[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Couple can argue tax stance A Plainfield couple facing federal tax evasion charges should be free to explain their unconventional legal views in front of the jury, the judge ruled yesterday before the second day of trial testimony began. Assistant U.S. attorney Bill Morse had argued that Elaine and Ed Brown, who are representing themselves in the case, could confuse the jury by repeating baseless assertions about tax law, and tried to persuade the judge to instruct the couple not to mention their theories. But Judge Steven McAuliffe said that showing the jury that they truly misunderstood the law could be the Browns' best chance at an acquittal. McAuliffe summarized his understanding of the Browns' strategy as: " 'My irrational, peculiar, weird reading of law may be all of that, but I, in good faith, believe it.' That could be a defense," he said. The Browns have been accused of conspiring to evade federal income taxes by funneling nearly $2 million in profits from Elaine Brown's Lebanon dental practice into a trust and refusing to pay taxes on the income. They are also accused of conspiring to conceal large financial transactions and concealing large financial transactions, and Elaine Brown has been charged with failing to withhold payroll taxes from the practice's employees. If convicted on all the charges, each Brown faces decades in prison sentences. The Browns have argued in interviews, court filings and their opening statements Tuesday that they do not believe any law compels them to pay federal income taxes. They stopped paying taxes in 1996, they said, and began sending interrogatory letters to the IRS, demanding an explanation of the tax laws and an opportunity to have their questions answered. When they didn't receive any, the Browns contend, they assumed that they'd caught on to a little-known truth. u3; "Are you aware, sir, that my wife and I have been trying to have a meeting for years with the IRS?" Ed Brown asked one witness, hitting a theme he echoed throughout his cross-examinations yesterday. In order to win convictions, the government must prove that the Browns evaded taxes "willfully," which means they understood they were breaking the law. Despite the judge's ruling for the Browns, testimony yesterday cast some doubt on their contention that no one had ever tried to explain the tax law to them. Several former bookkeepers and government agents described repeated communications with the Browns about their tax obligations and the laws governing trusts. In one case, an IRS employee testified, the Browns refused to accept a certified letter that would have offered them a sit-down meeting with IRS officials, an opportunity that Ed Brown said later was all he had wanted. Yesterday's witnesses included two IRS collections officers, an IRS investigator, a state tax auditor, an official from the state department of employment security and two tax preparers who once worked for the Browns. The state attempted to examine the Lebanon tax collector, but the judge ruled that her testimony was irrelevant to the case. Walter Freeman, a tax auditor at the state Department of Revenue Administration, described a series of hostile letters and phone calls he received from Ed Brown after he wrote to Elaine Brown to tell her that she needed to pay taxes on her business's profits. "He informed me that he considered New Hampshire RSAs (statutes) as having no standing and he was not compelled to obey the laws," Freeman said, describing one phone conversation in April 2000. Brown also told him, Freeman said, that his Plainfield home was located on a federal enclave and therefore outside of state jurisdiction. Freeman read aloud from a letter Brown sent him, printed on the letterhead of the UnAmerican Activities Investigations Commission, one of several anti-government groups that Brown has led over the years. The letter indicated that the group believed the state had engaged in an "escalating trend" of rights violations. "(The commission) maintains a low profile," the letter said. "But that is about to change." In cross-examination of the witnesses, the Browns repeated many of the same questions again and again. Elaine Brown often asked witnesses whether they knew the definition of a taxpayer under the internal revenue code - most said no - and Ed Brown, who flipped through bookmarked copies of the revenue code at the defense table, repeatedly asked witnesses to offer legal definitions of terms like "person," "individual" and "income." At one point, Ed Brown expressed frustration that none of the IRS officials were able to answer basic questions about tax law. "So far, the IRS doesn't seem to know too much of anything," he said. Most of the IRS witnesses responded that they were expert only in the areas of law related to their job, record searches or tax collection, and were not familiar with the entirety of the tax code. But a witness called late in the day described the information that the Browns could have received if they had called or dropped into a free information center in the state. Jay Stewart, a tax resolution representative for the IRS, said that his office is open seven hours a day to answer taxpayer questions about the law and how it applies to them. He even produced a tri-fold brochure, titled "Why do I have to pay taxes?" that described how the IRS defined income, explained who had to pay federal taxes, and said that forming trusts could not insulate individuals from tax liability. Though the Browns have declined to hire attorneys, despite repeated pleas from the judge, they do have a number of advisers helping them with their legal strategy, Ed Brown said Tuesday. Yesterday, several of the nine friends who attended the trial in their support counseled the Browns in what questions to ask and what objections to raise. On one occasion, a spectator passed Ed Brown a note while a witness was testifying. According to Morse, the government is expecting to wrap up its case tomorrow.
Poster Comment: Was listening to Lone Lantern on RBN broadcast. A whole lot of disconnect in the broadcast. Brown stated that he requested via mail to the IRS the law that required that he pay income tax; he stated that he got no response specific to his inquiry for all those years. The judge is the widower of the astronaut Christa McAuliffe who died on the 1986 Shuttle Mission. I didn't get why Brown sued Judge McAuliffe, but Brown claimes that this prosecution is due to that suit. Brown was pro se and stated that evidence that he wanted to present was not allowed (claim that this is backlash for prior suit against the judge). His wife's dental practice has been effectively destroyed. Not enough info to decide anything about this, in my opinion.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: rack42 (#0)
2 million dollars in funneled money. If they were talking like a couple of grand, they'd have my sympathy, but as far as I'm concerned, if you've got 2 million dollars laying around that you didn't pay taxes on, you're just begging for the IRS to come make an example out of you. The IRS would be better served going after big corporations who never paid a dime of taxes for the last 50 years than to go after the citizenry, because THAT is where the real money is. Unfortunately the IRS doesn't have the manpower to fight the legal battles that ensue with overzealous, and well financed lawyers. It because far to costly. Which is why they go after people like these two.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||