Obama courts will assume you are guilty. Burden of proof now falls on the defendant.

[JBond]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/

Obama is demanding a major shift in the judicial system of our country. He is starting with taxes first and will progress to other areas of our society. The POS has nothing but tax cheats working for him, yet he wants to punish everyone that does not work for him under a completely separate set of rules.

from the article...

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

[BraveHeartFan]

Well he did promise change, didn't he? I don't recall him saying it would be change that anyone wanted.

[WoodysGirl]

Obama seeks tax changes for U.S. firms overseas

By Caren Bohan And Kim Dixon – 1 hr 7 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Monday will propose changing provisions in the tax code that he says encourage U.S. companies to move jobs overseas, as part of a broader package aimed at saving $210 billion over 10 years.

The plan also would make it harder for individuals to stash money in overseas accounts to avoid taxation. Obama will roll out his ideas in an announcement at 11:05 a.m. EDT, where he will be joined by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

U.S. officials said Obama wants to follow through on a campaign promise to change the tax treatment of firms with overseas operations.

That portion of his plan -- opposed by such firms as Pfizer Inc and Oracle Corp -- would raise more than $100 billion in revenue in the next decade.

In an echo of a line he used often on the campaign trail last year, Obama vowed in a February address to the U.S. Congress to make the tax code more fair by "finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

Currently, U.S. firms are allowed to defer paying taxes on profits earned overseas if they plow those profits back into their foreign subsidiaries.

Critics say those rules encourage businesses to bolster their foreign operations instead of creating jobs at home.

But an array of firms signed a letter to congressional leaders in March opposing changes to the "deferral" provision.

The letter, signed by 200 companies and trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the firms would not be on a level playing field with international rivals, many of which are not required to pay taxes at home on overseas entities.

Pfizer, Oracle, Microsoft Corp Johnson & Johnson and General Electric Co were among the firms that signed the letter.

NO MORE DEDUCTING EXPENSES

A central provision would prohibit companies from deducting expenses supporting their overseas operations until they pay taxes on offshore profits.

The officials said the plan would also end a practice by which some firms take big deductions against their taxes by inflating the amount of foreign taxes they have paid.

The proposal also includes extension of a research and experimentation tax credit the administration says businesses have been pushing for, which is expected to give a tax cut of $74.5 billion over 10 years to companies investing at home.

Drew Lyon, a tax expert at PriceWaterhouse Coopers, said the changes to the "deferral" provision would be sweeping, since half of multinationals firms' income is earned abroad.

"It's really hitting most Fortune 100 companies that depend to a great deal on growth of foreign markets for growing their total earnings," Lyon said, adding that many countries are moving in the opposite direction of giving firms new incentives for investing abroad in the hope they will boost exports.

Senior U.S. officials who described Obama's plans said they were balanced and would not put excessive burdens on firms.

They said studies looking at effective tax rates -- the amount paid after deductions -- show the United States is in the middle range of other Group of Seven countries when it comes to corporate taxation.

Obama's proposals on deferral mirror legislation drafted by House Democrats, who the Obama administration consulted in crafting its plan.

In addition to the changes to the deferral provisions, separate proposals in Obama's plan would raise $95 billion by cracking down on overseas tax havens. Such tax havens became a major topic at the April meeting in London of leaders of the Group of 20 major economies.

The Obama plan would close loopholes that allow firms and individuals to hide income. He also plans to bolster enforcement of overseas tax evasion and wants to see stiffer penalties for those who fail to meet reporting requirements.

While serving in the U.S. Senate, Obama backed legislation drafted by Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to crack down on tax havens. That legislation did not pass but Levin and other lawmakers are working on other ways to address these issues.

In one of the proposals to crack down on tax evasion, the administration would require financial institutions to share information to the Internal Revenue Service about its U.S. customers. Foreign institutions must sign up with the IRS to become "a qualified intermediary" or else face a presumption that they are helping individuals evade taxes.

