PDA

View Full Version : IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability


Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:02 PM
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. Ö These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.

The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat Ė ultimately Ė the income tax in the United States.

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.

"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.

The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2007, 12:12 PM
Everybody know an ant can't move a rubber tree plant but he's got HIGH HOPES, he's got, HIGH HOPES, he's got high apple pie in the sky hopes.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:14 PM
Everybody know an ant can't move a rubber tree plant but he's got HIGH HOPES, he's got, HIGH HOPES, he's got high apple pie in the sky hopes.



He already won the case. The jury ruled in his favor:

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2007, 12:15 PM
He already won the case. The jury ruled in his favor.

I speak of the war, not the battle Holmes.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:18 PM
Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges

Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago

July 13, 2007

By Loresha Wilson
ljwilson@gannett.com

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.

A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.


And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.

Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls made to the two were not immediately returned.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue Service during 2000 and 2001.

Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.

"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can show me I have a lawful reason to pay."

"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."

Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2007, 12:20 PM
Don't get me wrong I an no fan of the IRS.

Cochise
07-27-2007, 12:23 PM
I knew a guy at a previous job I had who was doing that. He said he hadn't paid or filed his in 5 years, I think. Of course, that was more than 5 years ago now. I wonder what happened to him.

It would be nice if this worked. There was nothing more disastrous for limited government, IMO, than the federal income tax.

I mean, you can pick anything that you think is wrong about the government, and without the income tax it wouldn't be happening. If you don't like Iraq, couldn't be done without the income tax. Don't like cradle-to-grave dependency state, couldn't be done without tax money.

BIG_DADDY
07-27-2007, 12:31 PM
I knew a guy at a previous job I had who was doing that. He said he hadn't paid or filed his in 5 years, I think. Of course, that was more than 5 years ago now. I wonder what happened to him.

It would be nice if this worked. There was nothing more disastrous for limited government, IMO, than the federal income tax.

I mean, you can pick anything that you think is wrong about the government, and without the income tax it wouldn't be happening. If you don't like Iraq, couldn't be done without the income tax. Don't like cradle-to-grave dependency state, couldn't be done without tax money.

AMEN

Brock
07-27-2007, 12:39 PM
He's avoided jail time, and I commend him for that. But if he thinks those bloodsuckers are done with him, he better think again.

banyon
07-27-2007, 03:24 PM
I knew a guy at a previous job I had who was doing that. He said he hadn't paid or filed his in 5 years, I think. Of course, that was more than 5 years ago now. I wonder what happened to him.

It would be nice if this worked. There was nothing more disastrous for limited government, IMO, than the federal income tax.

I mean, you can pick anything that you think is wrong about the government, and without the income tax it wouldn't be happening. If you don't like Iraq, couldn't be done without the income tax. Don't like cradle-to-grave dependency state, couldn't be done without tax money.

There would just be a ton of excise taxes to take their place.

Cochise
07-27-2007, 04:14 PM
There would just be a ton of excise taxes to take their place.

That would still be better. At least then I could save money or invest pre-tax without locking it away for 40 years.

CHIEF4EVER
07-27-2007, 06:00 PM
I don't think the 16th Amendment was ever ratified, but I could be wrong.

Interesting read:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

wazu
07-27-2007, 06:30 PM
Sounds like a true patriot. God bless him.

alnorth
07-27-2007, 08:40 PM
I have done some research on this issue, and it appears that the title WND chose to use for this story was flat-out incorrect.

This trial was not intended to establish his tax liability, it was a criminal trial intended to throw Tom Cryer in prison. He was charged with willfully failing to file income taxes. Tom Cryer apparently used what is known as the "Cheek defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States)" (named after some guy named Cheek, who apparently was NOT successful in his own case), which essentially means he successfully argued that he was so stupid, he honestly and in good faith didnt know that he needed to file. The defense is that you did not understand your requirement to file due to the complexity of the law, it is NOT applicable when argueing that you understand the law but think its invalid or unconstitutional.

This defense works only maybe for one guy every 5 years or so, the majority of tax protestors who use it normally lose and get thrown into prison. In order to be guilty of willfully failing to file, the IRS needs to show that you knew you had to file, but chose not to. (In other words, a very rare exception to the general rule that "ignorance of the law is no excuse") The successful Cheek defense does not result in you not oweing the taxes, it only keeps you out of jail. The IRS usually doesnt try to put you in jail for failing to file, but this case was pretty blatant with a looney tax protestor flaunting the law.

From reading ongoing discussions since this trial started, apparently according to legal observers, the government thought it was going to be an easy slam-dunk, got cocky, and O.J.'d the prosecution. Cryer was able to dazzle the jury with his insanity enough to convince them that this crazy dude really did think he didnt have to file.

