Court Finds Man not Required to File Income Tax Returns on Wages

[PatriotOne]

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges

Shreveport Times
July 13, 2007
By Loresha Wilson

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago.

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.

A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.

And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.

Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls made to the two were not immediately returned.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue Service during 2000 and 2001.

Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.

"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can show me I have a lawful reason to pay."

"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."

Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.

[Dustancostine]

This is a great victory for taxpayers!!!!!!!!!!

[torchbearer]

and it happened in Louisiana. woot.

[BLS]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

[RPatTheBeach]

I wonder what his instance sets apart from all other citizens, if anything...

[PatriotOne]

There's a radio interview that details the case and trial for those interested. A victory for sure. There's a plug for Ron Paul by the Gun Owners Association in the interview also.

I've never followed this movement much but I have looked at their info on the legalities of their claims. Gotta hand it to them....there is no law requiring us to pay income taxes...we pay out of ignorance or fear. Basically the IRS is like the mafia who collects "protection insurance" from the citizen's for the mob boss :eek: .

http://www.wtprn.com/

[torchbearer]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

It is now case law... you can use it as your own defense now. It would be easier to win your case with precedent set.

Now, you will probably still be charged by the IRS because they are aggressively trying to collect money to pay for the congressmen's pork projects, but now, we have a major victory and so its time for civil disobedience.

do you think i will be filing anymore?

[Buzz]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

If you want, sure. The IRS will try to ruin your life, though.

[PatriotOne]

I wonder what his instance sets apart from all other citizens, if anything...

Sounds like the biggest difference in this case is that the judge allowed him to educate the jury on the actual laws. The IRS is usually successful in not allowing that to happen so the jury just has to rely on "perceived" laws.

[Craig_R]

for a more in depth look at the whole thing check out

www.losthorizons.com

thousands of people know the law and get every red cent stolen from thier earnings back

[torchbearer]

@PatriotOne

Are you able to get the docket number on that case?

[PatriotOne]

It is now case law... you can use it as your own defense now. It would be easier to win your case with precedent set.

Now, you will probably still be charged by the IRS because they are aggressively trying to collect money to pay for the congressmen's pork projects, but now, we have a major victory and so its time for civil disobedience.

do you think I will be filing anymore?

I listened to that interview and it sounded like they introduced Supreme Court cases which supported the verdict. I'm not familiar with the tax movement but I do understand that, as was the case for the Browns, the IRS is usually successful in keeping the actual laws and other judgements out of the trials. Imagine that...not being allowed to speak about the legalities of the Income Taxes in a Tax Fraud case :eek:.

[PatriotOne]

@PatriotOne

Are you able to get the docket number on that case?

I haven't seen one yet byut perhaps they cite it here somewhere. Looks like this site followed the case from beginning to end:

http://www.triallogs.com/index.php/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

[rpbox]

I wonder what his instance sets apart from all other citizens, if anything...

This might answer your question..
This was takin from http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CryerBio.pdf

BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Tommy K. Cryer
Attorney at Law

...
Civic Activities:
Shreveport Jaycees (exhausted rooster), Board of Directors, Legal Counsel, Chaired
numerous projects
Caddo Heights United Methodist Church, Board of Trustees 1974-1980
Shreveport Optimist Club, Board of Directors

Past Master, W. H. Booth Lodge #380, F & AM
Past Master, First Masonic District Lodge
Louisiana Grand Lodge, Law & Jurisprudence Committee; Board of Charities and
Benevolences; Education Committee; Certified Instructor; Lecturer at numerous Grand
Master's Seminars across the state
Scottish Rite Bodies, Shreveport Valley, 32°
El Karubah Shrine, Shreveport, LA

Past President, Shreveport High Twelve Club
Chairman, Shreveport Republican PAC, 1991-3, Delegate 1992 State Republican
Convention; oversaw and consulted for eleven campaigns, left office 11 and 0. (no longer
active in politics)


Some other links worth checking out..

July 12th Tom Cryer interview by Tim Wingate on the Ed and Elaine Brown show on RBN - http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Brown/07/07/Brown_071207_130000.MP3

Makethestand.com forum thread - http://http://makethestand.com/ftopict-322.html

Link to Cryers arguments - http://tinyurl.com/34nsck .pdf format

Tom Cryer Radio Show Archive on RBN - http://republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.php?hn=Cryer&yr=07


I have not researched this case much but intend to soon. The high level masonic connections are interesting though..

[ronpaulitician]

Is this as huge as I think it is?

[torchbearer]

This might answer your question..
This was takin from http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CryerBio.pdf

BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Tommy K. Cryer
Attorney at Law

...
Civic Activities:
Shreveport Jaycees (exhausted rooster), Board of Directors, Legal Counsel, Chaired
numerous projects
Caddo Heights United Methodist Church, Board of Trustees 1974-1980
Shreveport Optimist Club, Board of Directors

Past Master, W. H. Booth Lodge #380, F & AM
Past Master, First Masonic District Lodge
Louisiana Grand Lodge, Law & Jurisprudence Committee; Board of Charities and
Benevolences; Education Committee; Certified Instructor; Lecturer at numerous Grand
Master's Seminars across the state
Scottish Rite Bodies, Shreveport Valley, 32°
El Karubah Shrine, Shreveport, LA

Past President, Shreveport High Twelve Club
Chairman, Shreveport Republican PAC, 1991-3, Delegate 1992 State Republican
Convention; oversaw and consulted for eleven campaigns, left office 11 and 0. (no longer
active in politics)


Some other links worth checking out..

July 12th Tom Cryer interview by Tim Wingate on the Ed and Elaine Brown show on RBN - http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Brown/07/07/Brown_071207_130000.MP3

Makethestand.com forum thread - http://http://makethestand.com/ftopict-322.html

Link to Cryers arguments - http://tinyurl.com/34nsck .pdf format

Tom Cryer Radio Show Archive on RBN - http://republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.php?hn=Cryer&yr=07


I have not researched this case much but intend to soon. The high level masonic connections are interesting though..

Note- Masonic lodges in louisiana are more like rich men fraternities, not places of satanic rituals or NWO type stuff. Its a place to get away from your wife... in louisiana.

But i notice he was very politically active at one point... I wonder if he has heard about Ron Paul?

[torchbearer]

Is this as huge as I think it is?

yeh, i think it is... I'm trying to get my hands on a hard copy of the case.

[PatriotOne]

But i notice he was very politically active at one point... I wonder if he has heard about Ron Paul?

I'd be surprised if he hadn't. Ron Paul's become one of the tax movements hero of late :)

[Craig_R]

Note- Masonic lodges in louisiana are more like rich men fraternities, not places of satanic rituals or NWO type stuff. Its a place to get away from your wife... in louisiana.

But i notice he was very politically active at one point... I wonder if he has heard about Ron Paul?

EVERYONE in the tax honesty movement has heard of Ron Paul

[PatriotOne]

yeh, i think it is... I'm trying to get my hands on a hard copy of the case.

Apparently there have been many successful cases though. Not sure if this one is going to be any different or just slide under the radar of the public.

[torchbearer]

Tom Cryer should be the front man for the Ron Paul Revolution in louisiana.
Was there an email address for him?

[PatriotOne]

EVERYONE in the tax honesty movement has heard of Ron Paul

Are you in the movement Craig? Is the movement actively promoting RP's presidency also?

[torchbearer]

Apparently there have been many successful cases though. Not sure if this one is going to be any different or just slide under the radar of the public.

I think its the timing of it... as Ron Paul's message grows, so will the public conciousness to these things...
plus, as the number of favorable cases grow, the easier it gets to win these type cases.. if not in the original court case, then through appeal... because not all facts were brought out in the original case which had direct impact on a guilty verdict.

[Blowback]

Awesome

[Spirit of '76]

...

[nullvalu]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks

[CAKochenash]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks

This is a problem I am currently facing. I have contacted my payroll department for months to try to get them to not withdraw taxes from my check...they refuse to even listen to me. I live in Indiana and we are a "fire/employment at will" state. I have to be careful or I can see myself packing my desk.

unfortunately people like us must file or we lose a shitload of dough$$

[PatriotOne]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks


You need to go research the subject carefully null before you take any action on it. Maybe someone can provide you with a good link to a website where you can do that. I'm far from an expert on it but I do know there are lot's of risks being a tax protestor whether the actual laws are on the books or not.

[PatriotOne]

This is a problem I am currently facing. I have contacted my payroll department for months to try to get them to not withdraw taxes from my check...they refuse to even listen to me. I live in Indiana and we are a "fire/employment at will" state. I have to be careful or I can see myself packing my desk.

unfortunately people like us must file or we lose a shitload of dough$$

I somewhat remember I had an option at my employment as to have them withhold taxes or not. Perhaps the laws are different from state to state?

[LibertyEagle]

Is this "Ron Paul news"?

[Wyurm]

You need to go research the subject carefully null before you take any action on it. Maybe someone can provide you with a good link to a website where you can do that. I'm far from an expert on it but I do know there are lot's of risks being a tax protestor whether the actual laws are on the books or not.

