If the IRS can legally tax your labor and wages than why did this man get aquitted????

Question

Is it crazy to take the IRS to court claiming you don't legally have to pay income taxes? One guy did, and won
By Loresha Wilson

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.

Answer 1

The "tax kooks" are the ones who pay taxes they don't owe. It is laughable that all these people put down those of use who refuse to file because thay "know" that the law says we must file. Problem is, none of these geniuses have actually read the laws and pertinent court decisions pertaining to the Income Tax. They only "know" what they "know" because Big Daddy Government told them what to think. The Income Tax is a lawful tax but it is unlawfully applied to the private men and women of this country.

Listening to the sheeple on this forum, I don't find it hard to believe that the human race is meant to be enslaved. Maybe 5% actually can think for themselves. The others are herded like cattle.

Answer 2

Vernice Kuglin also beat criminal proceedings against her, but I direct you to read her trial transcripts which Irwin Schiff and Constitution.org have put on the Internet.

http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/kuglin/

Go to volume 5 at http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/kuglin/kuglin_transcript_030808_vol_5.txt

Scroll through that text file until you reach pg. 776 and 777
I've copied it here.
13 THE COURT: That's okay. But there wasn't any

14 big deal about it. That's a little unusual. It's nothing

15 wrong with it in the least, but if somebody comes and

16 tells me about something, I just have to tell these guys,

17 that's the way it works. So anything else from the United

18 States?

19 MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin

20 on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court

21 ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got

22 to file returns and --

23 MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be

24 cleaned up totally.

25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not

pg 777

1 incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also

2 saying is there will still be civil penalties.

3 MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters

4 to be coming pretty quick.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil

7 proceedings, and she is going to being take

8 responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to

9 respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.

As you can plainly see, that while Kuglin avoided criminal penalties, the court has stated that paying taxes and filing returns is the law. In the end, I believe that Ms. Kuglin ended up paying over $500,000 in taxes and fines on the $920,000 of income she had over six years. She would have paid less if she had just paid her taxes in the first place.

Mr. Cryer's transcripts are not on the Internet yet that I can find. They might be in Pacer but since I don't normally have dealings with the district courts, I don't have an account. However, it is most probable that something similar to the Kuglin case will transpire.

EDIT: Paladin says "all these people put down those of use[sic] who refuse to file because thay[sic] "know" that the law says we must file. Problem is, none of these geniuses have actually read the laws and pertinent court decisions pertaining to the Income Tax."

Sir, I HAVE read the laws and pertinent court decisions. I GUARANTEE I know them better than you do. As anyone but you can clearly see by my original post, I've even read transcripts.

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913). “[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”

C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945). “[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”

Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).
“Wages usually are income ....”

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).
“Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”

Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-474; ; Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).
“Wages are taxable income,” and arguments to the contrary are ‘“patently frivolous.’”

Mr. Cryer may have beaten a criminal proceeding against him, but I am 99% sure he will be found liable in the civil court.

Go ahead and not file your tax returns. If you're due a refund, that is just more money you're giving to the government. If you owe taxes, they will get around to you eventually.

I also challenge everyone to actually research "Freedom to Fascism". If you research it with an open mind, you will find that every point brought up in Aaron Russo's 'documentary' is WRONG.

Answer 3

Criminal income tax cases are subject to a special rule: the government has the burden of proving, not only that the defendant didn't pay his taxes, but that the defendant knew he had to pay his taxes. This is very unusual. Usually, in the criminal law, if you do the thing that constitutes the crime, and you know what you're doing, whether you know that your conduct is illegal is irrelevant. But in tax cases specifically, the government has to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. So if you really believe all this tax protestor nonsense about there being no law requiring people to pay income tax, it's not a crime for you to fail to pay.


But, I hasten to add for anyone getting any ideas here, you still owe the money. Crazy beliefs may keep you out of jail, but they don't change the fact that you owe your taxes, plus the interest, plus the penalties -- which can add a whole lot to your tax bill. It's cheaper to pay what you owe. The government, one can be confident, will be coming down on Mr. Cryer for a pile of cash.


In any event, his acquittal, of course, doesn't show that there's no law requiring people to pay taxes. It just means he convinced the jury that he really believes he doesn't have to pay -- or really, only that the government failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knows he does have to pay. Every few years a protestor gets off on this ground, and justice goes on -- another protestor was convicted yesterday.

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/07/brighton_electrician_found_gui.html

The sad thing is that Tommy Cryer is an attorney. He even went to a decent law school (LSU) and graduated with honors. It's inconceivable that such a person could really believe tax protestor theories.


Although perhaps I shouldn't rule it out -- Cryer's had his share of trouble in the past. In the 1980s, he was hauled before a bar disciplinary committee for neglecting a professional matter (he failed to record a deed properly, and continued to fail for two years after the client called the matter to his attention, and also delayed reimbursing the client for the damages it suffered as a result), and he had his penalty reduced on the ground that he "suffered from a depressive illness" and "was on the brink of an emotional breakdown and also in severe financial straits" because his father had died while he was still young (only 28) and because he had "entered into the private practice of law without adequate funds or business." Louisiana State Bar ***'n v. Cryer, 441 So.2d 734 (La. 1983). So, even though a doctor concluded that "recurrence of the depressive condition is unlikely," perhaps Cryer still has some mental condition that causes him, an apparently intelligent attorney, to fall for tax protestor nonsense.


Still, it's an embarrassment that an attorney is so associated with the tax protestor movement. The man should be disbarred. If he's giving his income tax theory as advice to actual clients, then he's violating the requirement of competence, and even if he isn't, he's still engaging in conduct that involves "deceit or misrepresentation" and "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice", which also violates the rules.

Answer 4

By your same reasoning, there is no law against committing murder because OJ was acquitted.

Mr. Cryer's own admission after the trial was that he never proved that there wasn't a law.

Mr. Cryer keeps himself out of jail with this acquittal but he still must pay all the taxes, penalties and interest along with his legal fees.

Answer 5

While Mr. Cryer did dodge the bullet on the crimminal conviction, the jury did not (and does not) release reasons for their vote as part of the court proceedings. Call it jury nullification if you wish. He can say whatever he want's to say but that doesn't make it part of the court record.

However that will NOT absolve him of the responsibility to pay the tax debt which has probably grown by an order of magnitude or two by now. Tax Kooks like Cryer sometimes beat the rap on the criminal charges but they're batting .000 on avoiding the tax bill.

Answer 6

Don't forget former IRS agents that after discovering there is no law that says the average working American has to pay income taxes, the resigned. After all, the Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express. It's a private bank. They do make our worthless paper we call the dollar though, and our income tax is us trying to pay off the interest of printing currency that has no backing.
If you want answers, google video: AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM. You'll be shocked to learn how we're getting butt F#@KED by our govt.

Answer 7

.If you start researching the IRS you will find out it is not part of the united states of America. They are under the united states. They even have a bank account off shore. People are afraid to contest the irs. It looks to me someone has finally found the loop hole. I bet that loop isn`t there anymore.