An interesting little detail here:
For example, I think the burden of proof should rest with the taxpayer in all cases when an action is taken under these rules.
Yup. If you\’re being sued by the taxman it will be up to you to prove your innocence, not for the State to prove your guilt.
Entirely overturning some centuries of jurisprudence and completely upending the most basic of civil liberties.
They\’ve got to prove you\’re a bad\’un, not you prove you\’re not.
Note that he\’s not even suggesting that criminal standards of proof must be reduced to civil ones, from beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probabilities.
He really is saying that if the Government comes after you you must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your innocence.
This is the sort of suggestion that in more robust times would be met with a lamp post and a piece of hempen.
In these times of course something less dramatic: Richard, is your lust for tax revenues really so great that you would over turn the very basis of our law, the presumption of innocence?