I've seen examples of cases where judges have allowed the jury to understand the real laws, and cases where they have not. Its a gamble, and I assure you that if too many people win this kind of case, the IRS will be forced to make an example out of tax protestors, or else stop requiring anyone to pay taxes. I strongly doubt they will do the latter. So, its highly important to understand the risks prior to protesting. Once you understand the risks and if you are still willing to take them, I wish you the absolute best of luck.

[PatriotOne]

I've seen examples of cases where judges have allowed the jury to understand the real laws, and cases where they have not. Its a gamble, and I assure you that if too many people win this kind of case, the IRS will be forced to make an example out of tax protestors, or else stop requiring anyone to pay taxes. I strongly doubt they will do the latter. So, its highly important to understand the risks prior to protesting. Once you understand the risks and if you are still willing to take them, I wish you the absolute best of luck.

No doubt why the Tax Movement is behind Ron Paul also (at least from what little I have seen). It may be the last chance for quite some time to make some major progress on this issue. He has sooooo many people depending on him. I sppose that's a good thing though as they are also voters :)

[Downitburns]

I am 20 years old, live in Carmel, IN, and have not paid taxes since I was 18. I have exchanged numerous letters with the IRS about paying taxes. I keep on sending them a letter saying show me the law and I will gladly oblige to pay my taxes. I have not gotten a letter as of yet that shows me the law.

I have put ALL of the money that I should be paying into taxes into a low risk interest bearing fund JUST IN CASE I go to court and they will not let me educate the jury (which has been the case the MAJORITY of the time). I am a fan of standing up for what you believe in though. Let me know if you guys have any other questions

[nullvalu]

I am 20 years old, live in Carmel, IN, and have not paid taxes since I was 18. I have exchanged numerous letters with the IRS about paying taxes. I keep on sending them a letter saying show me the law and I will gladly oblige to pay my taxes. I have not gotten a letter as of yet that shows me the law.

I have put ALL of the money that I should be paying into taxes into a low risk interest bearing fund JUST IN CASE I go to court and they will not let me educate the jury (which has been the case the MAJORITY of the time). I am a fan of standing up for what you believe in though. Let me know if you guys have any other questions

I live in Indiana as well. Have any sites Indiana Nontaxpayers?

[dseisner]

This is not the first time people! Thousands of people have won in tax court for willful non filing. Go to www.freedomlawschool.com to learn more.

[Craig_R]

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

www.losthorizons.com

These two sites are huge and have massive amounts of info on them, search around and you will find many many people either do not pay "income" taxes, or get every penny back by filing a correct information return (1040)

The laws are written to be purposefully confusing and they use common words, but within the legal language have totally different legal meanings.

on www.losthorizons.com you will find scans of actual returns hundreds of people have gotten back all by knowing the legal meanings of the words used in the tax laws.

"Income" ,"wages","salaries" ,"employer", and "employee" all have a very specific legal meaning. the supreme court has ruled on the legal meaning of these terms many times.

quite a few people have either had cases dropped after standing thier ground and proving the knew the law or were aquitted.

I recommend you do your homework before filing a return or stopping withholding.

although, the latter would be better, if you never sign a W-4 and claim that you make an "income" legally defined as profit from excersizing federal privalige, then they (IRS) have no case.

[CAKochenash]

I live in NW Indiana...whoop whoop

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Do not try this at home, kids. Without a specially trained tax attorney, some non-taxpayers have encoutered jail, prison, disfigurement, loss of home, loss of life, loss of wife, loss of limb, and sometimes loss of an entire tree.

[beermotor]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??


This is definitely going to be appealed.

The jury may have agreed with him, but that doesn't mean the appeals court or the supreme court will...

[shrugged0106]

This is definitely going to be appealed.

The jury may have agreed with him, but that doesn't mean the appeals court or the supreme court will...



I'd be surprised if the SC hears an appeal on this. too many questions arise everytime these things get pub.

[BravoSix]

This is definitely going to be appealed.

The jury may have agreed with him, but that doesn't mean the appeals court or the supreme court will...

This was a criminal case and he was acquited, correct? Wouldn't trying him again would be double jeopardy?

[torchbearer]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks

Claim 25 dependents.

[j650]

This was a criminal case and he was acquited, correct? Wouldn't trying him again would be double jeopardy?

Yes, I believe you're right that he cannot be tried again for the same criminal charges. However, I think the IRS can come back with a civil suit to attempt to collect the unpaid taxes. There was a similar case to this back in 2003, U.S. v. Kuglin which came to the same conclusion.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/News/IRSvKuglin-030808.htm

I can't find out if Kuglin ended up paying anything, but I assume she did or everyone would be doing this wouldn't they?

EDIT: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial/StoryDaily.aspx?story=digest&date=4%2F30%2F2007
Yep, Kuglin gave up the fight and agreed to pay more than $500,000 on 6 years income. The same will probably happen in this Lousiana case.

[nullvalu]

I live in NW Indiana...whoop whoop

cool, same here.. crown point.. you on the NW Indiana meetup? http://ronpaul.meetup.com/449

[DisabledVet]

Claim 25 dependents.


Unfortunately doing that will cause you to perjur yourself. Remember you cant file taxes without waiving your fifth amendment rights...its the verbiage under where you sign that says "under penalty of pergury"

[Bradley in DC]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks

You can thank Milton Friedman for income tax withholding.

[rp4prez]

This is an awesome case!

http://www.triallogs.com/index.php/content/view/195/9/

[Thom1776]

There's No Law Requiring Me To!!

[Greystar]

This is a problem I am currently facing. I have contacted my payroll department for months to try to get them to not withdraw taxes from my check...they refuse to even listen to me. I live in Indiana and we are a "fire/employment at will" state. I have to be careful or I can see myself packing my desk.

unfortunately people like us must file or we lose a shitload of dough$$

Your employer should have a form you can fill out where you claim exemption from income tax. It's 100% legal in every way, but the IRS _will_ come knocking.

[dseisner]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

Yes. This is not the first, nor the thousanth. People win in tax court ALL THE TIME. Go to livefreenow.org to learn more - I do not benefit (monetarily) from you going there.

[nathanielyao]

bump

[SeekLiberty]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

You've been paying federal income taxes on your private labor? :eek:

- SL :D

[SeekLiberty]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks

First you need to determine if you're a taxpayer or a nontaxpayer.

If you're a nontaxpayer, then Dave Champion can help you in your communication to your employer in a very diplomatic way for them to stop withholding. Employers have been scamed by our criminal Government into doing this.

So for real help, go to ...

http://www.nontaxpayer.org/

"If you are a nontaxpayer, or believe that under the law you should be a nontaxpayer, let Dave Champion assist you in structuring your private financial affairs to avoid being wrongfully ensnared into the "taxpayer" status by employers, banks, real estate firms, etc."

HTH,

- SL

[american.swan]

Is this as huge as I think it is?

No. Because this has happened time and time again for a few luck people who have been able to enter the required data into court. Like others are saying the IRS usually "bribes" the judge or some such thing and won't allow any Supreme Court anything into the court room. One case I think is talked about on the America, Freedom to Facism documentary shows one dude where the judge told the guy to shut up and basically said the Supreme Court is irrelevant in his court room during that trial and if I remember right he spent 11 years in jail.

What I do suggest the public do is read up on Contract law. From what I have read online, contract law is the only law so, your signature is more powerful then the public thinks.

When the IRS sends you that "pay up now" or "your behind" or "you owe more money then you know you've made" letters, check for a signature. There won't be one as far as I know. So just ignore it. You might even get another one, from a different department/return address, with no signature. They have no signature, because they have no authority. No one to answer to.

The federal government was sending me money, cause my father was on social security. anyway, they called me and asked for the last check that was mailed by mistake. Being a smart-a@@ 18 year old, I said sure, just show me the canceled check first. HAHAHA never heard from them again.

[SeekLiberty]

If you want, sure. The IRS will try to ruin your life, though.

That's TRUE ... if one doesn't know how to stay untangled from them, and falls into their web out of fear which is what usually happens.

If every private State Citizen understood and started following the LAW, our government would be cut way, WAY down in size virtually overnight.

Most Americans, out of fear, keep feeding the beast that shackles their Freedom!

The archelles heel in our criminal Government is MONEY. The big dragons to slay are the FEAR in Americans, and the FEDERAL RESERVE.

How big can Government be without individual income tax and "inflation tax"?

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

No. Because this has happened time and time again for a few luck people who have been able to enter the required data into court. Like others are saying the IRS usually "bribes" the judge or some such thing and won't allow any Supreme Court anything into the court room. One case I think is talked about on the America, Freedom to Facism documentary shows one dude where the judge told the guy to shut up and basically said the Supreme Court is irrelevant in his court room during that trial and if I remember right he spent 11 years in jail.

What I do suggest the public do is read up on Contract law. From what I have read online, contract law is the only law so, your signature is more powerful then the public thinks.

When the IRS sends you that "pay up now" or "your behind" or "you owe more money then you know you've made" letters, check for a signature. There won't be one as far as I know. So just ignore it. You might even get another one, from a different department/return address, with no signature. They have no signature, because they have no authority. No one to answer to.

