Why won't the IRS, nor most C.P.A.'s show us the stautue where it's states all workers must file a 1040 form?

Question

Recently, Tom Cryer was recently found 'not guilty' by a jury for 'failure to file' a tax return. Mr. Cryer stopped filing yrs ago. The judge, the govt attorneys, and the jury all cannot find the statute.

Tom Cryer was also allowed enter the Constitution into evidence, and numerous 'unanswered' letters to the IRS.

Do any of u read about this in the mass media?

Judy - I didn't state, imply, indicate taxes were 'illegal'.

So answer me this Judy - kindly show me which statute in title 26 of the United States Code says all americans MUST file a tax return? And show me the statute of 'who is liable'?

Please stop with the 'everybody knows' stuff. "The law has been shown over and over..." then show me Judy.

The govt could not show the statute of libility. That's why Tom Cryer was found 'not guilty'. That's why Vernice Kuglin(a FedEX pilot) was also found 'not guity' for tax evasion for the vry same reason.

How can u b in 'definace' of a law, when u cannot find the statute that pertains to u?

Hey Boston - been to the govt website. Still could not find the statute that states, implies, indicates that all working Americans are libable for subtitle A 'income tax'.

Show me the statutes Boston - or stop ur ramblings.

Boston - if Tom Cryer didn't file a tax return because he believed he was 'not liable' and the jury found him 'not gulity' then explain to me just how the govt is going to make him pay tax that a jury found he's 'not liable for'?

Poor planning by the prosecutor??? If u owe a tax - u simply show the jury. The govt couldn't because Mr. Cryer was not liable for any taxes due on his labor.

Hey Boston - I NEVER implied the 'income tax' is illegal or UNconstitutional. Why r u purposely 'misdirecting' the pts? And no one is 'agruing'. U seem vry hostile. May I suggest u hire a female prostitute and 'blow' off some steam.

U must first have 'taxable income'. There's only two kinds of taxes. 'Direct' and 'Indirect'. The 16th Amend confered no new power of taxes - so once again, there's only two classes of taxes. DIRECT & INDIRECT.

Direct must b appt. Indirect equals excise tax which equals a 'privilage' tax - so says the crts. My exchange for labor (according to the US supr crt) is not a 'privilage'.

And to the dude who says Tom Cryer 'may' lose his license to practice law. Who cares??? The crts have already stated, the practice of law is one of common Rights - AND NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED!!!

Mr. Cryer has an 'alledged' tax libility of 70k.

Answer 1

1. The statute covering filing tax returns is USC, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart A, § 6011(a)
"When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations."

also, USC, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, §6012,
"Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount..."

2. Tom Cryer was not acquitted for "failure to file" a tax return. He was acquitted of "WILLFUL failure to file" a tax return. There is a difference. In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution that the defendant knew beyond a reasonable doubt that he absolutely had to file a return. If the defendant can convince the jury he BELIEVED he did not have to file a return, whether his belief was consist with the law or not, he must be acquitted. This is one of the few instances where ignorance of the law IS an excuse. In fact, it is even called the CHEEK defense for the first person to basically claim he was too stupid to realize he had to pay income taxes. In CIVIL cases, the burden is much lighter. The IRS has lost a few criminal cases, but they almost ALWAYS win the civil trial.

BTW, tax protestors said the same CRAP after Vernice Kuglin won her criminal tax trial, yet she ended up paying the IRS over $530,000 in taxes and penalties for only $920,000 in income. Here is an interesting excerpt from Kuglin's trial transcripts:
MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got to file returns and --

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be cleaned up totally.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also saying is there will still be civil penalties.

MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters to be coming pretty quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil proceedings, and she is going to being take responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.

Here is the text from the order of the civil proceedings of Kuglin which is a matter of public record. Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).

VERNICE KUGLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.


UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DECISION

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in this case, it is

ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the amounts of $52,095.00, $46,308.00, $44,386.00, $47,349.00, $53,819.00, and $52,345.00, respectively;

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(f), in the amounts of $39,071.25, $34,731.00, $32,283.73, $35,511.75, $40,409.25, and $39,258.75, respectively; and

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6654, in the amounts of $2,648.42, $2,477.53, $1,962.83, $2,291.54, $2,877.97, and $2,091.92, respectively.

(Signed) Joel Gerber
Judge.

Entered: September 1, 2004

3. You misstate why Kuglin and Cryer were acquitted. The jury does not decide whether the defendant is liable for taxes. The jury decides if the person willfully failed to file because they knew they were supposed to but just purposely didn't.

4. You are right that there are only two main classifications for taxes, direct and indirect. However, what you fail to understand is that income taxes are INDIRECT in a constitutional sense. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that “by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..."

5. The Supreme Court has NEVER stated that wages or earnings for labor are not income. You have most likely read an out of context quote. In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), the court stated,
"The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."

Answer 2

I have no idea where you get the idea that the IRS refuses to show you that. If you took 5 minutes to look at their website it would be abundantly clear. Ditto for any CPA.

FYI, the law does NOT say that "all workers must file a 1040 form" nor does the IRS claim that that is what the law states. If you'd actually READ Title 26 of the US Code, you'k know that!

Mr Cryer was NOT allowed to enter The Constitution into evidence -- read the trial transscript. Had he been allowed to do that, his conviction would have been assured. Neither side is allowed to enter the law into evidence. The judge explains the law to the jury and what tests must be met for the law to apply and result in a conviction. The jury then weighs the evidence and appies the law as stipulated by the judge and then renders their verdict.