Swiss banking giant UBS AG acknowledged in February that it helped U.S. clients conceal assets from their government. It agreed to pay a $780 million fine and has since identified about 320 of its American clients.

The U.S. government is now suing UBS in a civil case to reveal the identities of 52,000 Americans suspected of using accounts at the bank to hide about $14.8 billion of assets.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu and Bill Trott)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090504/pl_nm/us_obama_economy_taxes

[Rogah]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/I don't think there is anything in here that is a "major shift." Speaking as someone who has been audited twice in the past 5 years, I can say there already pretty much is a burden of proof on the accused. When the IRS says "our computers say you owe us $100,000" you essentially have to pay up or prove to them you don't.

[WoodysGirl]

I don't think there is anything in here that is a "major shift." Speaking as someone who has been audited twice in the past 5 years, I can say there already pretty much is a burden of proof on the accused. When the IRS says "our computers say you owe us $100,000" you essentially have to pay up or prove to them you don't.That is so true.

I haven't been fully audited, but I have gotten one of those nastygrams which says, our computers show "...." and you need to pay "..."

I simply provided the necessary documentation and they sent a letter acknowledging it and that no further action would be taken.

It sure sucks when you get those letters, tho.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Such hatred and venom for the man...and drop the I don't hate the man routine when you have to make sure and call him POS.

[DIAF]

Completely misleading thread title.

[ninja]

When it comes to the IRS, it has always been guilty until proven innocent.

Who pays the congressmen, judges, court workers, IRS workers, etc? The government. Therefore, the government wins.

And it is a lot like math. Pretty easy to figure out who owes what. A flat tax would remove all doubt and ambiguity.

[Rogah]

That is so true.

I haven't been fully audited, but I have gotten one of those nastygrams which says, our computers show "...." and you need to pay "..."

I simply provided the necessary documentation and they sent a letter acknowledging it and that no further action would be taken.

It sure sucks when you get those letters, tho.That is pretty much what happened to me too, so when I say I was audited twice in the past 5 years it never got to the level of me and my lawyers sitting down with the IRS lawyers like you see in movies.

The first time I handled it completely by myself. I sold some stock at a loss so I didn't declare it as income. But the IRS saw I sold X dollars worth of stock and they had a zero cost basis so their computers thought I gained X dollars. Once I demonstrated my innocence, they actually sent me a refund because my stock losses were tax deductable.

But I have to admit I totally kissed *** in my letter. In my letter, I was like "This was completely my fault, I apologize for my error, I look forward to working with you to do everything I can to show I don't owe the money, please see my attached Revised Schedule B, feel free to contact me at any time, etc, etc." :D

[ConcordCowboy]

"Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts."

And what's the fricking problem with this?

And don't give me this weak crap..."It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts."

As others have said...that's the way it is NOW...at least for us little people.

Should have been done ages ago.

Oh...that's right he's a POS.

Carry on.

[burmafrd]

Innocent until proven guilty. Interesting how you apply that to terrorists and such but not corporations.

[WoodysGirl]

That is pretty much what happened to me too, so when I say I was audited twice in the past 5 years it never got to the level of me and my lawyers sitting down with the IRS lawyers like you see in movies.

The first time I handled it completely by myself. I sold some stock at a loss so I didn't declare it as income. But the IRS saw I sold X dollars worth of stock and they had a zero cost basis so their computers thought I gained X dollars. Once I demonstrated my innocence, they actually sent me a refund because my stock losses were tax deductable.

But I have to admit I totally kissed *** in my letter. In my letter, I was like "This was completely my fault, I apologize for my error, I look forward to working with you to do everything I can to show I don't owe the money, please see my attached Revised Schedule B, feel free to contact me at any time, etc, etc." :D
:laugh2: @ *** kissing.

I did the same thing! You almost have to.

Mine was due to some business interests with my Dad. He reports all the income on his taxes, but some of the funds showed up under my name.

I basically put it all on my dad, sent in all his tax returns for the past 5 years...and said, "See, it's not my fault!"

