What is he thinking? (Political)

[Zeb_Carter]

That, at least, would be good news. The ladies of the evening work hard for their money and, usually, give value for value received. I have some doubt, however, as to whether a pimp is an employer or a manager who can, theoretically at least, be fired. A brothel operator would be an employer, but I don't know about a pimp.

I believe the punishments described here would run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. A ten year prison sentence would clearly be excessive punishment for failure to file a tax form.

But not if the crime was considered a felony. 10 years would be consistant with current sentences for felonies. And as the tax law currntly reads ...

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and

(2) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.

 

[3113]

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and

Actually, I think an eloquent pimp could wiggle out of these definitions. He *could* argue that it is the prostitute who hires HIM, giving him a cut of her pay for his services--that is, for bailing her out of jail, for protecting her territory, for taking care of her food and lodging, for being her banker, accountant, manager....

She isn't performing any services for him at all. She's perfoming them for the johns. She, he could argue, has control of the payment (never mind the reality), and pays him what he charges for his services. However she earns that money to pay him for his services doesn't matter to him (or so he could argue)

Hence, the government can only tax him for his earnings.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and

Actually, I think an eloquent pimp could wiggle out of these definitions. He *could* argue that it is the prostitute who hires HIM, giving him a cut of her pay for his services--that is, for bailing her out of jail, for protecting her territory, for taking care of her food and lodging, for being her banker, accountant, manager....

She isn't performing any services for him at all. She's perfoming them for the johns. She, he could argue, has control of the payment (never mind the reality), and pays him what he charges for his services. However she earns that money to pay him for his services doesn't matter to him (or so he could argue)

Hence, the government can only tax him for his earnings.

I have to agree with you. A woman working in a brothel is an employee of the brothel owner. However, a street hooker or call girl is, in theory at least, an independent operator. She may hire a manager (pimp) to perform certain services, but that would mean she would be the one responsible for reporting the pimp's income. The employers, in that case, would be the johns, but I believe the fees being paid would be to low to require any reporting.

 

[3113]

The employers, in that case, would be the johns, but I believe the fees being paid would be to low to require any reporting.

Well, but the johns are only hiring on a temporary basis--a service rendered. Like, er, a plumber? Or a doctor? Even if you employ them on a regular basis (see the physical therapist three times a week), if they're not on a salary you don't have to report what you spent on them, not unless you want a tax exemption.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Ah, but it is the compliance issue here, not who employ's who for what. The fact is neither the employee or employer filed the proper paperwork with the government, thus a crime was commited. And I believe the IRS or Tax Court would deside the relationship between the two parties and I will bet there is a predisposition as to who the employer is no matter the argument.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, but the johns are only hiring on a temporary basis--a service rendered. Like, er, a plumber? Or a doctor? Even if you employ them on a regular basis (see the physical therapist three times a week), if they're not on a salary you don't have to report what you spent on them, not unless you want a tax exemption.

A john might hire a prostie on a regular basis, for instance a Friday night date for dinner, dancing and sex. He might do this in order to delude himself that he is with a girlfriend instead of a pro. The way the law was given, the woman would be an employee, but there might be some part of the law being left out.

Personally, I think the prostitute, the doctor, the plumber, the physical therapist, et al would be considered independent contractors, rather than employees. This would apply whether they were free-lance or employees of a service company.

 

[3113]

I'm still a bit confused at how this guy is going to manage to tax these folk. I mean, it's one thing to get Al Capone who's out there, in front of God and everyone, running for mayor and making tons of money.

But most pimp and prostitutes aren't so obvious. If you pick up a girl and take her to jail for soliciting...how can you find out how much money she'd made doing that? She's not likely to have a bank account. She's not likely to admit how many johns she has on average or how much they pay her or how much she works.

Her pimp isn't going to supply any of this info either. How do you prove they're withholding tax money?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm still a bit confused at how this guy is going to manage to tax these folk. I mean, it's one thing to get Al Capone who's out there, in front of God and everyone, running for mayor and making tons of money.

But most pimp and prostitutes aren't so obvious. If you pick up a girl and take her to jail for soliciting...how can you find out how much money she'd made doing that? She's not likely to have a bank account. She's not likely to admit how many johns she has on average or how much they pay her or how much she works.

Her pimp isn't going to supply any of this info either. How do you prove they're withholding tax money?

She might have a checking account, and that would help. They can find out how much rent she pays, and add on from there. Basically, make a wild guess. The thing about taxes is that the non-payer of taxes is presumed guilty, and the IRS or other tax agency is presumed correct unless the accused can prove otherwise. It's very unfair but that's how it is.

I hope he flops miserably. The prostitutes I have known are a lot nicer than any politicians I know about.