TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Lawyer/Tax Protestor Tom Cryer Acquitted of Tax Evasion in U.S. District Court

Louisiana attorney Tommy K. Cryer was acquitted on two counts of tax evasion in a jury trial in the federal district court in Louisiana.  For a detailed account of the trial, see here.  See the original DOJ press release (Local Attorney Indicted on Tax Evasion Charges (10/26/06)).  Press and blogosphere coverage:

For Mr. Cryer's theories on why Americans are not subject to the income tax, see his 109-page memorandum filed in the district court, summarized in this four-part YouTube series from the Lie-Free Zone:

For the IRS's detailed critique of tax protestor arguments, see The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments (11/30/06).  (Hat Tip: Al Golbert.)

Update:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/07/lawyertax-prote.html

New Cases, News | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00e3981c8abb8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lawyer/Tax Protestor Tom Cryer Acquitted of Tax Evasion in U.S. District Court:

» shreveport attorney tommy k. cryer acquitted on... from wesawthat...
back on 05 march 2007 we brought you news about shreveport, louisiana attorney tommy k. cryer and his struggle against the internal revenue service and the income tax fraud. his trial was finally held in shreveport and he won! below is a story that a... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 26, 2007 11:19:37 PM

» 'NOT GUILTY' DOESN'T MEAN 'NOT TAXABLE' from Roth & Company, P.C.
The Tax Prof notes the acquittal of tax-protesting lawyer Tom Cryer on criminal tax charges. The Tax Girl has also... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 27, 2007 6:20:34 AM

Comments

Thanks to what sounds to me like some buffoonery by the DOJ lawyers, the tax avoidance zealots will have a field day with the results of this case.

But just so those who will be celebrating this acquittal cannot continue to promote the preposterous lie that "we've asked, but the government has refused to show us the law requiring us to pay Federal income taxes," please read the document at the following web address before you buy into such foolish nonsense:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | Jul 27, 2007 5:42:37 AM

Unfortunately, the so-called IRS critique is not detailed at all! It stipulates no context, no significant sources and no real reply to the arguments. This is typical. The IRS does not even obey its own regulations and manuals, for heaven's sake!!

Posted by: Dave | Jul 27, 2007 9:17:56 AM

Dear Concerned Citizen: Please read my post. That IRS document (does it carry an OMB number?!) is heavy on propaganda and light on content and context and sources.

Posted by: Dave | Jul 27, 2007 9:19:03 AM

Wow, concerned citizen, sounds like being a slave to fraud runs deep in your blood, eh? Move to Israel, concerned citizen.

Posted by: FuckYou | Jul 27, 2007 9:50:58 AM

READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING QUOTE VERY CAREFULLY......

“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.” F. Morse Hubard, U.S. Congressional Record, March 27, 1943 (page 2580)


What the government sycophants can't seem to grasp (or refuse to acknowledge)is that the "income tax" is a tax on certain ACTIVITIES that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government to regulate. The tax is not ON income, per se. Congress did not tax the MONEY earned from the activities, but rather the activities THEMSELVES. The "income" earned is the MEASURMENT OF THE TAX.

The ACTIVITIES which actually are statutorily taxed are found in the "operative sections" of the Internal Revenue Code in Subchapter N, which is aptly titled "Tax Based on Income from Sources Within or Without the United States." (this is where the law provides the NECESSARY specifics as to what constitutes "income from whatever source derived.")

There is NO "operative section" describing the activities of the average American, only international and posssessions commerce.

Section 61 is nothing but a broadly worded GENERAL definition statute. It does not establish liability for anyone, including the people for whom the code actually does make liable (which are the people who engage in the activites described in the "operative sections." Examples of "operative sections" are 26 USC 871, 26 USC 911.

Posted by: Ken | Jul 27, 2007 10:39:11 AM

So the IRS could not show that Mr. Cryer's earnings were Gross Income.Perhaps the defintion of Gross Income can shed some light on the reason why.
1928 TAX ACT
GROSS INCOME DEFINED: NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL.
[Src. 213.3 (c) In the case of a nonresident alien individual, gross
income means only the gross income from sources within the United
States, determined under the provisions of section 217.
I
ART. 92. Gross income of nonresident alien individuals.-In the case
of nonresident alien individuals ‘‘ gross income ” means only the gross
income from sources within the United States, determined under the
provisions of section 217. See articles 316-329. As to the gross income
of foreign corporations see section 233 (b) of the statute and
article 550 ; also section 217 and articles 316-329. The items bf gross
income from sources without the United States and therefore not
taxable to nonresident aliens or foreign corporations are’described in
section 217(c) and article 322. As to who are nonresident alien individuals

ART, 311. Definition.-A ‘‘ nonresident alien individual ” means an
individual (a) whose residence is not within the United States and
(6) who is not a citizen of the United States. An alien actually
present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner
is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax.
Whether he is a transient or not is determined by his intentions with...
---------------------------------------------

[comment] The reader will notice that the defintion of "Gross Income" concerns only Non Resident Aliens.The sources (16th Amendement) are Corporate earnings,(Federal Corporations to be more percise)and can be in the form of salaries,wages,ect.(items of Gross Income)
Once a Non Resident Alien is receiving Gross Income,in whatever form (item) he then becomes a "taxpayer".
------------------------------
Internal Revenue Code of 1954

SEC. 451. GENERAL RULE FOR TAXABLE YEAR OF INCLUSION.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—The amount of any item of gross income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer, unless, under the method of accounting used in computing taxable income, such amount is to be properly accounted for as of a different period.
------------------------------
I bet you thought the code was talking about you

Posted by: karlkat | Aug 2, 2007 11:14:32 AM

This will be appealed I'm sure. I would not be surprised to see an Appeals court overturn the decision.

