Selective Enforcement?

[oof]

I never said I should get a "free pass". I have repeatedly admitted my mistake, and am willing to accept responsibility for it... but ONLY if it is equally applied to others. If not, it's nothing short of hypocrisy. And the amount I "owe" is a mere pittance compared to what was purposely "stolen" by these other businesses. Like I said, I'm an easier target.

And yes, I have considered informing the media.

 

[oof]

For some reason I can't click the quote option...

But as for your speeders analogy: Certainly discretion can be used. But it is rarely applied to people who are intentionally violating the law.

My situation is more akin to your drag racing reference. The police pull over 2 people illegally drag racing on Main St. They fine one, and let the other one go.

Do you think a court would tolerate that? I'd like to say I still have some faith in the system, and they wouldn't.

 

[oof]

BTW, I got caught drag racing against someone as a kid. We BOTH got tickets.

 

[Zigner]

...The police pull over 2 people illegally drag racing on Main St. They fine one, and let the other one go.

Do you think a court would tolerate that? I'd like to say I still have some faith in the system, and they wouldn't.

Assuming the citation was otherwise valid, the courts would uphold the citation.

"Everybody else is doing it and they don't get in trouble" didn't get you out of trouble when you were 6 and it's not going to now.

 

[tranquility]

For some reason I can't click the quote option...

But as for your speeders analogy: Certainly discretion can be used. But it is rarely applied to people who are intentionally violating the law.

My situation is more akin to your drag racing reference. The police pull over 2 people illegally drag racing on Main St. They fine one, and let the other one go.

Do you think a court would tolerate that? I'd like to say I still have some faith in the system, and they wouldn't.

If the officer could give a rational basis, that would be just fine. This often comes up when the officer goes to a place and everyone is doing the same thing but only a few get arrested. This is also called the attitude test in that the arrestee failed to respect his a-thor-a-tay.

Did you google prosecutorial discretion yet? It's what the cool kids who are criminal attorneys talk about. Everyone is guilty. There were recently, as in the last few years, three separate books written by federal appellate court judges saying we commit felonies every single day. The key is, what will the prosecutor decide? Since they have nearly unfettered discretion, better to not stick out is the only real answer.

 

[oof]

FFS. This is not some childish game of "everyone else is doing it". This pertains to serious violations of excise tax law that the state is apparently enforcing on a willy-nilly basis. Their assessment is a direct threat to the solvency of my business and support of my family, while others who purposely gave the state the finger are getting off scot-free.

Law is about JUSTICE. Exactly where is the justice in this? I ask again - who decides who gets to obey the law and who doesn't?

What amazes me here is that on a purported "legal" forum, people are actually defending an injustice implemented by the legal system sworn to enforce the law.

Oy...

 

[ecmst12]

Whatever gave you the idea that the law was about justice?

 

[tranquility]

FFS. This is not some childish game of "everyone else is doing it". This pertains to serious violations of excise tax law that the state is apparently enforcing on a willy-nilly basis. Their assessment is a direct threat to the solvency of my business and support of my family, while others who purposely gave the state the finger are getting off scot-free.

Law is about JUSTICE. Exactly where is the justice in this? I ask again - who decides who gets to obey the law and who doesn't?

What amazes me here is that on a purported "legal" forum, people are actually defending an injustice implemented by the legal system sworn to enforce the law.

Oy...

In YOUR case for YOUR violation, you would not be able to introduce any facts saying how others were not similarly punished.

In the potential case for the harm you think you suffered from the disparate treatment under equal protection, the government needs only a rational basis. A very low standard.

That is the law.

If you googled what I asked you to, you would find many who agree with you. They find it unreasonable the government has such unfettered discretion. If that is the dragon you want to slay, knock yourself out. First, read The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha.

 

[oof]

"you would not be able to introduce any facts..."

And you make this claim on what experience? Are you a lawyer?

 

[tranquility]

"you would not be able to introduce any facts..."

And you make this claim on what experience? Are you a lawyer?

Look to the bottom of the page with my claim.

But:
oof: Your honor, I'd like to introduce this evidence others were treated dissimilarly.
State: Objection, relevance.
Judge: Sustained.

 

[oof]

So you are not a lawyer, and are in fact merely surmising.

Ever heard of "case law"? What purpose would it serve if attorneys and courts could not refer to it?

 

[Zigner]

You're not here for answers, you're here for cheerleaders.


At the risk of repeating myself:

You can go to the home page at www.freeadvice.com and click on the Ask a Lawyer link (or, simply go to www.freeadvice.com/law-questions which is a direct link)

Good luck.

 

[ecmst12]

Do you understand what "case law" actually is? Your post seems to indicate you do not.

 

[oof]

I'm here for answers from actual ATTORNEYS, not armchair lawyers. If you are not an attorney then why would you even answer a question such as this?

I don't go to a medical forum and start answering questions about people's health issues. Why? Because I am NOT a doctor.

If you're not a licensed, practicing tax attorney then feel free to skip on by.

 

[tranquility]

So you are not a lawyer, and are in fact merely surmising.

Ever heard of "case law"? What purpose would it serve if attorneys and courts could not refer to it?

What "case law" are YOU talking about regarding the relevance of disparate treatment allowing you to get out from owing the tax you owe?

I might be talking about something like ARMOUR ET AL. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA,
ET AL. 566 U. S. ____ (2012)
where the court found (in part):

In our view, Indianapolis’ classification has a rational
basis. Ordinarily, administrative considerations can jus-
tify a tax-related distinction. See, e.g., Carmichaelv.
Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U. S. 495, 511–512 (1937)
(tax exemption for businesses with fewer than eight em*
ployees rational in light of the “[a]dministrative
conven*ience and expense” involved); see also Lehnhausen, supra,
at 365 (comparing administrative cost of taxing corpora*
tions versus individuals); Madden, supra,at 90 (compar*
ing administrative cost of taxing deposits in local banks
versus those elsewhere). And the City’s decision to stop
collecting outstanding Barrett Law debts finds rational
support in related administrative concerns.

Read the thing. Then tell me about rational basis and disparate treatment in your facts.