[DIAF]

Innocent until proven guilty. Interesting how you apply that to terrorists and such but not corporations.

It's never applied to corporations when it comes to taxes. Nor was it ever applied to individuals, as many have stated here. Now, you can go raise a stink about that seperately, but as it applies to the thread and the thread title, it's a complete load of crap.

[ConcordCowboy]

Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes

President’s two-part plan calls for hundreds of new federal tax agents


The president said he wants to prevent U.S. companies from deferring tax payments by keeping profits in foreign countries rather than recording them at home. He also called for more transparency in bank accounts held by Americans in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

"If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," Obama said.

The president, who hammered on this issue during his long election campaign, said at a White House event that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in a federal deficit expected to swell to $1.2 trillion in 2010.

Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. The goal is to reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries.

The current law, Obama said, "says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York. "

He said the government also is hiring nearly 800 new IRS agents to enforce the U.S. tax code.

Congress is expected to resist significant portions of Obama's plan.

Companies who shelter profits in international accounts stand to lose billions if Obama’s plan becomes law. Under the existing regulation, those companies pay taxes only if they bring the profits back to the U.S. If they keep the profits offshore, they can defer paying taxes indefinitely — and many do.

Obama’s plan wouldn’t go into effect until 2011; Obama has said he does not want to tinker with tax revenues until his $787 billion stimulus plan has run its course. The proposals, however, were far from complete, and aides said this was just one piece of the administration’s plan for sweeping overhaul.

Obama officials also said they would close a Clinton-era provision that would cost $87 billion over the next decade by letting U.S. companies “check the box” and treat international subsidiaries as mere branch offices. Officials said it was meant as a paperwork shortcut that is now a widely used and perfectly legal way to avoid paying billions in taxes on international operations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30557517/

[Rackat]

Aww, come on, POS is just POTUS shorthand. ;)

[JBond]

Such hatred and venom for the man...and drop the I don't hate the man routine when you have to make sure and call him POS.

Of course your Obama crush has you blinded to reality. This is a new tax increase. Dress it up any way you want, but it is a tax increase. If you don't think instituting new taxes on companies and individuals has a effect down the line, you are completely clueless. Obama is now enforcing his banking policies on other countries banks at an unprecidented level.

Now we all know we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. That includes the IRS. As testimonials on this board have shown, when there have been minor disputes they were easily correctable and actually made some people some money. Just the fact alone that you condone Obama wanting to change the rules of the court system to something from the Stalin era, shows how far left you really are.

Team Obama wants to change the system, the rules of the court, how judges interpret the rules, to a system that assumes you are guilty. That is not a good idea. I am not surprised you like it. The right wing gets accused of fascism and racism yet it is the left that is taking over banks and corporations. It is the left that is doing away with civil liberties and all you have is snarky little comments.

[ConcordCowboy]

Of course your Obama crush has you blinded to reality. This is a new tax increase. Dress it up any way you want, but it is a tax increase. If you don't think instituting new taxes on companies and individuals has a effect down the line, you are completely clueless. Obama is now enforcing his banking policies on other countries banks at an unprecidented level.

Now we all know we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. That includes the IRS. As testimonials on this board have shown, when there have been minor disputes they were easily correctable and actually made some people some money. Just the fact alone that you condone Obama wanting to change the rules of the court system to something from the Stalin era, shows how far left you really are.

Team Obama wants to change the system, the rules of the court, how judges interpret the rules, to a system that assumes you are guilty. That is not a good idea. I am not surprised you like it. The right wing gets accused of fascism and racism yet it is the left that is taking over banks and corporations. It is the left that is doing away with civil liberties and all you have is snarky little comments.


http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsC/3243-5871.gif...Your Rage has unbalanced you!

[TheCount]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/

Obama is demanding a major shift in the judicial system of our country. He is starting with taxes first and will progress to other areas of our society. The POS has nothing but tax cheats working for him, yet he wants to punish everyone that does not work for him under a completely separate set of rules.

from the article...

