IRS vs. KUGLIN

The Sierra Times ^ | 10 August 2003 | Carl F. Worden

[Labyrinthos]

Correct, but there is always tax exempt income. Therefore, you must determine if the "source" of the income then excludes such income from taxation. I believe you will find that in Sec. 861.

Sec. 861 (a)(3) states that gross income includes compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States. I still don't get it.

[RGSpincich]

What difference does it make?

If she tries to work, her wages get attached. She's not free to move her own money around. It's a big deal owing money to anybody, especially the IRS. If she does try to hide assets then she could be charged again for evasion. Her tax questions need to be answered in tax court to bring a final resolution to her troubles.

[Dead Dog]

Tax Court? How is that authorized by the US Constitution. On what authority do they have to confiscate personal wealth.

[RGSpincich]

Why did they file criminal charges.
And where exactly is the law written that she is obligated to pay.

Don't know the specifics other than she claimed 99 dependents on her w-4 form. Guess they figured she tried to evade withholding by fraudulent means. The law that is commonly used is in the tax code I believe. The particular statute regarding what the IRS and the courts regard as personal income is posted above by Labyrinthos.

[RGSpincich]

The tax court came about the same way immigration laws did. Congress.

[kevkrom]

Sec. 861 (a)(3) states that gross income includes compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States. I still don't get it.

There's nothing to "get". Despite all wishful thinking, the income tax is currently the law of the land, and wages are subject to it. The tax evasion crowd would have you (incorrectly) believe that through tortured semantics, when the tax code refers to the "United States", it really means only Washington DC or other federal territories. This is why such cases usually have the evader claiming to be "a resident of the sovereign state of (fill in state name here)".

[SteveH]

This is the Sixth District (6th District). I wonder if it can be used as case law precedent in other districts besides the 6th.

I think Kuglin's probably on leave from her job because the IRS has bullied FedEx into withholding more of her wages if she returns. Also, now that the IRS has come after her in criminal court, she probably cannot claim any longer that she has not been informed by the IRS that she owes taxes on her "income" as an "individual" (whatever those terms mean legally).

McCalla received some sort of judicial reprimand for being and acting very conservatively in court.

If Kuglin is smart, she will have liquidated her assets (eg, into diamonds or platinum) and given them to a friend for safekeeping while the IRS attempts to revv up any potential civil court case against her. (And by all means she seems to be smart...)

[ovrtaxt]

Despite all wishful thinking, the income tax is currently the law of the land, and wages are subject to it.

And HR 25 would make all this mental speculation a moot point.

http://fairtax.org

[justalurker]

USCS is not law. You must use 26 CFR not 26 USCS.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200326

Additionally, you must use all of the relevant code.

[I got the rope]

I've been reading 26 CFRfor the last few hours...I'm so confused I don't want to play on this thread anymore.