• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rats! City to Pay for Informing on Tax Cheats

It sounds to be pretty Stalinist to me to encourage neighbors to inform on neighbors for non-violent victimless crimes.

Is it Stalinist to enourage people to call the cops if their neighbors are dealing drugs or engaging in prostitution? At least here, the purpose of the program is not to enforce some moral value, but to collect legally owed revenue.

What would be the point? Chicago is a sanctuary city. Nice try though.

What does that have to do with anything? This is a program focused at collecting tax revenue. The purpose of reporting someone is to get a chunk of the money that they're cheating the government out of. Whether or not they're using illegal immigrants to do it has no bearing on the matter.
 
Is it Stalinist to enourage people to call the cops if their neighbors are dealing drugs or engaging in prostitution? At least here, the purpose of the program is not to enforce some moral value, but to collect legally owed revenue.


That's right. This isn't the middle ages, where people can be sent to debter's prison, or become indentured servants.

The biggest problem that will occur--as I pointed out before--is that a person's word, isn't necassarily enough probable cause to audit someone's taxes.

This is going to get out of hand, you can bet on that.
 
That's right. This isn't the middle ages, where people can be sent to debter's prison, or become indentured servants.

The biggest problem that will occur--as I pointed out before--is that a person's word, isn't necassarily enough probable cause to audit someone's taxes.

This is going to get out of hand, you can bet on that.

I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to you again, but the IRS does not need probable cause to audit someone's taxes. You have no clue what you're talking about. Just stop.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Is it Stalinist to enourage people to call the cops if their neighbors are dealing drugs or engaging in prostitution?

IMHO yes, as I believe those to be non-crimes in the first place, in fact I consider it authoritarian for there to be legislation of morality in the first place.

At least here, the purpose of the program is not to enforce some moral value, but to collect legally owed revenue.

Alot of this is unjust taxation inflicted on small business owners by a sprawling bureaucracy run amok.


What does that have to do with anything? This is a program focused at collecting tax revenue. The purpose of reporting someone is to get a chunk of the money that they're cheating the government out of. Whether or not they're using illegal immigrants to do it has no bearing on the matter.

So punish the hirer and let the illegals go scott free. Got to love liberal controlled cities.
 
IMHO yes, as I believe those to be non-crimes in the first place, in fact I consider it authoritarian for there to be legislation of morality in the first place.

And you're free to have whatever beliefs on that issue that you want.

Alot of this is unjust taxation inflicted on small business owners by a sprawling bureaucracy run amok.

Payroll tax and sales tax are "unjust taxation inflicted on small business owners by a sprawling bureaucracy run amok"?

So punish the hirer and let the illegals go scott free. Got to love liberal controlled cities.

Again, how does the punishment of the illegals have anything to do with this program? The purpose is to collect lawfully owed tax revenue. The fact that someone else is committing one crime doesn't mean that you get to commit another and go scot free.
 
I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to you again, but the IRS does not need probable cause to audit someone's taxes. You have no clue what you're talking about. Just stop.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Yes, they do. The last time I checked, the information they ask for is protected by the 4th Amendment; such as bank accounts, loan information, personal finance records.

The IRS only audits when they see something wrong. Say, I have a $20,000 hole in my tax return. The IRS wants to know where that 20 grand is. They come in, ask where the 20 grand is, I show them a promissary note for 20 grand and the audit is over.

What's this supposed to prove?

Utecht is the owner of a corporation that
supplies entertainment equipment, such as pinball
machines and pool tables, to bars in central
Wisconsin. In 1990, Utecht added video poker
games to his stock and began offering these
devices to his customers. Video gambling is
illegal in Wisconsin, so Utecht took a number of
steps to hide the existence of the video gambling
machines and the monies these produced. Most
relevant to this case, Utecht did not report the
revenues from the poker devices on his corporate
or personal federal income tax returns.

This guy violated gambling laws and didn't report the money. That's the same as drug dealers not reporting their drug money. This has nothing to do with someone cheating on their taxes.
 
Payroll tax and sales tax are "unjust taxation inflicted on small business owners by a sprawling bureaucracy run amok"?

Self-employment taxes are. So is Social Security and Medicare.
 
Yes, they do. The last time I checked, the information they ask for is protected by the 4th Amendment; such as bank accounts, loan information, personal finance records.

