Snipes Conviction Post Mortem

At TaxProf Blog, tax professors comment on the Wesley Snipes trial verdict. Snipes was convicted of failing to file tax returns, although acquitted of more serious conspiracy and fraud charges. Snipes's co-defendants, who pushed the "§ 861 argument" to evade taxes, were convicted of all counts. Professor Buchanan at GW analyzes:

In short, even if Snipes manages to avoid jail time (which I hope he won't), the price he will pay is steep. In an attempt to evade $14 million in taxes, Snipes must now pay that amount in full plus interest plus penalties probably exceeding $10 million, plus legal fees, all while now carrying a criminal record. Add in the years of uncertainty that this prosecution caused Snipes, as well as the personal toll of a trial carrying the possibility of 16 years in prison, and this does not look like an advertisement for getting into the tax denial game.

We reviewed the "§ 861 argument" fraud here.

Go to the original author's site::

The stealthy carbon tax, to be introduced by the Republican majority in both chambers of the Kansas state legislature this week, would pose a number of problems to KS businesses.  SB2711 (http://www.kansaschamber.org/forms/08/Energylegislation.pdf), intended to stop regulation that would prevent a coal-powered electrical plant from being built in Western Kansas, goes overboard by creating a new tax statute, imposing mandatory emmissions caps, and allowing government to intrude into the market, undoubtably favoring existing assets over expansion and new assets.  State governments should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.  This is especially troubling because Kansas would be the first state to enact such a tax and it would set a dangerous precedent, with Republicans leading the way to more government intrusion. Go to the original author's site::

We recently released a new Tax Foundation Tax Policy Podcast interview with Nina Olson, the nation's Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS and the recipient of the Tax Foundation's 2007 Public Sector Distinguished Service Award. In this interview, Ms. Olson discuses with Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge the role of the Taxpayer Advocate in protecting taxpayer rights, the independence of the office, and the annual report she submits to Congress identifying problems facing taxpayers.

She also explains that her office handled over 240,000 cases last year, an increasing number of which involve middle-income taxpayers. She discusses the problems that taxpayers and the IRS face when Congress enacts end-of-the-year tax law changes and explains her recent recommendation for payments to taxpayers who have suffered the consequences of IRS mistakes. The interview is 21 minutes, 20 seconds.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

Go to the original author's site::

A new study from the Netherlands has empirically verified what many have pointed out for years against those who seek to justify arbitrary taxes on certain products deemed unhealthy: because unhealthy people have shorter life spans, they tend to save government money over the long-term. From the Telegraph:

Healthy people cost taxpayers more in medical bills over their lifetimes than smokers or the obese, a new study has found.

Because they tend to live longer, the savings that they make the state in youth and middle age are wiped out by the high cost of dealing with lingering diseases of old age like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

By contrast smokers - who pour millions extra into government coffers by purchasing cigarettes - cost the state the least because they tend to die younger.

According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000.

So the next time you hear somebody arguing that it's right to raise taxes on cigarettes or "unhealthy" foods because the consumers of those products impose high government health care costs borne by other taxpayers, tell them flat out they are wrong. And then ask them what their true agenda is. More than likely you'll find out that they merely want to to do two things: (1) find a minority to impose an arbitrary tax on to fund some new government program, or (2) impose their nanny-state view of the world on others.

Go to the original author's site::

On this date (February 3rd) in history 95 years ago...the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Or did Ohio never truly approve of it? What is your favorite 16th Amendment "it was never really ratified" theory?

Go to the original author's site::

New Study Shows Smokers and Obese Actually Save Government on Health Care Costs

A new study from the Netherlands has empirically verified what many have pointed out for years against those who seek to justify arbitrary taxes on certain products deemed unhealthy: because unhealthy people have shorter life spans, they tend to save government money over the long-term. From the Telegraph:

Healthy people cost taxpayers more in medical bills over their lifetimes than smokers or the obese, a new study has found.

Because they tend to live longer, the savings that they make the state in youth and middle age are wiped out by the high cost of dealing with lingering diseases of old age like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

By contrast smokers - who pour millions extra into government coffers by purchasing cigarettes - cost the state the least because they tend to die younger.

