Lloyd Long was found not guilty of "willful violation." He wasn't able to avoid the tax. He still had to pay it. He just wasn't criminally liable for trying to avoid it.
He will no longer be able to argue the same arguments in the future if found to not be paying his taxes since he can no longer argue he didn't know better.
Quote Parados: "He will no longer be able to argue the same arguments in the future if found to not be paying his taxes since he can no longer argue he didn't know better."
Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!
However, there are other ways to save a dollar
Deininger & Wingfield, P.A., along with another local tax attorney, jointly represented taxpayer-clients in a complex class action suit filed in 1995 in Pulaski County Circuit Court.
This class action case involved a constitutionally based challenge to the Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration's ("DF&A") administrative practice of "setting off" joint state income tax refunds acknowledged to be due and owing to married Arkansas taxpayers and turning those joint Arkansas income tax refunds over to the IRS to be applied toward the federal tax liability of only one of the spouses.
The Arkansas DF&A paid over the amounts of such undisputed refunds to the IRS without allowing the non-debtor spouse-taxpayers an adequate opportunity to receive their portion of the refunds of Arkansas income taxes.
This particular class action challenge lasted nine (9) years, but resulted in the administrative "setoff" practice of the Arkansas DF&A being held unconstitutional, with refunds being ordered to all members of the taxpayer class of Plaintiffs, and the complained of administrative "setoff" practice of the DF&A being permanently enjoined.
Fulmer, et al. v. Weiss, Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Docket No. EQ-95-0898.
Enjoy!
Tryagain wrote:Quote Parados: "He will no longer be able to argue the same arguments in the future if found to not be paying his taxes since he can no longer argue he didn't know better."
Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!
Except everyone can't file. Lloyd didn't file the case. The IRS filed it against him for failure to pay his taxes.
As for winning like Lloyd did, you have to be able to show that you were honestly mistaken and couldn't have known otherwise. The sheer number of cases that have already been filed against tax protesters and lost by tax protesters make it harder and harder for juries to believe the person didn't know. Take your chances but 1000 to 1 you will be found guilty of willful violation. Either way you still owe taxes, penalties, and interest.
As for convincing a jury, I don't know too many juries that would believe you didn't know if they saw the posts here that you have been making and responding to. A willful violation happens if you were shown the error in your thinking but ignored it.
As for the setoff case. You might want to read it before you claim it means you don't have to pay taxes. It seems to be concerned with joint returns and a practice of making one person responsible for the tax owed. The tax is still owed, it just is jointly owed.
parados wrote:Tryagain wrote:Quote Parados: "He will no longer be able to argue the same arguments in the future if found to not be paying his taxes since he can no longer argue he didn't know better."
Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!
Except everyone can't file. Lloyd didn't file the case. The IRS filed it against him for failure to pay his taxes.
As for winning like Lloyd did, you have to be able to show that you were honestly mistaken and couldn't have known otherwise. The sheer number of cases that have already been filed against tax protesters and lost by tax protesters make it harder and harder for juries to believe the person didn't know. Take your chances but 1000 to 1 you will be found guilty of willful violation. Either way you still owe taxes, penalties, and interest.
As for convincing a jury, I don't know too many juries that would believe you didn't know if they saw the posts here that you have been making and responding to. A willful violation happens if you were shown the error in your thinking but ignored it.
As for the setoff case. You might want to read it before you claim it means you don't have to pay taxes. It seems to be concerned with joint returns and a practice of making one person responsible for the tax owed. The tax is still owed, it just is jointly owed.
Jury should just ask for a copy of the statute that requires people to file/pay income tax like in the whitey harrell case or the franklin sanders case.
The IRS can never just seem to show the law even when it means they lose the court case. I smell fish! heh
The People of Illinois vs Whitey Harrell? Doesn't look like the IRS took him to court at all... Since the IRS didn't take him to court the IRS couldn't have lost the case. He was found not guilty of willful failure to file his state income tax. Again, he didn't avoid his taxes. Just wasn't criminally negligent for not paying them. He STILL had to pay them.
Would that be the Franklin Sanders that went to jail?
parados wrote:The People of Illinois vs Whitey Harrell? Doesn't look like the IRS took him to court at all... Since the IRS didn't take him to court the IRS couldn't have lost the case. He was found not guilty of willful failure to file his state income tax. Again, he didn't avoid his taxes. Just wasn't criminally negligent for not paying them. He STILL had to pay them.
Would that be the Franklin Sanders that went to jail?
It could be.. tell me what you know.. I only know that in his case the IRS couldnt provide a statute and the court returned acquittals for him and 24 people.
Acquittals for him and 24 people? When? I can find no trial of 24 people that included Franklin Sanders. Even Sanders in his tall tales doesn't claim 24 people were acquitted.
You are so deluded Richard you believe these outlandish stories told by people selling their snake oil. Yes, selling. Those people are making money off dupes like you. They are nothing but snake oil salesmen. Many of them have been convicted or they file their own income taxes while telling others to not file.
Tryagain wrote:....Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!......
