Tom Cryer for IRS Commissioner
Law Center graduate battles IRS about income tax
Protesters to meet at post offices April 15
By: Emily Holden
Posted: 4/8/08
Benjamin Franklin's widely accepted proverb states nothing is certain but death and taxes.
But a Paul M. Hebert Law Center alumnus has made it his mission to disprove half of that saying.
Tom Cryer, a Shreveport attorney, challenged the income tax law this past summer. And he is not alone in his dispute with the IRS.
On April 15, the last day to file income tax, tax protesters will gather at 400 post offices to distribute information about why they think the average American is not responsible to pay income tax.
Cryer spoke about his legal battle with the IRS at a 20-person meeting of the Louisiana Constitutional Party this past month.
He said he began studying the income tax law for a friend who wanted to stop filing because he felt he was not liable.
Cryer said he was astounded when he did not find a liability provision after thoroughly reading the entire internal revenue code.
"I understand how these things are done," Cryer said. "You couldn't miss things like that."
Cryer said every tax law must identify three things: the subject of the tax, the amount of the tax and the entities liable for the tax. He claims the income tax law does not define the entity liable for paying the tax.
"When I found out that there was no law that made us liable ... I had to do something," Cryer said.
So Cryer stopped paying income tax.
He was indicted in October 2006 on two counts of tax evasion for 2000 and 2001. The IRS alleged he owed $73,000 in taxes on a trust.
The prosecution later added two counts of failure to file by the deadline and dropped the first two counts of evasion. Cryer said these counts were dropped because the IRS found the trust held no income.
In July 2007, Cryer finally faced the IRS in federal court.
The jury acquitted him on both remaining counts of tax fraud.
Cryer said his defense was that the Supreme Court cannot define the appropriate monetary compensation a person should receive for effort and time lost and therefore cannot determine which portion of the compensation is taxable profit.
Cryer claims that the government intentionally misinterprets the income tax law.
"The IRS has fostered the myth ... that whatever comes in is income," Cryer said. "You can have money that comes in, but it may or may not be income."
Law professor Susan Kalinka coordinates the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program that assists foreign students and teachers with their tax returns.
Kalinka said Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states income includes, but is not limited to, compensation for services, gross income derived from business, interests, dividends and pensions.
She said the 1955 decision of Commissioner v. Glensfaw Glass defined income to include "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."
Cryer said he still does not pay income tax, and he is working to inform others of his discoveries.
He said the income tax is a tax on the activity performed to receive income, not on the income itself. He said earning a wage is protected by law as a right.
"If I can tax your rights, I can also destroy your rights," Cryer said.
Cryer said he knows of about five or six IRS officials resigning because of discrepancies in the income tax law.
Joseph Banister worked for the San Jose, Calif., IRS office as a Criminal Investigation Special Agent for about five and a half years.
He was listening to a familiar radio talk show in 1997 when he heard a guest speaker claim the IRS was illegally enforcing the income tax law.
"I began to look into this claim, thinking that it couldn't possibly be true," Banister said. "But the talk show host was a pretty honest person."
He researched the income tax laws on evenings and weekends for two years.
"It was certainly important to me because I considered myself to be an honorable person," Banister said.
Banister said he concluded the IRS was breaking the law in enforcing the income tax law on average Americans. He scheduled a meeting with his supervisors to voice his concerns.
Banister said his supervisors encouraged his resignation and refused to answer his questions.
"I felt I couldn't continue with the job without getting those questions and concerns resolved," Banister said.
Banister would not comment about whether he currently files income tax.
Kalinka said liability provisions are found in sections 6651 through 6706. She said the provisions impose penalties for a failure to file and understatements or underpayments of tax.
Kalinka did not provide evidence of liability in the revenue code, though she cited provisions that impose penalties.
Kalinka said the 1930 Supreme Court case Lucas v. Earl found that the person who earns the salary and/or fee for personal services is liable to pay the tax.
The judge's decision from the case reads: "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them."
"[The IRS] has never denied that there isn't any liability provision," Cryer said.
Dee Harris, regional IRS media contact, said no IRS employee could comment about Cryer and Banister's argument, though she said she would provide IRS legal literature that rebuts their views.
Harris' office did not provide that literature for The Daily Reveille.
"No court will accept such an argument," Kalinka said. "Courts have long held that taxpayers who do not report or pay tax on the income they earned or do not pay the full amount of tax due on the income they earned are liable."
Kalinka said individuals who advocate such positions are sometimes subjected to criminal tax penalties.
"Taxpayers should be wary of scams and promises to avoid paying taxes that seem too good to be true," acting IRS Commissioner Linda Stiff said in a news release this month. "There is no secret formula that can eliminate a person's tax obligations. People should be wary of anyone peddling any of these scams."
Brandon Boyd, environmental engineering junior, attended the meeting with Cryer. Boyd said he will not stop filing taxes because of his school scholarships. However, he will protest on April 15.
"A lot of people are complying with the tax laws but still protesting them," Boyd said.
Boyd said he believes the income tax law is unlawfully enforced but courts still punish for tax fraud.
