2 thoughts on “Crime does pay

  1. If I read the link carefully, there’s nothing wrong with the law currently, just how people use it. Expenses are not deductible when they are associated with crime. However, the expenses that were allowed to be deducted were not associated with a proven and trialed crime so could thus be deducted as normal business expenses. Unlucky, but not really weird to me.

    We can’t go punishing people for untrialed ‘crimes’ – that’s one of the principles of the law. Innocent until prove guilty etc.

    About the social security… that’s a bit weird. In this case, I suppose the law should be changed. Although the judge is, in my opinion, to be commended for upholding the law even in a case of a blatant mistake in it. The moment judges start using their judgment to complement the law, we’re in deep trouble, so I think hé did the right thing. Now let’s hope our government will.

  2. I agree on both counts with you.
    The first is a clear error by the ADA, although defining the purchase and sale of (hard?)drugs as your business does not seem to be right. Weird case nonetheless, not even taking into account the fact that most people reading it, will not do it as thoroughly as you and me.

    I’m not judging the judge (/seth) here, but I’m simply showing the absurdness of the law at hand. It is wrong and should be altered. We agree fully. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.