Pay your taxes - or else!

[PilotMan]

Police Arrest Woman Over $1 In Unpaid Taxes



POSTED: 4:57 pm EDT October 12, 2005
UPDATED: 6:38 pm EDT October 12, 2005


LOVELAND, Ohio -- A Tri-State woman was arrested for not paying just more than $1 that she owed in income taxes, News 5's Brian Hamrick reported.


Deborah Combs owed the city of Loveland $1.16 last year, but she also hadn't filed her city income tax forms in five years.


She said officers pulled her over and acted as though she were a violent criminal.


"One sheriff approached my car with his hand on his gun," she said. "Another from the other side of the car leaned in and said, 'Are you Deborah Combs?' He said, 'We have a warrant for your arrest.' I was absolutely shocked."


Combs said she thinks the arrest and charges are over-the-top for the amount she owed.


"What they've spent in stamps is more than what I owe," she said.


She could also end up paying hundreds of dollars in fines for the unfilled tax forms, Hamrick reported.


Loveland City Manager Fred Enderle said the amount Combs owes isn't the real issue.


"Whether it's $1 they owe us or $1,000, it's not fair to the rest of the public to not pursue that person," he said. "There is some expense involved, but it goes back to the principle. We have laws. The laws have to be complied with. {Here is the real question}At what cost do you stop enforcing the law?"


Combs is scheduled to appear in Loveland Mayor's Court on Oct. 20.

-- I agree in principle but not the execution.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

-- I agree in principle but not the execution.

Why? This seems pretty simple to me. Kind of like skipping Jury Duty. Or, an unpaid $35.00 traffic ticket.

They simply put a warrant out for her arrest. I am assuming this happened during a routine trafic stop when the police ran her Drivers License and it camp back that there was an outstanding warrant.

[sovereignstar]

I am the law!

[Draft Dodger]

fuck her and the idiot who wrote this story.
and fuck Pilotman for bolding the wrong part of the sentence. the stupid bitch hasn't filed her city taxes for 5 years.

fuck her.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

fuck her and the idiot who wrote this story.
and fuck Pilotman for bolding the wrong part of the sentence. the stupid bitch hasn't filed her city taxes for 5 years.

fuck her.

"fuck idiot fuck stupid bitch fuck"

feeling hostile this morning?

[Marc Vaughan]

"Whether it's $1 they owe us or $1,000, it's not fair to the rest of the public to not pursue that person," he said. "There is some expense involved, but it goes back to the principle. We have laws. The laws have to be complied with. {Here is the real question}At what cost do you stop enforcing the law?"

To be quite frank if this happened in England then I'd have preferred them not to waste umpteen pounds pursueing $1 ...

The cost of wear and tear on the police car, pay for police, prosecution costs, costs of jailing etc. will all mound up to a farcical amount for a prosecution which will either be thrown out because its stupid in the first place or at best (from the goverment point of view) never recoup the costs involved.

[QuikSand]

In many jurisdictions, there is the concept of de minimis taxes -- a point below which it's judged not to be worth the effort to collect.

I think there's an issue there, though -- maybe it's worth it for society to occaionally spend ten bucks in stamps and envelopes to demonstrate that the law applies to everybody. I'm not wild about this woman being physically detained... but also don't have any real problem with the expenditure of some reasonable amont of effort to ensure that the laws are followed.

[Marc Vaughan]

In many jurisdictions, there is the concept of de minimis taxes -- a point below which it's judged not to be worth the effort to collect.
I think there's an issue there, though -- maybe it's worth it for society to occaionally spend ten bucks in stamps and envelopes to demonstrate that the law applies to everybody. I'm not wild about this woman being physically detained... but also don't have any real problem with the expenditure of some reasonable amont of effort to ensure that the laws are followed.

I personally agree with the idea of 'de minimis' taxes.

To be I don't understand your point with regards to charging minimal taxes where they'd cost more to collect than they recoup.

The people paying those small amounts are normally those to whom any money is useful (otherwise they'd be paying higher taxes surely?) ... so its not gaining anything to society (as its both taxing money out of needy peoples pockets but also costing the average tax payer money also).

Then again I had this arguement with a utility company which sent me a £0.16 bill a few years ago .. the stamp cost more for them to send me the bill then they recieved (I was closing the account at the time if you wonder why it was an odd figure).

Surplus to that I paid via. a credit card so they'd have paid a minimum fee for handling that also ...

For me there is a point to applying common sense to every situation.

