Subject:
|
Re: Wench as a word
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:59:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
692 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
>
> Proof would be
> > nice in this instance, not some rant by you. Give me some url's, etc.
>
> http://www.friedly.com/jock/traficant011498.html
From this article (which generally paints a picture of a scoundrel, I'd have to
agree, although who can say for sure what the facts are...)
"Although Traficant was acquitted in criminal court, he was less successful in
civil court. His latest financial disclosure form indicates that he still owes
more than $100,000 to the Internal Revenue Service after the U.S. Tax Court
ruled that he owed back taxes for taking bribes."
I would not count this as "not paying taxes".
If I am appealing a conviction against something, or even if I won an aquittal,
being in dispute with the IRS about whether I owe taxes for that thing is not
the same as "not paying taxes"
But I agree, the man doesn't seem to choose good shirts. Like that really
matters, though.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Wench as a word
|
| (...) to (...) aquittal, (...) Considering that the Civil Court decision was in 1984, and that there is no appeal on file, and the statute of limitations has run out. Owning back taxes and then not paying the back taxes owed is not paying taxes. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
