• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another IRS tax case.

Obviously you think there's a problem. What problem do you have with this?

I don't have a problem with anyone asking for time to seek an answer.

In this instant cast, one would assume that the answer would be at the tip of their tongues.

The question is the basis of millions of 1040 returns.

If asked, "Why is murder against the Law? would you expect the Prosecutor to ask for an extension of time to answer it?

Springer is a Criminal case.

Usually, a criminal defendant is charged with violating a specific Law, Chapter an Verse.

Why is there a delay on such a primary issue as "Who is required by what specific Law to file a 1040?"
 
Usually, a criminal defendant is charged with violating a specific Law, Chapter an Verse.

See my last post.

Springer will lose.

Do you think he will win?

You seem to be arguing that the law is on his side, but you are wrong.
 
I don't have a problem with anyone asking for time to seek an answer.

Why is there a delay on such a primary issue as "Who is required by what specific Law to file a 1040?"

Why don't you ask the prosecuting team? Maybe they're incompetent. Of course, even if they are the most incompetent prosecuting team in the history of the universe, they will still prevail easily over the defendant. What does this say about the defendant?
 
By the way, I'm sure the response to the motion for a Bill of Particulars will be a LOT more detailed than this answer, but you could start with

Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part II, Subpart B, section 6012 which reads:

US Code said:
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or
(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.
Clause (iv) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151 (c).
(B) The amount specified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be increased by the amount of 1 additional standard deduction (within the meaning of section 63 (c)(3)) in the case of an individual entitled to such deduction by reason of section 63 (f)(1)(A) (relating to individuals age 65 or more), and the amount specified in clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) shall be increased by the amount of the additional standard deduction for each additional standard deduction to which the individual or his spouse is entitled by reason of section 63 (f)(1).
(C) The exception under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any individual—
(i) who is described in section 63 (c)(5) and who has—
(I) income (other than earned income) in excess of the sum of the amount in effect under section 63 (c)(5)(A) plus the additional standard deduction (if any) to which the individual is entitled, or
(II) total gross income in excess of the standard deduction, or
(ii) for whom the standard deduction is zero under section 63 (c)(6).
(D) For purposes of this subsection—
(i) The terms “standard deduction”, “basic standard deduction” and “additional standard deduction” have the respective meanings given such terms by section 63 (c).
(ii) The term “exemption amount” has the meaning given such term by section 151 (d). In the case of an individual described in section 151 (d)(2), the exemption amount shall be zero.
(2) Every corporation subject to taxation under subtitle A;
(3) Every estate the gross income of which for the taxable year is $600 or more;
(4) Every trust having for the taxable year any taxable income, or having gross income of $600 or over, regardless of the amount of taxable income;
(5) Every estate or trust of which any beneficiary is a nonresident alien;
(6) Every political organization (within the meaning of section 527 (e)(1)), and every fund treated under section 527 (g) as if it constituted a political organization, which has political organization taxable income (within the meaning of section 527 (c)(1)) for the taxable year; and [1]
(7) Every homeowners association (within the meaning of section 528 (c)(1)) which has homeowners association taxable income (within the meaning of section 528 (d)) for the taxable year.[1]
(8) Every individual who receives payments during the calendar year in which the taxable year begins under section 3507 (relating to advance payment of earned income credit).[1]
(9) Every estate of an individual under chapter 7 or 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (relating to bankruptcy) the gross income of which for the taxable year is not less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction under section 63 (c)(2)(D).[1], [2]
except that subject to such conditions, limitations, and exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary, nonresident alien individuals subject to the tax imposed by section 871 and foreign corporations subject to the tax imposed by section 881 may be exempted from the requirement of making returns under this section.
(b) Returns made by fiduciaries and receivers
(1) Returns of decedents
If an individual is deceased, the return of such individual required under subsection (a) shall be made by his executor, administrator, or other person charged with the property of such decedent.
(2) Persons under a disability
If an individual is unable to make a return required under subsection (a), the return of such individual shall be made by a duly authorized agent, his committee, guardian, fiduciary or other person charged with the care of the person or property of such individual. The preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of a receiver appointed by authority of law in possession of only a part of the property of an individual.
(3) Receivers, trustees and assignees for corporations
In a case where a receiver, trustee in a case under title 11 of the United States Code, or assignee, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, by operation of law or otherwise, has possession of or holds title to all or substantially all the property or business of a corporation, whether or not such property or business is being operated, such receiver, trustee, or assignee shall make the return of income for such corporation in the same manner and form as corporations are required to make such returns.
(4) Returns of estates and trusts
Returns of an estate, a trust, or an estate of an individual under chapter 7 or 11 of title 11 of the United States Code shall be made by the fiduciary thereof.
(5) Joint fiduciaries
Under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, a return made by one of two or more joint fiduciaries shall be sufficient compliance with the requirements of this section. A return made pursuant to this paragraph shall contain a statement that the fiduciary has sufficient knowledge of the affairs of the person for whom the return is made to enable him to make the return, and that the return is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, true and correct.
(6) IRA share of partnership income
In the case of a trust which is exempt from taxation under section 408 (e), for purposes of this section, the trust’s distributive share of items of gross income and gain of any partnership to which subchapter C or D of chapter 63 applies shall be treated as equal to the trust’s distributive share of the taxable income of such partnership.
(c) Certain income earned abroad or from sale of residence
For purposes of this section, gross income shall be computed without regard to the exclusion provided for in section 121 (relating to gain from sale of principal residence) and without regard to the exclusion provided for in section 911 (relating to citizens or residents of the United States living abroad).
(d) Tax-exempt interest required to be shown on return
Every person required to file a return under this section for the taxable year shall include on such return the amount of interest received or accrued during the taxable year which is exempt from the tax imposed by chapter 1.
(e) Consolidated returns
For provisions relating to consolidated returns by affiliated corporations, see chapter 6.

