4um: GREAT VICTORY OVER IRS - Tom Cryer - The prosecution could not state any law making the average American liable for the income tax

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: GREAT VICTORY OVER IRS - Tom Cryer - The prosecution could not state any law making the average American liable for the income tax
Source: Liberty Post
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=193689
Published: Jul 12, 2007
Author: D Wornock
Post Date: 2007-07-12 00:17:47 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: Abolish, The, IRS
Views: 11244
Comments: 62

Today at about 5:30 PM Attorney Tom Cryer was found not guilty to all charges of willful failure to file by the jury in Federal District Court, Shreveport LA. I attended the 2-1/2 day trial. The judge assisted the prosecution in every way possible, and the prosecution lied claiming there is a law requiring most Americans to file. However, the jury saw through the lies and believed Tom Cryer.

The prosecution could not state any law making the average American liable for the income tax. All the prosecution could point out was rulings by two lower courts. However, as Tom Cryer stated The lower courts cannot overturn the Supreme Court and Tom Cryer stated numerous Supreme Court Ruling that conflicted with the IRS version of the law.

The Brilliant Tom Cryer:

Cryer’s strategy is to have the indictment dismissed on the merits of his constitutional and statutory arguments. He has filed an approximately 100-page motion that can be described in one word – “brilliant.”

UPDATES

How to Keep 100% of Your Earnings

America: From Freedom To Fascism
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
#4. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Now we can all stop paying our income taxes. Great! Spread the word!

RickyJ posted on 2007-07-12 1:17:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#5. To: RickyJ (#4)
Now we can all stop paying our income taxes. Great! Spread the word!

LOL! Little late for me.... I stopped 30 years ago!

richard9151 posted on 2007-07-12 1:36:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#7. To: richard9151 (#5)
The Lie-Free Zone

Click HERE to read this free copy of the 104 page memorandum Mr. Cryer filed explaining the law and the reasons the Constitution makes your paycheck exempt.

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 1:51:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#9. To: christine (#7)
Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control A Report to The President (Reagan)
January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service. The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets.

If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 2:26:58 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#10. To: All (#9)
COST OF GOVERNMENT DAY REPORT
"the cost of government consumes 52.6 percent of national income"
Note: Table of Contents

Source

Free At Last

The American Spectator
By By Doug Bandow
Published 7/11/2007 12:07:58 AM

Today the average American finally pays off the burden of government. It only took 192 days. According to a new report from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), government effectively consumes 52.6 percent of national income.
Unfortunately, the Bush years have not been good ones for Americans tired of turning so much of their incomes over to government. Despite the Bush tax cuts, people are working several days longer for federal, state, and local governments now than in 2000, when George W. Bush was elected president. Cost of Government Day (COGD) rose two days from 2006 alone.
There have been tiny declines along the way, from 2003 to 2004 and 2005 to 2006. But, notes study author Elizabeth Karasmeighan, "the drop in the cost of government was short lived."
The problem is largely one of spending. Writes Karasmeighan: "The average American worker will have to work an additional 6 days out of the year over 2000 to pay for government spending on all levels. Federal spending continues to be the main driver of the Cost of Government index, adding 6 days on to the days Americans were forced to work for federal government spending in 2000." From 2006 to 2007 federal spending upped the financial burden on taxpayers by a half day.
Sadly, the years of Republican governance have erased much of the gain from nearly a decade of divided government between President Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress. Karasmeighan explains:

The elevated levels [of] federal spending over the past seven years have wiped out 37 percent of the unprecedented reduction in the burden of federal spending as a percentage of national income from 1993-2000. Federal spending (as a percentage of income) declined for eight straight years, which reduced government spending from one out of every four dollars of national income to one out of every five dollars. By 2000, average Americans worked 14.3 days less of the year to pay off their federal spending burden than in 1992. In just the past six years, however, 37 percent of that gain has been eliminated.
Outlandish outlays, not tax cuts, are responsible for today's deficits. Karasmeighan points out that 70 percent of the cumulative deficit since 2002 resulted because spending rose more quickly than national income. A simple "spend only what you can afford to pay policy" would have largely eliminated the deficit.
The future looks even uglier. The 78 million baby-boomers begin to retire next year, and will ultimately generate a financial tsunami through Social Security and Medicare. With Congress lacking the slightest political backbone, so necessary to tackle entitlement reform, the U.S. will have to find a way to cover tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities under even the most favorable economic circumstances.
State and local spending accounts for another 1.6 days of the COGD increase from 2000 to 2007. This year the average American will work nearly 46 days to fund state and local governments. Moreover, the future likely will be worse. Reports ATR: "Even with looming unfunded pension and health care liabilities, states are failing to reform their entitlement programs. On the contrary, many states used their 2007 sessions to discuss expanding health care programs and imposing health insurance mandates."
The regulatory burden also is growing, despite roughly six years of a supposedly free market Republican president and Congress acting in tandem. Reports ATR:

