[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Burden of proof
>>>>> In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, [email protected] (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: [email protected]'s message of Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:19:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Burden of proof
Reply-To: [email protected]
X-Spook: Panama Nazi Treasury explosion terrorist SDI Semtex strategic smuggle
References: <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>
>>>>> In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, [email protected] (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