Protesters to meet at post offices April 15
By: Emily Holden
Posted: 4/8/08
Benjamin Franklin's widely accepted proverb states nothing is certain but death and taxes.
But a Paul M. Hebert Law Center alumnus has made it his mission to disprove half of that saying.
Tom Cryer, a Shreveport attorney, challenged the income tax law this past summer. And he is not alone in his dispute with the IRS.
On April 15, the last day to file income tax, tax protesters will gather at 400 post offices to distribute information about why they think the average American is not responsible to pay income tax.
Cryer spoke about his legal battle with the IRS at a 20-person meeting of the Louisiana Constitutional Party this past month.
He said he began studying the income tax law for a friend who wanted to stop filing because he felt he was not liable.
Cryer said he was astounded when he did not find a liability provision after thoroughly reading the entire internal revenue code.
"I understand how these things are done," Cryer said. "You couldn't miss things like that."
Cryer said every tax law must identify three things: the subject of the tax, the amount of the tax and the entities liable for the tax. He claims the income tax law does not define the entity liable for paying the tax.
"When I found out that there was no law that made us liable ... I had to do something," Cryer said.
So Cryer stopped paying income tax.
He was indicted in October 2006 on two counts of tax evasion for 2000 and 2001. The IRS alleged he owed $73,000 in taxes on a trust.
The prosecution later added two counts of failure to file by the deadline and dropped the first two counts of evasion. Cryer said these counts were dropped because the IRS found the trust held no income.
In July 2007, Cryer finally faced the IRS in federal court.
The jury acquitted him on both remaining counts of tax fraud.
Cryer said his defense was that the Supreme Court cannot define the appropriate monetary compensation a person should receive for effort and time lost and therefore cannot determine which portion of the compensation is taxable profit.
Cryer claims that the government intentionally misinterprets the income tax law.
"The IRS has fostered the myth ... that whatever comes in is income," Cryer said. "You can have money that comes in, but it may or may not be income."
Law professor Susan Kalinka coordinates the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program that assists foreign students and teachers with their tax returns.
Kalinka said Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states income includes, but is not limited to, compensation for services, gross income derived from business, interests, dividends and pensions.
She said the 1955 decision of Commissioner v. Glensfaw Glass defined income to include "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."
Cryer said he still does not pay income tax, and he is working to inform others of his discoveries.
He said the income tax is a tax on the activity performed to receive income, not on the income itself. He said earning a wage is protected by law as a right.
"If I can tax your rights, I can also destroy your rights," Cryer said.
Cryer said he knows of about five or six IRS officials resigning because of discrepancies in the income tax law.
Joseph Banister worked for the San Jose, Calif., IRS office as a Criminal Investigation Special Agent for about five and a half years.
He was listening to a familiar radio talk show in 1997 when he heard a guest speaker claim the IRS was illegally enforcing the income tax law.
"I began to look into this claim, thinking that it couldn't possibly be true," Banister said. "But the talk show host was a pretty honest person."
He researched the income tax laws on evenings and weekends for two years.
"It was certainly important to me because I considered myself to be an honorable person," Banister said.
Banister said he concluded the IRS was breaking the law in enforcing the income tax law on average Americans. He scheduled a meeting with his supervisors to voice his concerns.
Banister said his supervisors encouraged his resignation and refused to answer his questions.
"I felt I couldn't continue with the job without getting those questions and concerns resolved," Banister said.
Banister would not comment about whether he currently files income tax.
Kalinka said liability provisions are found in sections 6651 through 6706. She said the provisions impose penalties for a failure to file and understatements or underpayments of tax.
Kalinka did not provide evidence of liability in the revenue code, though she cited provisions that impose penalties.
Kalinka said the 1930 Supreme Court case Lucas v. Earl found that the person who earns the salary and/or fee for personal services is liable to pay the tax.
The judge's decision from the case reads: "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them."
"[The IRS] has never denied that there isn't any liability provision," Cryer said.
Dee Harris, regional IRS media contact, said no IRS employee could comment about Cryer and Banister's argument, though she said she would provide IRS legal literature that rebuts their views.
Harris' office did not provide that literature for The Daily Reveille.
"No court will accept such an argument," Kalinka said. "Courts have long held that taxpayers who do not report or pay tax on the income they earned or do not pay the full amount of tax due on the income they earned are liable."
Kalinka said individuals who advocate such positions are sometimes subjected to criminal tax penalties.
"Taxpayers should be wary of scams and promises to avoid paying taxes that seem too good to be true," acting IRS Commissioner Linda Stiff said in a news release this month. "There is no secret formula that can eliminate a person's tax obligations. People should be wary of anyone peddling any of these scams."
Brandon Boyd, environmental engineering junior, attended the meeting with Cryer. Boyd said he will not stop filing taxes because of his school scholarships. However, he will protest on April 15.
"A lot of people are complying with the tax laws but still protesting them," Boyd said.
Boyd said he believes the income tax law is unlawfully enforced but courts still punish for tax fraud.
posted by The Builder at
8:57 AM
1 Comments:
Tim cryer is wrong and the Tin foil hats are right.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home