|
|
Post by TW on Jul 20, 2012 14:03:51 GMT -5
Attacks....
I want to hear what they intend doing for our nation, not here the crap about how the other guy has dirty laundry.
If you consider this political expedience fine, to me it's bull!
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 20, 2012 14:17:58 GMT -5
Why should Federal Authorities force the release of papers they are already in posession of?
If there is a crime, they have the returns as evidence to file charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 20, 2012 14:19:22 GMT -5
Attacks.... I want to hear what they intend doing for our nation, not here the crap about how the other guy has dirty laundry. If you consider this political expedience fine, to me it's bull! I agree. Let's see how they respond to NY City Mayor Bloomberg's request that they state their position on gun control. |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 20, 2012 14:24:38 GMT -5
Why should Federal Authorities force the release of papers they are already in posession of? If there is a crime, they have the returns as evidence to file charges. I believe that it would be ILLEGAL for Obama to use his authority to pull and inspect these tax returns WITHOUT having legal authority to do so. Accordingly, until and unless there is some sort of evidence that increases the probability of wrongdoing by Romney, Romney does not have to produce these tax returns. Even IF the House & Senate pass legislation requiring 10 years of tax returns to be released by presidential candidates, I am not sure that such new law would apply to pre-existing situations.  |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 20, 2012 14:28:19 GMT -5
Don't be a clown.
There is a process in the IRS that would flag criminal wrong doing, investigate it and charge when necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 20, 2012 14:35:09 GMT -5
Yes. However, just because we SUSPECT does not qualify as PROOF. More tangible/hard evidence is needed. Otherwise, Romney would be complaining about how Obama abused his authority, acted as the Gestapo and Dictator so that he could win the upcoming election. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 20, 2012 14:39:52 GMT -5
I don't know what Fairy Tale you are skiipping through Ameoba but how about we have probable cause rather than "suspicion" be the trigger that launches an investigation.
As I said, your point is moot and your whole angle of attack misguided. If Romney did something illegal, we would have heard about it already.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Jul 20, 2012 14:55:26 GMT -5
I don't know what Fairy Tale you are skiipping through Ameoba but how about we have probable cause rather than "suspicion" be the trigger that launches an investigation. As I said, your point is moot and your whole angle of attack misguided. If Romney did something illegal, we would have heard about it already. Legal crash course time. 1- Probable Cause - Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated. In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.The requirement of probable cause works in tandem with the warrant requirement. A warrant is a document that allows police to search a person, search a person's property, or arrest a person. A judicial magistrate or judge must approve and sign a warrant before officers may act on it. To obtain a search or arrest warrant, officers must present to the magistrate or judge enough facts to constitute probable cause. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause2- Reasonable Suspicion - A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion3- malicious prosecution - An action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice. An action for malicious prosecution is the remedy for baseless and malicious litigation. It is not limited to criminal prosecutions but may be brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution, whether criminal or civil. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malicious+prosecution |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 20, 2012 21:44:24 GMT -5
Thanks for doing my work and explaining my position.
Probable cause by police is key, not suspicion from some po', lazy, political party trying to maintain its power though class warfare rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Jul 21, 2012 4:14:53 GMT -5
Don't be a clown. There is a process in the IRS that would flag criminal wrong doing, investigate it and charge when necessary. 700,000 cases of people claiming dead peoples S.S number and collecting returns last year. 400,000 cases of people last year who got caught for not claiming monies they tried to hide,EST of 5-7 million who got away with it last year. millions who did not file correct tax claims that should have. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 21, 2012 9:56:23 GMT -5
Don't be a clown. There is a process in the IRS that would flag criminal wrong doing, investigate it and charge when necessary. 700,000 cases of people claiming dead peoples S.S number and collecting returns last year. 400,000 cases of people last year who got caught for not claiming monies they tried to hide,EST of 5-7 million who got away with it last year. millions who did not file correct tax claims that should have. Thanks for posting irrelevant data. What's your point? Is it your assertion nothing is being done and, therefore, Romeny's tax case fell through the cracks?  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Jul 21, 2012 10:54:48 GMT -5
That would kinda be the point. A good one, inasmuch as there's a lot of fraudulent claims.
As for launching an investigation, that only takes suspicion, not probable cause. Probable cause can be determined through evidence collected, and warrants can then be issued.
As far as outsiders being suspicious, and investigating, that's quite legal, and above board. If they find something that equates to evidence of his doing something wrong, it can advance from there, through proper channels.
But, not just on someone's theory that something "might" be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 21, 2012 19:02:34 GMT -5
I have no doubt that there is a system to where those who report millions in taxes are more scrutinized than run of the mil claims where their may be fraud or errors but not worth the taxpayers time to activly pursue.
If you're a millionionaire and you cheat on your taxes, the IRS is coming to call on you; period.
Because a person does not release their taxes to be scrutinized by their enemies for cannon fodder does not a crime make.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Jul 22, 2012 5:50:12 GMT -5
I have no doubt that there is a system to where those who report millions in taxes are more scrutinized than run of the mil claims where their may be fraud or errors but not worth the taxpayers time to activly pursue. If you're a millionionaire and you cheat on your taxes, the IRS is coming to call on you; period. Because a person does not release their taxes to be scrutinized by their enemies for cannon fodder does not a crime make. there are many things they do to look for incorrect tax returns, just being rich is not one of them. The IRS, looks at unsigned returns, they pull them out, they look for home worked out returns(because they have more mistakes in them) they let MORE returns go through that are processed by a lawyer or CPA. and electroniclly, they also check for any big differnces in the claim of the present year vs. the past. that if there is a big one they flag it. if you had filed late they pull more of them to look at more closely, if you miss a year they look those are the biggest things the IRS does to the millions of returns each year.  |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Jul 22, 2012 9:28:18 GMT -5
Whatever. One of the 7 things the IRS looks for when reviewing returns: Being wealthy. Sorry, one-percenters; the more you rake in, the more Uncle Sam wants to make sure he’s getting his fair share. “Face-to-face audits of individual taxpayers reporting income over $200,000 increased by 34 percent as compared with FY 2010,” the IRS Taxpayer Advocate website says. “Also, the IRS is now auditing about one out of every eight taxpayers who reported over $1 million in income.” Read more: moneyland.time.com/2012/04/06/7-red-flags-that-can-get-you-audited/#ixzz21MTsYNn6 |
|
