MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:18 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/business/14tax.html?ref=business

Wesley Snipes goes on trial today charged with criminal tax evasion. From 1999 through 2004 Snipes earned $38 million, but paid no taxes. His defense is that he is not actually required to pay taxes.

I had a client that was an employer of several thousand people, and periodically they'd hire somebody that demanded no taxes be withheld claiming the income tax is illegal. While this seems like a crackpot theory, it's amazing how many people honestly believe they're not required by law to pay income taxes. What do you think?
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
kmh1956
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:08 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:38 pm

I think it's amazing how so many of these celeb types making kajillions of dollars a year seem to think that they are exempt from the law.....not just tax laws.
'Somebody tell me why I'm on my own if there's a soulmate for everyone' :Natasha Bedingfield
 
LASoctoberB6
Posts: 1936
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:23 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:39 pm

I don't understand. Why would you not pay taxes? It's not like you're not going to get caught. As a matter of fact, that's basically the only thing TO do to get caught....I think..
[NOT IN SERVICE] {WEStJet}
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:40 pm

I think it is an excellent argument for a national sales tax. How much tax revenue would have been collected from his $38 million self in that scenario?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12389
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:42 pm

If he continues to persue this, he will face jail time and probably lose most of his assets. With the possible many millions in unpaid taxes involved, he will have to be made an example of if convicted and is upheld on appeal.
I wonder if he is playing a race card here in his refusal to pay taxes. If so, he will defentitly lose big time.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5563
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:04 pm

I think Wesley Snipes is going to do time in federal prison.

He should have settled with the IRS rather than fight it in court.
 
SBBRTech
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:17 pm

Quoting Maidensgator (Thread starter):
His defense is that he is not actually required to pay taxes.

Why??? Based on what?
Just because he was Passenger 57 ?

[Edited 2008-01-14 09:20:10]
"I'm beginning to get the hang of this flying business" - C3PO
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5563
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:56 pm

Looking though some of the documentation / information - it looks like Snipes was a client of, or otherwise involved with one of these income tax return scam artists.

His amended 1997 return, filed in 2001, shows him claiming his 19 million dollar income is not taxable and the government owes him a full refund of the $7,360,755 taxes he had paid.

One claim of this tax preparer is that the federal government can only claim income tax if the income is from a foreign coporation.

Quoting Kmh1956 (Reply 1):
I think it's amazing how so many of these celeb types making kajillions of dollars a year seem to think that they are exempt from the law.....not just tax laws.

It's quite rare to have a celebrity oppose tax laws in this radical format.

They usually do what Ronald Reagan did - work to change the tax laws or like many British celebs - move outside the country.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:17 pm



Quoting Maidensgator (Thread starter):
While this seems like a crackpot theory, it's amazing how many people honestly believe they're not required by law to pay income taxes. What do you think?



Quoting Maidensgator (Thread starter):
From 1999 through 2004 Snipes earned $38 million, but paid no taxes. His defense is that he is not actually required to pay taxes.

Snipes had a pretty well documented decline into some crazy thought that paying taxes is illegal. Looks like it finally caught up to him.

Quoting Kmh1956 (Reply 1):
I think it's amazing how so many of these celeb types making kajillions of dollars a year seem to think that they are exempt from the law.....not just tax laws.

With Snipes, it is much more than that. He is part of some sort of anti-tax cult.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:22 pm

I have faith in Mr. Snipes... I always bet on black.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:41 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5):
I think Wesley Snipes is going to do time in federal prison.

He should have settled with the IRS rather than fight it in court.

High profile catch for the IRS, can't imagine a jury finding him not guilty (i'm assuming its a jury trial and not a bench trial). As a high profile if convicted you can bet your last dime he will do some time. Wouldn't want to be the lead prosecutor should the IRS lose this case.

Anyways, I am alone but: I consider it my obligation to pay my FAIR share of taxes, to help support my government to provide services for the common good and defense.
 
MaidensGator
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:02 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:46 pm

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 4):
I wonder if he is playing a race card here in his refusal to pay taxes. If so, he will defentitly lose big time.

Snipes already tried the race card to get the trial moved to NY. He claimed that Ocala, Florida is a hotbed of KKK activity, etc.... The judge shot him down, as did the 11th Circuit when he appealed the ruling...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
Snipes had a pretty well documented decline into some crazy thought that paying taxes is illegal. Looks like it finally caught up to him

His tax advisor/co-defendant claims that since he was born in Texas, he's not a US citizen, because the only places that are part of the United States are the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. That guy is defending himself so it should get interesting. I may have to go watch some of this circus.