The cost of regulation as a percent of national income remains at 16.9 percent for the fourth year. It is important to note, however, that revised data on regulatory costs reveal that COGD reports prior to 2006 were underestimating the cost of regulations. New regulations imposed following the War on Terrorism and corporate scandals significantly increased the regulatory burden in 2001 and 2002 in particular. Concurrently, the cost of tax compliance continues to grow. In 2007, the average American will work 61.8 days to pay for the regulatory costs, nearly 1 full day more than was required in 2006.
It is important to note that these estimates include only compliance costs. Equally significant, but more difficult to estimate, are the economic disruptions result from regulation.
Writes Karasmeighan: "These hidden costs slow the economy, as they introduce inefficiencies and distortions, and reduce the economic reward left over for productive activity." Slower economic growth means lower production, smaller wages, and fewer jobs. By some estimates the efficiency losses of regulation run as much as $1.5 trillion, rivaling or exceeding compliance costs.
The regulatory burden, too, is likely to continue going up. Since regulatory costs are less visible, people tend to be less aware of the threat of increased regulation and less able to mobilize against new regulatory proposals. ATR warns that "with the combination of the Democrat Congress and lobbying by the new constituencies created by recent regulations, the upward trend of regulations will continue in future years.

IN FACT, THE COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE has issued its own comprehensive report on federal regulation, authored by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. The scope and sweep of government, and especially federal, controls are enormous.
According to economist Mark Crain, regulatory compliance costs ran $1.142 trillion last year. By way of comparison, Crews points out that this number exceeds total income tax collections and accounts for about nine percent of GDP. But that's not the end: "The Weidenbaum Center and the Mercatus Center jointly estimate that agencies spent $41 billion to administer and police the regulatory state in 2006," writes Crews.
There are a number of ways to measure the regulatory state. For instance, the Federal Register contained 74,937 pages last year, a 1.4 percent increase (though still below the number in 2004). Although the number of pages was up, the number of final rules fell six percent, to 3,718. Notes Crews: "Well over 48,000 final rules were issued from 1995 to 2006 -- that is, during Republican control of Congress."
More than 4,000 rules are currently in the federal pipeline, 139 of which are considered to be "economically significant," that is, likely to have an economic impact of at least $100 million. That number is up slightly from 2005.
Five agencies account for almost half of all regulations: Treasury Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture Department, Interior Department, and Commerce Department. The issues run the gamut: substances prohibited for use in animal feed and food; country-of-origin labels for food; nondiscrimination in public facilities; occupational exposure to diseases and substances; automobile fuel economy standards; energy efficiency rules; emission standards; satellite broadcasting signal carriage requirements; home safety rules; furniture flammability standards; and many, many more.
The problem is not that all regulations are unnecessary or badly designed or unduly costly. The problem is that we have trouble assessing the relative merits of various regulations, and, more important, policymakers usually have no interest in such assessments even if they exist. Observes Crews:

We simply do not know whether regulatory benefits exceed costs. But agencies are not the real culprits. Congress regularly shirks its constitutional duty tomake the tough calls. It delegates considerable law- making power to agencies, and then it fails to ensure that they deliver benefits that are greater than costs. Thus, agencies can hardly be faulted for not guaranteeing optimal regulation or for not ensuring that only "good" rules get through.
Since legislators are no more likely tomorrow than today to find the courage necessary to fulfill their constitutional duty to constrain agency rule-making, regulatory costs seem destined to continue rising. Crews calls for "making Congress as accountable for regulation as for legislation." It's a great idea. But Congress is as likely to accept regulatory responsibility as Congress is likely to eliminate the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing, and Transportation, the sources of so many unnecessary and expensive boondoggles. Or to eliminate the income tax, while cutting expenditures accordingly.
If there is any good news, it is that some states are better than others. In Alabama and Oklahoma taxpayers finished paying for government on June 22. Residents of Alaska and Mississippi quit paying on June 23. Seven more states finished in June
Unfortunately, people in sixteen states, along with the District of Columbia, will continue paying for days, or weeks, later. Connecticut sets the record: August 2. New York trails at July 28. New Jersey follows on July 22. Of Connecticut, Karasmeighan explains, the burden "is so onerous both because it has very high relative incomes, getting a big hit from the federal income tax, and because it has high state and local taxes."
The mantra from the left continues to be that Americans are undertaxed; the public sector is starved of funds; there is no problem that a new government program cannot solve. But the numbers prove otherwise. Today government spending and regulation take more than half of our national income. That's a far heavier burden than a free people should ever accept.

