But the taxes were not due until after the law was passed. The fact that the actions affecting apportionment occured prior to the law does not make it "ex post facto." Therefore the crime would be not paying which would happen after the law was passed.
Of course this might make fines for failure to file the correct estimated returns "ex post facto." Albion. Quoting lcs Mixmaster Remailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:26:22 +0800, you wrote: > > > > Alif The Terrible wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Marc de Piolenc wrote: > > > > > > > The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. > > > > > > Which has not stopped them yet. > > > > Actually, that provision has held quite well so far. I can't think of > > one exception...unless it's this latest copyright extension. > > > > Marc > > Tax increases by the Clinton administration, passed well into > the tax year, affecting income received prior to the passage of > the increase. Avoidance of such taxes would be punished with > criminal penalties. > > Or "Being a US citizen of Japanese Ancestry". Lots of them.