The federal government was sending me money, cause my father was on social security. anyway, they called me and asked for the last check that was mailed by mistake. Being a smart-a@@ 18 year old, I said sure, just show me the canceled check first. HAHAHA never heard from them again.

The IRS will start with sending a letter asking for an address update. Most Americans, who think the IRS has jurisdiction over them to order this, like good little androids, will fill out the form in the letter out of OMG fear, and sign it. :eek:

IRS says: "GOTCHA!" :p

There starts the entanglement. :(

- SL

[american.swan]

The IRS will start with sending a letter asking for an address update. Most Americans, who think the IRS has jurisdiction over them to order this, like good little androids, will fill out the form in the letter out of OMG fear, and sign it. :eek:

IRS says: "GOTCHA!" :p

There starts the entanglement. :(

- SL

Very helpful info. I live abroad where the first 80k isn't taxable. And the USA is the ONLY nation requiring people to pay taxes while abroad. Forget it. They aren't going to get me to "confirm my address"

[Edu]

Bump - for Apr 15th protest info

[american.swan]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

Collect the volumes of cases similar to this one and keep them in a fire proof file cabinet and then stop volunteerily sending money to the IRS.

:)

[Highland]

Ok, so just curious.. My taxes are taken out automatically from my paychecks.. How would I go about not having my taxes taken out and just not filing? thanks

claim 2:)

[AJ Antimony]

No. Because this has happened time and time again for a few luck people who have been able to enter the required data into court. Like others are saying the IRS usually "bribes" the judge or some such thing and won't allow any Supreme Court anything into the court room. One case I think is talked about on the America, Freedom to Facism documentary shows one dude where the judge told the guy to shut up and basically said the Supreme Court is irrelevant in his court room during that trial and if I remember right he spent 11 years in jail.

What I do suggest the public do is read up on Contract law. From what I have read online, contract law is the only law so, your signature is more powerful then the public thinks.

When the IRS sends you that "pay up now" or "your behind" or "you owe more money then you know you've made" letters, check for a signature. There won't be one as far as I know. So just ignore it. You might even get another one, from a different department/return address, with no signature. They have no signature, because they have no authority. No one to answer to.

The federal government was sending me money, cause my father was on social security. anyway, they called me and asked for the last check that was mailed by mistake. Being a smart-a@@ 18 year old, I said sure, just show me the canceled check first. HAHAHA never heard from them again.

I'm disappointed to see only one person mention "Freedom to Fascism."

I really expected every poster to say something like "Hey, is that the same case mentioned in Freedom to Fascism?"

[Mr. White]

here is the original ruling denying the original 4 motions to dismiss.


COUNSEL: [*1] For Tommy K Cryer, Defendant: George E Harp , LEAD ATTORNEY, Shreveport, LA.

For USA, Plaintiff: Earl M Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, U S Attorneys Office, Shreveport, LA.

JUDGES: S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. MAGISTRATE HORNSBY.

OPINION BY: S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On October 25, 2006, the Grand Jury indicted the defendant for tax evasion violations under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Before the Court are four motions to dismiss that indictment. For the reasons which follow, the motions to dismiss are denied.

I. First Motion to Dismiss

In his first motion to dismiss, the defendant contends that the indictment fails to allege affirmative acts of tax. HN1To obtain a conviction under Section 7201, the Government must prove willfulness, a substantial tax deficiency, and an affirmative act constituting an attempted evasion of the tax. Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L. Ed. 418, 1943 C.B. 1038 (1943). HN2Section 7201 contemplates an attempt "in any manner" and, as the Supreme Court has stated, a willful attempt may be inferred from any conduct having the likely effect of misleading or concealing. Spies, 317 U.S. at 499, 63 S.Ct. at 368. [*2]

The indictment charges the defendant with creating a trust, listing himself as the trustee, then failing to file a tax return on behalf of the trust to report the payment of dividends, interest and stock income to the trust, thereby concealing the receipt of certain sources of income from the Internal Revenue Service. [Doc. No. 1]. The Court finds that a willful attempt may be inferred from the charged conduct. Accordingly, the indictment charges the defendant with affirmative acts of tax evasion pursuant to Spies v. United States. The motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED.

II. Second Motion to Dismiss

In his second motion, the defendant claims that the indictment should be dismissed because the Secretary of the Treasury failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not publishing certain information in the Federal Register. This claim is without merit. See United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990) (upholding defendants' conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201). The second motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 20] is DENIED.

III. Third Motion to Dismiss

In his third motion [*3] to dismiss, the defendant claims that he did not create the Trust referenced in the indictment to evade his tax obligation and that the Trust did not yield any taxable income. These are disputed fact issues which are inappropriate for resolution in pretrial motions. The third motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED.

IV. Fourth Motion to Dismiss

Defendant's fourth motion to dismiss contends that his income, which was derived through the practice of law in Louisiana, is not "taxable income" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. Defendant's contention is without merit. See Comm'r v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 75 S. Ct. 473, 99 L. Ed. 483, 1955-1 C.B. 207 (1955); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981). See also Sochia v. Federal-Republic's Cent. Government, Slip Copy, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85939, 2006 WL 3372509 (W.D.Tex. 2006) and authorities cited therein. The fourth motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 25] is DENIED.

Based on the foregoing:

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment [Doc. Nos. 9, 20, 21 & 25] are hereby DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana this 19th day of March, 2007.

S. MAURICE [*4] HICKS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[Mr. White]

Here's the Dist. cts ruling to dismiss the 3d and 4th charges, figured some of you might appreciate having a look-see.

COUNSEL: [*1] For Tommy K Cryer (1), Defendant: George E Harp , LEAD ATTORNEY, Shreveport, LA.

For USA, Plaintiff: Earl M Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, U S Attorneys Office (Shreveport), Shreveport, LA.

JUDGES: S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY.

OPINION BY: S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss for duplicity [Doc. No. 48]. The motion contends that Counts 3 and 4 of the superceding indictment (pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7203) are lesser included charges of Counts 1 and 2 of the superceding indictment (pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7201). Accordingly, defendant seeks to have Counts 3 and 4 dismissed. For the reasons which follow, the motion is GRANTED.

A. Earlier Fifth Circuit Jurisprudence - Applying the "Inherent Relationship" Approach

In the 1970s, the Fifth Circuit held that a violation of Section 7203 (misdemeanor failure to file a tax return) was a lesser included charge of Section 7201 (felony tax evasion) and that a defendant therefore could not be sentenced under both statutes. See United States v. Buckley, 586 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1978); [*2] United States v. Newman, 468 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1972). Although the government conceded this point in both cases, the Fifth Circuit found that since Congress did not intend for the defendant to be punished under both statutes, the misdemeanor was a "lesser included" charge of the felony. Buckley, 586 F.2d at 504; Newman, 468 F.2d at 796.

While neither of these opinions discussed the standard by which the court analyzed whether a charge was a "lesser included" one, the reference to Congressional intent clearly suggests that the court was applying the "inherent relationship" approach. This approach considers one offense to be included in another when the facts as alleged and proved support the inference that the defendant committed the less serious crime, and when an "inherent relationship" exists between the two offenses such that both relate to the protection of the same interests and the proof of the greater offense can generally be expected to require proof of the lesser one. See Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1989).

B. The Supreme Court Rejects the "Inherent Relationship" [*3] Approach in Favor of the "Statutory Elements" Approach.

In Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1989), HN1the Supreme Court expressly rejected the lenient "inherent relationship" approach in favor of the strict "statutory elements" test, which involves an objective, textual comparison of criminal statutes and does not depend on inferences that may be drawn on evidence introduced at trial. Id. at 706, 109 S.Ct. at 1445. The Schmuck Court found support for the "statutory elements" test in the language of Rule 31(c), which provides: "A defendant may be found guilty of any of the following: (1) an offense necessarily included in the offense charged; (2) an attempt to commit the offense charged; or (3) an attempt to commit an offense necessarily included in the offense charged, if the attempt is an offense in its own right." (Emphasis added). HN2The Schmuck court stated:
The Rule speaks in terms of an offense that is "necessarily included in the offense charged."

This language suggests that the comparison to be drawn is between offenses. Since offenses are statutorily defined, that comparison is appropriately [*4] conducted by reference to the statutory elements of the offenses in question, and not, as the inherent relationship approach would mandate, by reference to conduct proved at trial regardless of the statutory definitions. Furthermore, the language of Rule 31(c) speaks of the necessary inclusion of the lesser offense in the greater. While the elements test is true to this requirement, the inherent relationship approach dispenses with the required relationship of necessary inclusion: the inherent relationship approach permits a lesser included offense instruction even if the proof of one offense does not invariably require proof of the other as long as the two offenses serve the same legislative goals.
Id. at 717, 109 S.Ct. at 1451.

The Fifth Circuit later recognized that pursuant to Schmuck, the "elements approach" is the proper analysis. See United States v. Browner, 937 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1991). As HN3the Fifth Circuit explained:
Under this test, an offense is not lesser included unless each statutory element of the lesser offense is also present in the greater offense. For this purpose, the comparison of the statutory elements [*5] between the lesser and greater offenses parallels the statutory elements analysis conducted under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) for double jeopardy purposes.
Id. at 167-168 (emphasis added). In turn, HN4Blockburger provides:
The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342, 31 S. Ct. 421, 55 L. Ed. 489, and authorities cited. In that case this court quoted from and adopted the language of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433: 'A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.'
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932) [*6] (emphasis added).

