why people hate the IRS

And an incorrect one.

The agent who handled my case was fired a couple of years later...a true rarity in the IRS, from what I'm told.

Let's just say that he wasn't satisfied with "adequate records."

It was certainly a learning experience.

 

I don't hate the IRS, but I sure wish there was a better way for the government to collect taxes.

There is also a theory (probably more than a theory) that the Constitution only always for a capitation tax from the general public. The graduated income tax is probably unconstitutional (but then again so is "paper" money).

I pay it however because it is the law. Johnv is correct, you don't have to pay but you have to file.

If you file and don't pay they (IRS) have the right to collect (you won't like their methods) you are only guilty of a civil offense for neglecting to pay but criminal for not filing (you have 3 years).

I have been audited twice in my life many years ago.

Each time we were sent a check and told we had made an "inadvertent" error (I don't know how they knew that) but they didn't tell me how I had cheated myself (smart move).

We took the check each time and went out to dinner.

HankD

 

I think many can be in agreement with that.

 

Something was sticking in my craw about this case, and I've finally identified it. There is a principle about justice in a free society that is being trampled, and that is the presumption of innocence.

The burden should not fall upon the accused to prove his innocence, but upon the accuser to prove his guilt. With the IRS this principle is turned upside down. The IRS should be abolished, and each agent tried as a tyrant.

Now Johnv, who vaunts himself as on par with an attorney having worked in a law office once, will now attempt to show us why this principle really wasn't turned upside down, and that Rachel Porcaro was treated with justice and equity.

 

Yet another example of Aaron displaying his arrogant and pompous self at the deprecation of others. It's quite easy, however, to show Aaron how lacking in knowlege he is on the topic.

The concept of innocence or guilt via reasonable doubt is a concept in criminal matters. In regards to civil justice, that concept does not apply. In civil matters, it's innocence or guilt via a preponderence of evidence. This isn't knowlege reserved to me just because I worked at a law office in college. It's knowlege that any person with cursory knowlege will know, and apparantly knowlege Aaron is lacking in.

Now, in regards to the OP and Rachel Porcaro, I haven't anywhere in this thread commented on that matter. It's not unreasonable for the IRS to audit people on a regular basis. I have no opinion on Porcaro's situation. Since the OP isn't a news article, but is a commentary, one can't make an informed opinion as to whether her case was justified or not.

 

Not quite. Simple traffic tickets for violations have never been criminal. They have always been considered civil infractions. A civil infraction, btw, is violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor.

The downside of a civil infraction is that it usually does not attach certain indiviual rights such as a trial by jury. The upside is that the punishment will not include loss of civil right, such as incarceration or confinement (which is a common punishment for criminal trials). Punishment for civil infractions is limited to a fine and/or an action, such as suspension/revokation of one's driving privileges.

Criminal traffic offenses, however, are subject to criminal defense rights and guarantees, but are also subject to criminal prosecution.

 

Filing a fraudulent tax return is not a criminal offense?

 

The OP isn't referring to tax fraud. Tax fraud is a criminal offense. Simply filing an incorrect tax return is not, and not being able to pay is not.

To prove “fraud”, the government must establish that the taxpayer knew the tax law did not permit the treatment reported (or not reported) on the return and that, despite such actual knowledge, the taxpayer nonetheless willfully and deliberately filed the return.

 

Tell that to many who are in a serving time in a federal prison for exactly that crime. Now, I'm sure that they would love to agree with you.

 

It most absolutely is referring to tax fraud. She was suspected of not reporting over half her income, so they audited her. In other words, she was presumed guilty AND was compelled testify against herself, AND was deprived of her property without due process of law.

 

Aaron, you're obviously refusing to use discernment. Let me know when you chose to grasp the concept of civil vs criminal. And if you could do it without including veiled insults of people this time, that would be great.

 

Office boys shouldn't presume to be educated in the law. Besides, it doesn't matter what you call it, the reality is that an individual was accused, searched without a warrant, was compelled to testify against herself, and her property was confiscated, and all this by an agent of the Federal Government.

 

There you have it. Proof positive that Aaron either doesn't know the difference between criminal and civil, or is refusing to acknowlege the difference between the two .