6 ms·

>One version of the letter recently uploaded to the IRS website asks recipients who believe they have followed the law to sign a statement... Just a word of ad

>One version of the letter recently uploaded to the IRS website asks recipients who believe they have followed the law to sign a statement... Just a word of advice to anyone who may be receiving letters like this in the future. Do not, under any circumstances, sign a statement that you have followed the law without consulting with qualified counsel first. You should know that every time you sign off on something to the federal government, if it turns out not to be true, they got you on a count of Lying to the Federal Government. (Yes, each signature is a separate count. At least that's the way our lawyers explained it to us when advising us on FDA approval for our product.) So you can easily rack up years behind bars in this situation right? There's the original forms in you return. How many times did you sign papers there? Then there's this statement that they want you to sign. That's another potential count. What's worse, you may have made an honest mistake, and you really do believe that you are in compliance. So you go ahead and sign such a statement. Only you weren't in compliance. Now what? I hate to say this, but just don't. Don't sign it. Get everything looked over by the experts first. Maybe they can even negotiate with the IRS on your behalf if you have made a mistake. But you don't want to be in the position of having signed something like that with honest mistakes potentially out there in your documentation.

anonymous5133 7y ago
Exactly. It falls in line with similar to "don't talk to the police". Just keep quiet. This applies to everything when dealing with any government agency. The government is not your friend.
- jfk13 7y ago
  I'm guessing you're American. It saddens me that so many of you over there seem to have this view of your own government and institutions. Anecdote time. Having been stopped by police in the States four times (that I can recall offhand) over the years -- with a legitimate justification in each case -- my experience has been that courtesy and cooperation have served me well. On a couple of occasions when I could quite reasonably have been ticketed and fined, I have instead been sent on my way with a friendly warning to be more careful. I strongly suspect taking a strict "don't talk to the police" line would have cost me quite a bit more stress, time, and money.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    It depends if you look like someone powerful and wealthy enough to fight back against abusive overreach, or not.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    As a general rule, if your sole interaction with the police is traffic enforcement (and it helps if you are white), then being courteous and honest is generally the most successful strategy. Anecdotally, aside from a few newsworthy examples, almost every traffic situation that escalates into a significant confrontation got that way because of unnecessary belligerence. When "never talk to police" comes into play is when they are doing a criminal investigation. And even then, when to pull out the fifth amendment card depends on individual circumstances. It can definitely escalate an otherwise innocuous situation if you overuse it. Also, try to remember that what makes the news is newsworthy for a reason.
- stevespang 7y ago
  EXACTLY
- halter73 7y ago
  People say stuff to police that's later used against them in court all the time, so I agree keeping quiet is generally good advice. You should still use your common sense though. I have a friend who took this advice way too literally when we were 18. I was in the car when he got pulled over for speeding once, and he refused to say a single word to the officer. He handed over his license, registration and proof of insurance, but wouldn't answer any questions. The cop asked how him how fast he thought he was going, and my friend didn't even tell the cop that he wouldn't answer his questions. It was just the straight silent treatment. The cop was clearly getting agitated. I was begging my friend just to answer the questions, even if just say he didn't remember or something, but he refused. Fortunately, his grandma is in the backseat and really saved the day by apologizing for her idiot grandson. My friend wound up only getting a warning thanks to his grandma, but no doubt we would have gotten a big ticket at the minimum if he kept the silent treatment up. Another time, we both got busted for launching bottle rockets in a public park a couple weeks after the 4th of July. There were several witnesses including the people that called the cops, but once again my friend did the exact same silent treatment to the cops. I sang like a bird about my own actions while being careful not to say that my friend had also launched rockets. Fortunately the questions were directed at both of us, and we weren't asked specifically who all was involved before my friend felt guilty that I was taking all the blame and started talking to the cops himself. Good thing because in Ohio launching bottle rockets is an M-1 misdemeanor carrying up to a six month prison sentence. The cops could have been jerks, but instead they recommended that the prosecutor drop charges after we did some community service. Had my friend stuck with the silent treatment, I fully believe we would have been punished more severely. Again I urge common sense. Every situation is different. Had it been someone else or somewhere else or a slightly different situation, being quiet could have been the right decision. This could be an example of white privilege, but so far in my life, I've never regretted just being honest with the cops.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    > [..] I fully believe [..] > [..] I urge common sense [..] That's the problem with your post. You fully believe [..] and you urge common sensen. You fully believe, but you don't know for sure what would've happened in your alternative reality. We miss a lot of details as well. For example, are you POC? What about your friend? White privilege is still real in 2019 (and I say that as someone who's whiter than white). I fully believe I got away with things in my youth someone who's POC would not have gone away with. Not just cops specific, but also community specific, neighbor specific, etc. The point being, what might be common sense to you or me might not be common sense to any random person. Here's a famous video [1] of a lawyer and former cop who suggest you never talk to the police. ACLU also has videos online with examples of how you may incriminate yourself even whilst you're fully innocent. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