According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000.

So the next time you hear somebody arguing that it's right to raise taxes on cigarettes or "unhealthy" foods because the consumers of those products impose high government health care costs borne by other taxpayers, tell them flat out they are wrong. And then ask them what their true agenda is. More than likely you'll find out that they merely want to to do two things: (1) find a minority to impose an arbitrary tax on to fund some new government program, or (2) impose their nanny-state view of the world on others.

Go to the original author's site:

At TaxProf Blog, tax professors comment on the Wesley Snipes trial verdict. Snipes was convicted of failing to file tax returns, although acquitted of more serious conspiracy and fraud charges. Snipes's co-defendants, who pushed the "§ 861 argument" to evade taxes, were convicted of all counts. Professor Buchanan at GW analyzes:

In short, even if Snipes manages to avoid jail time (which I hope he won't), the price he will pay is steep. In an attempt to evade $14 million in taxes, Snipes must now pay that amount in full plus interest plus penalties probably exceeding $10 million, plus legal fees, all while now carrying a criminal record. Add in the years of uncertainty that this prosecution caused Snipes, as well as the personal toll of a trial carrying the possibility of 16 years in prison, and this does not look like an advertisement for getting into the tax denial game.

We reviewed the "§ 861 argument" fraud here.

Go to the original author's site:

On this date (February 3rd) in history 95 years ago...the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Or did Ohio never truly approve of it? What is your favorite 16th Amendment "it was never really ratified" theory?

Go to the original author's site:

The stealthy carbon tax, to be introduced by the Republican majority in both chambers of the Kansas state legislature this week, would pose a number of problems to KS businesses.  SB2711 (http://www.kansaschamber.org/forms/08/Energylegislation.pdf), intended to stop regulation that would prevent a coal-powered electrical plant from being built in Western Kansas, goes overboard by creating a new tax statute, imposing mandatory emmissions caps, and allowing government to intrude into the market, undoubtably favoring existing assets over expansion and new assets.  State governments should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.  This is especially troubling because Kansas would be the first state to enact such a tax and it would set a dangerous precedent, with Republicans leading the way to more government intrusion. Go to the original author's site:

Snipes Conviction Post Mortem

Snipes Conviction Post Mortem

At TaxProf Blog, tax professors comment on the Wesley Snipes trial verdict. Snipes was convicted of failing to file tax returns, although acquitted of more serious conspiracy and fraud charges. Snipes's co-defendants, who pushed the "§ 861 argument" to evade taxes, were convicted of all counts. Professor Buchanan at GW analyzes:

In short, even if Snipes manages to avoid jail time (which I hope he won't), the price he will pay is steep. In an attempt to evade $14 million in taxes, Snipes must now pay that amount in full plus interest plus penalties probably exceeding $10 million, plus legal fees, all while now carrying a criminal record. Add in the years of uncertainty that this prosecution caused Snipes, as well as the personal toll of a trial carrying the possibility of 16 years in prison, and this does not look like an advertisement for getting into the tax denial game.

We reviewed the "§ 861 argument" fraud here.

New Mexico Proposes Video Game Tax to Punish Staying Indoors

Some people in New Mexico are skeptical of the Sierra Club's proposal to tax people who make decisions with which they disagree:

Dave Gilligan remembers being pushed outside to play baseball and other sports, but feeling it just wasn't for him.[...]

"If you take a kid that's just playing his X-Box or whatever and you take him outside and you make him play baseball, he's going to hate it," said Gilligan, co-owner of Gamers Anonymous, an Albuquerque video game store. "There's nothing wrong with sitting at home playing games. Everybody's doing it now."

But a coalition of groups, led by the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club, is sold on the idea that outdoor education programs can inspire children in a way that video games and television cannot.

The coalition wants state lawmakers to create a No Child Left Inside Fund with a 1 percent tax on TVs, video games and video game equipment. The fund would help pay for outdoor education throughout the state.

Supporters of the tax—which would be the first of its kind in the nation—say outdoor programs have been shown to improve students' abilities in the classroom, boost their self-confidence and teach them stewardship and discipline.

