Cryer Trial

[grixit]

Here's the press release. Truth Troopers are directed to distribute it widely:

TRUTH ATTACK

TOM IS STILL IN THE HOLE

WE NEED TO HELP HIM CLIMB OUT


Although Tom Cryer has won an amazing victory for the cause of truth and the restoration of the rule of law, the battle was not won without paying a steep price. His practice has been ruined and he has incurred expenses he still has to meet.


http://WWW.TRUTHATTACK.ORG

And he still has to pay his back taxes. His win kept him free of jail and fines only.

[Famspear]

John, I always understand you, and I'm always here for you.

[grixit]

John, I always understand you, and I'm always here for you.

Awwww, that's sweet!

[John J. Bulten]

John, I always understand you, and I'm always here for you.

I may need a lawyer for Bulten v IRS. Can you send me a schedule of fees? Do you have any experience with proving notices of federal tax lien to be erroneous? (Come to think, has one ever been proven erroneous?)

[Disilloosianed]

hey, Famspear....if you do billable hours, you can now add up all your Quatloos time as "client development!"

[Famspear]

From the press release quoted by John Bulten:

Although Tom Cryer has won an amazing victory for the cause of truth and the restoration of the rule of law, the battle was not won without paying a steep price. His practice has been ruined and he has incurred expenses he still has to meet. He is having to start all over again and we can help. Please do what you can, no matter how much or how little, by going to http://www.liefreezone.com and clicking “Send Help”.

Yeah, let's see now. Cryer stays out of jail on these charges. But he has huge legal bills now. His own legal practice is apparently shot. At the option of the DOJ, he can be prosecuted for any years not covered in the indictment for which the DOJ might contend he has willfully failed to timely file returns or to timely pay tax.

And, at the expense of sounding tiresome to our tax protester friends, we remind them that the gross amount of compensation received or constructively received for personal services is includible in gross income under section 61 and is taxable. Mr. Cryer unfortunately still has the obligation to pay the FEDERAL INCOME TAXES for the years in question, plus penalties and interest (by one count, over $73,000 and growing).

--Famspear

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote:

I may need a lawyer for Bulten v IRS. Can you send me a schedule of fees? Do you have any experience with proving notices of federal tax lien to be erroneous? (Come to think, has one ever been proven erroneous?)

Actually, you might want to consider asking Cryer. He needs the work; I don't.

And on your own taxes, here's a free tip: As the taxpayer, you usually don't need to know whether a notice of Federal tax lien is "erroneous." The only people who are usually affected by whether the NOTICE is "valid" or is properly filed are the IRS and your creditors.

--Famspear

[Famspear]

Disilloosianed wrote:

hey, Famspear....if you do billable hours, you can now add up all your Quatloos time as "client development!"

That would be great! But really, Quatloos is too much fun for me to also get paid to do this!

[.]

How about six of the twelve jurors? How about one juror? How about a witness?

Wasn't John Gotti retried (and convicted) after it was discovered that one or more jurors had been bribed to hang the jury based on the same concept of no real jeopardy?

IIRC, the bribed juror(s) also went to prison.

[The Observer]

And on your own taxes, here's a free tip: As the taxpayer, you usually don't need to know whether a notice of Federal tax lien is "erroneous." The only people who are usually affected by whether the NOTICE is "valid" or is properly filed are the IRS and your creditors.

Not true. Taxpayers are affected by a filing of a notice of lien, regardless of its validity. Credit reporting agencies will pick up on the filing of a notice and that will cause a negative hit to the taxpayer's credit rating. Not to mention affecting those situations where the taxpayer may be trying to use assets as collateral to secure a loan - lenders will not lend since the IRS will be seen as a priorty creditor over those assets.

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote:

Not true. Taxpayers are affected by a filing of a notice of lien, regardless of its validity. Credit reporting agencies will pick up on the filing of a notice and that will cause a negative hit to the taxpayer's credit rating. Not to mention affecting those situations where the taxpayer may be trying to use assets as collateral to secure a loan - lenders will not lend since the IRS will be seen as a priorty creditor over those assets.

