In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:
> At 1:53 AM 8/15/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on >> the accuser. > Which explains why in the U.S. the tax authorities take the money first > and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to > get his seized assets back. > (To outsiders, the U.S. tax authorities have broad powers to seize > properties without any court process, to attach wages, to deputize > employers and banks as unpaid tax collectors, and to harass citizens. > Citizen-units may sue, of course, but the burden of proof is on them to > prove that they are owed a refund. A man who saves money and puts it in his > mattress can have it seized and taken from him. He must produce proof that > it is his money, never mind that he already paid taxes on it and never mind > that there is no way someone who saves currency can have a proper paper > trail. So much for "burdens of proof.") This relates to something I have been wondering about: If one could get one's company to pay one in electronic cash, what is to stop one from piling the coins in a Datahaven somewhere (assuming one existed that would be usable for these purposes) and say to the IRS: Money? What money? Can you find any of my money? I, uhh... lost it! Yeah, that's it!! -Robin In-Reply-To: tcmay@got.net's message of Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:19:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Burden of proof Reply-To: rpowell@algorithmics.com X-Spook: Panama Nazi Treasury explosion terrorist SDI Semtex strategic smuggle References: <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>
In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:
> At 1:53 AM 8/15/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on >> the accuser. > Which explains why in the U.S. the tax authorities take the money first > and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to > get his seized assets back. > (To outsiders, the U.S. tax authorities have broad powers to seize > properties without any court process, to attach wages, to deputize > employers and banks as unpaid tax collectors, and to harass citizens. > Citizen-units may sue, of course, but the burden of proof is on them to > prove that they are owed a refund. A man who saves money and puts it in his > mattress can have it seized and taken from him. He must produce proof that > it is his money, never mind that he already paid taxes on it and never mind > that there is no way someone who saves currency can have a proper paper > trail. So much for "burdens of proof.") This relates to something I have been wondering about: If one could get one's company to pay one in electronic cash, what is to stop one from piling the coins in a Datahaven somewhere (assuming one existed that would be usable for these purposes) and say to the IRS: Money? What money? Can you find any of my money? I, uhh... lost it! Yeah, that's it!! -Robin