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.


POS? Seriously, man?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Of course your Obama crush has you blinded to reality. This is a new tax increase. Dress it up any way you want, but it is a tax increase. If you don't think instituting new taxes on companies and individuals has a effect down the line, you are completely clueless. Obama is now enforcing his banking policies on other countries banks at an unprecidented level.

Now we all know we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. That includes the IRS. As testimonials on this board have shown, when there have been minor disputes they were easily correctable and actually made some people some money. Just the fact alone that you condone Obama wanting to change the rules of the court system to something from the Stalin era, shows how far left you really are.

Team Obama wants to change the system, the rules of the court, how judges interpret the rules, to a system that assumes you are guilty. That is not a good idea. I am not surprised you like it. The right wing gets accused of fascism and racism yet it is the left that is taking over banks and corporations. It is the left that is doing away with civil liberties and all you have is snarky little comments.

I don't care about what you think about that. I just remember making a note of the hatred for the man and I had everyone saying they don't hate him, just his policies.

But calling the man a POS seems to indicate otherwise.

Hey you said it, don't get upset and change the topic when you get called out on it.

[JBond]

I don't care about what you think about that. I just remember making a note of the hatred for the man and I had everyone saying they don't hate him, just his policies.

But calling the man a POS seems to indicate otherwise.

Hey you said it, don't get upset and change the topic when you get called out on it.


He pissed me off over the weekend and has moved down several notches. I have to find some new banks to hide all my evil capitalist money in. That is a lot of work.

The topic is exactly what I said it was. You are choosing to ignore the topic tyring to make some useless point.

[BrAinPaiNt]

He pissed me off over the weekend and has moved down several notches. I have to find some new banks to hide all my evil capitalist money in. That is a lot of work.

The topic is exactly what I said it was. You are choosing to ignore the topic tyring to make some useless point.

Keep on Keeping on with the hate...it humors me.

[jimnabby]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/

Obama is demanding a major shift in the judicial system of our country. He is starting with taxes first and will progress to other areas of our society. The POS has nothing but tax cheats working for him, yet he wants to punish everyone that does not work for him under a completely separate set of rules.

from the article...

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

That last paragraph is not in the article you linked.

[DIAF]

He pissed me off over the weekend and has moved down several notches. I have to find some new banks to hide all my evil capitalist money in. That is a lot of work.

The topic is exactly what I said it was. You are choosing to ignore the topic tyring to make some useless point.

You mean the point that we all now have to PROVE our innocence in all criminal and non-criminal proceedings?

Can you really call it a point if it is an outright lie?

[Viper]

That is pretty much what happened to me too, so when I say I was audited twice in the past 5 years it never got to the level of me and my lawyers sitting down with the IRS lawyers like you see in movies.

The first time I handled it completely by myself. I sold some stock at a loss so I didn't declare it as income. But the IRS saw I sold X dollars worth of stock and they had a zero cost basis so their computers thought I gained X dollars. Once I demonstrated my innocence, they actually sent me a refund because my stock losses were tax deductable.

But I have to admit I totally kissed *** in my letter. In my letter, I was like "This was completely my fault, I apologize for my error, I look forward to working with you to do everything I can to show I don't owe the money, please see my attached Revised Schedule B, feel free to contact me at any time, etc, etc." :D

LOL... I have a brother that believed federal taxes were illegal. It was voluntary, he chose not to pay. Needless to say, he woke up one day with the IRS surrounding his home, guns at the ready!

His wife told him...Bill that is it, you had your fun. Fix this or it's over. He paid his taxes rather quickly.:D

[joseephuss]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/

Obama is demanding a major shift in the judicial system of our country. He is starting with taxes first and will progress to other areas of our society. The POS has nothing but tax cheats working for him, yet he wants to punish everyone that does not work for him under a completely separate set of rules.

from the article...