criley2 7y ago
Another word of advice: The standards of the FDA and the IRS are very different, and the FDA is used to corporations acting maliciously while limiting liability for those involved. The IRS on the other hand with these kinds of notices is not out to get you, and I don't believe I've ever heard of someone being charged with perjury for signing an IRS document that wasn't true (and they genuinely thought it was true), especially from the perspective of a small time residential investor who is making an effort to be compliant with tax law. I think a more sane proposition is this, if you only have a few thousand USD in crypto, you probably don't need to hire a tax lawyer or tax accountant (or both) to review your documents and compliance. But if you're at 5 figures or above (10k USD+) then spending hundreds of dollars, up to a thousand or more, just to retain a lawyer and/or accountant could be a smart move for you to ensure that everything has been handled appropriately. And it's not "hire a lawyer to review this one document", it's hire a lawyer and/or accountant to review your compliance with all tax laws and investment laws federal and local, and it's something you should do regardless of receiving a letter like this. If you have a lot of money in crypto and have never spoken with a lawyer or accountant about it, you should probably consider doing that sooner rather than later. Even if you do "lie" to the IRS, and they think you have, they aren't going to have you charged for lying and put you in jail, they're just going audit you or determine you owe them money without you admitting it, then send you a bill and enforce that bill over time through wage garnishment, account levy, tax lien, etc. They would much rather tell you that you have debt and garnish your wages than lock you up. Generally they save the courts for extremely egregious and offensive cases of intentional tax evasion (like people who use the 861 argument)
- briandear 7y ago
  > The IRS on the other hand with these kinds of notices is not out to get you. Citation needed. The IRS can be among the most vicious of any federal agency. Having dealt with FATCA situations with overseas Americans, Treasury is, in my experience, nobody’s friend.
  - joosters 7y ago
    > Citation needed. I don't believe I've ever heard of someone being charged with perjury for signing an IRS document that wasn't true You could look for some perjury charges if you disbelieve.
caseysoftware 7y ago
This is why "lying to investigators" is such a bs charge. It's incredibly easy to do what you think is the right thing but still "lie" because you didn't know/understand all the facts, implications, and details. Always, always, always, get qualified legal/accounting counsel involved. No, your uncle the family law attorney is not qualified.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Never, ever talk to the authorities directly. Always hire an attorney. Exercise your fifth amendment rights.
  - iso-8859-1 7y ago
    This is so overkill. What if I am just moving and reporting my new address? What if I am 20 years old and never had any income?
    - SilasX 7y ago
      People parrot that line to sound edgy and virtuous, not because they've thought through the implications.
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        The implication is that you avoid self implication. So you're telling me, if you are ever wrongfully arrested or detained, you are going to be dimwitted enough to talk freely to the cops like they're your good buddies? Because it sounds like you are just that dimwitted and naive.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      This is a situation where the probability that you unintentionally violate a serious law is high, the probably of that law actually being enforced against you is low, but the consequences if it is are extremely bad. From an expected value perspective the result has a negative sign but a small magnitude, so you avoid it whenever you can but not if doing so comes at a significant cost. But low probability events with large negative consequences are the category of thing that worries people a lot; other instances in this category are things like plane crashes, child abductions, forcible rape and terrorism. It's not strictly rational to be as afraid of them as many people are. However, in this case there's also the consideration that the probability of the law being selectively enforced against you has a lot to do with whether the government doesn't like you, so if you're the sort of person the government (or some plausible future government) might try to stick something to, then the "low probability of enforcement" side of the equation changes and you're in entirely different territory. And we also generally, as a pro-social activity in solidarity with those populations, might want to err on the side of encouraging everyone to behave in a way similar to what those vulnerable populations would have to, to normalize it and make that sort of selective prosecution more difficult. At least as long as we continue to have these disproportionate penalties for what are in practice honest mistakes and everyday behavior.
benburleson 7y ago
The wording is a bit slippery. I believe that one could get into big trouble for truly not knowing they were not in compliance, but the fact that is says "who believe," to me, means, "as far as I am aware, this is true." There are a lot of undeclared assumptions in that statement, and all of those are at the cost of the person signing that statement. Alternatively, we see politicians walking back false statements or changing stance daily because the thing they said previously was what they believed based on the facts present at the time -- and they are never held to account.
- JackFr 7y ago
  Former investment banker and President of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner in his confirmation testimony to become Secretary of the Treasury [credibly, I would say] maintained that he had misunderstood the code and mistakenly underpaid his taxes by $34,000. If he can't understand the tax code, how can we. At the end of the day, the IRS just wants their money. On the other hand, IANAL, but a tax lawyer once said to me the only thing you go to jail for is hiding money. You can claim weird deductions, invent new depreciation schemes, misapply rules and all the IRS will do is say "No" and stick you with a bill. But if you're hiding income, it really upsets them.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The standard of law for civilians is much higher than for people in government, sadly.

