At a time when millions of Americans are buckling down to prepare their taxes, Snipes is being cast as a villainous example of the dangers of joining with Internet-fueled activists who claim the IRS has no authority to collect taxes.

Snipes, the star of the "Blade" films and "White Men Can't Jump," is on trial with two tax protesters in one of the biggest criminal cases in IRS history, and the agency hopes the media attention on the matter will dissuade others in the "tax avoidance" movement from trying to outwit the government.

"People who do it openly and notoriously, you've got to go after them," said Sheldon Cohen, who was IRS commissioner and general counsel in the 1960s. "Not because he's that important or the amount of money is that important, but because there are others who may be foolish enough to follow."

Snipes, 45, could get up to 16 years in prison if convicted on all counts, although sentences that long are unusual.

"I've always been paying my taxes; I've always been trying to comply," Snipes said Tuesday in his first substantive public comment since the trial began. "The question is if they tell you what you're supposed to do. We need to go to our government and get clear answers."

His two co-defendants are an anti-tax ideologue who refuses to defend himself in court and an accountant who lost his licenses. The trio rested their defense Monday without calling any witnesses, saying they didn't need to.

"Nobody likes paying taxes, but paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society," Assistant U.S. Attorney M. Scotland Morris said Tuesday in closing arguments. "And it's the law, and that's what this case is about. It's about three men who felt they were above the law."

Defense attorney Robert Barnes conceded Snipes' arguments may have been crazy, but insisted that didn't make them criminal.

"Disagreement with the IRS is not fraud of the IRS, is not deception," Barnes said. "It was an attempt to engage the IRS, to go through the IRS procedures and processes and see who's right."

In lengthy filings to the IRS, the three defendants claimed they did not legally have to pay taxes, citing an obscure section of the tax code that establishes that foreign sources of income for U.S. citizens are taxable. Protesters take that to mean only foreign sources are taxable, and wages made in this country are not.

"They string unconnected things together in a way that they're just not intended to be strung together," said Chris Rizek, a former Treasury Department lawyer who specialized in tax policy. "And the courts have repeatedly said 'No, that's the wrong interpretation, listen to this.' And they just don't listen."

Snipes, who is free on $1 million bond, was paying millions in federal income taxes until 2000 when, according to prosecutors, he accepted the arguments of his two co-defendants. Snipes then allegedly began seeking nearly $12 million in illegal refunds for taxes he already paid.

Snipes, alleged ringleader Eddie Ray Kahn and former CPA Douglas P. Rosile were indicted on eight counts alleging tax fraud, conspiracy and willful failure to file returns. Kahn now refuses to leave his jail cell because he believes the court has no jurisdiction to prosecute him.

The government says Kahn founded a group in the 1990s, American Rights Litigators, and a successor group, Guiding Light of God Ministries, that purported to help members legally avoid paying taxes. Rosile, a former accountant who lost his licenses in Ohio and Florida, prepared the paperwork. Snipes joined their group in 2000.

Witnesses for the prosecution have said up to 4,000 people refused to pay taxes based on the group's arguments.

The three men claimed the IRS is not a legitimate government agency. Snipes also argued in long, bizarre letters that he was a nonresident alien; that the IRS terrorizes and deceives citizens; and that efforts to prosecute him would cause "increased collateral risk."

Most tax cases are handled in civil court, because the IRS does not have enough agents or time to pursue criminal charges against ordinary taxpayers who fudge a deduction or a decimal place on their tax returns.

But pursuing the matter in criminal court carries other risks — the burden of proof is higher, and an acquittal would instantly galvanize the tax-avoidance movement, which already enjoys boundless exposure on the Internet.

The IRS has been successful in pursuing criminal cases against the movement's followers.

Last year, for example, a New Hampshire tax protester vowed to die fighting rather than be apprehended following criminal conviction on several tax charges. Several people were arrested trying to help Ed Brown and his wife avoid capture, and almost all of them were from other states.

Brown and his wife were taken peacefully, but only after agents tricked the couple into surrendering.

But there are exceptions. In 2003, FedEx pilot and tax protester Vernice Kuglin was acquitted because the jury found she sincerely believed she didn't have to pay taxes.

