Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Evasion of Foreign Tax Can Be Mail Fraud
The Supreme Court has decided that the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes can be used in prosecutions involving schemes to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue. The April 26 decision, written by Justice Thomas, expansively interpreted the words of 18 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 1343 and narrowly interpreted the common law “revenue rule,” which some courts had viewed as limiting the reach of these statutes in cases involving foreign tax evasion. Pasquantino v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1766 (2005).
Split in the Circuits
Three circuit courts had recently addressed the applicability of the revenue rule to prosecutions under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes in cases involving international smuggling to evade foreign taxes. In United States v. Boots, 80 F.3d 580 (1st Cir. 1996), the First Circuit held that a scheme to smuggle tobacco products into Canada in order to evade Canadian taxes could not be prosecuted as wire fraud because the revenue rule prohibits the enforcement of the revenue laws of a foreign state. According to the First Circuit, the revenue rule holds that “courts generally will not enforce foreign tax judgments … ” Despite the fact that the prosecution did not involve the enforcement of a foreign tax judgment, the First Circuit nevertheless held that the revenue rule barred defendants' convictions because of public policy considerations. “ Where a domestic court is effectively passing on the validity and operation of the revenue laws of a foreign country, the important concerns underlying the revenue rule are implicated,” said the court.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.