From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 09:18:42 +0800
To: ichudov@algebra.com
Subject: Re: implausible defenses & tax havens
In-Reply-To: <199608160913.EAA18988@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960816171200.25274J-100000@larry.infi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Suppose that a computer consultant Mr. X knows cryptography so well 
> that his clients are willing to pay him $100/hr. Mr. X could conspire
> with his client that he receives only $40/hr in taxable income, and the
> rest he gets in form of digital cash.
> 
> If X lives sufficiently modestly, the IRS will be having hard times

    The paying company has a tax return of it's own, which will be used 
to show how much was paid (actually or constructively) to Mr X.

The IRS doesn't usually get it's indictments from circumstantial 
evidence. It gets them from the pissed off underlings who see Joe Cool 
Mr X getting away with shit they can't.

How many secretaries, payroll clerks, human-relations staffers, etc, will 
be seeing the chain of paperwork that is generated by the "arrangement"?  
They know how normal payroll is handled. Some tiny percentage of these 
sheep are alert enough to put two and two together.... and it's all 
downhill from there.

Let us recall how the (apparent) (alleged) UNabomber was identified....