"Andy" <andysharpe[at]juno.com> wrote:
- quote -

Did the IRS sent the guy a tax bill? They never send me
one. They rely on me filing forms, telling them info and
calculating the taxes I owe the IRS (that's "voluntary"
compliance). If I don't owe any money, I don't pay the IRS
and then seek its return to me.

Now, reading again the original post, this guy sounds like a
scum bag (either because of his tax position or that he is
running for office, your choice), but that doesn't negate
the issue of whether one has to pay the IRS taxes which are
not owed and then asking for a refund.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

They aren't going to. I brought up that hypothetical as a
counterexample to the claim that it was necessary to pay
taxes and sue to get them back.

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

123go wrote:
- quote -

Well IF you ran for office in Oklahoma and IF OK law said
you had to be current with your taxes and IF the OK tax
assessor said you owed taxes then, you would have to pay
them before the election committee would put your name on
the ballot......

Perhaps you could take it to court, but by the time the
case was settled, the election would be over..... so
you pay the taxes, win your election, then get the
taxes back...... This ain't rocket surgery...

So, .... why do you think that OK is going to send you a
tax bill anyway? I cannot envision the circumstance.
They've never sent me one, and I go there all the time.....

Andy in Texas

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"123go" <rejecto[at]rejcet.ccc> wrote:

- quote -

I don't practice in Oklahoma, so I don't know their
procedures or law on this. I was referring primarily to
federal tax law. As I noted, even under federal tax law
there are circumstances when you can sue without paying the
tax first. But you have to be careful to do it properly or
you may be required to go the other route.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <ed2r4e$m81$1[at]reader2.panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

As I understand it, he claimed he wasn't required to pay
certain taxes, just like I claim I'm not required to pay
Oklahoma state income tax.

The difference is, the government claims he _is_ required to
pay and will likely win in court.

- quote -

If it's a criminal charge for tax evasion, failure to file,
etc., then yes. If it's a civil suit over the amount owed,
then "guilty" doesn't apply.

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Seth Breidbart wrote:
- quote -

Who mentioned Oklahoma, or why did you think you had to pay
OK taxes anyway? Can't find any such re to OK in the above
thread.

- quote -

Well, .... I'm no lawyer, but.........
innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law concept, but
does it really apply in suits in U S District courts and
above re claim for taxes?

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

so how much should I pay Oklahoma in taxes before I file to
get them back? I also have not set foot in Oklahoma. What
if I don't pay enough before I file to get them back - would
that be treated as bad faith?

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Taxes are not generally a criminal matter. So innocent or
guilty has nothing to do with it. It's called burden of
proof. And in tax matters the taxpayer generally has the
burden of proof.

In other words guilty until proven innocent.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote:

- quote -

You mean I have to pay Oklahoma state income taxes and sue to
get them back? This despite the fact that I've never been in
Oklahoma, much less earned money there?

- quote -

Sure, I expect him to lose, too. But for legal purposes,
someone must be presumed (by the government) to be innocent
until _proven_ guilty.

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"123go" <rejecto[at]rejcet.ccc> wrote:
- quote -

First of all the law generally requires that you pay taxes
and then sue to get them back. Only under limited
circumstances can you sue in tax court without paying first.

Second, this same issue has been litigated many times, and
the taxpayer has lost each time. They may be jumping the
gun a bit, but not without reason.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Harlan Lunsford" <hnslunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

what taxes? His position is, obviously, that he doesn't
owe any. Why should he pay taxes he doesn't owe, then
bring suit to recover taxes he paid but didn't owe, in
order to be "current"?

Of course, he is probably a crook, but that never seemed
to have stopped anybody from getting into or staying in
politics.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:

- quote -

Actually his first argument is also without merit, since
local law requires taxes be current. Only if he had paid
the taxes and had thereafter brought suit in US court could
he aver that he had paid his taxes, even though the case
would not yet be settled.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

A formerly prominent Republican withdrew his appeal to the
Columbus (GA) Board of Elections which had ruled him
ineligible to be a candidate for public office since he had
not paid his federal income taxes.

His argument was that his case was still current and had not
been ruled upon. Basis of the case was that income tax law
was enacted back in 1913 at a time when his ancestors were
not entitled to full citizenship, other late 19th century
amendments to the Constitution notwithstanding.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

Moderator:
His argument (firsst sentence) is not without value. The
next sentemce is gibberish. Over the years I have turned
down three county government appointments because I will
make my tax returns public information.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >