Wesley Snipes: Tax Conviction and 3 Year Sentence Upheld

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:41 PM EST
Tags: Wesley Snipes (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Actor Wesley Snipes lost his appeal of his 3 year sentence for tax crimes today. The 11th Circuit opinion is here. The factual part -- with Snipes arguments against filing returns for five years on more than $37 million of income, is interesting. (He was convicted for three of those years and the amount of taxes he owes is $17 million.)

Although Snipes earned more than thirty-seven million dollars in gross income from 1999 to 2004, he did not file individual federal income tax returns for any of those years.

Among the reasons he claimed he didn't have to pay taxes:

Snipes also claimed that as a “fiduciary of God, who is a ‘nontaxpayer,’” he was a “‘foreign diplomat’” who was not obliged to pay taxes.

[More...]

Snipes was convicted of misdemeanors, not felonies. Under federal law, the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor is 12 months. But because his guidelines were higher than that, the court could and did stack the counts, maxing him out at 36 months.

It seems the principal reason the court imposed the maximum sentence was general deterrence -- to discourage others from committing the crime. Making an example of someone always seems to me to be a poor reason for a sentence -- but particularly in this case, considering the small percentage of our population who earn more than $7 million a year that might be deterred.

< Does Lindsay Lohan Need Robert Shapiro? | Friday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Wesley Snipes: Tax Conviction and 3 Year Sentence Upheld | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This opinion doesn't make Snipes (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 09:26:54 PM EST

look good at all. I prefer to read it as dry comedy:

Snipes claimed that he believed he had a Fifth Amendment privilege not to file his personal income tax returns because Special Agent Lalli advised him of his right to remain silent. The district court declined to give this instruction, observing that there was no evidence that Snipes had directly asserted his Fifth Amendment right as a basis for refusing to file his federal income tax returns. Snipes's counsel did, however, argue to the jury in closing that Snipes's reliance on Agent Lalli's pre-interview advice of rights constituted a good faith basis for his failure to file his individual income tax returns.

You might want to make clear, TL, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Peter G on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 10:14:06 PM EST

that none of the issues we raised on appeal for Mr. Snipes (I wrote most of the brief and argued the appeal) were based on the "reasons" you quoted from the opinion that he gave at the time. The appeal raised serious legal questions about the trial -- particularly the government's choice of a rural Florida venue to indict someone who lives in LA and NYC -- and about the sentencing process. And although the IRS says Mr. Snipes owes millions in taxes, the judge determined that the "tax loss" under the Sentencing Guidelines for the three years of conviction was only $220,000, with zero as the loss in one year.

: For the record (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:51:14 AM EST

I was making no comment on the quality of your representation!
The CoA does present Snipes as a loon. That might not be fair.

I give Snipes props... (2.00 / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:48:55 AM EST

for trying...paying the vig without question is the way of the enabler....like sending cases of champagne to an alcoholic. I often think widespread tax revolt is the only way to make the government change their ways...to end the wars, thin out the prisons, end criminal cronyism. Reason ain't working...money talks.

But as Snipes as learned, it's a battle you're bound to lose...everytime.

Obvious (none / 0) (#3)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 10:32:50 PM EST

Among the reasons he claimed he didn't have to pay taxes

Snipes also claimed that as a "fiduciary of God, who is a `nontaxpayer,'" he was a "`foreign diplomat'" who was not obliged to pay taxes.

It ia obious he was not represented by Jeralyn.

: See my comment #2 (none / 0) (#4)
by Peter G on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:13:22 PM EST

Those "claims" were not presented as defenses in court, either at trial or on appeal.

Wadda maroon. (none / 0) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:29:06 AM EST

Deterrence (none / 0) (#8)
by lentinel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:22:01 AM EST

I believe the sentence was meant to deter everyone, not just the very rich, from seeking to avoid paying income taxes.

It seems that every so often, someone comes along with credible evidence that the whole internal revenue act is unconstitutional.

People seeking not to contribute to illegal and immoral wars, such as the one in Vietnam, tried all sorts of gambits.

So I think Snipes is being used as a general example.

I do ask myself, "WTF was he thinking?"

Did he really think he could get away with it - and if so - why?

I don't know if his "foreign diplomat" ploy was actually presented in court - but it is the stuff of a Peter Sellers comedy.

: Credible evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 08:29:20 AM EST

PFFFT.

: Yes, deterrence (none / 0) (#11)
%%norm_fon