Burden of proof

At 1:53 AM 8/15/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:

>In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on
>the accuser.

Which explains why in the  U.S. the tax authorities take the money first
and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to
get his seized assets back.

(To outsiders, the U.S. tax authorities have broad powers to seize
properties without any court process, to attach wages, to deputize
employers and banks as unpaid tax collectors, and to harass citizens.
Citizen-units may sue, of course, but the burden of proof is on them to
prove that they are owed a refund. A man who saves money and puts it in his
mattress can have it seized and taken from him. He must produce proof that
it is his money, never mind that he already paid taxes on it and never mind
that there is no way someone who saves currency can have a proper paper
trail. So much for "burdens of proof.")

--Tim May

HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB:
"Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both
ends.  Buy two metal caps to fit.  These are standard items in hardware
stores.  Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a
good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use.  Screw a metal cap tightly
on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder.
Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it
settle.  You want the powder loose.  For maximum explosive effect, you need
dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more
information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using
search engines)

>>>>> In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:

    > At 1:53 AM 8/15/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
    >> In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on
    >> the accuser.

    > Which explains why in the  U.S. the tax authorities take the money first
    > and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to
    > get his seized assets back.

    > (To outsiders, the U.S. tax authorities have broad powers to seize
    > properties without any court process, to attach wages, to deputize
    > employers and banks as unpaid tax collectors, and to harass citizens.
    > Citizen-units may sue, of course, but the burden of proof is on them to
    > prove that they are owed a refund. A man who saves money and puts it in his
    > mattress can have it seized and taken from him. He must produce proof that
    > it is his money, never mind that he already paid taxes on it and never mind
    > that there is no way someone who saves currency can have a proper paper
    > trail. So much for "burdens of proof.")

This relates to something I have been wondering about:  If one could
get one's company to pay one in electronic cash, what is to stop one
from piling the coins in a Datahaven somewhere (assuming one existed
that would be usable for these purposes) and say to the IRS: Money?
What money?  Can you find any of my money?  I, uhh... lost it!  Yeah,
that's it!!

-Robin
In-Reply-To: tcmay@got.net's message of Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:19:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Burden of proof
Reply-To: rpowell@algorithmics.com
X-Spook: Panama Nazi Treasury explosion terrorist SDI Semtex strategic smuggle 
References: <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>

>>>>> In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:

    > At 1:53 AM 8/15/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
    >> In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on
    >> the accuser.

    > Which explains why in the  U.S. the tax authorities take the money first
    > and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to
    > get his seized assets back.

    > (To outsiders, the U.S. tax authorities have broad powers to seize
    > properties without any court process, to attach wages, to deputize
    > employers and banks as unpaid tax collectors, and to harass citizens.
    > Citizen-units may sue, of course, but the burden of proof is on them to
    > prove that they are owed a refund. A man who saves money and puts it in his
    > mattress can have it seized and taken from him. He must produce proof that
    > it is his money, never mind that he already paid taxes on it and never mind
    > that there is no way someone who saves currency can have a proper paper
    > trail. So much for "burdens of proof.")

This relates to something I have been wondering about:  If one could
get one's company to pay one in electronic cash, what is to stop one
from piling the coins in a Datahaven somewhere (assuming one existed
that would be usable for these purposes) and say to the IRS: Money?
What money?  Can you find any of my money?  I, uhh... lost it!  Yeah,
that's it!!

-Robin

> This relates to something I have been wondering about:  If one could
> get one's company to pay one in electronic cash, what is to stop one
> from piling the coins in a Datahaven somewhere (assuming one existed
> that would be usable for these purposes) and say to the IRS: Money?
> What money?  Can you find any of my money?  I, uhh... lost it!  Yeah,
> that's it!!
	What is to stop the IRS from pointing out that you received the 
money from your employer? Maybe you could convince them you were unable 
to pay, but that would require squirreling away(and refraining from 
using) all your assets.

> 
> 
> > This relates to something I have been wondering about:  If one could
> > get one's company to pay one in electronic cash, what is to stop one
> > from piling the coins in a Datahaven somewhere (assuming one existed
> > that would be usable for these purposes) and say to the IRS: Money?
> > What money?  Can you find any of my money?  I, uhh... lost it!  Yeah,
> > that's it!!
> 	What is to stop the IRS from pointing out that you received the 
> money from your employer? Maybe you could convince them you were unable 
> to pay, but that would require squirreling away(and refraining from 
> using) all your assets. 
> 
> 

FYI:  Cheating on an IRS tax return is considered the same as not filing
one -- there is NO statute of limitations.  This means if you place your
money in a money/data haven, and spend it 20 years later, you can still be
nabbed for tax evasion.

>     >> In the USA, we have a system that ensures that the burden of proof is on
>     >> the accuser.
> 
>     > Which explains why in the  U.S. the tax authorities take the money first
>     > and then require the citizen to be the "accuser" in Tax Court, pleading to
>     > get his seized assets back.

   Tim, bad as the Congress is, it did _not_ give the arbitrary powers 
you describe to the IRS. It's clear that you have not studied the 
Tax Code paragraph-by-paragraph, nor are you keeping up with Tax Court and 
District Court rulings. I have (in selected sections) and I do.

The IRS does NOT have the power to "just seize"  things. There is an
Administrative sequence that they are required to follow, involving
notices to the taxpayer, opportunities to gain abatements, etc.  The
courts are unanimous on holding the IRS to these strict requirements. 

The IRS is without a doubt, the most abuse-o-genic TLA we are cursed 
with. It is not unstoppable. I have won against them a few times, acting 
_pro se_.

The IRS is very dependant upon its *image* of being not-worth-fighting. 
They cultivate this, very carefully. It is purely an image.