PDA

View Full Version : The IRS vs. Kuglin Decision


Desertrat
Aug 12, 2003, 08:49 AM
From the Sierra Times:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/10/ar_IRS_vs._KUGLIN.htm

"...on August 8, 2003, the IRS was unable to convince a jury in Memphis, Tennessee that the Federal Tax Code requires the citizens to pay individual income taxes."

"I watched as many Sunday news programs as I could possibly stand, and I didn’t hear a single mention of the IRS’ debacle in Memphis. If you ever had doubts about the mainstream media being controlled by the federal government, doubt no more."

'Rat comment: I am reminded of the quick yanking from radio stations of the Johnny Paycheck song "Stick it to the IRS", in the 1970s.

"A...federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her."

'Rat comment: The Appeals Court decision should be interesting. Does anybody know if this will go to the Fifth Circuit Court, in New Orleans?

"Now, how many calls to FOX’ Bill O’Reilly will it take to convince him we know he’s doing a spin in the No-Spin Zone by sitting on this story? Start e-mailing O’Reilly at oreilly@foxnews.com, and be sure to give him your city and state."

Well, sounds like a good idea to me.

Has anybody been following this case?

'Rat

pseudobrit
Aug 12, 2003, 12:38 PM
It won't stand up to appeal. This sort of stuff never does. Income taxes are constitutional.

Desertrat
Aug 12, 2003, 02:44 PM
I found some other info.

Apparently, all this verdict does is remove any criminal aspect from her failure to pay. No penalties.

The IRS has said it will seek civil action.

I gotta admit, I'd rather see the punditry yak about this instead of Kobe Bryant...

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 12, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I gotta admit, I'd rather see the punditry yak about this instead of Kobe Bryant...

Is it too late to vote for "none of the above"?

Desertrat
Aug 12, 2003, 05:55 PM
:) I wouldn't mind seeing NOTA on the ballot...

I just wonder how many people, with a cursory reading about the decision, will decide, "Gee! I don't have to pay income tax!"

Have you ever been around any of the tax-protest crowd? The idea of sticking it to the IRS is fun, of course, but some folks take this garbage seriously.

I had a buddy, years back, who got crosswise with the IRS. He wound up with one of these tax-protest attorneys. I kept telling him, "When you get bad legal advice, it ain't the lawyer who goes to the Joint!". $50,000 in legal fees later, he got sentenced to do a year in the country club pen and then five years probation. The tax he had originally owed was maybe $35,000.

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 12, 2003, 09:36 PM
Yeah, but I'm sure he tells everybody "it wasn't the money, it was the principle."

Desertrat
Aug 12, 2003, 09:50 PM
:) Naw, he's grown up a bit. He probably still believes that the deductions were legit, but he realizes that the so-called tax attorney influenced much of the BS in the squabble. He had come to Texas from Chicago, back during the 1970s oil boom, and made a bunch of quick money. He was only about 30 at the time, and let Big Bucks infllate his ego. Not the first one, not the last...The thing about him is, his handshake is better security than most folks' written and notarized contract.

'Rat

mcrain
Aug 14, 2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat

Have you ever been around any of the tax-protest crowd? The idea of sticking it to the IRS is fun, of course, but some folks take this garbage seriously.


I've had several cases where I had to prosecute some of the anti-tax crowd. They are so diluded that they believe that their interpretation of the law and constitution is absolutely correct, and that all the judges, courts, lawyers, and other professionals who read the same things, and come to totally different conclusions, are all part of some conspiracy.

While they were nutty, argued until blue in the face, the one good thing was that it was all but impossible to lose a case against them. They walk in, admit to not paying the taxes, and then go on some hair-brained explanation as to why they don't owe them. I then stand up and cite to the tax code, say they've admitted liability, and rest my case. It pisses them off so bad because they want to get into an argument or a debate (half of them memorize a ton of stupid stuff from tax protestor cites about ratification of amendments, definitions of "income tax", and other stuff), and when I stand up for 20 seconds, and then the case is over, they get sooo mad. As bugs bunny would say, what a maroon.

