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.") --Tim May HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)
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
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!! What is to stop the IRS from pointing out that you received the money from your employer? Maybe you could convince them you were unable to pay, but that would require squirreling away(and refraining from using) all your assets.
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!! What is to stop the IRS from pointing out that you received the money from your employer? Maybe you could convince them you were unable to pay, but that would require squirreling away(and refraining from using) all your assets.
FYI: Cheating on an IRS tax return is considered the same as not filing one -- there is NO statute of limitations. This means if you place your money in a money/data haven, and spend it 20 years later, you can still be nabbed for tax evasion.
>> 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.
Tim, bad as the Congress is, it did _not_ give the arbitrary powers you describe to the IRS. It's clear that you have not studied the Tax Code paragraph-by-paragraph, nor are you keeping up with Tax Court and District Court rulings. I have (in selected sections) and I do. The IRS does NOT have the power to "just seize" things. There is an Administrative sequence that they are required to follow, involving notices to the taxpayer, opportunities to gain abatements, etc. The courts are unanimous on holding the IRS to these strict requirements. The IRS is without a doubt, the most abuse-o-genic TLA we are cursed with. It is not unstoppable. I have won against them a few times, acting _pro se_. The IRS is very dependant upon its *image* of being not-worth-fighting. They cultivate this, very carefully. It is purely an image.
participants (5)
-
Alan Horowitz -
DAVID A MOLNAR -
Douglas R. Floyd -
Robin Powell -
tcmay＠got.net