Code of Silence: Time for the IRS to Answer The Question!

World Magazine ^ | August 30, 2003 | Joel Belz

[TIElniff]

JOEL BELZ

Code of silence

Why won't the IRS answer a basic question about tax law? By Joel Belz

I STILL HAVE DOUBTS WHETHER THE NAME OF VERNICE B. Kuglin, who lives in Memphis, Tenn., will someday leap off the pages of America's history books along with those of Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, and Rosa Parks. I do know that Ms. Kuglin must be a woman of some personal courage.

Ms. Kuglin, a 58-year-old pilot for FedEx, made news a few days ago when a federal court jury found her not guilty on six charges of tax evasion and willful failure to file federal tax returns. During her testimony, Ms. Kuglin said that over the last eight years she had sent numerous letters to the Internal Revenue Service requesting that the agency tell her specifically which law in the federal code requires her to pay individual taxes.

To this day, she says, she has not received an answer to that simple question. It's not, mind you, that she has received an answer she considers unsatisfactory or unclear. It's that she hasn't received an answer of any kind.

The reason I still have doubts about Ms. Kuglin's durability as a true American heroine has to do with the methods she used to make her point. (Among other things, she claimed 99 exemptions on her W-4 form.) But after watching her case?and those of other tax protesters?for the last several months, I can't help thinking they have something of an argument. And I think the IRS continues to be extraordinarily dim-headed in its response on at least two important fronts.

First, if indeed the obligation of every U.S. citizen to pay federal taxes is legitimately codified, then it shouldn't be all that difficult for the IRS to demonstrate for a layman like Ms. Kuglin just exactly how those laws apply. For some years, some pretty smart people have put together a pretty persuasive argument that the tax laws are a sham, that they have been cobbled together in an extraconstitutional manner allowing Uncle Sam to collect huge sums of money without a clear basis in law.

If these folks are wrong, more and more taxpayers are asking, why should it be so hard for the IRS and the federal government to prove the case? Why, when a minister like Gene Chapman camps out for a "fast to the death" on the steps of an IRS building, demanding an answer to the question, "Where is my tax liability in the law?"?why doesn't the IRS just provide a simple and transparent answer?

Indeed, I have actually been skeptical in the other direction. I have regularly dismissed the so-called tax-protest movement as a group of crackpots who want so badly to prove the federal government wrong that they concoct harebrained theories that can't possibly hold water. But the longer the feds and the IRS stonewall, the less skeptical I get.

Second, why must the federal government be so heavy-handed in its response to a few of the more outspoken tax protesters? Protester Irwin Schiff finds himself in federal court in Nevada this week, fighting a possible six-month jail sentence for continuing to sell his book, The Federal Mafia. The government contends that he is engaged in commercial enterprise to encourage citizens to break the law?which means that every time Mr. Schiff does anything to sell another book, he finds himself in contempt of court.

Protester Larken Rose, meanwhile, says he isn't even trying to sell anything; without advocating any particular action, he just tells people through lectures and literature what he thinks the law really says?and for that, he claims, he has had his office and home ransacked by IRS agents.

WORLD and its board and management are not tax protesters. We take seriously Christ's command to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." And we understand that in a secular society, that may often mean we end up paying taxes even for causes that we find repugnant to our consciences.

At the same time, it's altogether right for citizens in a free society to call on Caesar to tell us the truth about our obligations, and to do so in a civil manner.

In Memphis a couple of weeks ago, after the jury that had exonerated Ms. Kuglin had been dismissed, the U.S. attorney who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the case asked the presiding judge to order the defendant to file her forms, pay her taxes, and "obey the law." The judge responded discreetly by noting that such a response was outside his duties.

If the judge was simply saying, "Make your law clear, sir, and maybe the lady will obey," I think he had a pretty good point.

[ifreemantoo]

If the IRSS had responded to her letters and pointed out the law that made her liable she would have been found guilty. End of story.

This is what is so obvious. To allow a criminal court trial to proceed because you won't answer letters is just simply amazing.
___________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[DearAbby]

We pay the taxes and those taxes goes around the world, for boondoggles for our honorable Senators and Congressmen; for pork barrel projects. To fight some honorable wars and to send our hard earned dollars to countries that are suppose to help the poor, but end up in the pockets of corrupt governments.

When you think of it, if 50 million of us decided not to pay taxes, what could they do to us; put us in jail, home chain us, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Leatherneck_MT]

Then if she's not guilty, by jury nullification the law is null and void.

Therefore she broke no law. Not Guilty of Tax Evasion as the verdict proves that.

If she didn't evade taxes, then by definition she didn't owe any. Therefore no "principles and interest" are due. You can't have those things on something you didn't owe in the first place.

[ifreemantoo]

It is so simple when you get through the BS.

