Posted on 01/04/2008 5:06:16 AM PST by Man50D
A lawyer who was acquitted by a federal court trial jury of Internal Revenue Service accusations he failed to filed income tax returns for two years now is suing several IRS agents over their alleged improper disclosure of his personal information in the case.
A spokeswoman in the office of lawyer Tom Cryer told WND the case was assembled and filed by Cryer between Christmas Day and the end of 2007 and is expected to be placed on the docket in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Last summer in federal court a jury voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of the IRS allegations. He had been indicted on 2006 on government claims he failed to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.
His successful defense was based on a challenge to the IRS to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax.
Now his claim against the government's agents, according to a report in the Shreveport Times, explains four IRS criminal investigation division workers tried to destroy his reputation during the course of their investigation in the case.
The lawsuit alleges IRS agents Jimmy H. Sandefur, Darrin A. Heusel and Judge Armand, and a trainee, Patrick Potter "entered into a smear and fear campaign to destroy Plaintiff's good reputation and law practice."
Cryer alleges the federal workers repeatedly violated federal laws that restrict the disclosure of tax information, release of information about an investigation and publicizing information about a grand jury investigation.
The report said Cryer's lawsuit alleges the agents continually raised those issues in telephone calls, during personal visits and in letters exchanged with Cryer's clients during their investigation.
The action seeks $1,000 in damages for each incident in which a federal agent compromised Cryer's confidential information.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
In the mid- to late 80's, New Jersey had a tax amnesty program where people who owed taxes for a long time could pay up without penalties and interest etc. I was half-owner of a business that closed in '85 and got a letter froom the sales tax people that we still owed seventeen CENTS and would have massive penalties if it wasn't paid up. Obviously, the computer spit out this finding without any human checking before sending, but I can easily see the same thing happening with seventeen dollars.
Oh, and I sent them a quarter and told them to keep the change.
The Income tax is a play on class warfare and always has been. It is nothing more than a scheme to move money to points decided by those in power. It is un-American.
The Personal Income tax does not pay for:
Social Security
Medicare
Education
Roads
Military.
Yes, I said military. The outlays for defense are exactly matched by corporate taxes and borrowing. Look it up in 1040 instructions, 2006, page 83.
The Income tax is used to pay interest on borrowing and for wasteful bureaucracies such as for the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a host of other unnecessary bureaucracies.
If the Federal Reserve was federalized under the Department of the Treasury, then there would be no need for the United States to pay interest on its borrowing.
When you wake up to how the system has been rigged historically, then the next step is to understand why it must and will be changed substantially. Two words: Sovereignty and Demographics. That is all you need to know to begin a study that will forecast how this will be played out.
You’re wrong.
Read the legislation.
Search HR 25 FairTax.
I don't believe that the "Cheek" defense was the basis of his argument at all. I'm certainly no tax scholar, nor am I a lawyer, but as I understand it, his defense was essentially that, due to the way the tax law is written, he was not liable for the taxes the IRS levied against him. The IRS was not able to provide evidence (or at least, not enough to convince the jury) that he *was* liable, and thus, he won the case.
I say “bull”. The numbers don’t agree. Let me simplify: 84% of the 2007 US Federal Budget receipts come from individual income taxes, socialist security, and mediscare taxes NOT corporate taxes. That 84% is not embedded in the product costs now but will be with that fair tax. When that 84% get’s shifted to product sales, I will have to pay that 84% again on the money (outside 401K of course) I already paid taxes on and saved for retirement.
I know what the legislation says. It dissolves the IRS, which would have to be immediately recreated to deal with the black market. And probably expanded.
It’s sad when that happens... Happened to me. Over the course of a decade, each year the IRS for some unknown reason (they never stated why) decided to assign my company a new EIN. And never notified me of such.
Then after 8 years, they came after me for failing to file and failing to pay taxes. Total “penalties and interest and back taxes” claimed was well over $600K. It took 16 months and about $20K to defend myself, and ultimately I won.
