Talk:Tax noncompliance

message: The article is good and well written. But I think that the best title would be "tax avoidance and tax evasion in the US". For a european the article is pretty useless  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.62.77 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  World wide view?

message: I'm not sure tax protesters should be here at all.  There was a moral edge in the text about them which I have tried to neutralise. Psb777 04:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax protesters

message: There is already a Wikipedia article on this case and there is a link to it from the body of this article.  Yet we now substantially repeat all the info in the Wikipedia article re this case in this article and we have material here about the case that is not in the Wikipedia article about the case.  This is not the correct way of going about things and I suggest, as elsewhere in Wikipedia and as is considered good practice, that we reference the case here, give the quickest summary of its consequences to this article IF NECESSARY and place all info about the case in the article about the case.  Paul Beardsell 05:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - there is bound to be a degree of redundancy in Wikipedia, and it would be difficult to talk about the way courts classify tax protester arguments without going into the details of Cheek, which is a seminal tax protester case wherein the Supreme Court basically sets out the final word on the topic, which continues to this day. Also,  there's plenty of material in the Cheek article that is not found here. BD2412 T 12:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Understood - I'll work on toning down the repetition to what is absolutely necesary to convey the state of the law. BD2412 T 20:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cheek v. United States'' 

message: I think the problem with this article is that it tries to cover too much - we should have seperate articles on tax avoidance (taking legal steps to reduce your tax burden), and tax evasion (taking illegal steps to do the same, including simply not paying what is owed). The former article could point out that tax avoidance is perfectly legal; the latter could point out that some acts claimed to be for avoidance are actually beyond the pale of the law. BD2412 T 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: too much is now covered by this article.  Doing what BD2412 suggests is a very good idea.  I wonder, however, if this article might be kept solely for the purpose of contasting the four concepts (avoidance, evasion, resistance and protest) very briefly before referencing the 4 new articles BDA proposes.  I.e. this article would have an introductory paragraph followed by strictly one short para on each of the 4 concepts.  Each of the 4 paras would have a preceding link to the main article on the subject.  Paul Beardsell 03:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But what should the quick-contrast/overview-article be called?  How about "Not paying tax" or "Not paying taxes" or "Tax avoidance, evasion, mitigation, fraud, resistance and protest: Contrasted"?  I am not really happy with any of them.  Is it correct to consider all of these to be avoidance - just that most of them are illegal?  I am not sure that would help, even if(!) correct.  Paul Beardsell 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much to chew 

message: :In the UK, there is no General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR)
Does this mean that in the rest of the world, there is, or is "the rest of the world" "The United States" here?
In other words, could we have some preemptive qualification of the U.S.-specific bits? I'm not demanding we immediately put in tax regulations from all other countries, mind you... JRM · Talk 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's outside the UK? 

message: I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean: 
In the UK and elsewhere tax declarations of income from illegal activities are supposedly law enforcement organisations.
It's english but does it make sense to you?
I added the original sentence but somewhere along the line it has become corrupted by the removal of a few words.  The reason I added the sentence was because someone had added the possibly false and possibly off-topic discussion of tax returns being available to USA law enforcement agencies.  I was making the point that this is not generally the case in the UK.  In my view the enforcement of laws which have nothing to do with tax is off topic in this article and all about this needs to go.  Paul Beardsell 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An odd sentence ? 

message: Tax evasion is a crime, but tax avoidance isn't. Would it make sense to categorize this article under :category:crimes? Common Man 05:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tax evasion means that you've actively tried to avoid paying a legal tax.  There's lots of ways, but you were supposed to pay X taxes, but you set things up so you paid Y.  That's evasion, and can result in criminal charges.  Deliquency is when you've got your tax right, but you can't/didn't pay some or all of it.  You'll get letters and calls, but it can eventually end up with liens, seizures, etc by the tax agency.  If it goes through a court, it's a civil matter, not criminal.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to categorize 

message: Dear fellow editors: I see that a small edit war has been going on regarding the following language:
::(or, in jurisdictions such as the United States, the payment or statutory assessment) of taxes by illegal means.
The language in the parentheses is language that I added a few days ago. If it will stop the edit war, I would like to suggest that my language be left out of the article. Although the language is correct, the same point is covered further down in the article, in the discussion about U.S. law. Hopefully this will be acceptable to everyone. Yours, Famspear 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The info is useful - I just think we must keep the intro to these various topics simple and expand later in the article.  Paul Beardsell 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statutory assessment in the United States

message: I have removed this recent addition to the article:
:In Canada, there has been a tradition among the elite to buy the best advice possible to mitigate taxation to it's fullest, leaving the masses to fill the gap with their hard-earned income taxes. Recently, several tax shelter programs have been created by the same minds that offer the elite all their tax free options. Although Canada's Revenue Department is unhappy about these 'schemes' they are not illegal and year after year, tens of thousands of Canadian taxpayers reduce their income tax bill significantly, often to zero.
:This is often accomplished through "leveraged charitable gifting" arrangements whereby dollars gifted to charities by the taxpayer are matched or leveraged three to one... the taxpayer is entitled to the charitable receipts for their cash gift AND the leveraged gift, resulting in a net gain as much as 200% of the donation amount. It is also refered to as profitable philanthropy which recent Canadian Supreme Court cases have repeatedly allowed and encouraged. www.smarttaxstrategies.com has more information with which to educate oneself.
This is not expressed in neutral language and was inserted too early in the article.  Perhaps the author would care to re-work it and re-insert in a more appropriate place.  Paul Beardsell 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent addition re Canada "profitable philanthropy" 

message: I have simplified the section "The distinction in the United States" without loss of information.  It is now plain that the main thrust of the article and the definitions of evasion and avoidance above this section all show that there is no "distinction" of the position in the US - already the US position is reflected by the article.  Accordingly, this section will be deleted imminently.  Paul Beardsell 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The distinction in the United States - to be deleted 

message: What about the "History of Tax evasion" itself? The article attempts to determine when the term was defined. However, as most people will commonly believe, there were countless tax evasions in the Medieval times, of peasants attempting to not pay taxes. Does it matter if teh crime is commited with fraugelent details or with a pitchfork, as in Peasant uprisings? What about Robin hood, wasn't he a tax evader? We could include that, even if his existence is questioned. Tourskin 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This article, despite flaws, did, at a point in the past, at least have reasonable short definitions early on.  These have now been corrupted by ungrammatical, sometime incorrect and unreferenced exposition.  To be fixed!  Paul Beardsell 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article decay 

message: The above article assessment is unreasoned and therefore unreasonable. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses."
Now, the WP guidelines do not place the same emphasis on "short", so the template is in error here.  But even if "short" were correct, the comment does not identify the strengths or weaknesses.  It identifies one strenght and no weakness.  No other comment.  I rate this article assessment very poor and will be removing it if it is not quickly improved as per the guidelines.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I will expand on the reasoning since you asked about weaknesses and the sort.  Please give me three hours because I am leaving my computer and will not return for an hour or two.  I am happy to comply with your request per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ.EECavazos (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, the summary is an optional item that is suggested to help the editors of the article improve it.  It is not mandatory for assessment but can certainly be requested.  If you have a problem with the assessment and would like it reassessed, you can look at the criteria for assessment and request the assessor reconsider base on your argument as to why it is above or below the assessed grade.  If you want more detail in improving an article beyond what the assessor has commented, you can request a WikiProject taxation peer-review or Wikipedia peer-review.  GA and FA ratings can not be given by the WikiProject.  It looks like EECavazos recommended adding some additional references for a B-class.  A peer review and a little more work and it may be ready to be submitted for GA.  Morphh  (talk) 1:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article assessment

message: Parts of the article are true only in the USA.  I have no problem with that - let's have the USA situation properly documented as well as that of every other country.  But often the USA-only information is not flagged as such.  Sometimes correct if necessarily general information is replaced by information which is more detailed but correct only in the USA but this info is not flagged as being USA-only.  An example is the adoption of USA terminology re foundations while losing info on trusts.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA centric 

message: I have  removed the sub-section "Direct Avoidance" which read as follows:
:Many taxes apply to some types of goods but not other, similar goods. For example, the income tax generally applies to work done for somebody else, but not work done for oneself. Therefore you can reduce your income tax by doing more work that replaces expenditures and less work that counts as "income" because it pays indirectly for the same expenditures. If marginal tax rates are high then the income tax saved in this case may exceed the amount lost due to economic inefficiency.
Why?  Google search for "direct avoidance" tax shows this article to be the good source for use of the term.  No other reference or citation is provided. It looks like WP:OR to me.
The example is a goood one of tax avoidance.  Perhaps it could be re-instated in an "Examples" section?
But "direct avoidance"?  What's that?  
Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "direct avoidance" removed 

message: The justification promised above, a long time ago, has not arisen.  Assessment removed.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment - reprise 

message: Regarding this verbiage:
::In the United States, persons subject to the Internal Revenue Code who earn income by illegal means (gambling, theft, drug trafficking etc.) are required to report unlawful gains as income when filing annual tax returns (see e.g., James v. United States 366 U.S. 213 (1961), overruling Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946).), but they often do not do so.
A fellow editor has twice added this material:
::The reason for this is unclear: doing so would not serve as an admission of guilt due to the strict prohibitions on disclosure provided by IRC 6103 . . . . . it may be that those with illegally earned income are not aware of this protection, do not trust it, or simply wish to avoid paying tax on their illegal income.
This is conjecture by a Wikipedia editor, and it's original research. It's interesting, but I would argue that it does not really belong in the article in this unsourced form.
As an aside, the exceptions under section 6103 are numerous, and definitely are not limited to "tax fraud" investigations. If you save a copy of section 6103, a PDF version of the section may run to over forty pages, depending on the kind of file and the printer. It's one of the longest sections, perhaps the longest section, in the entire Internal Revenue Code.
The exceptions under section 6103 -- which allow government employees and even non-governmental employees access to copies of your own tax returns without your permission -- are not even limited to criminal matters, or to fraud matters. For example, if you as an individual file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the Trustee appointed in the case has a more or less absolute right (I hesitate to use the term "absolute") to receive, FROM THE IRS, copies of all your individual income tax returns for ANY AND ALL years prior to the year you filed bankruptcy, and for the year you filed bankruptcy. There is absolutely no legal requirement that the Trustee show that he is engaged in any kind of fraud investigation (or in any investigation at all). It's a statutory right.
Just as importantly, when you disclose something on a tax return, you are failing to assert your Fifth Amendment privilege against being compelled to be a witness against yourself. The mere fact that section 6103 is on the books does not change that.
So, in response to the statement that people often do not disclose things on tax returns, it is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say that "the reason for this is unclear". Actually, perhaps we should also delete the verbiage stating "they often do not do so" -- as that sounds like unsourced conjecture as well (probably a true statement, but still unsourced conjecture). Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced conjecture

message: The top tiers of drug lords sitting in Latin and South America surely want to recycle their ill-gotten gains. They enjoy their lives and have no apparent means of income. But everyone else and all the newsagencies of the world broadcast what their estimated wealth to be- no doubt with a bit of help from the CIA and FBI. The US governments are particularly worried because the drug lords' wealth is derived from the US market and the money that leaks from the US is in hard US $s. Since the US can take out Saddam Hussein, it is not inconceivable for the US to take out the drug lords. They could easily use their tough anti-money laundering and anti-tax evasion legislations as the reason. But the moment they did that the drug lords would rather bury or burn these hard US $s, as ancient people had done with their gold. That way, the US will not get a use of this illegal money nor will the money return to the USA, and most probably the demand for drugs in the USA will not fall. Thus there seem to be a compromise. The US government goes after poor people who cannot afford expensive lawyers and then claim to its people that they are catching loads of people engaging in tax frauds whilst the real criminals are left to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. If the real criminals, for example the drug lords and pimps were put out of business, would the demand for luxury goods (expensive jewelry, cars, Rolexes, perfumes etc) drop dramatically?
Has anyone made a study of the economic impact it might have if the US really went after the big criminal bosses? 86.140.37.171 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Macro Economics and the lesser of two evils 

message: *Propose that the above be merged here. It is entirely about the United States and I don't think there's enough in there that is notable and reliably sourced to warrant an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Tax evasion investigations]] 

message: I want to increase the amount of taxes I pay, for two reasons: 1)to donate to the IRS, and 2)to avoid getting audited. I claim negative deductions, put a higher income on my 1099, and ask the IRS to put me in a higher bracket.
All of these actions increase my taxes.--RussianReversal (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren Buffett wants to pay more tax. See Stop Coddling the Super-Rich by Warren Buffett, New York Times, August 14, 2011. Perhaps we need another article called tax compliance or something. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax Maximization? 

message: It would be useful if the article gave more sourced information on the evasion rates which apply to different types of tax in different jurisdictions. For instance I have heard that the evasion rate for property taxes is about 2% whereas that for income tax is 8% or more and that for sales tax can be as high as 20%. This is notable information since it means that for every $1.00 of government spending, you would need to raise $1.02 from honest taxpayers if you were using property taxes to collect the revenue, at least $1.09 using income tax, and $1.25 using sales taxes. The extra tax is required to cover the revenue which should have been collected from the tax evaders. Does anyone know where this sort of information might be sourced ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Evasion rates

message: This relatively new topic is mentioned under the HIRE Act, but does not yet have its own page. I propose to add one. Does anyone have comments? Seniorexpat (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)

message: This article flip flops back and forth between talking about the two.  The individual sections are fairly good, but the flip flopping makes it very confusing.  These are two different things, it seems like there should be two articles.  The distinctions made at the very top of the similarities and differences between the two are good, but the intermixing is not.  76.166.204.89 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Probably about time. There is enough information to warrant two articles i.e. tax evasion and tax avoidance. Also the article gets confusing mixing the two subjects. Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Comment - Not sure whether this is a good idea or not. The two concepts are normally discussed together so I can see the rationale for having a single article but admittedly there probably is enough material here to make two articles. Perhaps we just need to reorganise the article to avoid the flip-flopping. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Support This was suggested years ago, and hasn't been done, I think, because of the other matter that would not naturally fall into either article. I suggest that the avoidance and evasion articles are split out with short sections left - using the usual  templates, and copious see-also cross refs between the resulting three articles. Tax evasion investigations could at the same time be merged into the new Tax evasion article, if appropriate. Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nirvana2013 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Split avoidance and evasion?

message: I've moved this comment from the article to the talk page
This article has been written by someone who does not know much about the history of the tax evasion/avoidance in the United Kingdom, these terms have been in use for many many years and are not "recent".  I put a comment on previously to the same effect but it has been obviously removed, sorry this does give confidence in the accuracy of Wikipedia entries.  This is not vandalism as previously indicated but trying to help this Wikipedia entry to become more accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.8.1 (talk) 09:16, January 9, 2013‎
:Thanks for the comment.  I don't think there's anything in the article to reference the "recent" comment, but do you know of any reliable source that shows tax evasion/tax avoidance being used in the UK some time ago?  Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 17th century? Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK comment 

message: Substituted at 22:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: It is proposed to integrate the page Tax non compliance, paragraph "Difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion" giving a more complete definition of the phenomenon. 
Here the link of the page of our university project: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_progetto:Coordinamento/Università/UNITO/Diritto_Tributario#Descrizione_dell'intervento_proposto
Thank you. Greetings, CapitanoPicard (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration proposal