Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud money-laundering federal-tax-law
|
show 6 more comments
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud money-laundering federal-tax-law
1
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
yesterday
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
23 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
22 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
21 hours ago
4
@DJohnM B's tax bracket is relevant because you said this: "I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid." It leads to an increase in tax paid by you, but may result in a reduction in the combined tax paid by you and B.
– Anthony Grist
18 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud money-laundering federal-tax-law
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud money-laundering federal-tax-law
united-states fraud money-laundering federal-tax-law
edited 10 hours ago
Rodrigo de Azevedo
1097
1097
asked yesterday
DJohnMDJohnM
400212
400212
1
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
yesterday
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
23 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
22 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
21 hours ago
4
@DJohnM B's tax bracket is relevant because you said this: "I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid." It leads to an increase in tax paid by you, but may result in a reduction in the combined tax paid by you and B.
– Anthony Grist
18 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
1
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
yesterday
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
23 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
22 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
21 hours ago
4
@DJohnM B's tax bracket is relevant because you said this: "I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid." It leads to an increase in tax paid by you, but may result in a reduction in the combined tax paid by you and B.
– Anthony Grist
18 hours ago
1
1
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
yesterday
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
yesterday
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
23 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
23 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
22 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
22 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
21 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
21 hours ago
4
4
@DJohnM B's tax bracket is relevant because you said this: "I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid." It leads to an increase in tax paid by you, but may result in a reduction in the combined tax paid by you and B.
– Anthony Grist
18 hours ago
@DJohnM B's tax bracket is relevant because you said this: "I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid." It leads to an increase in tax paid by you, but may result in a reduction in the combined tax paid by you and B.
– Anthony Grist
18 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
add a comment |
But you didn't misreport your income
You aren't 100% sure if you owe income tax. IRS wants you to declare the income in that case.
You might be under-reporting deductions, but that's allowed. It's not illegal to not know every deduction you're allowed. It's also legal to strategically skip or reduce a deduction. *
The ruling factor is the Step Doctrine
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It's impossible to legally deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
In the above example, the $1M is illegal because it's from meth. If it was from a legal source you refuse to explain, it's not a crime but they impound your money whilst you still need to timely pay quarterly tax (1040ES) on it. Ouch.
* And I have personally tested that theory in tax court. I reduced my Schedule A deduction of state taxes to just below the AMT threshold. I also aimed to not pay tax on that much of next year's refund. IRS lawyers cheerfully affirmed my entire plan was valid, and let me write it into the judge's order.
1
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
1
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
1
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38852%2fis-it-tax-fraud-for-an-individual-to-declare-non-taxable-revenue-as-taxable-inco%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
add a comment |
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
add a comment |
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
answered yesterday
ohwillekeohwilleke
52.1k259132
52.1k259132
add a comment |
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
edited 20 hours ago
answered 20 hours ago
KevinKevin
422214
422214
add a comment |
add a comment |
But you didn't misreport your income
You aren't 100% sure if you owe income tax. IRS wants you to declare the income in that case.
You might be under-reporting deductions, but that's allowed. It's not illegal to not know every deduction you're allowed. It's also legal to strategically skip or reduce a deduction. *
The ruling factor is the Step Doctrine
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It's impossible to legally deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
In the above example, the $1M is illegal because it's from meth. If it was from a legal source you refuse to explain, it's not a crime but they impound your money whilst you still need to timely pay quarterly tax (1040ES) on it. Ouch.
* And I have personally tested that theory in tax court. I reduced my Schedule A deduction of state taxes to just below the AMT threshold. I also aimed to not pay tax on that much of next year's refund. IRS lawyers cheerfully affirmed my entire plan was valid, and let me write it into the judge's order.
1
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
1
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
1
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
add a comment |
But you didn't misreport your income
You aren't 100% sure if you owe income tax. IRS wants you to declare the income in that case.
