One for the Little Guy

4nik8

Herban Legend
Founder
Mar 5, 2008
730
0
16
52
Hick-ville
Tennessee Man Wins "Willful Failure to File" Case
IRS Strategy Upset

Reprinted from "Alert" (Circa 1992-1993) POB 9411, Boise, Idaho 83707

NON-TAXPAYER BEATS IRS IN TENNESSEE COURT BATTLE
Another Research Foundation Member Found "Not Guilty" on All Counts in Well-Publicized Jury Trial
by Lamarr Hardy

"Hallelujah!" was Lloyd L. Long's first comment, after being acquitted, recently, of all "Willful Failure to File" tax charges lodged against him by the Internal Revenue Service for the years 1989 and 1990. How did he do that? No, it wasn't a "miracle." Long did it by bringing before the jury solid, well-documented evidence, acquired from the Research Foundation, and other sources.

Long based his defense on his personal belief that he was not a person required to file Federal income tax returns. Long's war of words was engaged through his attorneys, the nationally-prominent Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama and Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, who fought with the most powerful and time-honored weapon available: THE TRUTH!

ARGUMENTS OPEN JURY EYES IN 3-DAY COURT BATTLE
To open his defense, Long testified under oath that he had personally studied the IR Code (Title 26), and truly believed the income tax to be an excise tax which applied only to specific type of individuals or "persons" specified in the IR Code.

According to Long's research, the income tax applied ONLY to non- resident aliens, and U.S. citizens living abroad in a country where a tax treaty exists with the United States (Internal Revenue Code Sections 1441-1443).

Long stated that the only other IR Code section he found that deals with the issue of who is liable for income tax on the "withholding agent." In conclusion Long said "I am not one of those people referred to in Sections 1441, 1442, and 1461, and therefore I believe the law cannot apply to me." Long, to verify his statement, picked up his copy of IR Code book, (a 2 1/4 inch thick, 5 lb. volume containing 9,416 pages of small print!) and cited one of the pages he had carefully tabbed from Section 7701(a)(16) which defines the term "withholding agent" used in Section 1461.

The jury also heard Long say that "there are many other tax liability sections that apply 'privileged occupation' to those who are involved in the sale or manufacture of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and the manufacture of firearms, BUT I CAN FIND NO SECTION IN SUBTITLE A THAT APPLIES TO ME."

FILING "REQUIRED BY LAW" DECLARES PROSECUTION LAWYER
In presenting the case for the Internal Revenue Service, assistant U.S. Attorney Curtis Collier, assisted by IRS special agent Michael Cheasley, declared that Mr. Long had a gross income in excess of $49,000 for each of the years 1989 and 1990, and that he had "willfully" failed to file income tax returns for those years as "required by law."

In trial, the defense admitted that Mr. Long did in fact have income in excess of $49,000 for each of the years in question, and that he did not file a return. Attorney Becraft, in defense of Long, proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Long was not "liable" for an income tax, nor was he "required by law" to file.

COURT RULINGS CITED AS PROOF
Defense testimony showed a case titled "Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad" wherein it was the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sixteenth Amendment (to the Constitution) did not give congress any new power to tax any new subjects; it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax was imposed. The ruling also showed that the income tax was, in fact, an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations.

The defense then brought out a case entitled "Flint v Stone Tracy Co." wherein an excise tax was defined as being a tax laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.

Long's attorneys also brought out a case entitled "Simins v Arehns" wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.

Next the defense turned to the case of "Redfield v Fisher." In this instance, the court ruled that an individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but that the individual's right to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot be imposed. Defense also pointed to several studies done by the Congressional Research Service showing the INCOME TAX is an EXCISE.

A Tennessee Supreme Court case, "Jack Cole v Commissioner," provided the fifth defense argument. Here, the court ruled that CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED BY RIGHT TO INCOME OR EARNINGS AND THAT RIGHT COULD NOT BE TAXED AS A PRIVILEGE.

Finally, Long's legal team pointed to another Tennessee Supreme Court case, "Corn v Fort," in which the court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and antecedent of government.

NO IRS CHALLENGE
What's interesting to note here is that the prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute any of the cases cited, or the conclusions of the courts. Furthermore, on the following defense, once again the prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute the point made by Long's attorneys, nor were they able to show a statute that made anyone liable for income tax.

This testimony, brought out by Defense was the fact that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (some 9,722 separate Sections, as of 1992!) WAS ANYONE ACTUALLY MADE LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX.

DEFENSE CITES IRS'S OWN CODE BOOK
Long's attorneys showed that in the IRS's own privacy act (Notice #609), only three sections were cited, and that none of these sections made anyone liable for the income tax. They also proved that this was not an oversight, by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no one could misinterpret who was made liable for the alcohol tax.

