Yes income is income, regardless of how obtained. This mainly gives Federal prosecutors an additional tool to nail criminals. Even if prosecutors can't meet the legal burden of proof for theft they can still get the thief for tax fraud.
1. Don't report stolen property as income? Tax evasion. 2. Report stolen property as income? Proof of theft, readily shared to other TLA's
https://money.cnn.com/2013/02/28/news/economy/illegal-income...
> If you tell the IRS you made $1 million from stealing money or dealing drugs, does the agency tip off the cops?
> Legally, it can't, unless a law-enforcement agency gets a court order granting it access to a specific taxpayer's return. The IRS isn't supposed to proactively alert other agencies about misdeeds unless terrorism is involved. In that case, it still needs a court order to disclose anything, but the IRS can initiate the legal process on its own.
Which, IMHO, violates the Fifth Amendment, as any compelled testimony shouldn't be admissible against you, but of course our jurists gave the government a pass on that.
I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t _everybody_ have to share information once met with a court order?
As a more mundane example, a court can grant a search warrant compelling you to turn over your computer so that police can look for proof of suspected criminal activity. Likewise, they can get a court order compelling the IRS to hand over your tax returns.
It can't force someone to give potentially self-incriminating testimony (not all “information” is “testimony”, and not all incrimination is self-incrimination.)
Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced.
They cannot be forced to share privileged information they may have. However, this does not protect the class of information as a whole. IE if you share your medical or legal information to a third party, they can be forced to share it.
This is not quite correct.
Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (who very often technically are not doctors of any kind), spouses, and clergy have various privileges which limit the scope and circumstances in which they can be compelled, which limits what court orders should be issued and may be raised on motions to quash such orders after they are issued.
Don't think so. It's not any compelled testimony. The Fifth only covers compelled testimony against one self, not against others. There are some limited exceptions like lawyers, doctors, spouses but the IRS is not covered under it. You can be compelled to testify against your friend(if the information doesn't incriminate yourself), the Fifth doesn't protect against that.
If the cops seize your diary in a raid using a warrant, it can be introduced at trial. It's evidence, not testimony.
The caveat here is that you can list it as misc or various. So no admissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
It is somewhat less true in the sense where “can claim X” includes the implication that the claim of X stands a whelk’s chance in a supernova of prevailing in court.
That most judges are so morally bankrupt as to disagree with you is a separate issue.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revenue-canada-has-new-powe...
So when we re-wrote all of our marijuana laws, most infractions were made to include a sentence that ranged “up to” 14 years, e.g. sharing a joint with a 17 year old or growing 5 plants instead of your legally permitted 4.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/
Who says the war on drugs is dead…
The IRS says you can declare “miscellaneous other income”.
> such as money from dealing illegal drugs
Given the number of states which have legalized some drugs, there will be a growing, non-trivial number of people who have some income which is legal in their state but not at the federal level. I don't know what fraction of them would be trying that purely as a tax dodge but I could very easily believe someone at the IRS wanted to have an FAQ to point to in that situation.
Based on what? The expansive interpretation is usually traced to Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court packing scheme was introduced and ultimately fizzled in 1937; the one case while it was an active issue that is sometimes credited to the threat of the court packing scheme was one weighing state police powers (in setting a minimum wage) against the Constitutional guarantee against states restricting freedom to contract, which didn't involve the Commerce Clause at all. (And even that case the decisive shift in position appears to have actually occurred before the court packing threat, in any case.)
There is no general federal law against murder. There are some specific federal laws against murder on federal property, or against federal employees, or committing a terrorist act, or a few other very limited situations.
Oh. I thought there was.