IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

[BradLohaus]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

[fyatuk]

That's an argument I haven't seen before, interesting.

I know there's one lawyer who hasn't paid taxes in 15 years or so, but the IRS refuses to go after him because he actually has a credible challenge to the constitutionality of income tax regarding irregularities around the authorizing amendment. He's actually filed his own suits, but judges have continually refused to listen to them.

I'd love to see the income tax go away. Most people I know would rather see a national sales tax anyway (which if defined properly does have constitutional authorization).

[Peter]

That's an argument I haven't seen before, interesting.

I know there's one lawyer who hasn't paid taxes in 15 years or so, but the IRS refuses to go after him because he actually has a credible challenge to the constitutionality of income tax regarding irregularities around the authorizing amendment. He's actually filed his own suits, but judges have continually refused to listen to them.



If you buy that I have a foolproof way to never pay income taxes for $99.99, payable in 3 easy monthly installments.

[DarkReign]

If you buy that I have a foolproof way to never pay income taxes for $99.99, payable in 3 easy monthly installments.

Well, if enough people actually cared to join said crusade, we wouldnt have an income tax.

There is no law in the Congressional history of the United States that says citizens shall forfeit "X" percentage of wage to the Fed.

It doesnt exist. It never has. Yet we all pay it...for what?

Taxing was always supposed to be a State's right, via legislation. Then, the 50 states get together and they decided how much the Federal government needs, not vice versa.

[Peter]

Well, if enough people actually cared to join said crusade, we wouldnt have an income tax.

There is no law in the Congressional history of the United States that says citizens shall forfeit "X" percentage of wage to the Fed.

It doesnt exist. It never has. Yet we all pay it...for what?



?

It's in the US Code:



Sec. 61. Gross income defined


(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;


link (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC61)

[Peter]

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges
Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago
July 13, 2007
By Loresha Wilson
ljwilson-at-gannett.com


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.


link (http://wesawthat.blogspot.com/2007/07/shreveport-attorney-tommy-k-cryer.html)

[DarkReign]

?

It's in the US Code:




link (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+26USC61)

Oh, I mustve missed where it said "wages earned through employment".

That tax you cited applies to "profits". Profit earned outside the cost of living. That lawyer was aquitted because he proved that "income" was not profit for him, it was money needed to live.

I dont know how the government defines "profit", but here's Merriam-Webster:



Profit

Main Entry: 1prof·it
Pronunciation: 'prä-f&t
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin profectus advance, profit, from proficere
1 : a valuable return : GAIN
2 : the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3 : net income usually for a given period of time
4 : the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5 : the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

Interestingly, "profit" seems to be defined as a "gain". A means of which most people dont live in. Everyone has heard the term "lives check-to-check".

That means, nearly all (seriously, above 80%) of all money earned working is used to live. Just to live. Thats not taxable.

There have been a couple IRS agents who resigned when pointed to this fact. There is no law that says we pay tax on WAGES. Wages are earned through employment.

You can tax profit, but lawfully speaking, they cant tax wages. Key word. You think that simple word was left out on accident? Or that the IRS isnt aware of it? Youd think they would have changed that, dont ya think?

But they cant, nor will they. Because its unconstitutional to do so.

[Yonivore]

Oh, I mustve missed where it said "wages earned through employment".

That tax you cited applies to "profits". Profit earned outside the cost of living. That lawyer was aquitted because he proved that "income" was not profit for him, it was money needed to live.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, he proved his wages were just compensation for labor and, therefore, there were not profits.

In other words, he argued there are no profits inherent in wages. You are paid what your labor is worth and, therefore, it's a zero sum gain -- not taxable.

It's an interesting argument and I can't wait to see how it plays out in the courts.

[DarkReign]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, he proved his wages were just compensation for labor and, therefore, there were not profits.

In other words, he argued there are no profits inherent in wages. You are paid what your labor is worth and, therefore, it's a zero sum gain -- not taxable.

It's an interesting argument and I can't wait to see how it plays out in the courts.

Yeah, you definately said it much more eloquently. The whole reason I cited the definition of profit. Wages arent profit, by definition.

