IRS vs. KUGLIN (Multiple threads merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
IRS vs. KUGLIN

I don't know about the validity of this, but maybe someone in Memphis can verify this. It would be nice if it is true, but honestly I have my doubts.

IRS vs. KUGLIN
By Carl F. Worden
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/10/ar_IRS_vs._KUGLIN.htm

Forget the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and our excellent adventure in Liberia. Forget about Kobe, Arnold, Arriana, Scott and Laci. The biggest news of the entire week is that on August 8, 2003, the IRS was unable to convince a jury in Memphis, Tennessee that the Federal Tax Code requires the citizens to pay individual income taxes. I kid you not.
I watched as many Sunday news programs as I could possibly stand, and I didn’t hear a single mention of the IRS’ debacle in Memphis. If you ever had doubts about the mainstream media being controlled by the federal government, doubt no more.

For those not already aware, FedEx Pilot Vernice Kuglin began studying the IRS Code some years ago, and was simply unable to find anywhere in the code that she was required to pay federal income taxes.

And here’s the most remarkable part: Back in 1995, Kuglin wrote letters in good faith to the IRS, asking them to show her where the Tax Code requires individual citizens to pay federal income taxes. Incredibly, the IRS never answered a single one of her letters!

As she studied the facts, laws and related documents more, Kuglin became convinced that, regardless of the IRS’ failure to respond one way or the other, she was exempt from paying federal income taxes. So, Kuglin filled out W-4 forms showing 99 exemptions, and turned them in to her employer. Doing that meant Kuglin got to take home almost all of her paycheck each payday, instead of what was left after the feds ravaged it.

The IRS went after Kuglin for six counts of tax evasion on $920,000.00 income, and for filing “false†W-4 forms, charges that could have put the 58 year-old Kuglin in federal prison for up to 30 years and cost her 1.5 million in fines.

Apparently, things didn’t go quite the slam-dunk way federal prosecutor Joe Murphy thought they would. My money says the IRS wishes they had never gone after Kuglin at all. In fact, after the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts, Murphy is reported to have demanded that the judge order Kuglin to file her forms, pay her taxes and “obey the lawâ€. The judge reportedly replied, “Sir, I don’t work for the IRS.â€

Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.

Jurors tend not to be very sympathetic with tax scofflaws, since each one of them is also a taxpayer and they understandably feel resentment towards anyone not paying “their fair shareâ€. So in order for this federal jury to completely vindicate Kuglin, the government’s failure to prove their case against her had to have been clear and unequivocal!

I haven’t read the trial transcript yet, but I must assume the federal prosecutor at least tried to twist some vague and ambiguous section of the Tax Code to make it look like it applied to Kuglin. I don’t know that, but I’ll bet he tried. What else could he use to prosecute her with?

Thanks to the IRS’ arrogance and stupidity, and Kuglin’s refusal to plead to lesser charges, Kuglin accomplished what Bob Schultz and the other “tax protesters†had been denied all along: To force the IRS into a public debate and to answer the question of whether or not the Tax Code requires an individual to pay personal income taxes. Kuglin and her two attorneys, Larry Becraft and Robert Bernhoft, have unequivocally forced the IRS to show its hand, and 12 judges hearing that debate ruled the answer to be “NOâ€.

I think it’s time for everyone reading this to send a very polite letter to the IRS, telling them they read about the case in Memphis, and is it true that there is no section in the U.S. Tax Code that requires an individual citizen to pay federal income taxes?

Don’t be threatening in any way, or announce that you plan to stop paying federal income taxes. This request is for your personal edification, and you just simply want to know the truth.

Like Kuglin, you probably won’t get an answer back, but just to prove you sent the letter and that they received it, be certain to send the letter via certified U.S. Mail, with a return receipt requested. When you get that receipt back, staple it to a copy of the letter you sent the IRS, and put it somewhere real secure, like a personal safe or bank deposit box.

I don’t have to explain why, now do I?

Now, how many calls to FOX’ Bill O’Reilly will it take to convince him we know he’s doing a spin in the No-Spin Zone by sitting on this story? Start e-mailing O’Reilly at [email protected], and be sure to give him your city and state. He’s gonna love me.

Carl F. Worden


The Sierra Times maintains its operation only by our sponsors and our readers. As always, any contribution is desperately needed and always accepted. Thank you.
 
Yeah well ya better pay up anyway boys, because even if they cannot prove willfullness beyond a reasonable doubt, they are still gonna collect and you be payin da lawyer anyways!

