Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
From: IN%"frissell@panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 10-MAY-1996 19:11:58.23
Such a list could be published openly in any case since discussing techniques of tax fraud is legal. Even advocay would be legal in almost all cases. (Since tax fraud is a non-violent crime, you don't have any of these 'agitating an angry mob' scenarios.) As long as you avoided conspiring with anyone, you can discuss techniques all you like. Some *participants* might like to subscribe anonymously however.
There are, however, some possible difficulties with this. A. If the Feds know about some scheme, they are more likely to be able to thwart it. The extent to which this is true, of course, depends on the method(s) being used. B. Sting operations. These are arguments for the list being closed in format, with some form of security check. The major problem with this is that the security check will break the anonymnity of participants... you may not want to trust whoever is doing the checking, even if they're public (as they should be for this). -Allen
There's no particular need for tax fraud, except by little guys. The big guys have lots of legal techniques. A prime example was the notorious $1000->$100,000 cattle futures transaction that Hillary Rodham Clinto did, just before entering the White House. Clearly, it wasn't an investment: it was a scheme to let some rich Arkansas guy pay a bribe - legally. A cooperative broker sets up a "short" position and a "long" position on a trade - then the positions get assigned, after the market has made its move, such that the guy "loses" the $100k and Hillary "has a profit".
On Sat, 11 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
There's no particular need for tax fraud, except by little guys. The big guys have lots of legal techniques. A prime example was the notorious $1000->$100,000 cattle futures transaction that Hillary Rodham Clinto did, just before entering the White House. Clearly, it wasn't an investment: it was a scheme to let some rich Arkansas guy pay a bribe - legally. A cooperative broker sets up a "short" position and a "long" position on a trade - then the positions get assigned, after the market has made its move, such that the guy "loses" the $100k and Hillary "has a profit".
The technique is called "parking", and it has been illegal for many years. Basically it requires at least 2 people to conduct the "resource shifting". Two accounts are established, one takes all losses against a commodity and the other gets the wins. This is rolled over almost exponetially by "pyramiding" contracts on margin. As such, the person or institution who requires the "loss" handles the losing account directly. The other account may or may not be handled by the first party, but they have access to it, or use an intermediary such as a broker to funnel the "wins" accordingly. ...Paul
participants (3)
-
Alan Horowitz -
E. ALLEN SMITH -
Paul S. Penrod