Omri Marian
@omrimarian.bsky.social
Family guy. Acting dad. Dog dad. Tax law professor. Backpacker. Beer snob. Weekend guitarist. Israeli expat in SoCal. President of @glowlaw.org.
This is facts and circumstances dependent. It is much harder to prove criminal intent, than it is to show you simply underpaid your taxes as the law demands so you should pay them + interest.
November 25, 2025 at 5:18 AM
This is facts and circumstances dependent. It is much harder to prove criminal intent, than it is to show you simply underpaid your taxes as the law demands so you should pay them + interest.
There is no clear answer. In reality, whether the IRS can prove you knew you had to pay and chose not to. For example, claiming deductions you made up, would be criminal...
OTOH, the IRS may claim some payments you did make and deducted should not be deductible. This will likely be civil.
OTOH, the IRS may claim some payments you did make and deducted should not be deductible. This will likely be civil.
November 25, 2025 at 5:16 AM
There is no clear answer. In reality, whether the IRS can prove you knew you had to pay and chose not to. For example, claiming deductions you made up, would be criminal...
OTOH, the IRS may claim some payments you did make and deducted should not be deductible. This will likely be civil.
OTOH, the IRS may claim some payments you did make and deducted should not be deductible. This will likely be civil.
So the spectrum from worst to best:
Evasion (illegal, criminal) -> Avoidance (illegal, civil) -> Avoidance (legal).
This is how most tax folks understand it. Definitions/jargon may differ, and the lines between each are very murky.
Evasion (illegal, criminal) -> Avoidance (illegal, civil) -> Avoidance (legal).
This is how most tax folks understand it. Definitions/jargon may differ, and the lines between each are very murky.
November 25, 2025 at 5:09 AM
So the spectrum from worst to best:
Evasion (illegal, criminal) -> Avoidance (illegal, civil) -> Avoidance (legal).
This is how most tax folks understand it. Definitions/jargon may differ, and the lines between each are very murky.
Evasion (illegal, criminal) -> Avoidance (illegal, civil) -> Avoidance (legal).
This is how most tax folks understand it. Definitions/jargon may differ, and the lines between each are very murky.
Not quite. And there is no clear definition (these are not necessarily legal terms of art, more scholarly jargon).
Evasion is always illegal and criminal (like cheating on your tax return). Avoidance can be legal or illegal, but civil (fines and penalties).
Evasion is always illegal and criminal (like cheating on your tax return). Avoidance can be legal or illegal, but civil (fines and penalties).
November 25, 2025 at 4:41 AM
Not quite. And there is no clear definition (these are not necessarily legal terms of art, more scholarly jargon).
Evasion is always illegal and criminal (like cheating on your tax return). Avoidance can be legal or illegal, but civil (fines and penalties).
Evasion is always illegal and criminal (like cheating on your tax return). Avoidance can be legal or illegal, but civil (fines and penalties).
I don't understand exactly the facts, so can't tell.
Side note: Tax "evasion" is always criminal (as opposed to tax "avoidance"), but I can't tell exactly what's going on here.
Side note: Tax "evasion" is always criminal (as opposed to tax "avoidance"), but I can't tell exactly what's going on here.
November 25, 2025 at 3:10 AM
I don't understand exactly the facts, so can't tell.
Side note: Tax "evasion" is always criminal (as opposed to tax "avoidance"), but I can't tell exactly what's going on here.
Side note: Tax "evasion" is always criminal (as opposed to tax "avoidance"), but I can't tell exactly what's going on here.
Reposted by Omri Marian
NEWS: The criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James are gone. A federal judge ruled that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as the lead prosecutor was illegal.
DOJ could try again, but there are other headwinds.
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
DOJ could try again, but there are other headwinds.
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
November 24, 2025 at 5:52 PM
NEWS: The criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James are gone. A federal judge ruled that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as the lead prosecutor was illegal.
DOJ could try again, but there are other headwinds.
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
DOJ could try again, but there are other headwinds.
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
DOJ's Harmeet Dhillon in a TV interview: My letter to Texas demanding that they do exactly this “is what triggered the Texas legislature and the Texas governor to call the legislature into session to put new maps together."
Can't tell whether we should believe this DOJ or that DOJ.
🤷
Can't tell whether we should believe this DOJ or that DOJ.
🤷
November 24, 2025 at 3:57 PM
DOJ's Harmeet Dhillon in a TV interview: My letter to Texas demanding that they do exactly this “is what triggered the Texas legislature and the Texas governor to call the legislature into session to put new maps together."
Can't tell whether we should believe this DOJ or that DOJ.
🤷
Can't tell whether we should believe this DOJ or that DOJ.
🤷
I agree with it as a matter of strategic political behavior. But that wasn't what my post was about. I think it is counterproductive for the protestors' aims. By "good" I meant it's morally fine. Not strategically smart.
November 24, 2025 at 4:15 AM
I agree with it as a matter of strategic political behavior. But that wasn't what my post was about. I think it is counterproductive for the protestors' aims. By "good" I meant it's morally fine. Not strategically smart.
Sure. No disagreement here. My disagreement was with the idea the protest was illegitimate because it was in front of a synagogue.
November 23, 2025 at 7:40 PM
Sure. No disagreement here. My disagreement was with the idea the protest was illegitimate because it was in front of a synagogue.
I agree. And I still think on balance it is an organization that does mostly good. But it is not a-political. It is a legitimate target for protest. And it would be better if they didn't hold their events in places of worship.
November 23, 2025 at 7:37 PM