http:\/\/www.ustream.tv\/recorded\/5786794<\/p>\n
This is valid in theory, but it almost never works in practice.<\/p>\n
The general rule is that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance is<\/em> an excuse in prosecutions for tax crimes. The statutes defining the criminal penalties for violating the tax laws all use the word \u00e2\u20ac\u0153willful\u00e2\u20ac\u009d or \u00e2\u20ac\u0153willfully\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to describe the crime. So, for example, I.R.C. section 7203, which is titled \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d applies penalties to anyone who \u00e2\u20ac\u0153willfully\u00e2\u20ac\u009d fails to file a required return or pay a required tax. In United States v. Murdock<\/em>, 290 U.S. 389 (1933), the Supreme Court held that the word \u00e2\u20ac\u0153willfully\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in tax statutes requires proof of a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bad purpose,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d stating that:<\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n United States v. Murdock<\/em>, 290 U.S. 389, 396 (1933).<\/p>\n In later decisions, the Supreme Court defined \u00e2\u20ac\u0153willfulness\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d United States v. Bishop<\/em>, 412 U.S. 346<\/a>, 360 (1973); United States v. Pomponio<\/em>, 429 U.S. 10<\/a>, 12 (1976).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This attorney teaches how you can never be charged with failing to file\/comply. http:\/\/www.ustream.tv\/recorded\/5786794 I cannot be prosecuted for failing to file a tax return if I have a good faith belief that the tax laws do not apply to … Continue reading