The fundamental purpose of taxes is to raise revenue necessary for programs, not micromanage people's decisions with subsidies and penalties. If a tax targeting video games is justified, it should be on the basis of actual negative externalities, not the whims of social engineers picking things they don't like at random.

We discussed a similar video game tax proposed by a Wisconsin state senator:

Why not put taxes on certain types of music, clothes, or entertainment? Or why not go directly at the source and put a special tax within the income tax system on people who work at ages 16 or 17, or raise the drivers license fees on people those ages? This may sound stupid and discriminatory, but that's exactly what this proposal is.

Tax Foundation Releases Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison

With the upcoming 2008 presidential election, tax policy will soon be on voters' minds more than ever. Taxes are one of the central issues in any national election, and it is important for the public to understand candidates' general views toward tax policy as well as their positions on specific issues, such as the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and corporate tax rates. While some candidates have been more forthcoming and specific than others about their stance on various tax issues, they will all need to divulge and elaborate on their positions as the race progresses.

To help voters sort through the details of each candidate's proposal, the Tax Foundation has released a comparison of the candidates' positions on the most important tax questions of this election. To use this page, simply check the boxes next to the names of the candidates whose plans you would like to compare and click "Compare." As the race narrows and the remaining candidates refine and expound their positions, we will expand this page.

Click here to view the chart.

95 Years Ago Today...16th Amendment Ratified

On this date (February 3rd) in history 95 years ago...the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Or did Ohio never truly approve of it? What is your favorite 16th Amendment "it was never really ratified" theory?

Tax Foundation Releases Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison

Tax Foundation Releases Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison

With the upcoming 2008 presidential election, tax policy will soon be on voters' minds more than ever. Taxes are one of the central issues in any national election, and it is important for the public to understand candidates' general views toward tax policy as well as their positions on specific issues, such as the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and corporate tax rates. While some candidates have been more forthcoming and specific than others about their stance on various tax issues, they will all need to divulge and elaborate on their positions as the race progresses.

To help voters sort through the details of each candidate's proposal, the Tax Foundation has released a comparison of the candidates' positions on the most important tax questions of this election. To use this page, simply check the boxes next to the names of the candidates whose plans you would like to compare and click "Compare." As the race narrows and the remaining candidates refine and expound their positions, we will expand this page.

Click here to view the chart.

New Mexico Proposes Video Game Tax to Punish Staying Indoors

Some people in New Mexico are skeptical of the Sierra Club's proposal to tax people who make decisions with which they disagree:

Dave Gilligan remembers being pushed outside to play baseball and other sports, but feeling it just wasn't for him.[...]

"If you take a kid that's just playing his X-Box or whatever and you take him outside and you make him play baseball, he's going to hate it," said Gilligan, co-owner of Gamers Anonymous, an Albuquerque video game store. "There's nothing wrong with sitting at home playing games. Everybody's doing it now."

But a coalition of groups, led by the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club, is sold on the idea that outdoor education programs can inspire children in a way that video games and television cannot.

The coalition wants state lawmakers to create a No Child Left Inside Fund with a 1 percent tax on TVs, video games and video game equipment. The fund would help pay for outdoor education throughout the state.

Supporters of the tax—which would be the first of its kind in the nation—say outdoor programs have been shown to improve students' abilities in the classroom, boost their self-confidence and teach them stewardship and discipline.

The fundamental purpose of taxes is to raise revenue necessary for programs, not micromanage people's decisions with subsidies and penalties. If a tax targeting video games is justified, it should be on the basis of actual negative externalities, not the whims of social engineers picking things they don't like at random.

We discussed a similar video game tax proposed by a Wisconsin state senator:

Why not put taxes on certain types of music, clothes, or entertainment? Or why not go directly at the source and put a special tax within the income tax system on people who work at ages 16 or 17, or raise the drivers license fees on people those ages? This may sound stupid and discriminatory, but that's exactly what this proposal is.

Go to the original author's site::

This month the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal released the 14th edition of the Index of Economic Freedom, a publication that ranks countries on nine measures of economic freedom: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom.

The U.S. ranks fifth this year, after Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. At the bottom of the list are North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, and Burma (Myanmar).

