Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
Today a Louisiana Federal Jury found Attorney Tommy Cryer NOT GUILTY of 2 counts of willful failure to file an income tax return. Earlier on Monday July 9th the Government had on its own motion dismissed 2 counts of tax evasion charges that it had charged Tommy Cryer with.
(Excerpt) Read more at wingswatchman.org ...
Quatlosers Hall of Shame
Thurston Bell
These special-editions Quatloos commemorates those who have made a name for themselves in their particular business endeavors.
100 Q
Thurston Bell
Our 100Q Woopoo chips commemorate promoters of tax scams.
Tax scam artist and Quatlooser Thurston Bell (no relation to millionaire Thurston Howell III, pictured right) has become known as the chief advocate of the “861 Argument” which is basically that nobody knows what “income” is, therefore nobody except a foreigner has to pay tax on it. Presumably, if nobody could define what “air” is, Thurston and his follows would immediately stop breathing.
Well, we’re not going to waste our breath exploding Thurston’s theory – that is done below along with the U.S. Department of Justice’s press release announcing that they are seeking an injunction against Thurston Bell’s tax scamming activities.
It is a lot more fun to talk about the dispute between Thurston and fellow Qualtooser Rick Haraka a/k/a Rick Bryan. You see, Haraka runs a website at http://www.taxgate.com and Thurston participated. They had a falling out, Thurston left and formed http://www.tax-gate.com and the National Institute for Taxation Education (a/k/a “NITE” or “We Are In The Dark”). After the split-up, things turned acrimonious, with Thurston claiming that Bryan hacked into his computers, and Bryan claiming that Bell has a serious mental disorder. Thurston now claims that he was the original author of the www.taxgate.com scam, but Haraka claims that he was the one who originally came up with the scam.
According to Haraka:
We encourage those who have worked with Thurston Bell or are currently working with Bell and are:
*
fed up with Thurston Bell’s poor and unprofessional casework.... usually done and delivered to you at the very last minute so that you don’t have the time to proof-read it and correct the bad grammar, misspelled words, filter out the obnoxious comments towards the very people he is trying to elicit help from, etc. etc. (Very well documented!)
*
afraid of being left out on a limb when it comes time for your IRS meeting or interviews (it is well documented by those who have used Thurston Bell in the past how he left them in a severe bind and all alone when the time came for very important meetings and IRS responses)
*
tired of his immature, paranoid, and volatile personality
*
worn-out by his continual and unexpected severe ‘mood swings’
*
weary of being embarrassed by him amongst your friends, family, and associates for his tirades and his ‘superior’ attitude
*
tired of wasting hours on the phone to get a simple 2 minute question answered... if you can reach him at all!
*
having to continually apologize for and remedy his damaging and careless actions..... much to your surprise and dismay, as he is busy at work doing the same thing somewhere else..... and while you are still getting the first one patched up!
Thurston Bell has repeatedly made it know that he expects researchers 20+ years his senior in experience to drop what they are doing and help him ‘perfect’ his unproven tactics and then recognize him as the leader!
Thurston Bell also has a relentless push for a “Unified Leadership”.... which ANYONE would agree is a good strategy...... no argument there at all! Except for one problem...... Thurston Bell is not content unless it is..... guess who?...... You are right..... BELL HIMSELF!
Thurston Bell wants to be the nationally recognized LEADER of the income tax law research field! Folks, in the words of 98% of the income tax community..... this ‘BELL’ is CRACKED.
OK, this is my last post on this subject. It is clear that this is a religion. That is, it is a matter of faith that we don’t have to pay income taxes, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
Therefore, let me first say that I apologize for my part in this thread getting nasty, and I wish you all well.
Second, let me suggest, since this is so obviously a religion, that you start one. Then you actually won’t have to pay taxes.
Why These Arguments Can’t Help You
We’re going to show you here why these arguments can’t help you -- and most likely will do you harm -- whether or not they are true. That is, we’re going to suppose for the sake of argument that these (demonstrably false) theories are true: In other words, we’re going to pretend that the Internal Revenue Code has no effect, and that all actions undertaken pursuant to it are illegal.
The problem is that NO COURT HAS HELD OR WILL HOLD THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS INVALID OR THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LACKS POWER TO LEVY OR COLLECT INCOME TAXES. See, e.g., Joseph Adam's The Tax Protestor Hall of Fame. Literally hundreds of folks have tried these arguments over the last several years. ALL of these folks have lost, and many of these folks have been sanctioned or fined for advocating a "frivolous" theory to the court.
