Will tax evasion/fraud cause a jail in US? Suppose that someone bought a used car from a private party for cash (under $10,000) in California, and the seller wrote it was a gift, so that the buyer gets a new title without paying the tax. Then what will happen if somehow the court learns that it was not a gift and it was a tax evasion/fraud? Should the buyer go to the jail/prison? How much tax should the buyer pay after they found the real price? How much would be the penalty? If the buyer claims &quot;I didn't know about the tax law and because of that I did it&quot;, will the court accept this? Is there any specific punishment if the buyer is a US citizen/GC holder or a non-immigrant visa holder like student or worker in US? PS: If the buyer really didn't know about the law and misguided by the others doing it, how can he pay his obligated tax and getting ride of any bad future effects before IRS or other court be aware of it? Is it possible
Failing to pay a required tax is both a civil and a criminal offense. In a case like this, the buyer should have known that there was something suspicious going on, and so had a duty to look into things. In any case ignorance is not a legal defense to an accusation of non-payment of a tax properly due. By the way, it is not a question of a court learning something, but of a tax official, The tax official could refer to matter to a prosecutor, who could bring charges and take the matter to court. However, relatively minor tax issues are most often handled as civil matters with a tax penalty or fine being imposed, and even if it were handled as a criminal matter (unusual for a first offense) the Judge would have the option to impose only a fine. The California sales tax rate on autos is currently 7.25%, so the tax due would have been something less than $725. The Californium Sales And Use Tax Law section 6476 specifies a penalty of 6% of the tax due but not paid. However, this applies to: Any person required to make a prepayment pursuant to Section 6471 who fails to make a timely prepayment ... That would normally be the seller. Remember these taxers are normally collected by the seller from the buyer, and the seller, particularly one whose business is such sales, must make regular payments to the state. I have not found a law or regulation specifying a penalty rate for the buyer in such a situation, but it is probably a similar rate. Note that a later section specifies a 10% penalty instead of 6% when the non-payment is negligent or willful. The official page &quot;Sales And Use Tax Regulations&quot; from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) summarizes a number of regulations and sections of law, particularly Regulation 1703. It reads in part: (c) (1) (B) Other Late Payments. A penalty of 10 percent of the amount of all unpaid tax shall be added to any tax not paid in whole or in part within the time required by law. (c) (1) (C) Vehicles, Vessels and Aircraft. A purchaser of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft who registers it outside this state for the purpose of evading the payment of sales or use taxes shall be liable for a penalty of 50 percent of any tax determined to be due on the sales price of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft. (c) (3) (A) Negligence or Intentional Disregard. A penalty of 10 percent of the amount of the tax specified in the determination shall be added to deficiency determinations if any part of the deficiency for which the determination is imposed is due to negligence or intentional disregard of the Sales and Use Tax Law or authorized regulations. Generally, a penalty for negligence or intentional disregard should not be added to deficiency determinations associated with the first audit of a taxpayer in the absence of evidence establishing that any bookkeeping and reporting errors cannot be attributed to the taxpayer's good faith and reasonable belief that its bookkeeping and reporting practices were in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Sales and Use Tax Law or authorized regulations. (c) (3) (C) Fraud or Intent to Evade. A penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the tax specified in a deficiency determination shall be added thereto if any part of the deficiency for which the determination is made is due to fraud or intent to evade the Sales and Use Tax Law or authorized regulations. In the case of a determination for failure to file a return, if such failure is due to fraud or an intent to evade the Sales and Use Tax Law or authorized regulations, a penalty of 25 percent of the amount required to be paid, exclusive of penalties, shall be added thereto in addition to the 10 percent penalty for failure to file a return. Fraud or intent to evade shall be established by clear and convincing evidence. (c) (3) (E) (8) Relief from Penalty for Reasonable Cause. If the Board finds that a person's failure to make a timely return, payment, or prepayment, or failure to comply with the provisions of section 6074 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is due to reasonable cause and circumstances beyond the person's control, and occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary care and the absence of willful neglect, the person may be relieved of the penalty provided by sections 6074, 6476, 6477, 6480.4, 6511, 6565, 6591, and 7051.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for such failure. Any person seeking to be relieved of the penalty shall file with the Board a statement under penalty of perjury setting forth the facts upon which the claim for relief is based. Section 6592 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, providing for the relief of certain penalties does not apply to the 10 percent penalty imposed for failure to make a timely prepayment under section 6478 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The page lists contact info for the CDTFA I cannot judge which of these regulations would apply to the case describes in the question -- they are generally aimed at failures by the seller. But it looks as if 10% to 50% of the tax originally due would be a likely amount. Penalties, fines, and jail terms imposed should not depend on citizenship or immigration status t all. Response to PS First of all, the IRS is not a court. Courts are not law enforcement agencies nor prosecutors in the US. Secondly, this is a state tax, not a federal tax, and the IRS will not be concerned. The California tax authorities may be. (They are not courts either.) The page &quot;Tax Guide for Purchasers of Vehicles, Vessels, &amp; Aircraft&quot; from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) reads: However, if you purchased a vehicle without completing registration and paying the use tax to the DMV, you must pay the use tax directly to the CDTFA. You can report your purchase of a vehicle and pay the use tax by using the CDTFA's online services and selecting the option to File a Return or Claim an Exemption for a Vehicle, Vessel, Aircraft, or Mobile Home under the Limited Access Functions. Your tax payment is due on or before the last day of the month following the month of purchase. Penalty and interest charges will begin to accrue once the due date has passed.
