http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/26/wexp26.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/26/ixnewstop.html

Wow. Just...wow.

And this is based on precedent? Amazing

You can compare criminal acts to normal business activities, where you must invest to make profits, and thus you have costs.:eek: Is this article for real? I'm speechless...

Something is deeply wrong there...

And people say that my legal system is crazy. How anyone could think that the money spent on an illegal activity is a "business expense" is, well, well, GAH!!! Insane.

This does seem rather crazy to me. Hope it doesn't catch on elsewhere.

I think they're applying a naive analogy between fine and tax, in which a fine would be some kind of a punitive tax on illegal activity, so the cost of running that "business" could be deducted.

Either that or a bit more pragmatic approach in which fine fulfils the assumption that crime should cost you and buying a gun already costs you, so you shouldn't have to pay twice for the same thing.

But what if he had bought a mahogany gun with a silver pipe and ivory adornment? No fine? :rolleyes:

My assumption here is that the purchase of the gun was illegal. How about they reduce his fine by the cost of the gun if he tells them who he bought it from and the details of the transaction? Then, the government's acts serve a purpose in that they can get another criminal. That's about the only way I could conceive of being on the side of this type of fine reduction.

Okay for the Drug dealer example, you would need to deduct the purchase price of the drugs, the fuel and depreciation on the car, the munchies and soda that they consume on the job (benefits ya know), depreciation on any weapons they carry for protection, cost of ammo used (whether at a target or fired at random while high), medical expenses for getting hurt while high or getting beaten up by rivals, liability insurance for customers that get hurt while high, bad debts expense for those who don't pay up, fees charged by leg breakers if you opt to contract that out...

I guess crime doesn't really pay...

The law here states that the financial situation of a criminal should be the same before the crime as after, so he will integrate in the society more easily with less chance to do more harm.
Else they fall down that pit and do even more harm.

Hilarious isn't it? Good thing I don't pay taxes.

To my mind, deductions are given because of the belief that the behavior is "good" in some way and should be encouraged. To give such consideration to criminal behavior seems very wrong to me.

What does the judge smoke?

Hey guys dont make fun of our legal system! They took the gun off him so he gets compensated for it, thats all! (doesnt sound really convincing to me but i have to defend my country so...)
Fact is that the dutch legal system has always been somewhat more modern then in the rest world ;)

The article isn't really clear about the nature of the court case but if they are nailing the guy for unpaid income taxes on the revenues from the bank robbery then allowing him to deduct the cost of the gun from his income would appear to be quite reasonable to me. If they are allowing him to deduct the cost of the gun against anything else it wouldn't be reasonable.

It isn't uncommon for criminals to be charged with tax evasion when a normal conviction can't be made - in which case the evidence uncovered/disclosed in the course of the tax investigation and trial will normally be inadmissable for criminal court purposes.

From a tax point of view it is actually quite normal to be allowed to deduct expenses incurred against revenues from criminal activities in order to determine the amount of income tax payable. That certainly is the rule in Canada and I am fairly certain it is the same in many other countries.

[ January 27, 2005, 19:12: Message edited by: JSBB ]

From a tax point of view it is actually quite normal to be allowed to deduct expenses incurred against revenues from criminal activities in order to determine the amount of income tax payable.What! That just seems so bizarre to me. If it is known the activity was criminal, then all revenues should be confiscated IMO, and if it was stolen, given back to the people from which it was stolen. If it wasn't stolen, it should go to the law enforcement division that polices such activity.

Hey, in our system the guy would lose the gun and could even be ordered to pay its worth in money if he had already lost it.