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

Did they change the article you linked? I can't find the part you say is "from the article..." in the article you linked? I figured that POS just censored what FOX News wrote.

[Hoofbite]

The article was changed.

I bet Obama had something to do with it. Get to the bottom of if JBond.

[gbrittain]

Keep on Keeping on with the hate...it humors me.

You had some hate for our former President: The turd deserves 80-90% of what he gets.

Your hate may humored him as well...

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Of course your Obama crush has you blinded to reality. This is a new tax increase. Dress it up any way you want, but it is a tax increase. If you don't think instituting new taxes on companies and individuals has a effect down the line, you are completely clueless. Obama is now enforcing his banking policies on other countries banks at an unprecidented level.

Now we all know we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. That includes the IRS. As testimonials on this board have shown, when there have been minor disputes they were easily correctable and actually made some people some money. Just the fact alone that you condone Obama wanting to change the rules of the court system to something from the Stalin era, shows how far left you really are.

Team Obama wants to change the system, the rules of the court, how judges interpret the rules, to a system that assumes you are guilty. That is not a good idea. I am not surprised you like it. The right wing gets accused of fascism and racism yet it is the left that is taking over banks and corporations. It is the left that is doing away with civil liberties and all you have is snarky little comments.

judging by the reaction of some on this board when someone is charged with any crime, seems to me most believe in the guilty until proven innocent line so how is this different?

[JBond]

That last paragraph is not in the article you linked.

Did they change the article you linked? I can't find the part you say is "from the article..." in the article you linked? I figured that POS just censored what FOX News wrote.

The article was changed.

I bet Obama had something to do with it. Get to the bottom of if JBond.


I don't know that the Barry had anything to do with it, but yes the story has been changed from when I posted it this morning.

[ShiningStar]

Obama Unveils Plan to Close Tax Loopholes

President Obama's plan would eliminate certain tax deductions for companies and consider U.S. citizens who use tax havens such as the Bahamas or Cayman Islands guilty of violating tax laws



President Obama announced Monday a plan to prevent U.S. companies using offshore banks to deferr tax payments, saying that the effort to "shelter" money creates an unfair advantage to U.S. companies and amounts to evasion.
The president also called for more transparency in bank accounts held by Americans in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.
"The way to make American businesses competitive is not to let some citizens and businesses dodge their responsibility, while ordinary Americans pick up the slack. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing," Obama said.
"If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," he continued.
Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. The goal is to reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries.
The current law, Obama said, "says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York. "
Obama said that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in the federal deficit, expected to be $1.2 trillion in 2010.
He said the government also is hiring nearly 800 new tax agents "to detect and pursue American tax evaders abroad."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement saying that changing the provisions would hurt job prospects.
"The United States is the only major industrialized country which double taxes the overseas earnings of our companies. Since other countries don't subject their companies to double taxation, U.S. companies need deferral to stay competitive in the global marketplace," said the chamber's chief economist Marty Regalia.
"When you limit deferral, you limit the ability of U.S. companies to compete, you impede growth in the U.S. economy, and you cause the loss of jobs -- both at the companies directly impacted and companies in their supply chains," he said.
Congress may resist significant portions of Obama's plan, saying it hurts U.S. business.
"I certainly support reforming the tax system and agree with the President that we must crack down on tax evasion through the use of tax shelters or abuse of offshore bank accounts. But as to the larger part of his proposal: I cannot endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., who supports the president's overall intention, said in a statement that more study is needed to see how American companies would be influenced by proposals that would modify companies' ability to defer tax on foreign earnings, foreign tax credits, classification of foreign businesses and offshore tax havens.
"I want to make certain that our tax policies are fair and support the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses. These policies must be designed to encourage economic growth and create good-paying jobs Americans need right now," he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ShiningStar]

Before i make personal judgement on this, because i have to see if it makes some of our businesses operate in the US but money goes elsewhere, and it could be bad for business. I just find it funny that this is what he wants to tackle and thinks the US will buy into it AFTER the people he appointed. Thats the comical part.

