Tom Cryer Wins Against the IRS
This is one of those groundbreaking cases that the mass media is not going to cover. Attorney Tom Cryer, who has not filed income tax for a decade, was dragged into court by the IRS on charges of tax fraud. The results: Cryer was able to prove in court that there was no law requiring taxation on individual income and won the case in a unanimous verdict by the jury.
This is not the first time this has happened. Time and time again, individuals have been dragged into court, demanding that the IRS show them the law which requires them to pay income tax and the time and time again the result is the same: the IRS cannot produce that law. It doesn’t exist.
This is rather a pathetic video, in my opinion, because it doesn’t go into a lot of detail, acting more as an add for TruthAttack.org than anything else, but I’m including it here just to spread the information.
Posted in Political
August 1st, 2007 at 10:04
There are countless court cases where the courts have upheld the IRS right to levy taxes. I don’t know the details of this particular case, but the idea that individuals can beat paying taxes (like everyone else has to do) by claiming the federal government has no right to collect them is laughable.
August 2nd, 2007 at 16:37
No one said, especially myself, that the government doesn’t have the power to collect taxes. (Government has no rights in the USA legal structure, only power derived to it by the people.) You’re reading too much into this. The claim backed up in this case, is that the current laws for income tax do no cover taxation of individual person’s wages and this is not the first court case to back that claim up. When asked to produce that portion of the law, the IRS has never produced it in court.
All it takes to correct that situation is to change the law so that personal wages are specifically identified. That part is easy to accomplish. The blowback from that is the admission that the current law doesn’t provide for individual income tax. That’s when the lawyers start to salivate.
Law and semantics are kissing cousins, after all. If the government was forced to openly admit that it did not have the legal authority to tax individual wages since 1943, there would be a quite a storm of outrage.
Historically, the first income tax was laid out to support the war effort in 1862. It had a flat rate of 3% for those earning less than $10,000 and also heralded the introduction of inheritance tax. In 1868, income tax was eliminated, with the newly formed IRS concentrating its efforts on tobacco and spirits. Income tax was not renewed until it was brought up as an emergency measure (and was promised to be a temporary measure at that) during WWII.
August 5th, 2007 at 15:41
What a great video, as Mr Cryer explains his vitory. He states “the IRS could not show that his income was Gross Income”. Now this might excape the average person, but something must be understood.CONgress uses “terms” in writing laws,as opposed to “words”, amd have very different meanings from every day language. This is very important.However, CONgress must define the “terms”, and usually tries to hide them, or adds them in the footnotes.So with that in mind, lets look for the meaning of the “term” Gross Income.
1928 TAX ACT
GROSS INCOME DEFINED: NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL.
[Src. 213.3 (c) In the case of a nonresident alien individual, gross
income means only the gross income from sources within the United
States, determined under the provisions of section 217.
I
ART. 92. Gross income of nonresident alien individuals.-In the case
of nonresident alien individuals ‘‘ gross income ” means only the gross
income from sources within the United States, determined under the
provisions of section 217. See articles 316-329. As to the gross income
of foreign corporations see section 233 (b) of the statute and
article 550 ; also section 217 and articles 316-329. The items bf gross
income from sources without the United States and therefore not
taxable to nonresident aliens or foreign corporations are’described in
section 217(c) and article 322. As to who are nonresident alien individuals,
ART, 311. Definition.-A ‘‘ nonresident alien individual ” means an
individual (a) whose residence is not within the United States and
(6) who is not a citizen of the United States. An alien actually
present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner
is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax.
Whether he is a transient or not is determined by his intentions with….
————————————————————–
WOW! The law states that the ‘term’ Gross Income cna only be earned by a Non Resident Alien, and IS the “resident” of the United States FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX. The sources are Corporate Earnings (Federal Corporations) paid in whatever form (items of Gross Income) So how does CONgress get out of this one? lets take a look.
Internal Revenue Code of 1954
SEC. 451. GENERAL RULE FOR TAXABLE YEAR OF INCLUSION.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—The amount of any item of gross income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer, unless, under the method of accounting used in computing taxable income, such amount is to be properly accounted for as of a different period.
————————————————————–
CONgress decided to replace Non Resident Alien with the term “taxpayer”. I bet you thought the Code was talking about American citizens.