Accordingly, in order to determine whether Section 7203 is a lesser included charge of Section 7201, this court must apply the "statutory elements" approach adopted in Schmuck as explained by the Fifth Circuit in Browner.

C. Applying the "Statutory Elements" Approach to Sections 7201 and 7203.

The offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 HN5(felony tax evasion) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7201 have three elements: (1) willfulness; (2) the existence of a tax deficiency; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax. Sansone, 380 U.S. at 351, 85 S.Ct. at 1010; United States v. Chesson, 933 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981, 112 S. Ct. 583, 116 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1991). HN6The elements of the misdemeanors charged in Counts 3 and 4 (failing to make a return) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7203 are (1) willfulness and (2) failure to make a return when due. United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir.1987).

A defendant can certainly be found guilty of violating Section 7203 but not Section 7201 if the [*7] government fails to prove an affirmative act of evasion. However, the government argues that a defendant can also be found guilty of violating Section 7201 without violating Section 7203, for example, by filing a fraudulent return or filing a return without remitting payment. [Doc. No. 55 at 4 (citing United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 391 (7th Cir. 1992).] However, filing a fraudulent return or a return without payment would still violate Section 7203, since the statute also requires the payment of a tax "at the time . . . required by law." Further, while this court is mindful that the Seventh, Sixth and Ninth Circuits have found that Section 7203 is not a lesser included charge of 7201, this court is bound to follow the Fifth Circuit's application of the "statutory elements" test adopted in Schmuck.

As the Fifth Circuit stated in United States v. Doyle, 956 F.2d 73, 74-75 (5th Cir. 1992):
HN7A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction when the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense and the evidence would permit the jury to rationally conclude that the defendant [*8] was guilty of the lesser offense but not guilty of the charged offense. United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 550-51 (5th Cir.1989). There must be a disputed issue of fact as to an essential element of the charged offense which is not material to the lesser-included offense. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 350-53, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 1009-11, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965).
Id. at 74-75. HN8Comparing the elements of Section 7203 with the elements of Section 7201, the Fifth Circuit stated that it was "undisputed that § 7203 [the misdemeanor] defines a lesser included offense of § 7201 [the felony]." Id. at 74-75 (5th Cir. 1992)(citing DeTar, 832 F.2d at 1113).

HN9According to the Fifth Circuit:
The critical difference between the two crimes is that the charged felony offense requires an affirmative act constituting the evasion. That is, felony tax evasion requires willful commission, whereas the misdemeanor merely requires willful omission. Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 498-99, 63 S.Ct. 364, 367-68, 87 L.Ed. 418, 1943 C.B. 1038 (1943). "Where there is, in a § 7201 [felony] prosecution, a disputed [*9] issue of fact as to the existence of the requisite affirmative commission in addition to the § 7203 omission, a defendant would, of course, be entitled to a lesser-included offense charge based on § 7203." Sansone, 380 U.S. at 351, 85 S.Ct. at 1010. Although the willful failure to file a tax return is sufficient to sustain a misdemeanor conviction, it is insufficient to sustain the felony conviction absent some other willful, affirmative act of commission constituting an attempt to evade the payment of tax. United States v. Masat, 896 F.2d 88, 98 (5th Cir.1990).
Id. at 75. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit, applying the Schmuck "statutory elements" test as stated in United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 550-51 (5th Cir. 1989), found that Section 7203 was a lesser included charge of Section 7201. 1


FOOTNOTES

1 While the government is correct that the Fifth Circuit did not cite Schmuck in the Doyle opinion, the court did cite Browner which expressly recognized the "statutory elements" test adopted in Schmuck.



[*10] Accordingly, under the relevant Fifth Circuit jurisprudence, Counts 3 and 4 (failure to file) are dismissed for multiplicity. However, as requested by the government, the jury will be charged with the elements of a violation of Section 7203 as a lesser included charge of Section 7201 (tax evasion).

Therefore:

IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 of the superceding indictment [Doc. No. 48] is hereby GRANTED and those Counts are hereby DISMISSED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana this 20th day of June, 2007.

[LEK]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

How do you stop them from taking federal and state income tax out of your pay?

I have a friend who didn't file and they garnished her pay - it was a mess for her until she filed bankruptcy to get out from under the IRS's grip.

[syborius]

this is huge, and the elite will like nothing more to kill the dollar now, after milking all they could from it. It is high tide for them to move onto the Amero. Now we need to save the dollar.

[Mr. White]

this is huge, and the elite will like nothing more to kill the dollar now, after milking all they could from it. It is high tide for them to move onto the Amero. Now we need to save the dollar.

This is not huge, this is simply two misdemeanor charges going to a jury, and the jury finding that the individual lacked the required culpability to convict him. Legal precedent isn't set by jury decisions, it's set by judicial decision. In this case, the judicial decisions pertained to the duplicity of the criminal statutes. Essentially the judge determined that counts 3 and 4 were pretty much duplicates of counts 1 and 2 and therefore dismissed them. That only left the misdemeanor counts 1 and 2, and those are the ones the jury decided not to convict on.

The only thing this affects (and it's a Federal district court ruling so hardly controlling in the broad sense) is the ability of a federal prosecutor to bring the original 4 charges against someone together. Even then, if the pros. is feeling ballsy he may do so anyway.

[Phantom]

There are some great videos about income tax on google video (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=FEDERAL+INCOME+TAX&sitesearch=).

Ones I recommend are as follow:

Tom Cryer, the Shreveport Lawyer who has taken on the IRS, who explains why most Americans are not liable for the income tax.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX (http://www.youtube.com/v/6KjBy_qp4Zc) Part 1

FEDERAL INCOME TAX (http://www.youtube.com/v/tKCEkcfeNTQ) Part 2

FEDERAL INCOME TAX (http://www.youtube.com/v/30RQ2FHsCYg) Part 3

FEDERAL INCOME TAX (http://www.youtube.com/v/W0FV0T_9ReQ) Part 4

An historical documentary explains how international bankers gained control of America.

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-515319560256183936)

The misrepresentation and misapplication of the United States federal income tax constitutes the largest acquisition of wealth by way of deception in history.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7521758492370018023)

Joe Banister, former gun-carrying, IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Special Agent exposes how the IRS is robbing you! He quits his $80,000/yr. Job because the IRS failed to show him that filing & paying Income Tax is mandatory. He will tell his story and his latest efforts for restoring honesty in government.

IRS Agent Exposes IRS Fraud!! (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2930250138065184536)

By Sherry Peel Jackson, Certified Fraud Examiner and Ex-IRS agent. She Challenges all citizens to demand answers from congress about the legality of Federal Income taxes and the Federal Reserve. This is a 2 hour lecture about some of the inner secrets of the IRS, and the fundamental lack of juridical framework that supports it.

Sherry Peel Jackson - Breaking The Invisible Shackles Of The IRS (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1658315558785013776)

Determined to find the law that requires American citizens to pay income tax, producer Aaron Russo ("The Rose," "Trading Places") set out on a journey to find the evidence.

America Freedom to Fascism (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5355374476580235299)

Barely seen video. Originally aired during the time of the raid on Irwin Schiff's Freedom Books, and just before the trial started. It was shown on a cable station hosted by Rolando, of the Las Vegas Tribune, but never before on the internet. Feel free to download it and make cds. Cindy wanted her message to get out there so lets help her do it. She's sacrificed everything by standing on the truth. This video might contain too much truth for those that make unlawful determinations regarding the peoples unalienable rights.

IRS Show Me The Law -Cindy Neun on Face the Tribune From Las Vegas (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1862980777415834396) (Rare Video)

There are quite a few other films online that may interest you. Click the google video link at the top of this thread and do your own search.

Enjoy!

[GoPaul08]

WRONG...He STILL has to pay. He just isn't going to jail for it. But he has to pay...WITH penalties and interest.

Either you guys are ignorant of this case or you are bluffing hoping that others are ignorant of the case, but this does NOT mean that he gets to keep all the taxes that he was supposed to pay, nor does it set ANY precedent. He was found not guilty, like so many others (including Wesley Snipes) because in tax cases, the prosecution has a higher burden of proof to show that the defendant willingly withheld taxes even though he/she KNEW it was wrong.

The income tax law is on the books. It exists. It WAS ratified. No court is going to rule against it. And if by some miracle Ron Paul was elected president, it would STILL exist. The President does not have the power to get rid of it. Nor would he have the support of the rest of hte government, or even of the public.

[ionlyknowy]

Hehe, you guys are funny.

The charges against this guy were criminal charges. You have a right to a jury in a criminal proceeding, and when you are acquitted from the charges by jury, then you cannot be tried again. It's called double jeopardy.

The whole deal is that the criminal law says that you must "Willfully not file a return"

And tax protesters get off on criminal charges sometimes because they are able to prove that they relied on the information provided by the tax movement therefore their not filing an income tax return was not "Willful" which under the Model Penal Code equates to "Knowledge" of the conduct, attendant circumstances, and result.