The IRS only audits when they see something wrong. Say, I have a $20,000 hole in my tax return. The IRS wants to know where that 20 grand is. They come in, ask where the 20 grand is, I show them a promissary note for 20 grand and the audit is over.

What's this supposed to prove?

This guy violated gambling laws and didn't report the money. That's the same as drug dealers not reporting their drug money. This has nothing to do with someone cheating on their taxes.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

In theory, Utecht might have a valid argument for suppression. Subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, materials involuntarily seized from a defendant without probable cause (and a warrant unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies) will be excluded from the defendant's trial. See, e.g., Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 66 (1992); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). However, the IRS need not show probable cause in order to enforce a subpoena demanding that the defendant produce documents for a civil investigation. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57 (1964); United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981).

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Respondent primarily relies on 7605 (b) to show that the Government must establish probable cause for suspecting fraud, and that the existence of probable cause is subject to challenge by the taxpayer at the hearing. 11 That section provides:
"No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigations, and only one inspection [379 U.S. 48, 53] of a taxpayer's books of account shall be made for each taxable year unless the taxpayer requests otherwise or unless the Secretary or his delegate, after investigation, notifies the taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is necessary."

We do not equate necessity as contemplated by this provision with probable cause or any like notion. If a taxpayer has filed fraudulent returns, a tax liability exists without regard to any period of limitations. Section 7602 authorizes the Commissioner to investigate any such liability. 12 If, in order to determine the existence or nonexistence of fraud in the taxpayer's returns, information in the taxpayer's records is needed which is not already in the Commissioner's possession, we think the examination is not "unnecessary" within the meaning of 7605 (b). Although a more stringent interpretation is possible, one which would require some showing of cause for suspecting fraud, we reject such an interpretation [379 U.S. 48, 54] because it might seriously hamper the Commissioner in carrying out investigations he thinks warranted, forcing him to litigate and prosecute appeals on the very subject which he desires to investigate, and because the legislative history of 7605 (b) indicates that no severe restriction was intended.

...

Reading the statutes as we do, the Commissioner need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of his summons, either before or after the three-year statute of limitations on ordinary tax liabilities has expired.

This is settled fact.
 
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.



FindLaw | Cases and Codes



This is settled fact.

Just like the cops, the IRS can't demand to see my personal information, without probably cause. Sorry to break it to you.

The PC in this case that you linked to was already established by the violation of gambling laws. That's why the IRS didn't have to show probable caue for their subpeona.

You really need to start your own business and learn how the system works.
 
Just like the cops, the IRS can't demand to see my personal information, without probably cause. Sorry to break it to you.

Me: "Fact"
You: "No, that's not right."
Me: "[REALLY THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF FACT]"
You: "No, that's not right.

Great rebuttal.

The PC in this case that you linked to was already established by the violation of gambling laws. That's why the IRS didn't have to show probable caue for their subpeona.

No, it's not. You are simply wrong. I'm sorry.

I don't try to give you advice on how to lie about threatening federal agents to make yourself seem cool on the internet, so how about you don't give me advice on how to interpret case law?
 
Me: "Fact"
You: "No, that's not right."
Me: "[REALLY THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF FACT]"
You: "No, that's not right.

Great rebuttal.

Compared to what?

You: You're a liar.

Compared to that?



You find one case that kinda-sorta proves your point and suddenly the IRS has the authority to sidestep the Constitution and dig into whatever private records it wants? Get a grip, dude.

Private businesses aren't called private just for the hell of it.
 
Compared to what?

You: You're a liar.

Compared to that?

Compared to a ruling from the Supreme Court that explicitly affirms what I said and refutes your lie.

You find one case that kinda-sorta proves your point and suddenly the IRS has the authority to sidestep the Constitution and dig into whatever private records it wants? Get a grip, dude.

It doesn't "kinda-sorta" prove my point. These cases say:

However, the IRS need not show probable cause in order to enforce a subpoena demanding that the defendant produce documents for a civil investigation.

and

the Commissioner need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of his summons

A moderately competent 8th grader could read those sentences and conclude that you're wrong.

Private businesses aren't called private just for the hell of it.

And the best response you can come up with demonstrates a level of intellectual reasoning best suited to bumper stickers. Well done, all around.
 
There comes a point in a "discussion" and I use that term loosely, with Apdst where it becomes futile. You RightInNYC are well past that point.
 
Back
Top Bottom