Home Page link  

what is definition of intent to evade tax

  
Groups | Search | About
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Taxes General Forum - Tax professionals meeting place and answers to queries. (Moderated)

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
what is definition of intent to evade tax removeps-groups@yahoo.com 06-23-2008
Posted by removeps-groups@yahoo.com on June 23, 2008, 6:40 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 The statute of limitations for the IRS to begin proceedings is 3 years
in general, and 6 years if income understated by more than 25%, and
forever if filing a false/fraudulent return with the intent to evade
tax. Is there a definition of "intent to evade tax"? Say my income
is 100k and I forget to report 1k (say on a foreign account, or
incorrectly figuring the cost basis of a stock). How does the IRS
determine if there was an intent to evade tax or if you really just
forgot?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Alan on June 23, 2008, 7:37 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 removeps-groups@yahoo.com wrote:
> The statute of limitations for the IRS to begin proceedings is 3 years
> in general, and 6 years if income understated by more than 25%, and
> forever if filing a false/fraudulent return with the intent to evade
> tax. Is there a definition of "intent to evade tax"? Say my income
> is 100k and I forget to report 1k (say on a foreign account, or
> incorrectly figuring the cost basis of a stock). How does the IRS
> determine if there was an intent to evade tax or if you really just
> forgot?
>
I keep the following quote from an appeals court ruling in my
index file:

To establish the crime of federal tax evasion as charged in the
indictment the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant willfully attempted to evade or defeat a tax due
the government. This involves the specific intent to evade the
tax, and some willful commission, affirmative action or omission
by defendant in furtherance of that intent.

The key word in the above is "willful." This means that the acts
of the accused were intentional and/or deliberate. The
government is allowed to infer such willfulness from the actual
conduct of the accused or acts performed or not performed by the
accused or from any other conduct which could mislead or conceal.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Bill Brown on June 23, 2008, 11:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> I keep the following quote from an appeals court ruling in my
> index file:
>
> To establish the crime of federal tax evasion as charged in the
> indictment the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

The burden for imposing civil fraud penalties is "a preponderance of
evidence," not the much more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by removeps-groups@yahoo.com on June 24, 2008, 3:25 pm
Please log in for more thread options

> The burden for imposing civil fraud penalties is "a preponderance of
> evidence," not the much more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So there has to be a "a preponderance of evidence" that the fraud was
"willful". What might be valid examples of this? Surely there must
be some statutes or other rules to keep the government from extending
their reach, because every omission of income could be construed as
willful. How would one respond to the IRS in writing or in court to
explain that it was not willful?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Mike Wellman on June 24, 2008, 4:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Jun 24, 2:25�pm, "removeps-gro...@yahoo.com" <removeps-
gro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The burden for imposing civil fraud penalties is "a preponderance of
> > evidence," not the much more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."
>
> So there has to be a "a preponderance of evidence" that the fraud was
> "willful". �What might be valid examples of this? �Surely there must
> be some statutes or other rules to keep the government from extending
> their reach, because every omission of income could be construed as
> willful. �How would one respond to the IRS in writing or in court to
> explain that it was not willful?
>

Typically, the IRS will not try to make the case unless there are
three years of such omission. Thye consider once an accident, twice
kind of iffy and three times fraud.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Similar ThreadsPosted
Definition of 59 1/2 September 18, 2008, 8:04 pm
Definition of Student January 24, 2007, 1:56 am
Blindness definition March 20, 2008, 1:43 am
Support vs. gift definition December 13, 2006, 10:57 pm
Re: Support vs. gift definition December 16, 2006, 8:58 pm
Ad Valorem Tax: What is the definition of a "House"? January 28, 2007, 5:54 pm
Definition of NJ Gross Receipts February 10, 2008, 2:45 pm
1040 NR and definition of "US taxable income" September 2, 2008, 6:42 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap