dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (Lou FCD @ June 06 2009,09:24) | | Quote | Attorney Shawn Perez of Las Vegas, who worked on Hovind's Supreme Court filing, told WND the writ of certiorari, or petition, makes two arguments. One is that the structuring law does not apply, because the Hovinds never deposited or withdrew more than $10,000 on any one day. The 45 single bank transactions should be charged as one count, not as 45 separate violations of the law, the brief argues. Each transaction was charged as a criminal count, yet none of them, by themselves, constituted a violation of the law, it explains.
The other argument in the Supreme Court filing is that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS must explain on a 1040 form what it plans to do with the answers it receives and indicate whether the response is voluntary or mandatory.
The chance of the Supreme Court accepting any case is slim, but Perez said he hopes the structuring argument will get the court's attention, because the justices took a hard look at money laundering in the past year.
"His case is really tough because he didn't present a defense (at trial)," Perez said. "You don't leave much room for argument on appeal."
Perez said it's possible Hovind will find out this month if his case has been accepted. But, regardless of the outcome, Hovind's situation won't change anytime soon, because the earliest the appeal could be heard would be 2010. |
My emphasis. |
Dang, now I'm reading this thread.
There is a PRA declaration for the Form 1040. It says the IRS will use the answers to help determine the tax you owe. Shawn Perez, attorney FAIL.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