Doug Bandow is Vice President for Policy of Citizen Outreach. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 2:43:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#11. To: christine (#10)
Some Patriot Photos

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 2:50:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Uncle Bill, christine, Zipporah, Jethro Tull, Lodwick (#11)
Some Patriot Photos

I've met Godfrey Lehman, Irwin Schiff and Red Beckman in person, and I've spoken with attorney Larry Becraft on the phone.
Lehman (who is from San Francisco) once told a story to a group of us about his experience on jury duty. It was his position that one should not have to forfeit one right (privacy) in order to exercise another (serving on a jury) so, when an attorney asked him a question he replied with "I object, that question is a violation of my right to privacy".
The judge said "YOU GET OUT OF MY COURTROOM!"
Lehman was shocked by the judge's reaction. And, he makes a most convincing argument that voir dire is unconstitutional, and that lawyers are controlling juries to an extent never intended by the founders.
For instance, why does knowing a defendant render one unsuitable for jury duty? When the first Europeans landed in Plymouth and Jamestown, could they not hold trials because everyone knew everyone else?
No, the reason why lawyers don't want us to know a defendant is so they can paint a false picture of their clients, and if you know the defendants' character it would be much harder to fool you.
Irwin Schiff called me twice collect from prison at my request and expense years ago, too. I didn't have any tax problems, I just wanted to chat and tell him how much he helped me!
And, Red Beckman told me how he and Bill Benson researched the 16th amendment and proved it was never ratified. He said that when he provided the evidence to the 9th circuit, the judge said "This is a political matter on which we cannot rule!" and he ordered the steno not to make a transcript of the hearing!
The govt knows that it's a swindle, folks, believe me.

HOUNDDAWG posted on 2007-07-12 4:09:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine (#15)
Just tell the IRS your income is a capital gain. I'm sure they'll understand.

http://www.ombwatch.org / article/articleview/3898/
Wall Street Tax Break Comes under Scrutiny

After decades of flying below the radar screen, a tax policy allowing private equity fund managers to claim their fee-based income as capital gains rather than ordinary income has suddenly become the subject of media scrutiny, congressional hearings and legislation. In June, the Blackstone Group, a large private equity firm, went public with an initial public offering, which resulted in billion-dollar profits for the principals. This triggered House Ways & Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee chairs Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to question the tax breaks that helped enable the billion-dollar profits. They announced their intention to examine tax policy regarding so-called "carried interest," a type of performance fee that is a major source of compensation for fund managers. Rep. Sander Levin (D- MI) has introduced a bill to eliminate the carried interest tax loophole altogether. In response, high-powered lobbyists have gathered to fight back. A classic confrontation between industry and taxpayer interests may be looming.
The policy question concerns part of the fee that fund managers usually collect for their services. They typically negotiate a percentage of any profits on their fund's investments, called "carried interest" because, oftentimes, funds do not produce profits for several years. Because the income comes, when it does, following the sale of the fund's security assets, the argument is made that this income is like dividends or capital gains and so should be taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent.
However, some tax experts have argued that carried interest is no different from ordinary income, which is taxed at rates of up to 35 percent. The risk element in fund managers' compensation for services is quite different from investors' risk. The latter may lose every penny they have invested in the funds; they may also reap capital gains if fund assets are sold at a profit. Fund managers may not be personally invested in the funds they manage at all — in this case, they have no "downside" risk of financial loss; they may simply fail to be due compensation if the fund does not perform well enough. It is a form of contingency fee.
Advocates of current policy, such as Lisa McGreevy, executive vice president of the Managed Funds Association, say that ''the whole issue is fundamental to entrepreneurship in the United States and the ability to use sweat equity to build long-term investments.'' Victor Fleischer, a University of Illinois tax professor, believes that perhaps private equity funds, hedge funds and others benefiting from the tax treatment have total assets under management of up to $1 trillion. It is unclear whether taxes on fund managers relate at all to investor activity.
Advocates of closing the carried interest tax loophole question the equity of current policy, which, Fleischer estimates, reduces fund managers' taxes by $4- 6 billion a year. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) says that ''there is absolutely no reason some of the richest partnerships in the world should be able to rip off American taxpayers because of a tax loophole.'' On the other side, the lobbyists are trying to convince Congress that such legislation would hurt the average citizen. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was quoted in the July 10 Washington Post as saying, "This is a tax increase not only on those working on Wall Street, but also on all blue-jean-wearing Americans because of its effect on their retirement funds."