Tom Cryer's victory was pyrrhic, if he does not file now, he will be sued civilly for back taxes, penalties, and interest. He will likely lose that and be financially ruined, but at least he managed to avoid jail.

alnorth
07-27-2007, 08:49 PM
For those keeping score at home, high-profile crazy tax protestors who recently were successful in avoiding jail for tax evasion or willful failure to file include:

Lloyd Long (1993)
Fred Allnutt (1996)
Vernice Kuglin (2003)
Tommy Cryer (2007)

These people (except Cryer for now) did not escape their tax liability, and had to pay the taxes they owed to the IRS.

High-profile looney tax protestors who were thrown in jail:William Benson, Edward Brown, John Cheek, Robert Clarkson, Tom Clayton, Ward Dean, Peter Hendrickson, Kent Hovind, Eddie Kahn, John Kotmair (both of them), Phillip Marsh, Lynne Meredith, Eduardo Rivera, Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, Richard Simkanin, Steve Swan, Walter Thompson, John David Van Hove (aka "Johnny Liberty"), and many, many, others

alnorth
07-27-2007, 09:06 PM
I don't think the 16th Amendment was ever ratified, but I could be wrong.

Interesting read:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

This guy's arguements have been debunked. The Supreme Court has also rejected every challenge suggesting that the ratification was invalid.

http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm

I also liked this article

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm

Here's an excerpt

Weíre going to show you here why these arguments canít help you -- and most likely will do you harm -- whether or not they are true. That is, weíre going to suppose for the sake of argument that these (demonstrably false) theories are true: In other words, weíre going to pretend that the Internal Revenue Code has no effect, and that all actions undertaken pursuant to it are illegal.

The problem is that NO COURT HAS HELD OR WILL HOLD THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS INVALID OR THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LACKS POWER TO LEVY OR COLLECT INCOME TAXES. See, e.g., Joseph Adam's The Tax Protestor Hall of Fame (http://politicalhobbyist.com/debunked/). Literally hundreds of folks have tried these arguments over the last several years. ALL of these folks have lost, and many of these folks have been sanctioned or fined for advocating a "frivolous" theory to the court.

So, letís assume that you buy some of this hokey material, and you either donít declare your income to the IRS, under whatever reason, or else you hide your money in a "Pure Trust" or other fictional legal unicorn. The IRS then comes and assesses taxes and stiff fines on you and garnishes your wages and seizes all your assets to pay for the assessments and fines. You then go into court and assert whatever screwy theory youíve been sold as your defense against the IRS. Now, you might be (in your own mind) 100% correct. The problem is that there is a 100% chance that the court will not agree with you, and you will lose everything you have.

So, the upshot is: Even if you believe this anti-IRS crap, donít use these theories for planning because they have a 100% chance of failure. These theories are not going to protect your assets, period, and anyone who tells you differently is a liar. You are going to get fined and sanctioned, and these fines and sanctions most likely will not be dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding, so they will follow you for your entire life until paid.

CHIEF4EVER
07-27-2007, 10:26 PM
Interesting stuff alnorth. I posted that I may be wrong with my original post as I didn't take the time to research the subject in depth and it appears I was, indeed, wrong.

Taco John
07-28-2007, 12:19 AM
I have done some research on this issue, and it appears that the title WND chose to use for this story was flat-out incorrect.

This trial was not intended to establish his tax liability, it was a criminal trial intended to throw Tom Cryer in prison. He was charged with willfully failing to file income taxes. Tom Cryer apparently used what is known as the "Cheek defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States)" (named after some guy named Cheek, who apparently was NOT successful in his own case), which essentially means he successfully argued that he was so stupid, he honestly and in good faith didnt know that he needed to file. The defense is that you did not understand your requirement to file due to the complexity of the law, it is NOT applicable when argueing that you understand the law but think its invalid or unconstitutional.

This defense works only maybe for one guy every 5 years or so, the majority of tax protestors who use it normally lose and get thrown into prison. In order to be guilty of willfully failing to file, the IRS needs to show that you knew you had to file, but chose not to. (In other words, a very rare exception to the general rule that "ignorance of the law is no excuse") The successful Cheek defense does not result in you not oweing the taxes, it only keeps you out of jail. The IRS usually doesnt try to put you in jail for failing to file, but this case was pretty blatant with a looney tax protestor flaunting the law.

From reading ongoing discussions since this trial started, apparently according to legal observers, the government thought it was going to be an easy slam-dunk, got cocky, and O.J.'d the prosecution. Cryer was able to dazzle the jury with his insanity enough to convince them that this crazy dude really did think he didnt have to file.

Tom Cryer's victory was pyrrhic, if he does not file now, he will be sued civilly for back taxes, penalties, and interest. He will likely lose that and be financially ruined, but at least he managed to avoid jail.


That pretty much goes against both stories I've read about this. Where are you getting your info? Not that I think WND is a great news source... But I'd like to read more about this case.

alnorth
07-28-2007, 12:56 AM
That pretty much goes against both stories I've read about this. Where are you getting your info? Not that I think WND is a great news source... But I'd like to read more about this case.

