Helio Castroneves: Dancing with the IRS

Jury selection was conducted in the tax evasion trial of IndyCar star Helio Castroneves, and tomorrow the trial will begin in earnest.

A lot of IndyCar fans are watching this trial closely and hoping for the best possible outcome: Acquittal.

But what are the chances of an acquittal? We've heard a lot of doom and gloom from tax experts lately about how more than 90 percent of cases that go this far result in conviction. Not exactly filling all of us with confidence.

But after talking to a tax expert I know personally (namely, my brother), it seems the chances of acquittal are higher than we've been led to believe.

It's true that in tax evasion cases, the IRS wins more than 90 percent of the time. But let's narrow things down a bit—every case has their own unique details, so lumping them all together doesn't really give us a proper look at his chances.

What are the most significant details of Helio's case?

1: He has been very clear since day one that he is willing to pay all owed taxes and penalties without question solely on the condition of no jail time.

2: His tax attorney is on trial as well.

Point No. 1 is a very good thing in Helio's favor—it shows that he's not some money-grubbing prick who's trying to defraud the US government. It is strong evidence that he was not aware that what he was doing was illegal.

It will make the jury wonder why instead of settling, the IRS decided to spend money prosecuting the case.

Point No. 2, however, is the more significant point. If we limit our look at tax evasion trials to cases where the defendant's tax attorney is on trial as well, the conviction rate drops sharply. To somewhere between 50 and 40 percent.

The thing is, the tax laws of the United States of America are insanely complex. Less than half the people born and raised in this country understand them, so why should we expect an immigrant to know?

The simple fact is, we shouldn't. And the fact that Helio depends on a tax attorney only proves that he doesn't know the laws either.

This is why cases like him often end in acquittal for the defendant, but not always the tax attorney. It may be an honest mistake on the attorney's part, or an overt act of greed to try and screw over his client, but its usually the fault of the attorney.

Some will say that the mere act of indicting someone is proof of wrongdoing, because the government wouldn't bring it that far is they didn't have strong evidence. This is not true: I have family involved in almost every level of the US legal system.

The government brings lawsuits against innocent people ALL THE TIME.

Often times it's to pry information out of them using the threat of jail time, but sometimes there's no rhyme or reason for it. Martha Stewart is a good example.

As much as I dislike her, the type of insider trading she engaged in IS NOT ILLEGAL. She was only convicted because there had been several cases of celebrities being acquitted in the news leading up to that trial, and the jury probably didn't like the idea of adding to those headlines.

Another thing to remember is that a grand jury indictment is based solely on the prosecution's case. The defense does not get to present an argument to refute any of the prosecutor's evidence.

Helio's got about a 50-50 chance of winning this case. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

And if someone automatically assumes he's guilty before such a verdict is delivered, smack them upside the head for me.