The latest news is that Wesley plans to call Muhammad Ali, Barbara Walters, Sylvester Stallone, Woody Harrelson, Spike Lee, and Tom Brokaw as witnesses. This is only going to get better....

http://www.wftv.com/news/15039666/detail.html

Quoting AirCop (Reply 10):
Anyways, I am alone but: I consider it my obligation to pay my FAIR share of taxes, to help support my government to provide services for the common good and defense.

I'm with you. I don't want to pay more than my share, but I always figure that having to pay means things are going well for me... That doesn't mean that I don't support gutting the tax code and starting over....

[Edited 2008-01-14 10:48:56]

[Edited 2008-01-14 10:49:29]
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
 
kmh1956
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:08 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:06 pm



Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):
The latest news is that Wesley plans to call Muhammad Ali, Barbara Walters, Sylvester Stallone, Woody Harrelson, Spike Lee, and Tom Brokaw as witnesses. This is only going to get better....

I can't wait to see what 'Saturday Night Live' does with this one!!
'Somebody tell me why I'm on my own if there's a soulmate for everyone' :Natasha Bedingfield
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:15 pm

Count me in as someone who doesn't mind paying their fair share.

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):

The latest news is that Wesley plans to call Muhammad Ali, Barbara Walters, Sylvester Stallone, Woody Harrelson, Spike Lee, and Tom Brokaw as witnesses. This is only going to get better....

Coo coo. Coo coo.

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):

His tax advisor/co-defendant claims that since he was born in Texas, he's not a US citizen, because the only places that are part of the United States are the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. That guy is defending himself so it should get interesting. I may have to go watch some of this circus.

So hilarious. His "adviser" must be the head of the cult Snipes found himself in.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 10):

High profile catch for the IRS, can't imagine a jury finding him not guilty (i'm assuming its a jury trial and not a bench trial).

Well, at this point, I would actually believe an insanity defense  Wink
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:16 pm



Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):
because the only places that are part of the United States are the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico

Does that mean President Bush is serving as President illegally?

[

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):
His tax advisor/co-defendant claims that since he was born in Texas, he's not a US citizen,

So does this mean, the entire southwest still belongs to Mexico? If so I guess that closes the case on the Mexicans coming across the border illegally.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:24 pm



Quoting AirCop (Reply 14):
Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):
His tax advisor/co-defendant claims that since he was born in Texas, he's not a US citizen,

So does this mean, the entire southwest still belongs to Mexico? If so I guess that closes the case on the Mexicans coming across the border illegally.

What would Mexican tax law say about it?  Wink

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:27 pm



Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 11):
His tax advisor/co-defendant claims that since he was born in Texas, he's not a US citizen

Is he one of those idiots who buys into that contemporary "Republic of Texas" bullshit. I thought the Republic of Texas died in 1845.

Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
corocks
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:57 pm



Quoting Kmh1956 (Reply 12):
I can't wait to see what 'Saturday Night Live' does with this one!!

Probably something not very funny......
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:19 pm

It's quite possible that a member of this very forum feels the same way about taxes as Wesley.

(From the article linked in the original post)

Prosecutors also failed to convict a FedEx pilot, Vernice Kuglin of Memphis, who said she wrote the I.R.S. asking what law makes her liable for taxes, but got no response. She later signed papers conceding she owed more than $600,000 in taxes, and last week her goods, including her 14-year-old vehicle, were auctioned in Memphis. Ms. Kuglin said that despite the court filing, she continues to believe that she does not owe taxes.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:30 pm



Quoting Maidensgator (Thread starter):
What do you think?

Me thinks that Mr. Snipes is going to jail.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Count me in as someone who doesn't mind paying their fair share.

Just once I'd like a liberal to define and defend what a fair share is? I know that over 50% of my gross earnings go to the government in taxes yet people on this forum constantly say that the rich aren't paying their "fair share." I have a minority interest in my own economic output. Somebody please tell me how that is fair.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:42 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
I know that over 50% of my gross earnings go to the government in taxes

If you are earning over 336,550 a year, the top tax bracket, since you are married, you are paying 27-33% of your income in taxes to the feds. Since you live in Florida, you pay nothing to the state. Then it is 6.2% only only the first 94,200 for SSI and 7.65% on the first 97,500 and only 1.45% on anything over that. At this point, being in a higher tax bracket actually reduces percentage tax liability, which hurts your "fair share" argument.

