From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:24:32 +0800
To: rpowell@algorithmics.com
Subject: implausible defenses & tax havens
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960816060630.006dc138@mail.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:15 PM 8/15/96 -0400, Robin Powell wrote:

>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!!

This scenario is more or less the same as being paid in paper cash and then
hiding the paper cash. That's not an especially sophisticated tax evasion
tactic. 

If you were on a jury, and you heard a defendant testify that they worked at
a job site (either as an employee or a contractor) for years without ever
being paid, and that they managed to maintain a lifestyle consistent with
full-time work without ever receiving taxable income (whether as wages or
dividends or interest or ..), and that the HR/personnel/AP people who
testified that the defendant had been paid were mistaken or lying .. would
you believe that testimony?

Winning in court takes a lot more than making up a conceivable but
incredibly implausible chain of events to explain away incriminating
circumstances. (* OJ and other cases of nullification notwithstanding. But
precious few people have the $ to pay for the kind of defense work needed to
get that sort of result.) The notion of "burden of proof" is important, and
defense lawyers can jawbone about it for hours - but the bottom line is that
the "I don't know anything about getting any money" defense is bullshit. If
the jurors can't imagine themselves or their kids or their friends doing
what you're claiming you did (working without being paid and with no
expectation of being paid), you lose. 
--
Greg Broiles                |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of
gbroiles@netbox.com         |an in-court demonstration by the People
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt
                            |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.