Actor Wesley Snipes has made a career of playing heroes who beat the odds.
He may have just done that in his own life, as a jury today acquitted him of the most serious charges in a case brought against him for not paying his taxes.
The jury in Florida found Snipes not guilty on felony charges of fraud and conspiracy. It did convict him on three of six misdemeanor charges, and he could face up to three years in prison.
His co-defendants, Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas Rosile, were convicted on felony charges.
According to an indictment filed in October 2006, Snipes filed no returns for the years 1999 through 2004. Estimates are that he made almost $38 million during this period.
The indictment alleged that Snipes fraudulently sought a refund for a little more than $4 million in 1996 taxes.
He also sought a refund of the almost $7.4 million he paid in taxes for 1997 on a declared income of $19,238,192.
Furthermore, the indictment stated that between 2000 and 2002 Snipes sent the Secretary of the Treasury three fraudulent “bills of exchange” (essentially bad checks) totaling $12 million.
Snipes’s defense during the trail argued that he had taken bad advice from Kahn, founder of a group that allegedly sells fraudulent tax schemes, and Rosile, a certified public accountant who lost his licenses to practice in Ohio and Florida.
“He acted in good faith — not with any bad purpose or criminal intent to deceive or defraud,” the IRS, one of Snipes’ lawyers said before the trial.
The indictment argued that Kahn’s group, American Rights Litigators, “promoted a fraudulent tax scheme based on the so-called ‘861 argument.’”
The number “861″ refers to a section of the Internal Revenue Code. Kahn argues that it can be interpreted to mean that U.S. citizens don’t have to pay taxes on income earned within the United States.
Snipes was a fee-paying member of American Rights Litigators and based his request for refunds on the 861 argument, the indictment stated.
Snipes’s request in November for a change of venue for the trial was denied. Snipes, who is African-American, had argued that “substantial pockets of prejudice” existed in the Ocala area.
J.J. MacNab, an insurance analyst and expert on tax deniers, told the Times that “the verdict shows that promoters face serious jail time” in cases like this.
Snipes remains free on $50,000 bail.
Click here to sign up for the Muckety Newsletter
2 Comments
#1. Al Miranda 02.02.2008
Quoting from another article:
Neither Snipes nor his co-defendants put on a defense. His attorneys presented a time line during opening statements that showed Snipes’ many failed attempts to meet with the IRS or have them audit him. Snipes’ attorneys said an IRS agent told Snipes in May 2002 that there was a criminal investigation. The agent told Snipes that anything he did at that point could be used against him.
Barnes [Snipes Attorney] said the actor was then afraid to file any tax returns. Costanzi [jury foreperson] said the jury believed that, leading them to acquit Snipes for not filing 2002, 2003 and 2004 returns.
from:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/02/State/Snipes_wins__loses_in.shtml
Notice what the jury said: They did not find Snipes guilty of failure to file for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 because he [Snipes] had been advised by the IRS they are doing a criminal investigation. (ie, Miranda Warning given or implied) He was charged with failure to file for 6 years, 1998-2004. So what’s the difference between the first 3 years and the later 3 years?
The difference is that in 2002 Snipes was advised of the consequences of giving the government information (Miranda Warning) and the jury felt at that point Snipes was doing the Right thing by not giving the government anymore information. (Right capitalized as in standing up for your RIGHTS.)
Extrapolate that to anyone’s situation: If you knew that anything you told the government about your life could be used against you at some later time, and that you knew you had the right not provide that information, would you choose to give the government any more information?
Well you have the right to not provide that information. It’s called the 5th Amendment. No one can file any tax return without waiving their fifth amendment right. The press, the judge, the prosecutor, the media and even his own attornyes all used terms like “kookie” “crazy” “strange” etc. None of those are accurate. The factual term is “A Belligerent Claimant in Person.”
A Belligerent Claimant in Person
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
–US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).
Also, extrapolate this to every other aspect of your life. Your medical information, your personal information. If you knew that ANY information you gave to the government could later be used against you at some later time, would you EVER choose to give the information to the government willingly?
#2. anon 02.02.2008
Wesley Snipes The IRS In Tax Case
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/wesley_snipes_the_irs_in_tax_case.htm
Leave a Comment