BUT, like W. Snipes, this guy was acquitted of criminal charges but still owes the money to the IRS. You think that you might be able to hide your money in a trust or a tenancy by the entirety. But you would be wrong.. The IRS can access your money where other creditors cannot.

A jury acquittal in a criminal proceeding, is never precedent because it can never be appealed. Only appellate or Supreme Court decisions are precedent.



Another poster mentioned Contract law. Many people think that you must sign a piece of paper to make a contract. But in reality, the only things that you HAVE to have a written contract for are the situations mapped out in the "Statute of Frauds". You can enforce an oral contract in court if it is not included in the statute of frauds.

Which includes:
* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
* Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
* Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
* Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
* Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
* Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.


It's really funny how everyone tries to be a lawyer, but when confronted with information from people in law school such as myself and "Mr. White" we are mostly dismissed.
We study this stuff every day. We know what we are talking about. Believe me, we know, we eat,sleep,breathe, touch, smell, and piss it...

[Mr. White]

Hehe, you guys are funny.

The charges against this guy were criminal charges. You have a right to a jury in a criminal proceeding, and when you are acquitted from the charges by jury, then you cannot be tried again. It's called double jeopardy.

The whole deal is that the criminal law says that you must "Willfully not file a return"

And tax protesters get off on criminal charges sometimes because they are able to prove that they relied on the information provided by the tax movement therefore their not filing an income tax return was not "Willful" which under the Model Penal Code equates to "Knowledge" of the conduct, attendant circumstances, and result.

BUT, like W. Snipes, this guy was acquitted of criminal charges but still owes the money to the IRS. You think that you might be able to hide your money in a trust or a tenancy by the entirety. But you would be wrong.. The IRS can access your money where other creditors cannot.

A jury acquittal in a criminal proceeding, is never precedent because it can never be appealed. Only appellate or Supreme Court decisions are precedent.



Another poster mentioned Contract law. Many people think that you must sign a piece of paper to make a contract. But in reality, the only things that you HAVE to have a written contract for are the situations mapped out in the "Statute of Frauds". You can enforce an oral contract in court if it is not included in the statute of frauds.

Which includes:
* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
* Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
* Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
* Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
* Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
* Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.


It's really funny how everyone tries to be a lawyer, but when confronted with information from lawyers such as myself and "Mr. White" we are mostly dismissed.
We study this stuff every day. We know what we are talking about. Believe me, we know, we eat,sleep,breathe, touch, smell, and piss it...

And it burns like hell when you piss it, I won't claim to be a lawyer though.

[ionlyknowy]

And it burns like hell when you piss it, I won't claim to be a lawyer though.

Well not lawyers, but in law school.

[FrankRep]

Great victory for the American people.

[Mr. White]

Well not lawyers, but in law school.

underpaid researchers I think is the technical term at this point. ;)

[ionlyknowy]

Bump - for Apr 15th protest info

Just noticed that this is a really really old thread that was bumped....


Everyone should seek out opposition opinions. If you do not do this, then you will be no different than the Bush administration "Group think" policies.

[scandinaviany3]

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf

wouldnt it be fun as a movement to sue the irs for fraud and get major visibility!

[AFM]

Awesome Yea
Freedom

[ionlyknowy]

Let me just go ahead and post the law so that this gets moved to the smokey back room...


The law that requires you to pay income tax.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
Prev | Next
§ 1. Tax imposed
How Current is This?
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $76,400 $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $127,500 $17,544, plus 31% of the excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not over $250,000 $33,385, plus 36% of the excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000 $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not over $44,575 $2,767.50, plus 28% of the excess over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not over $70,000 $10,082.50, plus 31% of the excess over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not over $125,000 $17,964.25, plus 36% of the excess over $70,000.
Over $125,000 $37,764.25, plus 39.6% of the excess over $125,000.

[amonasro]

^^^I thought the debate is about what "taxable income" actually is.

[torchbearer]

^^^I thought the debate is about what "taxable income" actually is.

that's what i stated earlier.
I barter my precious time/labor for money. That is not income. that is an even exchange.
I make money on the stock market, or interest on my account that is income.

[GoPaul08]

Seriously...this thread needs to either be deleted, of the subject line changed. It is 100% false. the court did NOT find that he is not required to file returns or pay income tax. That is blatantly a lie. The court found him not guilty of CRIMINAL charges. The man is NOt free and clear of his financial burdens now.


Continuing to have this thread so prominent makes the site, and everyone who posted in ignorance about how this is a victory look bad.

[4Horsemen]

Yes, the legal terms. Income isn't considered wages. That was ruling by the Supreme Court.

[ionlyknowy]

Yes, the legal terms. Income isn't considered wages. That was ruling by the Supreme Court.

it's funny that everyone that makes this argument can never provide me with the citation to that particular Supreme Court case where they decided this....

I suspect you cannot either. You are probably just repeating info you have heard from either a movie or another person.

[ionlyknowy]

Hehe, you guys are funny.

The charges against this guy were criminal charges. You have a right to a jury in a criminal proceeding, and when you are acquitted from the charges by jury, then you cannot be tried again. It's called double jeopardy.

The whole deal is that the criminal law says that you must "Willfully not file a return"

And tax protesters get off on criminal charges sometimes because they are able to prove that they relied on the information provided by the tax movement therefore their not filing an income tax return was not "Willful" which under the Model Penal Code equates to "Knowledge" of the conduct, attendant circumstances, and result.

BUT, like W. Snipes, this guy was acquitted of criminal charges but still owes the money to the IRS. You think that you might be able to hide your money in a trust or a tenancy by the entirety. But you would be wrong.. The IRS can access your money where other creditors cannot.

A jury acquittal in a criminal proceeding, is never precedent because it can never be appealed. Only appellate or Supreme Court decisions are precedent.



Another poster mentioned Contract law. Many people think that you must sign a piece of paper to make a contract. But in reality, the only things that you HAVE to have a written contract for are the situations mapped out in the "Statute of Frauds". You can enforce an oral contract in court if it is not included in the statute of frauds.

Which includes:
* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
* Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
* Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
* Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
* Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
* Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.


It's really funny how everyone tries to be a lawyer, but when confronted with information from people in law school such as myself and "Mr. White" we are mostly dismissed.
We study this stuff every day. We know what we are talking about. Believe me, we know, we eat,sleep,breathe, touch, smell, and piss it...

[Edu]

Let me just go ahead and post the law so that this gets moved to the smokey back room...


The law that requires you to pay income tax.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
ionlyknowy, Mr. White, and GoPaul08, sheesh. Are you the same person?

That's not a law. Are you going to really study all this or not? I mean the above just shows how little you understand about how laws are created in this Constitutional Republic. (not my job to teach you either)

[ionlyknowy]

ionlyknowy, Mr. White, and GoPaul08, sheesh. Are you the same person?

That's not a law. Are you going to really study all this or not? I mean the above just shows how little you understand about how laws are created in this Constitutional Republic. (not my job to teach you either)

Well, because society is governed by such laws, I would say that the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

[ionlyknowy]

ionlyknowy, Mr. White, and GoPaul08, sheesh. Are you the same person?

That's not a law. Are you going to really study all this or not? I mean the above just shows how little you understand about how laws are created in this Constitutional Republic. (not my job to teach you either)

Here is a list of all of the USC (United States Code)

Title 1 General Provisions
Title 2 The Congress
Title 3 The President
Title 4 Flag and Seal, Seat Of Government, and the States
Title 5 Government Organization and Employees*
Title 6
(original) Surety Bonds (repealed)
(Enacted into positive law by the 80th Congress in 1947; combined into Title 31 when it was enacted into positive law.)
Title 6 Domestic Security
Title 7 Agriculture
Title 8 Aliens and Nationality
Title 9 Arbitration
Title 10 Armed Forces (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Title 11 Bankruptcy
Title 12 Banks and Banking
Title 13 Census
Title 14 Coast Guard
Title 15 Commerce and Trade
Title 16 Conservation
Title 17 Copyrights
Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure*
Title 19 Customs Duties
Title 20 Education
Title 21 Food and Drugs
Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse
Title 23 Highways
Title 24 Hospitals and Asylums
Title 25 Indians
Title 26 Internal Revenue Code
Title 27 Intoxicating Liquors
Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Title 29 Labor
Title 30 Mineral Lands and Mining
Title 31 Money and Finance
Title 32 National Guard
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters
Title 34 Navy (repealed)
Title 35 Patents
Title 36 Patriotic Societies and Observances
Title 37 Pay and Allowances Of the Uniformed Services
Title 38 Veterans' Benefits
Title 39 Postal Service
Title 40 Public Buildings, Properties, and Works
Title 41 Public Contracts
Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare
Title 43 Public Lands
Title 44 Public Printing and Documents
Title 45 Railroads
Title 46 Shipping*
Title 47 Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs
Title 48 Territories and Insular Possessions
Title 49 Transportation
(enacted into positive law in stages; Title IV in 1978, Title I in 1983, and Titles II, III, and V-X in 1994)
Title 50 War and National Defense


So are you saying that NONE of the above laws are actually enforceable?

[ionlyknowy]

The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.

