4 ms·

There is a more concrete reason. The IRS actively defends people who have tax documents used against them in court, because if those documents can be used again

by R0b0t1 6y ago

There is a more concrete reason. The IRS actively defends people who have tax documents used against them in court, because if those documents can be used against them in court you can no longer be compelled to report income, any income, under the fifth amendment. But how do you reconcile this with parallel construction? Your divulsion of a stream of income may cause suspicion regardless of its legality and even if it is not directly used as evidence. In many cases you have no obligation to help the government with its job, so frankly it seems like income reporting in general may violate the fifth simply because there is no adequate check on police power.

Spivak 6y ago
So what goes wrong with the obvious solution? Treat your tax documents are like a confessional, tax and financial documents found by police are inadmissible in any criminal proceedings (civil is fine), and police aren't allowed to get someone's tax documents from IRS.
- masklinn 6y ago
  > Treat your tax documents are like a confessional, tax and financial documents found by police are inadmissible in any criminal proceedings (civil is fine), and police aren't allowed to get someone's tax documents from IRS. While the second is perfectly fine, the first makes no sense. The confession is your report to the IRS. What you keep around is your problem and would be fair game, in the same way that the sacramental seal only applies the scope of the sacrament: if you confess, then say what you confessed within the priest's ear outside of confession the sacramental seal is void, to say nothing of writing it in your diary or shouting it from the rooftop.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
    It’s an interesting end-run around the fifth amendment. What if we passed a law that all criminals are required to keep a logbook of their crimes? Police can’t compel production of the logbook, but it can be used as evidence if found during a lawful search. Any crimes in the logbook will be prosecuted, as will the provable omission of any crimes.
    - masklinn 6y ago
      > It’s an interesting end-run around the fifth amendment. It isn't though. The fifth does not cover the production of incriminating documents (under a subpoena), to say nothing of the document being acquired through other means, except in the case where the production of the document is in and of itself (independent of the contents of the document) incriminating (the "Act of Production" Doctrine). > What if we passed a law that all criminals are required to keep a logbook of their crimes? That would be a breach of the fifth as it would legally require self-incrimination. And the only use would be additional charges: if you can't prove the initial crime you can't prove that there was a need for a logbook. So even beyond the fifth I don't think it would stand.
      - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
        If it’s illegal to require authoring of this logbook, why is it legal to require authoring tax returns that contain records of illegal activity?
ethbr0 6y ago
One could argue that it's the transmission of this information that constitutes the paradox. I.e. if the IRS held certain records as confidential, even from law enforcement, no paradox would exist.
35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
A very concrete example, from the federal level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 > Shortly after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act went into effect on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing. Baca and Caldwell's arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax. > In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself Some states still have drug tax stamp laws enacted today.
- joecool1029 6y ago
  >> In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself >Some states still have drug tax stamp laws enacted today. I was reading about this last night, not knowing about Leary vs. United States. The modern state tax stamp laws seem to get around the court's ruling/interpretation by allowing for the anonymous purchase of the stamps. Before the ruling and the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act required dealers to register and implied their own self-incrimination.
  - chiph 6y ago
    The North Carolina Unauthorized Substance Tax Stamp [0] is one such. I met someone who worked for the Department of Revenue, and to his knowledge, the state has never sold a single one to an actual possessor of an unauthorized substance. Just to philatelists. > If I purchase stamps will I then be in legal possession of the drugs? > No, purchasing stamps only fulfills your civil unauthorized substance tax obligation. You will still be in violation of the criminal statues of North Carolina for possessing the drugs. [0] https://www.ncdor.gov/taxes/unauthorized-substances-tax-information/about-unauthorized-substances-tax https://www.ncdor.gov/taxes/unauthorized-substances-tax-info...
    - 6y ago
fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
I think the right answer is that the courts should come down hard on parallel construction. It’s perjury and obstruction of justice. No pension for you, agent.

by R0b0t1 6y ago

Spivak 6y ago

So what goes wrong with the obvious solution? Treat your tax documents are like a confessional, tax and financial documents found by police are inadmissible in any criminal proceedings (civil is fine), and police aren't allowed to get someone's tax documents from IRS.

masklinn 6y ago
> Treat your tax documents are like a confessional, tax and financial documents found by police are inadmissible in any criminal proceedings (civil is fine), and police aren't allowed to get someone's tax documents from IRS. While the second is perfectly fine, the first makes no sense. The confession is your report to the IRS. What you keep around is your problem and would be fair game, in the same way that the sacramental seal only applies the scope of the sacrament: if you confess, then say what you confessed within the priest's ear outside of confession the sacramental seal is void, to say nothing of writing it in your diary or shouting it from the rooftop.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  It’s an interesting end-run around the fifth amendment. What if we passed a law that all criminals are required to keep a logbook of their crimes? Police can’t compel production of the logbook, but it can be used as evidence if found during a lawful search. Any crimes in the logbook will be prosecuted, as will the provable omission of any crimes.
  - masklinn 6y ago
    > It’s an interesting end-run around the fifth amendment. It isn't though. The fifth does not cover the production of incriminating documents (under a subpoena), to say nothing of the document being acquired through other means, except in the case where the production of the document is in and of itself (independent of the contents of the document) incriminating (the "Act of Production" Doctrine). > What if we passed a law that all criminals are required to keep a logbook of their crimes? That would be a breach of the fifth as it would legally require self-incrimination. And the only use would be additional charges: if you can't prove the initial crime you can't prove that there was a need for a logbook. So even beyond the fifth I don't think it would stand.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
      If it’s illegal to require authoring of this logbook, why is it legal to require authoring tax returns that contain records of illegal activity?

ethbr0 6y ago

One could argue that it's the transmission of this information that constitutes the paradox. I.e. if the IRS held certain records as confidential, even from law enforcement, no paradox would exist.

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago

A very concrete example, from the federal level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 > Shortly after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act went into effect on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing. Baca and Caldwell's arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax. > In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself Some states still have drug tax stamp laws enacted today.

joecool1029 6y ago
>> In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself >Some states still have drug tax stamp laws enacted today. I was reading about this last night, not knowing about Leary vs. United States. The modern state tax stamp laws seem to get around the court's ruling/interpretation by allowing for the anonymous purchase of the stamps. Before the ruling and the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act required dealers to register and implied their own self-incrimination.
- chiph 6y ago
  The North Carolina Unauthorized Substance Tax Stamp [0] is one such. I met someone who worked for the Department of Revenue, and to his knowledge, the state has never sold a single one to an actual possessor of an unauthorized substance. Just to philatelists. > If I purchase stamps will I then be in legal possession of the drugs? > No, purchasing stamps only fulfills your civil unauthorized substance tax obligation. You will still be in violation of the criminal statues of North Carolina for possessing the drugs. [0] https://www.ncdor.gov/taxes/unauthorized-substances-tax-information/about-unauthorized-substances-tax https://www.ncdor.gov/taxes/unauthorized-substances-tax-info...
  - 6y ago

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago

I think the right answer is that the courts should come down hard on parallel construction. It’s perjury and obstruction of justice. No pension for you, agent.