He wants to tell us how hes going to close loopholes, BUT he hasnt said squat about the people he appointed and TWO were so bad they dropped out just to hide their embarrassment. So we'll just sit back and see what this does for us, if anything and wait.

[Rogah]

judging by the reaction of some on this board when someone is charged with any crime, seems to me most believe in the guilty until proven innocent line so how is this different?In an American court of law, the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn't mean that an accused party can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs all day long during an investigation. IMHO, there is nothing unreasonable about requesting an individual accused of a crime to act in their own defense.

[ShiningStar]

In an American court of law, the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn't mean that an accused party can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs all day long during an investigation. IMHO, there is nothing unreasonable about requesting an individual accused of a crime to act in their own defense.


What do you define as in "act in their own defense" ? I am just curious.

[jimnabby]

In an American court of law, the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' part of that holds only for criminal trials.

In federal tax court, the burden of proof is actually on the taxpayer unless the taxpayer has met certain conditions through the process, in which case it shifts to the IRS. Before 1988, the burden of proof was apparently always on the taxpayer.

[jimnabby]

In an American court of law, the accused is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn't mean that an accused party can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs all day long during an investigation. IMHO, there is nothing unreasonable about requesting an individual accused of a crime to act in their own defense.

Actually, in criminal trials, it means exactly that the accused can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs. There is no obligation whatsoever for the accused to mount a defense. They have the opportunity to do so, but the onus is entirely and only on the prosecution to prove their case.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Actually, in criminal trials, it means exactly that the accused can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs. There is no obligation whatsoever for the accused to mount a defense. They have the opportunity to do so, but the onus is entirely and only on the prosecution to prove their case.

not just that, the fact the Defence does nothing cannot be held against the defendant in the prosecution.

[joseephuss]

Actually, in criminal trials, it means exactly that the accused can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs. There is no obligation whatsoever for the accused to mount a defense. They have the opportunity to do so, but the onus is entirely and only on the prosecution to prove their case.

That is the general principle, but in the literal sense the defense can't just sit there and do nothing. That would most likely lead to losing the case. You have to cross examine witnesses for example and other things that make sure to question the case of the prosecution.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That is the general principle, but in the literal sense the defense can't just sit there and do nothing. That would most likely lead to losing the case. You have to cross examine witnesses for example and other things that make sure to question the case of the prosecution.

I think he meant, put forward a case/theory. All you have to do is poke holes in the prosecution to win.

[Jarv]

Such hatred and venom for the man...and drop the I don't hate the man routine when you have to make sure and call him POS.

Yeah, it sounds just like Brain when he was talking about W...

Just stop it....:rolleyes:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yeah, it sounds just like Brain when he was talking about W...

Just stop it....:rolleyes:

Difference is I never denied my disgust for the man and tried to pawn it off as just his policies...big difference and the point I was making.

Bunch of dam dirty w defenders (said in heston damn dirty apes voice).:p: ;)

[Jarv]

Difference is I never denied my disgust for the man and tried to pawn it off as just his policies...big difference and the point I was making.

Bunch of dam dirty w defenders (said in heston damn dirty apes voice).:p: ;)

Wow, I didn't know you hated him outside of his polices ? Besides his policies, what else did you hate ? His accent ? His looks ? The fact he used to do drugs ?

[Rogah]

What do you define as in "act in their own defense" ? I am just curious.Tough to define, but I think answering legitimate questions posed by law enforcement authorities is a good start.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread about my own audit, I got a notice from the IRS saying their records said I owed them a lot of money. I didn't sit back and say "I am innocent until proven guilty so prove it, you SOB's..!!" I composed a letter in my own defense explaining my actions.

[Rogah]

Actually, in criminal trials, it means exactly that the accused can just sit back and twiddle their thumbs. There is no obligation whatsoever for the accused to mount a defense. They have the opportunity to do so, but the onus is entirely and only on the prosecution to prove their case.You are absolutely correct; there is no obligation to mount a defense. The accused and their cousel can indeed just sit there twiddling their thumbs in court.

