3 ms·

1. In the US, the supreme court has repeatedly held that the ex-post-facto clause only applies to criminal laws (See Calder v. Bull, which was decided in 1798).

1. In the US, the supreme court has repeatedly held that the ex-post-facto clause only applies to criminal laws (See Calder v. Bull, which was decided in 1798). This is actually consistent with the history of the clause (It was understood to apply to criminal laws. Motions were made to change the wording to say it also applied to civil cases, they were turned down) 2. This is not a law, and may not even be administrative rulemaking (depending on what exactly they issued) Of course, even if it was, you have a mechanism to challenge it if they hold you to it: the courts.

ISL 11y ago
If the IRS doesn't think I've paid my taxes, I can go to prison. Doesn't that make this particular case a criminal one?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If the IRS doesn't think I've paid my taxes, I can go to prison. No, if the IRS doesn't think you've paid your taxes, they can attempt to collect the unpaid taxes. OTOH, if the Department of Justice can prove in a criminal prosecution that you've violated the criminal provisions of the tax law, you can go to prison. If the IRS thinks you've done that (which is different from just not paying your taxes), they can refer you to the DoJ for prosecution. This change to IRS guidance doesn't change the criminal provisions of the tax law that would apply were the government to prosecute you, therefore, the change is not a change to criminal law, retroactive or otherwise.
- bd_at_rivenhill 11y ago
  Fortunately, tax law has been made so complex that the Supreme Court eventually decided that ignorance is a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States So you may end up with penalties and interest, but you have a high probability of avoiding prison absent doing something stupid like trading emails with your broker on how you plan to evade taxes.
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's only a criminal matter if the IRS thinks you broke the law deliberately. If it's the result of crappy record keeping or something you didn't understand they'll usually tack on some penalties and interest and call it a day. I know a guy who didn't even file for five or six years. Eventually he got a lawyer and made a deal which had him paying some fraction of his original tax liability. They'll put you in jail if you make them, but they don't really want to put you in jail. They just want your money. Oh, this guy? After getting his sweet deal he didn't actually pay them. I think he may end up in jail.
a3camero 11y ago
I wouldn't be so quick to buy into the modern idea that this prohibition was always aimed at criminal laws. Excerpted from a paper I wrote in law school on the topic (sources at end of post): Newly independent Americans in the late 1700s were very concerned with “this shameful abuse of power”, “those engines of oppression”, ex post facto laws. American businessmen were concerned with the macroeconomic effects and unfairness of interference with contracts by provincial/state legislatures. One of the shameful abuses was the “paper money laws” that changed outstanding debts by permitting payment in paper money where the contract originally called for the use of gold or silver. There was widespread fear of the drying up of credit (in the context of an ongoing major depression at the time) as a result of concern that loans might not be paid back due to legislative intervention. The dictionary of reference in 1739, Giles Jacob’s Law Dictionary, defined “ex post facto” as “a Term used in the Law, signifying some Thing done after another Thing that was committed before”. Check out these sources: William Winslow Crosskey, “The True Meaning of the Constitutional Prohibition of Ex-Post-Facto Laws” (1947) 14 U Chicago L Rev 539 Roger W Weiss, “The Issue of Paper Money in the American Colonies, 1720-1774” (1970) 30 J of Economic History 770 Elmer E Smead, “The Rule Against Retroactive Legislation: A Basic Principle of Jurisprudence” (1935) 20 Minn L Rev 775 Harold J Krent, “The Puzzling Boundary Between Criminal and Civil Retroactive Lawmaking” (1996) 84 Georgia L J 2143 W David Slawson, “Constitutional and Legislative Considerations in Retroactive Lawmaking” (48) California L Rev 216

ISL 11y ago

If the IRS doesn't think I've paid my taxes, I can go to prison. Doesn't that make this particular case a criminal one?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> If the IRS doesn't think I've paid my taxes, I can go to prison. No, if the IRS doesn't think you've paid your taxes, they can attempt to collect the unpaid taxes. OTOH, if the Department of Justice can prove in a criminal prosecution that you've violated the criminal provisions of the tax law, you can go to prison. If the IRS thinks you've done that (which is different from just not paying your taxes), they can refer you to the DoJ for prosecution. This change to IRS guidance doesn't change the criminal provisions of the tax law that would apply were the government to prosecute you, therefore, the change is not a change to criminal law, retroactive or otherwise.
bd_at_rivenhill 11y ago
Fortunately, tax law has been made so complex that the Supreme Court eventually decided that ignorance is a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States So you may end up with penalties and interest, but you have a high probability of avoiding prison absent doing something stupid like trading emails with your broker on how you plan to evade taxes.
tsotha 11y ago
It's only a criminal matter if the IRS thinks you broke the law deliberately. If it's the result of crappy record keeping or something you didn't understand they'll usually tack on some penalties and interest and call it a day. I know a guy who didn't even file for five or six years. Eventually he got a lawyer and made a deal which had him paying some fraction of his original tax liability. They'll put you in jail if you make them, but they don't really want to put you in jail. They just want your money. Oh, this guy? After getting his sweet deal he didn't actually pay them. I think he may end up in jail.

a3camero 11y ago

I wouldn't be so quick to buy into the modern idea that this prohibition was always aimed at criminal laws. Excerpted from a paper I wrote in law school on the topic (sources at end of post): Newly independent Americans in the late 1700s were very concerned with “this shameful abuse of power”, “those engines of oppression”, ex post facto laws. American businessmen were concerned with the macroeconomic effects and unfairness of interference with contracts by provincial/state legislatures. One of the shameful abuses was the “paper money laws” that changed outstanding debts by permitting payment in paper money where the contract originally called for the use of gold or silver. There was widespread fear of the drying up of credit (in the context of an ongoing major depression at the time) as a result of concern that loans might not be paid back due to legislative intervention. The dictionary of reference in 1739, Giles Jacob’s Law Dictionary, defined “ex post facto” as “a Term used in the Law, signifying some Thing done after another Thing that was committed before”. Check out these sources: William Winslow Crosskey, “The True Meaning of the Constitutional Prohibition of Ex-Post-Facto Laws” (1947) 14 U Chicago L Rev 539 Roger W Weiss, “The Issue of Paper Money in the American Colonies, 1720-1774” (1970) 30 J of Economic History 770 Elmer E Smead, “The Rule Against Retroactive Legislation: A Basic Principle of Jurisprudence” (1935) 20 Minn L Rev 775 Harold J Krent, “The Puzzling Boundary Between Criminal and Civil Retroactive Lawmaking” (1996) 84 Georgia L J 2143 W David Slawson, “Constitutional and Legislative Considerations in Retroactive Lawmaking” (48) California L Rev 216