From the executive summary:

There are clear relationships between economic freedom and numerous other cross-country variables, the most prominent being the strong relationship between the level of freedom and the level of prosperity in a given country. Previous editions of the Index have confirmed the tangible benefits of living in freer societies. Not only is a higher level of economic freedom clearly associated with a higher level of per capita gross domestic product, but those higher GDP growth rates seem to create a virtuous cycle, triggering further improvements in economic freedom. Our 14 years of Index data strongly suggest that countries that increase their levels of freedom experience faster growth rates.

Click here for more on international taxes.

Go to the original author's site::

With the upcoming 2008 presidential election, tax policy will soon be on voters' minds more than ever. Taxes are one of the central issues in any national election, and it is important for the public to understand candidates' general views toward tax policy as well as their positions on specific issues, such as the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and corporate tax rates. While some candidates have been more forthcoming and specific than others about their stance on various tax issues, they will all need to divulge and elaborate on their positions as the race progresses.

To help voters sort through the details of each candidate's proposal, the Tax Foundation has released a comparison of the candidates' positions on the most important tax questions of this election. To use this page, simply check the boxes next to the names of the candidates whose plans you would like to compare and click "Compare." As the race narrows and the remaining candidates refine and expound their positions, we will expand this page.

Click here to view the chart.

Go to the original author's site::

New Mexico Proposes Video Game Tax to Punish Staying Indoors

Some people in New Mexico are skeptical of the Sierra Club's proposal to tax people who make decisions with which they disagree:

Dave Gilligan remembers being pushed outside to play baseball and other sports, but feeling it just wasn't for him.[...]

"If you take a kid that's just playing his X-Box or whatever and you take him outside and you make him play baseball, he's going to hate it," said Gilligan, co-owner of Gamers Anonymous, an Albuquerque video game store. "There's nothing wrong with sitting at home playing games. Everybody's doing it now."

But a coalition of groups, led by the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club, is sold on the idea that outdoor education programs can inspire children in a way that video games and television cannot.

The coalition wants state lawmakers to create a No Child Left Inside Fund with a 1 percent tax on TVs, video games and video game equipment. The fund would help pay for outdoor education throughout the state.

Supporters of the tax—which would be the first of its kind in the nation—say outdoor programs have been shown to improve students' abilities in the classroom, boost their self-confidence and teach them stewardship and discipline.

The fundamental purpose of taxes is to raise revenue necessary for programs, not micromanage people's decisions with subsidies and penalties. If a tax targeting video games is justified, it should be on the basis of actual negative externalities, not the whims of social engineers picking things they don't like at random.

We discussed a similar video game tax proposed by a Wisconsin state senator:

Why not put taxes on certain types of music, clothes, or entertainment? Or why not go directly at the source and put a special tax within the income tax system on people who work at ages 16 or 17, or raise the drivers license fees on people those ages? This may sound stupid and discriminatory, but that's exactly what this proposal is.

Go to the original author's site:

The Senate will likely cave to the demands of AARP and others to expand the stimulus to include rebates to elderly Americans who pay little or no taxes (and the rebates dropping from $600 to $500 to keep the cost the same). As we noted:

When dealing with a policy that is designed primarily to stimulate the economy, any arbitrary policy can almost be justified to some degree. But what this shows is that there is a problem in trying to use the tax code as the main vehicle for fiscal stimulus and/or social policy. Everyone is always going to complain that they are being shortchanged, despite the fact that getting money to everyone is difficult.

On second thought... maybe we should just send helicopters over every major city in the country and drop out $20 bills. And we can even make AARP happy by putting double the money in the helicopters that fly over golf courses in Florida and Arizona.

Because the stimulus bill enjoys such broad congressional support, it's a magnet for all sorts of silliness to be attached to it (the term is a "Christmas tree" bill). The Senate may seek to add additional unemployment benefits. A provision has been added to prevent a Child Death Tax. Some are now insisting on an amendment to prevent illegal immigrants from getting rebate checks. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) think we should spend the money on infrastructure. The REALTORS® are happy with the stimulus bill, though. Contrast that with the Coalition [of Economists] Against Fiscal Stimulus, and those normally anti-tax congressmen who voted against it in the House.