[Mr. White]

that's what i stated earlier.
I barter my precious time/labor for money. That is not income. that is an even exchange.
I make money on the stock market, or interest on my account that is income.

The Supreme Court has stated that the income tax applies to all “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)). (The requirement that accessions to wealth be “realized” means that increases in the value of assets are not taxed to the owner as capital gains until the asset is sold.)

So, if I sell my own labor for $100, I must calculate the gain based on the difference between what I paid for my own labor (not what it is worth) and what I receive for it. Because I paid nothing for my own labor, everything I receive is income.

Looking at it another way, if I start the week with no money, am paid $100 for my labor, and end the week with $100, I am $100 richer than I was at the beginning of the month. That $100 gain is an “undeniable accession to wealth” (in the words of the Supreme Court), and therefore income.

I'm just cutting and pasting at this point.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[ionlyknowy]

The Supreme Court has stated that the income tax applies to all “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)). (The requirement that accessions to wealth be “realized” means that increases in the value of assets are not taxed to the owner as capital gains until the asset is sold.)

So, if I sell my own labor for $100, I must calculate the gain based on the difference between what I paid for my own labor (not what it is worth) and what I receive for it. Because I paid nothing for my own labor, everything I receive is income.

Looking at it another way, if I start the week with no money, am paid $100 for my labor, and end the week with $100, I am $100 richer than I was at the beginning of the month. That $100 gain is an “undeniable accession to wealth” (in the words of the Supreme Court), and therefore income.

I'm just cutting and pasting at this point.

LOL! :D .... Sometimes you just have to resort to copy and paste to keep up... lol.

[GoPaul08]

ionlyknowy, Mr. White, and GoPaul08, sheesh. Are you the same person?

That's not a law. Are you going to really study all this or not? I mean the above just shows how little you understand about how laws are created in this Constitutional Republic. (not my job to teach you either)


Edu..you have MANY times proven that you know nothing about the law, and therefore should NEVER speak as if you do. With every single post you make, you make yourself more and more worthless to the cause.

Agaim..I am being intentionally harsh becuase you deserve it. Ignorance by itself is not a bad thing. Ignorance and arrogance combined (which you possess) is a horrible trait. Maybne you should realize that thay ois why people ignore you.

EVERY single time the Income tax law has been challegned it has held up. and will conitnue to do so. Dumb morons saying "Well, im MY childish, ignraonce, compeltely non-expertise opinion my wages are not income" does not make that a fact.

It is getting to the point where people are going to seriously start to wonder if you are purposely TRYING to make Ron Paul supporters look stupid to discredit the cause. Because if that is the case, then you are succeeding.

[Mr. White]

Edu..you have MANY times proven that you know nothing about the law, and therefore should NEVER speak as if you do. With every single post you make, you make yourself more and more worthless to the cause.

Agaim..I am being intentionally harsh becuase you deserve it. Ignorance by itself is not a bad thing. Ignorance and arrogance combined (which you possess) is a horrible trait. Maybne you should realize that thay ois why people ignore you.

EVERY single time the Income tax law has been challegned it has held up. and will conitnue to do so. Dumb morons saying "Well, im MY childish, ignraonce, compeltely non-expertise opinion my wages are not income" does not make that a fact.

It is getting to the point where people are going to seriously start to wonder if you are purposely TRYING to make Ron Paul supporters look stupid to discredit the cause. Because if that is the case, then you are succeeding.

Pssst, lemme try with honey first.

[Mr. White]

One cannot ethically pay taxes to our federal governement unless they condone mass murder and many other evils our government has been doing.
Put me in prison, because I'm not paying them. I am not a slave on my own account and they will have to force my slavery, but not without my final stand for my freedom.
I was born free, and I will die free. Rather sad that it has come to this really.

There we go! AN ETHICAL OBJECTION! The premise makes some presumptions, but at least it doesn't disguise them as justified by LAW.

[GoPaul08]

It's really funny how everyone tries to be a lawyer, but when confronted with information from people in law school such as myself and "Mr. White" we are mostly dismissed.
We study this stuff every day. We know what we are talking about. Believe me, we know, we eat,sleep,breathe, touch, smell, and piss it...


Didn't you know? On the internet, EVERYBODY is an expert on EVERYTHING.

On forums/message boards, you can always tell the children frm the intelligent adults. The ones who go off on every single subject as if they are experts are the children. Sadly, it seems that this applies to at least half the people on this forum...and 90% of the people in this thread.

[ionlyknowy]

There we go! AN ETHICAL OBJECTION! The premise makes some presumptions, but at least it doesn't disguise them as justified by LAW.

Yeah, he's got me beat... I can't refute ethical arguments.. :o

[torchbearer]

I was stating my philosophy of income not quoting findlaw.com
I guess i should preface every post i write with.. the following is my opinion.

[GoPaul08]

Pssst, lemme try with honey first.


Honey is not working. I've given up tying to sweet talk people who are doing no good to the cause.

Again...if Edu and I both walked into a public place filled with 5000 people, none of whom had ever heard of Ron Paul other than the little bit the MSM told them, and we each had the EXACT same materials (pamphlets, slim jims, etc.) and we each said the EXACT same thing. except that I started out saying "He may not have won the nomination, but that does not mean he is/we are giving up trying to reform the party even with John McCain as the nominee." and Edu said "Wait until John McCain realizes that Ron Paul is getting more delegates than he is.." I would be more successful in spreading the word. If we only handed out matreial to people who ASKED for them, after that, Edu would leave that room with 100% of what he entered with. I would give several away. Becuase people listen to rational human beings more than they listen to raving lunatics who just spew ridiculous "facts" without providing any actual evidence, etc.

This is the same with the tax law. Income is taxable. It has ALWAYS held up in court. Always. Many many people have tried to argue against it and they always lose. Continuing to regurgitate the same crap that wacko anti-everything websites spew makes people ignore you.

It is no secret that people come to this site looking for reasons to discredit the group as a whole. And Edu makes it very easy for them to do it.

Honey just won't cut it. I'm not after flies. I want to make a nice salad dressing. So it is vinegar all the way.

[Mr. White]

I was stating my philosophy of income not quoting findlaw.com
I guess i should preface every post i write with.. the following is my opinion.

That was my fault torch, I was actually responding to your question in the other thread when you asked what taxable income was. I wound up giving you your answer over here.

On a fundamental level I agree with you, but I have to draw the line when others cite law improperly to take their beliefs over into the realm of fact.

This is the way things are, I'd love to change that.

Advancing incorrect legal analysis distracts from our attempt to alter people's beleifs and affect political change. I attack (sometimes overzealously) such distractions. I welcome philosophical debate.

[jabrownie]

The Supreme Court has stated that the income tax applies to all “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)). (The requirement that accessions to wealth be “realized” means that increases in the value of assets are not taxed to the owner as capital gains until the asset is sold.)

So, if I sell my own labor for $100, I must calculate the gain based on the difference between what I paid for my own labor (not what it is worth) and what I receive for it. Because I paid nothing for my own labor, everything I receive is income.

Looking at it another way, if I start the week with no money, am paid $100 for my labor, and end the week with $100, I am $100 richer than I was at the beginning of the month. That $100 gain is an “undeniable accession to wealth” (in the words of the Supreme Court), and therefore income.

I'm just cutting and pasting at this point.

I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.

My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.

I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.

If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.

[ionlyknowy]

I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.

My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.

I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.

If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.

Yes your argument makes sense... But courts have ruled that wages are income.

let me give you a case to consider...

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 73 (7th Cir. 1986)
Wages not income
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead -- so tax protesters think -- to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.

It is an important function of the legal system to induce compliance with rules that a minority firmly believes are misguided. Legal penalties change the balance [**3] of self-interest; those who believe taxes wicked or unauthorized must nonetheless pay. When the legal system depends on honest compliance as much as the income tax system does -- and when disobedience is potentially rewarding to those affected by the rule -- it is often necessary to impose steep penalties on those who refuse to comply. We have consolidated the cases of two such people.

[*70] Norman Coleman did not file tax returns for 1979, 1980, or 1981. The Internal Revenue Service reconstructed Coleman's income for these years and concluded that he owed taxes of $4,806 for 1979, $6,454 for 1980, and $3,692 for 1981. The IRS also concluded that Coleman owed additions to tax exceeding $2,300. Coleman sought review in the Tax Court, demanding that the IRS prove the correctness of its computations and arguing, among other things, that wages are not income. Coleman declined to offer any evidence concerning his income; he insisted that the IRS bear the whole burden of production. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the IRS, concluding that Coleman had presented no evidence that might undermine the presumption that the Commissioner's notice of deficiency is correct. Because [**4] Coleman had filed tax returns for the years before 1979 and demonstrated through the briefing an awareness of the legal obligation to file, the court imposed a penalty of $5,000 under HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.26 U.S.C. § 6673, which authorizes the Tax Court to award damages when it concludes that the case has been "maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer's position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless . . . ."

