4 ms·

"Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. If the government says you owe money, the burden is on you to prove t

"Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. If the government says you owe money, the burden is on you to prove that you do not.

randyrand 7y ago
Traffic law is the same. If the government accuses you of j-walking or speeding, you need to go to court to prove your innocence otherwise they assume you're guilty. I've heard that civil forfeiture is the same way. These are all unfortunate.
- Erik816 7y ago
  That is false. The government still has the burden of proof, although in some states it is quite low (preponderance of the evidence). That you need to appear in court does not mean you have the burden to prove your innocence.
  - anthonybullard 7y ago
    In many places in California you have to first pay the fine too contest the fine. Upon your contest being successful you'll eventually get your money back. This may take 9 months. Fronting the court $200 for 9 months might not hurt a software engineer, but for some people that might mean not paying rent. And asset forfeiture is more insidious. The case is made against the forfeited property, not it's owner. Hopefully the ruling in Timbs v Indiana will help reign that in.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> "Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. No, it's not the one domain. “Innocent until proven guilty” applies only in criminal law (neither “innocent” nor “guilty” even applies outside of the domain of criminal law, much less that maxim about the relation between them.)
- YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
  Indeed. There's much more symmetry outside of the criminal law. Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money. This may make sense if you deny the claim and are wealthy (i.e. you could pay up) and want to speed up clearing the air. Otherwise the claimant can wait a few years and use the court approved interest rate (high) to hit you over the head a few years down the line.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money. In the US this would be a suit for declaratort judgement in which formally you asked the court to declare you did not owe money, but functionally it seems generally similar.
deelowe 7y ago
Are you referring to civil or criminal law? Innocent until proven guilty is only relevant for criminal and in those cases the burden of proof is definitely on the state.

"Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. If the government says you owe money, the burden is on you to prove that you do not.

randyrand 7y ago

Traffic law is the same. If the government accuses you of j-walking or speeding, you need to go to court to prove your innocence otherwise they assume you're guilty. I've heard that civil forfeiture is the same way. These are all unfortunate.

Erik816 7y ago
That is false. The government still has the burden of proof, although in some states it is quite low (preponderance of the evidence). That you need to appear in court does not mean you have the burden to prove your innocence.
- anthonybullard 7y ago
  In many places in California you have to first pay the fine too contest the fine. Upon your contest being successful you'll eventually get your money back. This may take 9 months. Fronting the court $200 for 9 months might not hurt a software engineer, but for some people that might mean not paying rent. And asset forfeiture is more insidious. The case is made against the forfeited property, not it's owner. Hopefully the ruling in Timbs v Indiana will help reign that in.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> "Fun" fact: tax law is the one domain where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. No, it's not the one domain. “Innocent until proven guilty” applies only in criminal law (neither “innocent” nor “guilty” even applies outside of the domain of criminal law, much less that maxim about the relation between them.)

YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
Indeed. There's much more symmetry outside of the criminal law. Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money. This may make sense if you deny the claim and are wealthy (i.e. you could pay up) and want to speed up clearing the air. Otherwise the claimant can wait a few years and use the court approved interest rate (high) to hit you over the head a few years down the line.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Not sure if applicable to the US, but in my home country you can sue people if you want money from them (as one would expect), but you can also sue "to determine whether a payment is needed", which means you initiate a lawsuit that can result in you paying the money. In the US this would be a suit for declaratort judgement in which formally you asked the court to declare you did not owe money, but functionally it seems generally similar.

deelowe 7y ago

Are you referring to civil or criminal law? Innocent until proven guilty is only relevant for criminal and in those cases the burden of proof is definitely on the state.