Cryer, Tommy

[LPC]

Probably a mistake on my part, but I've copied the posts about Cryer's beliefs about "inferior courts" to a new thread in the TP forum titled "Binding Precedent."

[Kestrel]

On 11/10/11 Cryer filed yet another Motion to Continue Trial Date in his tax court case 008118-09. The IRS has until 11/21/11 to file an objection.

It is now more than 31 months since Cryer filed the case, and trial has already been scheduled three times. 31 months should be more than enough time for anyone to prepare arguments on an old tax assessment. Retroactive changes in the tax code don't go that far back.

At what point does the Tax Court get fed up and deny more continuances, or dismiss the case for lack of prosecution?

[Noah]

At what point does the Tax Court get fed up and deny more continuances, or dismiss the case for lack of prosecution?

Depends upon why a continuance was requested, exhibits and Declarations were attached to the Motion. The Commissioner filed no objection to the last continuance. The Commissioner's response on this motion should be interesting as there is more wood on the pile to work with.

[notorial dissent]

Hasn't this reached the point of continuation for the sake of delay at this point? None of the facts have changed since this thing began, so what can he possibly be researching or whatever it is he is supposed to be doing? The only other thing I can think of is that he is trying to learn how to practice law, and we know how that is going to turn out.

[Kestrel]

The IRS responded timely to Cryer's motion to continue his Dec 5th trial. They also filed a Pre-Trial Memorandum.

No idea what the response says, but perhaps from the filing of the memorandum we can infer that they're ready to proceed without further delays.

[jcolvin2]

Cryer's motion for a continuance of his Tax Court trial was granted:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=53200

[Noah]

Joint status report has been filed.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... o=09008118

Anyone have any info on this? I wonder where the battle lines have been drawn. Based on his "memorandum" and his "innocence revealed" CD etc, I cannot see anything new except he may get sanctioned if he promotes his "truths" in tax court. He is not stupid, though he may be taxation ignorant. But again maybe neither, depends what he is actually up to and how.

[Noah]

Does this indicate they are close to a settlement? Judge is asking for a "decision document".

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5671924

Interesting.....

[Kestrel]

Does this indicate they are close to a settlement? Judge is asking for a "decision document".

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5671924

Interesting.....

Per the US Tax Court Glossary:

A decision document closes a case. A decision is signed by a Judge and entered in the Court’s record. The decision reflects the conclusions of the Court. A decision can be entered in a case after the parties have settled all issues or the Judge has issued an opinion or order deciding all issues in a case.

This is going to be interesting. I just can't imagine that either one would roll over and give in.

The IRS's going-in position was that Cryer's law practice had verifiable income. Cryer refused to file tax returns and claim deductions for business expenses, he therefore isn't entitled to deductions for business expenses, so he owes mega-bux in unpaid taxes.

Cryer's going-in position was that he owed nothing in taxes, because his income is simply not taxable. His labor is his property, and he believes the exchange of property (labor) for property (money) is not taxable. On top of that is all the TP crap on Cryer's website...

Had Cryer actually filed the returns he probably would have shown that the majority of the gross income received by his law practice flowed through to clients, leaving him with a modest taxable net income.

I would love to have a look at the Pre-Trial Memorandum filed by the IRS on 11/21/11 and the Joint Status Report filed 1/9/12.

[jcolvin2]

Case punted another month:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... rsID=60520

[Kestrel]

03/07/2012 JOINT STATUS REPORT

03/08/2012 ORDER that jurisdiction is no longer retained & this case is restored to the general docket.

OK, what are we supposed to infer from that? Did someone convince the court that progress was being made but it would take forever to assemble records? Or should we be looking for another Notice of Trial soon?

[Judge Roy Bean]

... Or should we be looking for another Notice of Trial soon?

Bingo. It's back on the general docket. Diversion/delay accomplished.

[Kestrel]

Here we go again:

05/24/2012: NOTICE of Trial on 10/22/2012 at New Orleans, LA.

[wserra]

I have never represented anyone in Tax Court, but I have appeared before many District Judges. I have never appeared before a DJ who would let a three-year-old case drag like this, for no apparent reason.

Is this typical?

[Dr. Caligari]

I have never represented anyone in Tax Court, but I have appeared before many District Judges. I have never appeared before a DJ who would let a three-year-old case drag like this, for no apparent reason.

Is this typical?

Not uncommon. One judge lets go of the case and it floats in the ether until another judge picks it up.

[jcolvin2]

I have never represented anyone in Tax Court, but I have appeared before many District Judges. I have never appeared before a DJ who would let a three-year-old case drag like this, for no apparent reason.

Is this typical?

Not uncommon. One judge lets go of the case and it floats in the ether until another judge picks it up.

Taxpayers who file petitions in the Tax Court initially elect one of about 100 cities to be the "Place of Trial." When there are enough cases electing a certain city to make a trial setting worthwhile, the Tax Court issues a Notice of Trial to each of the cases. (There are trial calendars every month in Los Angeles, but perhaps only one trial setting every three years in Maui.) A Tax Court Judge will then travel from DC to the designated city.

The vast majority of the cases will settle before trial, and a small minority will be tried by the Judge. Others will be continued for some reason. Sometimes, when a case is continued, the Judge who issued the continuance order will retain jurisdiction, and attempt to monitor the case's progress toward trial or settlement. (If the case is particularly large or interesting, or if the judge has developed some expertise in the matter through the handling of pretrial matters, the judge may set a special trial setting, and travel back to the original city solely to conduct the trial.) If there is little progress, the judge will often return the case to the general docket. This will ensure that it will be placed on the next trial calendar at the designated location. While it may seem counterintuitive, returning a case to the general docket means it will likely be set for trial again in relatively short order.

[LPC]

While it may seem counterintuitive, returning a case to the general docket means it will likely be set for trial again in relatively short order.

Thanks. This is very helpful in understanding the process.

[fortinbras]

Although at this hour it is not yet up on regular news websites, the tax defiers are reporting that Tom Cryer died today, June 4th, at age 62.

http://planet.infowars.com/business/tom ... -he-was-62

[Kestrel]

Although at this hour it is not yet up on regular news websites, the tax defiers are reporting that Tom Cryer died today, June 4th, at age 62.

I can confirm that. I just heard the news myself from a personal friend of Tom's. Don't know the cause; he apparently died while sleeping.

RIP Tom. It was fun while it lasted. I hope your widow doesn't lose everything to the IRS.

[Famspear]

Although at this hour it is not yet up on regular news websites, the tax defiers are reporting that Tom Cryer died today, June 4th, at age 62.

I can confirm that. I just heard the news myself from a personal friend of Tom's. Don't know the cause; he apparently died while sleeping.

RIP Tom. It was fun while it lasted. I hope your widow doesn't lose everything to the IRS.

I'm looking for some official confirmation (eg news media, funeral home, etc.) that will hopefully show up on the internet in the next day or two. Does anybody know where he was? Was he still in the Shreveport area?