I don't think that goes over 50% anyway.

Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
I have a minority interest in my own economic output. Somebody please tell me how that is fair.

You are part of a 300 million person nation that has to support a government and the services it provides.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:45 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
Just once I'd like a liberal to define and defend what a fair share is? I know that over 50% of my gross earnings go to the government in taxes yet people on this forum constantly say that the rich aren't paying their "fair share." I have a minority interest in my own economic output. Somebody please tell me how that is fair.

Not to mention the fact that, as a business owner, you enable an untold number of people to be employed.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:36 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
I don't think that goes over 50% anyway.

My friend, at a minimum you forget about state sales taxes and property taxes. Furthermore until recently Florida imposed an intangible tax on the value (not the income) of stocks and mutual funds. In addition due to the phase out of itemized deductions over 80% of my deductions get eliminated. If I make a dollar and give it to charity, it actually costs me money. Finally, I can't take any of the tax credits that most other people can. Again, how's that fair?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
You are part of a 300 million person nation that has to support a government and the services it provides.

But why's it "fair" for me to pay more in taxes than you (the hypothetical you as I have no idea whether you pay more or less in taxes than I do)?

It seems to me that if liberals were really honest, they'd admit that the tax system is completely UNFAIR and base the argument for higher taxes on the notion that somebody has to pay for it so why not "the rich". But nobody has ever been able to ever present and defend a logical argument that a progressive tax system is "fair".
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:43 am



Quoting Pope (Reply 22):

My friend, at a minimum you forget about state sales taxes and property taxes

Sales and property taxes don't come from your gross income, they come from your net income. Further, sales taxes are a regressive, uniform system of taxation and property taxes are based on how much your property is worth, which really is your choice.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22):

But why's it "fair" for me to pay more in taxes than you

Why is it "fair" for me, a single person, to pay higher tax rates than you, a married person?

Quoting Pope (Reply 22):


It seems to me that if liberals were really honest, they'd admit that the tax system is completely UNFAIR and base the argument for higher taxes on the notion that somebody has to pay for it so why not "the rich".

The system isn't unfair because those who earn more can afford to pay more.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22):
But nobody has ever been able to ever present and defend a logical argument that a progressive tax system is "fair".

If that was true, we would have a non-progressive tax system. The problem is that there is no middle ground between a progressive and a regressive tax, so there is no fair tax system, using your logic. If you have a flat tax, such as most sales taxes, you end up having regressive taxation and placing the burden on those with lower incomes who are less likely to afford it. The only "fair" thing to do, in this case, is to do what will spread the burden in the most equitable way, which is to have progressive taxation.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:57 am



Quoting Pope (Reply 22):
Again, how's that fair?

Own less? Make less income? Those are great ways to owe less in taxes. Worked for my parents. Becoming observers of the great rat race instead of being contestants made their lives a lot simplier ... and profitable.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:14 am



Quoting Pope (Reply 22):
But nobody has ever been able to ever present and defend a logical argument that a progressive tax system is "fair".

Here's one. There's a nearly universal concept in economics referred to as "diminishing marginal returns." Namely, each additional unit of something causes less benefit than the one before. This concept can be applied to money as well. A logical person will prioritize their spending, so the first dollar they earn will go towards their most important expense, the one that gives them the most benefit. As they earn more, they will begin spending their money on things that give them less benefit, making that dollar worth less to them. Now we apply this concept to a person making, let's say, $100,000 a year. Their first $10,000 is going to be quite important to them, as it will go to the most important expenses. Therefore, the government will not take much of it, because it is worth quite a lot to the individual. Their last $10,000 earned will be worth less to them, due to diminishing marginal returns. Therefore, the government takes a higher nominal percentage of that $10,000, because it is worth less to the individual. So in the end the individual gives up an equal (or close to equal) amount of benefit from their first $10,000 as their last, even though the dollar amounts of the two are different.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:42 am



Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
Just once I'd like a liberal to define and defend what a fair share is?

