10 ms·

> Evasion is a different thing than non-payment. No act that occurred in the past that was not evasion when it occurred becomes evasion as a result of this chan

> Evasion is a different thing than non-payment. No act that occurred in the past that was not evasion when it occurred becomes evasion as a result of this change in application. Incorrect, but I can see how you might think so. It is the same because if I disagree with the IRS and refuse payment then according to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tax_evasion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tax_evasion, I have committed tax evasion. So yes, since the IRS can adjust my tax burden retroactively, tax evasion is involved. Suppose in 2012 I filed my tax returns and was fully honest. The IRS agreed, but now in 2015 they change the 'interpretation', and if I disagree with the new tax they are levying on me, presto chango! I can now be convicted of tax evasion for refusing to pay this arbitrary retroactive tax.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> It is the same because if I disagree with the IRS and refuse payment Nonpayment and refusing payment are different things. The act of refusal would happen after the policy change, therefore, the only act that might even arguably be criminalized is an act that would occur after the change, and no retroactive criminalization has occurred. No act before the policy was adopted is criminalized, even by your characterization. Now, if the actual law allows arbitrary changes to tax calculation by the IRS, you could argue a nondelegation doctrine violation, rather than an ex post facto violation. But to argue that, you'd actually have to point to the provision of law at issue. Or you could argue that the policy change is inconsistent with the law Congress has adopted. But, again, you'd have to actually point to the specific provisions that are violated to do that. If, finally, the IRS simply failed to correctly apply the law as Congress wrote it previously, and the change in guidance is simply closing a gap between IRS policy and the law written by Congress, then you can maybe fault what the IRS was doing before (though, of course, no taxpayer would challenge an overly lax application of the law -- or even have standing to do so), but not what they are doing now.
- tanderson92 11y ago
  Or I could ignore what are obviously semantics following a clear retroactive change in US policy that affects criminal law. It doesn't have to be as complex as you make it out to be. The NYT even called it a retroactive policy change!
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Or I could ignore what are obviously semantics following a clear retroactive change in US policy that affects criminal law. You can ignore whatever you want, but it doesn't change what the words in the Constitution meant in the context they were written, and have been consistently been interpreted by the courts to mean. Arguing that something is unconstitutional just because you've invented an entirely ahistorical set of definitions of the words used is, well, not all that unusual, but still not particularly interesting. > It doesn't have to be as complex as you make it out to be. Its not at all complex: A government action is an ex post facto law if it criminalizes, or increases the criminal sanction for, an event that occurred before the act occurred. Even by your own characterization, the only thing this might criminalize is a refusal to pay the newly-calculated tax after the policy. So, no ex post facto law. You can argue that it is undesirable for other reasons, but you can rest on the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws to do that when its not an ex post facto law. > The NYT even called it a retroactive policy change! Its obviously a retroactive policy change, in that it applies to IRS assessment of taxes for prior tax years. No act that was committed in those tax years becomes criminal because of the policy change, so its not an action which retroactively criminalizes an act or increases the criminal penalty for an act. "Retroactive policy change" and "ex post facto law" aren't the same thing.
charlesdm 11y ago
And then you go to court and ask a judge, who is (in general) a neutral party, to interpret the law based on the situation and ask what the correct course of action was. I guess people have different definitions of evasion, but I would probably define it as having the intent to evade taxes "from the start". As a citizen (or a corporation), you are free to decide on your own interpretation of the law. Tax authorities (around the globe) aren't always right. Hence you ask a judge, because an interpretation is just that: an interpretation. It's not the law. And the law is the only thing that counts.
- tanderson92 11y ago
  > I would probably define it as... The legal standard for proving tax evasion disagrees with you.
  - charlesdm 11y ago
    Well, then you just need to make sure your interpretation of the law is more correct than the one of the administration. :-) Innocent until proven guilty?
gohrt 11y ago
> I can now be convicted of tax evasion for refusing to pay Yes, for refusing to pay. If you concede to the IRS interpretation, you just pay the amount you owe plus interest and fees. > this arbitrary retroactive tax. that's not what it is

dragonwriter 11y ago

> It is the same because if I disagree with the IRS and refuse payment Nonpayment and refusing payment are different things. The act of refusal would happen after the policy change, therefore, the only act that might even arguably be criminalized is an act that would occur after the change, and no retroactive criminalization has occurred. No act before the policy was adopted is criminalized, even by your characterization. Now, if the actual law allows arbitrary changes to tax calculation by the IRS, you could argue a nondelegation doctrine violation, rather than an ex post facto violation. But to argue that, you'd actually have to point to the provision of law at issue. Or you could argue that the policy change is inconsistent with the law Congress has adopted. But, again, you'd have to actually point to the specific provisions that are violated to do that. If, finally, the IRS simply failed to correctly apply the law as Congress wrote it previously, and the change in guidance is simply closing a gap between IRS policy and the law written by Congress, then you can maybe fault what the IRS was doing before (though, of course, no taxpayer would challenge an overly lax application of the law -- or even have standing to do so), but not what they are doing now.

tanderson92 11y ago
Or I could ignore what are obviously semantics following a clear retroactive change in US policy that affects criminal law. It doesn't have to be as complex as you make it out to be. The NYT even called it a retroactive policy change!
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Or I could ignore what are obviously semantics following a clear retroactive change in US policy that affects criminal law. You can ignore whatever you want, but it doesn't change what the words in the Constitution meant in the context they were written, and have been consistently been interpreted by the courts to mean. Arguing that something is unconstitutional just because you've invented an entirely ahistorical set of definitions of the words used is, well, not all that unusual, but still not particularly interesting. > It doesn't have to be as complex as you make it out to be. Its not at all complex: A government action is an ex post facto law if it criminalizes, or increases the criminal sanction for, an event that occurred before the act occurred. Even by your own characterization, the only thing this might criminalize is a refusal to pay the newly-calculated tax after the policy. So, no ex post facto law. You can argue that it is undesirable for other reasons, but you can rest on the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws to do that when its not an ex post facto law. > The NYT even called it a retroactive policy change! Its obviously a retroactive policy change, in that it applies to IRS assessment of taxes for prior tax years. No act that was committed in those tax years becomes criminal because of the policy change, so its not an action which retroactively criminalizes an act or increases the criminal penalty for an act. "Retroactive policy change" and "ex post facto law" aren't the same thing.

charlesdm 11y ago

And then you go to court and ask a judge, who is (in general) a neutral party, to interpret the law based on the situation and ask what the correct course of action was. I guess people have different definitions of evasion, but I would probably define it as having the intent to evade taxes "from the start". As a citizen (or a corporation), you are free to decide on your own interpretation of the law. Tax authorities (around the globe) aren't always right. Hence you ask a judge, because an interpretation is just that: an interpretation. It's not the law. And the law is the only thing that counts.

tanderson92 11y ago
> I would probably define it as... The legal standard for proving tax evasion disagrees with you.
- charlesdm 11y ago
  Well, then you just need to make sure your interpretation of the law is more correct than the one of the administration. :-) Innocent until proven guilty?

gohrt 11y ago

> I can now be convicted of tax evasion for refusing to pay Yes, for refusing to pay. If you concede to the IRS interpretation, you just pay the amount you owe plus interest and fees. > this arbitrary retroactive tax. that's not what it is