Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)












8















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.










share|improve this question




















  • 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


















8















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.










share|improve this question




















  • 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
















8












8








8


1






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.










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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
















  • 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












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















11














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.






share|improve this answer































    10















    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.)






    share|improve this answer

































      3














      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.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 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














      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      11














      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.






      share|improve this answer




























        11














        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.






        share|improve this answer


























          11












          11








          11







          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.






          share|improve this answer













          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          ohwillekeohwilleke

          52.1k259132




          52.1k259132























              10















              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.)






              share|improve this answer






























                10















                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.)






                share|improve this answer




























                  10












                  10








                  10








                  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.)






                  share|improve this answer
















                  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.)







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 20 hours ago

























                  answered 20 hours ago









                  KevinKevin

                  422214




                  422214























                      3














                      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.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 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


















                      3














                      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.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 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
















                      3












                      3








                      3







                      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.






                      share|improve this answer















                      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.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      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
















                      • 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




















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                      Berlina muro

                      Berlina aerponto