Talk:United States v. Sun Myung Moon

renaming article

The article was called "Sun Myung Moon tax case". That is the topic of the article. The fact that many people do NOT believe that Rev. Moon was guilty of "tax fraud and conspiracy" is the whole reason that the topic is notable in the first place. I think the title should be changed back. Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability of the case may rest on the fact that a high-profile leader was imprisoned. I have seen a precedent at other articles; where if a person is convicted of a crime, they are written about as having actually committed the crime. There are people at the Jessica Lunsford article, for instance, trying to change all of the instances where it was said that John Couey raped the eight-year-old Lunsford, into saying that he "allegedly" raped her. In that instance, the conviction was considered enough to refer to it as having actually happened. That does not prevent there being a "criticism" section saying that some people believe him to be innocent. You have not provided any evidence that the dissent of his followers is what made the case notable. I would think that the conviction of a high-profile religious leader is notable in and of itself. Joie de Vivre 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, those who think the case was unjust include a US Senator and the head of the ACLU for New York. I would not object if the title of the article was "The conviction of Sun Myung Moon for tax fraud and conspiracy". I could also mention that the "crimes" themselves are so minor, filing an income tax return with some information not included and conspiring with someone else to do the same thing, as to not be worth an article in themselves. Please note that the article is about the case, not about the "crimes." Thanks. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tried to do that with fewer words. Joie de Vivre 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Steve Dufour 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Legacy" or "Aftermath"

"Legacy" gives a positive connotation. "Aftermath" has no connotation. If you believe that "aftermath" is negative than please suggest something other than "legacy", which tends to refer to something grand and heroic. Joie de Vivre 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Afterwards". Joie de Vivre 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That works for me. :-) Steve Dufour 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The church's viewpoint

Reverting. Changes refelct the spin of the UC, are not neutral.

When there is a controversy, each side typically puts their own spin on the various matters at hand. To be neutral, an article should describe the viewpoint of each side. Suppressing one side's viewpoint does not make the article neutral, and is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

If you feel the article is unbalance, you are free to include other viewpoints. Surely there is a critic somewhere with an opposing view. You can quote them. Then readers will know why critics and supporters feel the way they do. --Uncle Ed 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. BTW I have long noticed that the article fails to mention all of the groups that filed amigus briefs (if that's what you call them) in support of Rev. Moon. This was mentioned quite a bit in the press at the time. Steve Dufour 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced section

This material in the article has been tagged as unsourced for about a year (since February 2007):

After personnel from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) spent two years poring over all the church's financial records, three United States Department of Justice officials independently concluded that there was no wrongdoing. Moreover, they emphasized that the amount of possible tax liability was too small (less than $7,500 per year over a three-year period) to merit prosecution.

I would propose that the material be deleted. Famspear (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What is and is not "tax evasion"

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_10#Category:American_tax_evaders

for some background.

Brief explanation: In the United States, members of the news media (of which I am a former, uh, member) have a chronic tendency to misuse the term "tax evasion" as being equivalent to essentially any tax crime. That is incorrect.

Tax evasion is just one kind of tax crime. For example, willfully filing a false tax return is not, in and of itself, tax evasion. Differences? Well, different things that must be proven to the jury, and different punishments apply in event of conviction. For example, willfully filing a false tax return (which is 26 USC 7206(1)) will get you up to three years in prison, whereas tax evasion (which is 26 USC 7201) will get you up to five years.

Now, the physical act of filing a false tax return could also be tax evasion (and often is), but the mere fact that you willfully file a false return does not mean you have also committed tax evasion. Two different crimes. (Ask for an example, if you're curious.)

In Wikipedia, we have been striving to keep our terminology straight -- especially on biographies. Yours, Famspear (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• We are naturally using the wordwide and general definition of the term, as set out in Tax avoidance and tax evasion: "evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means" (as opposed to avoidance). So tax evasion is all kinds of tax crime. That one section of the US tax code uses the word "evade" and another does not is neither here nor there - in fact US govt websites seem to use the general definition most of the time - see the Federal Sentencing Guidelines here, especially the heading & note 4th para from the bottom. See also para 2, [1] and so on. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, go back and re-read the article you just cited. Tax evasion is not "all" kinds of tax crimes. The term is not used to mean "all" federal tax crimes in the Wikipedia article you cited, and it's not used that way in U.S. federal tax law. Willfully filing a false tax return is not in and of itself "tax evasion." Similarly, willfully failing to file a tax return is not in and of itself "tax evasion." Even willfully failing to pay a tax is not in and of itself "tax evasion."

Mr. Moon was not charged with "tax evasion in the worldwide and general" sense -- whatever that is supposed to mean. He also was not convicted of tax evasion in the correct U.S. legal sense. The article accurately describes what he was charged with and convicted of, and our job as Wikipedia editors is not to strain to apply a label or category that clearly does not apply.

In articles on living persons, we need to strive to be as accurate as possible. Please re-read the article on Tax avoidance and tax evasion. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text of the article:

The application of the U.S. tax evasion statute may be illustrated in brief as follows, as applied to tax protesters. The statute is Internal Revenue Code section 7201:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. 26 U.S.C. § 7201.

