10:1 odds say that Romney took the 2009 IRS Amnesty

Received this fowarded email today that the sender has received from a friend, a tax attorney, who posted his original comment on The Daily Oklahoman to include:

"10:1 odds say that Romney took the 2009 IRS Amnesty. Which means he admitted defrauding the US Government and illegally evading taxes for years."

Some people on the right especially the Romney supporters seem to have a reading comprehension problem as witnessed by his preface comments.  When someone says 10:1 odds that means he is pretty sure that is what happened but since  Romney refuses to release his 2009 returns, he doesn't know for sure.  This would also explain why the McCain's people didn't see much wrong -- they didn't have 2007, 2008 and especially 2009 to make a decision.  This opinion of a tax attorney makes complete sense as to why Romney will release no tax returns before 2010.  Even then the release for 2010 was incomplete.  This analysis, if true, would disqualify Romney in the minds of the vast majority of the American people.  Who would trust Republicans again for nominating such a flawed candidate?

If this is true, Romney needs to pull out now and let us nominate someone like a John McCain -- third time is a charm.  He works across the aisle and stands up for what is right like he did this week against Michael Bachmann and one of the House Members, Trey Franks, from AZ.  Then we could get real reform and transparency in donations to political campaigns.

This would be devastating to Romney.  Is this what the Democrats know and why the drip, drip, drip?

[Preface, this is a copy and paste from a comment i left on a newsok post. My original post was this: "10:1 odds say that Romney took the 2009 IRS Amnesty. Which means he admitted defrauding the US Government and illegally evading taxes for years." 

That was responded to with this comment: "And your proof behind that statement is ....what?"
To be clear, I was never making a factual statement. I thought that the phrase, "10:1 odds say" clearly illustrated that I was making an assumption and guess, but apparently some missed that. I just don't want to type it again and change pronouns and a few specific comments aimed at the original antagonist, so that's why I included that intro. Took me about 40 minutes to compile the information and write the original post, just wanted to present it with context. 

No proof. Conjecture. If there was proof then there wouldn't be odds. 

My conjecture is based on the following: 

1) I'm experienced with federal tax law because part of my law practice focuses on tax. 

2) Romney was seeking the GOP Nomination for President in 2007 and 2008. I would assume that during that time, his taxes were squeaky clean, since Presidents routinely release tax returns, you would think that you would want the one released your first year in office to not have glaring problems. 

3) Based on that assumption, you would think that as he prepared to run again in 2011 and 2012, he would continue to have clean tax returns. 

4) It would be a reasonable assumption that whatever is in the tax returns for the years prior to 2010 must be damaging enough to outweigh the heat he is taking for not releasing them. 

5) What would be a bad enough secret that someone actively running for President over the past 6 years would want to keep hidden in a tax report? The reason must also be plausible. 

6) We already know he's extremely rich and pays a low amount in taxes, so what good does it do to take this heat if that is your only real reason. 

7) We already know that Romney keeps money in legal tax havens in the Caribbean. 

8) In August of 2009, UBS paid $780 million dollars in fines to the IRS for helping American tax payers commit illegal tax evasion. UBS released the names of nearly 4,500 Americans that it helped. 

9) The IRS offered an Amnesty for 2009 taxes. If a tax payer took it, they were admitting that they had committed tax evasion. They paid a fine as part of their taxes and the IRS agreed to never prosecute them for that specific instance. 

10) 14,000 American taxpayers were concerned enough by the threat of criminal prosecution for tax evasion (not knowing if they were on the list provided by UBS), that they accepted the Amnesty, essentially admitting that they had defrauded the government and the IRS. 

Conclusion:Admitting to the American People that you defrauded the government is a serious enough problem that it would actually make sense to take all of this flak over not releasing your returns, because the truth is probably worse. Romney is extremely wealthy and we know he keeps his money in legal foreign bank accounts. So it's plausible that this is the reason why. 

Yes we don't know for sure. If he did take the Amnesty it will be on his 2009 tax return, so that will answer the question 100%. 

So I have no "proof" behind the statement that I give it good odds that this is why he's hiding that return. And those are the reasons I think it is a 10:1 favorite to be the truth.

Noticed the author of this had the same problem on The Oklahoman that we see on the websites including liberal ones where the Romney people attack anyone who dares to post against Romney with some of the most outlandish defense of Romney I have seen.  The over the top rhetoric of the right to include the conservative pundits like Rush, Fox News who edits speeches to take President Obama's words out of context and cheerleads for Romney, Sununu's racist remarks against Obama even if he apologized he said it, and now Romney keeping up the Rush attacks that Obama is foreign has a lot of Republicans up in arms who believe in integrity and honesty which is lost on a lot of people who are turning into pretzels.  What are they going to say if this is true?  Their hero to beat Obama will be no more.  He may have amnesty but in the eyes of the American voter he would still be a tax evader.