A key moment in the debate came on June 12, when former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, speaking to a tax reform conference run by Brookings' Hamilton Project said,
It seems to me what is happening is people are performing a service, managing people's money in a private equity form and fees for that service would ordinarily be thought of as ordinary income. A week and a half later, Levin introduced his bill to end the tax treatment of these fees as capital gains. A dozen other House members have now co-sponsored the bill, including Rangel and House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank (D-MA). Rangel subsequently announced that he would hold a hearing on the legislation in July. Baucus has scheduled the first of two hearings by the Senate Finance Committee, to be held July 11.
The prospects for the Levin legislation in the House seem favorable, given the heft of those who have endorsed it. However, the Cantor-led forces include some of the most powerful lobbyists in town. In the Senate, Baucus and Finance Committee ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA) have not taken a position on the issue. But in his most direct statement on it to date, Grassley, who has strongly supported tax breaks for business in the past, implied that the carried interest tax preference is
failing to maintain the integrity of the 15% capital-gains rate… What I'm doing is an effort to ward off the demagogues on Capitol Hill that can say this is just a way for the rich to get richer, and the middle class to be stung... I would ask my Republican colleagues to look at it from that standpoint, that we want to make sure we aren't feeding the demagoguery of class warfare that the other party is always getting blue ribbons for doing. Whatever Congress decides, it is possible that President Bush will declare that ending this tax loophole is a tax increase and veto it on those grounds.

Say what?

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 5:44:47 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#18. To: Uncle Bill (#17)
... it is possible that President Bush will declare that ending this tax loophole is a tax increase and veto it on those grounds.

Quite possible, since Bush wants to free all investment capital and corporate profits from taxation and make it a wage withholding tax only!
Do you believe this guy?
This move would do the exact opposite of what was promised during debates about the tax.
And, this is also why corporations are all too happy to withhold from their employees' wages. The company pays little or no taxes and they compensate with money from their workers.

