Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Money & Services > Taxes   »   Canadian beats tax evasion charge, jury agreed

 
Question Tools Search this Question Display Modes
Question
 
 
#1  
Old Jun 28, 2006, 07:19 AM
mr.yet's Avatar
mr.yet
Bankruptcy & Debt Expert
mr.yet is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: republic of maryland
Posts: 1,619
mr.yet See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.mr.yet See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Canadian beats tax evasion charge, jury agreed

Jury says tax protest not tax evasion
Last Updated Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:54:04 EDT
CBC News
Jack Klundert of Windsor, Ont., has won a court case in which he was charged with refusing to pay about $350,000 in taxes.

Klundert, who says he doesn't believe the federal government has the constitutional right to collect income tax, was found not guilty of tax evasion.

Klundert accumulated a $350,000 tax bill between 1993 and 1998. When it came time to file his taxes he wrote "zero income" on his tax forms, when he in fact he earned about $1.5 million.

Klundert argued that disclosing his earnings to the government would be like "sitting down with thieves" and telling them where his valuables were.

Klundert said his actions did not constitute tax evasion, but were instead an honest protest.

His lawyer said the jury apparently agreed there was no criminal intent.

Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 07:29 AM   #2  
Jesushelper76
Relationship Expert
Jesushelper76 is offline
 
Jesushelper76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CANADA
Posts: 4,491
Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Jesushelper76 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Very interesting.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 07:32 AM   #3  
ScottGem
Computer Expert
ScottGem is offline
 
ScottGem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LI, NY - USA
Posts: 22,612
ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Pay to call ScottGem for advice ($.75/min)
Call ScottGem via Skype™
But was he required to pay the $350K?
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 07:37 AM   #4  
NeedKarma
Ultra Member
NeedKarma is offline
 
NeedKarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,860
NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Must be more to this or else it sets an interesting precedent.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 07:49 AM   #5  
ScottGem
Computer Expert
ScottGem is offline
 
ScottGem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LI, NY - USA
Posts: 22,612
ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Pay to call ScottGem for advice ($.75/min)
Call ScottGem via Skype™
I think I remember a similar case in the US. The jury declined to file criminal charges, but the person was required to pay up.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 08:14 AM   #6  
RickJ
Administrator
RickJ is offline
 
RickJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cave 4, Qumran
Posts: 6,928
RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
But was he required to pay the $350K?

I'll bet that by "won" they are simply saying he was not convicted of a crime. I say the guy lucked out. 10-1 says he has to pay it anyway.

...which leaves me wondering: What's the point of the article at all? Surely this guy's not the first person to be found not guilty in a case like that.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 10:45 AM   #7  
dcx
New Member
dcx is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
dcx See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
He was charged with tax evasion....he commited tax avoidance....there is a difference in the wording I guess!!.that`s what the case was about....talk about splitting hairs...
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 28, 2006, 12:21 PM   #8  
orange
Ultra Member
orange is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,365
orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Wow I wish that could happen to me!!

There must be more to the story, though. I've known of several people who tried to avoid paying their taxes and they faced stiff penalties.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 29, 2006, 02:06 PM   #9  
AtlantaTaxExpert
Tax Expert
AtlantaTaxExpert is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 9,787
AtlantaTaxExpert See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.AtlantaTaxExpert See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.AtlantaTaxExpert See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
This guy got off for tax evasion, and OJ Simpson got acquited for murder. Any arguments as to whether OJ was guilty or not??

I thought not.

This case is DEFINITELY the exception to the rule. If the IRS takes you to court on tax evasion, the odds are stacked against you.

I would NOT emulate his example. The risk is too high!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 29, 2006, 06:17 PM   #10  
RickJ
Administrator
RickJ is offline
 
RickJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cave 4, Qumran
Posts: 6,928
RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcx
He was charged with tax evasion....he commited tax avoidance....there is a difference in the wording I guess!!.that`s what the case was about....talk about splitting hairs...

There is no splitting hairs. Tax Evasion is illegal and Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal.

The former is not paying taxes that are due. The latter is conducting your life and business so that taxes are not due.
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors

Similar Questions
Question Asker Topic Answers Last Post
wont charge 86ldodge Cars & Trucks 0 Jul 29, 2006 09:33 PM
Under Or Over Charge! elreeh29 Appliances 1 Jun 5, 2006 11:47 PM
Account to charge babebutterfly Finance & Accounting 0 Apr 26, 2006 04:36 PM
Jury Duty dave5150 Other Law 15 Feb 18, 2006 07:13 PM
charge for an audit purpletaxgal Accounting 2 Oct 17, 2005 05:59 PM




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:38 AM.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.