From: Robin Powell <rpowell@algorithmics.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 05:42:26 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Burden of proof
In-Reply-To: <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <96Aug15.132311edt.20486@janus.algorithmics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>>>> In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay@got.net (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: tcmay@got.net's message of Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:19:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Burden of proof
Reply-To: rpowell@algorithmics.com
X-Spook: Panama Nazi Treasury explosion terrorist SDI Semtex strategic smuggle 
References: <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>

>>>>> In article <ae37e59e070210042a4f@[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay@got.net (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