Even though I spent many years becoming very familiar with truly complicated contracts having shared equity and debt positions with appropriate ramifications, I'd never sign even the simplest contractual agreement without having it reviewed by legal counsel any more than I'd file tax returns not blessed by a competent CPA. One word or one number can change the entire structure of any document. I don't personally have any objections to either circumstance and certainly don't consider them cause for revolution. It's a complicated world including fiscal and legal matters.

Really? So you take a lawyer with you everytime you go to the grocery store, or McDonald's? Do you have your lawyer review the warranties on everything you buy? Because these are all examples of contracts, Americano.

The first two are buyer beware circumstances. We have most groceries delivered by a private agent, don't use McDonald's and yes, I do have a lawyer review warranties for purchases above the disposable personal property category.

"Buyer beware", hmmm. As in: "It's your own self-imposed problem if you don't consult a lawyer and end up getting screwed?" Wonder where I read that before?
Well, I wish everyone in this country had the means to just ring up their lawyer to discuss the finer points of television warranty contract law, Americano. But thankfully that's not necessary yet. No one should have to contact a lawyer regarding their everyday purchases, nor even most special purchases. Whether you do or not, Americano, is besides the point.

Most people's lives are relatively simple and mundane, including their financial lives. Just as they don't need lawyers to advise them on which toaster to buy, they shouldn't need an accountant to advise them on which toaster to buy because there's some write-off they can take advantage of. And they shouldn't have to prove to anyone that they indeed bought that toaster and use it for the proscribed purposes of toasting.

First, audits are an administrative or civil legal matter. Due process, although apparent, does exisit through collection due process letters, audit reconsideration letters, statutory notices, etc. You still have thr right to appeal either to tax court or iinternally through the appeals office.

Criminal intent is administered by the Department of Justice via fedeeral district courts.
There is no guilt or innocense unless we are talking about criminal procedures. Most tax matters are civil, like audits, offer in compromise, etc. Seperate the two and stop mincing terms you have no understanding whatsoever.

Says you.
For most people, everything that is needed to know about filing are in the instructions and in the publications. But most people want to read and interpret what they read only in their favor while ignoring the reality of what the law says. A classic example is the scenario of "It's my child and I have a right to claim him/her." However, if you read the publication on claiming dependents, it does not state that, yet people like yourself will ignore it.
There are other ways of simplifying the tax code. You're taking an unnecessarily extreme position. I'm not talking about equity, either.

Internal Revenue Manual, which can be found online, the publications, and the instructions. They answer most questions unless you really want to get creative.

NOTE: There are complicated laws, namely immigration laws, security and exchange laws, insurance laws, etc. Should we scrap them too? (rhetorical question).

*sigh* Why is so difficult for people to engage in civilized debate without throwing ad hominems? (Not really a rhetorical question. I would really like to know.)

Regardless, let's proceed. Assume, for sake of argument, the following statement is fact:

Tax code allows me to deduct a certain business expense from my income. I buy something that I, my accountant, and past tax rulings agree is a legitimate, deductible, business expense and show the deduction on my return.

Now, for the hypothetical:

The IRS decides to audit me because my expenses don't match up with some national average of expenses typical for my line of business. Isn't the IRS, in essence, accusing me of committing a crime, of committing fraud?
And so do the framers of our government. As do most people who believe in the rule of law.
Which brings us full circle to my point: The code is so convoluted that interpretation is not open solely to those who are responsible for complying with it, it is also completely amorphous to those who created it and to those responsible for enforcing it.
Seriously, Hudson, what is the point of this statement and the one about me having no idea what I'm talking about? Did I insult you in some way? Did I make some assumption about you and denigrate you based on that assumption?
Was there some point you were trying to make with this quote of mine, or did you simply mistype?
Uh, the response you quoted was in reply to this:

"Technically, you should have a legal representative on retainer."

Which was in response to my assertion that, as a logical extension of your argument, I should have a full-time lawyer to ensure I follow all non-tax related laws.

Since I specified non-tax related laws, and it was clear my intention was also in regards to non-tax related laws, claiming that a tax related manual specifies I should have a lawyer for non-tax related advice seems pretty funny. Especially when you just got done berating me to... let me see... oh, yea, "...stop mincing terms [on which I] have no understanding whatsoever."
I'll answer anyway since it serves to make my point. No, we should not scrap them. We have a safety net called "due process" to determine intent.

