Another IRS tax case.

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

So, as I'd guessed, the government wasn't in need of my help after all!

 

[ponderingturtle]

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!

It is so wonderful when people prove that they are morons in court.

 

[ktesibios]

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!

I think I found your problem, which is that as far as you know doesn't extend as far as trying adequately to inform yourself about what you're claiming.

As was pointed out on the previous page, the IRS has sent Notices of Deficiency to Cryer, seeking over $1.7 million in unpaid taxes. From the looks of his petition to dispute the notices he's probably going to try to feed the Tax Court a load of TPer BS.

If he does, the odds are that he will lose. Tax deniers sometimes escape criminal sanctions by convincing a jury that they didn't act with criminal intent (by being too stupid or deluded by TP claims to be able to form such an intent) but that has no bearing on what they owe or how it can be collected.

See here and here for more information.

 

[Uncle Otto]

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.

The bottom line is that Springer is a parasite on our society. He is just one more tax dodger who thinks he should be able to benefit from all the services provided by government as long as somebody else gets to pay the freight.

Oh and the guy I mentioned in my earlier post? He still thinks he does not have to pay taxes. He will no doubt be back in prison at some point. People like that don't reason with you. They are so dumb blinded by their obsession against taxes that there can be no reasoning with them.

But the real irony folks, is that he was a local public official. Yup, all the time he was trying to get out of paying income taxes, he was on the public payroll, taking money from people who did pay their taxes. And to point out what an arrogant dimwit he is, he acted as his own attorney in tax court-----------fat lot of good that did him.

 

[boyntonstu]

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. . .


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?

"when he is required to do so by the Internal Revenue laws or regulations."

I agree 100%

Springer agrees 100%

Now, all the IRS has to do is to use their time extension to produce the laws or the regulations.

Let's wait and see.


As for the claim of back taxes that the IRS has for Cryer; at the moment it is just posturing for the peanut gallery. If Cryer owed you $1,000,000 how long would you wait before you got him in front of a Judge to get it?

Again, let's wait a few years and see what happens.

BTW Isn't it interesting to have ads on TV that advertise that you can settle for pennies on the dollar for IRS taxes "owed"?

We cannot bargain real estate taxes, don't pay, and they take your house.

We cannot bargain sales taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.

Why do you suppose that "Income Taxes" are bargain-able?

 

[Dancing David]

So in other words Boytonstu: you have nothing, standard court procedings, because lawyers and clercks who work for anyone, only have one client at a time and one case at a time. No one ver files extensions because of schedules.

ETA: then when confronted with facts you move to another playing field.
IRS is barginable as a favor to people with the means to stall.

 

[Alt+F4]

BTW Isn't it interesting to have ads on TV that advertise that you can settle for pennies on the dollar for IRS taxes "owed"?

We cannot bargain real estate taxes, don't pay, and they take your house.

We cannot bargain sales taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.

Why do you suppose that "Income Taxes" are bargain-able?

Despite what those infomercials say, those advertisers don't bargin with the IRS to get taxpayers paying less. They are tax preparation companies or lawyers who will do an amended return and try to find more deductions.

They don't "negotiate" with the IRS, they get people on installment payment plans with the IRS to pay the full amount they owe.

 

[kallsop]

Why don't you show the Law to the government attorneys so that they do not have to ask for additional time to look for it?

A friend of my brothers friends cousins wife thinks the law papers are in the same vault as Obama's birth certificate and college papers.

Never underestimate the incompetence of government lawyers.

 

[Leftus]

Despite what those infomercials say, those advertisers don't bargin with the IRS to get taxpayers paying less. They are tax preparation companies or lawyers who will do an amended return and try to find more deductions.

They don't "negotiate" with the IRS, they get people on installment payment plans with the IRS to pay the full amount they owe.

Actually, they do, in some cases, file the Offer In Compromise. What they don't tell you is that the vast majority of OICs are rejected. That for that rejection you have to pay a 150 non-refundable fee and a down payment of 20% of your proposed offer to even qualify for acceptance.

Generally speaking, to get the OIC accepted you must have very limited to no income and no chance of paying off the entire bill by the time the bill expires. You also must remain compliant with all future taxes for the next few years (I want to say 5). Failure to do so voids the OIC and you are hit with the entire bill plus penalties and interest minus whatever you have paid.

If it is shown that you can pay off your taxes your OIC is rejected. It's not a way to pay less in taxes but to close out cases that the IRS just can't collect from anyways.

 

[MarekM]

Now, all the IRS has to do is to use their time extension to produce the laws or the regulations.

Let's wait and see.

If you'd look at my last post, you'd see the laws that the government is alleging Springer violated. The regulations correspond with each of the sections. So if Springer violated, say section 63, he would also be in violation of at least one of the section 63 regs. If you wanted, you could probably go through the regs yourself and find the relevant language. I'm assuming, of course, that you'll choose to just continue denying that it exists.

Here's the beginning of the section 1 regs, which Springer is clearly in violation of:

Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

Link.

 

[WildCat]

Why don't the attorneys ask Evans or Quatloos for their answers?

Better yet, use the deja vu argument.

Deja vu seems enough for many here.

Ask yourself this question:

"Why is the prouction of the Law that requires anyone to file a 1040 so difficult for the government attorneys to find that it requires them to ask for an extension of time?"