He did dodge the bullet on a charge of "Willful Failure to File" and was not convicted. All that means is that the government did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury appeared to accept Mr Cryer's claim that despite the fact that he was a licensed attorney he was unaware that he needed to file a return. Call it poor planning by the prosecution or jury nullification, whatever. All he needed to do was introduce doubt as to the "willful" part of the charge to avoid conviction.

But what does NOT change is the underlying requirement to pay the taxes due. Mr Cryer WILL be paying the tax, just not from a jail cell.

Addendum: Nowhere does the law say that EVERYONE must file a return. It does say that if your income exceeds a certain amount then you are liable for taxes. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html If you can't read that, take a reading course. It's written at the 8th grade level.

The law does not specify a particular form that you must file. No law does that for the most part. The law says you must pay taxes and defines what it taxable income and what the rates are. It is then up to the IRS to determine how they wish the taxpayer to format and present the data into a usable format. If you can't figure that out from the reading of the law and the implementing IRS instructions then there's nothing that I can do that will convince you.

You obviously don't know the difference between civil law and criminal law, nor do you know FA about court procedure so there's no sense trying to argue with you. Take a Law 101 course and it will become clear to you.

And as previously mentioned, he WILL be paying the tax! When penalties and interest are tacked on, his bill will be many times larger than it would have been had he simply paid on time. That, my friend, clearly defines Mr Cryier as an IDIOT. If you wish to follow the lead of an IDIOT, be my guest. Just don't complain when that road he leads you down leads to massive expense and possible prosecution yourself.

Addendum2: You still don't get it. The jury did NOT rule "Not Liable." The jury's ONLY choices were "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" and that was of the CRIMINAL charge against him. The jury's Not Guilty verdict has NO AFFECT on the CIVIL liability for the taxes. If a Not Guilty verdict invalidated the law that the accused was accused of violating, murder would now be legal following OJ's verdict. On your logic, the civil case against OJ would have had to fail, and we know that that is NOT the case.

Mr Cryer WILL pay his tax. Willingly or not, he will pay it. THAT you can take to the bank.

Title 26 IS valid and I can point to law libraries FULL of case law to back that up. You cannot point to ONE legal precedent that states that the CIVIL liability for US income taxes is invalid because no such case exists. If you think you have one, post a LAW LIBRARY reference (not a Tax Kook site or protester site) and we'll look at it. Otherwise just pull your head out of your backside and pay your taxes.

Addendum3: Hire a prostitute? Nah, I'll just do your ..... Forget it, you're not worth the violation notice. Take a hike, I'm done arguing with a door.

Answer 3

You are forgetting something about Vernice Kuglin.....

Even though she was also found "Not Guilty" in a criminal trial similar to Mr. Cryer, she ended up paying over a half a million dollars in taxes, penalties and interest. Some victory that is.

Mr. Cryer's liability is much lower (around $70k) but, if he has the means, he will pay it. Also, he may lose his license to practice law until he complies with the tax code. Here is a quote:

>>>>A lawyer who is so ignorant, dishonest, or delusional that he does not understand that he is required to file income tax returns is not fit to practice law. See La. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and (c). Judging by Mr. Cryer’s disciplinary history, it is possible that he is delusional, because in Louisiana State Bar Association v. Cryer, 441 S.2d 734, 1983 La. LEXIS 12346 (11/29/1983), Mr. Cryer's "inexplicable behavior" was attributed to "emotional problems." <<<<

The acquital keeps him out of jail but his journey has just begun.

Answer 4

No. Just remember though, being found "not guilty" by a jury doesn't mean the person was innocent or correct, it just means that the jury believed the defendent. Remember, O.J. Simpson was also found not guilty by a jury as well. And, from what I heard Mr. Cryer really really does believe that there is no such thing as an income tax. So they didn't convict him for willfully failing to file.

Answer 5

As stated above, Cryer was found "not guilty" of deliberately not filing his taxes.

It is a huge leap to go from that to ... you don't have to file ... or taxes are unconstitutional.

He won a battle (whether he deliberately failed to file) ... but he lost the war (whether he must file and whether he must pay income taxes).


Be aware that the courts ordered Cryer to pay the income taxes. The IRS is levying penaties and interest. They will make an example of him if he does not pay the taxes. They will levy his bank, file liens on his assets, and untimately foreclose on them.

Now, here is a Q for you. Do you think Cryer will file tax returns in the future? If he doesn't he will lose any future case.

There are plenty of people who have used his frivilous argument ... that are incarcerated.

Answer 6

You are so far off base it isn't even funny.

The laws have been shown many times - if you just choose to blow them off and deny they apply, then that's your problem. Courts have repeatedly found that the collection of taxes is legal. If you don't pay what you owe, your assets can be seized, and prison is possible.

Tom Cryer was found not guilty of DELIBERATELY failing to file since he convinced the jury he didn't know he had to. That doesn't let him off the hook for filing, just says he doesn't go to jail for his defiance. And I might remind you that many people have been found "not guilty" by a jury for things they've obviously actually done.

Answer 7

The jury ignored the law when they returned the not guilty verdict. Look at Chapter 26 USC, the 16th Amendment, and the IRS Code.
"Unanswered" letters don't mitigate liability, especially with frivolous questions.

Answer 8

See this link for frivolous tax arguments.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf