Man Dodges Taxes For 10 Years, Wins In Federal District Court
You know those kooks who go around not paying their taxes and saying there's no law to make them? Well, one of them just won.
Attorney Tom Cryer, who hasn't paid taxes in 10 years, thinks income tax "is a sham," and argued in court that the current tax laws don't apply to personal earnings, reports the Shreveport Times.
Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust. "I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said.
While Cryer agrees he has income, the U.S. Attorney's office was apparently unable to prove that income equals taxable revenue.
Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges [Shreveport Times]
(Photo: chasingfun)
Post a comment
Comments:
Trust Funds is the way to go!
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
We've been fighting the same think in Canada, based on income tax being a short-term, and voluntary, war measure from back in WW1. Lots of people fight that here but the problem is the verdicts seem to avoid publication. Kudos to this guy because income tax is legalized extortion.
now that's progress.
Yeaaaaaaaah, I'm gonna go ahead and keep paying my taxes, ya know, just to be on the safe side.
Way to stick it to em.
This only works if you have a lot of money to afford those court fees.
What a scumbag. But it just proves that rich white lawyers can get away with not paying taxes, if they're clever enough.
It seems that his case had nothing to do with income tax, as we all know it. His situation deals with a trust that he was paid interest and dividends from. He failed to pay taxes on that income. His battle was over whether the IRS could tax his income from the trust. That in no way applies to the millions of Americans who get their income the old fashion way, by working for it.
But my guess is that the swindlers trying to convince you to sign up for their seminar on how to avoid the IRS, will try and hold this up as proof that you don't have to pay income tax. This case only applies to trusts.
Actually, it's true. The tax laws have this loophole. The IRS has been asked about it plenty of times and won't give a straight answer. They even fired one of their own armed investigators just for asking about it.
Now that this fellow has prevailed in a court case, they'll be all in a hurry to close the loophole anyway. All they have to do is pass a law.
@B: What a scumbag. But it just proves that rich white lawyers can get away with not paying taxes, if they're clever enough.
I agree! This case had everything to do with him being a clever white man and NOTHING to do with the law!
This is an interesting story, but for the various reasons already stated here, I can't imagine a flood of tax evasion resulting.
What I don't get from tax-deniers (and those who cheer them) generally, however, is how they can justify not paying taxes even while they enjoy the benefits of the tax dollars paid by others. People can disagree on what services the gov't should perform, sure, but can't we all agree that the gov't needs money to operate at even the most basic level of governance? Where's that money supposed to come from? And I don't mean that rhetorically, I'm curious to hear the argument.
There's just something about a rich lawyer dodging the law to ripoff a few poor Medicare-dependent senior citizens that just brightens my day.
@ ENM4R and B
Yeah, sure. The fact that he is white has everything to do with it. Are you saying there no clever minority lawyers?
You know what would have more impact and help out a lot more people? Getting rid of the payroll tax (FICA). If big corporations can get away with all kinds of tax cuts and loopholes it would be nice if regular working citizens could get back more of their hard-earned money too.
This comment doesn't have much to do with this post, except that some taxes make sense, and others do not.
Absolutely had everything to do with his race. Raceraceraceraceraceracerace. ENM4R, life must be so easy, being able to make every little thing about whitey.
@ ENM4R and B
I'm not saying I agree with it, but check out Aaron Russo's documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism", it's all about how there is NO law that requires taxes be paid on personal income. Our laws only cover corporate income.
@Murph1908: no, I'm saying this guy is a rich white scumbag lawyer, and white people have an easier time getting away with stuff than minorities.
Hey, I'm a clever asian man! What, you don't think I can rip off people too?
Give me five minutes with your Coke...
@Murph1908: @Greeper: @snwbrder0721: I thought the use of exclamation points, bold, and capitalized letters would set off the sarcasm siren...
The fact that he was white has nothing to do with it. The fact that it was brought that the clever white man scammed the people once again was amusing.
@asvetic: No, he was working for the IRS as an armed investigator (read enforcer). He carried a gun for the government. He started asking uncomfortable questions, and they canned him.
@speedwell: Yes, I agree. This is not vindication for people who refuse to pay any income tax, nor is the loophole going to last for long.
@B: Yeah cause theres a secret handshake and express line at the bank and the courthouse for whites. IF there is I have never seen it. I am sooooo sick and tired of ppl crying oh the white man is keeping me down, the white man is doing this or that. I grew up dirt poor in the Mountains of Va, with only what we grew and caught to eat. We substituted some of our diet with awesome govt. food so we wouldn't starve. Funny thing is I couldn't get any grants or scholorships even though we were poor. But I am sure if I was non-white I would have gotten them. Actually I know it becuase some of my friends who wererent white got them and thier parents made triple what mine did.
You know what would be neat: everyone, individuals and corporations alike pay their fair share of taxes on the income and earnings they realize. You get income or earnings, you pay taxes.
Then the governments builds and maintains roads, invests in research, hires our police and firefighters, funds our schools, keeps our environment clean, passes and enforces laws, maintains a system of courts to allow people to settle disputes, and prosecutes those who commit crimes like not paying their taxes (so I have to pay more because weasels don't want to pay their fair share because they're "special").
Crazy idea. I know.
@stardeo:
I agree. Poor people do not pay their fair share.
As a matter of fact they pay nothing at all.
@stardeo: Yeah, crazy all right. You know what would be neat? If government employees came to work with the same can-do, cost-conscious work ethic that private sector employees do. If we could trust any government to do anything on time and under budget. If government employees did their jobs with a smile and a feeling that they were doing important work. If the police respected the taxpayers instead of playing cop-versus-civilian games like a bunch of nerds in an elves-versus-orcs role playing game. If postal clerks picked up their feet and walked like they had mail to deliver. If social workers were interested in saving families instead of stealing children. If public schools were respected and effective academies of knowledge instead of prison warehouses for the most hated segment of the population. If politicians were honest, and everyone loved their fellow man, and shit didn't stink.
If anyone would like to learn more about how Income Tax is actually unconstitutional, there is an approximately two hour long documentary posted on Google Video.
Here is the link:
Freedom to Fascism
[video.google.com]
It is really long, but also very interesting.
I really wouldn't mind doing away with 25% of my income going to the Federal Reserve. Watch the video and you'll understand that comment.
Cheers,
-Mark
Oh, this video most likely will make you even more disgruntled towards the US government.
Pay a tax on what you consume, not on what you earn. That way savings is encouraged. The more expensive house, car, watch, clothes, etc. you buy the more you pay in taxes. It's a nice linear system that would work and be fair.
P.S. Corporations don't pay taxes. They write a check for something called 'taxes' but then they raise the prices on what they sell to make up for it. So corporate taxes are paid by the people who buy the product.
i think we have a pretty fair system now. i feel the bracket system we have for the most part is ok. the poor should not have to shoulder as much as the rich. think about it, if there was a flat 20% tax rate for everyone, it would totally screw them over. if some poor family makes $10,000 a year, this family can not afford to lose $2000 to the government. while a person who makes $1,000,000 a year can afford to pay $200,000 to the gov't.
this cheapskate lawyer is just trying to screw the next generation over. gg tom cryer, you found some obscure loophole to be more greedy. the previous generation has paid for my education, my welfare, and my protection. i will continue to do the same.
Amen!
To add to that and to preempt the naysayers that will tell us that government can't be funded by a consumption tax, remember that consumption is a more stable economic force than income.
To all those basically saying, "wouldn't it be nice if everyone just paid their taxes.".
I am in complete agreement if the tax is constitutional. For clarification a constitutional tax is a tax that is either DIRECT or INDIRECT. The Federal Income Tax is neither a Direct or Indirect tax.
But, if you feel fine dishing out your hard earned money to the Federal Reserver (which is run by the top bankers in the U.S. and is not a government agency) then by all means you can do it on your own. I'm pretty sure the rest of us would rather keep that nice chunk of cash.
@Tonguetied: But if we pay tax on what we consume then how are we going to keep this huge difference between the rich and poor?
This is a great idea, but sadly one that I never see coming to fruition.
I don't think he should be allowed to go to Federal Parks, use Federally Funded Highways/Interstates, or use any form of technology that was federally subsidized....since, you know, he doesn't believe in paying for any of that.
@B: actually, his ethnicity is a rainbow of colors. asian, african, european, and even native american!
just goes to show you that asian, african, european, and even native american LAWYERS can get away with anything!!
