NAN A. S. HAYWORTH: “I think that is a point well taken, and I would also add that let us give credit where credit is due. Indeed the…”

“I think that is a point well taken, and I would also add that let us give credit where credit is due. Indeed the leadership on this issue comes from both sides of the aisle. Our good friend from Ohio, [Mr. Traficant], has been insistent on this type of legislation, and I do not think we can overstate this to the American people too emphatically. As we know, and my colleague from Pennsylvania being a distinguished attorney, I do not hold that against him, but it has been a basic tenet of Western jurisprudence that the burden of proof does not rest with the accused; instead, with those who make the accusations. Yet, we have turned that in tax law to where it is completely reversed, and some would say that reverse indeed is a perversity of the system, for when one is called in and questioned about one's returns, the burden of proof falls not on the Internal Revenue Service, instead it falls on the accused taxpayer. Indeed, there is not the presumption of innocence; instead, there is a presumption of guilt. So I salute my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for being a leader on this issue.”