The IRS wants to tax your illegal income

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 

It is there in 2013
Page 96
www.irs.gov...

And it was there in 2002
Page 97
www.irs.gov...

And it was there in 1998.
Page 93
www.irs.gov...

This is not breaking news nor is it political.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


I wonder what Jon Corzine's tax return looks like?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
One of my brothers is a rather queer sort; he's a hoarder with lots of OCD qualities; made a lot of money over the years as an IT professional but never filed taxes. Not Once. It took OVER TWENTY YEARS for the IRS to follow up on it and then after an investigation they figured out that THEY actually owed HIM money, since his withholding was more than what he would have owed... yup, he actually lost money by not filing but his mental health issues and a rather spurious claim of 'libertarianism' kept him from bothering to file. He was never charged with not filing, threatened with prison or anything else. Not so much as a fine, which he wouldn't have paid anyways. (I've always wondered what the government does if you show up for an audit showing obvious signs of delusional behavior, memory issues, IQ in the 85 range, etc. I mean, what are they gonna do, put all the crazees and simple-minded people in jail...?)

Just wanted to let people know that the boogie man scare tactics of worrying that the IRS is going to be on your doorstep bright and early at 6 a.m. April 16th if you don't file, file correctly and pay up completely is a bit of a misguidance. The best thing now about our present 'government' is that it's a bloated rotting leviathan of stupids, corrupts and criminals. The real IRS is a bunch of underpaid bored clerks wearing fingercots and going blind looking at illegible paperwork all day, augmented by a computer without a clue. They have 1 Man in Black going door to door flashing a badge and asking questions for every million of you.

Don't give them another penny. Remind them that you also have ammo, can find out where they live, and are currently being quickly driven to dire straits by their bull puckey. And the ratio of US versus THEM is, I repeat, a million to one...



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 

It is there in 2013
Page 96
www.irs.gov...

And it was there in 2002
Page 97
www.irs.gov...

And it was there in 1998.
Page 93
www.irs.gov...

This is not breaking news nor is it political.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


And to avoid digging through tax publications, wiki article on the history of it: en.wikipedia.org...

The reason why you won't necessarily find specific language is because it is simply considered "income". Income is defined as the inflow of cash or cash-equivalents to one's person (ie. getting pardoned on a bill would be a cash-equivalent for personal tax). If it isn't subject to being reported by a 1099 or W-2, it simply falls under "Other income".



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I've always wondered about this.

If it's illegal and they are compelling you to file concerning your ill-gotten gains, or face perjury if you falsify, aren't they violating the 5th Amendment since they are compelling you to provide evidence against yourself?

Moreover, could you write-off overhead costs as a legitimate deduction (as was the case in the Netherlands)? That is you have to pay off customs people, police officers, pay for gas, whatever to commit your crimes.

If I'm a bank robber is a gun a business expense now?
edit on 2-3-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: fixing
edit on 2-3-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: make clear



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 




If it's illegal and they are compelling you to file concerning your ill-gotten gains, or face perjury if you falsify, aren't they violating the 5th Amendment since they are compelling you to provide evidence against yourself?


Nope. You don't even have to lie.
Selling dope = Sales
Burglary = Found cash or even barter (I left my gloves)

The IRS doesn't really care where you get your money and they don't ask for details. They just want to know how much you get because they want their part of it.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I have not read this all and with the TOS here what they are I am not sure if what I am about to say is against the TOS or not (although its completely on topic)-

This isnt really new. many states have Tax Stamps for cannabis which you are supposed to buy and affix to your "product" even though it is Illegal. Kentucky is one such State- You can actually go into a Police Station and buy a tax Stamp with no questions asked ... People collect these things like trading cards (I have some myself and some are worth money to collectors)

-If they want to they can charge you with tax evasion for not having the proper stamps (although they usually do not except in the cases of "big timers")- Which is funny because that is the most blatant form of taxation without representation I have ever heard of.

Mods- If this is against TOS I apologize but its totally on topic and I am not advocating anything but providing information about something I find funny.
revenue.blog.state.ma.us...
EDIT: I bought mine for purely collectors purpouse- When I walked in and bought them I told them "I just want them for a novelty" and asked to see them to pick one out...I was told "we dont really care why you want them-" and I paid the money , got my stamps and left, lololol. I figured I would be pulled over or followed or something (I REALLY did buy them for a novelty) but nope...
edit on 2-3-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I get that part, but there is no privacy firewall between IRS and, say the DEA, in which case the DEA could be knocking on your door saying, "Hey, where did you get all this money?"

Then you'll lose more in asset forfeiture.

They put away Capone for tax evasion, and his filings were used as evidence against him. So they are compelling a criminal to either lie or provide evidence. It was the FBI who led the investigation.