Kuglin's assets were seized, and the government got its tax money. Despite that, her case is held by some protesters as proof that the IRS is a sham, and citizens really don't have to pay taxes.

Cohen, the former IRS commissioner, said trials like Snipes' are important to discourage potential tax scofflaws from defying the government.

"Locks are important on windows to keep honest men from becoming thieves," Cohen said. "Because a thief can get into a window even if it's locked, right? But you do that as a deterrent."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would act on the agreement — hammered out in a week of intense negotiations and uncustomary bipartisanship — "at the earliest date, so that those rebate checks can be in the mail."

President Bush praised the agreement at the White House, saying it "has the right set of policies and is the right size."

The rebates, which would go to about 116 million families, had appeal for both Democrats and Republicans. Pelosi's staff noted that they would include $28 billion in checks to 35 million working families who wouldn't have been helped by Bush's original proposal. Republicans, for their part, were pleased that the bulk of the rebates — more than 70 percent, according to an analysis by Congress' Joint Tax Committee — would go to individuals who pay taxes.

Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.

The first rebate payments could begin going out in May, and most people could have them by July, said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, noting that the IRS will already be overwhelmed processing 2007 tax returns. The rebates were expected to cost about $100 billion, and the package also includes close to $50 billion in business tax cuts.

The principal players in pulling the deal together were Pelosi, House Republican leader John Boehner and Paulson. The package would allow businesses to immediately write off 50 percent of purchases of plants and other capital equipment and permit small businesses to write off additional purchases of equipment. A GOP-written provision to allow businesses suffering losses now to reclaim taxes previously paid was dropped.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining the rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including those who make too little to pay income taxes.

"I can't say that I'm totally pleased with the package, but I do know that it will help stimulate the economy. But if it does not, then there will be more to come," Pelosi said.

Boehner said the agreement "was not easy for the two of us and our respective caucuses."

"You know, many Americans believe that Washington is broken," the Ohio Republican said. "But I think this agreement and I hope that this agreement will show the American people that we can fix it and will serve to move along other bipartisan agreements that we can have in the future."

Paulson said he would work with the House and Senate to enact the package as soon as possible, because "speed is of the essence." But he also cautioned that "the work is far from over."

The Treasury Department has already been talking to the IRS about getting the checks out "as quickly as possible, recognizing that the tax filing season is ongoing," said Treasury spokesman Andrew DeSouza.

The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose income exceeds $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, aides said. Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps are higher for those with children.

The agreement left some lawmakers in both parties with a bitter taste, and they complained that their leaders had sacrificed too much in the interest of striking a deal. Many senior Democrats were particularly upset that the package omitted the unemployment extension.

"I do not understand, and cannot accept, the resistance of President Bush and Republican leaders to including an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are without work through no fault of their own," Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., the Ways and Means Committee chairman, said in a statement.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee Chairman, said leaving out the unemployment extension was "a mistake," as he announced plans to craft a separate stimulus package in the Senate starting next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid said the goal is to send the package to the White House by Feb. 15 for Bush's signature, but he noted the Senate would likely try to add more spending to the package.

"I expect that the (Finance) Committee and other senators will work to improve the House package by adding funds for other initiatives that can boost the economy immediately, such as unemployment benefits, nutrition assistance, state relief and infrastructure investment," Reid said in a statement.

Asked about this, Paulson praised Reid's leadership but said, "I don't know what he has in mind."

Bush has supported larger rebates of $800-$1,600, but his plan would have left out 30 million working households who earn paychecks but don't make enough to pay income tax, according to calculations by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. An additional 19 million households would receive only partial rebates under Bush's initial proposal.

To address the mortgage crisis, the package raises the limit on Federal Housing Administration loans from $362,000 to as high as $729,750 in expensive areas, allowing more subprime mortgage holders to refinance into federally insured loans. To widen the availability of mortgages across the country, it also provides a one-year boost to the cap on loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy, from $417,000 up to $729,750 in high-cost markets.

A: No, you cannot deduct as theft losses the amount you invested in Enron stock that is not covered by the reimbursement.

The Internal Revenue Service stated in an April 19, 2004, notice that it would "disallow such deductions and may impose penalties" on taxpayers who claimed theft loss deductions for "the decline in market value of their stock caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct of the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock."

