[Terabitten]

And, just so it’s not forgotten, people who beat criminal charges using a “Cheek” defense (I really, really didn’t think I had to file a return) still owe every single penny of tax, penalty and interest.

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.

[AntiScumbag]

I don't believe that the "Cheek" defense was the basis of his argument at all.

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.