You understand the Webster's definition of "due process," but fail to understand the applicability of how the term is used and applied in either criminal or civil law. This distinction must be made because the applicability is applied differently. Failing to understand this principle, or excluding the principle is what is causing your argument. This is called ad hominem circumstantial. You have already concluded your position and will ignore certain facts as to
First, your statement is not factual. It is circumstantial. In tax law, the word generally is applied on deductions, exclusions, credits, and additional taxes. There are exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, and so forth. But lets proceed.

The IRS sends you a letter stating it is questioning some item or items on the return. The letter also informs you what you should send and by when. The letter may give a proposed tax increase. This is only served as an attention getter. By receiving the letter, due process has been served under civil statue. No decision is made whatsoever. Thus, the letter fails to meet your general assertion that due process is not granted. You have to meet the "ordinary and necessary" doctrine for that business expense.

Now, you can either ignore the letter or send in the information. The choice is yours. If you have the documentation that can substantiate, the IRS will agree with you. If not, they will ask for more information. If the IRS decides to rule against you, you still can appeal within the IRS or go to Tax Court. Again, the choice is yours. Due process is served. You may or may not like the outcome, but that is not the IRS's fault, is it.

Thomas Jefferson once argued not to have a military academy and then created one after the War of 1812? Why would a man of such Republican principle create the school in the first place when he always warned of unchecked militarism and expanding federal powers? This argument is still debated today. The point is that the Constitution layed out basic ground rules and a framework for future generations to live by. That is the true power of the US Constitution and why there will no similar document to be created in our or future lifetimes. Furthermore, the Articles of Confederation proved disastrous to this nation and was a complete failure. It is the reason why the NRST will never work.

[quote]Which brings us full circle to my point: The code is so convoluted that interpretation is not open solely to those who are responsible for complying with it, it is also completely amorphous to those who created it and to those responsible for enforcing i/QUOTE]
The code at times is very complicated, but not what you are doing on your return in most circumstances. Again, most of the information is in either the publication or instructions. The problem is that most people only want to read something the way they want to interpret the rule. This went to my point about the person believing murder was not a crime.

[quote]Seriously, Hudson, what is the point of this statement and the one about me having no idea what I'm talking about? Did I insult you in some way? Did I make some assumption about you and denigrate you based on that assumption?p/QUOTE]
See first point above.
Again, it would be prudent to keep a legal adviser available. You do not have to keep one on retainer, a service can be obtained for a nominal fee. This site provides basic legal advice in most areas of law. It is not too high a price. It would be similar to buying a radar detector for your car if you have a "lead foot."

The point was that if you do not want to obtain a legal representative whatsoever, the federal government publishes practically everything. But I have found, the hard way, that most people are too damn lazy and want everything spoon fed in MTV format. You have proven my point on that as well.

Technically, there is very little due process in immigration law, but that is another debate altogether. For the record, this was not advocating any immigration proposa, for or againstl whatsoever, just pointing out that due process is not available to most immigrants, even in the most basic of immigration adjustments. This again proves my point that even though you may understand the generalities of "due process," you fail to understand its applicability in specific situations.

Here's how I understand due process:
1) You are accused of a crime.
2) You go to trial.
3) Whomever accuses you brings evidence of your guilt before the court where either a judge or a jury determines whether the evidence proves your guilt.
4) You are allowed to present your own evidence in order to prove you are guiltless, but you are not required to do so. The onus of proving your guilt is upon whomever accused you of the crime. You are innocent until proved guilty.

Apart from orders of degree in the proof, this is the same for both criminal and civil proceedings. Now, what have I missed?
Simply because I debate you, Hudson, is neither indicative, nor proof positive that I have concluded my position. I have also neither unduly dismissed any facts, nor implied any facts are irrelevant.
It is factual. It is my hypothetical, therefore I get to set out the initial constraints. There is nothing circumstantial about my statement. I did not make any statement as to what the deduction was, only that my interpretation, my accountant's interpretation, and everything written by the IRS (which, by the way, tax rulings become part of the tax code upon their writing) agree. Those are the facts of the hypothetical.
We agree. The letter does, despite your assumption of what I am arguing to the contrary, satisfy the obligations of due process. The IRS is stating, in fact, that I have committed the crime of under-reporting my taxable income.
And here is where due process fails. In any ordinary legal proceeding, once I am accused of a crime I would have to go to court where the accuser would present evidence of my guilt. I am not obligated to prove my innocence. By requiring that I send in proof of my innocence (whatever documentation the IRS requests) the IRS is assuming I am guilty and I must prove my innocence.
And one of these groundrules is that "no person... shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." And that due process includes the right to have the case heard by a jury at a trial regardless of the matter being criminal or civil.
Then why are more and more people spending more and more time and money complying with the tax code? It increases, as a percentage, every year.
I disagree. The problem is that the rules are written so that they can be interpreted the way people want to interpret them. This is compounded by the fact that the mis-interpretation is not limited to only those who are responsible for complying with the code. The fact that everyone, even within the IRS, interprets the rules differently renders mis-interpretation without meaning. There is no mis-interpretation because there is no one interpretation.
Ad hominem attacks, in whatever cloak you want to clothe them, have no place in civilized debate.
It may be prudent, but it is neither necessary, nor practical for the vast majority of the population. Arguing that it's only "a nominal fee" is tantamount to arguing it would be okay to charge people a dollar to vote.
Calling me lazy and effectively a dullard, does that also come under "circumstantial ad hominem"?
Completely outside the point. Immigrants aren't included under the protections of the Constitution, which includes due process.

