Redhill_qik
Active Member
In your prior post you said "Intent or lack thereof has absolutely zero to do with law", so now it goes without saying that intent does matter?Yes, I thought that went without saying. But you are still liable in both cases like I said.
In the case of tax law ignorance is an actual defense.We were discussing in the context of the IRS where ignorance is not a real defense though.
However, in 1933 the Supreme Court set criminal tax laws apart from other criminal statutes by providing that ignorance of the law is a defense to a criminal tax prosecution. See United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 2 389, 396 (1933). Allowing ignorance of the law as a defense to criminal tax prosecution is due in large part to the complexity of the tax laws.
Subjective Test. A defendant's good faith belief that he is not violating the tax laws, no matter how objectively unreasonable that belief may be, is a defense in a tax prosecution. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199-201 (1991). See also, United States v. Grunewald, 987 F.2d 531, 535-36 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Pensyl, 387 F.3d 456, 459 (6th Cir. 2004)