | |
| Another day, nuttin'. Food for Fed court must be pretty good in that jury room. | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| An old friend of mine who lives in Ocala predicts that some "dim bulb" on the jury will hang it up in the belief that Snipes is right and no one should pay taxes. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 1 February 2008 |
| http://www.wftv.com/news/15188108/detail.html | |
| February 1, 2008 | |
| Just in: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120189869180236173.html?mod=googlenews_wsj | |
| February 1, 2008 | |
| Hard to make sense of one line in article. But three MISDEMEANOR convictions, and perhaps three willful failure to file. Not guilty on three other willful failures and on conspiracy charges. | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| Are they getting it across to the public in these articles that this is a separate issue from the fact that he still owes all the back taxes and penalties: win or lose on all counts? My understanding is that the criminal side of this has nothing to do at all with his dollar liability, which I'm sure is huge. | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| I guess they believed his argument he was the victim of these tax fraud specialists.
Tom | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| I just read a bleep on ABC. Not one mention of the fact he still owes back taxes and penalties. Very misleading to the public in my opinion. They will think "he got off" except for failure to file. Not good for us! But Wesley did it and..... | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| Fraud and conspiracy are always difficult to prove because the prosecution must prove actual intent, which is difficult because the defendant never takes the stand. However, since the two promoters were convicted of fraud and conspiracy, the implication seems to be that the jury believed that Snipes did not know how full of crap his position was while the promoters were held to a higher standard of tax sophistication due to their profession. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| He still needs to file past due returns and may go to prison for up to 3 years. He will owe millions on his income plus penalties and interest. | |
