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 cons utionality 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 cons utional 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 cons utionality 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 sub le, 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

[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

[DarkReign]

?

It's in the US Code:




link

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 uncons utional 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 uncons utional to do so.

"Compensation for services" seems rather clear.

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

[DarkReign]

"Compensation for services" seems rather clear.

Anyways, if you really believe that it's uncons utional, 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

[Peter]

Cryer's "memo" to the court.

[Yonivore]

"Compensation for services" seems rather clear.

Anyways, if you really believe that it's uncons utional, 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
Tax Protestor Dossiers

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=qFmeo...elated&search=

part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavy9...elated&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

[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

Who are you and why do I care what you, a phobic wad, 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?do...arch&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?