Legally not pay income tax?

[Iamme]

Sounds ludicrous. Yet people out there engage in this activity. There are websites on this. People will e-mail you. It's like joining a club.

Some people get in trouble with the IRS for believing in such folly? Yet there are organizations that claim it is legitimate and have fought the IRS in court and have won. So they claim.

What do you know about this?

And, IF you can get away with it, don't you suppose it isn't right, because how else is the government supposed to be run? Or, is your attitude like , "GOOD!...let's get rid of or at least downsize government." Or, could you have the attitude that even IF INCOME tax was skirted ...even legally...that the government would always have a form of collection. In otherwords...taxes, using another name but income tax. But if so...would you rather see this OTHER form of tax, rather than an income tax?

I know this subject has been discussed in the past. But remember that newbies are always coming on board. Rehashing some of the same subjectmatter can be o.k., if it garners enough interest from the old posters and new posters alike.

[uneasy]

This is not a subject for
General Skepticism and The Paranormal

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by uneasy
This is not a subject for
General Skepticism and The Paranormal True, but it's not too far off inasmuch as the belief that you can legally not pay income tax (except to the well-understood permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations) is kind of a woo-woo belief. I've seen just about every argument ever raised by tax objectors in court, and they all fail.

[Iamme]

Why NOT?, uneasy?

Some people might have "general scepticism" about having to pay the government any money from their income tax. Because they are "sceptical" in how the government operates, in general.

This site says "general skepticism and the paranormal". NOT "General skeptism regarding the paranormal". It says GENERAL skepticism, and then says AND.

But...admittedly I did not look to see if JREF had a more appropriate site...so I will go look. But even so. You'd think this topic would interest some people. If someone posted in this forum that they learned how to turn goose eggs into gold buillon, I bet people would ask how...and not say that the subjectmatter is inappropriate here. :wink8:

[dissonance]

Here's a current thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25102) on this very subject. Although glancing over the last page, it looks like things may have deteriorated into petty bickering and he-said, no-I-didn't nonsense. Anyway, this suggests that Politics would probably be the best location for this thread.

[SteveGrenard]

Well then here's a first. It was in all the newspapers last week.



Woman triumphs over IRS
in tax case

Federal jury acquits FedEx pilot who questioned legality of levy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 11, 2003
5:00 p.m. Eastern




A federal jury in Memphis has acquitted a woman charged by the Internal Revenue Service of conspiring to evade taxes on nearly $1 million in income.

Jurors on Friday declared FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin, 58, not guilty of evading taxes, though the question of how the bill would be paid was left unsettled following the five-day trial.

"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee told the Commercial Appeal newspaper.

For her part, Kuglin said she felt the verdict was in line. " I feel justified," she told the paper.

Kuglin was charged with six counts of tax evasion, for which she could have received up to 30 years in prison had she been convicted. Government prosecutors claimed she filed false W-4 forms for the years 1996 through 2001.

A FedEx pilot for nearly 18 years, Kuglin said she had paid taxes like most other wage earners until about a decade ago, when the paper said she began to question the tax code.

She said she researched legal documents, court cases and the tax code itself, but claimed she could not find a specific section that stated she is liable to pay taxes. Rather, she found a series of contradictions, she told the Appeal.

In 1995 Kuglin wrote to the IRS twice with questions about her obligation to pay taxes, but said she never received a response.

Federal prosecutors said Kuglin, however, did have an opportunity to sit down and discuss her obligations with the IRS but failed to do so.

Nevertheless, defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., who has a reputation for defending tax-related cases, said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her." Following Friday's verdict, he declared the federal tax code "at best is a walking due-process violation."

Barbara Snodgrass, one of the jurors, told the paper the panel chose to acquit Kuglin because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."

Kuglin left open the possibility of future IRS cooperation, without admitting she owes the agency money. After the acquittal the government's prosecutor asked the judge to order Ms Kuglin to pay her taxes and file returns. He responded "I do not work for the IRS."

