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 ...
That's a very good question.
You know when you file an income tax return you are waiving your fifth amendment rights? I don’t see how the gubberment can legally force you to do that.
It all starts with one man saying no. Morality, true morality sometimes has a cost that only the truly righteous are willing to pay.
The claim is that it is a civil matter, and your fifth amendment rights apply only to criminal matters. Of course, that's pure BS. This is done not just in IRS matters, but in a variety of others.
That is assuming that he is correct, and I just don't think he is.
But really, what does anybody think is going to happen? That the government is just going to say "woops, you got us, we won't continue collecting income taxes?"
Even if the Supreme Court said "yes, individuals don't have to pay taxes because of (insert tax protester reason), don't you think that congress would just spell it out precisely the next day?
Pretending that we don't have to pay taxes, and getting good peoples lives ruined by encouraging them not to pay taxes, is simple not productive. It does not bring us closer to repealing the income tax.
Yeah and when file criminal charges what are they going to submit as evidence?? Your tax return, because you waved your rights when you signed it.
So the government tries to confuse the matter by splitting that Civil/Criminal legal hair.
The fact is you are waiving your rights when you sign a return and how the government gets away with forcing you to do so is an affront to good law and justice.
The government if they were wise would just do away with the income tax and go back to a sales tax. Then everyone would pay including the rich.
I agree with you that the Congress will do whatever is necessary to keep the cash flowing. However, it could present them with one helluva knotty problem if the original construction of the income tax was hurriedly and carelessly jerry-rigged atop the existing excise tax, as some supposedly knowledgeable people claim. As inept and divided as the present Congress is, it might take a minor miracle for them to pass a bill that could legally correct the original blunder.
LOL——but, in another connection, was it him or McCartney who wrote “Taxman”?
Here is Cryer’s motion to dismiss. The judge denied it, but the jury must have accepted it. If you are interested, could you point out where Cryer is wrong?
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER—MotiontoDismiss.pdf
ping
There are three essential elements to the crime of tax evasion, namely (1) willfulness; (2) existence of a tax deficiency; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax
This backs what I have been saying since my first post. He could have been found innocent because the first element of the crime was lacking, without the jury even passing judgement on the second element of the crime. And note, unlike what another poster here thinks, there is a difference between willfulness and affirmative act. He affirmatively acted not to pay, but, he did not believe he had to pay.
As for his detailed responses, I have two comments: First, I find this claim about the 16th amendment not expanding the power to tax to be wholly bizarre and absurd on its face. I would love to see the underlying argument that another poster here has alluded to. Perhaps that judge in that case believed that the Feds already had the power to tax incomes (after all, they did it during the civil war) and thus remarked once that the 16th added no new powers? I don't know.
It is difficult to wade through the details of the rest of his arguement, but it seems to revolve around the following points: A. That case law requires a strict construction of tax laws. B. That it doesn't plainly state that he owes the tax, therefore under A. he doesn't owe it. C. And Besides, he doesn't owe it anyway per various tax protestor arguments of what the term income means. Let me take these out of order:
C. That argument has been tried again and again and laughed out of court. The courts of ruled endlessly that income is what it is in the plain meaning of the word, as commonly used by the IRS. You might think its wrong, but that issue has been decided, and not in our favor.
A. Well, I hope that's the case. It is hard to pass judgement on this sort of thing because I have no idea if the cases he is citing are 3 of 2000, or are in fact major precedent setting cases.
B. This is the argument that it seems that you have been most interested in for the length of this thread. He is stating that, in essence, its confusing as hell, and since the courst require a strict construction, if you want me to pay then you have to tell me where it says that I have to pay. Again, it is difficult to comment. I will look around, but my guess is that this has been tried before, but I'm not sure. I will say, though, that I can see that how it would be a very appealing argument to a jury that is looking for a reason to acquit (which not all juries would... I doubt that this would work in New Jersey or california).
He didn’t need to be right. He just needed to convince the jury he was stupid enough to believe this crap.
BTW, he still owes the tax.
From where do you assertain that he still owes the tax? Perhaps the IRS says he still owes the tax, but he's been to court and won. How will they go about getting the tax now? They have tried him in Federal Court and lost. Did the judge rule that he owes the tax? If not I don't see your point.
If he owes income tax, I assume the IRS will go after him for it in a civil proceeding. If they don’t, after all the effort to prosecute him, it will lend considerable weight to his position. I can’t imagine the IRS walking away from such a high profile case if they are convinced Cryer is wrong.