Interesting that you've had some responses justifying WHY you should pay higher taxes, but nobody has been able to answer your question about what a "fair" amount would be.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:50 am



Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Why is it "fair" for me, a single person, to pay higher tax rates than you, a married person

I never said it was.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Sales and property taxes don't come from your gross income, they come from your net income. Further, sales taxes are a regressive, uniform system of taxation and property taxes are based on how much your property is worth, which really is your choice.

Yet my gross (pre-tax) income is reduced by these taxes. Therefore, when I say over 50% of my gross income is taken from me by the government, the statement is correct.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
The system isn't unfair because those who earn more can afford to pay more.

How do you know what I can afford to pay? If I earn money and give it away to charity how can I afford to pay more?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
The problem is that there is no middle ground between a progressive and a regressive tax, so there is no fair tax system, using your logic. If you have a flat tax, such as most sales taxes, you end up having regressive taxation and placing the burden on those with lower incomes who are less likely to afford it.

Sales tax systems can exclude necessities thereby largely reducing the regressive nature of the tax.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 24):


Own less? Make less income? Those are great ways to owe less in taxes. Worked for my parents. Becoming observers of the great rat race instead of being contestants made their lives a lot simplier ... and profitable.

I was fortunate enough to realize that I wanted out of the rat race at an early age. I left a very lucrative career in consulting for a job at a small company that I grew to a pretty decent size. Now I refuse to leave because I like the quality of life the position affords me.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 25):
Therefore, the government will not take much of it, because it is worth quite a lot to the individual.

In your example the diminishing returns assumes the individual values that next dollar of income less than the previous one. However, their lifestyle usually requires income in blocks (ranges). Therefore, while someone may say the value of the second ten million dollars is less than the first ten million, that doesn't mean that someone really has a diminishing return between $50,000 and $50,001. In any case, different people may place different values on the worth of the next dollar of income. Here you have government determining how much an individual should value their next dollar of income.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:05 am



Quoting Pope (Reply 27):
Now I refuse to leave because I like the quality of life the position affords me.

Your dishes match your bedsheets? Love the CL600 Roadster a little too much?  Wink

Quoting Pope (Reply 27):
Here you have government determining how much an individual should value their next dollar of income.

Well, someone has to referee the Great Rat Race. Lord knows what would happen to the country if things went unchecked.  Big grin
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:46 am



Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 28):
Your dishes match your bedsheets? Love the CL600 Roadster a little too much?

You know squat about me. I live in the same house I bought 10 years ago when I was making 1/7 of what I'm making now. My car costs within $5,000 of what I had when I took the job I have now.

Instead of spending my money on all sorts of crap, I'm very committed to the charities I believe in, my family and our future. You can try to demonize me all you want but none of that justifies why the existing system is "fair".
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:54 am

Pope, man.... Did you miss the  Wink and Big grin ? I was joking with you.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting 767Lover (Reply 26):
Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
Just once I'd like a liberal to define and defend what a fair share is?

Interesting that you've had some responses justifying WHY you should pay higher taxes, but nobody has been able to answer your question about what a "fair" amount would be.

That question is one of the most frequently unanswered questions posed on Anet.

I think it's kind of funny, actually. All this clamoring for a "fairer" tax system, yet none of the advocates are willing to specify what their concept of fairness is.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:53 am



Quoting Pope (Reply 27):

Sales tax systems can exclude necessities thereby largely reducing the regressive nature of the tax.

It can, though that isn't the rule throughout. Further, even fewer states create an exemption for clothing, books, etc.

Quoting Pope (Reply 27):

How do you know what I can afford to pay?

I don't know what you specifically can afford to pay. I said that those who earn more can afford to pay more in taxes while still paying their bills.

Quoting Pope (Reply 27):
If I earn money and give it away to charity how can I afford to pay more?

If you give money to charity, you can reduce your taxable income by the same.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:27 am

Idiot - most people know the tax man is the last govt dept you piss off. Regardless of what country. Obvoiusly Wes doesnt know the Al Capone story very well.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:06 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
If you give money to charity, you can reduce your taxable income by the same.

That's an incorrect statement. A charitable contribution is an itemized deduction. Itemized deductions are phased out when AGI exceeds a threshold. I don't have the 2007 figures but the 2005 number was $145,950 (married) and $72,975 (single filers).

The reduction is 3% of the amount over the threshold or 80% of the itemized deductions excluding medical expenses (subject to the 7.5% threshold), investment interest expense, casualty losses, and wagering losses to the extent of the gains.

