Paul L. Caron

Saturday, November 4, 2006

Prosecutor: No Deal in Wesley Snipes Tax Fraud Case

SnipesToday's Tampa Tribune reports that the prosecutor in the Wesley Snipes tax fraud case says that no deal has been struck to settle the actor's $12 million tax dispute with the IRS, despite press reports earlier this week announcing such a deal (blogged here):

Reports that Wesley Snipes has settled his criminal tax case are untrue, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The entertainment business publication Variety published a story online Wednesday citing movie industry sources detailing a settlement that would allow Snipes to avoid jail and continue filming movies. The story has been picked up by UPI and number of news outlets and Internet sites. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill, who is prosecuting Snipes and two co-defendants, unequivocally denied the report. "That's not true," he said. "We have no idea where that came from."

(Hat tip:  Steve Odem.)

Celebrity Tax Lore | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prosecutor: No Deal in Wesley Snipes Tax Fraud Case:

» Snipes Didn't Make a Deal??? from Taxable Talk
There's a possible new entrant into the Bozo Taxpayer's Hall of Fame: Wesley Snipes. The Tampa Tribune reported that Snipes does not have a deal. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill told the Tribune, "We have no idea where tha... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2006 3:45:58 PM

» NOT SO FAST, WESLEY from Roth & Company, P.C.
The "deal" Wesley Snipes was reported to have reached with prosecutors to avoid jail time may have as much to... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2006 5:22:55 AM


I have been looking in what gave the IRS the right to do what they do. people keep saying that the 16th Amendment was not ratified.
It's not necessary to go a route it only makes the arguement harder.If people were to look into the amendments the answer is right there.
If wesley snipes trully have lawyers
that nkow the law then he should only be liable for work he did aboard and I am sure it is alot less than 12 million dollars. poeple are being charge for fraud and its the government that are the ones commiting the fraud by allowing the IRS to function the way they do.

Posted by: Clive Sherwood | Jan 26, 2008 3:16:30 PM

There is a common condition in any case that must be met before you can bring a case against anyone. You must have clean hands. In Contract law if you hinder or prevent a person from performing an act that he is suppose to perform the performance is forgiven. Before we can get to all the fraud alleged to be comitted by the citizens of this country, the government must first come into court with clean hands which I can personally prove they can not do.

The Fourteenth amendment grants each and every citizen equal protection under the law. Because I developed a lawful patent product that keeps my daughter from dying, I was kidnapped an held in Federal Prisons all over this country for 22 months. For the first 14 months I was not even arraigned. I was later charged with threatening the court with the rath of God. When I sued in Federal District Court in Washington DC, and the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Alabama Charles Butler, admitted in Federal District Court that he committed several Felonies and I was harmed by his action. He admitted that he had no protection against those crimes. He was represented by the US Attorney Beverley Russell and two other us attorneys from the US Attorneys office in Washington DC when he admitted this. Others also admitted to several felonies in that civil complaint. After they admitted to all of this the trial judge dismissed the case. They did not pay me one penny.

Again on May 30 of 2006 after being tied up in tax court for two years where the government claimed amoung other things that I had failed to report 1,536,000 that I had earned in 2001-2002. At trial they failed to show even one fact that supported any reason for being in court. They produced absolutely nothing that showed I had the money they claimed they found. The Iorney was that during the trial the government admitted to amoung other things of robbing me of more than 550 million dollars in 1997-1998 years. They did not ever claim I did nothing wrong at trial. The chief lawyer for the IRS and his boss even failed to make a closing statement at the end of the trial. Yet the judge has refused to enter an order in my favor. They have not paid me one penny.

So where do they get off talking about Snipes and the alleged 12 million? They have proved to me that they have no character. They will lie all the way to the trial and in the trial. I have no knowledge as to whether Snipes would owe the money or not. Because they are such lyers there is no way to tell if he really ows anything at all. In my case they said in the court that they never did the things I said they did. When I placed the documents in the court record of them comitting the crimes I said they comitted they had nothing to say. When the government is lying, robbing, stealing framing, kidnapping, murdering etc us, ( all of this I have prove beyound dispute) where do they get the ritht or the balls to bring these cases into a court in the first place?

Posted by: Curtis Lockett | Jan 2, 2007 8:37:44 PM

Most every "tax protester" misses the point, that the taxing ability and right of the IRS [Treasury] is a mere matter of CONTACT LAW that you have already agreed to! Read the very very fine print of your personal bank account [demand, savings, et al] wherein you agree to abide by all rules, regulations, statues issued or to be issued by the US Treasury, Comptroller of Currency, et al . . . it's an Adhesion Contract! This contract basis is purposely "hidden" from the general public by the governmen, the judiciary, those entities in bed with them such as national banks and/or members of the FRS, obfuscating as best they can, NOT calling any attention to what YOU have agreed to!

Saying that, one can rescind any and all contracts via an opt out notarized notice, official copies of which you send to all those applicable entities/persons in contract with you such as your bank and broker, but you will not be able to have a credit card, bank account, brokerage account, receive social security, Medicare or Medicaid, or any other federal government direct-to-you social benefits. Though of course you could open financial accounts with non-USA entities not subject to USA rules, regulations or contract law if you choose.

Posted by: Harry P. | Dec 9, 2006 5:15:01 PM

I bet dollars to donuts that the guys who sold him the tax shelter have filed tax returns and paid taxes and did not use their own tax shelter. IRS privacy rules keep important facts like this out of the public arena.

Posted by: Jeff4CPA | Nov 12, 2006 2:44:29 PM

they are NOT a Govt. agency

Posted by: rb | Nov 7, 2006 12:27:16 PM

Since the IRS is operating as a government
agency why is it on an important form like the 1040 they don't have a valid OMB control number?
This brings into question are they a government agency? Or are they acting like one and duping us all.

Posted by: BustCheney | Nov 7, 2006 9:43:02 AM

Bravo Prospector, you hit the nail on the head.
Since the IRS is operating as a government
agency why is it they do not have a valid OMB control number on form 1040? I would think that this would be simple enough to do. They are a government agency right? I mean a real one right? Any one know for sure?

Posted by: BustCheney | Nov 7, 2006 9:22:20 AM

How do I go about and get this information? Also how can I fight them on the wage tax and possible wage garnishments. Thanks,

Tax Scare.

Posted by: Tax scare | Nov 7, 2006 7:18:02 AM

What Mr. Snipes needs is a lawyer with ball who will file a simple notice to the IRS, and they will drop the charges as they have in the past. The PRA (Paper Reduction Act) makes it illegal to use or even file a 1040.

Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding.

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number. (The IRS dismissed the case "with prejuduce", and can never charge him again.

Posted by: Prospector | Nov 6, 2006 8:50:07 PM

There's no law that requires you to file and there's no law that requires you to pay a dime. If there were such laws, they would have surfaced in the Vernice Kuglin trial. It's voluntary.

Posted by: JB Campbell | Nov 6, 2006 5:01:38 PM

A while back a very good friend wrote to the IRS and asked what LAW required an individual to file a form 1040. They never responded. Prominent former agents bluntly state that no such law exists. Think about it for a second, any such law would violate the 5th Ammendment, by requiring a citizen to divulge information that could be used against themself.

Posted by: Thebes | Nov 6, 2006 4:24:40 PM

Hey, no problem. Just show us the law that authorizes a direct non-apportioned tax on wages and salaries, then back it up by proving that the 16th amendment was actually ratified.

Posted by: David Miller | Nov 6, 2006 3:22:52 PM