WildhohumAlaska
 
Did a Copernic search on +Vernice +Kuglin and got several hits. Several of these were the court calendar pages which confirmed the case actually existed. The rest were tax freedom sites and free republic. There were no "mainstream" sites listed.

I did a followup search on "USA v Vernice B Kuglin" and got only the court calendar sites.

I did a further search on "Vernice Kuglin" at "http://www.findlaw.com "legal news" section and got the same search results as the copernic searches (see below).

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2161228,00.html

http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/Calendars/July/default.htm (Click on August)
 
The best (and really the ONLY) argument presented by the IRS toadies in these discussions, is that anyone who challenges IRS on basic principles ends up in jail.

It's not a question of right/wrong; illegal/legal; rather who has the baddest police. Is this case a bellweather? Time will tell. If this defendant has truly set legal precedent, you can bet the case will be appealed...and appealed...and appealed; until reversed, or the defendant has either died or run out of money.

Should be an interesting case to follow, however. The emperor has no clothes?
 
I did some research along these lines myself, and I noticed something interesting. If you read the instruction manual that comes with the IRS Form 1040, you'll find a section called "Who should file?"[0] In that section, there is a list of people who should not file (minors, people with less than a certain level of income, and so on). Nowhere in the section does it say that people not in the list are required to file; it's just left dangling, and the reader is left to assume that if they're not on the "should not file" list, they are required to file.

But it never says this.

Additionally, the tax code is full of text that says that you can't file a false return, but nowhere in there does it say that you have to file any return at all.

So the issue becomes this: you fill out W-4 forms for work; you can either claim typical allowances, or you can claim that you are exempt. But the catch is, to claim you're exempt, you have to claim that you were exempt the previous year as well, and if you paid taxes the previous year, you can't claim that. So they have you in a catch-22.

I tried filing a "zero" return one year (under the premise that the tax code defines "income" as "profit derived from corporate activity"[1], and excludes compensation for labor from the definition of "income". The IRS changed my return (doing which is a violation of the tax code), and kept the money that had been taken out of my paycheck during the year.

I backed off, largely because I don't have the resources to fight the IRS.

-BP

[0] It's significant that it says "should", not "must".
[1] Such as investments, interest, and the like
 
greyhound

So is this whole thing a hoax?
Click to expand...
Do you mean the IRS rules or the court case? The court case is there for all to see on the court's own calendar at: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/Calendars/July/default.htm .

When the page opens, click on the "August" link and look at the calendar for the fourth thru seventh. If you click on the "4" on the calendar, it will list the cases to be heard that day and the case number.

Case #: 203cr20111 is USA v Kuglin

I also registered at: https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/regform.html to gain access to the case and the fee is minimal, .07/page. Don't quite know how it works yet as they have a SEVENTY-FIVE PAGE pdf downloadable manual that I have downloaded but not yet read.
 
John Gibson "The Big Story" on FOXNEWS had this gal and her atty as on-air guests. Most of the time for the interview was taken up by her inability to express herself adequately. He asked her one question and she almost started "I was born a small White child ...".

Interview was boring and I wish her atty had done all of the talking. Maybe we would have learned something about this case.

They has Napolitano afterward on the subject but all he said is that she is still civilly liable for the taxes but that the gov't lost its chance to criminally convict her.

The program airs once each day with no replay but you didn't miss anything anyway if you didn't see it.
 
If this defendant has truly set legal precedent, you can bet the case will be appealed...and appealed...and appealed; until reversed, or the defendant has either died or run out of money.
Click to expand...

No, no, no - that is not possible.

A jury found the defendant "not guilty" in a criminal case.

The the govt cannot appeal the jury's decision.
 
My understanding is that when the IRS goes after you, it's in two parts. First, they bring a criminal case against you for not paying your taxes, then they bring a civil case against you to recover those taxes you didn't pay.

Kuglin was found not guilty of tax evasion because she demonstrated that the government never answered her questions about paying taxes.

However, winning the criminal case doesn't mean she doesn't owe the taxes. There is still a civil trial to win for that to happen.

As for the question of appeal, you first have to understand what an appeal is. You appeal a case when you believe an error has been made that affected the outcome of the case. For example, if a jury was instructed in such a way as to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense, that would be an error that would cause the verdict to be vacated and the case remanded for further proceeding (a retrial.) You can't appeal just because you don't like the outcome of the trial. There has to be a harmful error.
 
In a criminal case, you cannot retry a verdict of not guilty. Period.

Civil cases are something altogether different, though.

