0 votes

Wesley Snipes to Go on Trial in Tax Case

Published: January 14, 2008

From 1999 to 2004, the actor Wesley Snipes earned $38 million appearing in more than half a dozen movies, including two sequels to his popular vampire thriller “Blade.”

The taxes he paid in the same period? Zero.

But unlike other celebrities who find themselves on the wrong side of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Snipes has a flamboyant explanation: he argues that he is not actually required to pay taxes.

Mr. Snipes, who is scheduled to go on trial Monday in Ocala, Fla., has become an unlikely public face for the antitax movement, whose members maintain that Americans are not obligated to pay income taxes and that the government extracts taxes from its citizens illegally.

Continue reading here...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Old worn topic

The IRS is as bogus as Obama and the creatures who support both.

The operative words in slapshot's statement are "..imposed on the TAXABLE INCOME.." which requires an answer to just exactly what is the TAXABLE income to which will be imposed a tax? This sentence indicates quite clearly NOT ALL INCOME IS TAXABLE. If you want real down to earth info on this and many more aspects of the IRS/FED frauds please visit:


The income tax law, the 16th amendment was fraudulently

ratified. See www.thelawthatneverwas.com. Bill Benson has firmly established the proof, a statement of fact, that the IRC is not law. Tax cases asking to be shown the law have been deemed frivolous by the courts as a result of fraudulent precedence and the court's usurpation of the Constitutional right to trial by jury. To actually present the 16th amendment as law would then make the facts of the law allowable in court and not one recemt tax case that I can reference has allowed for the Constitution to even be entered into the case by the defense.

Also, search Red Beckman's work on taxation, read The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, see Aaron Russo's video Freedom to Fascism and go to www.givemeliberty.org.

Again, the IRC is legally unenforceable, null and void, and has been since 1913 because the Constitutional foundation from which it rises was illegally ratified.

Much is amuck in governance.

Damn this thread is older than my son!

"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be in

"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."

Good luck, WES :)

Good luck, WES :)

regarding the 861 Stuff..

I've been reading a bunch of comments on here. The people who use the 16th Amendment to claim that everyone owes an income tax no matter where that income came from are missing one very simple basis of law. No matter what the 16th Amendment says, it's the statutes and regulations which serve as the rules of application. In our case, it's Title 26 of the Statutes and its accompanying Regulations.. Start there and then you will understand why the 861 argument is perfectly valid.

The 861 "argument" is completely bogus

Section 1 of the IRS Code says, clear as day, that everyone has to pay tax on their income:

“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”

Then section 61 defines, clear as day, that all income is included:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; [wages]
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;

And just to be clear, section 63 defines "taxable income" to mean "gross income minus deductions:

“taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

And, just for fun, Treasury Regulation section 1.1-1(b) (near the bottom of the page) specifically rebuts the 861 "argument":

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

Paying taxes sucks. Nobody likes it, especially around this time of year. But the law couldn't be more clear that you have to pay income tax. If you choose to fight it then I congratulate you for fighting what you see to be an unfair law. But you can't pretend that it doesn't exist. The law could not be any more clear that your income is taxable. Don't take my word for it? Take a tax lawyer's word for it.

Don't let greed get in the way of justice. If you want to fight the law then do so. But to fight the law you have to acknowledge that it exists. Denying that wages are taxable is based on even worse evidence than denying that the Holocaust happened.

Wrong Answer!

It says, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every..."

The IRS can impose all the taxes they want. What makes them enforceable against me is "liability". For example. 26 U.S.C. §§ 4051 and 4052 impose a tax on Heavy Trucks and Trailers. Do I have to pay that tax? No. Not unless I am one of the persons or entities that fall under the "liability" provisions of the section or sections.

It is no different for the majority of most americans. Yes. The IRS has "imposed" a tax on the "taxable" income of americans. Can you show me where the "liability" provision is in the Code?

"All income from whatever source derived" is not the same as all income that is received [in the non-statutory sense]. I must first determine the source from which I derive the income before I can determine whether it is income which is then taxable or not.