"I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable," she told the paper.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well then here's a first. It was in all the newspapers last week.Of what do you think this is a first? This woman was found not guilty by a jury of conspiring to commit a crime. There was no legal ruling that she's not liable for those taxes; in fact, I can just about guarantee that she's going to have to pay them one way or another. The IRS will just institute a civil forfeiture proceeding, and that's where this woman's legal arguments about her underlying obligation to pay income tax will be addressed by a judge. I've seen variations on the same arguments get shot down dozens of times, and I have no reason to think this woman's going to be any exception.

[thaiboxerken]

Yea, that article states that she's not guilty of "tax evasion". However, they did discuss how she is to pay the taxes she owes.
She is not getting away with not paying taxes, they're gonna get payback.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yea, that article states that she's not guilty of "tax evasion". However, they did discuss how she is to pay the taxes she owes.
She is not getting away with not paying taxes, they're gonna get payback.
Read carefully what she said. She said: "I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable"

Her position is that she owes no money. That makes her statement to pay essentially meaningless.

It is like me saying to you, "I will pay thaiboxerken all the money I owe him." Do you think you are getting any money from me?

[Iamme]

Thanz is correct. the woman won aqainst the tax evasion charge. I f she won on this charge, then that means she did not evade. If she did not evade...then for what is she paying taxes. She will pay "what she owes" amounts to her saying "since I am shown not to be guilty in owing...you get zilcho". At best...she will pay them what SHE feels she owes. There cannot be no penalties or interest on 6 years of back taxes when she is found innocent of the evasion, I would presume. IF, the IRS is able to retry the case civily...and win...this would be paramount to the federal tax evasion case being a waste of the courts time, and taxpayers money (the irony of THAT).

[Michael Redman]

What she thinks she is going to pay, and what she is actually going to pay, are likely not the same.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Thanz

It is like me saying to you, "I will pay thaiboxerken all the money I owe him." Do you think you are getting any money from me?

Ha! The IRS has records that shows this woman owes them money. They have shown her what she owes, if she refuses to pay now, it will definitely be tax evasion.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Iamme
Thanz is correct. the woman won aqainst the tax evasion charge. I f she won on this charge, then that means she did not evade. If she did not evade...then for what is she paying taxes. She will pay "what she owes" amounts to her saying "since I am shown not to be guilty in owing...you get zilcho". At best...she will pay them what SHE feels she owes. There cannot be no penalties or interest on 6 years of back taxes when she is found innocent of the evasion, I would presume. IF, the IRS is able to retry the case civily...and win...this would be paramount to the federal tax evasion case being a waste of the courts time, and taxpayers money (the irony of THAT). No, thaiboxerken is right. Criminal tax evasion involves basically three things:

1. additional tax owed and unpaid
2. an attempt to evade or defeat payment of the tax
3. willfullness

This woman was acquitted, meaning that the jury did not find that all three elements were present. I'm pretty sure they found that there was no willfulness, probably meaning that the jury thought that this woman honestly, subjectively believed that she had no duty to pay the tax and therefore had no bad purpose in not paying it. This does not mean that element #1 was absent and that she actually doesn't owe the tax.

The tax evasion statute imposes a criminal penalty above and beyond simply paying the tax. By way of analogy, imagine a criminal law saying that anyone who wrongfully tries to get out of paying a legitimate debt will go to jail. I try to get out of paying you the $10 that, for whatever reason, I owe you, and you have me brought up on charges. I get acquitted on the criminal charge because I believed in good faith (albeit mistakenly) that the debt was not legitimate. Does my mere acquittal somehow transform an otherwise legitimate debt into an illegitimate one? Of course not. I'm a free man, but I still owe you $10.