Stinger
 
IRS unable to prove in criminal court a requirement to pay federal income taxes

http://www.givemeliberty.org/mailroom/2003-08-09.htm

IRS Loses A Big One

Memphis Pilot Acquitted of Tax Evasion
Charged With Filing "False" W-4s



On Friday, a Memphis federal jury acquitted FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin of six counts of felony Tax Evasion and Willful Failure to File tax returns.

Ms. Kuglin's attorneys, Tax Honesty Movement barristers Larry Becraft and Robert G. Bernhoft, told reporters that Kuglin was indicted seven months ago and had refused to plead the case out for a lesser sentence. During her testimony Kuglin testified that since 1995, she had sent numerous letters to the IRS requesting that they inform her of what law required her to pay the Individual Income Tax. To this day, she has not received an answer.



At 1:30 Friday afternoon, the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts.

After the jury had been excused the U.S. Attorney reportedly demanded that the Judge order the defendant to file her forms, pay her taxes and obey the law. The Judge reportedly replied "Sir, I don't work for the IRS."
Click to expand...

More at the link.
 
Good for her. It's my understanding that, as per the Federal Tax Code and the IRS's own definition of the word "Income" she is right. Income is something that is generated by companies, corporations, businesses, etc.

Firearms related, the same principle is used by the government to regulate the sale and possession of full auto firearms. The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to use a tax to regulate the sale of the weapons, but, they do it, and get by with it.

Sad thing is, we go along with it, pay taxes, buy the 'stamp', etc.
 
After the jury had been excused the U.S. Attorney reportedly demanded that the Judge order the defendant to file her forms, pay her taxes and obey the law. The Judge reportedly replied "Sir, I don't work for the IRS."

I have the bad feeling that the judge will be getting audited for the next 40 years.
 
Sigggggggghhhhhhh..

Wrong wrong wrong, dont get your hopes up..

The only thing that happened is that the govt failed to prove willfulness...

Anyone else wanna try, get yer lawyer funded...the amount you pay for a criminal trial lawyer will eaqula your tax liability for 15 years...

WildwasteoftimeandmoneyAlaska
 
She will still be required to pay her taxes. She is exempt from penalties and criminal misconduct because some of the minimum wage employees at IRS were too stupid to forward her 1995 correspondence to someone who had a clue. She did not contest the validity or Constitutionality of the 16th amendment. By her refusal to pay, the rest of you and myself got to pay more.
 
The income tax is a corrupt and evil system. It allows, nay, requires the government to spy on all those who dare work for a living. It needs to be buried. She deserves our support.

Is there anyone here on this board who would have voted to convict? If so, you suck eggs.

She still faces civil collection at the hands of a tax court where corrupt government officials will not allow here the protection of a jury and will decide, hey, guess what? We're gonna take your house. I hope she fights that and wins as well.

Rick

FoxNews.com had the story as well
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94630,00.html
Woman Beats IRS in Court Over Income Tax Protest

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, August 12, 2003, that has been edited for clarity. Click here to order the complete transcript.

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: Every payday, Uncle Sam takes a good chunk of your paycheck. A woman in Tennessee decided enough was enough and stopped paying. The IRS (search) took her to court and, get this, she beat them.

Joining us now is Vernice Kuglin (search) and her defense attorney, Larry Becraft, who specializes in tax protester cases. And that's today's big question, Verny can anyone get out of paying taxes?

VERNICE KUGLIN, ACQUITTED ON SIX COUNTS OF TAX EVASION: Well, that's a difficult question. I can only speak for my case in which I was acquitted by a jury.

GIBSON: Of what?

KUGLIN: And that was of intent to willfully violate a law.

GIBSON: Okay. But just so we're not dealing with apples and oranges, you were acquitted of the criminal charge that would have sent you off to jail.

KUGLIN: That's correct.

GIBSON: But you're still on the hook for the taxes?

KUGLIN: I'll let [Larry Becraft] answer that.

GIBSON: Larry Becraft, is she still on the hook for the taxes?

LARRY BECRAFT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, John, that's a very important question. That's one that came up in court last week. Let me kind of put this case into context. Verny was charged back in April with six counts of federal income tax evasion (search).

GIBSON: Yes.

BECRAFT: And we tried the case last week. In a criminal case, the only thing that happens, the only question that the jury decides is whether or not the defendant that is on trial committed the crime. We had some very interesting facts that were presented to the jury. We had a theme for the defense. The jury bought that and found her not guilty. The next question of civil liability for the amount of taxes is further down the road. I would anticipate here that the IRS is probably going to be sending her a 90-day letter for the six years that were the subject of the indictment. And that might be coming in the next couple of months.

