Author Topic: LOL, Kafkian Kansas (Read 167 times)

takeda · « **on:** August 06, 2004, 03:53:40 AM »

I came across this:
is quite funny, I wonder about how much revenue they get from this

http://www.ksrevenue.org/faqs-abcdrugtax.htm

cpxxx · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:11:11 AM »

Sounds nuts at first but actually it's brilliant. It's a clever legal stroke. They know that no drug dealer will buy stamps. You'd have to be on drugs to do that. But when you are caught with untaxed drugs you lose everything, house car and the shirt off your back. This being the crucial phrase.

* Laws exempting personal property from seizure do not apply to seizure pursuant to drug tax warrants.

Very clever indeed. Here in Ireland we have the CAB, Criminal Assets Bureau. They do much the same thing very successfully. A lot of gangsters have lost most of their property that way.

takeda · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:29:00 AM »

Well, we also fine them out of their shirts here when they are caught, no need for clever tax schemes.

The mansion of a galician big-fish narco has been turned into a rehab center while we provide for his new and more modest home...

rpm · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2004, 05:07:40 AM »

Texas had the same program. It was ruled unconstitutional in 1996.

Quote

In the recent decision, the court found that Texas' $98 tax on an ounce of marijuana and $200 per gram of controlled substance was so high as to conclude, "it ... is a penalty for criminal conduct." Therefore, the court ruled that because the defendant had already been punished by "imposition and partial collection of a tax," further prosecution would violate his Fifth Amendment protections against double jeopardy.

Texas refigured the taxation amount to get around that, but found a double jeopardy problem. One Houston cocaine dealer had a conviction overturned because he paid $100 towards a $400,000 cocaine tax assessed after his arrest. The court ruled the tax was a penalty and the defendant had made a partial payment. To try him for the crime would constitute double jeopardy since he already had been assessed a penalty for the crime before the case was tried.

It looks good on paper, but it creates more loopholes for the guilty to walk and ties up the courts.