AARP's success at amending the bill makes this Canadian cartoon from 1985 seem apt:

Go to the original author's site:

Preventing a Child Death Tax

The stimulus package just passed by the House and now under consideration by the Senate, is designed as a 2008 tax cut, with part of the refund you would normally get in spring 2009 advanced to be mailed out this spring ($600 under the House, maybe $500 in the Senate plan). But the House version sets income caps, and since that income hasn't been earned yet, the IRS is left having to use 2007 numbers instead. So if you earn less than the cap in 2007, you'll get the rebate even if you bust it in 2008.

It's not easy to follow. After all, the federal income tax code is already a huge, burdensome, complex mess, with its W-2s, instruction booklets, calculations, brackets, AMT, and phaseouts of phaseouts. Taxpayers struggling with this mess often take out their ire, rightly or wrongly, on the tax collector.

It's hard to have sympathy with the tax collector, but we almost did when we realized a glitch about the $300 child tax credit in the stimulus plan. Like the income caps, the IRS will rely on your 2007 return to determine if you have a "qualifying child." ("Qualifying child" is a term of art, but for the child tax credit, basically it's someone you support who's under the age of 17, and who lived with you at least half the year.) But the credit is part of your 2008 taxes, so if it turns out you're not eligible when you file in 2009, you'd have to give the money back. We fretted that families grieving over the loss of their child in 2007 would get a $300 check this spring, only to have the IRS demand that they return it in 2009.

Luckily, that's not the case:

If, however, the result is a positive number (because, for example, the taxpayer paid no tax in 2007 but is paying tax in 2008), the taxpayer may claim that amount as a credit against 2008 tax liability. If, however, the result is negative (because, for example, the taxpayer paid tax in 2007 but owes no tax for 2008), the taxpayer is not required to repay that amount to the Treasury. Otherwise, the checks have no effect on tax returns filed in 2009; the amount is not includible in gross income and it does not otherwise reduce the amount of withholding.

So any rebate you get this spring you get to keep, even if it turns out on your 2008 form that you weren't eligible for it, so long as you were eligible in 2007.

And they wonder why we think the tax code is too complex.

Go to the original author's site::

With the upcoming 2008 presidential election, tax policy will soon be on voters' minds more than ever. Taxes are one of the central issues in any national election, and it is important for the public to understand candidates' general views toward tax policy as well as their positions on specific issues, such as the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and corporate tax rates. While some candidates have been more forthcoming and specific than others about their stance on various tax issues, they will all need to divulge and elaborate on their positions as the race progresses.

To help voters sort through the details of each candidate's proposal, the Tax Foundation has released a comparison of the candidates' positions on the most important tax questions of this election. To use this page, simply check the boxes next to the names of the candidates whose plans you would like to compare and click "Compare." As the race narrows and the remaining candidates refine and expound their positions, we will expand this page.

Click here to view the chart.

Go to the original author's site::

Stimulus Bill Turning Into A Christmas Tree

The Senate will likely cave to the demands of AARP and others to expand the stimulus to include rebates to elderly Americans who pay little or no taxes (and the rebates dropping from $600 to $500 to keep the cost the same). As we noted:

When dealing with a policy that is designed primarily to stimulate the economy, any arbitrary policy can almost be justified to some degree. But what this shows is that there is a problem in trying to use the tax code as the main vehicle for fiscal stimulus and/or social policy. Everyone is always going to complain that they are being shortchanged, despite the fact that getting money to everyone is difficult.

On second thought... maybe we should just send helicopters over every major city in the country and drop out $20 bills. And we can even make AARP happy by putting double the money in the helicopters that fly over golf courses in Florida and Arizona.

Because the stimulus bill enjoys such broad congressional support, it's a magnet for all sorts of silliness to be attached to it (the term is a "Christmas tree" bill). The Senate may seek to add additional unemployment benefits. A provision has been added to prevent a Child Death Tax. Some are now insisting on an amendment to prevent illegal immigrants from getting rebate checks. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) think we should spend the money on infrastructure. The REALTORS® are happy with the stimulus bill, though. Contrast that with the Coalition [of Economists] Against Fiscal Stimulus, and those normally anti-tax congressmen who voted against it in the House.