Good luck winning any trials with that strategy. :rolleyes:

[ShiningStar]

You are absolutely correct; there is no obligation to mount a defense. The accused and their cousel can indeed just sit there twiddling their thumbs in court.

Good luck winning any trials with that strategy. :rolleyes:


I think the poster was saying for criminal trials, yes they can sit there and do nothing if the prosecution cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person is guilty.

remember this is criminal court, not the taxation that was being discussed.

I think this thread went separate ways.

[Rogah]

The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' part of that holds only for criminal trials.My usage of the term "accused" implies that I was talking about criminal courts of law, as that is how the term is most frequently used. :D
In federal tax court, the burden of proof is actually on the taxpayer unless the taxpayer has met certain conditions through the process, in which case it shifts to the IRS. Before 1988, the burden of proof was apparently always on the taxpayer.I can't really say what tax courts were like before 1988, but today such cases generally come down to the preponderance of evidence much like they would in a civil court of law. I wouldn't say someone has to prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt, but they do have to demonstrate their innocence to some degree.

But keep in mind that losing in a tax court doesn't mean they are going to lock you up and throw away the key. Criminal proceedings are a different matter.

[Rogah]

I think the poster was saying for criminal trials, yes they can sit there and do nothing if the prosecution cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the person is guilty.

remember this is criminal court, not the taxation that was being discussed.

I think this thread went separate ways.I agree 100% and gladly admit I certainly contributed to the confusion :D

[ShiningStar]

I agree 100% and gladly admit I certainly contributed to the confusion :D


same hear, just wanted to hear your points and views and not get confused and give meaningless thoughts to someone who was talking a different point.

Carry on and have a good day.

[iceberg]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/obama-crack-business-taxes/

Obama is demanding a major shift in the judicial system of our country. He is starting with taxes first and will progress to other areas of our society. The POS has nothing but tax cheats working for him, yet he wants to punish everyone that does not work for him under a completely separate set of rules.

from the article...

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

so do most of his appointees have their summons to court yet for tax evasion so he can start prosecuting this policy "in house"?

i have doubts on this one. when it smells like a desperation move, it usually is.

and i don't mean by obama. : )

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Tough to define, but I think answering legitimate questions posed by law enforcement authorities is a good start.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread about my own audit, I got a notice from the IRS saying their records said I owed them a lot of money. I didn't sit back and say "I am innocent until proven guilty so prove it, you SOB's..!!" I composed a letter in my own defense explaining my actions.

define legitimate question by law enforcement

[Rogah]

define legitimate question by law enforcementNo, I am not going to jump through hoops. You're just going to have to deduce on your own what a common sense definition of "legitimate question" is.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

No, I am not going to jump through hoops. You're just going to have to deduce on your own what a common sense definition of "legitimate question" is.

so in other words, your Miranda rights should be meaningless in your eyes?

[Rogah]

so in other words, your Miranda rights should be meaningless in your eyes?Please tell me you're being deliberately obtuse, and that isn't what you honestly deduced from my statements. Please tell me that.

And feel free, at any time now, to stop grossly misinterpreting my statements and then putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied.

[peplaw06]

I think what Canadian is getting at is that a question from a law enforcement official is always going to be aimed at getting evidence against the accused. You have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate yourself, so why do you require the innocent to answer a law enforcement official's questions?

[Rogah]

I think what Canadian is getting at is that a question from a law enforcement official is always going to be aimed at getting evidence against the accused. You have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate yourself, so why do you require the innocent to answer a law enforcement official's questions?Yes you have the right to remain absolutely 100% silent from the moment you are pulled over (for example) to the moment they put you behind bars. Like I said before, good luck defending yourself in a court of law with that strategy.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, anyone accused of a crime interested in staying out of jail is pretty much required to provide some sort of defense. That doesn't necessarily mean they will testify in their own defense (defendants often don't take the stand), but they certainly will take actions in their own defense.