I really wish you would attack my arguments without making baseless assumptions about me personally. When you prove that I have no understanding about something you can berate me all day long. And I'll agree with you. But until that time, try to make your points without the ad hominem attacks, or ignore me. Perhaps my ignorance and indolence are wasting your time.

So, let me ask you something. When you are served papers in a divorce proceeding, have you committed a crime? When the county tax acessor office sends a letter increasing the assessed value on your property, have you committed a crime? Or are you suggesting that a complaint and a crime are the same thing legally?

This is the reason why one must distinguish between civil and criminal law.
Ignoring relevant facts that could change or weaken your position that I have already given you is proof enough of your intent. But you will deny it of course.
What may be ordinary and necessary in one business or under a NAICS code is not the same with another business or NAICS code. For instance, what you consider ordinary and necessary in your business is not the same as someone who is a prostitute. The expense allocation are totally different;yet the prostitute can probably claim the expense you are alluding to, generally, although the expense may not meet the ordinary and necessary component. This is the hyper-technical aspect of the tax code. It makes the code tedious where attention to detail is important.
Again, what crime? Simply because a governmental agency, any agency whether local, state, or federal, does not mean you have committed a crime. Again, it is important to stress to substantiate the difference between civil and criminal. You are mixing the two.
And how does it fail under the procedural guidelines in civil cases? Again, no crime has been committed.
Uhm, no. This is your flaw in your argument. Due process is different under civil law where criminal law is more stringent.
Because more an more people want to lower their tax bill in the future. The 1986 tax reform act was more long term than short term which benefited the financial services industry.
Then this goes with my argument that a person can argue that murdering someone is not against the law because that person interpreted so. YOu have created a ad hominem circumstantial argument.
Again, it is a choice. Most people will buy beer, cigerettes, sex, anything else before they will buy something that will help them in the future. Then those same people will complain, "I did not know it would happen to me." This argument is tantamount to the health insurance debate where a majority of those who do not have insurance choose because they do not see the need for it now.
I was calling people in general lazy. Case in point, a clinet came into my office and threw down a letter from the IRS and it was unopened. The client than demanded to know why the IRS was "harassing" them. I opened the letter and it was a math error notice in their favor. I verified the error and then explained that they will be getting a small refund because they overpaid on their tax. Meanwhile, I had to charge the client my fee for coming in. So, if the person opened up the letter, read it, perhaps called the IRS themselves for an explaination, then the client would have acted so beligerently.

Again, I am not saying you will do this, but that you do not have the patience nor discipline to research yourself on most issues.
You missed the point, but since you stated, "No, we should not scrap them. We have a safety net called "due process" to determine intent." I gave immigration law to prove the point that due process is defined differently under different statues. Furthermore, even the applicant, which can be a US person is denied due process they way you define it.

However, the other point was that immigration law, along with the other statues I gave are more complicated than the tax code.
I have not berated you yet. I have been very direct toward you as a teaching tool.

I am not suggesting that a complaint and a crime are the same thing. Is my understanding of due process deficient in some way? If so, where?
Perhaps you could demonstrate your point by providing a relevant fact I've ignored?
I don't see how this matters, but if it helps us move on assume the expense was ordinary and necessary for my business and assume the IRS has ruled specifically on exactly the thing I bought as being a legitimate deduction. Assume I can point to specific IRS rulings regarding the thing I bought, in the same exact business, and they allowed the deduction.
The crime of fraud. Is it, or is it not a crime? Furthermore, why are you arguing that sending me a letter satisfies due process if you believe there is no requirement for due process because no crime has been committed?
If no crime has been committed when I under report my earnings, why can the IRS deprive me of property, perhaps even liberty?
Explain, please. The requirements of proof of guilt are more stringent under criminal law than they are under civil law, but due process remains the same. There are no differences in the requirements of due process regardless if I'm accused of failure to perform on a contract or killing someone.
Have any proof of this? I believe it's because more and more people have no understanding of the tax code, are more and more afraid they'll do something wrong and will lose their shirts to the IRS.
He can try that argument, and he'll get a chance to in court. But first, the state will have to prove he actually committed the murder. And there are several different definitions of murder (manslaughter, 1st degree, etc.), and due process allows a defendent the opportunity to present his interpretation. But again, more importantly the state must prove the defendent committed the crime before intent is even discussed.

