digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Mogul Sentenced to 9 Years For Failing to Pay $200 Million in Taxes

washingtonpost.com — "Eccentric Washington telecommunications mogul Walter C. Anderson was sentenced yesterday to nine years in prison for failing to pay $200 million in taxes. Anderson, the biggest convicted tax cheat in U.S. history, received the longest punishment ever given in a tax crime case for his admitted effort to hide $365 million in personal income."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • johnsatre, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2he sounds completely insane.

    also, public defender?
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sign me up! The ***** will do the 9 years but doesn't have to pay $140 million back. That's roughly $16 million per year. And we all know he's not going to a maximum security prison. He's going to club fed. I'd go to jail if you paid me $16 million per year.
      Lucky for him I'm not the judge. I would send his ass to a maximum security prison. And pimp his ass out to pay back the money. After 9 years, his ass would be terribly sore. He'd wish he never tried to scam the government.
  • mtownand1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3on the front page with 24 diggs? woah.. anyways, yea, thats a crapload of tax evasion.
  • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Wait, you mean the law applies to rich and powerful people too?
    My faith in the system has been shaken!
    • olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12there is no law!
    • ArgusSmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Pics or the law didn't happen.
    • KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I understand when the poor can't pay their taxes . . . . survival is hard enough.
      Someone bringing in $365 mil, CAN afford to pay their taxes.
    • knuckles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I would like to point out to any politicians reading this thread that Arkonnan's comment was sarcasm. Please don't go chaning the laws thinking that the middleclass taxpayer likes watching the rich walk off with their money...
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -20/+16Taxation is theft, and one could argue, makes you a war criminal for the way the money is used.
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8I've never heard of thieves giving people back roads, schools, and military/police defense.
    • PanteroBlanco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@airwalk

      I have. Stealing from other groups to give to your own (however you define "your own") isn't uncommon at all. Also, it makes sense not to destroy the people you're stealing from; that way, you can take more from them later.

      That said, I don't think income taxes are automatically theft, as long as they're being used the way they were intended.
    • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Unfortunately, people are so brainwashed they don't see taxation for what it is. If the gov't wants you to pay for their services, they ought to offer them the same way everyone else in the marketplace does (ie: voluntarily). If you don't want them, you shouldn't be forced to pay for them under some lousy excuse like "pay your share". Stupid socialists! And the gov't shouldn't stand in the way of others who want to provide the services in competition with the gov't.
    • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@hagbard72: Unforntunatly thats just a theory that has never been tested. (Such a system working that is..)
      Either way its pretty hard to make sure everyone who uses your roads pays for them without setting up toll booths on every road.. Which is a huge inconvenince.. Among other thing.
    • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Its not a "theory", its the way things worked before 1917. And you don't need toll roads to have pay for use roads (they already exist and have for at least ten years).
  • rtakach, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"Do you dare to imagine the program they could have implemented with $40 million of Anderson's tax money?"

    I doubt that money would have made much of a dent in the tax revenue, and while it's nice to think that they could have improved schools with that money, it likely would not have made a difference. Unfortunately.

    Sucks for this guy, 9 years, that blows.
    • lakush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 The $40 million would mostly go to fund war and pay off only interest on the national debt.
  • bcardarella, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Only 9 years for $200 million in tax fraud? Where are those articles of kids being sentenced for longer on marijuana charges?
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25While you have an excellent point.

      I'm wondering how he can possibly owe $200 million on $365 million in income?

      When did we get a 55% federal tax rate?
    • Polymathic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Those late fees are a bitch!
    • KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I'm wondering how he can possibly owe $200 million on $365 million in income?"