anonymous5133 7y ago

Exactly. It falls in line with similar to "don't talk to the police". Just keep quiet. This applies to everything when dealing with any government agency. The government is not your friend.

jfk13 7y ago
I'm guessing you're American. It saddens me that so many of you over there seem to have this view of your own government and institutions. Anecdote time. Having been stopped by police in the States four times (that I can recall offhand) over the years -- with a legitimate justification in each case -- my experience has been that courtesy and cooperation have served me well. On a couple of occasions when I could quite reasonably have been ticketed and fined, I have instead been sent on my way with a friendly warning to be more careful. I strongly suspect taking a strict "don't talk to the police" line would have cost me quite a bit more stress, time, and money.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It depends if you look like someone powerful and wealthy enough to fight back against abusive overreach, or not.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  As a general rule, if your sole interaction with the police is traffic enforcement (and it helps if you are white), then being courteous and honest is generally the most successful strategy. Anecdotally, aside from a few newsworthy examples, almost every traffic situation that escalates into a significant confrontation got that way because of unnecessary belligerence. When "never talk to police" comes into play is when they are doing a criminal investigation. And even then, when to pull out the fifth amendment card depends on individual circumstances. It can definitely escalate an otherwise innocuous situation if you overuse it. Also, try to remember that what makes the news is newsworthy for a reason.
stevespang 7y ago
EXACTLY
halter73 7y ago
People say stuff to police that's later used against them in court all the time, so I agree keeping quiet is generally good advice. You should still use your common sense though. I have a friend who took this advice way too literally when we were 18. I was in the car when he got pulled over for speeding once, and he refused to say a single word to the officer. He handed over his license, registration and proof of insurance, but wouldn't answer any questions. The cop asked how him how fast he thought he was going, and my friend didn't even tell the cop that he wouldn't answer his questions. It was just the straight silent treatment. The cop was clearly getting agitated. I was begging my friend just to answer the questions, even if just say he didn't remember or something, but he refused. Fortunately, his grandma is in the backseat and really saved the day by apologizing for her idiot grandson. My friend wound up only getting a warning thanks to his grandma, but no doubt we would have gotten a big ticket at the minimum if he kept the silent treatment up. Another time, we both got busted for launching bottle rockets in a public park a couple weeks after the 4th of July. There were several witnesses including the people that called the cops, but once again my friend did the exact same silent treatment to the cops. I sang like a bird about my own actions while being careful not to say that my friend had also launched rockets. Fortunately the questions were directed at both of us, and we weren't asked specifically who all was involved before my friend felt guilty that I was taking all the blame and started talking to the cops himself. Good thing because in Ohio launching bottle rockets is an M-1 misdemeanor carrying up to a six month prison sentence. The cops could have been jerks, but instead they recommended that the prosecutor drop charges after we did some community service. Had my friend stuck with the silent treatment, I fully believe we would have been punished more severely. Again I urge common sense. Every situation is different. Had it been someone else or somewhere else or a slightly different situation, being quiet could have been the right decision. This could be an example of white privilege, but so far in my life, I've never regretted just being honest with the cops.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > [..] I fully believe [..] > [..] I urge common sense [..] That's the problem with your post. You fully believe [..] and you urge common sensen. You fully believe, but you don't know for sure what would've happened in your alternative reality. We miss a lot of details as well. For example, are you POC? What about your friend? White privilege is still real in 2019 (and I say that as someone who's whiter than white). I fully believe I got away with things in my youth someone who's POC would not have gone away with. Not just cops specific, but also community specific, neighbor specific, etc. The point being, what might be common sense to you or me might not be common sense to any random person. Here's a famous video [1] of a lawyer and former cop who suggest you never talk to the police. ACLU also has videos online with examples of how you may incriminate yourself even whilst you're fully innocent. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

