The Tax Protesters' Refrain Works for Once

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1845-2003Aug16.html

Last week a jury in Memphis acquitted a woman of criminal charges arising from her refusal to pay federal income taxes on $920,000 she earned from 1996 to 2001. The basis for her refusal, which the jury apparently found sufficient, was that the Internal Revenue Service hadn't showed her where in the law it says she had to pay.

She wrote the IRS a letter in 1995, she said, demanding an answer to her question, and when none was forthcoming, she filed W-4 forms indicating she didn't owe tax. The IRS eventually brought criminal charges of tax evasion and filing false W-4s. If she had been convicted by the federal court jury, she would have faced up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

The defense employed by Vernice Kuglin, a 58-year-old FedEx pilot, was a variation on a longtime theme of tax protesters, which in essence says that Congress somehow neglected to put the trigger in the tax gun -- all this tax law but no provision saying you actually have to pay.

Other courts have been giving this argument short shrift. The U.S. Tax Court, which specializes in handling civil tax cases and has grown thoroughly impatient with tax protesters, is increasingly willing to hand out penalties of thousands of dollars in such cases. And the IRS has persuaded a federal court in Nevada to bar protester Irwin Schiff from selling a book that contends taxes are voluntary.

Nonetheless, a jury was persuaded by Kuglin's argument -- that because IRS forms say the agency is required to cite various code sections before asking for taxpayer information, it is required to respond to her demands that she be shown where it says she has to pay.

more

[NYC]

1. That's very interesting.

Enron doesn't have to pay taxes. Maybe Vernice Kuglin will become the paradigm for the rest of us. All hail Vernice Kuglin!

Wouldn't that make quite a change in our rules and regulations.

[pansypoo53219]

2. just hope she

ain't one of them right wing greedy assholes who don't feel the OWE the Govt.

[KCDem]

3. I think we should all stop paying taxes.

Hell, if Enron and Vernice get away with it, why should those of us on substandard wages have to?

Let's take our cue: Screw the federal and state government, to each his own.

We'll see how long they like. it.

[Systematic Chaos]

4. I've said it before, and I'll say it again

There IS NO LAW requiring anyone not deriving their income from a "revenue taxable activity", which includes probably 99.9% of us, to pay any kind of income tax!

This individual was smart. She studied the pertinent court cases, learned the tax code well, and played all her cards right.

Instead of depending on "experts" (lawyers) to defend us in these circumstances, it should be every American's duty to learn the law and how it does or does not apply to them so that they can properly defend themselves. You think most attourneys even know anything about this? Not likely! You think they would admit it if they did? Again, not likely! How can they make any money defending poor hapless IRS victims if everyone takes the time to learn the law?

[wellst0nev0ter]

5. Hmm, There's No Law That Says "You Can't Kill Anybody"

Just laws that punish you for killing people. So if I take that woman's logic. . .

<Rest of the post edited for content per the guidelines set by the TIA>

[AP]

6. Is there a criminal/civil distinction here?

She may not be guilty of whatever crime she was charged with, but that doesn't mean that she isn't civily liable. Failure to respond to a civil judgment can trigger criminal action, but you have to go through a procedure to do that. I've read nothing more about this case than what's posted above, so I'm really shooting from the hip, but it seems to me that if she wasn't charged with ignoring a civil judgment, that would be ignoring the proper route for this action.

[pw]

7. She appears to have filed false documents

In most cases there's a difference between saying "I'm not required to pay" and saying "I don't actually have the income my employers says I do."

[fob]

8. False documents, Not necessarily.

From what I understand this is the important part;

Nonetheless, a jury was persuaded by Kuglin's argument -- that because IRS forms say the agency is required to cite various code sections before asking for taxpayer information, it is required to respond to her demands that she be shown where it says she has to pay. emphasis added

So, until they cite the code that she has to pay, she does not have to provide them with any of her taxpayer information. So she filled out her w-4's with 99 exemptions and got most(not all) of her paycheck. Now, when the IRS cites the code to her, she would then be obligated to give them her taxpayer info, ie the "real w-4 exemption #'s"

The interesting thing about this is, that if there was a "have to pay code" in the tax code, the IRS could have brought that out in the case and it would have been all over.