[Marc Vaughan]

PS> On a similar but different note ...

Do you get fancy pamphets sent to you by the local goverment/council trying to convince you they're spending your money wisely? - bearing in mind they have to print hundreds of thousands of these things and post them out using your money? ...

Never been quite convinced by wasting money in an attempt to convince people you aren't wasting money

[Ksyrup]

She said officers pulled her over and acted as though she were a violent criminal.

"One sheriff approached my car with his hand on his gun," she said. "Another from the other side of the car leaned in and said, 'Are you Deborah Combs?' He said, 'We have a warrant for your arrest.' I was absolutely shocked."


How freaking pathetic to write this story in this manner. Acted as though she were a violent criminal?! One cop had his hand "on his gun" - not drawn, just resting on his belt (and that's if she is to be believed at all) - and the other leaned into the car, confirmed her identity, and told her they had an arrest warrant for her. If that's the way they usually treat violent criminals, I'm glad I don't live there.

It's pretty obvious to me that she got what she deserved for being unequivocally defiant. This wasn't an oops, I just forgot to pay it; she had, and apparently still has, no intent to pay what is owed. I've had situations where I've paid off a big credit card bill and had minimal interest accumulate between the date of the bill and the time they received my check, and I've still written them a check for $1.50 to completely pay off my account. I didn't decide not to pay it because I couln't be bothered by it, have them ruin my credit because I'm sticking to my idiotic "principles," and then find an idiot local journalist who was willing to write a one-sided, "we all should be shocked by the credit card company's behavior" story to excuse and legitimize inexcusable behavior.

The amount is simply not an issue for me. This is about taking responsibility for your obligations in our society, something this person has no concept of, apparently.

[Raiders Army]

I agree with Ksyrup. Non-issue.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I'm kindof with the "pay yer damn taxes" crowd on this one. The whole idea of minimum taxes or whatever that fancy Latin you were trying to pawn off on people - you just can't do it. There are probably a lot of people who don't owe very much in taxes, let's say, under $5. If one doesn't pay, no big deal. If all don't pay, you start cutting into your tax base and it's unfair to everyone else. And, speaking of fairness, if you let her skate for $1.16, what about those other people across town who only owed $3 or that one who only owed $1- is that fair to them?

SI

[Bearcat729]

As a taxpayer in this city I feel that it is stupid to waste any money over $1.16 in taxes, but if she hasn't filed her taxes in 5 years then they should have arrested her.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, I'm kindof with the "pay yer damn taxes" crowd on this one. The whole idea of minimum taxes or whatever that fancy Latin you were trying to pawn off on people - you just can't do it. There are probably a lot of people who don't owe very much in taxes, let's say, under $5. If one doesn't pay, no big deal. If all don't pay, you start cutting into your tax base and it's unfair to everyone else. And, speaking of fairness, if you let her skate for $1.16, what about those other people across town who only owed $3 or that one who only owed $1- is that fair to them?

SI

Whats wrong with letting it 'roll' in such circumstances and adding it into next years until such time as its an amount which would actually make a profit if collected?

Set an arbitary figure over which action is taken, if thats met then send a warning letter and then let loose ... if its below that level note it and then add it into next years return.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally agree with the idea of 'de minimis' taxes.

To be I don't understand your point with regards to charging minimal taxes where they'd cost more to collect than they recoup.

There are a lot of situations when a tiny tax bill might arise. Maybe it's the persona' entire tax bill, but maybe it's the result of an underpayment.

If my tax bill is $652, and I mistakenly pat $625... I owe $27, no dispute there. If I make some similar mistake and underpay by $1.17 or $4.09, should the receiving entity just not pursue it? If underpaying by a buck or five bucks is okay and not worth the hassle... then everyone's tax bill just dropped from $652 to 651... or to 647... or to $642... or whatever.

I also would argue that there is a meaningful difference here between a public tax collection, and a private company sending a bill. I'd be comfortable arguing that a government owes it to its citizens and taxpayers to require all payers pony up in full... while a private entity might be entitled to make a pfort-maximizing decision to not pursue certain small claims.

[Kodos]

I say execute her as an example to the other deadbeats!

[KevinNU7]

SHE HADN'T FILED IN 5 YEARS

Don't just assume that the author and the dumb bitch are telling the truth to you. Her warrant wasn't because of the $1.16 she owed it was because of the $1.16 and her failure to file in 5 years!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Whats wrong with letting it 'roll' in such circumstances and adding it into next years until such time as its an amount which would actually make a profit if collected?