      Once you're late, there's interest on what you owe. What a few years and it can get exponential.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3when you REFUSE to pay, you get interest and FINES for not filing or lying about your return... those are HUGE.
    • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1double post.
  • flubba, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2lolololol dr L337
  • generalnewbie, on 10/12/2007, -17/+15There Is No Law That Makes You Liable For An Income Tax. This guy didn't really do anything illegal. I hope he goes after the government and sues them.
    • heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Just because you people keep saying that doesn't make it true.
    • r0b1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Is that you, Wesley Snipes?
    • vsujohn2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@HeavensBlade23
      And just because the people that say you have to pay taxes have all the guns and power, doesnt make it right (or legal)
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I agree that if there is no law explicitly stating their should be an income tax, then that should be fixed. However, think of what would happen to the government without income tax. It would completely fall apart. You can't just starve the government, you have to scale it back slowly (if that is what you want) or slowly increase taxes in other areas to compensate.
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Hello?!?! The 16th amendment and all income laws subsequently made by Congress?

      I will quote:
      "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    • biggles7268, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@airwalk

      but i don't make any income, work is an equal trade. my time and labor is traded for an equal amount of cash.
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11See (5). The rest are there too.

      "For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered 'objectively reasonable' in this circuit:
      "(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
      "(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
      "(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
      "(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
      "(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
      "(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
      "(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."

      United States v. Buckner, 1987
    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@vsujohn2
      They don't have *all* the guns. They sure as hell don't have mine ;)
    • biggles7268, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1for the record I don't have a problem with paying taxes, i do have a problem with how the system is set up and with how the government has been using our money.
    • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not much left you your constitution, first taxation on income, then GW comes along and wipes out the rest of it.
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17Looks to me like the US is in bad need of a bloody revolution.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Not sure where your getting "revolution" from a guy getting convicted for tax fraud...
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16> "Looks to me like the US is in bad need of a bloody revolution."

      Because a rich guy went to jail for tax evasion? Seriously...?
    • rkcreative, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Hey hagbard72:

      France called. Said they wanted their ***** RETARD back...
    • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1rkcreative - guess you'd better buy your ticket then. BTW, I'm not an American, but given all the ***** going on with your gov't, you really ought to consider that revolution idea. Jefferson thought it was a good idea at times like this.
  • CanIGetAWitness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Longest punishment for a tax crime?

    Didn't Capone get sentenced more than 9 years back in the day?
  • edstate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There's some other dude that's "hole up" in his house, refusing to pay, claiming the income tax is illegal... hmmmm. Must be nice.
  • gronkers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Well with what the government spends your tax money on, can you blame people for not wanting to pay?
  • aratika, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Must be tax time. Always stories about tax evaders going to jail this time of the year.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4that's to scare the rest of us straight!
  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Rich, smart stupid mogul. All in one title, must be a first.
  • gsadler82, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I didn't think there was a law that says you HAVE to pay income tax?
  • jordanisawesome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow!
  • Junn168, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8***** socialist liberals in government taxing us hard working Americans to death I don't want to pay for your damn social programs for illegal immigrants.
    • Junn168, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I completely agree with you. Thats why we need a revolution to overthrow the entire government.
  • reubenfine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This guy is my new hero!
  • isosceles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So instead of fining him and letting him pay for himself to live outside of jail....let's put him in jail and use tax money to keep him there and provide for him for 9 years. I understand the super wealthy shouldn't be above the law, but isn't there a point where we should at least protect society's money rather than spending it.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey, ***** idiot...isn't there a point where we shouldn't say "Hey, if you are rich, you will never have to do the same time that poor people have because we'd rather have you money."

      Our tax dollars goes toward punishing people who break the law. Not just POOR people who break the law.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2but in this case it's the guy FREEDOM that needs to be taken not his money. Guys this rich will pay whatever fine or allow you to confiscate whatever property the govt can.. the trouble is that with the amounts of money these guy owe it's impossible to post a "fair" fine... where the IRS can literally kick you or I out of the only home/car/job we own with a few 10's of thousands of dollars, these guys can hide several million in a mattress and start all over. Eventually you have to put them in JAIL... they gotta do the time. That's why they put Martha Steward in jail as opposed to a big fine. They could have fined her 10x what they did, but it's following the LAW that needs to happen. Any amount of money doesn't compensate for lying to or misleading the court. You've got to put these guys in jail.. right next to the common thieves and pot smokers... yes, it's violent and unfair... but that's the power the govt has... to lock you up... so pay your taxes!!
  • billraydrums, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0is the 365 million gross or net income?