You might be under-reporting deductions, but that's allowed. It's not illegal to not know every deduction you're allowed. It's also legal to strategically skip or reduce a deduction. *
The ruling factor is the Step Doctrine
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It's impossible to legally deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
In the above example, the $1M is illegal because it's from meth. If it was from a legal source you refuse to explain, it's not a crime but they impound your money whilst you still need to timely pay quarterly tax (1040ES) on it. Ouch.
* And I have personally tested that theory in tax court. I reduced my Schedule A deduction of state taxes to just below the AMT threshold. I also aimed to not pay tax on that much of next year's refund. IRS lawyers cheerfully affirmed my entire plan was valid, and let me write it into the judge's order.
1
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
1
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
1
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
add a comment |
But you didn't misreport your income
You aren't 100% sure if you owe income tax. IRS wants you to declare the income in that case.
You might be under-reporting deductions, but that's allowed. It's not illegal to not know every deduction you're allowed. It's also legal to strategically skip or reduce a deduction. *
The ruling factor is the Step Doctrine
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It's impossible to legally deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
In the above example, the $1M is illegal because it's from meth. If it was from a legal source you refuse to explain, it's not a crime but they impound your money whilst you still need to timely pay quarterly tax (1040ES) on it. Ouch.
* And I have personally tested that theory in tax court. I reduced my Schedule A deduction of state taxes to just below the AMT threshold. I also aimed to not pay tax on that much of next year's refund. IRS lawyers cheerfully affirmed my entire plan was valid, and let me write it into the judge's order.
But you didn't misreport your income
You aren't 100% sure if you owe income tax. IRS wants you to declare the income in that case.
You might be under-reporting deductions, but that's allowed. It's not illegal to not know every deduction you're allowed. It's also legal to strategically skip or reduce a deduction. *
The ruling factor is the Step Doctrine
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It's impossible to legally deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
In the above example, the $1M is illegal because it's from meth. If it was from a legal source you refuse to explain, it's not a crime but they impound your money whilst you still need to timely pay quarterly tax (1040ES) on it. Ouch.
* And I have personally tested that theory in tax court. I reduced my Schedule A deduction of state taxes to just below the AMT threshold. I also aimed to not pay tax on that much of next year's refund. IRS lawyers cheerfully affirmed my entire plan was valid, and let me write it into the judge's order.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 22 hours ago
HarperHarper
3,0341215
3,0341215
1
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
1
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
1
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
1
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
1
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
1
1
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
I'm not positive, but I don't think that depositing your 1,000,000$ is actually illegal. Of course, making meth is (presumably) illegal, and that money might be illegal, since it's from an illegal act. The deposit is probably going to get you investigated, but I don't think the amount is intrinsically illegal. I think the illegal act would be depositing it in chunks of 5000$ to avoid being noticed.
– Patrick M
8 hours ago
1
1
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
@PatrickM It's illegal without explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
1
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
So you deposit the cash without explanation, the gov't a) seizes the money and b) pokes around looking for criminal activity. They never return it. To get it back you must sue, explain your source, and grind through the courts for years. But right now, IRS wants quarterly 1040-ES taxes paid on it. (And you don't have it). To avoid paying tax on every penny you must be able to prove your deductible a) expenses and b) cost of goods sold. Which again means explaining the source.
– Harper
8 hours ago
1
1
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
True. It's a terrible idea. I was just pointing out that it's probably not technically illegal. Just stupid. You mention civil forfeiture, and it's likely they'll do that, but just because you can't prove the money is legal, doesn't mean you've committed a crime.
– Patrick M
7 hours ago
1
1
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
@PatrickM Okay. I buy that. If everyone had forethought they would never, ever do this; however people often do things without considering consequences, and that's not a crime.
– Harper
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38852%2fis-it-tax-fraud-for-an-individual-to-declare-non-taxable-revenue-as-taxable-inco%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
yesterday
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
23 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
22 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
21 hours ago
4
@DJohnM B's tax bracket is relevant because you said this: "I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid." It leads to an increase in tax paid by you, but may result in a reduction in the combined tax paid by you and B.
– Anthony Grist
18 hours ago