Posted on 09/01/2003 4:10:28 PM PDT by 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.
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.
Bump and Bump-Bump.
FMCDH
I don't think the lady won as as result of her contention that she did not owe taxes, but because the jury was somehow convinced that her letter to the IRS years ago placed the obligation of answering it on the IRS.
Title 26 of the US Code identifies who must report and pay, how income is defined, and how much to pay in taxes. That is further defined in the IRS regualtions. Assuming the US Code is legitimately the law of the land, then I fail to see the issue other than the silly verdict rendered somehow indicating she did not act out of anything but legitimate confusion. As for the W-4 with 99 exemptions, she clearly filed a false official statement knowing she did not have 99 exemptions. I can't conceivably understand why that did not put her in the slammer, never mind no tax filings.
As others have indicated, she will pay her taxes together with interest and penalties, and I certainly believe they are owed if she had income.
Occasionally a frivolous argument gets through, but considering all of the tax litigations each year, not often.
Parroting??? The code is not a difficult read. For example, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1 would seem to most to make it quite clear that an individual person is liable for taxes. Subchapter B would seem to most to make it quite clear that income from whatever source, specifically including salaries, wages and other income is taxable. Have I read every subtitle in its entirety? No! I'm not particularly interested in trust income, enterprise zones, or Title 11 for for example.
In addition to the code, of course, there are the IRS regulations, rulings, decisions, both administrative and judicial, and a myriad of instructional information. All in all it encompasses several thousand pages, and changes are effected both by Congress and the IRS annually. No one said it was easy...just required.
And who do you parrot?
Now that you have the Code squared away, maybe the nexst step would be to read Mr. Schiff's book. If you're curious, that is.
Save me the price. He will only use it tax free...while he's in jail. Just tell me what part of what I argued in earlier posts is not true. I believe that in the past he has argued that the law does not specifically cover individuals, but only corporations. Others have argued that. Not sure what other loopholes he thinks he has found, but I doubt most judges....or juries for that matter, would be impressed.
People win tax cases every year. I won one once. But, trust me, it had nothing to do with whether I was legally obligated to pay taxes, only whether certain damages were taxable.
The question is who is liable for the tax -- not this tax imposed nonsense. Also, the term income is not defined as one can't use the word to define a word as every eighth grader knows. The appeals case U.S. vs Ballard notes that the general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
The reason the IRS will not answer Mrs. Kuglin's questions is that there is no law requiring the filing of income tax returns or the paying of those taxes.
Since the non response of the IRS proves Mrs. Kuglin correct, will you and the other Collectivist kindly stop mis informing people on this issue?
Title 18 is law; however I read that the Internal Revenue Code (so-called Title 26) was never enacted into positive law.
Btw... I don't think I was disagreeing with you. I was merely adding to your most interesting statement :)
Well, there's that old saying about the ten percent. These scams, some of which you seem to have fallen for have been around for a lot of years. The IRS seems quite comfortable with the plethora of Supreme Court, Appeals Court, district and tax court decisions that have ruled each of these scams out. I haven't heard such word parsing since Clinton's days in the oval office.
You may not be able to figure out that you are an "individual", that you have "wages or salaries" (or income from whatever other source), or how much to pay in taxes. But those things are in the code!
But, hey. Be my guest, claim $0 and wait. Just hope that you too have a jury that can't read or write, or is mad they have to pay taxes.
Do you really believe that since 1913, if such easy loopholes existed, Congress wouldn't have fixed them?
By the way, the only hyperventilating I see on this thread is coming from the crowd that thinks they have just gotton a tax windfall. That would make me hyperventilate!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.