Blog from a law professor

http://jsiegel.blogspot.com/2007/07/tax-protestor-gets-off.html

Excerpt:

Tommy K. Cryer, a man who proudly proclaims that he hasn't paid his income taxes in ten years, and who made a series of videos explaining that there's no law requiring most people to pay taxes, is prosecuted for failing to file and is acquitted! His analysis: "The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable." Could it be true?

Of course not. Criminal income tax cases are subject to a special rule: the government has the burden of proving, not only that the defendant didn't pay his taxes, but that the defendant knew he had to pay his taxes.

...*snip*

But, I hasten to add for anyone getting any ideas here, you still owe the money. Crazy beliefs may keep you out of jail, but they don't change the fact that you owe your taxes, plus the interest, plus the penalties -- which can add a whole lot to your tax bill. It's cheaper to pay what you owe. The government, one can be confident, will be coming down on Mr. Cryer for a pile of cash.

In any event, his acquittal, of course, doesn't show that there's no law requiring people to pay taxes. It just means he convinced the jury that he really believes he doesn't have to pay -- or really, only that the government failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knows he does have to pay. Every few years a protestor gets off on this ground, and justice goes on -- another protestor was convicted yesterday (http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/07/brighton_electrician_found_gui.html).

The sad thing is that Tommy Cryer is an attorney. He even went to a decent law school (LSU) and graduated with honors. It's inconceivable that such a person could really believe tax protestor theories.


Another blog

http://www.taxgirl.com/cryer-wins-one-sort-of/

Some other discussions on the case, some starting before the verdict with dry legalese.

http://quatloos.com/qforum/viewtopic.php?t=96&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Excerpt from description of the proceedings

There were some fireworks during Tom's testimony and the judge was clearly aggravated with the rule of law being presented in 'his' courtroom... and several times stopped Tom's testimony. One of those times the judge brought up the "Cheek" ruling where Larry and the judge went around and around on Tom's right to present his beliefs to the jury.

The judge overruled an objection of the prosecutor on another occasion but also warned Larry about the "very narrow" path he's taking the case and will not allow Tom to argue that the IRS is unconstitutional... which of course Tom never intended to do and has not done in the least.

Cryer---does he have to pay? (http://quatloos.com/qforum/viewtopic.php?t=1067)

alnorth
07-28-2007, 01:09 AM
Personally, although like any good Republican I like lower taxes and smaller government, I feel only contempt for this man and others like him for a couple reasons.

The first is obvious, they are trying to weasel their way out of paying taxes that you or I would owe and pay. Tax planning and strategy is smart and fine, tax evasion is a crime. If he can argue that he was essentially an idiot to get out of prison, ok fine, but I dont believe him. I believe he knew what he was doing, got caught, and barely talked his way out of a cell.

Second and perhaps more importantly, I despise these tax protestors because they sometimes convince others with their looney theories. These gullible people decide the looney protestor is right, they dont have to pay taxes, and they proceed to commit evasion and/or willful failure to file. Then if these victims decide to fight rather than negotiate with the IRS, they are left with little chance to avoid jail with some kooky constitutional arguements that have NEVER EVER WORKED despite hundreds of attempts, or the "Cheek Defense" where they basically plead idiocy, and for whatever reason juries very rarely believe you didnt really know you had to pay. (I imagine jurors who have paid taxes all their life are probably resentful and thinking "yeah right, buddy, your guilty as hell")

Even if all these moths who were drawn to these kooky flames somehow avoid jail, they are still often financially ruined, bankruptcy is usually not an option, and they are potentially saddled with crushing debt for life.

Fishpicker
07-28-2007, 02:58 AM
Personally, although like any good Republican I like lower taxes and smaller government, I feel only contempt for this man and others like him for a couple reasons.

The first is obvious, they are trying to weasel their way out of paying taxes that you or I would owe and pay. Tax planning and strategy is smart and fine, tax evasion is a crime. If he can argue that he was essentially an idiot to get out of prison, ok fine, but I dont believe him. I believe he knew what he was doing, got caught, and barely talked his way out of a cell.

Second and perhaps more importantly, I despise these tax protestors because they sometimes convince others with their looney theories. These gullible people decide the looney protestor is right, they dont have to pay taxes, and they proceed to commit evasion and/or willful failure to file. Then if these victims decide to fight rather than negotiate with the IRS, they are left with little chance to avoid jail with some kooky constitutional arguements that have NEVER EVER WORKED despite hundreds of attempts, or the "Cheek Defense" where they basically plead idiocy, and for whatever reason juries very rarely believe you didnt really know you had to pay. (I imagine jurors who have paid taxes all their life are probably resentful and thinking "yeah right, buddy, your guilty as hell")

Even if all these moths who were drawn to these kooky flames somehow avoid jail, they are still often financially ruined, bankruptcy is usually not an option, and they are potentially saddled with crushing debt for life.

you sound like an expensive PSA or a very cheap infomercial. your point about all taxes being valid is moot. we can elect Ron Paul and do away with all that trite BS.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iAZYqIVvTIo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iAZYqIVvTIo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Taco John
07-28-2007, 03:10 AM
Lead us home, Ron


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vyT3SBiTbpc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

alnorth
07-28-2007, 12:19 PM
The first video was utterly useless. Ron Paul's speech in the 2nd video was populist, but entertaining and interesting.