Desertrat
Aug 14, 2003, 04:28 PM
Bugs Bunny was right. Ever notice how sincerity does not of itself create fact or truth? :D

I never worried about any of the whole IRS deal. I discovered Schedule C, some 30 years back, and regarded it as a legal License To Steal. I never wanted to fight the System. Learn its rules, and use them to my own benefit.

:), 'Rat

Gus
Aug 14, 2003, 10:04 PM
When income taxes were originally passed by Congress they were only meant to last as long as it needed to make it through the Great Depression. They were to expire in 1948, but were extended. Under Lyndon B. Johnson, the Federal Income Tax was made permanent with control going to Congress and the IRS. The idea of Congress having to "weigh and levy taxes" as stated in the Constution was not that the federal government levy taxes in order to fund itself, rather it was to look out for the rights of individual states' trade with each other, with foreign powers, and to provide a way of distrubuting monies in the event one state is in dire need. No where in the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there any indication that the founding fathers intended the federal government to pass taxes in which to fund itself. In fact, the whole idea of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to avoid a strong central federal government, for fear that it would grow too powerful. In the last 80 or so years, we have completely undone that. Granted, when FDR passed bbills like the Federal Income Tax and created the Civil Service and other government-funded institutions he did so because we were in the middle of an economic meltdown the likes of which has never been seen before or since, however, the perpetuity of those programs has led to a glut of government-funded institutions and an incredibly large and powerful centralized federal government. The states were supposed to have all of the power and the ability to leverage the federal government, but that is so rarely seen or done. It only takes a 3/4 vote by the governors of all the states to ratify an ammendment by themselves, and yet that power has never been used.

My 2¢

Regards,
Gus

Desertrat
Aug 14, 2003, 10:52 PM
Whoa up, Gus. The income tax existed well before FDR. However, the floor above which it required any payment was way beyond what the great majority of workers were making.

What probably allowed the rise of government spending, more than any one factor, was the institution of the Withholding Tax system. Prior, you got paid, and then paid your Income Tax on March 15th. "To make it easier on the workers", the withholding tax deal began during WW II.

If you don't receive it, you don't really notice. You just learn to live on what's left over. In those early years, FICA was only around 2%, and income tax rates for the salary ranges of the middle economic class weren't onerous.

If you want a revolution, sneak some rider through Congress that gets rid of the withholding deal. :D

'Rat

Gus
Aug 15, 2003, 12:11 AM
I'm sorry, you are right, and I wasn't clear. What I meant was that FDR used income tax monies to develop government-based employment and programs to help the nation at large directly through the federal government. Income taxes in the U.S. go back to the War of 1812, and were passed and repealed several times until 1913 when the 16th ammendment made it permanent. The witholding tax debuted in 1943 to generate an even more significant amount of revenue for the war effort.

Sorry about that! :)

Regards,
Gus

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 06:42 AM
Hokay. :)

The Depression saw the advent of Keynesian economic theories, which is probably a large part of the reason for today's economic malaise. I'll take Heinlein over Keynes, who was apparently unaware of the concept of "TANSTAAFL". The hindsight analyses of that period are interesting. Many seem to think that FDR's "pump-priming" was nowhere nearly large enough. Others opine that had he done little or nothing, the Depression would have ended sooner. Me, I dunno.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 15, 2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
"TANSTAAFL"

EVTLFSICQSOYA

(even though they look familiar, sometimes i can't quite suss out your acronyms)

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 10:53 AM
Heinlein, in his "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" came up with "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch": TANSTAAFL.

I highly recommend the book; it's still in print after thirty-some years...Heck, all of Heinlein's books provide a lot of food for thought.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 15, 2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Heinlein, in his "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" came up with "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch": TANSTAAFL.


aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

i should have grokked that :-)

maouse
Apr 15, 2004, 11:23 AM
mcrain - Pray tell. What tax code section do you quote to show liability. And why haven't you collected from Irwin Schiff ($50000) with this oh so easy code section? And why didn't you slip a note to the IRS prossecutor in this case and send Mrs. Kuglin to jail for 30 years? Well, why couldn't a lawyer who specializes in criminal prossecution of tax crimes find it? Very curious.
-maouse