@Tonguetied: I agree with your first point. Your second point, however, does not follow. Higher prices translate to higher profits which, in turn, translate to higher taxes. In other words, you cannot offset taxes solely by raising prices.
Regards the "gov't slackers vs super-efficient, low-cost, high-quality, ethical private sector" guys:
Enron. Boeing. Comcast. Haliburton. KBR. ANY insurance company. Or managed care facility. AT&T. Those guys that pushed Oxycotyn on the market knowing it's as addictive and harmful as heroin.
vs.
Your fire department. Paramedics. Air Traffic Control. Medicare. Social Security. Cops (sometimes). Water & Power (pre-Enron - whoops: free market reforms WORK!!)
Life isn't as simple as a bumper sticker. Stop being foolish.
@trai_dep:
Medicare? Social Security? Cops?? This is the best you can come up with?
You have GOT to be kidding.
If I was to argue your side, I'd use public libraries, the offices of public records, and the people who try to make sure the food supply is safe to eat.
(shakes head) I can't BELIEVE you used those three notorious cases of government waste and fraud as your BEST examples. Christ.
@speedwell: Gimme a break.
I have worked at many levels of government (federal and local) as well as for private industry and you know what? The one constant is that everyone who worked for all of those organizations were people. A vast majority worked very hard, a vast majority were very ethical, some were slackers, most actually gave a crap about how much money was spent, but what didn't matter is whether they worked for the government or for private industry. It's called a "work ethic" and it is something you have no matter who signs your paycheck. If you are different, then by all means, please remain in the private sector where you might actually do some good.
@speedwell: Gimme a break, man.
I have worked at many levels of the government as well as private industry and you know what the common factor has been no matter what? PEOPLE. In the positions I have held (in govt and PI) a vast majority of the people have been hard working, ethical and cost conscious. Some were slackers. Some had stinky breath. It doesn't matter if someone works for the government or for private industry, if they are a slacker, they will do so, if the are a hard worker, they will do so (heck, an argument can be made that govt. employees are more dedicated because they typically are paid less). It's a little thing called a work ethic. If your level or quality of work is directly related to where you work or how much you are paid, then might I suggest you stick to the private sector where you might do some good.
I curse the comment gods!
Sorry for the double post.
@THE BIG O: Can I take this a step further? If we are keeping people who don't pay taxes out of federal parks/highways/etc can we also apply this restriction to lower income families that don't pay taxes? Since, you know, they didn't pay for any of that.
You should check out Aaron Russo's documentary called "America: Freedom to Fascism" it's all about the legality of taxes and has some great interviews with former armed (as in guns) IRS agents, lawyers, professors, etc. on how there actually is NOT a law that requires payment of taxes on personal income. Only corporate income, as defined by the supreme court, is taxable. And to address some of the other comments on here, our government doesn't run on tax dollars, the tax dollars go to pay the interest (or part of it) on the money the government borrows from the federal reserve. That money, from the federal reserve, actually pays for everything the government does. Russo's documentary also goes into the (conspiracy) theory that the federal reserve is actually a private entity set up by the likes of JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. that the government began using to finance itself using the income tax act of 1917 (I think that's the year).
This also isn't the first case decided like this, as shown in the documentary a working class women won a similar ruling (I'd love to cite a source other than the movie on all this, but it's been a few months since I watched it and I can't remember enough details to google an article to back it up, you can however check the movie's site for more details: www.freedomtofascism.com ).
Note: I'm not saying I agree with all this, and I'm certainly not qualified to argue on their behalf, so watch the movie / do your own research. I'm just presenting information as best as I can recall it.
One of the things I have found over time, is that everyone agrees with paying the fair share in principle, but no one agrees in practise.
What I might think is my fair share of paying, someone else might are argue is to much or to little.
Then there is the question of how fair, the poor use more government programs and services and cost more, it would be impossible to make them pay their "fair share" (since they are poor, and need those programs at a greater rate).
Now the rich, might use government programs far less (but never the less, do use them), if they paid based on use, they might pay significantly less.
Nobody wants a real fair system. Keep in mind, I am just referring to income tax, not any of the other taxes, this guy might feel he is paying alot of taxes based on other factors.
a wha???????
seriously, I am ridonkulously confused and probably wont make my way back to this page any time soon