Yes, you're correct. But that's why I used the term "usually." What I am saying is that the validity of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) has no legal effect on the validity of the lien itself as between the IRS and the taxpayer. Once the lien arises (which occurs by operation of law), the lien is enforceable by the IRS against the taxpayer, without having to go to court, and without having to issue any NFTL.

The number of incidents of erroneous issuances of NFTLs, plus the number of incidents of NFTLs filed in the wrong place, etc., are almost surely a small minority when compared with the number of TOTAL number of NFTLs actually issued.

However, I recognized that you're right about the credit ratings, and ability to get a loan. So, on that basis, yes, there is a procedure for dealing with an erroneous NFTL.

For example, let us assume that an NFTL was both issued and recorded - but it turns out that for whatever reason there really was no tax lien at all, or that the lien does not apply to this particular taxpayer's property. Under IRC section 6325(e) the IRS may issue what is called a "certificate of nonattachment" saying that the lien (if any) does not attach to the property of the affected person. I have had the IRS do this before. The issuance of such a certificate is, under 6325(f)(1)(D), "conclusive" that the tax lien (if any) does not attach to the property of the person referred to in the certificate of nonattachment.

I hope this is helpful.

--Famspear

[Famspear]

Oops I was responding to what I thought was Bulten's post -- that was actually from The Observer.

Here is the original comment I made to Bulten:

And on your own taxes, here's a free tip: As the taxpayer, you usually don't need to know whether a notice of Federal tax lien is "erroneous." The only people who are usually affected by whether the NOTICE is "valid" or is properly filed are the IRS and your creditors.

The key word here is "usually," which appears twice. Anyway, The Observer is obviously correct about the effect on credit, etc.

--Famspear

[Famspear]

As a footnote, the certificate of nonattachment has come up in my practice in an instance where a trustee of numerous bankrutpcy estates had a situation where the IRS issued an NFTL in the name of [name, Trustee] -- without any indication of the specific estate to which the NFTL referred. First, we had to figure out which estate it DID refer to, and then we had to get the IRS to issue a certificate of nonattachment for that estate. The draft of the original NFTL was sloppy work on the part of the IRS.

I could imagine that this kind of thing could wreak havoc if the IRS did this sort of thing all the time where, say, a bank trust department was named as the taxpayer in an NFTL without any indication as to which trust was supposed to be affected. Hundreds of completely unrelated entities could be affected.

Similarly, I occasionally receive mail from the IRS, just routine notices (based on my being on a 2848), where the taxpayer is listed only as [name, Trustee] - but at least there's an EIN on the notice so we can track it down. Still, it's silly of the IRS to be so imprecise.

--Famspear

[wserra]

Wasn't John Gotti retried (and convicted) after it was discovered that one or more jurors had been bribed to hang the jury based on the same concept of no real jeopardy?

Yes and no. A hung jury isn't a disposition on the merits. Such a case can always be retried. So yes, he was retried and convicted after a hung jury, but no, corrupt jurors made no difference.

[Famspear]

Another thing, on the incomplete descriptions on NFTLs, I have had more than one IRS employee on the phone say, "Well, but the trustee is considered to be the taxpayer" - as though that somehow justifies the incomplete description. It does not.

Yes, a return filing duty under 6012(b) for income tax returns is generally imposed on various fiduciaries. That and various other code sections arguably make the fiduciary "the taxpayer" for some legal purposes. But that does not change the point. Under 6012(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(9) and similar provisions, the ENTITY itself ALSO is explicitly named as having a return filing duty. That, with other code sections, also pulls the ENTITY into the definition of "taxpayer." The entity itself should be clearly named in the NFTL to avoid problems.

--Famspear

[Famspear]

Quoting myself:

First, we had to figure out which estate it DID refer to, and then we had to get the IRS to issue a certificate of nonattachment for that estate.

Oops. What I should be saying here is "we had to get the IRS to issue a certificate(s) of nonattachment for the estate(s) to which the lien did not apply."

[LPC]

Thread's long enough (and has drifted off-topic).