You are twisting the case here.
The jury found him innocent on his liability and his obligation to file if he was liable. They knew he fully intended not to file.
And he had made a living in fees and wages. Yet he had not filed on those items, willfully not filed. And the jury knew it. According to Cryer himself on last Thursday evening's teleconference, the jury found him innocent because the government could not produce the law.
Now you are still a liar because you are 'imagining' what the jury thought and how they decided, and then you are posting it as if it were fact. You are a liar because you do not have the court transcript and the jury deliberations. So you are 'fabricating' a line that attempts to trivialize this case.
On the other hand, my position is not a lie because it rests on the direct words of Cryer himself, and I will bet heavily he is not a liar. He is going to publish the transcripts but he expects the IRS to try and have the court seal the case. But he is ready for them and claims they will not be successful again.
As far as previous court cases where the IRS has lost on an unconstitutional application of tax law, any tax attorney can call up hundreds of cases where the plaintiff taxpayer has prevailed.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hart/phil.htm
The Appellate Court ruled that the monies received by Murphy were taxable under 26 USC 104 (a), but that this section of the United States Code was unconstitutional on the grounds that the monies received by Murphy were not "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Now go ahead and get all pissy, I called you a liar because you are one and I expected you to start flaming your peculiar brand of fartrous fartoxide in response. If you were half a man, you would say "I am sorry, I jumped the gun on the jury, but I want to see the transcripts first before forming an opinion". That would be a sympathetic position, worthy of an iota of respect. But no, you have to speak for the jury when you haven't a clue as to what they actually deliberated on.
Liar!
I think it would be more accurate to say Cryer did not file a tax return because he had a god faith belief that he was not required to do so in his situation. He also denied liability and if there was no liability, he had no duty to make any payment. The government had to prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction.
Yes, it was intentional. He did not believe he had an obligation to file.
You are twisting the case here.
No. He was charged with willful failure to file, which requires a finding that he believed he had to file, but did not. The jury evidently found that he did not believe he had to file.
The jury found him innocent on his liability and his obligation to file if he was liable. They knew he fully intended not to file.
No they did not. His liability was not at question. That is a civil matter. That is simple fact.
And he had made a living in fees and wages. Yet he had not filed on those items, willfully not filed. And the jury knew it. According to Cryer himself on last Thursday evening's teleconference, the jury found him innocent because the government could not produce the law.
Right. Cryer made the case that he did not believe he had to file, and the jury believed him.
Now you are still a liar
What did I lie about?
because you are 'imagining' what the jury thought and how they decided, and then you are posting it as if it were fact.
I'm lying because I simply posted what the charge was, and what the jury found? They found him not guilty of willfully failing to file.
You are a liar because you do not have the court transcript and the jury deliberations.
Dumb argument. He simply reflected that he was found innocent of what he was charged with. He was charged with willful failure to file. I stated that the jury found him innocent of such. That is a fact.
So you are 'fabricating' a line that attempts to trivialize this case.
And after numerous attempts, you fail to cite the cases that you claim exist.
On the other hand, my position is not a lie because it rests on the direct words of Cryer himself
The out of court statements of a defendant are in no way fact.
, and I will bet heavily he is not a liar.
I don't know.
He is going to publish the transcripts
There are no transcripts of jury deliberations.
but he expects the IRS to try and have the court seal the case.
Maybe.
But he is ready for them and claims they will not be successful again.
We'll see.
As far as previous court cases where the IRS has lost on an unconstitutional application of tax law, any tax attorney can call up hundreds of cases where the plaintiff taxpayer has prevailed. http://www.newswithviews.com/Hart/phil.htm
I'll check it out. But sure, the IRS has applied tax law unconstitutionally, but I'll be none of these cases have to do with bogus arguments about wages not being taxable income, and other tax protestor lies.
The Appellate Court ruled that the monies received by Murphy were taxable under 26 USC 104 (a), but that this section of the United States Code was unconstitutional on the grounds that the monies received by Murphy were not "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.
We'll see what kind of income it was.
Now go ahead and get all pissy,
Me? The record clearly shows you resorting to personal attack when asked to back up your statements.
you a liar because you are one
By simply stating that he was aquitted of what he was charged with, while you are climaing he was aqcuitted of something he wasn't charged with.
I expected you to start flaming your peculiar brand of fartrous fartoxide in response.
The 'ole "pre-emptive flaming defense.
If you were half a man, you would say "I am sorry, I jumped the gun on the jury, but I want to see the transcripts first before forming an opinion".
If you weren't a moron you would see that you can not be aquitted of something you were not charged with.
That would be a sympathetic position, worthy of an iota of respect. But no, you have to speak for the jury when you haven't a clue as to what they actually deliberated on.
Yet, you claim to speak for the jury.
Liar!
About what?
I just read your link. The case was about whether or not a whistleblower settlement was taxable or not. Somehow you think this applies to your bogus claim that wages are not income. You are dumber than I thought.