[Computeiful]

In their examples section they mention how a double agent was charged with tax evasion based on $2m of undeclared income from bribes.

But if the agent WERE to mention the income on their tax documents, even as "Unspecified due to 5th amendment protection" that surely would be incriminating enough to cause further investigation from the state. (I assume the US government keeps a close eye on their agents papers).

I'm just not sure how you're supposed to declare ill-gotten gains without 5th amendment worthy self-incrimination.

[vmception]

That’s why they amended the constitution to collect income taxes. The 16th amendment was necessary for a variety of reasons.

The Supreme Court - the constitutional court - kept squashing attempts to collect one.

It might not be important that it undermines your 5th amendment right when the 16th amendment allows any means necessary - or doesnt limit collection methods.

[zauguin]

The answers on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/76594/if-you-are-a-l... strongly suggest that the IRS generally would not share these papers with other law enforcement agencies (except under very special circumstances).

[inglor_cz]

If the goal of the IRS is to collect as much tax money as possible, they would, in such a case, have all the incentives to protect your illegal business from being busted.

[R0b0t1]

The IRS has testified against the government on behalf of defendants, but you are still open to harm from illegal parallel construction.

[nullc]

The IRS couldn't manage to keep the detailed tax records of every american out of propublica's hands... Does anyone think they can keep them out of other agencies hands?

[natpalmer1776]

I would imagine that in cases where you're earning a significant enough amount of money, the issue isn't whether the government knows you're up to no good, the issue is whether they have admissable evidence that you're up to no good.

[R0b0t1]

My contention is that the mere knowledge that you are reporting income is actionable information to the government and the IRS has no way to guarantee it does not get out.

[limaoscarjuliet]

We should work under general provision: if data is gathered, it will be used. Even if it is not legal today for IRS to do something, it does not mean it will not be tomorrow. And law unfortunately works backwards too.

[formerkrogemp]

They don't not share them out of the goodness of their hearts. They're so intentionally understaffed and overworked that they probably don't have time to refer all but the most egregious cases.

[trhway]

>I'm just not sure how you're supposed to declare ill-gotten gains without 5th amendment worthy self-incrimination.

curiously, i think similar situation, yet different outcome - "bad guys" aren't required to register their machine guns :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Exceptio...

"The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Haynes v. United States that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution exempts felons—and, by extrapolation, all other prohibited possessors—from the registration requirements of the Act. "

[doldols]

Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

[cdot2]

Would someone pleading the 5th count as probable cause? I would hope not. That would go against the idea that you can't be punished for exercising a right.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

You may wish to reread the 5th amendment.

[doldols]

Go on. How is forcing someone to testify against themselves with the threat of criminal charges (tax fraud!) and then using that information in a criminal investigation not a 5th amendment violation.

I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know anything. I’m just curious.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

The fifth amendment prevents forcing anyone to testify against themselves, but does not stop investigations.

You asserted that the 5th should prevent an investigation, but it will do nothing of the sort:

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

[Rebelgecko]

I believe that the current legal situation goes further than just keeping people from being compelled to testify. Pleading the 5th also can't be used as evidence against someone (because that would be a form of compulsion), or even as probable cause.

[doldols]

I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.

Would this not taint any investigation started on the basis of coerced testimony? Why would the exclusionary rule not kick in here?

As far as I understand in a criminal context no adverse inference may be drawn from ones refusal to self-incriminate. How would investigating someone for refusing to self-incriminate to the IRS not be exactly that?

E: Found some related literature which I am reading now https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

[ThePowerOfFuet]

>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.

Again, you did no such thing:

> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?

An investigation can be initiated, and can proceed, without any testimony whatsoever from the accused.

Which coerced testimony are you attempting to refer to? The cops show up and ask you about your tax return, and you say "". Either they continue to investigate you or they don't, but you have not been coerced into saying anything at all.

[formerkrogemp]

If the government asks if you, Bill the graffiti artist, painted any graffiti on the wall of a giant chicken, and you said no. They could still apply a penalty for lying to an LEO if that exists as a law if they can catch you later.

[limaoscarjuliet]

The idea is to have a legal basis to take your money (or part thereof) away should you be convicted of said illegal activity.