In "general", all citizens are liable for the tax imposed by the code. Why doesn't it say, "All citizens"? Why, "In general". Revealing. and so I'll ask again. Where is the specific provision that makes me "liable" for the tax the IRS claim I owe?

slapshot. The problem is not the law. The answer to what is and what is not taxable as income is right there in the code.

It's the proper and lawful application of the law that is lacking.


You can verify all this info for yourself.. The tax code will give you a headache but it's all there..


He was charged with 3 misdemeanors. I guess the IRS is afraid that if they hammer him too hard, this will help the good Dr. Blade needs to come out and publicly endorse the good Dr. to stop the Gestapo.

I hope he can appeal this.

I hope he can appeal this.

Up to 3 years in jail,

Up to 3 years in jail, because the IRS would not show him the law!

not guilty of felony charge of tax evasion

convicted on misdemeanor charge not filing, which was not contested.
All in all, a good outcome for Snipes.

Still three years in jail AND all the taxes AND penalties

In other words, he's still going to jail for up to three years. Three years of jail is not a "good outcome."

His "advisors" were found guilty of felonies and could be in jail for up to 16 years (maybe more) each.

you sound very happy

to live in one of the few countries that imprisons people for not paying taxes.
I may not admire Wesley Snipes for his legal expertise, but he has the spirit of freedom, and the understanding that the right to claim your earnings as your own are what separates a free man from a slave.
Keep cheering on slavery, you may have the law on your side (for now), but you will never have morality in your corner.

Snipes CONVICTED, up to three years in jail

MSNBC on the story.

Snipes himself could get up to three years in jail.

His "advisors" are worse-off:

"Co-defendants Eddie Ray Kahn, the founder of a tax protest group, and Douglas P. Rosile, the accountant, were convicted by the same jury of tax fraud and conspiracy."

I believe Kahn and Rosile could face up to 16 years each, but it might be more.

Right On Larkin Rose

I've been a big fan of your's for many years.

Keep up the good work.

Larken Rose, American Hero

For anyone who doesn't know about Larken Rose, I urge you to find out more about this American patriot. He put his freedom on the line for all of us, and he spent a year in prison because of it. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. When the IRS finally is closed down, it will be because of people like Larken, who have fought the good fight for so many years.

xntryk1's post

Very good information and a well written post. Thank you for taking the time. Words from a man that's been there, done that.

Snipes case may bring this more into the limelight. Also those people in New Hampshire...ummm...help me out here. The man and his wife, just arrested, she's a dentist. I was following some of this story until I have gotten so heavily into theis campaign. It is another of many.

We don't live in a

democracy we live in a republic.

There is a world of difference. See here for more information.

I can see now why you take the position you do. You are a positivist - you believe apparently that government grants rights and liberties and thus can take them away. You don't believe as we here at dailypaul and the founders did in natural law - that our rights and liberties come from our creator (or from our nature as man if you don't subscribe to being created) and that NO government can take them away or legislate them out of existence. You apparently do not believe that man has a right to the fruits of his labor, not because some old guys raised their hands upon the question, but because such is necessary for man's survival.

So we will have to agree to disagree - since you are for tyranny of the majority and we here are fighting for liberty.

I abhor democracy as did the founders. It is a vile and wretched form of government that always collapses into a dictatorship over loose fiscal and monetary policy. I'd rather a republic based on true liberty thank you very much.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb fighting over what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Learn the Truth


"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

"In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

Tax Code Confusion

Pepole remain in a state of confustion about the crazy IRS regulations. I don't really care what the tax code says, I did not vote for, nor do I agree with the income tax, and I will not support it. It is a form a slavery and an invasion of privacy. The people who support and love the income tax should be committed to a mental institution.

Nobody loves the income tax

I don't think anybody loves the income tax. It sucks. There's a lot wrong with it.

