The official blog of the Libertarian Party
July 16, 2007
Court Victory Against Income Tax
Many Libertarians, especially the more "militant" ones (I use that word with a tone of endearment, not spite), long for the days when the Boston Tea Party would be called an act of patriotism. In this day and age, when vocal dissent of government policies are often called un-American, such rebellious acts against the government will undoubtedly have you labeled a traitor on Hannity and Colmes.
But today, I'm proud to announce that maybe those days are here again, and the modern day Boston Tea Party is manifested in things such as this:
A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.
Let me clarify, the LP doesn't endorse actively breaking the law as a means of political dissent; however, we can still cheer for those that have successful outcomes when they do. Of course, Ed Brown is still holed up NH, and we wish him the best. But, Tom Cryer, the attorney in this recent objection to income tax, has scored a substantial victory against taxes:
"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."
Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.
The best part about all of this is just the simple logic and philosophy behind it. It's my money, and the government will not get me to give it to them.
"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."
Beautiful.
Whether or not the IRS will appeal is dubious. They probably won't. I doubt they'll run the risk of this same thing happening in a higher court, where the ruling will set a greater precedent, and the decision would impact a larger group of people.
Also, you can read a legal brief assembled by Cryer and submitted for his case.
You can read more about the trial here and here (just scroll down to find them).
Posted by Andrew Davis at July 16, 2007 11:56 AM
Reader Comments:
Meanwhile income tax resisters Ed & Elaine Brown continue to gather support. This past weekend, hundreds of supporters came to an all-ages concert held on their property -- in defiance of a Department of Justice missive that supporters of the couple face jail time.
Details and continuing coverage are on the NH Free forum:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.0
In a criminal trial, when the defendant is acquitted, the government cannot appeal that acquittal. To do so is constitutionally barred under the double jeopardy clause.
The court did not decide that Cryer was right, though, and it did not decide that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax. This particular trial hinged on willfulness, as a condition precedent to the charges he was facing (failure to file tax returns). The jury decided that he sincerely believes he has no responsibility to file tax returns, and therefore they could not convict him under the law as it is written.
Victory? Yes, but only to the extent that he won't be sent to prison. He is still responsible to pay the taxes, penalties, and interest for those years in question. After all, filing tax returns and paying/owing taxes are two completely separate issues.
Why don't the IRS charged Cryer with (just) "failure to file a return and pay taxes"? It would be a no-brainer in favor for the IRS. Could it be there is no charge like that on the record? If so, why? Could it be there is no law which requires the average American to file and pay, and if there is no crime, there is no charge, like Cryer, the Browns, and plenty of others have been saying all along? But the average jury still believes there is a law, so it is an uphill climb.
I think the fact that you have to pay the taxes is reasonably implied. If you think about it, how many of your usual bills (utilities, repairs, credit cards, etc.) specifically state that you have to pay them? The words "balance due" may appear on the bill. But does it specifically say you're expected to pay it? Is there a law that specifically states you have to pay a bill upon presentation by the debtor? It's just reasonably implied.
Isn't that a consentual contract? I'd rather not contribute to "social security".
You mean Socialism Security
Having been through an IRS confiscation (they actually claim it was 'Treasury Department') in Boise, Idaho in 1994, I really don't see any merit to 'Court Victories' against the IRS. They have guns (T. Dept) and steal stuff.
In 1994, I worked for Anders Distributing as a 'newspaper carrier' (a glorified paper boy with a van). Anders was the main dstributor for the Idaho Statesman. The IRS showed up (with T. Men) and confiscated the vehicles, along with my tools.
I pay my own taxes (whether or not there is withholding) and I want to know what claim the goverment has against me to justify stealing my stuff.
For a court victory, I want to put the IRS on trial, not the other way around.
Taxes is different; it's government. Looking at the Supreme Court decision in Gould v. Gould (1917), it states, "In case of doubt [about taxes] they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." Google it up! So, concerning taxes, if there is no law, there is no tax--there is no implied. But if Justin wants to pay taxes anyway, that is up to him.
There is no law that requires one to file a tax return. The constitution of the U.S. only allows for apportionment for taxes levied on ones income. In other words, if the federal govt. wants to tax individual incomes they must go through each state government. Apportionment protects the individual from the federal govt. This just goes to show how corrupt our govt. is, and especially members of the judicial branch. The judicial branch is the one branch we need to get under control. What accountability is there in the judicial branch? The forefathers were so thorough and ingenious.
Thanks to Milton Friedman and the withholding taxes, most people (in USA) do not have a choice about paying income taxes. Those self employed with assests (banks or real estate) need to know the US government shows up with guns and just take or steal what they want when they don't get what they demand. (--personal experience)
| 
Meanwhile income tax resisters Ed & Elaine Brown continue to gather support. This past weekend, hundreds of supporters came to an all-ages concert held on their property -- in defiance of a Department of Justice missive that supporters of the couple face jail time.
Details and continuing coverage are on the NH Free forum:
Posted by: Denis Goddard at July 16, 2007 01:55 PMhttp://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.0