ETA: Sorry, I didn't bother reproducing bolding and indentations of the original.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with anyone asking for time to seek an answer.

In this instant cast, one would assume that the answer would be at the tip of their tongues.

The question is the basis of millions of 1040 returns.

If asked, "Why is murder against the Law? would you expect the Prosecutor to ask for an extension of time to answer it?

Springer is a Criminal case.

Usually, a criminal defendant is charged with violating a specific Law, Chapter an Verse.

Why is there a delay on such a primary issue as "Who is required by what specific Law to file a 1040?"


Read the 16th amendment. Might be a good starting place for you, since you apparently don't have the answers to your own questions???

Are you aware of the entirety of this Springer case? I mean, it's so obviously just tax evasion. I realize that there are people who question the legality of the federal income tax, and that is perhaps a good debate to have. But Springer has argued all around the issue, even going so far as to make it about the Paperwork Reduction Act, declaring that during certain years, the 1040 wasn't a valid form because it didn't have the proper control number. I mean, seriously...do you think this is about the legality of taxes, or about not wanting to pay penalties?

Now, if we want to debate the 16th amendment, then let's do it. I'm all for removing it, and going back to a system in which only property owners pay for and have a voice in government. Wouldn't bother me at all. Do you really want to go there, though?
 
This seems more of a social issue and current event, so I moved it. It might even qualify for conspiracies, but I wasn't so sure of that.
Posted By: LibraryLady
 
I already know the outcome. I am aquainted with a fellow who spent 5 years in Federal stir because he was so sure he didn't have to pay taxes.
 
I already know the outcome. I am aquainted with a fellow who spent 5 years in Federal stir because he was so sure he didn't have to pay taxes.

Perhaps you should become acquainted with the Tom Cryer Trial.

This video is for educational purposes only.
Attorney, Tom Cryer, won a unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict in federal district court defeating the IRS's claim that Tom "willfully" failed to file federal income tax returns. Tom refused to file tax returns because the IRS could not show him any law making him liable for 'filing' a tax return.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psPkblKxdzQ

This was in April 2008.

To date, there has been no further action against him AFAIK.

And, NO, he has not paid a dime!
 
Perhaps you should become acquainted with the Tom Cryer Trial.

Yes, I've read up on that. It seems charges of tax evasion were dropped. All he had to beat was "willful failure to file tax returns". He did not argue that he had no obligation to file returns. (He would have lost that argument.) He argued instead that he did not have criminal intent because he could show that he honestly believes he didn't have to file a return.

ETA: That is, one of the required elements of the crime he was charged with was criminal intent. He showed that he didn't have that intent. So none of this has to do with the topic you have raise--the question of who is or is not obliged to file a tax return.