Gary Holder filed a tax return for 1980 but then filed an amended return on which he subtracted his wages from his gross income, leaving only $68.13 in taxable income. Holder attached to the amended return a screed insisting that wages are not income. The amended return requested a refund of $4,555.20. The IRS imposed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing a frivolous return. Holder paid 15% of the penalty and filed suit in the district court to recover the payment. 26 U.S.C. § 6703. There he argued not only that wages are untaxable but also that § 6702 is unconstitutional. The district court concluded that the suit is as frivolous as the tax return. It granted summary judgment [**5] to the government and ordered Holder to pay the attorneys' fees the government incurred in defending the action.

The billingsgate in appellants' briefs is customary in cases of this nature. Coleman says that wages may not be taxed because they come from his person, a depreciating asset. The personal depreciation offsets the wage, leaving no net income. Coleman thinks that only net income may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment -- net income as Coleman defines it, rather than as Congress does. Holder, who styles himself a "private citizen," insists that wages may not be taxed because the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only excise taxes, and in Holder's world excises may be imposed only on "government granted privileges." Because Holder believes that he is exercising no special privileges, he thinks he may not be taxed. These are tired arguments. HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional. See, among hundreds of other cases, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 2-3; Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); [**6] Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265, 267, 54 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 5576 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 & n.1 (7th Cir. 1984). See also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12, 24-25, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916).

Both Coleman and Holder also argue that the income tax is a taking, which abridges their right to earn income. Taxes indeed "take" income, but this is not the sense in which the constitution uses "takings." Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the constitution grants to Congress "Power To lay and collect Taxes". The power thus long predates the Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment requirement of Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3 from taxes on "incomes, from whatever source derived". Although the government might try to achieve through special taxes what the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids if done directly, the general tax levied by the Internal Revenue Code does not offend the Fifth Amendment. Brushaber, supra.

[*71] Coleman argues that the IRS had to prove the amount of his income; he needed to show nothing. The statute is otherwise. [**7] HN3Go to the description of this Headnote.People must make an honest report of their income to the government. If they fail to do this, they must establish any inaccuracies in the Commissioner's reconstruction of their income. 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b). His further argument that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial in the Tax Court is empty. Even in ordinary litigation, the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial when there are no facts in dispute, and Coleman put none in dispute. The Seventh Amendment at all events does not apply to civil litigation against the United States. McElrath v. United States, 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 426, 440, 26 L. Ed. 189 (1880); see also Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 430 U.S. 442, 450-51, 51 L. Ed. 2d 464, 97 S. Ct. 1261 (1977). Our circuit has apparently never held squarely that there is no right to a jury trial in the Tax Court, but other circuits have held this, and we agree with them. E.g., Parker v. CIR, 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984); Funk v. CIR, 687 F.2d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1982).

Both appellants challenge the penalties imposed on them, contending that "frivolous" is too vague a designation [**8] to support a penalty. This HN4Go to the description of this Headnote.is a staple term of civil litigation, however, and we have sustained against constitutional challenge 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which allows awards against counsel for "vexatious" conduct. In re TCI, Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 449 (7th Cir. 1985). Statutes need not be unambiguous in every application to be constitutional. Many words acquire meaning through judicial and administrative construction over the years, and this evolutionary process is constitutional. E.g., CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796, 93 S. Ct. 2880 (1973); cf. Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 46 L. Ed. 2d 185, 96 S. Ct. 243 (1975). Courts have been imposing penalties for frivolous litigation for hundreds of years, cf. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67, 65 L. Ed. 2d 488, 100 S. Ct. 2455 (1980), and the ambiguities that lurk in "frivolous" (or any other word) in marginal cases do not prevent the imposition of penalties. Uncertainty is a fact of legal life. The "law is full of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the jury subsequently estimates [**9] it, some matter of degree." Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 377, 57 L. Ed. 1232, 33 S. Ct. 780 (1913). "Whenever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does so, if he thinks, and if he does so it is familiar to the . . . law to make him take the risk." United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 74 L. Ed. 508, 50 S. Ct. 167 (1930). See also, e.g., United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 46 L. Ed. 2d 228, 96 S. Ct. 316 (1975).

The purpose of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6673 and 6702 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file returns and litigate. HN5Go to the description of this Headnote.A petition to the Tax Court, or a tax return, is frivolous if it is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law. This is the standard applied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for sanctions in civil litigation, and it is a standard we have used for the award of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the award of [**10] damages under Fed. R. App. P. 38. See Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1985); In re TCI, supra; Lepucki v. Van Wormer, 765 F.2d 86 (7th Cir.) (attorneys' fees awarded), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 827, 106 S. Ct. 86, 88 L. Ed. 2d 71, damages awarded, 474 U.S. 992, 106 S. Ct. 403, 88 L. Ed. 2d 355 (1985); Steinle v. Warren, 765 F.2d 95, 102 (7th Cir. 1985) ($2,500 damages awarded); Oglesby v. RCA Corp., 752 F.2d 272, 279-80 (7th Cir. 1985). The inquiry is objective. If a person should have known that his position is groundless, a court may and should impose sanctions. See Thornton v. Wahl, 787 F.2d 1151, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d. 687 (7th Cir. 1986), slip op. 5.

Things are otherwise under §§ 6673 and 6702, the appellants say; these statutes [*72] require not only a lack of objective support but also subjective bad faith. Coleman cites May v. CIR, 752 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1985), for this proposition. As originally published May used a subjective test, although the court found that May [**11] himself acted in subjective bad faith. The court later revised the opinion, stating the inquiry as whether the taxpayer "knew or should have known" that the claim, return, or argument was groundless. 55 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) 747, 751 (8th Cir. 1985). HN6Go to the description of this Headnote."Should have known" is an objective test. We used an objective test for penalties under the tax laws in Lovell v. United States, supra, and there is no reason to change that approach. Section 6673, for example, states alternative tests: whether the suit was "maintained . . . primarily for delay" or whether the position is "frivolous or groundless." The former is a subjective inquiry, the latter is objective; either will support a penalty. See also In re TCI, supra, 769 F.2d at 445 (subjective bad faith is important under § 1927 only when the litigation is objectively colorable).

The purpose of §§ 6673 and 6702, like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38 and of § 1927, is to induce litigants to conform their behavior to the governing rules regardless of their subjective beliefs. Groundless litigation diverts the time and energies of judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless costs [**12] on other litigants. Once the legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers must move on to other things. They cannot endlessly rehear stale arguments. Both appellants say that the penalties stifle their right to petition for redress of grievances. But HN7Go to the description of this Headnote.there is no constitutional right to bring frivolous suits, see Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743, 76 L. Ed. 2d 277, 103 S. Ct. 2161 (1983). People who wish to express displeasure with taxes must choose other forums, and there are many available. Taxes are onerous, no doubt, and the size of the tax burden gives people reason to hope that they can escape payment. Self-interest calls forth obtuseness. An obtuse belief -- even if sincerely held -- is no refuge, no warrant for imposing delay on the legal system and costs on one's adversaries. The more costly obtuseness becomes, the less there will be.

The contentions in this case are objectively frivolous. They have been raised and rejected so often that this circuit now handles almost all similar cases by unpublished orders. The Tax Court and the IRS were entitled to impose sanctions. We, too, regularly impose sanctions in these cases. [**13] In Van Wormer this court awarded attorneys' fees as a sanction for similar claims, and the Supreme Court added $1,000 in damages. Our unpublished orders in cases of this sort regularly end with awards of double costs and attorneys' fees in favor of the government. Precisely because the substantive claims are so weak, and the opinions are therefore unpublished, litigants may be unaware of our practice. The routine use of sanctions does not deter unless people know what lies in store. See also, e.g., Connor v. CIR, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985) (the argument that wages are not income "has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.").

Our usual practice has been to invite the government to submit an itemized request for attorneys' fees. The keeping of time and expense records, and the preparation of affidavits supporting requests for fees, are themselves avoidable costs of baseless litigation. The government's brief in No. 85-1601 informs us that the average amount of fees it has been awarded in tax protester litigation between July 26, 1984, and June 12, 1985, is $1,258 per case. This includes only the fees [**14] that can be directly attributed to litigation. In order to make simpler the task of computing and awarding fees, courts sometimes impose uniform sanctions on the authority of Fed. R. App. P. 38. The Supreme Court awarded a flat $1,000 in Van Wormer on top of the fees we had earlier granted. We, too, have occasionally named a penalty rather than requesting an individual computation of fees. E.g., Steinle, supra; Ruderer v. Fines, 614 F.2d 1128, 1132-33 (7th Cir. 1980); [*73] and Clarion Corp. v. American Home Products Corp., 494 F.2d 860, 865-66 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 870, 95 S. Ct. 128, 42 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1974), each of which imposes $2,500 as damages for frivolous appeals; and Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1985); and Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986), each of which imposes a $500 penalty for a frivolous appeal. And compare Hallowell v. CIR, 744 F.2d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 1984) ($2,000 per tax protest); and Crain v. CIR, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984) (same), with Knoblauch v. CIR, 749 F.2d 200, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1984) [**15] (individual calculation).

