Log in

No account? Create an account

redbut in rusam

Ах, наши старые обманы вдруг стали правдою теперь

Помните ответ армянского радио на вопрос, должен ли коммунист платить партвзносы с взяток? Правильно - должен, если он честный коммунист.

Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, 2005, Page 28:
"Bribes. If you receive a bribe, include it in your income."

UPDATE: Bribes привлекли внимание полным совпадением с одним из любимых (в свое время) анекдотов. А вообще там есть перлы не хуже:

Page 30 - Illegal income, such as from money dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21...

Page 32 - Stolen Property. If you steel property, you must report its fair market value in your income in the year you steel it unless in the same year you return it to the rightful owner.
Что делать, если ты заявил стоимость украденного, и вернул на следующий год, я пока не нашел:) Какие будут идеи?


/claim Fifth amendment in description without going into details/
One more step - you can honestly write robbery in description, and then take fifth. They can not open case without detailes:)
I used to think so too, until I read wiki entry on the 5th. Granted, it's only wikipedia, but anyway

In some cases, individuals may be legally required to file reports that call for information that may be used against them in criminal cases. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), a case involving the Federal income tax, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not use the Fifth Amendment to refuse to file a required income tax return. The Court stated: "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making[,] he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld."

In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) the defendant was convicted in connection with a conspiracy to "fix” sporting contests and to transmit illegal bets. During the trial the prosecutor introduced, as evidence, the taxpayer's Federal income tax returns for various years. In one return the taxpayer had showed his occupation to be “professional gambler.” In various returns the taxpayer had reported income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution used this to help contradict the taxpayer's argument that his involvement was innocent. The taxpayer tried unsuccessfully to keep the prosecutor from introducing the tax returns as evidence, arguing that since the taxpayer was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, he was being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court agreed that he was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, but ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination still did not apply. The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself."

Sullivan and Garner are viewed by some legal scholars as standing, in tandem, for the proposition that on a required Federal income tax return a taxpayer would probably have to report the amount of the illegal income, but might validly claim the privilege by labeling the item "Fifth Amendment" (instead of "illegal gambling income," "illegal drug sales," etc.)

October 2019



Powered by LiveJournal.com