Set an arbitary figure over which action is taken, if thats met then send a warning letter and then let loose ... if its below that level note it and then add it into next years return.

No one's saying you can't have this system in place. But they don't right now and I'm pretty sure not filing and not paying your taxes for 5 years is currently illegal and that's why she was punished.

The federal government, for instance, doesn't need you to file if you didn't make any income for the year. Again, we're not talking about that either.

SI

[Raiders Army]

Sigh. Wasn't it clear that it wasn't that they conducted a manhunt for her? It just happened that she was pulled over. It wasn't like the city was expending extra money for this.

[cody8200]

I see no problem with this. If I have to pay taxes...everyone should have to pay their taxes. I don't care what it costs to make sure it happens. Maybe after some jail time it wont happen again.

[Bee]

I'm confused. How can you not pay taxes for 5 years and only owe $1.16?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Sigh. Wasn't it clear that it wasn't that they conducted a manhunt for her? It just happened that she was pulled over. It wasn't like the city was expending extra money for this.

i dont think thats clear from the article...

[Tekneek]

The problem is the government being allowed to use force to get their money. Until such time that I can use force to extract money owed to me, the government should not be allowed to do it.

[tategter]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The problem is the government being allowed to use force to get their money. Until such time that I can use force to extract money owed to me, the government should not be allowed to do it.

What force? It's not like they held the lady upside down by the ankles until $1.16 in change fell out of her nickers. She broke the law and was arrested. Big whoop.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The problem is the government being allowed to use force to get their money. Until such time that I can use force to extract money owed to me, the government should not be allowed to do it.

What? Did you read the article and the comments?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What? Did you read the article and the comments?

What? Did they arrest her?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by tategter

What force? It's not like they held the lady upside down by the ankles until $1.16 in change fell out of her nickers. She broke the law and was arrested. Big whoop.

If I can get people arrested that don't pay me, then I'm ok with it. If only the government can arrest you for not paying your debts, then I'm not ok with it.

I don't believe it is fair for the government to make it a crime if you don't pay them unless it is a crime if you don't pay me (or anyone else you owe money to). If I have to go to court to get a lien against your assets, then that should be all the government can do as well.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If I can get people arrested that don't pay me, then I'm ok with it. If only the government can arrest you for not paying your debts, then I'm not ok with it.

This is wrong on so many levels.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What? Did they arrest her?

She didn't pay her taxes.....That is a crime...

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

She didn't pay her taxes.....That is a crime...

It is a "crime" that I don't agree with, unless your failure to pay anyone is equally a crime. If you don't pay your credit card bills, it should be just as much of a crime.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This is wrong on so many levels.

I agree. If it is wrong for me, it is wrong for the government. The government should not have stronger powers of collection than any private entity does.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I agree. If it is wrong for me, it is wrong for the government. The government should not have stronger powers of collection than any private entity does.

Big difference between accepting payment (as with private entity) and being required to pay (as with taxes). But also, I think the crime is that she didn't file a return in 5 YEARS. The government can get it's money without arresting you, but she is acting as tax evader.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Big difference between accepting payment (as with private entity) and being required to pay (as with taxes). But also, I think the crime is that she didn't file a return in 5 YEARS. The government can get it's money without arresting you, but she is acting as tax evader.

Oh. You aren't required to pay money to anyone other than the government?

EDIT... You really think it is right for the government to be able to force you to pay them, but if someone owed me just as much money I should not be able to force them to pay up? I should have just as powerful a right to collect the money owed to me as the government does.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I agree. If it is wrong for me, it is wrong for the government. The government should not have stronger powers of collection than any private entity does.

No, you are wrong on pretty much every level here. Please don't quote my criticism of you and suggest that I am agreeing with you.

First - you advocate for a toothless government revenue system, which would become obviously indefensible given just a little speck of thought. If there is no enforcement, there will be no payment, and therefore no support for the things we need.

Second - one of the things that our properly funded government does for you and everybody is enforce private contracts. If someone legitimately owes you money, you can get a judgement against him, and if he refuses to comply, he can be arrested.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Oh. You aren't required to pay money to anyone other than the government?

EDIT... You really think it is right for the government to be able to force you to pay them, but if someone owed me just as much money I should not be able to force them to pay up? I should have just as powerful a right to collect the money owed to me as the government does.