I believe the strongest argument against the current income tax would be in anti discrimination legislature. The current tax code is very discriminatory treating those with different marriage status, whether they have children or not, disabled individuals etc differently which essentially amounts to discrimination.

I wish our leaders would see the problem and costs involved in fighting these tax dodgers and also the fact that most illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes and revamp the system completely. I would love to see it dissolved and a national sales tax imposed in its place as a sales tax I do not see as being discriminatory.

That's just my thoughts.

Posted by: john | Aug 9, 2007 10:14:45 AM

Why would you want a flat tax? NO FLAT TAX!
More NEW money for the polititions to squander.
You cannot tax a country into prosperity, Never happen. You CAN un-tax a country with tremendous benefits, as the government actually gets MORE money to spend. Increasing taxes on the people does NOT increase money for the government to spend. FACT!

Why replace something that collects money from the people, that goes nowhere near any services for its people. First of all it would NOT become a replacement, it would become an addition. Look at all the countries with VAT or flat taxes. It hurts the people and the country.

Getting rid of the IRS is also foolish.
The IRS provides many services beyond just the Income Tax. The Income tax rules need to be stated so the lay person understands that domestic labor is NOT taxable. Period. Thats all.
Look what Bushes tax cut did for our economy. We
could use this same boost that this would provide. It is the middle class that suffers from the Income tax. Let them spend their money.
There would be ZERO loss of benefits or value to the people.

Clarifying the Income Tax Law that states specifically normal people are NOT required to file or pay is the only solution. THAT is all that is required. Get rid of the weasel words, and state clearly what the law says.

Posted by: John Beaman | Aug 23, 2007 1:02:47 PM

I am just curious if anyone has ever read the congressional journal for the 16th amendment creation ( 61st congress 44th journal 3rd session i believe)

I am further curious is any of the "tax experts" actually know what meaning of income is to be used in applying the IRC???

If not, you might try the congressional record again.

It will show you that they understood that a constrained definition would not hold over time.
So they left it to the courts to define "income"

Incidentally, for the purpose of the income tax code income is as claimed by tommy as per Black's
Gains and Profit. This again can clearly be seen in the Record.

Moreover, even with the ambiguities of the code it correlates exactly with the oringal ideas if you simply apply the correct meaning of income to it.
It is clear that the congress knew that rich people got richer by way of investing their money and getting "income" back in the form of gains!!!

They further understood for the country to be strong "all individuals" must have teh ability to increase wealth. This is the whole point of NOT taxing labor payments and only taxing investment gains of the individual.
They even sent so far as to allow a $5000 exemption on said gains so as to insure the prosperity of ALL MEN, before income tax applied to it.
As far as i can see today the IRS uses the definition of "income" as used in normal conversation, that is, everything you make, to apply code.

This is a patently false idea and in fact is completely against the law.

Furthermore the court has held at least back to 1895 and as recently as 1988 that money paid for LABOR is NOT income under the statute.

I am just curious how the "experts" will respond to this fact??

Try it people. read the congressional record to determine intent. then apply the correct meaning of income and see what you come up with. it will flip you out i promise. Of course i have only been studying this for 20 years so i coudl be wrong. peace people

Posted by: wildbill | Aug 24, 2007 5:58:21 PM

John Beaman,

Can you provide links to the congressional records that you reference in your post?

It would be helpful to read what you are refering to.

Posted by: Joseph | Aug 30, 2007 3:55:38 PM

Here is the crowning blow to the legality of the personal income tax, quoted from a tax lawyer and former federal prosecutor":

"The principal reason, in my opinion, that an individual is not required to file an income tax return is because otherwise, the law would violate our country's sacred Bill of Rights - particularly our Fifth Amendment protected right. Under the 5th, can the government compel you to supply them with information that can be used against you in a criminal proceeding? No. Please read section 6103 (h) and (j) of the Internal Revenue Code. It says that all returns and retun information may be given to the U.S. Attorney and Justice Department for criminal prosecution."

In other words, when you file and sign an income tax return, you have effectively waived your 5th amendment right not to testify against yourself. Are you folks on this forum, who contend that the income tax is mandatory, saying that this is within the authority of the federal government to force citizens into doing this?

Furthermore:

"SCOTUS, in the case of Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145, (1960), declared that our tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment rather than upon distraint (force). This quote from SCOTUS was repeated with approval by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court in the case of Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, in 1983."

"In addition the various commissioners of the Internal Revenue Service have stated publicly that our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. What does this mean? In plain English, it means, as any English professor will attest, exactly what it says. "Voluntary", in any dictionary, means you have the right to "choose."

Posted by: jmster | Nov 12, 2008 11:53:28 AM