Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaero!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!sun!dgh
From: dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough)
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Re: Felonies In Chicago
Message-ID: <1978@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 20:38:40 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1978
Posted: Mon Feb  4 20:38:40 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 07:32:24 EST
References: <926@ihuxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgh@sun.UUCP (David Hough)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 53
Summary: 

In article <926@ihuxb.UUCP> jphalter@ihuxb.UUCP (J. Halter) writes:
><Watch Out>
>Just a note to those of you reading the articles regarding the unconstitutionality
>of the income tax system. Last week, there were a number of radio reports about
>eight Illinois residents being charged with income tax evasion. The report said
>that these eight people were being charged with felony evasion charges rather
>than the "failure to report" misdemeanor. Maximum sentences of something like
>5 years prison and $500K in fines.
>
>The radio report also stated that these eight people were responding to a seminar
>that they had attended, where they were "convinced" that the income tax system
>was unconstitutional. The court reminded these individuals that the sponsor of
>these seminars had since been charged with something like "aiding people in
>filing fraudulent returns." Hmmm...
>
>Two comments: 1). The amount of tax saved by these individuals was on the order
>of 10-12 thousand bucks. Ask me whether I would rather have the $12,000 or risk
>$500K in fines and 5 years in jail! Also, I wonder what the legal costs for these
>people will be. Is that factored in the tax savings?
>2). Since the "charges" levelled against the sponser (is this Irwin Schiff?)
>seem rather mild, it sounds like the IRS has better luck attacking frightened
>citizens than in prosecuting those who know their rights.
>
>That's all.

READ THIS FIRST:
The following paragraphs are really one long question which attempts to
summarize the gist of what I read in net.taxes a while ago.
Is the following affirmed or denied by the Chicago story?
I hope that
people who can reply authoritatively will do so on the net.  I phrase
things as assertions rather than questions because they read more easily:

        It is unconstitutional to require persons to file income tax returns
that might result in criminal liability.  The IRS will not pursue a case
based SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF MANDATORY FILING to a high level court because
the consequences of a decision against the IRS would be devastating.
Political considerations dictate that no action will be taken to
fix the constitutionality question
by means of a constitutional amendment until a devastating decision forces
the issue.

        Any person who declines to file a voluntary tax return, preferring
to wait for a lawful assessment, must be very careful to lawfully comply with
any lawful directive from the IRS because the IRS will surely attempt to base a
case against
him on some other ground if he provides any.  In particular the IRS would
like, for public relations purposes, to associate protesters of illegal taxes
with illegal protesters of taxes (the people that shoot at revenue agents)
in order to deflect public attention from the real issues.

David Hough