Theoretically, if the IRS and income tax were abolished, that would lead to a lot of interesting debate about the role of government, and how to replace the funding, etc

Given that none of that is going to happen for as long as you, I, or your children live and we are just engaging in pie in the sky dreaming, none of this means a lot.

Logical
07-28-2007, 02:59 PM
I have done some research on this issue, and it appears that the title WND chose to use for this story was flat-out incorrect.

This trial was not intended to establish his tax liability, it was a criminal trial intended to throw Tom Cryer in prison. He was charged with willfully failing to file income taxes. Tom Cryer apparently used what is known as the "Cheek defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States)" (named after some guy named Cheek, who apparently was NOT successful in his own case), which essentially means he successfully argued that he was so stupid, he honestly and in good faith didnt know that he needed to file. The defense is that you did not understand your requirement to file due to the complexity of the law, it is NOT applicable when argueing that you understand the law but think its invalid or unconstitutional.

This defense works only maybe for one guy every 5 years or so, the majority of tax protestors who use it normally lose and get thrown into prison. In order to be guilty of willfully failing to file, the IRS needs to show that you knew you had to file, but chose not to. (In other words, a very rare exception to the general rule that "ignorance of the law is no excuse") The successful Cheek defense does not result in you not oweing the taxes, it only keeps you out of jail. The IRS usually doesnt try to put you in jail for failing to file, but this case was pretty blatant with a looney tax protestor flaunting the law.

From reading ongoing discussions since this trial started, apparently according to legal observers, the government thought it was going to be an easy slam-dunk, got cocky, and O.J.'d the prosecution. Cryer was able to dazzle the jury with his insanity enough to convince them that this crazy dude really did think he didnt have to file.

Tom Cryer's victory was pyrrhic, if he does not file now, he will be sued civilly for back taxes, penalties, and interest. He will likely lose that and be financially ruined, but at least he managed to avoid jail.

Thanks AI, that is kind of what I would expect.

ClevelandBronco
07-28-2007, 11:29 PM
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation...

Hey, Taco, I've got a steal of a deal for you on a remote cabin in Idaho. I've been assured that the property is very defendable with a little "sweat equity" now that its weaknesses have been documented. PM me if you want details...

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 09:47 AM
So the feeling is we are stuck with gubments hands in our pockets and we should remain afraid of this governement of the people, by the people and for the people? Gotta love the USA in the new century.

Fishpicker
07-29-2007, 12:00 PM
the IRS logo

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4610/irsbird1iw4.jpg

a flowering reed, a scale, and a carrion bird.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Anubis in hieroglyphs

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5223/anubishixs0.gif

a reed, a scale, a carrion bird & a jackal

alnorth
07-29-2007, 12:14 PM
So the feeling is we are stuck with gubments hands in our pockets and we should remain afraid of this governement of the people, by the people and for the people? Gotta love the USA in the new century.

You act as if the government is a foreign invasion.

*WE* are the government, and the IRS. Your fellow taxpayers, via the elections, have endorsed our current system and the role of the IRS. If you disagree with some details here and there thats fine, I disagree with a lot of stupid decisions other voters have made too.

banyon
07-29-2007, 01:54 PM
I finally watched this "Freedom to Fascism" video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173), and wow. What a feeble attempt at chicanery by a bunch of tax dodgers. I see better attempts to parse words by patteeu in this forum every day.

They keep claiming "There is no law that requires them to pay income taxes", yet a simple search I did took me about 5 minutes to find the abblicable statutes, which are all contained in Chapter 26 of the U.S. Code.

I share some concerns about the incursions on our privacy which come after the income tax stuff, and I agree with Congressman Paul that the Fed Reserve isa cause for concern, but I guess I like to have these concerns in a less "foaming at the mouth" type of way.

It seems like Mr. Russo just got in over his head with a topic he needed help on from someone besides tax evaders.

I must feel like Kotter did after he watched [i]Sicko[/], except that I saved 8$.

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 02:01 PM
You act as if the government is a foreign invasion.

*WE* are the government, and the IRS. Your fellow taxpayers, via the elections, have endorsed our current system and the role of the IRS. If you disagree with some details here and there thats fine, I disagree with a lot of stupid decisions other voters have made too.