[MACVSOG68]

A national sales tax would impose taxes on savings from past earnings that have been previously taxed. You will not find much support among those who have managed to amass any significant non-tax deferred savings. Not that the argument would hold any weight with government officials... They have even proposed taxing your money if you are holding it.

The excess retained earnings tax has been around for years. There are a number concerns about a national sales tax that would have to be resolved. However, what is the alternative?

[ifreemantoo]

I hate being an apologist for MAC, however he is correct in what he writes.

He, however as I just posted didn't answer the question.

He wants to talk about economic and accounting. He mentions legal and the only legal that anyone should be concerned about is the statutes and their legislative regulations requiring so as directed by the IRC.

[MACVSOG68]

Then if she's not guilty, by jury nullification the law is null and void. Therefore she broke no law. Not Guilty of Tax Evasion as the verdict proves that. If she didn't evade taxes, then by definition she didn't owe any. Therefore no "principles and interest" are due. You can't have those things on something you didn't owe in the first place.

So, if I understand you right, by jury nullification, as in the OJ case, the law against murder is nullified?

Actually, the key word here is 'willful'. The jury rationalized that her efforts, (however ify) did constitute actions to remove willful from the charge. I do not believe the jury ruled on the issue of the taxes themselves. The IRS will, of course, civilly pursue any owed taxes, interest and penalties. What happens then is anybody's guess. She can continue her quest, and try another jury, or pay. The IRS may simply choose to attach and assets or salaries she has. Bankruptcy won't help as IRS debts are usually not included in debt restructuring or relief.

[ifreemantoo]

Again, an extremly expensive case just because the IRSS wouldn't respond to her letters or her attorney's letters. Now that makes lots of sense.

Just answer the question.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[MACVSOG68]

Again, an extremly expensive case just because the IRSS wouldn't respond to her letters or her attorney's letters. Now that makes lots of sense. Just answer the question.

I haven't read the trial transcript, so not sure what the prosecution offered to support its case. It's possible the prosecution did not think the jury would fall for the "I didn't know" routine. Some do, some don't. If I were the prosecution, I would likely have ensured that the jury had sufficient information to make the finding I was looking for.

[ifreemantoo]

That is so ridculous just answer the letters. Send them something.

I can't ignore IRSS letters, why do they get to ignore mine or hers? Or does this go along with the position that the IRSS takes when it say it disregards decisions favorable to taxpayers? Check out IRSS publications 1 and 17.

If you want to get an idea of what is presented by the defense and how stupid, Lloyd Long in his testimony and responses, made the prosecution look then link on to this link.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/LloydLong1.htm

This case is very similar to Kuglin.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[ifreemantoo]

Lastly, Kuglin's attorney Mr.Becraft has 3 wins. One of those involved 13 to 14 people.

It still very simple answer the letters and questions.

I'll give you a rest now. The OSU football game is over and I have other things to do. The OSU heart attack team continues again. They just don't like to win easy. I gotta get some aspirin now.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[Dec31,1999]

A duty is primarily a tax on imports.

The IRS should be abolished, and the Federal Government should get all of its revenue from duties places on imports. This would help us in many ways, which include preserving our industries and making the US a more business-friendly environment. Those Founding Fathers were pretty sharp, I tell ya.

[ifreemantoo]

There has been a stay on the ban of "The Federal Mafia" and Irwin Schiff.

The 9th Circuit Court-of-Appeals in San Francisco has issued a Stay of U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd George's Preliminary Injunction against Freedom Books. This occurred on September 3th, I believe.

So the Federal Mafia may be ordered for $38.00 plus shipping for about 30 days from September 3 until the case is heard in the 9th and a final court decision is made on the lifting of this ban.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmafia.htm

____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[kd5fxh]

Backup now, get it right. Income taxes do not pay for your fire dept, police dept, or raod maint..that comes from your local property, sales tax, as well as the road use tax u pay when u buy a new set of tires..the constitution only allows taxes for 3 reason, the defense of our country, to repay loans, and for the general welfare of our country..general welfare is, say a new embassy in russia, that benefits everyone..paying a farmer not to grow does not benefit me or you, paying for low income housing does not benefit me or you, paying a welfare check to jane doe does not benefit me or you..as far as the sixteenth amendment and title 26 USC is concerned i feel they are perfectly constitutional..the real issue is that the laws are misapplied..

steve

[MACVSOG68]

Backup now, get it right. Income taxes do not pay for your fire dept, police dept, or raod maint..that comes from your local property, sales tax, as well as the road use tax u pay when u buy a new set of tires

Sorry Steve, but you misunderstood the point. My response to that particular post related to all taxes, not just income taxes. The concern expressed to which I responded was that nothing should be rendered to Caesar.

the constitution only allows taxes for 3 reason, the defense of our country, to repay loans, and for the general welfare of our country..general welfare is, say a new embassy in russia, that benefits everyone..paying a farmer not to grow does not benefit me or you,

I can't argue your point, since I agree with it. It's similar to the argument over the meaning of interstate commerce. When FDR's Supreme Court ruled that the Feds could force a farmer to not grow something, that theory went in the basket, and the era of big government began in earnest. This thread has addressed mainly the legality of the income tax and the collection process. A second issue that you address is the uses put to that revenue. It's been 62 years since that USSC decision and reversing that trend will not be an overnight process.

