Posted on 08/11/2003 7:12:43 AM PDT by ninenot
Forget the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and our excellent adventure in Liberia. Forget about Kobe, Arnold, Arriana, Scott and Laci. The biggest news of the entire week is that on August 8, 2003, the IRS was unable to convince a jury in Memphis, Tennessee that the Federal Tax Code requires the citizens to pay individual income taxes. I kid you not.
I watched as many Sunday news programs as I could possibly stand, and I didn't hear a single mention of the IRS' debacle in Memphis. If you ever had doubts about the mainstream media being controlled by the federal government, doubt no more.
For those not already aware, FedEx Pilot Vernice Kuglin began studying the IRS Code some years ago, and was simply unable to find anywhere in the code that she was required to pay federal income taxes.
And here's the most remarkable part: Back in 1995, Kuglin wrote letters in good faith to the IRS, asking them to show her where the Tax Code requires individual citizens to pay federal income taxes. Incredibly, the IRS never answered a single one of her letters!
As she studied the facts, laws and related documents more, Kuglin became convinced that, regardless of the IRS' failure to respond one way or the other, she was exempt from paying federal income taxes. So, Kuglin filled out W-4 forms showing 99 exemptions, and turned them in to her employer. Doing that meant Kuglin got to take home almost all of her paycheck each payday, instead of what was left after the feds ravaged it.
The IRS went after Kuglin for six counts of tax evasion on $920,000.00 income, and for filing "false" W-4 forms, charges that could have put the 58 year-old Kuglin in federal prison for up to 30 years and cost her 1.5 million in fines.
Apparently, things didn't go quite the slam-dunk way federal prosecutor Joe Murphy thought they would. My money says the IRS wishes they had never gone after Kuglin at all. In fact, after the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts, Murphy is reported to have demanded that the judge order Kuglin to file her forms, pay her taxes and "obey the law". The judge reportedly replied, "Sir, I don't work for the IRS."
Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.
Jurors tend not to be very sympathetic with tax scofflaws, since each one of them is also a taxpayer and they understandably feel resentment towards anyone not paying "their fair share". So in order for this federal jury to completely vindicate Kuglin, the government's failure to prove their case against her had to have been clear and unequivocal!
I haven't read the trial transcript yet, but I must assume the federal prosecutor at least tried to twist some vague and ambiguous section of the Tax Code to make it look like it applied to Kuglin. I don't know that, but I'll bet he tried. What else could he use to prosecute her with?
Thanks to the IRS' arrogance and stupidity, and Kuglin's refusal to plead to lesser charges, Kuglin accomplished what Bob Schultz and the other "tax protesters" had been denied all along: To force the IRS into a public debate and to answer the question of whether or not the Tax Code requires an individual to pay personal income taxes. Kuglin and her two attorneys, Larry Becraft and Robert Bernhoft, have unequivocally forced the IRS to show its hand, and 12 judges hearing that debate ruled the answer to be "NO".
I think it's time for everyone reading this to send a very polite letter to the IRS, telling them they read about the case in Memphis, and is it true that there is no section in the U.S. Tax Code that requires an individual citizen to pay federal income taxes?
Don't be threatening in any way, or announce that you plan to stop paying federal income taxes. This request is for your personal edification, and you just simply want to know the truth.
Like Kuglin, you probably won't get an answer back, but just to prove you sent the letter and that they received it, be certain to send the letter via certified U.S. Mail, with a return receipt requested. When you get that receipt back, staple it to a copy of the letter you sent the IRS, and put it somewhere real secure, like a personal safe or bank deposit box.
I don't have to explain why, now do I?
Now, how many calls to FOX' Bill O'Reilly will it take to convince him we know he's doing a spin in the No-Spin Zone by sitting on this story? Start e-mailing O'Reilly at oreilly@foxnews.com, and be sure to give him your city and state. He's gonna love me.
Carl F. Worden
The article here indicates that she was acquitted and that the jury thought the prosecutor had not been able to prove his case.
The trial decided the issue of criminal charges, that's all. This woman still owes the taxes. The IRS has recourse to civil process to get that money.
For example: suppose you did business with a crooked partner who stole from you. Even if the guy were acquitted of fraud charges in criminal court, he would still owe you money, money you could collect civilly.
Unlike other entities, the IRS doesn't need a trial, either. It has the power to issue liens for taxes owed, as if it had won a civil judgment. They can-- and probably already are-- garnish her wages, seize property, whatever.
They have already lost this case aganst her once because they couldn't convince a jury that there is an unequivocal statement which requires her to pay taxes. Doesn't that mean that she doesn't have to be expected to pay taxes in the future, also?
The criminal trial did not determine her tax liability. All it did was determine whether she was guilty of the crime of tax evasion. The jury acquitted her of tax evasion, but that jury has no jurisdiction whatsoever over her tax liability. She owes the money, and the trial doesn't change that.
And someone posted the whole article before I replied to you. Hard to keep up sometimes.
It will be interesting to see what exactly transpired in the court transcripts.
That's not an accident. How could the IRS ever collect all they are "owed" if 99% of the population understood that only failure to file is a criminal penalty and that it would be impossible for the IRS to track down two hundred million people?
Yes, the Sierra Times is a bit underhanded here; it suggests that the jury found that this woman didn't really have to pay taxes, which it didn't.
Non-payment of taxes is only one element in the crime of tax evasion. Another is knowingly acting illegally in the non-payment of tax.
This woman's defense was that she sincerely and reasonably believed that she didn't owe that money. The jury believed her, or at least didn't think the prosecution had shown that she knew she was breaking the law.
As I said, this defense has been tried before by tax protestors, and it has worked before in criminal trials. No one has gotten out of income tax debt collection by claiming that paying the federal income tax is not legally required.
I assume that she will use the same argument she used in this case to prove that she is not liable for any taxes. It should be interesting to see if she has any success in the future with that argument.
She won't succeed. She owes the money, and it will be taken from her.
I'm no fan of the high rates of taxation. It's not true, though, that federal income tax payment is legally optional.
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.