At this time, Defense presented one of the arguments provided by Long's Research Foundation studies. They read to the jury the Mission Statement of the Internal Revenue Service, which state that the income tax relied upon "VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE," and a quote from the head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS which, in essence, showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol tax, which is 100% enforced.

LONG TESTIFIES
Under oath, Lloyd L. Long now testified that in 1988 he knew that the income tax was, in fact, an excise tax based on his personal research on the issue, and that he was not enjoying any corporate privileges nor engaged in any privileged occupation, and further that income or earnings from the exercise of common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise, and that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code was he made liable for the tax; that he had always believed that the income tax was voluntary (just as the IRS own Mission Statement states!).

LONG'S EXTENSIVE PRE-TRIAL RESEARCH USED IN EVIDENCE
Lloyd L. Long came to his attorneys, and to trial "prepared to be acquitted" (as it were). What had he already done? Long had written a series of letters to the IRS explaining that he believed that he had no licenses or privileges issued to him by the Federal government. In his letters he asked the IRS for direct answers to simple questions such as: "Am I required to file federal income tax returns?" and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?" (He was building a strong evidentiary foundation for his belief that he was NOT a person "required.")

THE IRS NEVER GAVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO ANY OF LONG'S PERSONAL LETTERS OR QUESTIONS. Instead, they inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and generally avoided answering his letters. This is when Long testified "I decided to stop 'volunteering' because if the IRS can't answer my questions, I must assume that I'm correct; that there is NO section of the IRS Code that makes me liable for the income tax.

IRS WITNESS CRUMPLES UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION
The IRS now brought in two "expert" witnesses, who -- it was learned - - were actually IRS employees who had received special training as professional witnesses.

Under cross-examination, Defense attorney Larry Becraft faced down Special Agent, Ms. Jeu. She admitted that a secret code, known only to the IRS and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record, showed that THE IRS KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAIL OR FILE A 1040 INCOME TAX RETURN. Ms. Jeu, of course, made every effort to avoid the admission, to the point that she was beginning to frustrate the jury. Finally the judge ordered her to answer the question!

Under cross-examination by Mr. Becraft, the other Special Agent gave testimony that conflicted with the Privacy Act notice. (Attempts by the IRS at a cover-up of the truth must have been obvious to the jury, by this time.)

GOVERNMENT USES "GUILT BY ASSOCIATION" AS A DESPERATE PLOY
In a last ditch attempt, the Prosecution tried to insinuate "guilt by association." They claimed Mr. Long had "known and relied upon persons of questionable character." Their argument was that the writers of some of the books he had read, and some of the people he knew and relied on as the basis for his belief had been convicted of tax-related charges in the past, and were in fact "criminals."

Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a crime by a court, this did not invalidate everything he said. To illustrate his point, Long pointed out that "the Apostle Paul was a murderer, but by the Grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles." He added "I did not rely on anything that I did not personally check out thoroughly."

BECRAFT SUMMATION "FINISHES" IRS
In summation, Mr. Becraft reminded the jury that Galileo was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with what everyone else "knew as a fact" and that Columbus, acting on a belief which conflicted with what everyone else knew as a "fact," discovered something no one else thought existed.

The jury agreed with the Defense. By finding Lloyd L. Long "Not Guilty" on all counts, they have ventured into hitherto uncharted territory in their monumental decision.

A Chattanooga TV station quoted a government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS will handle such cases in the future. The spokesman for the government indicated that the government will, "be less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in our favor."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just wondering... how will the gov't change the way the IRS will handle future cases?

I also wonder if anyone else, besides the court cases stated by the defense, if anyone else has beaten the tax rap..

I don't think I'll start withholding taxes "just to see".

It also makes you wonder... what would happen to the Welfare Industry, War Industry, etc if it were to be proven (widely) that taxes weren't actually required and the funds dried up...
 

KommieKat

Mao's Pet Cat
Founder
Mar 2, 2008
3,497
6
68
58
Hong Kong, hiding from the Kommies!
I don't think I'll start withholding taxes "just to see".

It also makes you wonder... what would happen to the Welfare Industry, War Industry, etc if it were to be proven (widely) that taxes weren't actually required and the funds dried up...
I have over five years of unfilled tax returns as well as other ex-pats.
The U.S. is the only country in the world to tax it's citizens living over seas with an income over $95,000 per year.
I never quite made that much.

Hmmm........I wonder what will happen if and when I decide to return......
 

Unhappy Camper

Hells yeah
Founder
Mar 10, 2008
5,012
25
178
Fayettenam Area, NC
Oops.
I wonder how the gov't handlED it then. Better?

Every damn decade some dude tries to not pay taxes and uses an "interpretation" of the constitution to try and prove a case.

JURY trials in TAXATION cases are harder on the Government because people, in general, abhor taxes and tend to empathize with the defendants.

Your article points to that fact by mentioning "jury trial" several times in an effort to distinguish it from a non Jury trial.