So, let’s assume that you buy some of this hokey material, and you either don’t declare your income to the IRS, under whatever reason, or else you hide your money in a "Pure Trust" or other fictional legal unicorn. The IRS then comes and assesses taxes and stiff fines on you and garnishes your wages and seizes all your assets to pay for the assessments and fines. You then go into court and assert whatever screwy theory you’ve been sold as your defense against the IRS. Now, you might be (in your own mind) 100% correct. The problem is that there is a 100% chance that the court will not agree with you, and you will lose everything you have.
So, the upshot is: Even if you believe this anti-IRS crap, don’t use these theories for planning because they have a 100% chance of failure. These theories are not going to protect your assets, period, and anyone who tells you differently is a liar. You are going to get fined and sanctioned, and these fines and sanctions most likely will not be dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding, so they will follow you for your entire life until paid.
Zero Success Rate
These various constitutional and anti-IRS theories have had a ZERO success rate. This is evidenced by the following:
|
These theories have an equally non-impressive track record for thwarting the IRS:
|
Is this really something you want to use for tax planning or to hide your assets behind? If so, then you need to get a refund on that lobotomy. The fact is that these theories have not been successful in even a single case and there is no reason to believe that they will ever be successful.
U.S. v. Long -- The Dead Sea Scroll of Tax Protestors
Tax protestors will ALWAYS mention the case of U.S. v. Lloyd Long as the "victory" which "proves" that income taxes don't have to be paid. The truth:
First -- Long lost his civil case and was still liable for his taxes. The case the protestors stupidly refer to is Long's criminal case for tax evasion, which he won on, essentially, the dubious theory that he was too dumb to understand that he had to pay taxes. But Long -- like so many others -- completely failed to prove that he wasn't liable for his taxes.
Second -- In every case since Long the tax protestors have lost. They have had NO victories since then, and can't point to any, (not that Long can really even be characterized as a victory since he lost his battle to prove he wasn't liable for taxes). So if the Long case is precedent for anything, which is doubtful, it sure isn't very good precedent because NO SUBSEQUENT COURT HAS RELIED ON THE LONG CASE FOR THE ABSURD PROPOSITION THAT THERE IS NO LIABILITY FOR TAXES.
NOTE: By like token, we often get hate e-mail from tax protestors who send us cases from around the turn of the century (i.e., before the 16th Amendment authorized the income tax) or from the 1930s and 1940s (i.e., before the modern IRS code). Apparently, they can't figure out that LAWS CHANGE. And they NEVER send us cases from this decade -- the reason being that every case from this decade (and the last, for that matter) has been a loser for tax protestors.
So, if someone mentions "U.S. v. Long" to you as justification why you should not pay your tax -- RUN!!! If Long is their basis, then they have no basis, period the end.
Arguments that "Others Aren't Paying Taxes, Either"
Tax protestor materials have wild quotes that there are "40 million" nonfilers, and correctly attribute this figures to the IRS. What they don't tell you is that most of the nonfilers eventually file, or are defunct corporations and trusts which have a tax ID number and haven't reported for years, dead persons who haven't been taken off the rolls, etc. After you sift through the figures you will see that the actual number of individual nonfilers is very low, believed to be less than 10,000 per year, and not so large a number that the IRS can't eventually chase them all. And many of these are persons in very low wage jobs -- i.e., immigrant farm workers, etc. -- whom the IRS often determines isn't worth their time to chase.
Somewhat humorously, in several cases where the IRS has gone after promoters of "Don't File" schemes, it was determined that the promoter -- while advocating not filing returns -- had been filing their returns all along. This really isn't surprising, since most of the promoters will secretly confide that they really don't believe these theories either, but it makes them good money.
Don’t Be A Sucker
As shown above, these wacky theories can not and will not give you legitimate tax savings or otherwise protect your assets from the IRS. So why buy them? The fact is that the sale of these materials is nothing more-or-less than a scam, just like those books which tell people how to guess which numbers will next be picked at the lottery (and about as accurate). If you buy these materials, you are a sucker and you've been already scammed. Don't now make the mistake of following through on the advice, as about as likely as not you're likely to end up in prison on charges of tax evasion.