Huh? I am unaware that any vote I have ever been involved with had any bearing on a Constitutional amendment made nearly 100 years ago. I would love to have a chance to see how the people would vote if given the opportunity to express themselves on this issue.

And yes, income tax is one of the worst things ever foisted on this country, IMO. I feel that it makes me a slave to the government since they decide how much of my earnings they get before I even see it. Sounds like the definition of a slave. I suppose I should be happy the maters in DC are willing to let me have some spending money.

banyon
07-29-2007, 02:17 PM
Huh? I am unaware that any vote I have ever been involved with had any bearing on a Constitutional amendment made nearly 100 years ago. I would love to have a chance to see how the people would vote if given the opportunity to express themselves on this issue.

And yes, income tax is one of the worst things ever foisted on this country, IMO. I feel that it makes me a slave to the government since they decide how much of my earnings they get before I even see it. Sounds like the definition of a slave. I suppose I should be happy the maters in DC are willing to let me have some spending money.


Is this another ploy to start talking about the "Fair Tax" again, or would you really be happier working in a unsafe cannery 80 hours a week for pennies back in 1912 before the evil government started taking all of your money?

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 02:35 PM
Is this another ploy to start talking about the "Fair Tax" again, or would you really be happier working in a unsafe cannery 80 hours a week for pennies back in 1912 before the evil government started taking all of your money?


While you know I am in favor of something at least similar to the "Fair Tax" system, that is not the point of my posting in this thread. All I know is that I get sick of watching the government take my money and give to everyone else. No, I do not want them to start giving it to me, I want them out of my daily life. I am a firm believer that anarchy would be the best government out there if people would treat each other decently without oversight. Unforunately we are too close to being animals still and can not co-exist in large groups without some form of control.

The part regarding working 80 hours, etc; that sure sounds more like something to do with unions, nothing to do with a tax system.

If it was up to me, I would throw out everything but the Constitution and start over again. I know this is impractical but hey, we can all have dreams can't we?

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 02:42 PM
I believe that given a chance people will help their neighbors when they need it without a nameless, faceless entity telling them they have to do so.

I believe that this country came from nothing to one of the greatest powers in the world in just over 100 years without any form of income tax. And no deficit either.

I believe that if the people were left with the friuts of their labor a lot of our woes would be eliminated. The stress of two income families have done more to destroy our homes and marriages then anything else. This leaves children raised without the confort that comes from a solid base in the home from two parents. I believe a lot of the need for two incomes would be eliminated if the government was not involved in every aspect of our lives.

I believe in the greatness that is the American people and I believe this legacy is stolen from us everytime we turn around.

I believe in a lot of things obviously but I mostly believe in freedom and the foundations of the greatest country the world has ever seen. Unfortunately I also believe we are a long ways removed from those foundations.

banyon
07-29-2007, 03:01 PM
I believe that given a chance people will help their neighbors when they need it without a nameless, faceless entity telling them they have to do so.

I believe that this country came from nothing to one of the greatest powers in the world in just over 100 years without any form of income tax. And no deficit either.

I believe that if the people were left with the friuts of their labor a lot of our woes would be eliminated. The stress of two income families have done more to destroy our homes and marriages then anything else. This leaves children raised without the confort that comes from a solid base in the home from two parents. I believe a lot of the need for two incomes would be eliminated if the government was not involved in every aspect of our lives.

I believe in the greatness that is the American people and I believe this legacy is stolen from us everytime we turn around.

I believe in a lot of things obviously but I mostly believe in freedom and the foundations of the greatest country the world has ever seen. Unfortunately I also believe we are a long ways removed from those foundations.

Sounds like we have a lot more that we agree on than we disagree on. But I think that human history has shown that if you allow elites to control too much of anything whether that's wealth, government authority, or military might, people will use it to serve their own selfish ends and not to the betterment of their neighbors.

The economic data tells me that the income gap between the rich and the poor was significantly lessened during the first 2/3 of the 20th century, but the last 20 years, the top 1% have been working overtime to restore their former opulence.

For my part, that's why I am a progressive. I don't think ultra-libertarian schemes to strip the government of power are going to help people, because mega-multinational corporations will just step in where government steps back. I think you have to have regulations and checks and balances on both entitites to give working people a fair shot at things.

alnorth
07-29-2007, 03:07 PM
If you think that we have too much entitlement, fine we agree. But if you think we can do without the very basic government services and security that we take for granted that cant be funded without our income tax system, well... I just dont agree. If you want to live in a society where there really isnt much of a tax system and everyone fends for themselves, move to Mogadishu, just be sure you bring a heavily armed security force with you.

If you dont have any problem with the level of taxation (after accounting for entitlement reduction if you like) and its a matter of consumption vs income, I'll have to disagree. Consumption taxes, the fair tax, etc is not as fair as an income tax, because those who can least afford it pay a larger share of their income on taxes in a consumption tax system. Reluctantly, I have to side with the liberals on just this one little minor fine point, the fair tax and consumption taxes are regressive, hitting the poor to the benefit of higher income individuals.