I'd wager that the State made an appeal and/or he never got out of paying his taxes again after that day.




Wiki seems to have a few cogent pointers on the subject as well.
 

4nik8

Herban Legend
Founder
Mar 5, 2008
730
0
16
52
Hick-ville
Every damn decade some dude tries to not pay taxes and uses an "interpretation" of the constitution to try and prove a case.

JURY trials in TAXATION cases are harder on the Government because people, in general, abhor taxes and tend to empathize with the defendants.

Your article points to that fact by mentioning "jury trial" several times in an effort to distinguish it from a non Jury trial.

I'd wager that the State made an appeal and/or he never got out of paying his taxes again after that day.
I found this searching for info about what you mentioned.
*It doesn't mean I condone not paying taxes... just something I found*

Associated Press -- FAIRBANKS

A jury recently acquitted a man of income tax evasion charges after he claimed he did not believe he needed to pay federal income taxes.

Gabriel Scott faced a maximum of 10 years in jail and a $200,000 fine if convicted of the felonies. He was acquitted in July. Scott's federally appointed attorney told the jurors in

U.S. District Court that the sheet metal worker was bamboozled by a national tax-protest organization that convinced him he did not owe taxes, the attorney said.

A federal grand jury had indicted Scott in April on two counts of income-tax evasion for 1989 and 1990. Tax officials estimated that Scott owed the IRS $15,000 in back taxes.

Sue-Ellen Tatter, an assistant federal public defender said Scott subscribed to information published by Save A Patriot, a Maryland based tax-protest group (sic).

To find Scott criminally negligent, the jury would have needed to believe he did not pay his taxes even though he knew he should.

He listened to these people and he genuinely believed what they had to offer, Tatter said.

Prosecutor Andrew Kahl said Scott was aware he should pay, and said the federal government had been pursuing Scott through civil litigation for several years to recoup back taxes.

Scott has not filed a return since 1978, and the IRS will continue to pursue Scott in civil court for the money, Kahl said.




Wiki seems to have a few cogent pointers on the subject as well.
I wonder why wiki doesn't have anything in that article about those that have beaten their cases?
 

4nik8

Herban Legend
Founder
Mar 5, 2008
730
0
16
52
Hick-ville
I have over five years of unfilled tax returns as well as other ex-pats.
The U.S. is the only country in the world to tax it's citizens living over seas with an income over $95,000 per year.
I never quite made that much.

Hmmm........I wonder what will happen if and when I decide to return......
You may owe one whopper of a penalty in the form of interest.... if you've owed I mean.
 

KommieKat

Mao's Pet Cat
Founder
Mar 2, 2008
3,497
6
68
58
Hong Kong, hiding from the Kommies!
You may owe one whopper of a penalty in the form of interest.... if you've owed I mean.

Actually, no. I don't qualify. But.............they may get me for not filling anyways.

Doesn't make sense. Some places I worked for are no longer in business. There is no way I nor they can prove nor disprove anything if they decide to look into things.
 

4nik8

Herban Legend
Founder
Mar 5, 2008
730
0
16
52
Hick-ville
Actually, no. I don't qualify. But.............they may get me for not filling anyways.

Doesn't make sense. Some places I worked for are no longer in business. There is no way I nor they can prove nor disprove anything if they decide to look into things.
You make it sound like they'd need an actual figure to nail you for failure to file.
As far as I know, and I'm no scholar, the mere act of not filing is in itself a violation. Unless you had no income... or something like that.
Hell, I honestly have no idea.

I admit though, the idea that it (taxation) may be found unconstitutional is a bit scary.
How would all the lazy asses live if federal funds were cut off to pay for welfare?
Am I worried about their welfare? Not really. I'm worried about what they'd resort to in order to continue funding their laid back lifestyle. Because... I KNOW the idea of working wouldn't even be considered.
 

4nik8

Herban Legend
Founder
Mar 5, 2008
730
0
16
52
Hick-ville
Here's a neat article I found:

IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation​
Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 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.

From wiki:

In 2009, Cryer's federal tax problems continued. On April 2, 2009, Cryer filed a petition in the United States Tax Court. Cryer's petition includes a copy of three statutory notices of deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service, all dated January 5, 2009, in which the IRS asserts that Cryer owes $1,719,436.71 in taxes and penalties for the years 1993 through 2001.

The IRS asserts that Cryer owes $848,806.00 in Federal income tax plus $615,384.37 in section 6651(f) penalties for fraudulent failure to file tax returns, $212,201.50 in section 6651(a)(2) penalties for failure to timely pay the taxes, and $43,044.84 in section 6654 penalties for failure to timely pay estimated taxes.[15]

Cryer's statement in the petition, in explanation of why he disagrees with the IRS determination, is: "The amount of the claimed deficiency is disputed. The correct amount is $0.00." The trial has been scheduled for May 10, 2010 in New Orleans.[16]