criley2 7y ago

Another word of advice: The standards of the FDA and the IRS are very different, and the FDA is used to corporations acting maliciously while limiting liability for those involved. The IRS on the other hand with these kinds of notices is not out to get you, and I don't believe I've ever heard of someone being charged with perjury for signing an IRS document that wasn't true (and they genuinely thought it was true), especially from the perspective of a small time residential investor who is making an effort to be compliant with tax law. I think a more sane proposition is this, if you only have a few thousand USD in crypto, you probably don't need to hire a tax lawyer or tax accountant (or both) to review your documents and compliance. But if you're at 5 figures or above (10k USD+) then spending hundreds of dollars, up to a thousand or more, just to retain a lawyer and/or accountant could be a smart move for you to ensure that everything has been handled appropriately. And it's not "hire a lawyer to review this one document", it's hire a lawyer and/or accountant to review your compliance with all tax laws and investment laws federal and local, and it's something you should do regardless of receiving a letter like this. If you have a lot of money in crypto and have never spoken with a lawyer or accountant about it, you should probably consider doing that sooner rather than later. Even if you do "lie" to the IRS, and they think you have, they aren't going to have you charged for lying and put you in jail, they're just going audit you or determine you owe them money without you admitting it, then send you a bill and enforce that bill over time through wage garnishment, account levy, tax lien, etc. They would much rather tell you that you have debt and garnish your wages than lock you up. Generally they save the courts for extremely egregious and offensive cases of intentional tax evasion (like people who use the 861 argument)

briandear 7y ago
> The IRS on the other hand with these kinds of notices is not out to get you. Citation needed. The IRS can be among the most vicious of any federal agency. Having dealt with FATCA situations with overseas Americans, Treasury is, in my experience, nobody’s friend.
- joosters 7y ago
  > Citation needed. I don't believe I've ever heard of someone being charged with perjury for signing an IRS document that wasn't true You could look for some perjury charges if you disbelieve.

caseysoftware 7y ago

This is why "lying to investigators" is such a bs charge. It's incredibly easy to do what you think is the right thing but still "lie" because you didn't know/understand all the facts, implications, and details. Always, always, always, get qualified legal/accounting counsel involved. No, your uncle the family law attorney is not qualified.

codesushi42 7y ago
Never, ever talk to the authorities directly. Always hire an attorney. Exercise your fifth amendment rights.
- iso-8859-1 7y ago
  This is so overkill. What if I am just moving and reporting my new address? What if I am 20 years old and never had any income?
  - SilasX 7y ago
    People parrot that line to sound edgy and virtuous, not because they've thought through the implications.
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      The implication is that you avoid self implication. So you're telling me, if you are ever wrongfully arrested or detained, you are going to be dimwitted enough to talk freely to the cops like they're your good buddies? Because it sounds like you are just that dimwitted and naive.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    This is a situation where the probability that you unintentionally violate a serious law is high, the probably of that law actually being enforced against you is low, but the consequences if it is are extremely bad. From an expected value perspective the result has a negative sign but a small magnitude, so you avoid it whenever you can but not if doing so comes at a significant cost. But low probability events with large negative consequences are the category of thing that worries people a lot; other instances in this category are things like plane crashes, child abductions, forcible rape and terrorism. It's not strictly rational to be as afraid of them as many people are. However, in this case there's also the consideration that the probability of the law being selectively enforced against you has a lot to do with whether the government doesn't like you, so if you're the sort of person the government (or some plausible future government) might try to stick something to, then the "low probability of enforcement" side of the equation changes and you're in entirely different territory. And we also generally, as a pro-social activity in solidarity with those populations, might want to err on the side of encouraging everyone to behave in a way similar to what those vulnerable populations would have to, to normalize it and make that sort of selective prosecution more difficult. At least as long as we continue to have these disproportionate penalties for what are in practice honest mistakes and everyday behavior.

benburleson 7y ago

The wording is a bit slippery. I believe that one could get into big trouble for truly not knowing they were not in compliance, but the fact that is says "who believe," to me, means, "as far as I am aware, this is true." There are a lot of undeclared assumptions in that statement, and all of those are at the cost of the person signing that statement. Alternatively, we see politicians walking back false statements or changing stance daily because the thing they said previously was what they believed based on the facts present at the time -- and they are never held to account.

JackFr 7y ago
Former investment banker and President of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner in his confirmation testimony to become Secretary of the Treasury [credibly, I would say] maintained that he had misunderstood the code and mistakenly underpaid his taxes by $34,000. If he can't understand the tax code, how can we. At the end of the day, the IRS just wants their money. On the other hand, IANAL, but a tax lawyer once said to me the only thing you go to jail for is hiding money. You can claim weird deductions, invent new depreciation schemes, misapply rules and all the IRS will do is say "No" and stick you with a bill. But if you're hiding income, it really upsets them.
lonelappde 7y ago
The standard of law for civilians is much higher than for people in government, sadly.