The tax code limits losses for individuals to:

• Losses incurred in a trade or business.

• Losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit outside of a trade or business, which are called capital losses.

• Losses of property not connected with a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit, if such losses arise from theft or casualties, such as fire, storm and shipwreck, which are called theft or casualty losses.

In its notice, the IRS cites several judicial rulings that have found that capital losses do not become theft losses, even when a stock becomes worthless because of "corporate officers misrepresenting the financial condition of the corporation, even when the officers were indicted for securities fraud or other criminal violations."

You can challenge that determination by filing a lawsuit and proving in court that the "loss resulted from a taking of property that is illegal under the law of the state where it occurred and that the taking was done with criminal intent."

Otherwise, claim a capital loss.

Capital losses are deducted first from capital gains, and then again up to $3,000 of other income. Any amounts of the loss remaining can be carried over into future tax years. A carry-over loss may be deducted from capital gains in later years plus up to $3,000 of ordinary income.

Small tax-exempt organizations have a new filing requirement. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made some big changes to the tax law as it affects charities, particularly the operation of tax-exempt charitable organizations. It included new rules for charitable giving, new reporting, unrelated business income and sanction rules, tougher rules for private foundations, tougher rules for supporting organizations and new rules for donor-advised funds.

One measure is a particularly nasty trap for small non-profits.

Small tax-exempt organizations, whose gross receipts are normally $25,000 or less, are not required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, or Form 990-EZ, Short Form Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax.

Now these organizations that have not had to file a 990 or 990-EZ must file electronically a Form 990-N, also known as the e-Postcard, with the IRS annually. The 990-N will include the organization's name, address, Internet address, employer identification number (EIN), name and address of the principal officer and evidence of the continued basis for its exemption from filing Form 990. This filing requirement applies to all types of exempt organizations (for example, trade associations and social clubs), not just Section 501(c)(3) organizations.

The following organizations are exempt and do not have to file the 990-N: organizations that are included in a group return, private foundations required to file Form 990-PF, section 509(a)(3) supporting organizations required to file Form 990 or Form 990-EZ, churches, their integrated auxiliaries and conventions or associations of churches.

An organization that is required to file the 990-N and fails to file for three consecutive years will have its tax-exempt status revoked as of the filing due date of the third year. If the organization's tax-exempt status is revoked, the organization must apply (or reapply) and pay the appropriate user fee to have its tax-exempt status reinstated.

The IRS is developing an electronic filing system (there will be no paper form) for the e-Postcard and will publicize filing procedures when the system is completed and ready for use. You must be able to access the Internet, but no software or download is required. If your non-profit does not have a computer, you will be able to fill out Form 990-N using a computer at a public library.

Form 990-N must be filed every year; however there is no one due date for filing the e-postcard. Instead, you must file "by the 15th day of the 5th month after" your nonprofit's fiscal year ends. For instance, if your fiscal year is the same as the calendar year (i.e., ending on Dec. 31), your organization does not need to file the e-postcard until May 15. This filing requirement applies to tax years beginning after 2006. If your organization is on a calendar year, the first 990-N for 2007 and is due on May 15, 2008.

The IRS has been mailing educational letters to more than 650,000 small tax-exempt organizations that are affected. Because these organizations have had no annual filing requirements before, the IRS may not have current addresses. If you believe the IRS may have an incorrect address for your organization, you can file Form 8822, Change of Address, with the IRS.

IRS forms can be downloaded at www.irs.gov. With frequent turnover of volunteer board members, and an executive who may also be a volunteer, many organizations may easily be unaware of the new requirement.

According to the IRS, this new filing requirement was added to improve transparency within the nonprofit sector. The information will ensure that donors, who may want to contribute to your organization, and the IRS have current information about your organization.

The tax agency said Thursday that in the 2007 budget year it audited one out of every 11 with incomes of $1 million or more. Among those with incomes of $100,000 or less, 99 out of every 100 escaped further IRS scrutiny.

Still, the IRS said its auditing rates were generally up for people of all income levels. The rates were 9.25 percent for those with incomes of more than $1 million, up from 6.3 percent in 2006; 2.87 percent for those with incomes above $200,000, up from 2.57 percent; and 0.93 percent for those earning under $100,000, compared to 0.89 percent the previous year.

