Quote:
|
Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham
"revenue concealed under another name/all the facts":
I object- that's a conclusion. W2 just lists "revenue" but the accused denies it, and rebuts with testimony under penalty of perjury.
|
You have now established a controversy: Does the alleged W2 correctly reflect income to the 'relative' or is the testimonial rebuttal correct?
Where are controversies such as this resolved? In the established courts.
Since this appears to be a controversy regarding income, hence devolving into an income tax issue, the first judicial forum, wuld be either the Tax Court (assuming the alleged tax deficiency hasn't been paid) or the District Court if it's been paid and a refund is desired.
It will come down to this: Is the Court going to believe the testimony and documentation of the disinterested party who paid the salary/wages/whatever or the testimony of a person who is attempting to characterize income as non-taxable?
I'll give you a hint: In every, repeat
EVERY, case that has come before any court regarding this argument, the $100,000 has been held to be taxable income.
As a matter of fact, the characterization of the receipt of $100,000 as "paid for that money with equal value" is specifically documented by the IRS as a frivolous argument, subject to penalty and sanctions.