GIBSON: Okay, now, Larry, you're probably also going to want to answer this, but let me ask Verny. Verny, why did you think that you have the right, if not the duty, to refuse to pay the IRS your tax bill?

KUGLIN: It started in 1992 when I began hearing people talk about the constitutional restrictions on taxation by the federal government. I began reading the Constitution, listening to cassette tapes on the direct versus indirect taxes, then I was led eventually to court cases… after the 16th Amendment (search) was passed and then cases on down the way. And it raised a question in my mind as to the legitimacy of the federal government directly taxing a person's right to a common occupation.

GIBSON: But Verny, you look like a very reasonable citizen of the United States. And you probably would allow that it does take the money of the citizens to run all the services we avail ourselves of, highways, whatever. You were just objecting to the method of collecting these taxes by the federal government through the IRS, or you objected to taxation altogether?

KUGLIN: I believe that the founding fathers, through the constitution, set up a competent and workable tax structure and my objection is that that structure has been misapplied by the IRS.

GIBSON: Now, Larry, I have to ask you about this before we run out of time. It isn't always so wise to take on the IRS. Most people lose and lose big. Is Verny a trend or is she just an isolated case and everybody else should behave?

BECRAFT: I haven't made a determination in my own mind, although since the verdict has come back we've had a lot of media interested in the decision in this case. You know, I think that if we take a look at the situation going on out in California, if we take a look at the situation just across the nation, even in my home state, Alabama, we do have funding problems for state and federal governments. And this may be an indicator that the people are beginning to get a little bit fed up. My own personal conclusion is that in this particular case, the jury reached the only conclusion it could reach, which was that she had committed no crime. Whether or not this is indicative of some type of a change in the mood of the American people, I think we probably need at least an honest survey of the American people to make that determination.

GIBSON: Larry Becraft, thanks a lot. And Verny Kuglin, thank you for coming on today. Good luck. At least you're not going to jail, appreciate it.

BECRAFT: Thank you, John.

GIBSON: For most of us, legally avoiding the IRS seems like a dream come true, but can you really get away with not paying your taxes? Is it evasion or ingeniousness?

… This is a big fight that's been going on in this country for a long time. [Vernice Kuglin] is just the latest little case.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Right.

GIBSON: Is there a constitutional objection to allowing the federal government to take money out of your paycheck every week?

NAPOLITANO: Well, there was until the 16th Amendment was enacted in the early part of the last century. The Constitution specifically prohibited the federal government from taxing individuals directly. The 16th Amendment amended that. And it was challenged several times in two cases right after it was enacted. And those cases have been called intellectually dishonest. But no one seriously, successfully, has challenged the power of the federal government since then to tax individual income.

Now, nobody likes to pay tax. I don't know anybody who comes home at the end of the week and says, “You know what? They didn't take enough this week.†And she will probably still have to pay her taxes…

But, seriously speaking, this is a criminal case. And the only thing the jury decided was that the government couldn't prove its case against her. And the reason the government couldn't was that she begged them, she pleaded with them to explain the tax laws to her. They wouldn't answer her letters. They wouldn't return her phone calls. They wouldn't give her any explanation. I think the jury said, “Enough is enough.†She owes a lot of money. You're talking about $1 million worth of income and easily $250,00 in taxes for which they will sue her and for which they will probably get a judgment. And if she doesn't pay, they will levy on her assets. But she is not going to jail. The government has lost its shot to convict her of a crime.

GIBSON: Once again, does that make her one lonely soldier out there or is it a trend?

NAPOLITANO: I think it's one lonely soldier who found a sympathetic jury. I don't think it's a trend.

GIBSON: And you don't think it would be wise to try it?

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely not.

GIBSON: Judge Andrew Napolitano, thanks a lot.
Click to expand...
 
This is a little confusing but what I read from this is that the only reason the jury acquited Ms. Kuglin was because the IRS did not fulfill their duty to provide evidence of the laws compelling her to pay, NOT that there is not a Constitutional basis for collecting income taxes. Any legal scholars/lawyers want to comment on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
aftermath of a "self defense" shooting of cop
Replies
10
Views
1K
Blackhawk
B
2
  • Locked
Why Fear an Armed Public?
Replies
4
Views
583
Cosmoline
C
J
  • Locked
The Bag of Dirty Tricks thread
Replies
4
Views
630
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
Court: Taxpayers can ignore IRS summonses
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
AZRickD
A
P
  • Locked
Radical U.N. Tax Plans Threaten America
Replies
18
Views
774
atek3
atek3
Back
Top