Links to Proof of Falsity of Theories
We are not in the business of disputing these stupid Constitutional theories -- which isn't hard to do, but instead we leave that to others. The following several (there are more) well-researched non-government private websites demonstrate the falsity of these wacky anti-IRS theories and you should refer to them:
Our Tax Protestor Theories De-Bunked Page
Daniel B. Evans' The Tax Protestor FAQ -- http://evans-legal.com/ dan/ tpfaq.html
Falgoust's Tax Protestor Myths -- http://www.geocities.com/ NapaValley/ 3578 /taxmyth.html
Joseph G. Adams' Tax Protestor Hall of Fame -- http://politicalhobbyist.com/ debunked/
Bob Sommers' The Tax Protestor Movement: Proof that P.T. Barnum was Right -- http://www.taxprophet.com/ hot/ feb96.html
Bob Sommers' The Tax Protestor Movement: Still Batting Zero -- http://www.taxprophet.com/ hot/ June98.html
Don’t Contact Us
For some reason, people feel compelled to call us or send us e-mail to argue about the legitimacy of these theories. Well don’t, because we just don’t care. As shown above, IT DOESN’T MATTER whether you are right or wrong because even if you are right (you're not) these theories aren’t going to help you anyhow, since no court will recognize these theories and they will not stop the IRS from levying taxes, fines, and sanctions, or from seizing your property. The only thing which matters to us is whether or not stuff works, and these theories have proven "in spades" that they don't.
Visit Our Tax Protestor Theories De-Bunked Page
Visit the Quatloos! Cyber-Museum of Scams & Frauds
Tax Protestor Gallery
Know of other court opinions where these wacko theories were pitched? Send them to us by our online form -- we always enjoy a good laugh! http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm
Avoid These Tax Protest Scams Like You Would Avoid The Plague
On a daily basis, we learn about various tax protest scams who will only succeed in leading you down a path of destruction. All of them perpetuate over the Internet. They run from the utterly absurd to the completely ridiculous, from the convicted felons to the merely looney. The bottom line is that ALL of the arguments are complete works of fiction and none have any validity whatsoever. What is certainly most amusing is how each of sites tells you why the other supposed tax experts are quacks. Do yourself a huge favor. Please avoid all of these individuals, organizations and their sites as they are all woefully wrong and will run for the hills when the IRS starts taking your possessions or brings criminal charges against you.
This list and page will be updated as time permits.
http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html
The truly amazing thing is that over and over, when challenged, they could provide no law to show that they had any right to do what they were doing/ You would think, that BY NOW , there would be even some “Stealth Laws” on the books that they could pull out to put people like Tommy Cryer “in his place”-—instead they turn their agents into terrorists , and decide to come at him even more “unconstitutionally”/
The only way we can overturn all this de facto thievery is for a majority of taxpaying citizens to agree to withhold ALL AT THE SAME TIME -—THEN AND ONLY THEN would these existing “Laws that are not in fact laws” get their righteous challenge.
bump
Yeah, I always wondered whether Irwin Schiff did the “smart thing” and filed honest returns on the profits he earned from his book, assuming there were any.
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm
EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies
These are people who really believed in the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and then was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case against the IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively that irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will get creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the money you paid for the materials, your defense attorney’s fees, the value of your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a sensible individual.
Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:
*
United States v. Schiff; “America’s leading untax expert” is convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of willful failure to file. Some expert!
*
United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
*
Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
*
Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get out of jail. He loses this too.
*
In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied too.
*
Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December 27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse and delay.
*
Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70 (January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana law or the Internal Revenue Code.
*
Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117 (January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S. income taxation.
*
Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No. 94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their affairs specifically to avoid the IRS’s lien for back taxes owed.
*
Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January 21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of government-related entities.
*
Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No. 99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.
*
Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021 (August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code (”IRC”) does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute or regulation that makes him “A PEOPLE, A Private Christian” liable under the IRC; as “A PEOPLE, A Private Christian” he did not earn “wages” or “gross income” as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he had no taxable “income” according to the meaning of the term and the Supreme Court’s definition of the term.
*
McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98 (February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to “Dear Taxpayer” were fraudulent, and that “income” cannot be defined — In addition to losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the court for making frivolous arguments.
*
House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ (January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not “persons” within the meaning of the IRS statutes as they are instead “citizens of the Sovereign State of South Carolina” and cannot be taxed by the United States
Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:
*
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is unclear.
*
United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.
*
United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has “the Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or implied agreements with the Federal Government.”
*
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have “inland jurisdiction,” that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that they were “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.
*
United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over “sovereign citizens,” that he was not a “taxpayer” under the federal tax laws, and that the word “includes” is a term of restriction, not expansion.
*
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that “freeborn” state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a”person” under the tax code.
*
United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.
*
United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.
*
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments are takings.
*
United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
*
United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as “a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada,” to file income tax returns.
*
United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a “white, natural born, state citizen,” the income tax does not apply to him, that he is not a “person” or a “resident,” and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
*
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.
*
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
*
United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.
*
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn’t owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.
*
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking.
*
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
*
Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income.
*
Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.
*
Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.
*
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege from a governmental agency.
*
Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of “income” is vague.
*
Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to impose a “direct” tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on “taxable income,” and that “income” has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
*
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are “natural individuals” who have not “requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government.”