That is hilarious. If Everybody flooded the courts? 100 years? I think longer.
TTH wrote:Tryagain wrote:....Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!......
That is hilarious. If Everybody flooded the courts? 100 years? I think longer.
It would be over quickly. A few high profile fines for frivolous pleadings and other such nonsense and "everybody" would become a small number.
Already it is a $5000-$10,000 fine to insist on arguing most of what has been proposed in this thread. All the argument about the government never showing them personally is complete nonsense. Try arguing that you didn't commit murder because no one from the government showed you the law. It won't get you very far. The government doesn't have to explain the law to you. You should hire an attorney.
parados wrote:Acquittals for him and 24 people? When? I can find no trial of 24 people that included Franklin Sanders. Even Sanders in his tall tales doesn't claim 24 people were acquitted.
You are so deluded Richard you believe these outlandish stories told by people selling their snake oil. Yes, selling. Those people are making money off dupes like you. They are nothing but snake oil salesmen. Many of them have been convicted or they file their own income taxes while telling others to not file.
Well franklin Sanders said these words himself. I didnt listen to any third party
On his website Sanders only claims 16.
I would wonder about someone that lied to me in person, wouldn't you?
parados wrote:On his website Sanders only claims 16.
I would wonder about someone that lied to me in person, wouldn't you?
Yeah I looked it up it was 17.. I was wrong on the number. I thought it was 27.. Even 17 people though is quite alot. I still find it hard to believe that nobody on the prosecuting side would show a statute requiring the payment of taxes... They lost the case.. Wouldnt it just be easier for them to point out the statutue and convict the defendent?? Like Harrel as well?
It doesnt make sense to me. And if it doesnt make sense then theres usually a lie involved.
Quote; who other than Parados, "You are so deluded
you believe these outlandish stories told by people selling their snake oil."
The origins of the term "snake oil" is that it was a corruption of "Seneca oil". The Senecas, a tribe in the Eastern United States, were known to use petroleum from natural seeps as a liniment for skin ailments. However, Native Americans are known to have used rattlesnake fat and the herb snakeroot for various purposes.
American snake fats do not have eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) contents as high as those of the Chinese water snake. The American snake oils were possibly less efficient pain relievers than the original Chinese snake oil.
In China it is used as a remedy for inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, and other similar conditions. Snake oil is still used as pain reliever in China, it is actually a plausible remedy for joint pain as (EPA's) are thought to have inflammation reducing properties.
Produced to counter the scurrilous assertions made against native Americans and the Snake Oil industry.
Tryagain wrote:Quote; who other than Parados, "You are so deluded
you believe these outlandish stories told by people selling their snake oil."
The origins of the term "snake oil" is that it was a corruption of "Seneca oil". The Senecas, a tribe in the Eastern United States, were known to use petroleum from natural seeps as a liniment for skin ailments. However, Native Americans are known to have used rattlesnake fat and the herb snakeroot for various purposes.
American snake fats do not have eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) contents as high as those of the Chinese water snake. The American snake oils were possibly less efficient pain relievers than the original Chinese snake oil.
In China it is used as a remedy for inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, and other similar conditions. Snake oil is still used as pain reliever in China, it is actually a plausible remedy for joint pain as (EPA's) are thought to have inflammation reducing properties.
Produced to counter the scurrilous assertions made against native Americans and the Snake Oil industry.
I think the Government is the number 1 seller of snake oil. I saw it in Forbes. hah
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:On his website Sanders only claims 16.
I would wonder about someone that lied to me in person, wouldn't you?
Yeah I looked it up it was 17.. I was wrong on the number. I thought it was 27.. Even 17 people though is quite alot. I still find it hard to believe that nobody on the prosecuting side would show a statute requiring the payment of taxes... They lost the case.. Wouldnt it just be easier for them to point out the statutue and convict the defendent?? Like Harrel as well?
It doesnt make sense to me. And if it doesnt make sense then theres usually a lie involved.
LOL. The LIE is in the people telling you that the IRS couldn't point to the law. The courts said it is a frivolous argument to require the IRS to do so. The courts have consistently ruled that the law does require you to pay income tax.
Let me put it to you this way. The courts ruled that the income tax is required. You claim the law doesn't say that. The court is bound by previous rulings not your specious claim. They have no reason to accept your argument. You have no legal basis to make your argument since it has been ruled on before. Because the court doesn't require the IRS to show this in your case doesn't negate the previous cases. You are arguing a moot point. It is one you will lose on every day of the week. It would be like trying to argue that the constitution doesn't exist. No court will listen to your argument because there is no legal basis for you argument. Courts are not required to listen to arguments that have no basis. It wastes their time.
These idiots demand to be shown where something is specific in the law. The court politely tells them they do not have that right since the law is clear and their question has been adjudicated in previous rulings. They then bray and pontificate about how no one could point it out in the law. It is a false argument.
What doesn't make sense to me is why these people insist on lying about what the court told them. Perhaps you should examine the actual court transcripts instead of listening to these idiots. You might be amazed at what the court REALLY said.