HOUNDDAWG posted on 2007-07-12 5:53:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#18)
Source
Memorandum
To: Participants in Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement
From: Regional Commissioner Western Region
Subject: Tax Rebellion in California
I am sending you the minutes of our meeting of February 9, 1973, on the Tax Rebellion Movement. These minutes enumerate action items for the Los Angeles and San Francisco District Directors and for Regional Office officials.
I appreciate your past attention to this serious matter and feel confident that all of us working together can successfully overcome this challenge to our tax system.
/s/ Homer O. Croasmun
Regional Commissioner
Attachment
Croasmun Memorandum: Page 1 of 6
Minutes of February 9, 1973 Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement in California
Participants
Mr. Croasmun, Regional Director Mr. Schwartz, Regional Counsel Mr. Rowe, Regional Inspector Mr. Kingman, District Director, San Francisco Mr. Schmidt, District Director, Los Angeles Mr. McCart, Acting Assistant Regional Commissioner, Intelligence Mr. Hansen, Chief, Los Angeles Mr. Howard, Chief, San Francisco Mr. Monzon, Chief, Enforcement, Regional Office, BATF Mr. Vargofcak, Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge, San Francisco Mr. Dvorak, Assistant Regional Inspector Mr. Pollock, Regional Protective Programs Manager Mr. Busalacchi, Regional Public Affairs Officer Mr. Krause, Regional Coordinator, Tax Rebellion Movement
Mr. Croasmun opened the conference with a review of the history of the Tax Rebellion Movement. He stated we should set up our metes and bounds to achieve our goals; that we do not have unlimited manpower so we must focus on the total program and concentrate on the leaders of the movement attacking IRS.
Mr. Croasmun pointed out that seven months ago we changed our direction on Tax Rebellion cases from a defensive posture and have now seized the initiative by infiltration of their organization so we now know in advance of their plans before they execute them. This is vital and we must continue to stay aggressive if we are to enforce the revenue laws and to protect the Service from attack by tax rebel militants.
Mr. Croasmun stated that we are not limiting ourselves to the sanctions in the Revenue Code, but are using all the available law enforcement machinery whether it be federal, state or local laws: for example, if a tax rebel leader is violating a state law by carrying a concealed weapon, we should use state enforcement to prosecute him; and, if there is a firearms violation, ATF agents should be alerted.
Mr. Howard advised that he had been advised by the Detroit District that since ( ) spoke on the radio in Cleveland, there had been a flood of General Motors employees submitting false forms W-4. Mr. Busalacchi stated he had a report that ( ) had been active in Albuquerque.
Mr. Hansen advised that a ( ) of Ventura County had attempted to file false forms [sic] W-4; that he is now leading the Mariposa camp of militants organized by ( ) the ( ).
Mr. Vargofcak said the sheriff of Mariposa County had been checking on the activities of ( ) since May 1972, when the ( ) bought the Mariposa property from ( ); that ( ) is a close personal friend of ( ) that ( ) has a state criminal record; that he has three or four firearms; and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms has a case on ( ).
Croasmun Memorandum: Page 2 of 6
Mr. Schmidt pointed out that there are varying degrees of militancy in the various tax rebellion groups; that in the Los Angeles District, Taxpayers Anonymous in Orange County, led by ( ) and ( ) is the most militant; and that we should keep this in mind in deciding our targets.
Mr. Monzon gave a summary of laws enforced by the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms which could be used on tax rebel cases. He pointed out it is not a federal violation to carry a gun unless the person has a felony record; that an automatic pistol is not an "automatic" gun under the definitions of BATF unless one pull of the trigger will discharge multiple shots; that explosives are a federal violation; and, likewise, "silencers" are a violation. He said he wanted more information about a report that tax rebels are able to buy silencers in Phoenix, as this would be a clear violation.
Mr. Howard advised he has been conferring with state tax officials who are anxious to cooperate with IRS in the attack on tax rebels who also do not pay state taxes; often the state can move quickly to close up a tax rebel's business or revoke his license; that we should see that the state uses its enforcement machinery on those cases which are not our targets.
Mr. Croasmun reported on his discussions with Assistant U. S. Attorney Couris and Judge Crocker, Fresno, and of their interest in enforcement of the law in tax rebel cases. Mr. Hansen commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on a belief that IRS is "highhanded." Mr. Howard reported on a change of attitude in federal judges in San Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents.
There was a general discussion of the importance of meeting with U.S. Attorneys and federal judges to acquaint them with the full picture of the tax rebellion movement. Mr. Croasmun pointed out that after his meeting with Mr. Couris and Judge Crocker, they requested background information on the Movement which was furnished them.
Mr. Kingman suggested the possibility of requesting religious leaders to warn their following against participation in the movement, pointing to the beneficial effects of Mormon Church President Lee's message.
Mr. Howard advised that after his discussion with the federal judges they said they had not full background information on some of the defendants to whom they had given light sentences.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that the Porth-type cases not prosecuted should at least be considered for fraud penalties or other civil penalties.
Croasmun Memorandum: Page 3 of 6
Mr. Schwartz also advised the district directors that they should instruct employers who receive false forms W-4 or W-4E which they know to be false through admission of employee or knowledge of previous employment that the employer should disregard the false exemption certificate and withhold on the basis of zero exemptions or on the basis of a former correct form W-4.