If I was emperor of America, I would abolish all sales taxes and raise income taxes to compensate. (I'd also slash entitlement problems, so maybe it would balance out) Since sales taxes are gone, that would mean the poor could now afford to pay a little bit of income taxes, so I'd make sure almost everyone would have to pay something, even if its a 1% marginal rate. Part of the problem we have in the tax debate is too many people not paying income taxes because of low income, so its no skin off their back to vote for tax hikes on "the rich"

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 03:12 PM
Sounds like we have a lot more that we agree on than we disagree on. But I think that human history has shown that if you allow elites to control too much of anything whether that's wealth, government authority, or military might, people will use it to serve their own selfish ends and not to the betterment of their neighbors.

The economic data tells me that the income gap between the rich and the poor was significantly lessened during the first 2/3 of the 20th century, but the last 20 years, the top 1% have been working overtime to restore their former opulence.

For my part, that's why I am a progressive. I don't think ultra-libertarian schemes to strip the government of power are going to help people, because mega-multinational corporations will just step in where government steps back. I think you have to have regulations and checks and balances on both entitites to give working people a fair shot at things.


Oh, if I could come up with a way to limit the size of corporate entities I would be all for it. That one is tough.

Limiting OUR government though is achievable. If the people are empowered in thier own right then they have the power to overcome the conglomerates, IMO. It is known as voting with a pocketbook. This doesn't happen now simply because we, as a people, are so demoralized that we don't even try to fight for much of anything any more. It is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" that the people are afraid of. That is the travesty of our era.

Fishpicker
07-29-2007, 03:15 PM
Sounds like we have a lot more that we agree on than we disagree on. But I think that human history has shown that if you allow elites to control too much of anything whether that's wealth, government authority, or military might, people will use it to serve their own selfish ends and not to the betterment of their neighbors.

The economic data tells me that the income gap between the rich and the poor was significantly lessened during the first 2/3 of the 20th century, but the last 20 years, the top 1% have been working overtime to restore their former opulence.

For my part, that's why I am a progressive. I don't think ultra-libertarian schemes to strip the government of power are going to help people, because mega-multinational corporations will just step in where government steps back. I think you have to have regulations and checks and balances on both entitites to give working people a fair shot at things.


good points all around. I still fear big government more than big corporations. ATM we have both working in concert. At least multinational corporatons cannot force us to do anything with the threat of violence. they have to rely on the state to do that.

Hydrae
07-29-2007, 03:22 PM
If you think that we have too much entitlement, fine we agree. But if you think we can do without the very basic government services and security that we take for granted that cant be funded without our income tax system, well... I just dont agree. If you want to live in a society where there really isnt much of a tax system and everyone fends for themselves, move to Mogadishu, just be sure you bring a heavily armed security force with you.

If you dont have any problem with the level of taxation (after accounting for entitlement reduction if you like) and its a matter of consumption vs income, I'll have to disagree. Consumption taxes, the fair tax, etc is not as fair as an income tax, because those who can least afford it pay most of the taxes in a consumption tax system. Reluctantly, I have to side with the liberals on just this one little minor fine point, the fair tax and consumption taxes are regressive, hitting the poor to the benefit of higher income individuals.

If I was emperor of America, I would abolish all sales taxes and raise income taxes to compensate. (I'd also slash entitlement problems, so maybe it would balance out)


How can someone with less money to spend be hit harder? As a percentage of spendable money I suppose this would be true. But at all times you have options on spending or not spending. Tell me who has options when it comes to having an income?

The problem I have with the Fair Tax as I have seen it proposed is that it is unnecessarily complicated with money being sent to people to try to cover these apparent inequalities. If you keep taxation out of the necessity areas (food in particular of course) this will ease those worries without some government program to distribute money. That is what we are trying to get away from, bureaucracy.

I actually think that most of this country could be run without a direct tax of any kind. If we remove a lot of the entitlement crap, eliminate the debt and the encumbent interest involved in that, and repeal a majority of the pork barrel nonsense we would find that we could eliminate the income tax and not replace it with ANYTHING!

Interestingly, Ron Paul agrees with this thought from what I have seen. I do not have access to the numbers nor have the knowledge he has but I believe him when he says that all we have to do is roll back the spending clock by 7 years and we can eliminate the income tax without feeling it. Seems wild but when a man who has been involved with some of the banking committees at the Congressional level says this, I am more than willing to listen.

Bottom line, what is going on now is broken and we need to do more than patch it. We need to replace it with a new one.

