Replies

This is not the victory everyone thinks it is. He still owes the tax. The jury only aquitted him of the criminal charges of willful failure to file. That is, the jury believed that he believed he did not have to file.. therefore it is not a crimianl case. But he still owes the tax.

If he has been acquitted of the charge, he does not owe the tax. Has any of t he alleged tax" been collected? How in the world is the IRS going to collect something a jury said he doesn't owe. No court is going to order it paid when he won his case.

So what did he win? Years of legal expenses... plus the tax. He would have been better off paying the tax to begin with.

You have no admiration for a man who actually stands on a well-founded principle?

As evil as it may be, you are never going to convince any branch of the government that you do not have to pay it. Every angle has been tried, and it has been a failure.

don't have to convince the government; just a jury. Every angle has been a failure? Didn't you notice that this guy won. There will be many more to follow and I suggest that the IRS will not prosecute those who can read the documents in this case.

Easy. The jury wasn't there to decide if he owed the taxes. That is not what the trial was about. Whether or not he owes the taxes is a civil matter. This was a criminal matter of willful failure to file. In order to be convicted, the jury has to find that he knew he had to file, but didn't. Well, the jury found that the guy really didn't think he had to file, therefore he is not guilty of the criminal charge. This has no bearing on whether or not he owes any taxes.

You have no admiration for a man who actually stands on a well-founded principle?

Well, I admire the man. I just get bothered by people who encourage others to get themselves and their families in deep sh*t with the feds.

don't have to convince the government; just a jury.

Not true. You need a federal appeals court to rule that all these various cliams aobut wages not being income are true.

Every angle has been a failure?

yes.

Didn't you notice that this guy won.

this case had nothing to do with his underlying claims, just whether or not he "willfully" failed to file. Since he really, really believed this stuff, the jury ruled that he was not "willful". That is, he didn't actually believe he had to file.

There will be many more to follow and I suggest that the IRS will not prosecute those who can read the documents in this case.

I hope you are correct, but I doubt it.

If he has been acquitted of the charge, he does not owe the tax.

Gee, you're not very bright, are you?

If you look into it you'll find, probably much to your great surprise, that a criminal acquittal has nothing to do with whether or not you owe the tax. Guess what? You still owe every single penny of tax, penalty and interest.

Ask Vernice Kuglin, the last tax-kook who won on a Cheek defense. Same attorney (Becraft.) He (on her behalf) admitted her liability (during the sentencing process) and her wages are garnished to pay her tax liability. To this very day she is busy paying the very same liability which she claimed she was too stupid to understand. All she did was avoid prison. All Cryer did was avoid prison. They got lucky. Both of them will pay their taxes eventually, assuming they don't file bankruptcy more than 3 years hence.