Jury acquits pilot, who questioned IRS, of tax-evasion counts

The Commercial Appeal (Memphis) | August 9, 2003 | Shirley Downing

[citizenx7]

A federal jury Friday found FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin not guilty of evading income taxes on $920,000.

The question of tax payment was unresolved at the end of the five-day trial.

"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee.

"I feel justified," a grinning Kuglin said after the verdict was returned at mid--afternoon. She stood outside the federal building, chatting with supporters and jurors.

Federal prosecutor Joe Murphy was not available for comment.

Kuglin, 58, was charged with six counts of tax evasion that could have meant up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

The government accused Kuglin of filing false W4 forms for the period from 1996 to 2001.

Kuglin, a pilot for FedEx since 1985, said she had paid taxes like anyone else for most of her life. But about 10 or 11 years ago, she began to question the federal tax system. She began to read court documents, legal opinions and the federal tax code.

She said she found what she felt were contradictions. She wanted to know where in the federal tax code it said she was liable for taxes.

Kuglin wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions but said she didn't get a response.

Murphy, in closing arguments on Thursday, said Kuglin did have an opportunity to discuss her situation with the IRS, to learn what she owed and what documents she was required to file "and she didn't."

Defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her."

After the verdict Friday, Becraft said the federal tax code is a confusing conglomeration that "at best is a walking due process violation."

He said the average American simply doesn't understand the tax code.

Juror Barbara Snodgras of Memphis said the jury did not convict because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."

When asked if she planned to start paying federal income taxes again, Kuglin replied: "I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable."

[VRW Conspirator]

Good Story. LOL

[Doe Eyes]

I'd have stayed in the pool and shut up, and cost someone their tax case had I been on the jury.

Just as the framers of the Constitution would have wanted it.

[lowbridge]

. The two proscecutors behind me, jumped me -the man in charge of seating the jurors in the jury box jumped the rail and grabbbed me - the police grabbed me. There were about a dozen people who had me pinned against the bench in front of Judge Skinner.

That was quite unfair. Only 12 against you?

Obviously they needed more guys. :-)

[Pylot]

It is very interesting.

The government wants you to believe that you are liable for taxes, however there is no law that spells this out.

That is why the IRS always refers to the tax system as voluntary.

If you don't volunteer, you can not be prosecuted for lying or anything else.

I have read the story of a fellow in Denver who simply started his argument with the IRS by asking to be excused from his right not to self incriminate by signing the 1040. It is the signing of the 1040 and your attendant assertion that causes all the grief.

Because you can not be compelled to self incriminate, the system must be voluntary in order to work. This gal has opted out in the eyes of a jury. I wonder what they will try to hang her with next?

The fellow in Denver was ultimately excused from paying taxes after a lengthy number of court sessions where he simply questioned, successfully, his right not to self incriminate by signing the 1040. A federal judge here in Denver said he would not rule on the viability of the tax code and told the defendant so in court.

I am not advocating anyone do this and I don't have the time or money to do anything but volunteer. But I sure like to see a case like this once in a while.

[lainie]

I notice the CPA and government agent contingent hasn't commented.

[kennyo]

"If you don't volunteer, you can not be prosecuted for lying or anything else."

I thought that failure to file was a crime as well?

[ovrtaxt]

We can end all of thsi crap very quickly if we pressured our congressmen on the Fair Tax.

[eno_]

What do you prefer? Flat tax or NRST?

[dufekin]

Neither. Tariffs on outsourcing.

[ovrtaxt]

Yes, tariffs are the constitutional way to do it. But we have a bill in congress NOW that could be a reality if enough people made enough noise. Of the flat tax/ nrst, I prefer the nrst because it's a tax on spending, not income. Taxing income is a Marxist idea. Very evil.

[ovrtaxt]

Yes, tariffs are the constitutional way to do it. But we have a bill in congress NOW that could be a reality if enough people made enough noise. Of the flat tax/ nrst, I prefer the nrst because it's a tax on spending, not income. Taxing income is a Marxist idea. Very evil.

[bigaln2]

...however there is no law that spells this out.

How does 26 USC 6012 sound?

Sec. 6012. - Persons required to make returns of income

(a) General rule

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:

(1)

(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -

(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,

(ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,

(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or

(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.

Clause (iv) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151(c).

Click here for the rest of this law.

[eno_]

Correct. The economic arguments over NRST make my eyes glaze over, but the real benefit is that income would not need to be reported.

Imagine it: real financial privacy. Real freedom.

[Taxman]

Thanks for the ping.

There will continue to be court cases decided in this manner -- the American people are getting fed up with the evil, Marxist progressive income tax. The more the government pushes, the more resistance the government will get FRom the people.

Eventually, the tide will turn, and "Poof! The income tax and the IRS will disappear into the dustbin of history, where they both properly belong!

I encourage all FReepers to join with us as we work to replace the income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax and abolish the IRS.

Click here, here, here, and here to find out how you can help.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800.]

Click here to help us scrap the Code, scrap the IRS and abolish the VLWC!

You can also click here to sign a petition in support of Fundamental Tax Replacement.

We will never be a truly FRee people so long as we have the income tax and the IRS.

[jla]

We will never be a truly FRee people so long as we have the income tax and the IRS.

I honestly believe we'll see a drastic revamping of the tax system in this country in the next decade.
And to work, it'll have to be done on not just the federal level, but state & local as well.

Taxman...Thanks for the links you post.

[Hostage]

I agree the NRST is much more protective of our freedoms.

I get the impression though that all this discussion about Flat Tax/NRST is bottled up politically.

When Steve Forbes ran in 1996, he at least had the courage to bring the Flat Tax to a national level of debate. Since then I am convinced that any income tax will in time backslide into what we have now.

There appears no national consensus on the subject because of fear of the unknown and fear of prosecution.

It will take a national catastrophe or failure to get the population willing to change the current system. The national failure of social security and medicare is beginning the process that will worsen as the age demographic continues towards a larger average.

If there is one thing with certainty I have observed as an American in my country's politics, that is we always wait to be bombed in either a figurative or literal sense before we act.

I remember in 2002 some of George Bush's people signaling a major change in the tax code through the media. I remember thinking it would probably never happen but if it was raised in debate, it would in President Bush's 2nd term.

[ovrtaxt]

I get the impression though that all this discussion about Flat Tax/NRST is bottled up politically.

I was listening to Neal Boortz the other day. He had John Linder(R)Ga, the sponsor of HR25 on the air. He said the main thing was for people to convince their representatives that this is wanted. They are not focused on this issue as much as the average taxpayer out here. They don't realize, I think, how pervasive is the angry undercurrent with this issue. So the next step is, according to Linder, that we get busy writing our politicians. And letters are better than email for getting their attention.

BTW, Tom Delay is one of 32 cosponsors.

[ovrtaxt]

Well, if that's a convincing argument, I guess the Federal prosecutors were too stupid to look it up and bring it out in court. Good thing bigaln2 wasn't around to blow the whole case for the defendant!

[Pylot]

Well you got me there.

I guess the part where you are required to incriminate yourself is the argument the fellow in Denver made.

In any case, I still like to see someone win one once in a while. No other country enslaves it citizens with tax law the way the US does.

[Temple Owl]

The IRS is an illegal agencyy