You cannot pass on better title than you have The fraudster (B) in this scenario does not have good title in the car and so the thief (C) doesn't either: 1) because they are a thief and 2) because the person they stole it from didn't own it. If C had paid B for the car then C would still not own it because while they are no longer a thief, B still doesn't have good title. This is the case even if C didn't know that B didn't own the car. A is entitled to recover the car from whoever has it. There are 3 exceptions to this rule: Voidable title: If B acquires title through a contract that is voidable (e.g. A is a minor) and then sells it to C. C as an owner in good faith owns the goods even if A voids the contract with B. Entrustment: If B has been entrusted the goods by A and sells them (perhaps by mistake) to C in the ordinary course of B's business. C as a good-faith buyer owns the goods. A can seek recompense from B but cannot get the goods from C. This probably needs an example, I take antique jewellery to an antique jeweller for cleaning, the jeweller's assistant mistakenly sells them, I lose the goods and the jeweller must compensate me. Negotiable instruments: Certain things, notably cash, cheques, shares and bearer bonds are subject to different rules. If B steals, say cash, from A and then uses that cash to buy something from C, A cannot demand the return of the cash from C unless they can prove that C knew that B had stolen it. Negotiable interests belong to anyone who acquired them in good faith. In all cases, a good-faith actor who is out of pocket is owed compensation from the bad faith actor - whether it’s possible to collect this is a practical rather than a legal issue.
The fact that you're not a native speaker of English doesn't alter the legal situation. If you literally had no understanding of English but for some reason you signed a piece of paper, then you might argue that there was no agreement in the first place, but obviously you do speak some English. Most people don't actually understand what contracts mean (on both sides). Contracts are still enforced, based on what the contract says. The move-in data is proposed, not firm, and it even indicates what the charges are if your circumstances change and the dates have to change (whereas is their circumstances change, they wouldn't have a basis for charging extra). It also does say that there will be no refund if you change your mind. So the piece of paper says "No refund". The problem seems to be that there's an "agent" whose statements you relied on, who is ultimately responsible for this problem, and s/he implied that you could get a refund. It's not clear what kind of "agent" this is (is he working for you, or for the owners?). You'd have a somewhat different legal basis depending on which it is, but you could sue someone in either event, assuming that you could actually persuade the court that you were given false information which you relied on. The statement "they will refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is false; the statement "they may refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is true. If the latter was the statement that you relied on, then you knew (or should have known) that that isn't a promise, it's just a guess, and if you read the piece of paper you know that it's a promise with no basis. So I would say it comes down to establishing what promise was made to you. Arguing that the agent "made" you sign isn't going to get you anywhere (unless you can prove actual coersion).
Not all illegal things are crimes. Lack of evidence. They are asked to testify, and they say "what I said in my book was a lie". There is no general law against lying, except when under oath. Statute of limitations. Saying "10 years ago I did smoke drugs" means that any offence is no longer prosecutable. Lack of details. Which jurisdiction were they in? When did they commit the act, how many acts? You cannot be arrested for being a "bank robber" or a "murderer". You are charged with "robbing Bank X on 123 Fake Street the Thursday 25 April 2018" or "murdering Jim Thio in January 2017". Otherwise the defendant would have a hard time defending himself (how to prove that you have not killed anyone at any time?) All of the above combined with prosecutorial discretion in the form that any possible prosecutor will most likely determine that bringing charges would be just a waste of time and resources. UPDATE February 2018: Just for the sake of completeness, a reference to the situation of Jacques Cassandri, who did boast about a serious crime(a robbery in a Societe Generale vault in 1976) in a book. Unfortunately for him, he made some kind of mistake/miscalculation and the crime had not yet expired, so he has become an example of someone being prosecuted by confessing a crime in a book.