Under this statute and related case law, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements:

1. the "attendant circumstance" of the existence of a tax deficiency — an unpaid tax liability; and
2. the "actus reus" (i.e., guilty conduct) — an affirmative act (and not merely an omission or failure to act) in any manner constituting evasion or an attempt to evade either:
   1. the assessment of a tax, or
   2. the payment of a tax.
3. the "mens rea" or "mental" element of willfulness — the specific intent to violate an actually known legal duty;

An affirmative act "in any manner" is sufficient to satisfy the third element of the offense. That is, an act which would otherwise be perfectly legal (such as moving funds from one bank account to another) could be grounds for a tax evasion conviction (possibly an attempt to evade "payment"), provided the other two elements are also met. Intentionally filing a false tax return (a separate crime in itself 26 U.S.C. § 7206.) could constitute an attempt to evade the "assessment" of the tax, as the Internal Revenue Service bases initial assessments (i.e., the formal recordation of the tax on the books of the U.S. Treasury) on the tax amount shown on the return.

Notice the last sentence. The act of filing a false return MIGHT also constitute tax evasion, under an applicable set of facts. However, Mr. Moon was not convicted of tax evasion. He was convicted of filing a false return. If Mr. Moon had also been charged with and convicted of tax evasion, then the article could say that (or the category of "tax evader" or whatever could be added). Had the government charged Moon not only with filing a false return but also with tax evasion, Moon might have been convicted of tax evasion -- or he might not have been. The government made the decision. Moon was not convicted of tax evasion. The mere fact that the same conduct might constitute both filing a false return AND evading a tax does not give us license, as Wikipedia editors, to label Mr. Moon a "tax evader" when he was not convicted of that -- no matter how strongly we might feel about his conduct. Famspear (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor Johnbod: With all due respect, an order by the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Kansas which uses the term "tax evasion" incorrectly to apply to section 7206(1) is hardly an authority for allowing Wikipedia editors to use the same term incorrectly in Wikipedia. The Kansas Commissioner of Insurance has no authority to define federal income law tax terms for purposes of federal tax law -- much less define them for purposes of Wikipedia articles. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the other material you cited use the term correctly -- in the way I have described. These materials support my argument, not yours. Pay particular attention to the heading in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines carefully distinguish the various crimes, of which tax evasion is clearly only one.

As I have said before, some people do chronically mis-use the term "tax evasion" (even the news media). That does not give us license here in Wikipedia to do the same thing. Let's be as accurate as reasonably possible, especially on articles about living persons. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest you reread the WP article, and since you cannot be bothered to read the sentencing guidelines, here is the note I referred you to: "Under pre-guidelines practice, roughly half of all tax evaders were sentenced to probation without imprisonment, while the other half received sentences that required them to serve an average prison term of twelve months. This guideline is intended to reduce disparity in sentencing for tax offenses and to somewhat increase average sentence length. As a result, the number of purely probationary sentences will be reduced. The Commission believes that any additional costs of imprisonment that may be incurred as a result of the increase in the average term of imprisonment for tax offenses are inconsequential in relation to the potential increase in revenue..." which clearly uses the term in the broader sense. Are you denying there is a broader sense? These are just examples selected at random from a quick Google search. The US law does not even include the phrase "tax evasion", but even if it did, this would not override the general meaning used throughout the English-speaking world. I don't object to a note on the category explaining the term is not being used in this specific sense - in fact it had one, which I have now rewritten. I note the following from the article also, speaking of the UK: "An avoidance/evasion distinction along the lines of the present distinction has long been recognised but at first there was no terminology to express it. In 1860 Turner LJ suggested evasion/contravention (where evasion stood for the lawful side of the divide): Fisher v Brierly. In 1900 the distinction was noted as two meanings of the word “evade”: Bullivant v AG. The technical use of the words avoidance/evasion in the modern sense originated in the USA where it was well established by the 1920s. It can be traced to Oliver Wendell Holmes in Bullen v Wisconsin. It was slow to be accepted in the United Kingdom. By the 1950s, knowledgeable and careful writers in the UK had come to distinguish the term “tax evasion” from “avoidance”. However in the UK at least, “evasion” was regularly used (by modern standards, misused) in the sense of avoidance, in law reports and elsewhere, at least up to the 1970s. Now that the terminology has received official approval in the UK (Craven v White) this usage should be regarded as erroneous. But even now it is often helpful to use the expressions “legal avoidance” and “illegal evasion”, to make the meaning clearer."

Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not denying that there is a "broader sense." If there were no "broader sense," we wouldn't be having this discussion in quite this way. I am saying that the "broader sense" in which you are using the term "tax evasion" is incorrect as a matter of U.S. law, and that this sense is incorrect for purposes of the Wikipedia article on Moon (which deals only with U.S. law, not the law of the U.K.). The broader sense is incorrect if used in the Wikipedia article on Moon to refer to his U.S. conviction for filing a false tax return (which is not the crime of tax evasion), and it is incorrect when used in the news media to refer, broadly, to all tax crimes. Pointing to imprecise, incorrect uses of the term outside Wikipedia does not justify imprecise, incorrect use of the term inside Wikipedia.

