have been found guilty of aiding and helping in a crime?
How about if his business was to rob banks. Since all the money paid as taxes would be stolen money, would the tax people have to give it back to the banks from which it had been stolen?
2007-06-12 12:35:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I am in the basement (of my house). How did you know?!?
2007-06-12 12:42:08 · update #1
Once the IRS received a return (currently it's the dreaded 1040 - don't know what it was called in Capone's time) from Capone, one of two things would have happened.
If Capone had told the truth about how he got the money, then they could arrest and convict him for bootlegging.
If Capone lied about how he got the money, he'd get busted for filing a false return.
Would the IRS keep the money? Well, first of all, the IRS doesn't actually 'keep' anything. Anything they get goes to the Treasury Dept. THEY'RE the ones who would keep the money.
And, yes, they probably would - along with anything else they could confiscate in the investigation.
And, no, they would not be convicted of aiding and abetting, because no one would press charges (or if they did, it would get thrown out).
Whether the Treas *deserve* to be convicted is anyone's opinion...
As for robbing banks, if the cash could actually be traced to robberies, today, the money would be returned. But in Capone's time, there wasn't the technology (or desire) to do that, so no, it wouldn't be returned.
2007-06-12 16:18:20 · answer #1 · answered by nemo123 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pretty sure that now you would have to pay the tax.
Then
What was left over would be confiscated along with any property that may have been purchased with income from an illegal activity.
The FBI and other agencies reduce the need to purchase vehicles by using confiscated property. They were driving a lot of Mercedes at the LA office 10 years ago.
Smile when they take your picture!
2007-06-12 12:52:44 · answer #2 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way, there's no law in the thirties that made the taxpayers responsible for the bootleggers. Also, only part of the money would have gone to the bootlegging business so nobody could be tried for aiding in a crime. Also there's no way of enforcing this law if there had been a stupid law like this, and espcially not in the twenties.
2007-06-12 12:46:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It costs on average $17,000 a year to pay for a child to go to school in a public environment. If you're paying more than that in taxes a year, then yes go ahead and complain. But don't forget to count police taxes, firemen taxes, road taxes, etc. Your money, if you're not a high earner, doesn't really count for much. Unless you're rich, stop complaining. And illegals do pay taxes, not all of them but some do.
2016-05-18 21:35:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the Treasury dept couldn't have gotten him but he'd be providing the evidence needed for the FBI to get him for bootlegging.
2007-06-12 12:42:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anoter branch of law enforcement would have had his a ss.
2007-06-12 12:39:55 · answer #6 · answered by poppy vox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
get out of the basement
2007-06-12 12:38:47 · answer #7 · answered by bullwinkle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