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.
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.