[Professor S]

1) Moving the burden of proof to the individual literally means that the individula must prove they are innocent. Meaning, the IRS can make an accusation, even randomly, and then the company/individual must prove their innocence. Also, I believe the "shadow of a doubt" rule and jury of peers applies to all state and federal cases beyond a misdemeanor, but is not applied to civil cases. I'm not positive on that though.

Currently I believe the IRS must have evidence/just cause (descrepancies, etc.) for an audit in most cases. But I'm not positive about that either. What I do know is that it is a huge change from current law/standard practice.

2) I don't like the idea that companies are avoiding taxes either, but we need to acknowledge why they are doing so: The US has the second highest corporate taxes in the world. What we should do is eliminate the loopholes, and couple that with with a tax reduction. This would encourage more companies to not use loopholes, and also benefit companies in that they won't need to invest time and effort in finding these types of shelters.

I agree that we are a service based economy, but we need some real production as well. Too much of a service economy is based on expendable income. As we've seen, when the economy hits hard times, the service industries are many times the first to go (restaurants, etc.)