*
United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from “sources,” not persons, and that the word “includes” is a term of limitation, not expansion.
*
United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
*
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a “nontaxpayer” because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.
*
McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into the “maritime flag of war.” A Favorite!
*
United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.
*
United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a “person” under the Internal Revenue Code.
*
United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued that as a “white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas,” the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to “Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas,” and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty.
*
Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States, and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.
*
Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla. 1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a “contract” with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security system.
*
United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress’ power to tax does not extend beyond the District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified lawfully.
*
United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
*
Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by “positive law,” that the tax code does not apply to “sovereign citizens,” that the tax code is a bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.
*
Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the government of the United States.
*
McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a “Sovereign Individual,” the “Common Law of the United States of America, a Republic” protected him from penalties for filing a frivolous tax return.
*
Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing foreclosure.
*
Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a “federal land patent” grants an interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.
*
Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a “land patent” which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County Recorder of Deeds Office.
*
Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.
*
United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.
*
City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses unconstitutionally restricts one’s right to travel.
*
State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a “free man” the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him without his consent.
*
State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana’s compulsory automobile liability insurance statutes are unconstitutional.
Yeah, I always wondered whether Irwin Schiff did the “smart thing” and filed honest returns on the profits he earned from his book, assuming there were any.
Too bad the jury’s decision can’t be used again as a precedent. Each individual will have to convince them seperately.
I am not arguing that the income tax law doesn’t exist or isn’t lawful; and neither is Cryer. The real question is where in the code does it require HIM to pay it. If such a provision exists, the IRS should have no problem pointing it out.
If everyone was liable for taxes, Congress could simply clarify that fact. It appears the the IRS hasn’t even requested Congress to clarify the law.
From post 132
Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return and actually pay the tax?
§ 6012 and § 6151
Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says:
26 U.S.C. § 6151
[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
So according to this section, if you are required to file a tax return, you are required to pay the tax owed, to pay it at the time you file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue officer with whom you file the return.
But who says you’re required to file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), which provides:
26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)
Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.
The “exemption amount” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 151(d) as $2000, adjusted for inflation since 1989. You can see the exact amount for the current tax year in the IRS instructions to form 1040. If you have more income than this amount, section 6012 requires you to file a tax return (except that if you’re married, section 6013 gives you the option of filing a joint return with your spouse).
So there it is:
Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
§ 6072
And when is your return due? Section 6072 provides the answer: “[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.” This is the statutory basis for the familiar April 15 tax deadline.
Of course, there’s a lot more to know if you want to achieve a full understanding of the tax system. For example, other statutes besides the ones quoted above create the extensive system of tax “withholding,” whereby you actually pay your taxes on your wages in advance, each time you receive a paycheck, so that on the day your return is due the government usually ends up owing you a refund. If you have substantial amounts of unearned income, there are also other statutes that require you to pay estimated taxes each quarter. And, needless to say, there are innumerable, complex statutes that more specifically define how much income tax you owe. But you only need to look at a few, relatively simple statutes to see that the duty to pay income tax is mandatory. You can look up the above statutes yourself in any law library (just ask the librarian to help you find Title 26 of the United States Code.) These statutes demonstrate that the claim that there is no law requiring anyone to file income tax returns or pay income tax is complete nonsense.
But it is worth noting that it should be repealed immediately, the IRS eliminated, the gold of the USA audited, and the Federal Reserve Bank utterly irradicated.
I agree. Well, I am not sure what you mean by the Gold of the USA audited, but I agree on the rest.
That is an entirely different matter from showing me a law passed by the Congress of the United States of America.
If the gold isn't audited how do we know what is going on with it? Trust Washington? Not a chance.
OK, thanks. But isn’t the amount of gold that we claim to have, at this point, basically trivial whether it is there or not? (Not that its ok if its been stolen, of course).
It isn’t trivial if you want to use it to back up the US dollar when the Federal Reserve Note (i.e., current U.S. dollar) has no value.
If it was as simple as you make it out to be, why didn’t the IRS take him up on his offer to pay the taxes if they would simply show him the law? There has got to be more to it. If Cryer is wrong, I think a conviction would be pretty easy to get.
If you were on a jury, would you convict someone when the IRS refused to cite the law requiring a citizen to pay an income tax?
I plan on reading Cryer’s motion to dismiss this week, along with the IRS response and Cryer’s reply. It appears that the judge summarily denied his motion without addressing the facts or the law. That a judge would ignore or refuse to address the facts and the law should come as no surprise.
It seems like the jury was composed of reasonable people and made their decision based on the facts and law presented.
What now? Will the IRS investigate the jurors?
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.