You can be forced to pay up, they will either take your house, sue you, ect..But the difference is that the lady didn't file a tax return in 5 years.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Oh. You aren't required to pay money to anyone other than the government?

EDIT... You really think it is right for the government to be able to force you to pay them, but if someone owed me just as much money I should not be able to force them to pay up? I should have just as powerful a right to collect the money owed to me as the government does.

I think you have a point, but it's a little blunt.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

No, you are wrong on pretty much every level here. Please don't quote my criticism of you and suggest that I am agreeing with you.

First - you advocate for a toothless government revenue system, which would become obviously indefensible given just a little speck of thought. If there is no enforcement, there will be no payment, and therefore no support for the things we need.

All I am saying is, the right of the government to collect should not exceed that of any private citizen. That's all I'm saying.

Second - one of the things that our properly funded government does for you and everybody is enforce private contracts. If someone legitimately owes you money, you can get a judgement against him, and if he refuses to comply, he can be arrested.

I know of several corporations and private individuals that have not been able to collect on judgments. The extent of their rights has been the ability to get a lien on the assets of the individuals, or just report it to a credit bureau because the debt becomes uncollectible. Someone with an inability to pay the debt will not be arrested for failure to pay a private debt, at least not around here that I know about. By all means, educate me, Quiksand. I maintain that the government uses collection forces that they do not allow private entities to use.

[PilotMan]

Look you guys are missing a pretty important part and that was she hadn't filed her city taxes in the last 5 years, but that doesn't mean that she didn't pay her city taxes. If you live in a city where you are charged city tax, ususally that money is taken out of your paycheck by your employer. Ninety-nine percent of the time the money that is already withheld is the amout that you owe. Hence, you have already paid your taxes. I would bet that the majority never file their city taxes. You do the worksheet, and if it works out to be what you paid, your fine. You don't file the paperwork.

Nowhere in this article did it say that she did not pay her taxes for five years. Obviosly if she did pay her taxes or she would owe a lot more than $1.16.

I think you need to step back and look at the situation again.

To the rest of you who say that she got what she had coming to you, the next time you get speeding ticketed for going 21mph in the 20mph limit at the mall parking lot, don't bitch that the officer should have had something better to do with his time.

{edit} DD - I didn't deserve that. But don't worry I didn't take you seriously.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

{edit} DD - I didn't deserve that. But don't worry I didn't take you seriously.

good. no one else does either.

[Bearcat729]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...WS01/511050433

Saturday, November 5, 2005

$1.16 tax case might go away
Mayor will ask Loveland council to end 'the circus'

By Kevin Osborne
Enquirer staff writer



Deborah Combs

ADVERTISEMENT


LOVELAND - Hoping to stop an onslaught of international publicity and avoid spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal fees, Loveland's mayor is asking City Council to dismiss all criminal charges against a woman involved in a tax dispute.

Deborah Combs, 51, pleaded not guilty this week for failure to file city tax returns and not paying late fees on her $1.16 tax bill.

She faced up to $4,000 in fines and 18 months in jail on the four misdemeanor charges.

Combs' case had rallied pundits on cable TV networks and anti-tax activists on the Internet, prompting a deluge of angry e-mails to officials in the suburban town.

Mayor Brad Greenberg said he expects City Council will formally direct the city manager to dismiss the case against Combs at council's meeting on Tuesday.

The $200 in late fees the city assessed against Combs also will be waived, he added.

"The circus is leaving town," the mayor said.

"I don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on this case. I became convinced that it would cost thousands of dollars.

"Now, it will be over."

Combs was ecstatic about the turn of events.

"I'm absolutely thrilled," she said.

"It's the right thing for them to do. I'm glad they're looking at it from a humanitarian point of view. I thank God that my local mayor had the good sense to drop this."

She said the case dismissal is a relief.

"This will really help me out a lot. I am down on my luck."

Combs, who suffers from health problems, held a few short-term jobs during the past few years and had minimal income. Because she didn't earn enough to file state and federal returns, Combs said she believed she also didn't have to file city returns.

Loveland has a mandatory filing requirement, however, regardless of income levels.

Under city law, Loveland doesn't attempt to collect tax bills totaling less than $2 or offer tax refunds of less than $2. Because she didn't file tax returns for several years, Combs was charged penalties that far outpaced her tax liability.

Christopher Finney, one of Combs' attorneys, said the dispute began because one of her employers didn't withhold enough from one of her paychecks.

Finney and fellow attorney Steve Adams had argued that Loveland's tax system violates due process rights, and its procedures include excessive fines.

Greenberg agreed that the penalties may be too high in some cases. He recently appointed a citizens review panel to examine the tax procedures and suggest changes.

"I have real concerns about our policies and procedures," Greenberg said. "To me, a late fee of $50 (per year) is out of proportion to a debt of $1.16."

Finney is representing another Loveland resident on a similar tax dispute in Hamilton County court. Loveland is within three counties: Clermont, Hamilton and Warren. Finney wants to force a broad-based reform of the city's tax code.

"The city obviously doesn't understand there's more than $1.16 at stake here, there's a principle involved," Finney said. "If the city doesn't intend to mend its ways against all its citizens, these cases will continue."

After consulting with the city's attorneys Friday, Greenberg said other tax cases will be put on hold, at least temporarily.

"We will likely suspend prosecution of our tax cases until the citizens review panel has concluded their work," he said.

The city issues about 150 warrants each year for unpaid taxes.

[sabotai]

She said the case dismissal is a relief.

"This will really help me out a lot. I am down on my luck."

For some reason, I'm thinking that if she's in any kind of financial or personal trouble, it has nothing to do with luck.

[Dutch]

Wouldn't it be nice if these highly educated journalists could write a story with all the facts in a clear and concise way that doesn't confuse everybody? What do they learn in journalism school? How to write a good article or how to write a controversial article?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wouldn't it be nice if these highly educated journalists could write a story with all the facts in a clear and concise way that doesn't confuse everybody? What do they learn in journalism school? How to write a good article or how to write a controversial article?

Well, as I've said before, at Mizzou, which is supposed to be the best, it seems a lot more like the latter which is why my wife went towards advertising as it was actually *less* distasteful than broadcast. It's all about following the money.

SI

[Dutch]

It's all about following the money.

And that's probably not the journalists fault but the newspaper/tv competition. I guess it's a dream world, but it would be nice if they didn't have to be so inciteful when they go about writing the news.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And that's probably not the journalists fault but the newspaper/tv competition. I guess it's a dream world, but it would be nice if they didn't have to be so inciteful when they go about writing the news.

Well, when you have to make money by getting news....

And besides, its an American tradition. Asking William Randolph Hearst .

[Airhog]

I think the second article really shows the truth of this matter. the woman obviously had no or very little income for 5 years. obviously, she didnt think she had to pay city taxes. I know that ignorance is not an excuse, but it sounds like this woman just didnt know she had to file a city return.

[Cringer]

Maybe she won't file next year and they can arrest her again. It won't be as big of a story the next time around and they can fine her up the ass.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Airhog

I think the second article really shows the truth of this matter. the woman obviously had no or very little income for 5 years. obviously, she didnt think she had to pay city taxes. I know that ignorance is not an excuse, but it sounds like this woman just didnt know she had to file a city return.

Agreed. The bit about minimal income below the level to file state and federal taxes and the bit about Loveland requiring filing anyway was left out of the original stories. NOW I feel bad for her and am glad the city is doing the right thing.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Airhog

I think the second article really shows the truth of this matter. the woman obviously had no or very little income for 5 years. obviously, she didnt think she had to pay city taxes. I know that ignorance is not an excuse, but it sounds like this woman just didnt know she had to file a city return.

Guys, you are misunderstanding the story. I will repost this again.

-----------------------------

Look you guys are missing a pretty important part and that was she hadn't filed her city taxes in the last 5 years, but that doesn't mean that she didn't pay her city taxes. If you live in a city where you are charged city tax, ususally that money is taken out of your paycheck by your employer. Ninety-nine percent of the time the money that is already withheld is the amout that you owe. Hence, you have already paid your taxes. I would bet that the majority never file their city taxes. You do the worksheet, and if it works out to be what you paid, your fine. You don't file the paperwork.

Nowhere in this article did it say that she did not pay her taxes for five years. Obviosly if she did pay her taxes or she would owe a lot more than $1.16.

I think you need to step back and look at the situation again.

[QuikSand]

I still am uncertain about the whole matter of filing from the articles... so I'll reserve judgment on all that.


But based on her pithy comment about stamps... it seems pretty clear that she received notices that she had not paid her taxes in full, and owed some amount. And she decided to not bother paying.

For those of you who insist that this is a non-issue... at what point exactly is it okay to not bother paying your taxes, when you are notified that they are due? $1.00? $10? $50? $500?