    Also, they say that it's not how much money you make to become a millionaire, it's the mindset you harbor that contributes to "millionaire-ism".
    • Dislexus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I do believe the 365 million is considered before taxes in his case....
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No one brought up the biggest part of the story. That because of a poorly worded tox code, even though he is going to jail, and has to pay back the state tax that he didn't pay, the judge had no choice but to rule that he did NOT have to pay back more than $100 million to the federal government. He said "I hope the government appeals my ruling" because he knows it would be ridiculous for him to get to keep the money. But as the law is worded, he had no choice. He said there are other ways the government can get it back, but that he couldn't make the ruling.
  • haggie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1He must be a rich Democrat because there is no way in hell this would happen to a wealthy Republican on Bush's watch!

    Al he has to do is resubmit his voter registration with the R checked, write a huge check to the RNC, and put the rest of his unpaid taxes into Halliburton stock and he can be a free man tomorrow.
  • killervibe, on 10/20/2007, -1/+4Damn! $200M in taxes on only $365M in income? Thats a ridiculously high tax rate. I wouldnt want to pay it either.
  • tehbored, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would think if he were that rich, he'd have enough money to hire a half-decent defense lawyer. The law requiring people to pay income tax doesn't even ***** exist! Must've been a ***** defense.
  • Longstreets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is the funniest story I've read all year and I loved it !

    Income taxes suck big time and so does the IRS .
    Get rid of them both.There are better ways.

    Either we are 100% in possession of the right to our own labor,
    or we possess none of it.

    Income tax rates are far to high and reduces us all to nothing more than economic slaves and I thought we abolished slavery in this country.

    Read the "Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.It explains the whole rotten scheme.
  • roberto_deneero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't put him in jail. Anyone who owes $200M knows how to make a buck or two. Put him to work for the people fixing government problems.
  • mdc10s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Last time I checked there is no law that says we have to pay an income tax.
  • Specks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd like someone to show me the law that says you HAVE to pay taxes. The only way the IRS makes you pay is through intimidation and strong arm tactics.
  • Jobble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Like so many others have pointed out here already, he didn't break any law.

    There is no law stating that we have to pay taxes on personal income.

    Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

    Democracy only works if the people are are involved, unfortunately the people
    of this country fell asleep about 100 years ago and have been that way since.
  • HeroicLife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This is a serious crime, and it requires a serious punishment," [U.S. District Judge] Friedman said. "It is taking money from taxpayers."

    The judge has it backwards. The state is taking the money from Anderson, not vice versa. Taxes are theft of the wealth you create - the money you earn is not "stolen" from anyone. Pointing out the failings of a public school system that spends more money on students than any other state in the U.S., yet gets the lowest scores only underlines the incompetence of socialized education.
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

    CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

    MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

    CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

    MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by Congress.

    CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes...

    CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

    MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

    CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

    CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of Congress to lay tax on the people.

    CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.......

    CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 billion in assets.

    CALLER - What are these assets composed of?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

    CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

    CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

    CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

    MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.

    CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.

    CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.

    CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

    CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

    MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.

    CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.

    CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.

    CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

    CALLER - Where did they go?

    MR. SUPINSKI - People's mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

    CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

    CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

    MR. SUPINSKI - No.

    CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

    MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.

    CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were 'created out of thin air' in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

    CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.

    CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.

    CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.

    CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

    MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.

    CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

    CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

    CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? (Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8) nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

    CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress.

    CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.

    CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

    MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).

    CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

    CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.

    CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?

    ("The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...)

    MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.

    CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

    MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

    CALLER - What is the solution?

    MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.

    CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?

    MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.

    CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.

    CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that.

    CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death?

    MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.

    CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

    MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.

    CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

    MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.

    CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.

    MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.