Would a decision by the IRS to not go after him civilly cause you to re-evaluate his position?
I’m kind of up in the air about his position, so I am not sure he is right. On the surface, the IRS refusal to cite the law in a criminal prosecution weighs pretty heavily in my mind. Whether you agree or disagree with Cryer’s position, that refusal seems rather odd to most people.
There is no court case that the IRS needs to win in order to collect the tax. They will simply levy his assets
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108341,00.html
Levy
A levy is a legal seizure of your property to satisfy a tax debt. Levies are different from liens. A lien is a claim used as security for the tax debt, while a levy actually takes the property to satisfy the tax debt.
If you do not pay your taxes (or make arrangements to settle your debt), the IRS may seize and sell any type of real or personal property that you own or have an interest in. For instance,
* We could seize and sell property that you hold (such as your car, boat, or house), or
* We could levy property that is yours but is held by someone else (such as your wages, retirement accounts, dividends, bank accounts, licenses, rental income, accounts receivables, the cash loan value of your life insurance, or commissions).
We usually levy only after these three requirements are met:
* We assessed the tax and sent you a Notice and Demand for Payment;
* You neglected or refused to pay the tax; and
* We sent you a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to A Hearing (levy notice) at least 30 days before the levy. We may give you this notice in person, leave it at your home or your usual place of business, or send it to your last known address by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Please note: if we levy your state tax refund, you may receive a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund, Notice of Your Right to Hearing after the levy.
You may ask an IRS manager to review your case, or you may request a Collection Due Process hearing with the Office of Appeals by filing a request for a Collection Due Process hearing with the IRS office listed on your notice. You must file your request within 30 days of the date on your notice. Some of the issues you may discuss include:
* You paid all you owed before we sent the levy notice,
* We assessed the tax and sent the levy notice when you were in bankruptcy, and subject to the automatic stay during bankruptcy,
* We made a procedural error in an assessment,
* The time to collect the tax (called the statute of limitations) expired before we sent the levy notice,
* You did not have an opportunity to dispute the assessed liability,
* You wish to discuss the collection options, or
* You wish to make a spousal defense.
At the conclusion of your hearing, the Office of Appeals will issue a determination. You will have 30 days after the determination date to bring a suit to contest the determination. Refer to Publication 1660 (PDF), Collection Appeal Rights, for more information. If your property is levied or seized, contact the employee who took the action. You also may ask the manager to review your case. If the matter is still unresolved, the manager can explain your rights to appeal to the Office of Appeals.
Levying your wages, federal payments, state refunds, or your bank account.
If we levy your wages, salary, or federal payments, the levy will end when:
* The levy is released,
* You pay your tax debt, or
* The time expires for legally collecting the tax.
If we levy your bank account, your bank must hold funds you have on deposit, up to the amount you owe, for 21 days. This holding period allows time to resolve any issues about account ownership. After 21 days, the bank must send the money plus interest, if it applies, to the IRS. To discuss your case, call the IRS employee whose name is shown on the Notice of Levy.
Filing a claim for reimbursement when we made a mistake in levying your bank account
If you paid bank charges because of a mistake we made when we levied your account, you may be entitled to a reimbursement. You will have 30 days to appeal the determination to the Tax Court. Use Form 8546 (PDF), Claim for Reimbursement of Bank Charges Incurred Due to Erroneous Service Levy or Misplaced Payment Check.
Accessibility | FirstGov.gov | Freedom of Information Act | Important Links | IRS Privacy
The avoidance of criminal charges does not let him off the hook. The tax liability is still due, he just doesn’t get free room and board for the next 10 years.
See 141 for the success rate for these scumbags.
Thanks for the links.
It seems to me that the IRS could hae taken these actions againt Cryer without resorting to a criminal prosecution; so why didn’t they take that course of action?
Isn’t it a bit difficult to defend a civil action when the IRS won’t or can’t tell the citizen the legal basis which requires him to pay the tax and in what amount? It appears that Cryer has been attempting to resolve the matter for a period of several years now. The problem isn’t an unwillingness to pay any tax that might be due; it’s that the IRS hasn’t shown him the law that makes him liable for payment.
If a company sent you a bill demanding payment, would you just pay it without any proof that you owed it? I doubt it.
Could you answer a simple question that I’ve asked several times. Would vote to convict Cryer when the IRS refused to the cite the law that required him to pay income taxes under his circumstances?
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.