I could understand the logic if we had Swiss-type privacy laws for finances, where a big ol' "Go F' yourself" was the response when people like the SEC put in for statements (it all collapsed in 2009 when the US put enough pressure on the Swiss to disclose about known American accounts, but that's another story).
edit on 2-3-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: Filling a thought



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


I get that part, but there is no privacy firewall between IRS and, say the DEA, in which case the DEA could be knocking on your door saying, "Hey, where did you get all this money?"
I don't know. But I reckon there are far more legal entries on line 21 than there are illegal. Doesn't seem that it would be a very productive avenue of investigation.


They put away Capone for tax evasion, and his filings were used as evidence against him. So they are compelling a criminal to either lie or provide evidence.
But that was the opposite. They knew he was dirty but couldn't pin anything on him. They could track the money, his income (he did have to keep books after all) and found out that, surprise, he hadn't paid taxes on it. See, if he had declared that income, he would not have been bustable on the tax rap.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, but they (the FBI) were inferring illegal gains as his front businesses didn't generate enough revenue to support his life style.

I should ask my cousin (she's a tax lawyer) about this. I wonder if this has ever been brought up.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 




Yes, but they (the FBI) were inferring illegal gains as his front businesses didn't generate enough revenue to support his life style.

No. They knew what was going on. They didn't have to infer anything. They just couldn't produce legal evidence. Using the tax angle got around that.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Infer in the sense they couldn't prove and didn't put him away for prostitution, racketeering, or anything else. They were punishing him for it via an evasion sentence and gave him 11 years (the record at the time). Absolutely, they knew he was doing it but couldn't prove it in court.

As far as investigative practices go, I was told as a kid some PD's were flying over wealthier areas looking for grow operations to collect on asset forfeiture. Anecdotal, yes, but if true, I wouldn't put it past a federal agency looking for hairdressers and construction workers pulling in amounts that exceed the norm by a deviation or two, especially in times of budget cuts.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


I wouldn't put it past a federal agency looking for hairdressers and construction workers pulling in amounts that exceed the norm by a deviation or two, especially in times of budget cuts.
Maybe, but that would be an extremely inefficient method of doing so and I don't really think the feds are all that interested in a hairdresser selling some blow to his customers. But if they are, a fishing trip through millions of 1040s is a dumb way to go after him.

How narrowly do you define the norm? How can you assume that a hairdresser isn't a successful gambler or has a (legal) hobby which provides income? There is a large list of items which should be reported on line 21, illegal activities is not the only source of "other income". I think you might find that a "norm" for other income might be hard to nail down.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Agarta
 


I'm not surprised to see something so stupid coming from our government. lol

On a conspiracy note, I think this is why technology like 'the mark' will be inevitable in a future cashless society. Not one single cent could be exchanged that the government wouldn't know about and tax.

You couldn't give your babysitter $20 or pay the neighborhood kid to rake your leaves without them knowing about it.



On our way already. Look at the new gizmo that you can buy to read credit cards that plug into the smart phone. The days of little Jimmy down the street carrying a card at 15 are not that far off.

Of course, not only will Big Brother tax that leaf raking job Jimmy did, the corporate bank gets their almost 3% per swipe.

Man where do I sign up?
edit on 2-3-2013 by Terminal1 because: Clarification



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


Why not?

If the big banks can launder 10's of Trillions of drug money over a decade and pay tax on the clean money, why not everyone.

Better still, decriminalise drugs and tax them directly...Billions in LEO saved, and more Billions in tax earned...plus the quality is regulated..what's not to like with that?
edit on 2-3-2013 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Agarta
 


I'm not surprised to see something so stupid coming from our government.


What's so stupid about it?

It's really only stupid if they expect most criminals to fill it out.
There's nothing stupid about having the option there.

On a side not, I think I might put like $10 on that line next time. just for fun.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 

If you trade something for $10 you absolutely should do so.
Or if you win $10 in Vegas you absolutely should do so.

Line 21 is for "Other Income".
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
If you want to save yourself some tax money, simpy wine and dine the chief tax officials and hey presto - you don't pay any on your income at all!

Worked for Goldman Sachs to the tune of 100's of Millions of £'s over here, and Starbucks and Google (among others) are doing pretty nicely at tax dodging to the tune of tens of millions too.

Declare $10 my arse!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I would think the government put that line in there to cover any illegal drug confiscation or other illegal sales that ended in a trial. They would than have legal means to tax the criminal organization of any illegal sales that were not claimed on their tax forms. The government is always looking for ways to increase its tax revenue.
edit on 2-3-2013 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 

That's a good point and probably true. But in the case of drugs I think the DEA gets first call.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join