I have already read the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as they pertain to tax law. I keep a copy of the Guidelines, and I have been using the Guidelines this week (actually, the up-to-date version, which is not the version you are using) in connection with a specific case (not for one of my own clients, though). Even in your version, the Guidelines clearly distinguish between "tax evasion" and other tax crimes -- in the very heading of the section you cited -- just as the law itself makes that distinction.

The use of the term "tax evasion" in the United Kingdom is nice, but is of little significance in an article about someone who was convicted -- under the internal revenue laws of the United States -- of something other than tax evasion under U.S. law.

I don't need to re-read the Wikipedia article Tax avoidance and tax evasion, if that's what you're talking about. I have already quoted the applicable text from the article.

The statement that the U.S. law does not use the term "tax evasion," while technically correct with respect to the statute itself, misses the point. The Internal Revenue Code provision on tax evasion is section 7201, which specifically states:

§ 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(bolding added). As you know, the word "evade" as used in the statute is the verb form of the noun "evasion." This is a U.S. tax evasion statute. Section 7206, the statute under which Moon was convicted (among others) is not a "tax evasion" statute.

The statement that U.S. law does not "override the general meaning used throughout the English-speaking world" is, in my opinion, untenable. The article is addressing the legal problems of Mr. Moon, under the Internal Revenue laws of the United States -- not under the internal revenue laws of the U.K. or the laws "throughout the English-speaking world." I would argue that correct use of the term "tax evasion" as that term is used in U.S. legal parlance does indeed override what you as a Wikipedia editor believe is the "general meaning" throughout the English-speaking world -- even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct about what that general meaning is. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You clearly are not bothering to actually read any of the references, WP and otherwise, I have provided, preferring to churn out repetitious expansions of what you have already said. I hope you don't treat your clients this way. To take only the tax evasion article, the second sentence says: "By contrast tax evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means." The section on tax evasion reads, in its entirety: "By contrast tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, firms, trusts and other entities to evade taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as declaring less income, profits or gains than actually earned; or overstating deductions)." The category is clearly defined as encompassing this wider definition, which, was indeed created in the US and remains in use there, officially and unofficially, as shown by the sentencing guidelines to take but one example. A particular almost-use of this term in US statute cannot remove the general meaning of the term, though certainly the sense in which the term is made should be noted. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod: Please refrain from personal attacks. I clearly have read the references. I keep quoting them to you.

Please re-read the material you posted: "By contrast tax evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means." Again, willful filing of a false tax return does not necessarily involve an "effort not to pay taxes." Willfully filing a false return USUALLY does constitute tax evasion, but sometimes it does not. As I have already pointed out, sometimes the same conduct might be both tax evasion AND filing a false return. But it is not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to attach the label of "tax evader" to Mr. Moon when he was not convicted of that.

Now, re-read the other material you posted: "Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability ...." You seem to be reversing that and straining to argue that if a taxpayer deliberately misrepresents the true state of his affair to the taxing authority, that conduct must, by definition, also constitute tax evasion. That is not what the statement says, and that is not correct.

The mere fact that someone conceals the true state of affairs on a tax return does not mean that this person is trying to reduce his tax liability or mis-state his tax liability or evade any tax. In the United States, under the law under which Mr. Moon was convicted (26 USC section 7206), people have been convicted for merely willfully filing a false tax return even though no additional tax was owed or even though the person was not mis-stating his tax amount.

The statement that a "particular almost-use of this term in US statute cannot remove the general meaning of the term" reveals the weakness of the argument. You seem to want to insist on the use, in a Wikipedia article about a living person, a non-technical, "general", colloquial use of what is really a technical legal term so that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can apply the term to a living person, in a Wikipedia article -- where that person was not convicted of tax evasion. That, in my view, is not the appropriate role for us as Wikipedia editors. Not only is it a misuse of a technical legal term, but its use in this manner may constitute prohibited original research.

The fact remains that Mr. Moon was convicted of filing a false tax return; he was not convicted of willfully attempting to evade or defeat a tax (tax evasion). Even if Mr. Moon's conduct COULD have resulted in a tax evasion conviction HAD he been charged with that and had he been convicted of that, it is not our place as Wikipedia editors to take it upon ourselves to label Mr. Moon as a tax evader when the U.S. legal system has not done so. This is an article about a living person, and the relevant criterion in this case is the United States law under which he was actually convicted -- not a criterion based on some general, non-technical, colloquial, supposedly "world-wide" terminology. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Viewpoints section

I removed the viewpoints section, when did we start having viewpoints sections? It's little more than a defense of Moon. In any case, we don't need to cherry pick commentary on issues. There's very little encyclopedic value in doing that. 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I put most of the material back. One of the notable aspects of this story, besides Moon being well-known, is the different opinions expressed about the legal issues involved. Borock (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States v. Sun Myung Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080513174704/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5765

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)