Cryer---does he have to pay?

[ThirdTimeCharm]

I just read that this "Tommy Cryer" fellow won his case in court regarding not paying his taxes. So he was aquitted on charges of WILLFULLY not filing taxes, correct? Basically, they are saying that he really thought he did not have to pay, so therefore he is not guilty of willful tax evasion.

My question is (and I couldn't find the answer in the thread about this subject)..........does he now have to pay back taxes and penalties? Or is he off the hook?

I joined here because we own a business and have a new employee who is a TP (I posted a thread about that here, and I would like to know the answer to this question because he is going to be using this example as a victory for his cause.

[Imalawman]

I just read that this "Tommy Cryer" fellow won his case in court regarding not paying his taxes. So he was aquitted on charges of WILLFULLY not filing taxes, correct? Basically, they are saying that he really thought he did not have to pay, so therefore he is not guilty of willful tax evasion.

My question is (and I couldn't find the answer in the thread about this subject)..........does he now have to pay back taxes and penalties? Or is he off the hook?

I joined here because we own a business and have a new employee who is a TP (I posted a thread about that here, and I would like to know the answer to this question because he is going to be using this example as a victory for his cause.

Absolutely. He will owe taxes, penalties and interest at both the federal and state level. He will not get so lucky in civil court. His victory was pyrrhic at best.

[ThirdTimeCharm]

Oh heck, I just realized that there are at least 3 other threads on this subject, so although I couldn't find the answer in the one I searched, maybe it is in one of the other REALLY long ones.

Maybe I brought up a topic that isn't supposed to be discussed anymore, as I notice that the other thread are locked.

[ThirdTimeCharm]

I just read that this "Tommy Cryer" fellow won his case in court regarding not paying his taxes. So he was aquitted on charges of WILLFULLY not filing taxes, correct? Basically, they are saying that he really thought he did not have to pay, so therefore he is not guilty of willful tax evasion.

My question is (and I couldn't find the answer in the thread about this subject)..........does he now have to pay back taxes and penalties? Or is he off the hook?

I joined here because we own a business and have a new employee who is a TP (I posted a thread about that here, and I would like to know the answer to this question because he is going to be using this example as a victory for his cause.

Absolutely. He will owe taxes, penalties and interest at both the federal and state level. He will not get so lucky in civil court. His victory was pyrrhic at best.

Thank you. I suspected that, but I wanted confirmation from someone who knows more about this subject.

[grixit]

Oh heck, I just realized that there are at least 3 other threads on this subject, so although I couldn't find the answer in the one I searched, maybe it is in one of the other REALLY long ones.

Maybe I brought up a topic that isn't supposed to be discussed anymore, as I notice that the other thread are locked.

Threads get locked because they get too long, but interested people are free to start new ones.

Thing is, when the defense is "i didn't know i had to pay", that is a tacit admission that you know better now. It is the tax evader's equivalent of Benefit of the Clergy, an extrordinary defence that can only be used once.

[The Operative]

While the Tom Cryer civil case has, to the best of my knowledge, not started yet, there is another similar case that you can show your employee.

U.S. v. Vernice Kuglin, NO. 03-20111-Ml
In the trial transcripts, which amazingly enough are on several tax protestor websites, on page 776 and 777, there is an interesting exchange between the prosecution, the court, and the defense counsel.
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/k ... _vol_5.txt

[The court]:So anything else from the United States?

MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court ought to instruct her that that is the law. She has got to file returns and --

MR. BECRAFT: Your Honor, that is going to be cleaned up totally.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also saying is there will still be civil penalties.

MR. BECRAFT: I expect probably 90-day letters to be coming pretty quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BECRAFT: And there's going to be civil proceedings, and she is going to being take responsibility -- she is going to be doing things to respond to all of that like file returns, Your Honor.

So, as anyone can plainly see, even though Kuglin won her criminal trial, the court definitely indicated that paying taxes is the law. If I remember correctly, for the six years she had not paid taxes, she had about $950,000 in income. I believe she ended up paying over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. It would have been much cheaper for her if she simply paid her taxes.

Edit: Thanks to Dan Evans, he has graciously provided the reference to the Kuglin settlement.

[LPC]

U.S. v. Vernice Kuglin, NO. 03-20111-Ml
In the trial transcripts, which amazingly enough are on several tax protestor websites, on page 776 and 777, there is an interesting exchange between the prosecution, the court, and the defense counsel.
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/k ... _vol_5.txt

The stipulation that Kuglin agreed to pay back taxes is a public record, because she entered into a settlement with the IRS in Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).