Therefore, you most clearly do not reduce your taxable income by the extent of charitable deductions.

Your response illustrates my point. Many of the people calling the system fair have absolutely no idea how unfair it really is.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:55 pm

Regressivity often plays into these types of discussions. Yet I argue that the current federal system could be considered regressive since there is no provision for geographic cost of living. Therefore, an attorney earning $500,000 a year in San Francisco is less able to afford a 33% tax burden than an attorney in Atlanta making $500,000 a year.

Also, where is it written that a person who is making $300,000 is necessarily better off than a person making $50,000? Maybe the $300,000 earner is paying for their parents' living expenses (thus removing a financial burden from society) and the $50,000 earner is single and able to live very cheaply because they have no dependents, thus having fewer financial burdens. Maybe the $300,000 earner has three kids in college, or is they are facing a deteriorating health condition and they know they will not be able to work in 5-10 years, so they are saving like crazy so they will have something to live on at that point. For that matter, the same could be true for the $50K earner. So the whole thing seems sort of arbitrary and based on incorrect assumptions about lifestyle based on an income level that may or may not mean squat depending on where you live.

Which is why I believe the consumption tax is a better system than the current federal tax, excluding the purchase of necessities, because, while not perfect, it provides a truer picture of one's ability to pay due to spending behavior.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:48 pm

An interesting story. It's going to turn out badly for Wesley Snipes, I fear.

My own personal take on it is I like my meal ticket far too much to go messing it about. Failure to file tax returns is enough to get you disbarred in this state.

It is never a good idea to fuck with the federales, particularly when money's involved. I'm not a person who wants them to take note of my existence.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
BCAInfoSys
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:09 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:00 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 36):
Failure to file tax returns is enough to get you disbarred in this state.

It is never a good idea to fuck with the federales, particularly when money's involved. I'm not a person who wants them to take note of my existence.

Not just the IRS. Fucking with the state is the same, if not worse. I am a consultant with state tax revenue agencies and let me tell you; they will fuck you up if you fail to file or if you try to play these games. The state is a lot closer to home and knows localities a whole lot better then the Feds. Between levying liens on your property, sending collectors on a weekly basis to hound you, showing up at your work to embarrass you into paying, etc.

We just setup all of our collectors with a tablet system that downloads a copy of your account for them to access on the go. They have all the period information, every letter they've ever sent you, all the comments on the account, copies of every return & payment, etc. And believe you me.. they will get it one way or the other.

Bottom line: Don't fuck around on your taxes, ever.
Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:01 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 34):
Many of the people calling the system fair have absolutely no idea how unfair it really is.

That is purely your opinion

Quoting Pope (Reply 34):

That's an incorrect statement.

I disagree, and so does LegalZoom

The IRS has a limit on giving, but even if your heart exceeds the IRS maximum, you may still be able to benefit from your generous spirit. You may deduct a maximum of up to 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) (Line 36 on IRS Form 1040) for the tax year the donation was given. However, if you give more than 50%, the excess may be carried forward for up to five years. Be aware that the 50% rule applies to most contributions, but certain contributions may have lower limits.

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article13698.html

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 35):
Yet I argue that the current federal system could be considered regressive since there is no provision for geographic cost of living.

Of course, that doesn't take into account multiple factors. One being that people, in general, earn more in San Francisco. Second being that you are able to take bigger deductions when paying a higher priced mortgage.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 36):
Failure to file tax returns is enough to get you disbarred in this state.

I think every state follows that rule.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:14 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Quoting 767Lover (Reply 35):
Yet I argue that the current federal system could be considered regressive since there is no provision for geographic cost of living.

Of course, that doesn't take into account multiple factors. One being that people, in general, earn more in San Francisco. Second being that you are able to take bigger deductions when paying a higher priced mortgage.

Doesn't matter. For starters, the fact that people in SF earn more doesn't really matter when it comes to taxable wages...a $500K earner there pays the same as a $500K earner in Podunk USA, regardless of how the income was earned.