But dont use the word "compensation". Its cited in that tax link.

[Peter]

Oh, I mustve missed where it said "wages earned through employment".

That tax you cited applies to "profits". Profit earned outside the cost of living. That lawyer was aquitted because he proved that "income" was not profit for him, it was money needed to live.

I dont know how the government defines "profit", but here's Merriam-Webster:



Interestingly, "profit" seems to be defined as a "gain". A means of which most people dont live in. Everyone has heard the term "lives check-to-check".

That means, nearly all (seriously, above 80%) of all money earned working is used to live. Just to live. Thats not taxable.

There have been a couple IRS agents who resigned when pointed to this fact. There is no law that says we pay tax on WAGES. Wages are earned through employment.

You can tax profit, but lawfully speaking, they cant tax wages. Key word. You think that simple word was left out on accident? Or that the IRS isnt aware of it? Youd think they would have changed that, dont ya think?

But they cant, nor will they. Because its unconstitutional to do so.


"Compensation for services" seems rather clear.

Anyways, if you really believe that it's unconstitutional, don't file next year.

[DarkReign]

"Compensation for services" seems rather clear.

Anyways, if you really believe that it's unconstitutional, don't file next year.

Really? Is it really that clear? Wouldnt you think "wages" would be clearer?

Or is it vague on purpose so that statement can be interpreted to overreach its intended meaning?

Do you even know how old the Federal Income tax is? 1913.

Seems to me the government operated just fine before then, why did we need the 16th amendment? I dont know.

Quick hit here...


Other courts have noted this distinction in upholding the taxation not only of wages, but also of personal gain derived from other sources - but there are limitations to the reach of income taxation. For example, in Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971), a couple had lost their home to a fire, and had received compensation for their loss from the insurance company, partly in the form of hotel costs reimbursed. The court acknowledged the authority of the IRS to assess taxes on all forms of payment, but did not permit taxation on the compensation provided by the insurance company, because unlike a wage or a sale of goods at a profit, this was not a gain. As the Court noted, "Congress has taxed income, not compensation".

So which one is which? Sure, being compensated for your house burning down is one thing, but didnt you say I am being compensated for the service I perform to my employer?

Either we need to overhaul the language, or its bunk to begin with. Im not a lawyer, but a man just unanimously won an aquittal on this matter. Thats big. Thats huge. I hope he takes to fight higher. The country was fine before the 16th amendment of 1913.

We always talk about temporary Executive powers that have yet to be "given back" so to speak. This is a Legislative power that has yet to be given back, yet nobody talks about it.

Before 1913, the federal ability to tax income was only used twice and only temporarily in times of hardship, during the Civil War and in the 1890s while the country was going bankrupt, only then to be ratified for good in 1913.

And what ever did the country do without it? Simple, States had more power to tax under two provisions, head taxes (census numbers) and property tax.

The fifty states representatives in (federal) Congress then set a budget they would need to perform their duties from the pool of each state individually. Not this collective abomination we live in now.

[Peter]

Really? Is it really that clear? Wouldnt you think "wages" would be clearer?

"Compensation" is frequently used in reference to salaries and wages.




Or is it vague on purpose so that statement can be interpreted to overreach its intended meaning?


Obviously it is vague to enable the NWO's diabolical scheme.




Do you even know how old the Federal Income tax is? 1913.


Yes. And it's not 1913 years old.



Seems to me the government operated just fine before then, why did we need the 16th amendment? I dont know.


So that the Feds can levy a tax on citizens' income.




Quick hit here...

So which one is which? Sure, being compensated for your house burning down is one thing, but didnt you say I am being compensated for the service I perform to my employer?


upholding the taxation not only of wages, but also of personal gain derived from other sources...unlike a wage or a sale of goods at a profit, this was not a gain.

And the statute states "compensation for services".




Either we need to overhaul the language, or its bunk to begin with. Im not a lawyer, but a man just unanimously won an aquittal on this matter. Thats big. Thats huge. I hope he takes to fight higher. The country was fine before the 16th amendment of 1913.


He persuaded 12 people in rural Louisiana to agree with him.




