(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
Commentary: USA citizenship-based taxation is a crime when applied to people living outside the USA jurisdiction. It is theft at multiple levels: (1) It is territorial theft of another country’s tax base. (2) It is theft to tax a person without representation. (3) It is theft to tax a person for the benefit of others. Furthermore, many of the reporting requirements of FATCA and FBAR cause crimes to be committed. The government of Canada, e.g., has committed a crime by sending the bank account information of Canadian residents and ciitzens to the IRS–it is national origin discrimination which is forbidden in the charter of rights, and it is a violation of their right to privacy.
It may be necessary to lie to prevent the IRS and one’s own local government from committing crimes. One may have to lie to a bank about where one was born. One may have to omit details when filling out forms.
While lying to prevent a crime is a virtue, lying to cover up a crime is politics as usual.
Previous Discussion:
Rahab’s renunciation of citizenship–Was she a harlot, liar, traitor and tax cheat or a heroine of faith?
California genocide and the Indian Tax Revolt of 1851
Fair tax, unfair tax: or When is it paying my fair share?
Is it taxation without representation if you can vote? Damn right!
Previous Petros Principles:
(1) What the IRS can’t know unless you tell them can’t hurt you.
(2) Fear makes the IRS more dangerous than it really is.
(3) Haste is the devil.
(4) Those most hurt by the IRS’s persecution of expats have engaged the services of cross-border compliance condors.
(5) Those least hurt have done nothing.
(6) Home is where you live.
(7) An unjust law is no law.
(8) Don’t feed the beast.
(9) Do the minimum in trying to achieve the least bad outcome.
(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
(11) Cynical derision of Homelanders is healthy.
About: Petros is the alias of the founding administrator of the Isaac Brock Society. Petros Principles are guidelines that have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.
“On the subject of the IRS making you complete tax returns with THEIR figures”
That didn’t happen to me.
In 1982 I worked in the US for 6 weeks and a US company issued a falsified W-2. I declared that to the best of my knowledge and belief the attached W-2 was false and incorrect. Unfortunately the IRS didn’t penalize me for telling the truth that time. If they had, I wouldn’t have been able to fight within the very short time limit, I would have paid a penalty of US$500, and I would have renounced US citizenship in 1984. That would have avoided a lot of trouble that I didn’t know was going to come later.
I never figured out what the former Revenue Canada did to my 1985 return, so my US forms 1116 for 1986 and later declared that I didn’t know the correct amounts of non-US taxes to be carried over to other years. Again unfortunately the IRS didn’t penalize me for that, so I didn’t know that I’d better renounce US citizenship before things get worse.
For 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 the IRS did penalize me but refused to say why. In Tax Court they finally decided that the reason for penalties was that I illegally told the truth. Later I figured out that their real reason for calling me frivolous was to prevent anyone from helping me, so they wouldn’t have to audit themselves and find where the money went that was reported as US withholding on my 1099’s. But of course they didn’t admit to that in court; they got rulings proving that it’s illegal to tell the truth.
In a settlement, the IRS coerced me to commit known perjuries on refiled returns for 2002, 2006, and 2008. For 2002 a Japanese employer had issued a falsified 源泉徴収票 which is equivalent to T-4 and W-2. The Japanese government and Japanese court knew it was false, but the IRS forced me to declare that it was true and correct. For 2006 my US withholding was reported partly on 1099 and partly on 1042-S. 1042-S wasn’t the correct form to use at that time but I wasn’t the one who did it and all I could say was that withholding was reported on 1099 and 1042-S. The IRS forced me to declare that all of it was reported on 1099. For 2008 there was a false report from another Japanese employer and again the IRS forced me to declare that it was true.
There’s more but you get the picture. If you ever have to estimate any number that goes onto any US tax form, well you have to estimate, but you’d better not declare that it’s an estimate. Declare that to the best of your knowledge and belief it’s true and correct regardless of whether you actually know it’s an estimate.
‘I recently found someone who has actually been charged with “telling what you believe is the truth” on her taxes; you can search the Internet for “Doreen Hendrickson” if you want to learn more.’
She was sued for declaring a refund that she wasn’t entitled to receive. That doesn’t look like me at all.
The closest this comes to my situation is that I moved for an injunction to compel the US to sue me the same way the US sued Hendrickson, but my motion was denied. The US doesn’t want to sue me because then I get to subpoena an employee or representative of Ameritrade to testify that Ameritrade did actually withhold from US sourced interest, dividends, and sales of shares the amount of withholding that Ameritrade reported on Forms 1099 and 1042-S and that I declared on Form 1040.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/michigan-resident-sentenced-prison-criminal-contempt-involving-federal-tax-obligations
‘According to court filings and evidence presented at trial, Hendrickson and her husband, Peter Hendrickson, filed federal income tax returns for the years 2002 and 2003 on which they falsely claimed they earned zero wages. Based on these false returns, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued the Hendricksons more than $20,000 in income tax refunds that they were not entitled to receive. In 2006, the Tax Division sued the Hendricksons to recover these refunds. As part of that litigation, Judge Edmunds ordered the Hendricksons to file corrected amended tax returns for 2002 and 2003 that reported all of their income, and further ordered them to repay their fraudulently obtained refunds to the IRS. Judge Edmunds also barred the Hendricksons from filing additional false tax returns.’
The IRS barred me from filing additional true returns. (That’s how I renounced for a fee of US$450 before FATCA.)
In my cases courts had to block evidence and in one case even destroy evidence because my original returns were true.
Sorry I misunderstood about forcing you to use their figures – my point was that when you and the IRS disagreed, they forced you to put down what they thought was correct even though you believed otherwise.
On the other hand there’s this:
http://www.kyfreepress.com/2014/07/irs-determined-jail-doreen-hendrickson/
‘In the last trial, the judge actually said these words to the jury out loud: “It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional.” In other words: Americans must obey a judge’s order even if it is unconstitutional or unlawful.’
After learning that US courts have power to compel a person to perjure and to compel a person to fabricate a social security number, I wondered if US courts have power to compel a person to commit murder. It looks like a judge has answered my question.
Your accounts of your tax trials scare me as I included an explanation that my company also issued a false statement of earnings with the last tax return I filed.
‘In the last trial, the judge actually said these words to the jury out loud: “It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional.” In other words: Americans must obey a judge’s order even if it is unconstitutional or unlawful.’
And if I were on that jury I would disreagard the Judges statements and find the defendsnt not guilty.
“And if I were on that jury I would disreagard the Judges statements and find the defendsnt not guilty.”
That’s why parties are allowed to question potential jurors and prevent anyone with a conscience from getting into the jury in the first place.
That’s why I would never be on a jury.