Secondly, you are assuming that a high income earner will own a home. Plenty don't, and the the likelihood decreases the higher inflation in the market. Nonetheless, there are limits to the deductions...for the calendar year 2007, the home acquisition debt on your main home and second home, for the purpose of mortgage interest deduction, cannot be more than $1 million ($500,000 if married filing separately) and the high income earner (over $150K) cannot deduct the mortgage insurance premium. A mortgage in excess of $1 million, when 15 or 30 years of interest is factored in, would not be difficult to exceed in a market like San Francisco.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:18 pm



Quoting 767Lover (Reply 39):

The government can't control supply and demand for real estate in a market. That is up to the people buying it. It is not the government's fault people are willing to pay more to live in San Francisco than they are to live in Atlanta. If people aren't willing to pay what it takes to live somewhere, they can move somewhere else. I love L.A., and I moved back here knowing full well that I would have to pay more to rent and more to buy real estate than if I had stayed in New Orleans or moved somewhere like Albuquerque, Denver or Portland.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:42 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 27):
In your example the diminishing returns assumes the individual values that next dollar of income less than the previous one. However, their lifestyle usually requires income in blocks (ranges). Therefore, while someone may say the value of the second ten million dollars is less than the first ten million, that doesn't mean that someone really has a diminishing return between $50,000 and $50,001. In any case, different people may place different values on the worth of the next dollar of income. Here you have government determining how much an individual should value their next dollar of income.

I agree with you on both your points. With regard to the first one, yes, you may not see a diminishing return with every single dollar, but if you were to draw out the curve (which would presumably look like some sort of step function), you could approximate it with a smooth curve. And economics is all about approximations and models. As for your second point, there's no way the government can assess exactly how much each dollar is worth to someone - we can't decide to tax someone less just because they claim that they value their money more. The government has to make an educated guess as to how the "typical" person values their money. Of course, they have been known to guess wrong.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:48 pm



Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 37):
We just setup all of our collectors with a tablet system that downloads a copy of your account for them to access on the go. They have all the period information, every letter they've ever sent you, all the comments on the account, copies of every return & payment, etc. And believe you me.. they will get it one way or the other.

Bottom line: Don't fuck around on your taxes, ever.

True dat.

Particularly with taxes. Like I say, all I want the tax people to have reason to know about me is that I'm alive and that they get their cut on time and the checks don't bounce.

Here's how I do it. I have an account in a credit union about ten miles from here that I rarely visit. Everything I get on 1099s and any other money that comes my way gets stashed there. Along about tax time, I do my returns, and I write the state and the feds out checks for the full amount that I owe them. I've got two side businesses, they're pretty small potatoes but I do not try to get over. If I owe it I pay it.

See, where Snipes has gone wrong is he didn't pay it and didn't file either. I am sure the court would be more interested in listening to him if he deposited the money with the clerk of court while he's litigating the issue of whether he actually has to pay (he does).

But these guys never do. They spend the money. Ole Wesley shoulda called up Jerry Lee Lewis-the Killuh coulda told him about what happens when you don't pay your taxes.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:54 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
Quoting 767Lover (Reply 39):


The government can't control supply and demand for real estate in a market. That is up to the people buying it. It is not the government's fault people are willing to pay more to live in San Francisco than they are to live in Atlanta. If people aren't willing to pay what it takes to live somewhere, they can move somewhere else. I love L.A., and I moved back here knowing full well that I would have to pay more to rent and more to buy real estate than if I had stayed in New Orleans or moved somewhere like Albuquerque, Denver or Portland.

You're the one who brought up the cost of buying real estate in this equation, as if it mattered in the discussion. I was simply talking about the fact that the blanket federal tax schedule ("bracket" if you will) does not take into account cost of living in a place (cost meaning total cost of living expenses, fuel, cost of goods and services, etc.) There is no denying that a federal tax rate applied to an earner at any income level is automatically going to be "felt" more, in terms of impact, in a high-cost area versus a low-cost area. Thus the desire for a progressive tax is elusive in the current system.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:04 pm



Quoting 767Lover (Reply 43):

You're the one who brought up the cost of buying real estate in this equation, as if it mattered in the discussion.

It does matter. You are the one who brought up cost of living, and I pointed out that such cost of living really is a personal choice.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 43):
I was simply talking about the fact that the blanket federal tax schedule ("bracket" if you will) does not take into account cost of living in a place (cost meaning total cost of living expenses, fuel, cost of goods and services, etc.)

In many ways, living in San Francisco is going to be cheaper than Atlanta. Higher fuel prices are unlikely to be felt because of the significantly better public transportation in San Francisco. Fruits, vegetables and other farm products are likely to be cheaper in San Francisco because of the proximity of growers and ranchers.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 43):
Thus the desire for a progressive tax is elusive in the current system.