It's interesting you keep telling me how due process is different in civil and criminal cases, that taxes are a civil matter, and then try to bolster your argument with a criminal example.
Huh? An ad hominem circumstantial argument attacks the person making the opposing argument by appealing to our concern over vested interests. For example, if I wrote, "Of course you defend the IRS because, being an accountant, the more difficult the tax code is the better it is for your business." That would be an ad hominem circumstantial. Your particular circumstances are attacked as proof that your argument is wrong. Others reading our debate might be (wrongly) convinced that because you have a vested interest in keeping the tax code complicated means I'm right. Calling me stupid and lazy actually isn't an ad hominem circumstantial, unless you're arguing that I have a vested interest in making the tax code simple because I'm stupid and lazy, and that is proof that the tax code should remain complicated. Is that what you're arguing?

How have I done that here? What vested interests have I accused you of having?
Well, we've come a long way from, "Technically, you should have...." To, "it is a choice." For many people, having a lawyer on retainer is not even on the list of things they can afford to have - they're too busy with silly things like food, housing, and medical necessities. For most people, having a lawyer shows up, rightly, way down the list. As I said from the outset, when the laws in this country become so convoluted - as convoluted, obscure, and arcane as the tax code - that most people need a full-time lawyer just to get them through the year, then we're going to have a revolution.
It really doesn't read like you're calling "people in general lazy" when you write "you do not have the patience nor discipline to research yourself on most issues." It really reads like Hudson is writing, "Cato does not have the patience...." Perhaps you should review your syntax?
Which would be irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion (what protections citizens of this country are entitled to), we only need to know whether or not due process begins with an assumption of innocence regardless of whether we're discussing a civil matter or a criminal matter. Either stick with that, or come up with an example where due process for US citizens is rightly ignored.
How can an immigrant, subject to immigration laws, also be a US citizen?
Still doesn't matter. We're talking about protections afforded to US citizens.
Well, I can only hope that you don't call your children (if you have them), or your friends, stupid and lazy as a way to teach them. You'd only be teaching them that you're an asshole who can't seem to make his argument without irrelevant attacks on them. And we certainly wouldn't want them to think that.

Ok, why do you think an audit, any audit, is an indication of a crime?

Look at my point below:

Again, the details is what you are ignoring. As the adage goes, "Just because one can do such a thing does not mean one should do such a thing." This is not to state that the deduction was illegal, or God forbid, immoral, but that if the IRS rules on a very specific set of circumstances that an expense may be allowed is not to presume that it is always allowed. This is the tediousness nature of any federal statue.

So a questionable item is fraud?

So, if you do not pay your property taxes, sales taxes, mortgage payments, etc, do you think the other obligator is going to give you a free pass? In a crude way, paying taxes is similar to a contractual obligation which under statue must adhere to certain constraints. I get the sneaky feeling you are more an anarchist or a person who wants the choice but not the consequences of choice. I find this as a immature and illogical response to any argument, IMHO.

Since when is a questionable item an indication of fraud, Cato? You still have not explained the difference in your argument. Again, due process can be explained by this: Law Site Generalities

This site is proof enough unless you ignore this is coming from a CPA firm. Of course the other reason is that taxes is a part of financial planning.

Again, look at the law site about the procedural due process. By understanding procedural due process, you will then understand the differences between civil and criminal law.
I have given you examples, you just ignore it because it weakens your own argument. See second and third point above.

OK, where did I state that I want the tax code complicated, Cato? Again, you are stating a questionable item is fraud. That exemplifies an erroneous argument of ad hominem circumstantial. I have given you plenty of examples, including a client who never read the letter the IRS sent or the sales tax example of where one frozen food is taxed while the other, with similar nutritional standards, is not taxed all because of a label. What is naive about your argument is that on one hand you want simplicity just as long it is on the other person. Keep in mind no tax system is fair because it preferences certain taxpayers over others. wheiher it is a progressive income tax, regressive income tax, NRST, VAT, or