IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

[alkemical]

IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Bob Unruh



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

(Story continues below)

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.

The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.


The logo for the new Truth Attack campaign against income taxes

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.

"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.

The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.

[BABronco]

interesting article.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Heh heh, I and a lot of others learned the hard way back in the early 70s about trying to not pay the IRS based on believed laws, rights, etc...

They will get their money in the end or you will pay the price.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Heh heh, I and a lot of others learned the hard way back in the early 70s about trying to not pay the IRS based on believed laws, rights, etc...

They will get their money in the end or you will pay the price.

It because of your parents and my grand parents busted generation that we even have this problem. they allowed it to happen.

[baja]

Have you guys seen this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

[yavoon]

like to hear what got him around this:

"Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by yavoon

like to hear what got him around this:

"Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Was thinking the same thing myself. In fact this Amendment was specifically created so that the govt could tax income. And since it was an amendment to the constitution it had to have had - at the time - popular support. Something like 3/4 of the states. Its like an albatross around our neck now for our tax and spend fed gov't but it was deemed necessary at the time, which was (I believe) 1916.

[baja]

Originally Posted by baja fan

Have you guys seen this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

watch this yavoom

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by yavoon

like to hear what got him around this:

"Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So if there is an amendment to the Constitution that is specifically for
collecting income taxes, what do these people that say income taxes
are unconstitutional base their claim on?


"The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury
to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the
victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher."

Does the IRS have really piss poor lawyers that they weren't aware of
this Amendment, or were the judge or jurors really stupid, or are
they just throwing what the Constitution says out the window, or what?

I mean this is far more explicit in its intent than the 2nd Amendment,
which the NRA has been able to use to uphold their claims to gun rights,
or the 1st Amendment, which pornographers use as a basis to sell
their wares.

What am I missing?

[Garcia Bronco]

Amendments to the Bill of Rights (akak the Constitution) can be ruled unconstitutional

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Amendments to the Bill of Rights (akak the Constitution) can be ruled unconstitutional

U sure about that Cuz I am pretty sure you are incorrect on that.

[baja]

The argument is that the states never ratified the amendment. a 2/3 majority approval from the states are necessary to ratify.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Amendments to the Bill of Rights (akak the Constitution) can be ruled unconstitutional

So then owning a gun could be considered unconstitutional?
Because the 2nd Amendment is what the NRA is using as
their basis for private citizens to own guns.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by baja fan

The argument is that the states never ratified the amendment. a 2/3 majority approval from the states are necessary to ratify.

If you are referring to the XVI amendment, 36 of the 48 states ratified it.
That's 3/4s of the states, and 3/4 > 2/3.

These are the states that ratified the XVI amendment and the dates of ratification:

Alabama, August 10, 1909;
Kentucky, February 8, 1910;
South Carolina, February 19, 1910;
Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910;
Maryland, April 8, 1910;
Georgia, August 3, 1910;
Texas, August 16, 1910;
Ohio, January 19, 1911;
Idaho, January 20, 1911;
Oregon, January 23, 1911;
Washington, January 26, 1911;
Montana, January 30, 1911;
Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911;
Nevada, January 31, 1911;
South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911;
North Carolina, February 11, 1911;
Colorado, February 15, 1911;
North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Kansas, February 18, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911;
Iowa, February 24, 1911;
Missouri, March 16, 1911;
Maine, March 31, 1911;
Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier);
Wisconsin, May 26, 1911;
New York, July 12, 1911;
Arizona, April 6, 1912;
Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912;
West Virginia, January 31, 1913;
New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913;
New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

So now that the argument that it was never ratified by the states is out the window,
what is the justification that it is unconstitutional to tax income?

[alkemical]

Ohio wasn't technically a state till later or something like that, and also the ratification papers were "exact" to the ratification terms or something like that.

[cheese1]

I love cheese

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Ohio wasn't technically a state till later or something like that, and also the ratification papers were "exact" to the ratification terms or something like that.

How so? How was Ohio not a state on January 19, 1911?
Considering Ohio became a state on March 1, 1803.
Almost 108 years before Ohio ratified the XVI Amendment.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

So then owning a gun could be considered unconstitutional?
Because the 2nd Amendment is what the NRA is using as
their basis for private citizens to own guns.

A court could rule that, but it eventually ends up in the Supreme Court and I doubt they would uphold that ruling.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

A court could rule that, but it eventually ends up in the Supreme Court and I doubt they would uphold that ruling.

I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold the ruling that the Federal government
can't collect income taxes either.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by loborugger

U sure about that Cuz I am pretty sure you are incorrect on that.

Because there is nothing in the US Constitution that says they can't. Loose interpretation of the constitution is basically what John Marshall, the first Chief Justice, used to create//exercise judicial review.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold the ruling that the Federal government
can't collect income taxes either.

I would agree. But they should. The federal governement is too big and we need to starve it. The President talked the talk, but he never delivered on this. Congress lowered taxes and congress then proceeded to spend more.

[Garcia Bronco]

oh...and amendment ratification is:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

If you are referring to the XVI amendment, 36 of the 48 states ratified it.
That's 3/4s of the states, and 3/4 > 2/3.

These are the states that ratified the XVI amendment and the dates of ratification:

Alabama, August 10, 1909;
Kentucky, February 8, 1910;
South Carolina, February 19, 1910;
Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910;
Maryland, April 8, 1910;
Georgia, August 3, 1910;
Texas, August 16, 1910;
Ohio, January 19, 1911;
Idaho, January 20, 1911;
Oregon, January 23, 1911;
Washington, January 26, 1911;
Montana, January 30, 1911;
Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911;
Nevada, January 31, 1911;
South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911;
North Carolina, February 11, 1911;
Colorado, February 15, 1911;
North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Kansas, February 18, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911;
Iowa, February 24, 1911;
Missouri, March 16, 1911;
Maine, March 31, 1911;
Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier);
Wisconsin, May 26, 1911;
New York, July 12, 1911;
Arizona, April 6, 1912;
Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912;
West Virginia, January 31, 1913;
New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913;
New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

So now that the argument that it was never ratified by the states is out the window,
what is the justification that it is unconstitutional to tax income?

The argument is fully presented in the video clip I posted. The explanation is given early in the video so you would not have to watch the whole thing.

Here it is;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

[Garcia Bronco]

Section 8 Article 1

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[Garcia Bronco]

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.