TrickyNicky
07-29-2007, 03:34 PM
the IRS logo

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4610/irsbird1iw4.jpg

a flowering reed, a scale, and a carrion bird.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Anubis in hieroglyphs

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5223/anubishixs0.gif

a reed, a scale, a carrion bird & a jackal
So, you're saying the IRS is the Egyptian Guardian of the Dead? Huh? I feel like I'm missing the importance of the connection. Elaborate please.

alnorth
07-29-2007, 03:40 PM
I've edited my post a bit to clarify and add more thoughts, but anyway...

How can someone with less money to spend be hit harder? As a percentage of spendable money I suppose this would be true. But at all times you have options on spending or not spending. Tell me who has options when it comes to having an income?

Yep, I clearly meant as a proportion of their income. The low income people certainly do have a "choice" on spending or not spending - its called eating or not eating. You can make some arguements that many of the poor are poor due to their own laziness, bad decisions, etc and I'd have to agree with some of those sentiments, but its certainly not all, and the poor pretty much have to spend all their income to live. Therefore, a "fair tax" and consumption taxes are not really fair in my eyes.

The problem I have with the Fair Tax as I have seen it proposed is that it is unnecessarily complicated with money being sent to people to try to cover these apparent inequalities. If you keep taxation out of the necessity areas (food in particular of course) this will ease those worries without some government program to distribute money.

This may ease the taxation on the poor a bit, but it doesnt change the fact that the tax burden would be far less on the wealthiest people vs the middle class and poor as a proportion of income. You may shrug that off, but there is no way in Heaven, Earth, or Hades this will ever fly in this country, and I'm having a lot of difficulty with that concept myself.

There are many people who still have problems with lower capital gains taxes, but it still flies because once you total it up, at least the wealthiest people are still paying proportionately more taxes (but still FAR less in the USA than the rest of the more socialist world), so its been accepted. If you move to a consumption tax, I assume that the capital gains tax treatment would be thrown away.

I actually think that most of this country could be run without a direct tax of any kind. If we remove a lot of the entitlement crap, eliminate the debt and the encumbent interest involved in that, and repeal a majority of the pork barrel nonsense we would find that we could eliminate the income tax and not replace it with ANYTHING!

Forget the debt and entitlement programs then. (which is impossible to start, because you ARE NOT going to eliminate entitlement programs. Voluntary charity simply doesnt go far enough, and we arent going to allow people to starve in a gutter) Where does defense spending come from? Maintaining weather and communication satellites and other now-necessary space expenses? Disaster response and relief? Environmental, labor, educational, etc oversight? The Confederacy was a complete failure, there are things the states just cant handle.

Interestingly, Ron Paul agrees with this thought from what I have seen. I do not have access to the numbers nor have the knowledge he has but I believe him when he says that all we have to do is roll back the spending clock by 7 years and we can eliminate the income tax without feeling it. Seems wild but when a man who has been involved with some of the banking committees at the Congressional level says this, I am more than willing to listen.

I enjoy his passion, but there are also people who believe the goverment was the mastermind of 9/11, that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, that Communism can just work despite human nature if just given the chance and right implementation, and other wacky beliefs.

Bottom line, what is going on now is broken and we need to do more than patch it. We need to replace it with a new one.

If you believe we are being wasteful, fine. If enough voters agree, we can reduce spending and entitlements, and pay down the debt with the savings, but the income tax system is not "broken" beyond a few needed minor tweaks every couple years or so. You are trying to fix a structural problem that doesnt really exist, and I seriously doubt a consumption tax would be a miracle panacea that would be free of problems and unfairness. (Probably far worse, actually)

banyon
07-29-2007, 03:47 PM
good points all around. I still fear big government more than big corporations. ATM we have both working in concert. At least multinational corporatons cannot force us to do anything with the threat of violence. they have to rely on the state to do that.

For your consideration.

Blackwater (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml)

Chevron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_Killing)

Getting closer all the time.

banyon
07-29-2007, 03:50 PM
How can someone with less money to spend be hit harder? As a percentage of spendable money I suppose this would be true. But at all times you have options on spending or not spending. Tell me who has options when it comes to having an income?

The very wealthy. They can sit back on their money and make way more than you or I and be taxed at a much lower rate on their personal return and because there are no Social Security or Medicare taxes due.

alnorth
07-29-2007, 04:04 PM
The very wealthy. They can sit back on their money and make way more than you or I and be taxed at a much lower rate on their personal return and because there are no Social Security or Medicare taxes due.

and this is pretty much accepted because those who saved up to get that far were taxed on the road, while those who were born retired will eventually get knocked down by the estate tax after a few generations, unless they produce a lot of taxable income and/or investment gains.

However, thats pretty much pushing the limit of what the voters are going to allow right now, and I think the "fair tax" would dramatically exacerbate this perceived inequity to the point of being flatly unacceptable. If capital gains taxes and estate taxes were removed as well (so creating permanent family dynasties like in early America), this tax reform idea is dead on arrival, if it wasnt already.

banyon
07-29-2007, 04:13 PM
and this is pretty much accepted because those who saved up to get that far were taxed on the road, while those who were born retired will eventually get knocked down by the estate tax after a few generations, unless they produce a lot of taxable income and/or investment gains.