[ifreemantoo]

Cultist, Cult is a side issue and was never central to an argument about the illegal application and adminstration of a tax.

My valid point remains about cults as described.

As far as the main point is concerned it is about unanswered questions as I put to you in Posts 55, 174, 179 and various others unanswered as well.

It is about the "Code of Silence". It is about not responding to letters and the questions in those letters. It is about not responding to what is the legal requirement, as is demonstrated for so many other taxes and the clear penalties for these respective taxes, for the liability of income taxes ann also absent those very same penalties for income taxes.

The IRSS position is to ignore and say you have to pay.
Your position is the same.

No defandant could ever win a case of "failure to file" regarding Title 27 Alcohol, Tobacco and firearm and miscellaneous taxes claiming where am I "liable" and their attached penalties as they are clearly there. You won't find these penalties in Title 26 under "income tax".

Just answer the letter and questions.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[ifreemantoo]

Regarding what Christ has done, did you notice that He didn't save for the temple tax as Peter so willingly volunteered Him for?

I imagine He didn't save for it because he didn't owe it. After all, HE was the temple.

Yes, He paid it, but He clearly pointed out He didn't owe it. In addition, He saved Peter further embarrassment.

[ifreemantoo]

Ifreeman wrote:

I believe that fits with in the definition. You know most people celebrate Santa Claus, Halloween, and the Easter Bunny, however no mature and rational person believes in them.

MAC responded:
You put this into the same category as the income tax??? C'mon, you must have better arguments than that!
____________________________________________________________
Yes all of those arguments are waiting a responsive response. I know it sounds redundant just answer the questions I've posed using the IRC and a rational explanation for Penalty Section 6651 posted earlier as well.

This argument is just a filler.

Unfortunetly you may have a point. Rational and mature people do believe in the I-TAX as adminstered and applied. (They still don't know why they do it.)However, when confronted with the evidence about the "income tax" they then believe in the devil too.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

[MACVSOG68]

As far as the main point is concerned it is about unanswered questions as I put to you in Posts 55, 174, 179 and various others unanswered as well.

I will try and respond to you on these, as I promised a couple of days ago:

• With respect to post 55, I believe someone else posted that,

• With respect to post 174, the sections you refer to (4374, 5703, 5005) refer to employment taxes and excise taxes, not income taxes,

  With respect to post 179, 27CFR derives from 27 US Code, which does cover alchohol and the various taxes relating to them. It does not relate to income taxes. That is 26US Code.

  You asked why Section 6651 applies to you. Section 6651 derives authority from 6001 which covers every person liable for any tax imposed by [Title 26]...,

  Those sections are part of Subtitle F, Procedures and Administration, which is applicable to Subtitle A, Income taxes, which includes Chapter 1 (normal taxes), which includes Subchapter A (Determination of tax liability) and Subchaper B (Computation of taxable income).

  Now the IRS would tell you that since you are covered in the last 2 subchapters referred to, you then are subject to the provisions of Subtitle F, and consequently 6001 and 6651.

  The other sections you referred to, as I indicated, cover areas other than individual income taxes, and are, therefor, not relevant to your case.

  I think your job is not to ask IRS to prove that a non liquor sales person is covered, but to prove that the code trace I made above is flawed.

  The IRSS position is to ignore and say you have to pay. Your position is the same.

  I did give you a post earlier to a letter from the IRS to a number of questions. My sense is that they will answer some questions if they feel they are not simply stalling tactics or frivolous. As I indicated to you earlier, you can always file for a ruling, or wait for the trial and simply make a discovery request.

  Remember, Schiff did go to jail as did a number of his followers. My advise is to either pay and get this out of your life, or hire competent legal services. Also, don't just look at the few cases (and there are some) that got past the willful evasion charge. Look at all of the ones that didn't.

[MACVSOG68]

Unfortunetly you may have a point. Rational and mature people do believe in the I-TAX as adminstered and applied. (They still don't know why they do it.)However, when confronted with the evidence about the "income tax" they then believe in the devil too.

I'm afraid you've confused me with someone else. I have told you a number of times that I do not believe in the I-Tax. I have given you my reasons, and why I believe that a sales tax is a far superior approach. That having been said, I do not believe the Income tax is either illegal or unconstitutional, if that's your point.