It came down to laying it all on the line - if the IRS could provide ONE document that I signed asking for a new EIN or company formation, or ONE proof of mailing of notification of the new EIN, I would sign a full confession. When they couldn’t do that, and my lawyer began to prepare to take this case to court, they finally “forgave” my liabilities. Not decided I was innocent, just “forgave” the liability.
In the mean time, though, my family, my pastor (via my personal 1040 for charitable giving), many of my clients (tracked down via 1099 forms), my landlord (tax assessor’s records), my employees (W4s) were all repeatedly contacted about my “tax evasion” status and questioned about assets I may be hiding.
I had liens on all corporate AND personal assets, they tried a few times to levy against corporate AND personal bank accounts, even tried to sieze goods that I was importing from overseas (right at the port). Thankfully one of my best clients is also a registered Federal Tax Attorney, took on my case, and was damn good...
The clincher? Literally ON MONDAY I received notification that the IRS has finished reviewing my 2006 corporate tax return, and decided I need a new EIN so they have refiled it under the new number. Never mind that all payments made in 2007 were on the original, correct number, so I’m sure in their mind I’m already delinquent in payments and filings.
I already have my lawyer on it.
ANYTHING to get rid of this organization, and their absolute approach to their job is most welcome. You are 100% guilty until proven 100% innocent. And even then you’re still suspect. And just because the law says they cannot issue a given levy or lien it will not stop them from doing so.
FairTax is probably the best approach, since it completely eliminates the entire concept of taxation of income - you pay when you consume. Just like ICE - you pay taxes on imported goods only when they arrive here, not when you place the order, or earn the money to pay for the products.
Fundamentally, IF you are going to have taxes, I would rather tax the acquisition of goods, rather than the creation of wealth. Tax consumption, not creation. FairTax does just that.
Your question contains errors in fact. The federal tax burden is levied on businesses via SS/MC payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other taxes. This system of taxation on businesses accumulates in the price of products and services.
When you compare tariffs to a NRST, American producers selling products at home, are taxed at the same rate as goods imported from communist/socialist economies, which frequently subsidize their exporters to undercut American producers. Tariffs are already provided for in the constitution and reasonable uniform rates provide all the revenue needed to run a constitutionally limited federal government. Promoters hope a NRST would replace the unconstitutional income tax and not be in addition to it, exchanging one agency for another to be the tax collector for the Federal Reserve. There is no need for a new NRST Revenue Service, tariffs could be implemented tomorrow.
Lastly, the NRST is not applied to American exports.
Of course not, American producers do not need to export products to Americans, but their goods would be taxed under the NRST. Tariffs would not tax American made goods sold to Americans, however the NRST taxes imported goods and goods made and sold in the US at the same rate.
This reduction in the price of exports will make American products and services greatly more competitive and will revive American manufacturing. In fact, other governments do exactly the same and that is why they are globally competitive whereas American international business is hamstrung by its current onerous system of taxation.
Replacing the income tax with tariffs would benefit Americans in two ways to a higher degree than replacing the income tax with a NRST. One by increasing our own standard of living by returning higher paying manufacturing jobs to the US economy and lower prices to Americans for American made goods. A NRST would be better than the income tax, but not as good as merely returning to tariffs. US tariffs would not be applied to American exports, either. I'm sure you will argue that other nations will retaliate with tariffs of their own. Let them. The American market is the one of the most desirable consumer markets in the world because it is the least socialist. Tariffs are preferable to NRST - because tariffs favor American jobs and American made goods, over goods imported from communist/socialist economies.
To be clear, we need to repeal the sixteenth amendment and replace it with nothing and fund the federal government with a nominal tariff applied uniformly.
Mark Twain characterized very well people such as you.
Here’s what you said:
“When that 84% get’s shifted to product sales, I will have to pay that 84% again on the money...”
I will print this one, cut out this ‘grand insight’ and paste it on the wall of incredible quotes. Congratulations.
84% of ‘Federal Receipts’ does not translate to 84% of national consumption. Good God, our system of education, oh my what an embarassment......
Oh come on and think just a bit... "talking to clients" is not the potential issue, but what is might be what was said to those clients.