However, thats pretty much pushing the limit of what the voters are going to allow right now, and I think the "fair tax" would dramatically exacerbate this perceived inequity to the point of being flatly unacceptable. If capital gains taxes and estate taxes were removed as well (so creating permanent family dynasties like in early America), this tax reform idea is dead on arrival, if it wasnt already.

I concur totally. The "Fair Tax" is just a clever way for the people who have always paid less on the basis of their wealth than those who worked for it to not have to pay anything at all. I think it's pretty comical that it is couched in the same simplistic two-syllable twisted language like "Death tax" to appeal to emotion as opposed to facts and reason. I guess people are just supposed to say "Well, it's called "fair", so it must be fair."

alnorth
07-29-2007, 04:19 PM
I concur totally. The "Fair Tax" is just a clever way for the people who have always paid less on the basis of their wealth than those who worked for it to not have to pay anything at all. I think it's pretty comical that it is couched in the same simplistic two-syllable twisted language like "Death tax" to appeal to emotion as opposed to facts and reason. I guess people are just supposed to say "Well, it's called "fair", so it must be fair."

The Death tax debate is just about over, and will probably be resolved when Bush is out of office. The estate tax exemption of 1 million (yeah I know its higher now due to the Bush tax cuts years ago, but the current high estate tax exemption is temporary and will sunset) per person is arguably low since 1 million isnt the same as it used to be, so the Republicans wanted to get rid of it (and as I mentioned earlier, this would lead to creating family dynasties). The Democrats responded basically by saying "ok, the estate tax exemption hasnt been raised in a while and is hitting some middle-class families? Fine. We'll agree to raise it to about 3-4 million. EACH person, so a married couple would have 6-8 million exempt from estate taxes."

I was frankly surprised to hear the left willing to raise the estate exemption so much, but it pretty much removes the wind in the sails from that whole death tax is unfair so lets get rid of it arguement. The only reason its not law now is because Bush stubbornly held firm to repeal or nothing, so we'll probably see the exemption raised with the next president.

Fishpicker
07-29-2007, 04:19 PM
So, you're saying the IRS is the Egyptian Guardian of the Dead? Huh? I feel like I'm missing the importance of the connection. Elaborate please.


yeah, something like that. maybe the IRS fancies itself a god. what does the god of the dead have to do with money? Anubis is a guardian, right?
what does he guard?
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6947/anubis01er4.jpg

this photo is from king Tut's tomb. it shows a statue (anubis) guarding a door. the door behind anubis is the door to the treasury. that's what Howard Carter called it anyways. he was the guy that studied & mapped the entire tomb.

the IRS logo is the same as the hieroglyphic spelling of anubis, except there is no dog or jackal. the jackal head is Anubis' most prominent trait. could the IRS be an ambiguous embodiment of the idea of anubis?

maybe the logo designer was having a bit of fun with the IRS. but, that sure is strange that the logo & hieroglyphs resemble each other so closely.

Fishpicker
07-29-2007, 04:29 PM
For your consideration.

Blackwater (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml)

Chevron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_Killing)

Getting closer all the time.

is that first link accurate? blackwater mercenaries were deployed in N.O.? I heard something like that but thought it was BS since it was never reported in the media. that doesnt make sense for many reasons... is that even legal? are they able to get around posse commitatus because they are privately owned?

banyon
07-29-2007, 04:36 PM
The Death tax debate is just about over, and will probably be resolved when Bush is out of office. The estate tax exemption of 1 million (yeah I know its higher now due to the Bush tax cuts years ago, but the current high estate tax exemption is temporary and will sunset) per person is arguably low since 1 million isnt the same as it used to be, so the Republicans wanted to get rid of it (and as I mentioned earlier, this would lead to creating family dynasties). The Democrats responded basically by saying "ok, the estate tax exemption hasnt been raised in a while and is hitting some middle-class families? Fine. We'll agree to raise it to about 3-4 million. EACH person, so a married couple would have 6-8 million exempt from estate taxes."

Close. The current exemption is at $2 mil. There will be no tax due if you die in 2010 ( I wonder if some wealthy elderly will act on that?) and the exemption will reset to $1 mil in 2011, assuming the 2001 tax act passed is not amended.


But 2 or 3 million is okay with me.

banyon
07-29-2007, 04:38 PM
is that first link accurate? blackwater mercenaries were deployed in N.O.? I heard something like that but thought it was BS since it was never reported in the media. that doesnt make sense for many reasons... is that even legal? are they able to get around posse commitatus because they are privately owned?

I just picked the link that I thought explained it best, but the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702214.html) reported it too, though perhaps not as polemically.