Because average awards of actual attorneys' fees in tax protest cases exceed $1,000, we choose to impose sanctions of $1,500 in lieu of attorneys' fees. Even $1,500 cannot cover the indirect costs of this litigation -- including the costs that befall serious litigants, who must wait longer for their cases to receive judicial attention. The decision to name a penalty rather than invite proof of the government's actual attorneys' fees produces some imprecision, doubtless. Coleman's case is a little more complex than Holder's -- Coleman's brief is 38 pages, the government's 31; Holder's brief is 10 pages, the government's 16. There should be no weeping over this imprecision, however. Coleman and Holder could have avoided the penalty, and other people should avoid it, by the most minimal concern for settled rules. They knew or should have known that their claims are frivolous, and they (rather than their adversary) must pay the cost of their self-indulgent litigation.

The judgments are affirmed, with double costs and $1,500 damages in each case.

[aksmith]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

Nothing a jury decides is precedent in the way you're asking about. And because it is not, you will have to fight this same battle over and over in every court in the country until the end of time.

When a judge or a court (panel) decides, it is precedent. But we peons cannot make precedent.

[Mr. White]

I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.

My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.

I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.

If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.

I wasn't wondering since I think it's immaterial what a person's job is when determining the merits of their argument.

As for your theory, I find it intriguing, but disagree with the presumption time and energy would deduct from the market value of the finished labor to equal zero.

The wood and nails used in the construction of a chair have a either a fair market value (if you've fabricated/processed them yourself) or a market value established by what you paid for them. Time and labor however have no distinguishable valuation. What my time or labor is worth to me cannot be determined in itself by another. If I am selling the product of my time and labor, it stands to reason that I would price the item produced with those values to me in mind, therefore I've already deducted for their cost.

Essentially I submit that the value of your time and labor cannot be determined independently of those who would purchase them in a transaction. The final price is bargained for and equates to a mutual agreement of what the transaction is worth, less your labor and time. Therefore the price you charge is your income and your time and labor have already been deducted. therefore the price is wholly taxable income.

[ionlyknowy]

I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.

My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.

I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.

If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.

Here is the applicable law that the above court used:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
Prev | Next
§ 61. Gross income defined
How Current is This?
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

[ionlyknowy]

I wasn't wondering since I think it's immaterial what a person's job is when determining the merits of their argument.

As for your theory, I find it intriguing, but disagree with the presumption time and energy would deduct from the market value of the finished labor to equal zero.

The wood and nails used in the construction of a chair have a either a fair market value (if you've fabricated/processed them yourself) or a market value established by what you paid for them. Time and labor however have no distinguishable valuation. What my time or labor is worth to me cannot be determined in itself by another. If I am selling the product of my time and labor, it stands to reason that I would price the item produced with those values to me in mind, therefore I've already deducted for their cost.

Essentially I submit that the value of your time and labor cannot be determined independently of those who would purchase them in a transaction. The final price is bargained for and equates to a mutual agreement of what the transaction is worth, less your labor and time. Therefore the price you charge is your income and your time and labor have already been deducted. therefore the price is wholly taxable income.

This makes even more sense though.. :eek:

[jabrownie]

I wasn't wondering since I think it's immaterial what a person's job is when determining the merits of their argument.

As for your theory, I find it intriguing, but disagree with the presumption time and energy would deduct from the market value of the finished labor to equal zero.

The wood and nails used in the construction of a chair have a either a fair market value (if you've fabricated/processed them yourself) or a market value established by what you paid for them. Time and labor however have no distinguishable valuation. What my time or labor is worth to me cannot be determined in itself by another. If I am selling the product of my time and labor, it stands to reason that I would price the item produced with those values to me in mind, therefore I've already deducted for their cost.

Essentially I submit that the value of your time and labor cannot be determined independently of those who would purchase them in a transaction. The final price is bargained for and equates to a mutual agreement of what the transaction is worth, less your labor and time. Therefore the price you charge is your income and your time and labor have already been deducted. therefore the price is wholly taxable income.

Thank you both for the additional insights, especially for the case provided....quite a heavy stick especially with it coming from Judge Easterbrook.

As for the theory I had put forward, I was viewing it from the perspective of a person as a business. In Delaware it's possible for a person to basically incorporate themself. If somebody did that then it would no longer be a question of wages, it'd be a question of profit and loss. While I agree that you would price the product produced with time and labor values in mind, doing so is not a deduction of anything. It's just an acknowledgment of something that will be expensed in the future.

When a business calculates their tax liability they take the total value of all the purchase prices, the sales of the company, add them together, and then all the expenses are calculated, including time/labor costs, and the remainder (the profit) is the taxable income....total sales are not taxed. So, if a person were viewed, not as a person earning wages, but as an incorporated business expensing the labor values from the sales (price of produced items), then we end up with a potentially different anaylsis from the one presented before Easterbrook. Now, I've never heard of anybody trying this, but from the business accounting side of things it seems to fit from what I've seen.

Btw: just curious, which schools do you go to? Anything in Ohio? I'm at Ohio State.

[I Am Weasel]

Oh my.. you guys....

This is the ENTIRE reason I found out about Ron Paul. If you want to really dig into the TRUTH of the IRS code, you're getting yourselves into some stuff you may never get out of. Please check out this site for more info...

http://famguardian.org/

Just click on Taxation.

A very indepth site, this is THE ONE AND ONLY site ANY of you should be looking at if you're wanting to start fighting the IRS. Please head my warning.. Chris Hansen has devoted his life to fighting the IRS and is the only person I know of who knows the law like the back of his hand. Clicking on Taxation will take you to a page of info that is so indepth.. it'll blow your mind. All categorized and updated weekly as laws change or mistakes are found.

For those just interested in a taste... go to the taxation page and scroll down to REMEDIES and download the first pdf file called "Flawed tax arguments to avoid" and you'll see just how serious and thorough this site and it's information is. That book alone was last updated on 3-2-1008!

I speak from experience. I've had my IRS Masterfile decoded, something most here have no clue about, I've done all the FOIA stuff... it's almost too much to get into. But, if you are gonna dive in, it is well worth it to spend a year learning before you take that leap...

[jabrownie]

Mind if I ask what an "IRS Masterfile" is....and what "decoding" it does? :) Thanks.

[I Am Weasel]

Go to the famguardian side I gave you and look for The Great IRS Hoax. or better yet...

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

After you get that book and read it you'll have most everything you need to fight the IRS. Oh.. when I did this 6 years ago, the book had to be printed at Kinkos and required 9 different books to be printed. I still have it all downstairs in a box. I'm telling you guys... don't just jump in... BE EDUCATED!

as far as master file decoding, go to the link I gave, and scroll down to "Liberty University" item #7 is the Individual Master File Decoding Course, pdf. open that, and page 14 tells all about the IMF... you'll be amazed.

According to the IRS, I'm a manufacturer of Bus and Truck Chasis living in the Virgin Islands...

lol..you'll never look at the government or paycheck again after reading this stuff.

edit... here's another link... explains about half way down....

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/0.8ObtAndAnalyzingIMF.htm

[tnvoter]

bump

[joemiller]

I have gone through my "NO TAXES ON WAGES" rite of passage and have come to the conclusion that the law is not as clear as it should be, but as clear as it needs to be for the IRS to act.

In other words: True, if you are an attorney with loads of time on your hands, and loads of money, you may be successful in bringing the IRS to court on the "taxation of wages" issue. The IRS figures it can afford the relative few among us who can successfully accomplish this feat. And even in these instances, the IRS will have at least a 50% chance of prevailing in court in each case. These are acceptable odds for the IRS and Congress to endure, especially if the alternative is to try and pass a specific law taxing our wages at the present time -- which is why you will never, every see the IRS appealing these few victories to a higher court.

For some counter reading material, please read:http://www.taxhistory.com/crs/09.html

joe

[voytechs]

There's a radio interview that details the case and trial for those interested. A victory for sure. There's a plug for Ron Paul by the Gun Owners Association in the interview also.

I've never followed this movement much but I have looked at their info on the legalities of their claims. Gotta hand it to them....there is no law requiring us to pay income taxes...we pay out of ignorance or fear. Basically the IRS is like the mafia who collects "protection insurance" from the citizen's for the mob boss :eek: .

http://www.wtprn.com/

I'm not ignorant, but I pay out of fear. They hold all the guns right now. For everyone one that gets a fair trial, there are 100 that do not. I don't like these odds.

[fedup100]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

Unless you have the same knowledge and abilities as Cryer, I wouldn't try it. They will kick your door in and take you away. Welcome to the real amerika.

[joemiller]

..is only a matter of degree.

IMO, the best way to address this particular issue is to go to Ron Paul's campaign website and sign up to be a "Precinct Leader", even if there is already one assigned to your precinct. Hopefully, at some point, the campaign will ask every precinct leader to insure their names are also on their ballot as a precinct committee man or woman in the coming general election.

Once Paulites have been installed as precinct committee members in every local county precinct of their Republican Party, the issue of taxing wages can be brought up and adopted. After the GOP has adopted this as their platform, things, as they say, will never be the same.

joe

[roho76]

for a more in depth look at the whole thing check out

www.losthorizons.com

thousands of people know the law and get every red cent stolen from thier earnings backI met the author/owner of this website the other day at the Michigan Freedom Conference. He was very nice and informative. He said he has been getting every cent of his money back from the IRS for quite some time now and so have a lot of others. Definitely worth investigating.

[Mr. White]

I love how people equate not getting caught with proof they don't have to pay income tax.