AARP's success at amending the bill makes this Canadian cartoon from 1985 seem apt:

Go to the original author's site:

The anti-property tax fervor that has swept the nation over the past couple of years has registered another victory. This time it was in the State of Florida. On Tuesday night, the voters approved Amendment 1, a measure that would scale back property taxes in the Sunshine State, mostly on primary homes. This was in addition to the property tax cut that the state legislator and Gov. Crist put into law in 2007. For more on the vote, here is an Orlando Sentinel article discussing the vote, as well as providing a good brief overview of the issue in Florida.

An interesting question for local political pundits to answer is what was the role of the importance of the Republican Primary compared to the Democratic Primary in driving turnout and thereby influencing the vote on this measure, given that the former would be more likely to vote in favor of Amendment 1 to cut taxes. To what extent would the final result have been different, and would it have even made a difference?

Go to the original author's site:

New Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom

This month the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal released the 14th edition of the Index of Economic Freedom, a publication that ranks countries on nine measures of economic freedom: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom.

The U.S. ranks fifth this year, after Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. At the bottom of the list are North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, and Burma (Myanmar).

From the executive summary:

There are clear relationships between economic freedom and numerous other cross-country variables, the most prominent being the strong relationship between the level of freedom and the level of prosperity in a given country. Previous editions of the Index have confirmed the tangible benefits of living in freer societies. Not only is a higher level of economic freedom clearly associated with a higher level of per capita gross domestic product, but those higher GDP growth rates seem to create a virtuous cycle, triggering further improvements in economic freedom. Our 14 years of Index data strongly suggest that countries that increase their levels of freedom experience faster growth rates.

Click here for more on international taxes.

Go to the original author's site::

The anti-property tax fervor that has swept the nation over the past couple of years has registered another victory. This time it was in the State of Florida. On Tuesday night, the voters approved Amendment 1, a measure that would scale back property taxes in the Sunshine State, mostly on primary homes. This was in addition to the property tax cut that the state legislator and Gov. Crist put into law in 2007. For more on the vote, here is an Orlando Sentinel article discussing the vote, as well as providing a good brief overview of the issue in Florida.

An interesting question for local political pundits to answer is what was the role of the importance of the Republican Primary compared to the Democratic Primary in driving turnout and thereby influencing the vote on this measure, given that the former would be more likely to vote in favor of Amendment 1 to cut taxes. To what extent would the final result have been different, and would it have even made a difference?

Go to the original author's site::

In a rush to relieve Virginia motorists of steep "abusive driver fees," state legislators have run head-on into a 130-year-old Virginia State Supreme Court case that is thwarting their attempts. The controversial law passed last year requires drivers charged with abusive driving to pay heightened charges (taxes) to the state. They are currently charged in three installments over the space of three years and range from $750 to $3,050.

The repeal of the highly unpopular law appears to be a virtual certainty but the Washington Post reports that refunding money paid by those already assessed is being held up by Ratcliffe v. Anderson (Va. 1878), which states that the legislature "oversteps its authority when it passes legislation to invalidate or otherwise reopen a court judgment or decrees." The court's decision effectively prevents any retroactive action by the legislature in stopping the collection of the tax already owed.

One possibility being discussed is to grant refunds of the tax paid only after complete payment. This would require taxpayers to pay the repealed tax, and then receive it as a refund. That is at least in harmony with the Court's decisions. But a refund troubles some lawmakers who oppose writing checks to drunk drivers convicted of killing someone during the last year.

Although the long-standing case throws a wrench into the well-designed plans of the lawmakers, it appears that an all-out effort will be employed to side-step the case law and repeal last year's bad legislation that became worse law:

The House also wrestled Monday over what to do about those who are already paying the fees. House Democrats pushed for an amendment that would allow them not to pay. But the Republican majority, citing many of the same concerns that came up in the Senate, rejected the idea.

Our recent wrap-up of their likely repeal is here.

Go to the original author's site::