>>That entire piece is absolute and total BS.
Why do you post crap like that? Are you a tax-protester? Or just an idiot?<<
No, just more into civilized discorse than you.
apparently...
Meanwhile, there’s more!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956
Interesting in different ways.
I also know of a pilot that won on a similar level a few years ago. She had claimed 99 deductions on her w2. Her case was simple: Show me where, in the code, it says my wages are taxable and I will gladly pay. They didn’t so she didn’t. They (the IRS) took her to court. She won.
The case is building...
You actually think that posting BS constitutes civilized discourse?
LOL.
there’s more!
I'm sure there is, but why would you post yet nore BS about Joe Banister, a former California CPA who had his California CPA license REVOKED and who has been DISBARRED from practice before the IRS?
I also know of a pilot that won on a similar level a few years ago.
So does anyone who pays attention.
The difference is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Vernice Kuglin was also acquitted of willful failure to file.
GUESS WHAT?
She also owes every single penny of tax, penalty and interest and is busy paying it. And her criminal lawyers. The IRS has been garnishing her wages ever since her CRIMINAL trial "win." A criminal trial has nothing whatsoever to do with your civil tax liability.
Just like Cryer, she avoided prison. That's it.
Her case was simple: Show me where, in the code, it says my wages are taxable and I will gladly pay
No, it wasn't.
Just like Cryer, her defense was that she was TOO STUPID to understand the simple requirements under 26 USC. "I really didn't know I had to file."
The jury bought it. Even a blind tax protester finds a nut now and then.
The case is building...
LOL. The "Cheek" defense (I'm too dense to understand what everyone else easily understands) only works ONCE.
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play an idiot on FR?
You are so RIGHT.
Little by little the folks are waking up