[webstersII]

" As the article only suggests, but doesn't say, this person will certainly have to pay her taxes. The IRS will get the money, or as much of it as she's got, one way or the other. What the trial determined was only that this woman won't be convicted of a crime for her non-payment of tax. "

So you're saying that this only decided the status of this particular case by the IRS and that next year the IRS can go after this woman once more for the taxes she owes which are not covered by the case which was just settled? They have already tried to take her to court and take everything she has and put her in jail. What method would they use to put her in jail and take her money in the future?

According to the article:
"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. "

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?

[mattdono]

Doesn't that mean that she doesn't have to be expected to pay taxes in the future, also?

That was my thought as well. Perhaps this desision would "make" the IRS show this woman where she is required to pay. As a result, the IRS would then be able to tell her how much she should pay.

Of course, this seems to be the crux of the whole argument she has made: that the IRS can't show/prove their authority to tax her. In light of the documentation she has and the IRS's failure to instruct her what to do and how much to pay, she seems to have proven that point well.

Assuming that they can show her where they have the authority, then I guess she would pay...though, methinks, that she would fight that as well.

[Timm]

So you're saying that this only decided the status of this particular case by the IRS and that next year the IRS can go after this woman once more for the taxes she owes which are not covered by the case which was just settled? They have already tried to take her to court and take everything she has and put her in jail. What method would they use to put her in jail and take her money in the future?

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.