[iceberg]

Please tell me you're being deliberately obtuse, and that isn't what you honestly deduced from my statements. Please tell me that.

And feel free, at any time now, to stop grossly misinterpreting my statements and then putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied.

lord dude...he'd never post again.

[Rogah]

lord dude...he'd never post again.:laugh2:

[MetalHead]

You had some hate for our former President:

Your hate may humored him as well...

How soon BP forgets....

[MetalHead]

Difference is I never denied my disgust for the man and tried to pawn it off as just his policies...big difference and the point I was making.

Bunch of dam dirty w defenders (said in heston damn dirty apes voice).:p: ;)

Barry will make you miss W.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

lord dude...he'd never post again.

pot meet kettle

Rogah, why would you want to talk to law enforcement who only want to convict you, they have no desire in clearing you.

In the end, if you don't have to disclose your defence until you are in court, why do it ahead of time? The state already has all the advantages in prosecutions, professional witnesses, resources to prosecute etc, Why give up the only advantage you have?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Barry will make you miss W.

I miss Ronny...I won't miss W, cheney, rove and Rummy.

Nice try though.:cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

How soon BP forgets....

People need to learn to read the thread.:o:

[Jarv]

People need to learn to read the thread.:o:

Hey Brain, did you read my post in this thread ?

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2762688&postcount=39

[MetalHead]

I miss Ronny...I won't miss W, cheney, rove and Rummy.

Nice try though.:cool:

Barely over 100 days...wait and see what Soetoro will bring about.

[iceberg]

pot meet kettle

Rogah, why would you want to talk to law enforcement who only want to convict you, they have no desire in clearing you.

In the end, if you don't have to disclose your defence until you are in court, why do it ahead of time? The state already has all the advantages in prosecutions, professional witnesses, resources to prosecute etc, Why give up the only advantage you have?

both of which are on sale at wal mart this week!

[ScipioCowboy]

both of which are on sale at wal mart this week!

There was also a sale on men's shirts. I purchased three. They're very stylish, in my opinion.;)

[Viper]

There was also a sale on men's shirts. I purchased three. They're very stylish, in my opinion.;)

http://www.plaidstallions.com/images/guyback.jpg

Ain't no holdin you back:eek:

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the President trying to close tax loop holes. I think people are being nieve in the fact that they just expect these business to go ahead and play along but it is what it is. If the President elects to do this, it will mean that companies will move more of the holdings overseas. If the goal here is to increase third world economic growth and developement, this will probably do it.

However, I believe that the existing tax loop hole being used is a legal financial tactic, used by most larger firms, as a regular corse of money management tools. I don't know that you can go back and try to retroactively impose penalty on these companies. What they were doing is not illegal, as I understand it. However, if the tax rules are changed and it becomes illegal, that of course is a different story, assuming the practice continues after the tax law changes.

[DIAF]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the President trying to close tax loop holes. I think people are being nieve in the fact that they just expect these business to go ahead and play along but it is what it is. If the President elects to do this, it will mean that companies will move more of the holdings overseas. If the goal here is to increase third world economic growth and developement, this will probably do it.



Unless the administration makes it worth their while to stay with some other sort of incentive, like a reduction in the corporate tax rate or some such.

[TheCount]

http://www.plaidstallions.com/images/guyback.jpg

Ain't no holdin you back:eek:

Wow, that is a glorious mustache.

[Rogah]

Wow, that is a glorious mustache.Yes, it is very impressive. The guy's one is too.

[ScipioCowboy]

http://www.plaidstallions.com/images/guyback.jpg

Ain't no holdin you back:eek:

Wow! Now that's a shirt!

How can I go about purchasing such elegance and refinement?:D

[ShiningStar]

Wow! Now that's a shirt!

How can I go about purchasing such elegance and refinement?:D


Takes a very secure man to wear a shirt like that in public. :)