For example, I just opened an investigation about you regarding some potentical incidents involving possession and distribution of child pornography. Shall I just announce this investigation on the public forums or discuss them with your friends & family? :-)
I’m pretty sure the 7th Circuit ruled that that wasn’t a valid defense, though I don’t know if the 5th Circuit has dealt with this issue and I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court hasn’t.
Unfortunately, that link does not work for me. However, I have went to his website and looked at every page. The only place that mentions transcripts is one that asks for donations. None are posted.
You would think that if he had actually proved the IRS wrong, there would be PLENTY of conservative organizations willing to post the documents for him.
You would be wrong.
I'm certainly no tax scholar, nor am I a lawyer
Obviously.
but as I understand it, his defense was essentially that, due to the way the tax law is written, he was not liable for the taxes the IRS levied against him. The IRS was not able to provide evidence (or at least, not enough to convince the jury) that he *was* liable, and thus, he won the case.
You are completely and totally misinformed. Cryer convinced a stupid jury that he actually believed what he claimed. The "I'm too dense to understand the law" only works once. He still owes every penny of tax, penalty and interest. He beat the CRIMINAL charge, not the liability to pay.
You are delusional if you think that the U.S. government can't prove liability under USC 26. It's a given, and no federal court in 90 years has ruled otherwise.
Don’t know why the link didn’t work - I probably screwed up the HTML. Ff you copy and paste the website, it’ll get you there. Alternately, go to the truthattack.org website and scroll down to where it says “THE MEMORANDUM” in big letters.
My personal take on this is that it seems to good to be true. We all know that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is — but not always. This might just be one of those times.
awesome...I hope now is the time. I think Huckabee’s appeal is largely the fairtax deal. I just wish he was more conservative. Does he have the strength to really fight for the fairtax when he raised taxes as governor quite a bit?
Before America was exposed to the creep of socialism via Social Security, Medicare and Welfare, tariffs and excise taxes were all that was needed. Direct apportioned taxes were rare and had to be justified.
Excise taxes historically were high and it was a great discontent on the part of small farmers and business owners that saw a much larger ‘proportion’ of their income going to excise tax and a much smaller proportion on the part of large farmers and the wealthy. This ‘disproportionateness’ is what gave rise to populism and the idea of the Income tax on the rich. Today this disproportionate argument is drilled into socialists and especially democrat staffers. Persons schooled in the former Societ Union are well aware of the disprortionate argument in their studies of political science.
So tariffs were not the mainstay of federal taxation, it was excise taxes and they were skewed to benefit those with larger scale. For example, ‘rents’ were excluded from excise taxation.
The Rebate provision of the FairTax removes the historical basis for the Income Tax and eliminates the disproportionate argument from the debate. It was not possible to implement a Rebate before 1913 because the technology was not available to administer it. There were attempts prior to 1913 to exclude ‘first fruits’ or to nationalize tax holidays in market, but market calendars were intractable and it also meant farmers would have to get their product to market on those days else lose the tax free benefit. It simply was not feasible.
The problem today is that most Americans are paying into an unfortunate socialist hybrid system and the promises made to them must be kept. Therefore, tariffs and excises alone will not return the system to what the Founders established, a system that was brilliant in its aim to remove favoritism from a government that will always strive to seek more power. To carry the promises, the NRST must be imposed and with minimal disruption to the current level of funding, hence the FairTax is designed to be revenue-neutral.
However, the FairTax NRST is ‘transparent’ and its rate can be changed yearly. This alone is a great change. It will change the political debate over taxation like never before.
I agree with you on always wanting to see the court documents. I found this out with the cases SCO v. Novell, IBM, etc., where what the press releases and the media were saying often didn’t follow the actual court documents at Groklaw (a site covering these cases), which has all but the sealed documents posted. Lucky for them, they have a PACER account and volunteers to go to the courthouses to get documents.
Mr. Cryer could do a lot for his credibility if he went to the courthouse, got the filings, transcripts and rulings, and posted them on his site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.