In theory its only a crime if you know, or reasonably suspect, that it is stolen. The fact that you have to ask means that you have some level of suspicion, so that's not good to start with. In practice merely being investgated by the police will bring you a world of hurt long before it gets to trial. How much can you afford to spend on legal fees, and will you be able to make bail?
In California (where lost+found laws have been discussed quite a lot), this would be either "lost property" or "abandoned property". With abandoned property, you can do what you want. With lost property, it is legal to ignore it. If you take it, you have the obligation to try to return it to the owner. If you don't do that, it's theft. If you don't take it, you have no obligation whatsoever. Put it somewhere where the loser (the person who lost it) is more likely to find it, for example on the street. Don't take anything. Clarification for comments: There is a box. And the owner of the box is nowhere to be seen. That box is by definition lost or abandoned - it is abandoned if the owner got rid of it intentionally, it is lost if the owner is looking for it. We don't know. We can make guesses depending on the situation. No matter whether lost or abandoned, you are legally absolutely fine if you just ignore it. You have no reason to try to return it to its owner. If you don't make it your business, it's not your business. But if you decide you want the box, or bits of it, and it isn't abandoned (which is hard to know for sure), then you have to try to find the owner first, and if you don't find them, then you can keep it.
I'm not sure there would be any need - or any ability to bring - any civil action. Forgery would appear to count as a Category D felony under Section 205.090 and, "In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.", so person "a"'s damages should have been met under the process of the criminal prosecution of person "b" for forgery, with nothing further to claim. Person "c" will have stolen a car. Whether that car was legitimately owned by person "a" may only be relevant if person "c" is using their belief that it belonged to person "b" as mitigation (for example recovery of a debt - though it won't help much as this should have been done through proper channels), which again would be a criminal proceeding.
Is it a crime for a repo man to accidentally repo the wrong car? Not unless the car was retained after the accidental repossession was discovered, and then, only by the person retaining it (as the repo man may have turned over the car to the creditor whose loan on a similar car is in default). Generally speaking, taking property of another with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property of it is a crime only if one knows that the property is the property of another. For example, if two people leave black umbrellas in an entry room and someone accidentally leaves with the wrong one, the taking of the wrong umbrella is not a crime. Whether the repo man's assertion that he accidentally took the wrong car is credible is a question of fact to be determined at trial, if the prosecution doubts him. If he was supposed to repossess a 1936 Ford and he repossessed a 2021 Tesla, the repo man is probably going to lose and be convicted of theft. If he was supposed to repossess a white 2021 Tesla and he repossessed a different white 2021 Tesla in the same neighborhood with a license plate from the same state as the one he was supposed to repossess, he has a very good chance of prevailing. However, once someone learns that they have taken the wrong property, they have a duty to return the property promptly to the owner upon request, and probably, to notify the owner (if the owner can be determined) and the authorities who were informed that a different vehicle was taken, promptly. Otherwise, the originally good faith mistake becomes theft. If the repo man's explanation is convincing, he is not likely to be charged with theft, even though no special law applies. What makes the repo man special is that he did have permission from the secured car loan creditor to repossess it due to the secured car loan debtor's default by the Uniform Commercial Code. If he had taken the right car without a breach of the peace, the Uniform Commercial Code would have absolved him of liability and given him legal permission to do so. If the repo had been of the right car, the creditor would have had a duty to promptly return the personal possession in the car in which it did not have a lien to the rightful owner. This conclusion doesn't change when the repo man accidentally takes the wrong car. While the repo man's mistake was not knowing or intentional, it was probably negligent to repossess the car without carefully confirming the VIN number and license plate to make sure that he was repossessing the correct car. As a result, the car own probably has a claim against both the repo man (whose negligence caused the wrongful repossession) and the creditor (for whom he was acting as an agent to repossess the car) for any damages caused to the owner of the wrongfully repossessed car, including damages to the vehicle and damages from loss of use of the car and possibly damages for emotional distress caused by thinking that his car had been stolen or by missing a non-economic opportunity that he could have had if the car had not been wrongfully taken (e.g. if this caused the car owner to miss the funeral of the car owner's father). The creditor and the repo man probably have insurance policies in place that cover legal defense of such claims and also economic settlements or money judgments entered on that kind of claim.