Unless this woman can persuade a judge that the underlying tax debt itself is illegitimate, which has not happened and is unlikely to happen, she will either pay the taxes the IRS thinks she owes or else the IRS will help itself to payment by seizing and selling her personal belongings or garnishing her wages.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
No, thaiboxerken is right. Criminal tax evasion involves basically three things:

1. additional tax owed and unpaid
2. an attempt to evade or defeat payment of the tax
3. willfullness

This woman was acquitted, meaning that the jury did not find that all three elements were present. I'm pretty sure they found that there was no willfulness, probably meaning that the jury thought that this woman honestly, subjectively believed that she had no duty to pay the tax and therefore had no bad purpose in not paying it. This does not mean that element #1 was absent and that she actually doesn't owe the tax.

The tax evasion statute imposes a criminal penalty above and beyond simply paying the tax. By way of analogy, imagine a criminal law saying that anyone who wrongfully tries to get out of paying a legitimate debt will go to jail. I try to get out of paying you the $10 that, for whatever reason, I owe you, and you have me brought up on charges. I get acquitted on the criminal charge because I believed in good faith (albeit mistakenly) that the debt was not legitimate. Does my mere acquittal somehow transform an otherwise legitimate debt into an illegitimate one? Of course not. I'm a free man, but I still owe you $10.

Unless this woman can persuade a judge that the underlying tax debt itself is illegitimate, which has not happened and is unlikely to happen, she will either pay the taxes the IRS thinks she owes or else the IRS will help itself to payment by seizing and selling her personal belongings or garnishing her wages.

Just to add: The government in the criminal case had a greater burden as well as the extra element outlined above. The government needed to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal case, only "by a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil action.

[tracer]

The other "famous" case involving a a Tax Protestor who was acquitted of Willful Failure to File was U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long (http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/long1.html). That link contains the entire transcript of the trial (all 400 riveting pages).

Lloyd R. Long was acquitted because he managed to convince the jury that he really, really honestly believed that his tax protestor arguments were valid, and that therefore his failure to file wasn't willful. (This is known as the Cheek Defense, after Cheek v. U.S., 498 US 192 (1991) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=498&invol=192), a Federal Supreme Court case.)

As noted above in this thread, Willful Failure to File is a crime, and as such has a much higher standard of proof than, say, Lloyd R. Long's civil liability for taxes. And, in fact, a later civil trial did find that Lloyd R. Long owed the IRS quite a sum of money in the form of for taxes, interest, and penalites.

The lawyer for U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long was Lowell H. Becraft, who is notorious as a believer (or at least a former believer) in tax protestor theories. An acquaintance of mine who was a member of the "California Jural Society" (a sovereign citizen/tax protest group) claimed that it was terribly, terribly significant that after Lloyd R. Long was acquitted of Willful Failure to File, the IRS didn't appeal the case. :rolleyes: He was blissfully unaware that a criminal Not Guilty verdict cannot be appealed, because to do so would violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment.

[Iamme]

Some pretty good posts above seem to clarify the diference between evasion, and having to pay the tax. Makes sense. I buy it. Case closed? Hmmmm...I wouldn't go THAT far. How is it that the air waves are crawling with tax lawyers proclaiming such things as, "We will settle your tax debt (to the IRS) for pennies on the dollar." Or, one recent ad said that many tax debts that are in the thousands are settled for $20. Have any of you seen this ad on tv? What gives? Oh...and at least one of these firms claim to have ex-IRS agents under their employment.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Iamme
How is it that the air waves are crawling with tax lawyers proclaiming such things as, "We will settle your tax debt (to the IRS) for pennies on the dollar."
Because those advertisements are legitimate. Or at least, they have a legitimate basis.

If you owe a huge income tax bill that you haven't paid, the IRS is authorized to negotiate a settlement for less than you actually owe. They do this because they know there are people who simply don't have the money to pay the full amount, and they'll be better off in the long run getting a quick settlement than dragging the taxpayer through the tax courts and bankruptcy courts.

These settlements aren't something that should be used lightly as a means of normal tax reduction, however. They also, unfortunately, cannot be used to settle Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) liability, which has really screwed over a few dot-commers who exercised their stock options and then had their stock price crash.

