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.

Very interesting.

But was he required to pay the $350K?

Must be more to this or else it sets an interesting precedent.

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.

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.

He was charged with tax evasion... he committed tax avoidance... there is a difference in the wording I guess!! that`s what the case was about... talk about splitting hairs...

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.

This guy got off for tax evasion, and OJ Simpson got acquitted 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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtlantaTaxExpert

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!

---

The issue I was addressing (remember this case is in Canada) is that it would set a precedent that lawyers and the public would use to get out of the same situation. But I see that the most likely result is that he paid the fine and most 'protesters' don't even want to do that.

This guy in my province most likely won't get off so lucky:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswi...x20050201.html