There was a general discussion on the problem of detecting false W-4 or W-4E cases where the taxpayer does not so advise the government or the employer does not do so; and, particularly so where the taxpayer completes his action by not filing any form of 1040 at year end, but becomes an "IRS dropout." With the present limited matching at the Service Centers of the filing index with prior years' returns, or employers' copies of W-2's with filing indexes, such cases will probably never be detected. Suggestions were made that we use all available means to reach employers to advise them of their responsibility to advise IRS when they receive a suspected false form W-4 or W-4E. Also, we should use our liaison contacts with the Tax Executive Institute to get the message to them of their responsibility in such cases and of advising employer-clients. Also, we should use trade journals to reach employers with this message. Also, we should use Circular E for this purpose.
Mr. Krause pointed out the importance of close planning on common targets by the tax rebellion project supervisors of the Los Angeles and San Francisco districts with planning meetings as needed.
Action Items for District Directors:
1. Maintain the initiative in the attack on the tax rebels.
2. Know their plans before they arrive at our door to execute them.
3. Identify the leaders of the Movement and concentrate on them.
4. Have a plan of action in coordination with the Region rather than hit and miss defensive reactions.
5. Continue and step up the infiltration in-depth of the Movement.
6. Use all available federal, state and local laws.
7. Use civil penalties on Porth-type cases.
8. Wage a campaign to educate U.S. Attorneys and federal judges with the importance of prison sentences on cases.
9. District Directors to continue to follow up cases of admitted or known false W-4's or W-4E's to advise employers of responsibilities in such cases and follow up to see that proper 1040's are filed at the filing season.
10. Use State taxing agencies willing to cooperate on enforcement of laws on tax rebels.
11. Los Angeles and San Francisco project supervisors to hold periodic planning meetings on common targets.
Croasmun Memorandum: Page 4 of 6
Action Items for Region:
1. Use Tax Executive Institute liaison to inform tax consultants and their client-employers of their duties on suspected false exemption cases.
2. Consider requesting legislation or an IRS published ruling to require employers to file with service centers a copy of amended W-4 or W-4E forms.
3. Use Circular E, The employer's Tax Guide on Withholding, to inform employers of responsibilities on suspected false exemption cases.
4. Use trade journals to reach employers for same purpose.
Croasmun Memorandum: Page 5 of 6
Supplement 1 (Rev. 3)
RC-W Memorandum 12-24
Regional Objective RC-W4
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE ROLE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
The Service should be acutely aware of its responsibility to enhance the belief of the American public that Internal Revenue Service is an effective tax administration body, maintaining the highest principles of integrity.
Heads of Office should take positive steps to insure that appropriate managers are aware of and responsive to concerns and contacts with professional groups, the communication media and the taxpaying public. The Service must maintain the capacity to respond timely and intelligently to concerns or issues raised by the public.
Areas of Consideration
* Evaluate, appraise and react to the tax mood of the nation and of local areas. Heads of Office should impress on all employees the value of effective, professional tax administration as a counterpoint to attacks on the self- assessment system.
* Maintain an effective Public Affairs program designed to produce pertinent and effective public information concerning both tax and economic stabilization matters.
* Recognize the sensitive problems connected with the organized tax resistance movement. Be aware of the need for diligent enforcement action against organized tax protestors who flagrantly violate the tax laws.
* Heads of Office should be aware of their roles as public spokesmen in explaining to the general public and to responsible business and professional groups the Service's role in the administration of both our tax system and the economic stabilization program.
Official Use Only
Croasmun Memorandum: Page 6 of 6
# # #

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
up on his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle
class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?
And I still have to "press 1" for English

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 7:17:31 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#37. To: Uncle Bill (#19)
What happened?

You know what happened; Americans started believing it when someone from the government showed up and said, 'I am here to help you,' and the Americans started signing up for all of the 'free' stuff, like, for instance, Social Security.
From then on, it was katy bar the door!
In that respect, it is interesting to note that most of the people of Mèxico pay no to very few taxes; and, the people of Mèxico understand why not! Most of them have no direct connection to the federal government in Mèxico, i.e., no contracts.
More than 30 years ago, I read this;
"Two aspects of the Federal Income Tax system - voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax - make it important for you to understand your rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer. 'Voluntary compliance' places on the taxpayer the responsibility for filing an income tax return. You must decide whether the law requires you to file a return. If it does, you must file your return by the date it is due. IRS Publication 21."
After some further study, I choose to be out of the banking system, burned all of the tax records I had saved, and never went to work for someone else, except as a contract worker. I simply refused from that time on to put my 'label' on the income tax return. Oh, and I insulated myself from judgements. Been a pretty nice time since then.

richard9151 posted on 2007-07-12 17:34:55 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 37.
There are no replies to Comment # 37.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um