Another IRS tax case.

[MarekM]

deleted

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"That question has been answered." ???

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

You're behind in your own story.

Springer filed the motion for a bill of particulars and the judge granted the motion setting the deadline at Oct. 19. The prosecution responded. I quoted the meat of their response.

It's on the same website you cited in the OP.

ETA: Marekm posted the links to the PDFs in question back in post number 40. I quoted the listing of the codes (see my posted 53) from the response Marekm cited.

 

[drkitten]

You're behind in your own story.

Springer filed the motion for a bill of particulars and the judge granted the motion setting the deadline at Oct. 19. The prosecution responded. I quoted the meat of their response.

It's on the same website you cited in the OP.

ETA: Marekm posted the links to the PDFs in question back in post number 40. I quoted the listing of the codes (see my posted 53) from the response Marekm cited.

Dates don't line up. The PDF Marekm cited is dated in mid-July.

Evidently the judge didn't consider that list to be sufficient, which is why he ordered a more complete list and the attorneys asked for more time.

 

[MarekM]

Dates don't line up. The PDF Marekm cited is dated in mid-July.

Evidently the judge didn't consider that list to be sufficient, which is why he ordered a more complete list and the attorneys asked for more time.

The government's bill of particulars from July state the sections of the code that were violated. Springer wanted more detail, namely the regulations under those sections that were also violated. The government's next bill of particulars will simply name those regulations that correspond with the sections already provided. What's really happening here is an intentional waste of court resources.

 

[drkitten]

The government's bill of particulars from July state the sections of the code that were violated. Springer wanted more detail, namely the regulations under those sections that were also violated. The government's next bill of particulars will simply name those regulations that correspond with the sections already provided. What's really happening here is an intentional waste of court resources.

Oh, absolutely. I'm merely pointing out that the bill of particulars from July is not in any way a response to a court order from October....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dates don't line up. The PDF Marekm cited is dated in mid-July.

Evidently the judge didn't consider that list to be sufficient, which is why he ordered a more complete list and the attorneys asked for more time.

So I see.

Apparently, there have been 4 motions for bills of particulars made by Springer.

I don't quite understand though, since the wording on the latest one claims that the government has provided no specifics beyond "regulations thereunder":

It seems passing strange that, in this criminal tax case, the government would see fit to refer generally to operative regulations, but resist informing the defendant (and, by the way, the court) as to what
it refers to when it writes about “the regulations thereunder.”

The July document certainly does specify a number of precedents and a listing of the pertinent sections from the Tax Code. So I'm not sure what the court finds "passing strange".

The July document does answer the question Boytonstu has been asking.

These are the specific parts of the Tax Code that detail who must file a tax return, where, when and how.

AT best, I think the argument is that while the government has specified the parts of the Code that trigger the obligation Springer has to file tax returns, the meaning of the phrase "and the regulations thereunder" hasn't been specified. There is no indication whatsoever that the court found the July response to be inadequate.

Springer has filed a great number of lawsuits challenging the government's requirement that he file tax returns. In documents related to those cases, the government has amply specified the pertinent laws. For example:
http://www.penaltyprotester.com/files/GovSpringerfinalbrief.pdf

Springer is just playing out the system as long as he can. He already knows what the specific parts of the Tax Code apply.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, absolutely. I'm merely pointing out that the bill of particulars from July is not in any way a response to a court order from October....

You're right. I think the difference is that this one is strictly with regard to the phrase "and regulations thereunder" in the charges.

I hope when the final judgement comes down, the time and resources spent answering these motions will be taken into account when calculating the penalties he owed on his unpaid taxes.

Not only is Springer taking advantage of the system (benefiting from the taxes the rest of us pay), he is actually causing the wasteful expenditure of more taxpayer money.

 

[drkitten]

The July document certainly does specify a number of precedents and a listing of the pertinent sections from the Tax Code. So I'm not sure what the court finds "passing strange".

Law != regulation.

AT best, I think the argument is that while the government has specified the parts of the Code that trigger the obligation Springer has to file tax returns, the meaning of the phrase "and the regulations thereunder" hasn't been specified.

Yes. Specifically, the July document specified the laws, but not the IRS regulations (which are not laws) -- you can find them here if you want to do the work.

I don't want to do the work. You don't want to do the work. Neither, I assume, do the government lawyers..... but they opened the can of worms by including the word "regulations" in their initial filing.

There is no indication whatsoever that the court found the July response to be inadequate.

.... other than the fact that the court said in October that it was inadequate and ordered them to provide additional information, you mean?

Springer has filed a great number of lawsuits challenging the government's requirement that he file tax returns. In documents related to those cases, the government has amply specified the pertinent laws. For example:
http://www.penaltyprotester.com/files/GovSpringerfinalbrief.pdf

Springer is just playing out the system as long as he can. He already knows what the specific parts of the Tax Code apply.

Oh, of course. He's hoping either that the government will lose interest in prosecuting him, or that the government attorneys will make an invalidating procedural error and get him of (as they almost did with the use of the word "regulations.") Hoping that your opponent's lawyer screws up is a time-honored legal tactic.....