But part of living in a democracy is living with the Rule of Law. If a law is passed then you are bound by it, even if you don't personally agree with it. You don't get to just opt-out of whatever laws you don't like; if that were the case then we'd have 300,000,000 different ideas about what the law is. I don't like the speed limit, but I still have to pay the ticket when I get pulled over for violating it. The law was passed by the democracy and it's not my choice to simply pretend that it doesn't exist.

If you think the income tax is SO far beyond reasonable that you want to protest it through civil disobedience--not paying--then feel free, but don't be surprised if you have to pay the automatic $5,000 penalty and possibly go to jail.

Part of a democracy is accepting that other people have different opinions, and accepting that they might make law based on those opinions. We're not voting for Ron Paul as dictator-for-life, we're voting for him as President.

slapshot, get your head out.........

of the sand. "But part of living in a democracy is living with the Rule of Law. If a law is passed then you are bound by it, even if you don't personally agree with it."

A. We do not live in a "democracy" , you just don't get it yet do you?
B. I piss on "laws" daily that are unconstitutional as per my rights outlined in said constitution.
C. I don't need their dumbass draconian laws or any of their laws period, I am a law unto myself. I can see you shocked at this statement and wonder how I can have the audacity to state this, well it's real simple. If you understand the basics of the Constitution and the right to ;Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and respect these rights in others you do not need any laws.

Federal Judge admits Constitution is toilet paper to those in charge:

“I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the Internal Revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. ... Yet nonetheless, I'm sure no court's going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason”.


US District Court, Judge James C Fox, Sullivan vs. USA, at al, March 21, 2003

Entire case in PDF format:


Believing in something, just because you are afraid of what will happen if you don't believe it, is no reason to believe in something. This is belief bourne out of fear.

Corrupt Judiciary and Politicians

Ahhh, but when laws are based on the evil corruption of bankers and politicians who are then supported by corrupt Judges, you simply can not respect the rule of law. Even a violation of the speed limit is a punishment bourne out of fear of what might happen, not what actually happened. Punishing people based on paranoia is unethical and immoral. And just because something like the income tax is made legal, does not make it right. This in no way speaks to cardinal crime like murder, rape and robbery where there is actually a physical victim. In most repsects, the income tax is robbery and a crime against Society.

Democracy is mob rule

The tyranny of the majority, if you will.
The founding fathers detested democracy, Karl Marx had no problem with it.
Karl Marx also advocated the income tax and central banking system.
If you had been around in 1776 it appears that you would be advocating the divine right of Kings and allegiance to the crown.
It was, after all, the rule of law.
If you cannot see that the income tax turns total control of the earnings of citizens over to the government then you must be a die hard socialist.
If the "rule of law" is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and the right to "pursuit of happiness", then a rebellion is in order.


Our forefathers feared the oppression of majority rule, that's why they tried to establish equal protection for all.


Everyone's arguments here go way beyond the scope of "861." I'm not a tax expert, but I can read. The article's author, David Johnson, is lying about what 861 says. It doesn't deny that wages are taxable. Section 861 it is about whether the "source" of commerce from which wages are derived, is taxable. If your wages are derived from those sources, they are taxable. The legal presumption is that if a list of sources from which wages are derived are taxable, wages from any source outside the list are not.

B.T.W., "slapshot" is a strange handle for an IRS agent -- or maybe tax accountant? (who's about to lose his job when RP is elected.)

What are taxable "sources"

Could you please point to anything in section 861 that says whether or not any particular source is "taxable."

I've read through section 861, and its regulations, several times, and all I can find are rules for determining whether (a) gross income is from a source within the United States or from a source outside the United States and (b) how to figure out what deductions go with what income (in order to calculate the taxable income--which is gross income less deductions--from sources inside or outside the United States).

So, for example, section 861(a)(3) says that "compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States" shall be treated as income from sources within the United States, and section 861(b) says that "taxable income from sources within the United States" is the gross income specified in subsection (a)--such as compensation for labor performed in the United States--less the deductions property apportioned or allocated to that income.

How anyone could conclude from this that wages earned in the United States are not taxable income is a complete mystery to me.

Unless they are being deliberately dishonest, of course, which is what I suspect of Mr. Snipes.