[Jeff Corey]

Does this mean I don't have to pay all those taxes that are going for the illegal invasion of Iraq?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
True, but it's not too far off inasmuch as the belief that you can legally not pay income tax (except to the well-understood permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations) is kind of a woo-woo belief. I've seen just about every argument ever raised by tax objectors in court, and they all fail. Ah, could this be a selection bias leading to a type II error? Maybe the really legitimate methods of tax avoision don't make it to court.





"I don't say evasion, I say avoision" - Kent Brockman

[Iamme]

I believe that it is the law firm (as seen on a tv ad) of RD (first two initials of the name of the lawyer...a female...that claims they have settled tax liabilities for only $20. Now why would the IRS go along with such a thing?! To make a settlement and get SOMETHING rather than nothing? You mean to tell me they couldn't/wouldn't garnish wages or confiscate what the debtor owes? To me...these settlement claims almost DO make it sound like people are voluntarily paying their taxes, and if they are smart enough to learn that they really don't owe...the IRS goes..."OK, you found out. I'll tell you what. Just give us $20 and we'll call it even" Maybe you laugh. Maybe this isn't true. But please explain why the IRS wouldn't order people to keep sending in a percentage of their income, until they die...or ELSE.

For years, we have lived under the fear of the IRS and conmfiscations they have made on people. Even stories how they have physically yanked people out of their cars, etc. And, so where does the fairness come in, if say someone owes a ton of taxes?...and they settle with the guy for...$20?

You know what I am going to do? (because this is getting me in a dither) I am going to see if RD (law firm) has a website, and go there. And report back what I find out.

[dissonance]

Maybe the law firm you are talking about settled a tax case for $20 from the taxpayer, plus wage garnishment or a repayment plan or something.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time there have been misleading ads on TV.

[tracer]

We also don't know if the guy/gal owed a "ton" of taxes or not. Maybe he/she owed $28 in taxes, and the IRS settled for $20?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm all for people not paying taxes.

As long as they don't:
Fly on planes administered by the FAA.
Eat food checked by the FDA and DA.
Drive on highways or local streets built or maintained with federal funding.
Expect the military to protect them.
Expect the courts to judicate for them.
Watch television administered by the FCC.
Invest in securities the FTC watches over.
etc...

[Tony]

Income tax is no different than armed robbery.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
Income tax is no different than armed robbery.

I'm sorry, but that is the most rediculous thing I've read on these boards in quite some time. And given what gets posted her, that's saying a lot.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


I'm sorry, but that is the most rediculous thing I've read on these boards in quite some time. And given what gets posted her, that's saying a lot.

Ok, explain how its different than armed robbery.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony


Ok, explain how its different than armed robbery.

I can't believe this. You honestly don't see the difference between the two?

O.k. I'll explain it as simply as possible.

Armed robbery - something is taken from you and you get nothing back.

Taxation - something is taken from you and you get something back.

Can you expain how they are "no different?"

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Taxation - something is taken from you and you get something back.



Really? I havent gotten anything back from the money the government stole from me.


Can you expain how they are "no different?"

Both are the separation of a person from their money by force (or the threat of force).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
Really? I havent gotten anything back from the money the government stole from me.


You never drive in I-10 or I-45? You have planes from Hobby or George Bush dumping their icy toilet chunks on your lawn? You lost money on Enron and you're just gonna let it be water under the bridge? You've never called the cops or fire department? You've never travelled overseas? You live in a Nazi or Communist controled area? You never eat USDA inspected meat? You don't own a cell phone or watch TV? etc...

As far as the "threat of force" goes, there's a hell of a difference between a government saying that they will place social sanctions including fines and jail time on persons who do not pay a portion of their taxes so the government can function, and some street punk pulling a 9mm on a person and saying, "gimme your money" so they can go score some crack.

Give me a break...

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You never drive in I-10 or I-45? You have planes from Hobby or George Bush dumping their icy toilet chunks on your lawn? You lost money on Enron and you're just gonna let it be water under the bridge? You've never called the cops or fire department? You've never travelled overseas? You live in a Nazi or Communist controled area? You never eat USDA inspected meat? You don't own a cell phone or watch TV? etc...