An IRS question that is answered here in minutes cannot be answered by government attorneys in weeks.

Do you not find that interesting?

You're right, there is no law! I strongly encourage you not to file your taxes this year, nor to pay them. Nothing could possibly go wrong, since there is no law...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"when he is required to do so by the Internal Revenue laws or regulations."

I agree 100%

Springer agrees 100%

Ah so you admit Springer's motion is just an attempt to tie things up in court rather than a valid legal defense of his position?

Now, all the IRS has to do is to use their time extension to produce the laws or the regulations.

Let's wait and see.

I think they already have. See MarekM's post above.

As for the claim of back taxes that the IRS has for Cryer; at the moment it is just posturing for the peanut gallery. If Cryer owed you $1,000,000 how long would you wait before you got him in front of a Judge to get it?

What do you mean "how long"? The IRS has already made attempts to collect, and now Cryer faces criminal charges. The fact that he's skated along this far without paying a dime is exactly why he will face criminal charges.

Your description of Cryer's story made it sound like he's gotten away with it--as if he won and won't have to pay income taxes. That's simply not the way it is.

BTW Isn't it interesting to have ads on TV that advertise that you can settle for pennies on the dollar for IRS taxes "owed"?

We cannot bargain real estate taxes, don't pay, and they take your house.

We cannot bargain sales taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, etc.

Why do you suppose that "Income Taxes" are bargain-able?

You starting another topic? Might I suggest another thread?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

And here's a quote of the "meat" of that document:

Title 26, United States Code Section 1 - Tax Imposed;
Title 26, United States Code Section 61 - Gross Income Defined;
Title 26, United States Code Section 63 - Taxable Income Defined;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6011(a) - General Requirement of Return,Statement or List;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6012(a)(1)(A) - Persons Required to Make Returns of Income;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6072(a) - Time for Filing Income Tax
Returns;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6091 - Place for Filing Returns or Other
Documents;
Title 26, United States Code Section 6151 - Time and Place for Paying Tax Shown on Returns;
Title 26, United States Code Section 7203 - Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information or Pay Tax.

ETA: I bolded the section I cited earlier.

So again, Boyntonstu, how about a wager on the outcome of this case? Loser donates $100 to JREF or some such?

 

[Ladewig]

You seem very convinced that one is not required to file tax forms. How soon will it be until you stop filing returns?

Just asking.

 

[boyntonstu]

You seem very convinced that one is not required to file tax forms. How soon will it be until you stop filing returns?

Just asking.

Me?

No way!

I am too chicken and do not want to fight the battle.

I respect those far braver than I.

Have you viewed Cryer's videos?

If you see them, you will understand how much hassle and loss he went through.

Look for "Charlie Sprinkle" on YouTube and see what he went through before he could drive with immunity with no registration, no drivers license, and no insurance. He hasn't for many years now. They just leave him alone.
==============
Charles SPRINKLE
says HE TRAVELS in his car,
does not DRIVE in his car, because Driving is
"commercial". 35 years he has NO Drivers Lic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRYrJ14jus

 

[boyntonstu]

And here's a quote of the "meat" of that document:



ETA: I bolded the section I cited earlier.

So again, Boyntonstu, how about a wager on the outcome of this case? Loser donates $100 to JREF or some such?

Only a fool would bet on what a lawyer wearing a black robe would say.

Look at what the Justice of the Peace in Louisiana did not do last week to give you an idea of what I mean.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Only a fool would bet on what a lawyer wearing a black robe would say.

Look at what the Justice of the Peace in Louisiana did not do last week to give you an idea of what I mean.

Two complete and utter non sequiturs.

You asked in this post the same question Springer asked of the prosecution: what are the specific laws that require someone to file a tax return. That question has been answered.

So again, care to place a wager on the outcome of the Springer criminal case?

 

[boyntonstu]

Two complete and utter non sequiturs.

You asked in this post the same question Springer asked of the prosecution: what are the specific laws that require someone to file a tax return. That question has been answered.

So again, care to place a wager on the outcome of the Springer criminal case?

"That question has been answered." ???

Pray tell, what are the Regulations that the government are supposed to produce with their Judge granted additional time?

 

[MarekM]

"That question has been answered." ???

Pray tell, what are the Regulations that the government are supposed to produce with their Judge granted additional time?

The regulations that correspond with tax code sections listed in post #53. Clearly, there are portions of the regulations under those sections that don't apply in this situation, but there are many that do. An example would be the portion of the regs under section 1 that I quoted in my last post. Again, if you go through the regulations, I'm sure you'll be able to find the useful language.

 

[WildCat]

Look for "Charlie Sprinkle" on YouTube and see what he went through before he could drive with immunity with no registration, no drivers license, and no insurance. He hasn't for many years now. They just leave him alone.
==============
Charles SPRINKLE
says HE TRAVELS in his car,
does not DRIVE in his car, because Driving is
"commercial". 35 years he has NO Drivers Lic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRYrJ14jus

From the video poster's description:

Category: Comedy

Tags: Charles SPRINKLE Angelina Jolie Court justice driving traveling fighting cop funny sexy Madonna Hilton Water ticket speeding wagener hilton Ventura Ron Paul bad day Beattles Elvis

lol