You think that's an amusing story, human? We'll have our revenge in due time.
Posted on 07/15/2007 7:25:50 AM PDT by badgerlandjim
Rodney King: He would have been better off paying the tax to begin with. 11
Zon: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Now I understand your "reasoning". 38I take it then that you are going to go ahead and stop paying taxes?
You can take whatever you think you can get way with. Doesn't make it any more right than for good men to do nothing thus allowing evil to prevail. Like I said, now I understand your "reasoning".
Yeah, it’s only for the brave, even though they be right.”
Not “only for the brave” That implies that the majority of the people are cowards and they’re not.
It’s only for the people who can afford to take the financial hit it will cost them to do it.
The best thing Tommy has going for him is he didn’t have to pay a high powered tax and constitutional lawyer and it still hit him hard because the IRS used every underhanded trick to get him to drop it, even though the IRS knows they are wrong.
Tommy should sue the IRS for every penny it cost him.
LOL. This was the CRIMINAL case, not to be confused with his civil liability. The IRS has absolutely no need to "go after" him in "tax court."
They will enforce his civil tax liability whether he likes it or not, without resort to any "tax court."
My reasoning is that the income tax, as generally applied, is condidred legal by the courts, and destroying myself and my family pretending that is not the case is stupid.
Why wouldn’t they just make an estimated assessment plus penalities and interest and levy his accounts? Then it would be up to him to refute the assessment by filing returns. Did he file a stay to prevent this? Apparently this trial just excused him from a willfull failure to file conviction.
Anyway, this whole thing makes me sick. The federal government is supposed to provide for the common defense, including the GD border, and maybe a couple of other things like the Federal courts to be the ultimate dispute resolution, but beyond that I think the states were supposed to be in charge. Now they have their hand in our pocket from birth to death and just dole the money back to us depending on which special interest group we belong to.
Are you claiming the IRS does not have to get a judgment for the taxes in dispute? If that was the case, why has the IRS not collected the allegedly owed tax yet? Why is there even a tax court if the IRS can just take what they want? Are you really this stupid?
Have you not heard of "due process"?
Self Bump to Post #33.
I was told by I friend I trust that if you don't file for a year or two, the IRS will send you a document which states their estimate of the taxes you owe and ask you to sign the document agreeing to the estimate by the IRS. He simply does not respond, and certainly doesn't sign it. He once asked the IRS to cite the law requiring him to pay taxes. The IRS never responded and has not contacted him in years.
The only reason Cryer was prosecuted was because he flaunted the fact he wasn't paying taxes. If he had stayed quiet, he would not have been prosecuted. He had not filed for ten years and the IRS did nothing before he started writing a book.
Because the issue of willful failure to file is not an issue in establishing income tax liabilities.
And if you are so bright, maybe you can cite the law that required him to file and pay.
I would but I doubt you even know what a law is. Explain to me what you think a law is then once we agree on the terms (if that is possible with a "true believer") then I will provide it to you.
Did you read the briefs relatred to his motion to dismiss the charges? If you had, you’d realize this guy knows the law and the IRS response was “lacking”.
The criminal prosecution is separate from the civil.
9.5.13.2 (02-09-2005)
CIVIL TAX AND PENALTY ASSESSMENTS ON THE CRIMINAL TAX INVESTIGATION
1. Internal Revenue Code (United States Code (USC) Title 26) provides civil and criminal sanctions for violations of the Internal Revenue laws. Both civil and criminal sanctions may be imposed for the same offense. Typically, civil assessments and penalties are not assessed until the criminal aspects of an investigation have been formally closed.
9.5.13.2.1 (02-09-2005) Criminal Vs. Civil Tax
1. The criminal tax deficiency may differ from the civil tax deficiency in the civil process. Criminal violations are charged only against the tax deficiency that results from fraud. The civil tax deficiency is much broader and includes all tax due on a return, i.e., the tax from the evaded income and the adjustments to the subject’s itemized deductions.
2. Civil tax liability may differ from criminal tax liability for a number of reasons:
1. Adjustments of a controversial or offsetting nature may not be included in a criminal tax computation to remove controversial issues from the criminal action.
2. Adjustments of a minor, technical, or a non-fraudulent nature may be considered solely for civil purposes.
3. Evidence that may not meet the burden of proof necessary in a criminal investigation may be adequate for a civil case.
3. Experience has demonstrated that pursuing both the criminal and the civil aspects of an investigation concurrently may jeopardize the successful completion of the criminal investigation. As a result, Internal Revenue Policy Statement 4-26 (formally P-4-84) (IRM 1.2.1, Policies of the Internal Revenue Service) provides, among other things, that the consequences of civil enforcement actions on matters involved in the criminal investigation and prosecution case should be carefully weighed. Policy Statement 4-26 (formally P-4-84) requires balancing the civil and criminal aspects of investigations to maximize civil enforcement without imperiling criminal prosecution. This policy requires the full and positive support of all enforcement divisions/functions to maintain continuing cooperation and coordination. In the event there is doubt as to whether a proposed civil action would imperil prosecution, the field office should consult with Criminal Tax (CT) Counsel.
9.5.13.2.2 (02-09-2005) Civil Penalties
1. In addition to tax due and owing on a tax return, there are many types of civil penalties which may be applicable to any given case. Special agents should be alert to violations which may subject the taxpayer to other civil penalties as set out in IRM 20, Penalties and Interest. Shown below are penalties most often included in an assessment of a subject being investigated by Criminal Investigation (CI). A very brief overview of some of the more common penalties can be found in Exhibit 9.5.13–1.
2. The civil sanctions, generally assessed as additions to the tax and often referred to as ad valorem penalties, are covered in IRC Chapter 68. Some of these penalties are briefly described in the subsections below.
3. When the term "willfulness" is found in a civil penalty statute, it means actions "knowingly," " consciously," or "intentionally" taken. A voluntary course of action, rather than an accidental cause of action, would seem to satisfy the civil requirements. When used in criminal revenue statutes, the word "willful" generally means a violation of a known legal duty; an act done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse. The word is also employed to characterize a thing done without ground for believing it is lawful or conduct marked by careless disregard whether or not one has the right to so act.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/ch05s15.html
Yes. (You shouldn't do this at home, someone might get hurt)
And then the IRS assesses the tax and it becomes a legal liability. If the amount is greater than 25k, the IRS files a tax lien and all of his assets are then encumbered and his paycheck is likely attached.
Your friend is an idiot and has no idea that he is playing with fire.
You think that's an amusing story, human? We'll have our revenge in due time.
“Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they’re yours.” — Illusions, by Richard Bach
I know someone who would know a lot about this. I’m going to find out what he says.
How does one even buy a house w/o 3 years tax returns? Except maybe if you didn’t pay taxes you could afford to pay cash...
Do you pay taxes?
I think Cryer's "Motion to Dismiss" is very good and I would not pretend to be able to improve upon it. Have you read it? I have.
Can you explain why the IRS could not or would not cite the law in the prosecution of Cryer?
Your citations of some law address violations of the Internal Revenue Code. They do not address the issue of what monies are subject to the code. If someone violates the code, then penalties should be imposed; but the government must first establish tax liability.
If there is no liability, there is no tax due on those monies and if no taxes are due, there can be no violation.
Nice try.
Once again, can you cite the law that required Cryer to pay the taxes in dispute?
You only need a W-2, or 1099 for the preceeding two years. Do not need tax returns unless self employed. If you put about 20% down, you need may not need documentation of income, assuming you credit is pretty good; and maybe even if it isn't.
Do you really think the IRS is going to risk the embarrassment of another trial? The government lost they know they can’t get a conviction against this guy.
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.