Overall, the IRS looked at 1,384,563 returns in fiscal 2007, 1.03 percent of the total individual returns of 134.4 million in the previous calendar year. The audit rate was up 7 percent from the previous year.

There were 31,382 audits of those with $1 million incomes, up 84 percent from the 17,015 audited in 2006.

On the business side, the IRS said the audit focus was on partnerships and mid-market corporations, those with assets between $10 million and $50 million.

The returns of 59,516 businesses were audited in 2007, 0.66 percent of the total and compared to 52,223 in 2006. About one out of six large corporations with assets of $10 million and higher was audited, 9,644 out of 57,357, were audited, down slightly from the previous year.

The tax agency said its enforcement budget in 2007 was largely unchanged from 2006, so it had to focus on areas of growth and potential risk.

It said enforcement revenues in fiscal 2007, from collections and appeals activities, were $59.2 billion, up from $48.7 billion the previous year.

The IRS also noted that 57 percent of individual tax filers filed electronically last year, up from 54 percent in 2006.

"It's a big issue," said Timothy C. Gokey, president of retail tax services at H&R Block in Kansas City, Mo. "A lot of people, especially early filers, don't know about it — or don't know how it will affect them."

It's the second year in a row that tax legislation got put off until so late in the year that IRS forms couldn't be prepared on time. The result, according to Nina E. Olson, national taxpayer advocate, is that many taxpayers miss out on money they're due.

Olson said in a report to Congress last week that late-year changes in the tax code are "the most serious problem facing taxpayers."

She estimated that in 2006, more than a million taxpayers may not have claimed deductions they were entitled to "simply because they did not know about them." Low-income families, she added, "may experience financial hardship because their refunds are delayed."

This year's problem with tax credits is a fallout from congressional repair of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT is a parallel tax that eliminates many deductions and credits most taxpayers claim, thus increasing the tax liability of wealthy families who might otherwise pay less.

The AMT "patch" approved by Congress raised the AMT exemption so that millions more middle-income families wouldn't be drawn into AMT. While many forms were quickly updated to conform to the AMT changes, the forms for some credits got hung up.

The IRS said it won't be able to process returns involving any of the five credits until Feb. 11 and that as many as 13.5 million taxpayers face the possibility of delayed refunds.

The five forms affected by the delay are:

_ Form 8863, Education Credits (Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits).

_ Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits.

_ Form 1040A's Schedule 2, Child and Dependent Care Expenses for Form 1040A Filers.

_ Form 8396, Mortgage Interest Credit.

_ Form 8859, District of Columbia First-Time Homebuyer Credit.

Taxpayers can, of course, wait until Feb. 11 to file. But experts offer some alternatives for those who want to file claims earlier.

H&R Block's Gokey estimated that about 4 million of the 13.5 million affected taxpayers file early, and that about half claim a credit for child and dependent care expenses.

The "workaround" for this group, which normally would file the simplified 1040A form, is to file the more complex 1040 tax form along with Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses.

Mark Steber, vice president for tax resources at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., said taxpayers also may be able to file at any time without claiming the credits, and then file an amended form later including the credits.

"The hassle is that amended forms have to be paper-filed, and that can slow the refund even more," Steber said. Taxpayers who file their returns electronically and request an electronic deposit of refunds can get their money within 10 days; taxpayers using paper often wait six to eight weeks for their refund, Steber said.

Still, he suggested that taxpayers consult their tax preparers.

"If you're concerned, go in and ask early what your options are," he said. "I worry it could be like last year. How many said, 'The heck with it!' and didn't get the money they deserved?"

Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst at CCH Inc. of Riverwoods, Ill., said that it's not unusual that tax forms contain new items or special items that get overlooked. The company is a division of Wolters Kluwer, which provides tax information and services to tax professionals.

Last year, for example, federal tax forms included a telephone excise tax refund, "and a lot of people missed it," said Luscombe.

But, he added: "It's been quite a while since we had legislation so late in the year that tax forms had to be amended."

Luscombe suggested that before taxpayers take extraordinary measures to claim credits early, "they should check on the cost" of amending their filings.

Luscombe also warned that similar problems could occur again next year if Congress delays acting.

"Remember, this was a one-year AMT patch, so they'll have to go at it again next year," he said.