You're assuming that the income tax is absolutely necessary to fund these things.

As far as the "threat of force" goes, there's a hell of a difference between a government saying that they will place social sanctions including fines and jail time on persons who do not pay a portion of their taxes so the government can function, and some street punk pulling a 9mm on a person and saying, "gimme your money" so they can go score some crack.


And what happens if I resist these social sanctions and jail time?

I get killed.

When you take this into account the "land of the free" doesnt seem so free, does it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'll take my chances with the jack-booted thugs over a crackhead any day...

[Tony]

Jack-booted thugs??

[UnrepentantSinner]

You had Bush Tucker explained to you... you're going to need to learn what Jack Booted Thugs refers to on your own. :p

[Tony]

:teacher: :g1: :bricks: :con2:

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Tony
I get killed.Who will kill you?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nucular
Who will kill you?

The police, FBI or who ever happens to making the arrest (if I refused to "pay" taxes).

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Tony


The police, FBI or who ever happens to making the arrest (if I refused to "pay" taxes). Well the idea surely is that you would only get killed if you actually fought back - and then it would be for the protection of others, not a punishment for not paying taxes.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nucular
Well the idea surely is that you would only get killed if you actually fought back - and then it would be for the protection of others, not a punishment for not paying taxes.

That's a convenient cop-out, but ultimately, I would be getting killed because I refused to capitulate and stood-up for my rights.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony


That's a convenient cop-out, but ultimately, I would be getting killed because I refused to capitulate and stood-up for my rights.

What right are those? To ignore a law you don't like or to ignore the orders of law enforement you don't like.

Did you figure out Jack Booted Thugs yet?

[Nucular]

Also, it depends how you stand up for what you think are your rights. You won't get shot for a peaceful protest, you'll get shot for a violent one.

At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

[Michael Redman]

Taxation is legal. Robbery is not. End of discussion.


I would assume that the law firm offering to settle tax debts for $20 is talking about their fee, not the amount of the settlement.

[tracer]

When I'm feeling in a foul I-hate-taxes mood, I tend to think of taxes not so much as a kind of "robbery" than as a kind of extortion or "protection" racket.

You know -- you give the local crime syndicate a cut of your business's profits, and in return they not only promise not to smash your windows, but they also work to prevent the crime syndicate on the other side of town from coming over and smashing your windows. Plus, they treat you like Family and feed you pasta.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Tony


The police, FBI or who ever happens to making the arrest (if I refused to "pay" taxes).
They don't use lethal force unless you pose a threat to their life. If you physically resist arrest, you might get you're ass kicked, but you don't get killed. If you resist by opening fire on police or federal agents, you will get yourself killed if they can find no other way to subdue you.

Since you hate taxation so much, what's you're alternative? How do you propose to not only raise, but organize the distribution of these funds for infrastructure and social programs and other such things? Any idea?

[Tony]

Originally posted by voidx

They don't use lethal force unless you pose a threat to their life. If you physically resist arrest, you might get you're ass kicked, but you don't get killed. If you resist by opening fire on police or federal agents, you will get yourself killed if they can find no other way to subdue you.


So you endorse government murder of a person that is protecting themselves against tyranny?

How do you propose to not only raise, but organize the distribution of these funds for infrastructure and social programs and other such things? Any idea?

Sales tax? Voluntary Income tax? Privatize infrastructure development and social programs? Government Paycuts? Reduce government waste? There are many good and creative ideas to raise money and reduce costs that don’t intrude into people's lives.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Tony
So you endorse government murder of a person that is protecting themselves against tyranny?
1. Arrest for violating a law that was dult voted into existence by a representative democracy hardly amounts to "tyrrany."

2. The "government murder" you're talking about only happens when you resist arrest by using lethal force yourself. If someone were shooting at you, and you shot and killed him in self defense, would you consider it "murder"? No? Then why do you consider it murder if the person doing the shooting in self defense happens to be a Federal agent?