Not particularly. Living in a higher cost area means you accept the higher prices of the area and strive to earn more than you would living somewhere else.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:30 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
I disagree, and so does LegalZoom

The IRS has a limit on giving, but even if your heart exceeds the IRS maximum, you may still be able to benefit from your generous spirit. You may deduct a maximum of up to 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) (Line 36 on IRS Form 1040) for the tax year the donation was given. However, if you give more than 50%, the excess may be carried forward for up to five years. Be aware that the 50% rule applies to most contributions, but certain contributions may have lower limits.

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-artic....html

Well then both you and legal zoom would be wrong (yet again). Take a look at Internal Revenue Code Section 68(a):

Quote:
In the case of an individual whose adjusted gross income exceeds the applicable amount, the amount of itemized deductions otherwise allowable for the taxable year shall be reduced by the lesser of ...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ame=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC68

The Section 68 limitation is applied after the limitation contained in Section 170(b) (Charitable Contributions) which contains the limits you describe above. Section 68 was put into the IRC in 1993 as a deficit reduction measure as part of P.L. 103-66. But hey, don't let facts or the law get in the way of your argument.

But you go ahead and keep relying on what legal zoom has to say. Perhaps you can join Wesley in Federal prison.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
That is purely your opinion

And yet, you've yet to provide a single logical argument supporting why it's fair.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:36 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 45):
Perhaps you can join Wesley in Federal prison.

I pay my taxes, so no.

Quoting Pope (Reply 45):

And yet, you've yet to provide a single logical argument supporting why it's fair.

I have provided plenty. You just happen to disagree with them.

Quoting Pope (Reply 45):
Take a look at Internal Revenue Code Section 68(a):

Reduced by, not eliminated, but you left out 68(a)(1) and 68(a)(2). Further, you can opt to carry over deductions to the next year. And no reduction if you give through a trust.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:49 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 46):
Reduced by, not eliminated, but you left out 68(a)(1) and 68(a)(2). Further, you can opt to carry over deductions to the next year. And no reduction if you give through a trust.

The Section 68 limitation does not carry over. Section 68(a)(1) and (a)(2) simply describe the 80% or 3% over threshold limits I described above.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 46):
I pay my taxes, so no.

Based on what you posted, you're preparing them incorrectly.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 46):
I have provided plenty.

You've provide none. All you've said is that they are fair but not provide any justification for what makes them fair. In fact, whenever you tried to provide a fact it's been proven incorrect, like your analysis of the charitable contribution limitation.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:07 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 47):
All you've said is that they are fair but not provide any justification for what makes them fair.

Oh really?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):

If that was true, we would have a non-progressive tax system. The problem is that there is no middle ground between a progressive and a regressive tax, so there is no fair tax system, using your logic. If you have a flat tax, such as most sales taxes, you end up having regressive taxation and placing the burden on those with lower incomes who are less likely to afford it. The only "fair" thing to do, in this case, is to do what will spread the burden in the most equitable way, which is to have progressive taxation.

To which you responded:

Quoting Pope (Reply 27):

Sales tax systems can exclude necessities thereby largely reducing the regressive nature of the tax.

To which I responded:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):

It can, though that isn't the rule throughout. Further, even fewer states create an exemption for clothing, books, etc.

And to your saying "how would you know how much I (you) can afford"

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):

I don't know what you specifically can afford to pay. I said that those who earn more can afford to pay more in taxes while still paying their bills.



Quoting Pope (Reply 47):

The Section 68 limitation does not carry over. Section 68(a)(1) and (a)(2) simply describe the 80% or 3% over threshold limits I described above.

Exactly. 68(a)(1) and 68(a)(2) show the corresponding amounts you reduce, not eliminate, deductions for charitable giving and other itemized deductions.

Quoting Pope (Reply 47):

Based on what you posted, you're preparing them incorrectly.

I didn't earn over the threshold amount you were talking about last year, and I don't prepare my taxes anyway.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Wesley Snipes On Trial For Tax Evasion

Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:34 pm

I'm still wondering what a "fair" rate of tax is. In specifics, not a generic "what you can afford" sort of statement.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: coolian2, PlymSpotter, Tvilum, WIederling, wingman and 12 guests