Meanwhile, his story continues. . .
Wiki said:
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." Cryer has requested that the trial be held in New Orleans. No trial date has yet been set.[16]

Linky.

So, he will still have his day in court on the question of whether he has to pay his taxes.

So back to Springer. Want to place a bet on the outcome?
 
Last edited:
I already know the outcome. I am aquainted with a fellow who spent 5 years in Federal stir because he was so sure he didn't have to pay taxes.


But he did not say the Magic Words in exactly the right way! If you say the Magic Words in the right way, you don't have to pay your taxes!

And that is what the whole "No Law Says I Have To Pay My Taxes" and the variant versions thereof (like "My salary is not income and thereby not taxable" routine) theories are:Magical Thinking.

They present their theories in court, get slapped down, and the standard excuse of the Tax Protestors is that the defendent did not properly present the theories; ie, he did not say the Magic Words in exactly the right way. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
So, boyntonstu, do you have a response to my post number 25?

What reason is that section not among the regulations referred to as "Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder) [which] specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return"?

Obviously a legal response to the motion requires more time (as has been mentioned here) to right up ALL the specifics and apply them to the facts of Springer's case. But doesn't my reply answer the question you've been asking here?
 
What reason is that section not among the regulations referred to as "Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder) [which] specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return"?

Actually, what you posted is just a section of the Internal Revenue Code. The regulations are the Treasury Department's official interpretation of the code and are usually given deference unless a court rules that the interpretation is unreasonable. The treasury regulations can be found here.
 
Actually, what you posted is just a section of the Internal Revenue Code. The regulations are the Treasury Department's official interpretation of the code and are usually given deference unless a court rules that the interpretation is unreasonable. The treasury regulations can be found here.
From what I understand of the OP, the motion for a bill of particulars is asking them to cite the Internal Revenue Code.

In their motion, they quoted the prosecution saying, "'Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder) specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return.' Doc. no. 138, at 12." It sounds to me they're asking for specific sections of the Tax Code (and regulations thereunder).

Still, I'm sure their response to the motion will be a LOT more involved than simply quoting a section of the Tax Code as I have done.
 
From what I understand of the OP, the motion for a bill of particulars is asking them to cite the Internal Revenue Code.

In their motion, they quoted the prosecution saying, "'Various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and regulations thereunder) specify the events that trigger an obligation to file a return.' Doc. no. 138, at 12." It sounds to me they're asking for specific sections of the Tax Code (and regulations thereunder).

Still, I'm sure their response to the motion will be a LOT more involved than simply quoting a section of the Tax Code as I have done.

I agree with you. The violations, if he failed to even file a return, are probably so numerous and obvious that the government didn't feel they needed to list all the sections and regulations. Springer, I assume, is asking for particulars, and as the accused, he's entitled to know exactly what he's being charged with. I'd still like to see the judge refuse to let him get away with it though.

ETA: I see it's a civil case, so I guess he's not being charged with anything in this particular proceeding.
 
Last edited:
I see it's a civil case, so I guess he's not being charged with anything in this particular proceeding.

Interesting. So is Boyntonstu wrong in his OP where he refers to this as a criminal case?

Or maybe there are two (or more) cases?

I found the civil case, Springer vs. IRS, but haven't found anything confirming a criminal case yet other than the following:

Currently facing federal criminal tax charges, Springer is a full-fledged goofball, having once sued every one of the 50 states for failing to put him on the ballot for President of the United States. Springer v. Alabama et al., 2000 WL 305492, No. 99-5227 (10th Cir. 3/24/2000) (sanctions of $1,000 imposed for frivolous appeal).
 
Interesting. So is Boyntonstu wrong in his OP where he refers to this as a criminal case?

No, I think I might have been wrong. I know the government collects on deficiencies in tax returns through civil proceedings, but it appears this case is a criminal prosecution. I was thrown off by the use of "plaintiff" rather than "prosecutor" in the briefs. Honestly I'm not sure why that is.

Here's the response outlining the specific sections of the code that were violated.

Apparently, Springer's not even arguing that there's no law requiring him to make a tax return. He's arguing that under the Paperwork Reduction Act, he doesn't need to disclose the required information. Here's the government's response to the argument.
 

Back
Top Bottom