 

[drkitten]

I hope when the final judgement comes down, the time and resources spent answering these motions will be taken into account when calculating the penalties he owed on his unpaid taxes.

Quite likely; if this is held to be a frivolous case (which it's looking more and more like), he may be charged court courts and attorney's fees.

And he's accumulating interest charges by the day....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Law != regulation.

Yes. That's the difference with this motion compared to the others.

But Boytonstu has been asking for the "law". That question has been answered.

Law? What specific Law?

<snip>
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?

Yes. Specifically, the July document specified the laws, but not the IRS regulations (which are not laws) -- you can find them here if you want to do the work.

I don't want to do the work. You don't want to do the work. Neither, I assume, do the government lawyers..... but they opened the can of worms by including the word "regulations" in their initial filing.

And I suspect it's normal procedure to use a phrase like "and the regulations thereunder" to avoid being limited at trial to a set of specified regulations.

At any rate, it's probably something a paralegal can prepare for the law firm the government is using.

.... other than the fact that the court said in October that it was inadequate and ordered them to provide additional information, you mean?

I haven't read anywhere that the court found the response to be inadequate. If anything, they're saying the wording in the government's final brief (where they specified the charges) was inadequate.

Quite likely; if this is held to be a frivolous case (which it's looking more and more like), he may be charged court courts and attorney's fees.

Springer is the defendant in this case. It won't be held to be frivolous.

 

[drkitten]

Springer is the defendant in this case. It won't be held to be frivolous.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. If Springer's argument is found to be frivolous, then he can be hit with additional monies above and beyond the simple tax bill, precisely because he's wasting the court's time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. If Springer's argument is found to be frivolous, then he can be hit with additional monies above and beyond the simple tax bill, precisely because he's wasting the court's time.

So far, though, the court has granted Springer's motions.

But yeah, I do hope when he loses, they will take into consideration the time and money he has caused to be wasted.

Hi basic argument, that he has no obligation to file a return, has already been rejected time and again by many courts (including in the various civil suits Springer has filed). I suspect that this will never actually make it to trial but that at some point the government will be granted a motion for summary judgement (basically acknowledging that Springer has no case).

 

[drkitten]

Hi basic argument, that he has no obligation to file a return, has already been rejected time and again by many courts (including in the various civil suits Springer has filed).

But at this point, in this case, I don't think that (legally) he's made any argument. He doesn't have to make any argument until the government has made it's argument (burden of proof and all that) -- so his filings to date must be viewed (legally) as good faith attempts to determine exactly what case he has to answer.

It would be unfair for the court to decide that his argument is wrong before he's even made it. Accurate,.... but unfair.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But at this point, in this case, I don't think that (legally) he's made any argument. He doesn't have to make any argument until the government has made it's argument (burden of proof and all that) -- so his filings to date must be viewed (legally) as good faith attempts to determine exactly what case he has to answer.

It would be unfair for the court to decide that his argument is wrong before he's even made it. Accurate,.... but unfair.

True. So far it's just all motions, no presentation of a case. (I'm pretty sure though that the government had to outline its case in its final brief.)

Still, he's a defendant, so if he makes a stupid defense, he just loses. I don't think he can be accused of bringing a frivolous case, since he didn't bring this case.

Not that it matters, his bill is doubtless far beyond his ability to pay already. Either the IRS will agree to some system of payments from him, or he'll do time.

 

[drkitten]

Still, he's a defendant, so if he makes a stupid defense, he just loses. I don't think he can be accused of bringing a frivolous case, since he didn't bring this case.

Actually, he can. Section 6673.

Congress specifically put this into the law to deal with tax protesters "obstructing the appeal rights of others."

 

[MarekM]

But at this point, in this case, I don't think that (legally) he's made any argument. He doesn't have to make any argument until the government has made it's argument (burden of proof and all that) -- so his filings to date must be viewed (legally) as good faith attempts to determine exactly what case he has to answer.

It would be unfair for the court to decide that his argument is wrong before he's even made it. Accurate,.... but unfair.

He has made an argument in his motion to dismiss, which I can't seem to find, but the government's response to his reply can be found here. The arguments seem to be basically the same as his arguments in his civil suit with the IRS. Those arguments were rejected by the 10th Circuit, but were deemed not to be frivolous. Cite.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

Do you have a theory as to why Congress never passed a law relating to this issue?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I haven't heard back from Boyntonstu, but we have shown already that the government answered the motion for a bill of particulars with regard to the laws (from the IRS Code) and legal precedent from case law, but the last motion for a bill of particulars, the one the government requested and was granted an extension to answer, was on the very narrow topic of the words "and the regulations thereunder".

So Boytonstu is simply wrong when he claims the government has not been able to provide detailed and specific citations of the law. They've just got to do the same with the "regulations thereunder".

 

[boyntonstu]

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?


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


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.


You starting another topic? Might I suggest another thread?

"The IRS has already made attempts to collect, and now Cryer faces criminal charges."

Cite?

 

[MarekM]

"The IRS has already made attempts to collect, and now Cryer faces criminal charges."

Cite?

Cryer currently owes nearly $2m in taxes and penalties. Even though he was acquitted by a jury in his past criminal charges, it doesn't preclude the United States from prosecuting him for further offenses.