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.
Not true. You need a federal appeals court to rule that all these various cliams aobut wages not being income are true.
The government cannot appeal a "not guilty" verdict. The case is over and this guy will never have to pay taxes on nontaxable income.
Has anyone asked the jury why they acquitted him. If so, I'd like to read what the jury had to say. Absent any questioning of the jury after the verdict, one cannot conclude the decision was based soley on the "willful" element.