We always talk about temporary Executive powers that have yet to be "given back" so to speak. This is a Legislative power that has yet to be given back, yet nobody talks about it.

Before 1913, the federal ability to tax income was only used twice and only temporarily in times of hardship, during the Civil War and in the 1890s while the country was going bankrupt, only then to be ratified for good in 1913.

And what ever did the country do without it? Simple, States had more power to tax under two provisions, head taxes (census numbers) and property tax.

The fifty states representatives in (federal) Congress then set a budget they would need to perform their duties from the pool of each state individually. Not this collective abomination we live in now.

So don't file next year, right?

[Peter]

The court rejected all of Cryer's motions to dismiss, but the government withdrew the felony charges of tax evasion before the trial began and Cryer was tried on two counts of misdemeanor failure to file. Cryer was acquitted after a three-day trial, after apparently having convinced the jury that his failure to file was not willful.

link (http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/tommy-cryer)

[Peter]

Cryer's "memo" to the court. (http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf)

[Yonivore]

"Compensation for services" seems rather clear.

Anyways, if you really believe that it's unconstitutional, don't file next year.
If the challenge stands, I might not.

[Peter]

If the challenge stands, I might not.

The "challenge" amounted to him avoiding a couple of misdemeanors on failure to file charges because the jury found that his lack of filing was not willful. Hardly a silver bullet, to say the least.

Instructive reading
The Tax Protestor FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
Tax Protestor Dossiers (http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/)

Anyways, don't hedge. Don't file next year. Be a patriot. Take your stand against Leviathan. Yadda yadda yadda.

[Yonivore]

The Fair Tax would solve all this.

[BradLohaus]

There have been a couple IRS agents who resigned when pointed to this fact. There is no law that says we pay tax on WAGES.

Sounds like you've heard of Joe Banister. I heard of him about a year ago, and I looked for an interview of him on youtube, and I saw this one with Alex Jones. Whatever you think of Alex Jones, don't dismiss the interview because he is the interviewer; Banister does almost all the talking and Jones just basically asks questions to move the interview along. It's very interesting.

Joe Banister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Banister

Interview part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3KMGK22gOs

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFmeoGn0kwQ&mode=related&search=

part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavy91QnRsc&mode=related&search=

[inconvertible]

wow, I like how the fed dropped the felony counts.......they lost and they hardly ever lose. that means there is a valid arguement out there.

[Peter]

wow, I like how the fed dropped the felony counts.......they lost and they hardly ever lose. that means there is a valid arguement out there.

It looks like the jury felt sorry for an old man. Not finding that he willfully failed to file is a far cry from a repudiation of entire federal income tax as enforced.

[TheAuthority]

DarkReign, did you or did you not just *attempt* to criticize me for posting a similar link to this? 2 of those links pertain to this exact subject. My, my. As I suspected, you are a complete hypocrite and you have 0 credibility to go along with intellect.

Since the rest of you seem genuinely interested in the topic, and seem to not have a very good grasp of how the law works, maybe this video will shed light on it a bit for you. ->Clickity click click (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nX-03Sf1wDo)

[DarkReign]

DarkReign, did you or did you not just *attempt* to criticize me for posting a similar link to this? 2 of those links pertain to this exact subject. My, my. As I suspected, you are a complete hypocrite and you have 0 credibility to go along with intellect.

Since the rest of you seem genuinely interested in the topic, and seem to not have a very good grasp of how the law works, maybe this video will shed light on it a bit for you. ->Clickity click click (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nX-03Sf1wDo)

Who are you and why do I care what you, a homophobic fuckwad, thinks?

[xrayzebra]

Sheeeessssh! Do you mean I have paying income taxes all these
years and didn't have to.

[BradLohaus]

I watched "America: Freedom to Fascism" this weekend. While I wouldn't vouch for every word in the movie, if only a fraction of it is true then all I can say is, wow. And I know for a fact that much more than a fraction of it is true, just from the parts on the Federal Reserve. If you have 111 minutes to spare then it is definitely worth watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America+freedom+to+fascism&total=807&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[DarkReign]

I just watched the whole link, Brad.