I am also amazed how someone can confuse not guilty on a "willful violation to pay income tax" with not having to pay the income tax. These people are only not guilty of criminal violations. That means their failure to pay is seen as an honest mistake. Honest mistakes mean you pay the tax, penalty and interest but don't serve jail time. There is NO court case that has ever said someone doesn't have to pay income tax at all because the law doesn't require them.
parados wrote:TTH wrote:Tryagain wrote:....Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!......
That is hilarious. If Everybody flooded the courts? 100 years? I think longer.
It would be over quickly. A few high profile fines for frivolous pleadings and other such nonsense and "everybody" would become a small number.
Already it is a $5000-$10,000 fine to insist on arguing most of what has been proposed in this thread. All the argument about the government never showing them personally is complete nonsense. Try arguing that you didn't commit murder because no one from the government showed you the law. It won't get you very far. The government doesn't have to explain the law to you. You should hire an attorney.
Parodos
I just found that statement funny. The fines are high for frivolous
arguments. Even writing on your tax return (to the side of a line or a smart-ass remark and you may be fined)
There is a long list of fines and penalties that the IRS can impose.
Offers in compromise even cost money now (go figure)
TTH wrote:parados wrote:TTH wrote:Tryagain wrote:....Very true, but if everybody filed the courts would be full for the next 100 years!......
That is hilarious. If Everybody flooded the courts? 100 years? I think longer.
It would be over quickly. A few high profile fines for frivolous pleadings and other such nonsense and "everybody" would become a small number.
Already it is a $5000-$10,000 fine to insist on arguing most of what has been proposed in this thread. All the argument about the government never showing them personally is complete nonsense. Try arguing that you didn't commit murder because no one from the government showed you the law. It won't get you very far. The government doesn't have to explain the law to you. You should hire an attorney.
Parodos
I just found that statement funny. The fines are high for frivolous
arguments. Even writing on your tax return (to the side of a line or a smart-ass remark and you may be fined)
There is a long list of fines and penalties that the IRS can impose.
Offers in compromise even cost money now (go figure)
Do you have citations for your claims?
That doesn't sound like simply writing on the form.
Quote:The ruling emphasizes to taxpayers and to promoters and return preparers that striking or altering the jurat in a manner that negates its validity invalidates the return.
That sounds like attempts to alter the form so you aren't filing a completed form. You would be subject to the same penalties if you filed a form with nothing on it.
This message is presented solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice.
I do not advocate disobedience to any laws and do not advise or recommend the non-filing of any return or non-payment of any tax for which any person is legally liable. For legal advice, consult your attorney.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, AND LIABILITY
The Code sections that the IRS cites as their authority to tax virtually everyone's income (Sections 1, 6001, 6011, and 6012) do not say that everyone is liable for the income tax - only that one must file a return IF one is liable.
For Americans, including the self-employed, the only tax form authorized under the sections referred to above is Form 2555, titled "Foreign Earned Income," not Form 1040, as Americans have been led to believe.
The only Code sections that establish liability for the income tax or the withholding of it refer to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and their withholding agents, who are required to file a 1040 return (26 USC sections 7701, 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461).
Internal revenue employees were instructed long ago by the Treasury Secretary that Form 1040 was for the above purpose; it was never intended by law to be used for U.S. citizens who earn their income within the 50 states and whose income is not by law subject to the income tax.
Wages of most citizens have never been intended by law to be subject to the income tax. Earlier editions of the Code made it much clearer that wages and salaries were not gross income. Successive editions of the Code, while saying the application of the law has not changed, have been gradually and cleverly modified by the legislative attorneys who codify the law, e.g., by reorganizing sections so that their numbers change, then deleting footnotes and references to make it difficult to trace the law back to corresponding sections in earlier versions.
Code section 6020(b), that the IRS invokes when it assesses income tax on individuals who have not filed a Form 1040, does not authorize them to assess income tax on individuals.
Wages of most Americans are not, by law, subject to the income tax. Although wages are income, they do not meet the formal legal definition for inclusion as "Gross Income" from which the tax is calculated.
Delegation Orders from the IRS Commissioner to IRS employees, which authorize them to prepare and sign tax returns for persons who are required to file, but did not, do not include Forms 1040 or 2555 on the list of authorized returns.
The Internal Revenue Manual says that IRS criminal investigators are authorized to enforce criminal statutes applicable to taxes for U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements. There is no mention of citizens living and earning their money in the U.S. Why not?
The Manual says the Criminal Investigation Division is under the direction of the international branch of the IRS, headed by the Assistant Commissioner International. Again, there is no discernible authority to investigate Americans who live and earn their money in the 50 states. Again, why not?
The regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not the Internal Revenue Service.
IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil enforcement under Subtitle E (pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes), not under Subtitle A (income taxes). No one can show anywhere in the Code, nor has it ever been published in the Federal Register, where revenue officers are authorized to investigate alleged income tax liabilities of citizens who live and earn money within the 50 states. Why not?
Letters sent by revenue officers concerning 1040 returns are without authority of the law.
