Thread by @DanielRAlonso

Thread: Those who are writing that tax *avoidance* (the term @nytimes uses) is not a crime are exactly right - tax *evasion* is a crime, not "avoidance." But there is a lot here that with a proper investigation could lead to discovery of criminality. /1
nytimes.com/interactive/20…

This article contains what federal agents and prosecutors call "predication," which is the bare amount you need to open a criminal investigation. But who would investigate? The President himself oversees @IRS_CI and @FBI and @TheJusticeDept. /2

Luckily, regulations from 20 years ago provide for what happens when such a conflict of interest exists: the Attorney General "will appoint a Special Counsel." /3

Now, we've been down this path before, and it didn't turn out well for the Attorney General who recused, and the Acting AG got a world of hell rained down on him for appointing a Special Counsel. /4
politico.com/story/2018/04/…

Nevertheless, if you or I had, say, deducted expenses that should have been personal, we'd be investigated. Not saying there is necessarily a crime here; just that there's enough to investigate. /5

But those kinds of deductions are routinely prosecuted in federal court. A very famous case in New York is that of Al Pirro, then husband of @JudgeJeanine. /6
nytimes.com/2000/06/23/nyr…

Pirro deducted personal expenses as business, and therefore "had brazenly violated a fundamental tenet of the American tax system: that every taxpayer must pay his or her fair share, regardless of wealth or influence." He got 29 months in prison. /7
nytimes.com/2000/11/02/nyr…

If I were a prosecutor, I'd want to know whether the IRS civil auditors had found what are called "badges of fraud" - indicators that incorrect deductions had been done intentionally through some sort of deceptive act - & I'd want to see the audit results. /8

But it seems that the Special Counsel possibility should be in play. Too close to the election, perhaps? Um, is anything too close anymore? /end