It reminds me of the Zeitgeist link you provided before (i think you did anyway).

Then I made a seperate thread concerning the same subject matter.

Im not so sure I am proud to be apart of the generation that allows these events under the ignorance of "safety".

While the politicians pander to the weak-kneed about immigration, gay marriage and which side is more patriotic, those same people willfully and surgically avoid the real problems with the world.

Im disgusted. Im sick to read about anything else. This is the single most important issue at hand, and yet we on this board never discuss it.

Why?

[DarkReign]

BTW, so you know Brad, I ripped your post off and posted on another board I frequent.

Not the wording, just the video link.

Hope ya dont mind.

[DarkReign]

A front page story in the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1993, stated, "The current Fed structure is difficult to justify in a democracy. It’s an oddly undemocratic institution. Its organization is so dated that there is only one Reserve bank west of the Rockies, and two in Missouri...Having a central bank with a monopoly over the issuance of the currency in a democratic society is a very difficult balancing act."


"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.
"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.
"We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave. "The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper, the finest in the world, and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper, which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sough to save us."
-Louis T. McFadden, House Representative for Pennsylvania


They must find it difficult....
Those who have taken authority as the truth,rather than truth as the authority.
-Gerald Massey


"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917


"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950


"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952


"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws..." Meyer Nathaniel Rothchild in a speech to a gathering of world bankers February 12, 1912.The following year, we subscribed to the "services" of the newly incorporated Federal Reserve, headed by Mr. Rothchild.


"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller Hmmm, wonder what he was "hoping" for.....?


"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

[BradLohaus]

I just watched the whole link, Brad.

It reminds me of the Zeitgeist link you provided before (i think you did anyway).

Then I made a seperate thread concerning the same subject matter.

Im not so sure I am proud to be apart of the generation that allows these events under the ignorance of "safety".

While the politicians pander to the weak-kneed about immigration, gay marriage and which side is more patriotic, those same people willfully and surgically avoid the real problems with the world.

Im disgusted. Im sick to read about anything else. This is the single most important issue at hand, and yet we on this board never discuss it.

Why?

I didn't link to the zeitgeist movie, but I did start to watch it. I stopped pretty early on at the religion bashing. But I went back and watched the parts on the Fed and the wars, about 30-40 minutes of it, on youtube. Those parts were good, I thought. One part mentioned the conversation Aaron Russo had with Nick Rockefeller. I had heard of that before. That story is one reason why I don't understand why they went after religion.

Almost everyone knows that Revelations says that there will one day be a one world government, and that people will have to take a mark to be able to buy and sell. Today, you have rich, powerful and influential people who openly talk about how great a one world government will be, and how great a cashless society will be, where all money is digital and people store their "money" in a chip in their finger! I mean, that's pretty damn frightening if you ask me. Maybe they think it's a coincidence, I don't know. But that's one heck of a prediction from a guy living in a cave on a small Greek island 2,000 years ago.

And yeah, I almost never post on political, left/right Dem/Rep stuff, unless it's about Ron Paul. What's the point? People at the top are bought and paid for by these powerful people. I mean, you have Kerry vs. Bush in '04, both members of a super secret, super elite secret society. Does anybody really think that they are more loyal to any of us than they are to each other? Get real. Rupert Murdoch owns the supposedly conservative Fox News, and he gives a buch of money to Hillary Clinton, and has fund raisers for her! What a sad joke. Did they report that on Fox News? I doubt it. And I'm not singling out that channel; it's almost all the media.

The people associated with these elite groups - the CFR, the trilateral commision, the Bilderberg Group, etc. - own all of the major media: TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses. At least this reality seems to be getting past the point of people dismissing it as a conspiracy theory. I guess it really is a conspiracy - a conspiracy of rich and powerful people with an agenda, using their wealth and power to increase thier wealth, increase their power, and push their agenda forward. People act like that never happens. It has happened over and over again since the dawn of civilization! It has just never happened on a global, or near global, scale before. All hail globalization.

And those were some good quotes you posted. These people don't hide their agenda as much as people think. They just know that if people don't see it on the news then they won't believe it, or they won't bother to look into it for themselves.