[ASITStands]

Can't find a copy of the stipulated decision, or opinion, on Westlaw. Other than TNT, is there another source? Or, how do I retrieve it from TNT? Can't seem to find the operative link.

Sorry if it's a dumb question. I use Westlaw and Cornell.

[Famspear]

Regarding Ms. Kuglin:

On April 30, 2007, the ''Memphis Daily News'' reported that Kuglin's Federal tax problems continued with the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien in the amount of $188,025.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editori ... F30%2F2007

(You'll have to scoll down a bit on the page on the newspaper's web site to see the Kuglin story.)

[Famspear]

Imalawman wrote:

Absolutely. He [Tommy Cryer] will owe taxes, penalties and interest at both the federal and state level. He will not get so lucky in civil court. His victory was pyrrhic at best.

Not only that, but on the Federal taxes the government doesn't even need to go to civil court to take Cryer's assets to satisfy the back taxes, etc. The IRS can simply levy on his assets without a court order. Too bad.

[ASITStands]

Not only that, but on the Federal taxes the government doesn't even need to go to civil court to take Cryer's assets to satisfy the back taxes, etc. The IRS can simply levy on his assets without a court order. Too bad.

That's the point I've been making. There is no necessity for "civil" litigation except in the case of foreclosure on a lien or seizure.

The IRS can simply continue with Deficiency Procedures and bring lien or levy until the amount due and owing is satisfied.

Or, until the taxpayer feels the same pressure Vernice Kuglin felt.

[gottago]

My understanding (and experience) with the process is that there is no limit to the number and amount of liens that they can file on an individual's property, they can take anything you have including your bank accounts, wages, IRA accounts, automobiles, etc. with no involvement with a court system civil or criminal unless they want to put you out of your primary residence in which case they have to get some type of a court order which I am sure is simply a formality.

If a person like Kuglin or Cryer does not have the ability to pay the amount in full or in installments, I assume they could apply for an offer in compromise. As a last resort, bankruptcy proceedings may force them to settle without causing a person to become homeless and broke. At least, that is my understanding of the options available but of course I could be wrong. I think the criminal acquittal just prevents the person from being jailed but does not change anything else.

[LPC]

Can't find a copy of the stipulated decision, or opinion, on Westlaw. Other than TNT, is there another source? Or, how do I retrieve it from TNT? Can't seem to find the operative link.

TNT is a fee-based subscription service, it's not the sort of thing that Westlaw would publish, and the Tax Court web site gives you the docket but not the documents.

So here it is:

VERNICE KUGLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.


UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DECISION

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in this case, it is

ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the amounts of $52,095.00, $46,308.00, $44,386.00, $47,349.00, $53,819.00, and $52,345.00, respectively;

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(f), in the amounts of $39,071.25, $34,731.00, $32,283.73, $35,511.75, $40,409.25, and $39,258.75, respectively; and

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6654, in the amounts of $2,648.42, $2,477.53, $1,962.83, $2,291.54, $2,877.97, and $2,091.92, respectively.

(Signed) Joel Gerber
Judge.

Entered: September 1, 2004

* * * * *

ORDER

Upon due consideration, the parties having submitted an agreed decision document, it is

ORDERED that the petitioner's motion to dismiss, as supplemented is denied, as moot.

(Signed) Joel Gerber
Joel Gerber
Chief Judge

Dated:


Washington, D.C.
August 31, 2004

It is hereby stipulated that the Court may enter the foregoing decision in this case.

It is further stipulated that interest will be assessed as provided by law on the deficiencies and additions to tax due from petitioner.

It is further stipulated that, effective upon the entry of this decision by the Court, petitioner waives the restrictions contained in I.R.C. § 6213(a) prohibiting assessment and collection of the deficiencies and additions to tax (plus statutory interest) until the decision of the Tax Court becomes final.

DONALD L. KORB
Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service

CHRISTOPHER J. ERTL
Counsel for Petitioner
Tax Court Bar No. EC0135
207 East Buffalo Street
Suite 600 Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 276-3333

Date: August 17, 2004

JAMES L. MAY, JR.
Senior Attorney (SB/SE)
Tax Court Bar No. MJ2189
810 Broadway
Suite 400
Nashville, TN 372-03
Telephone: (615) 250-5580

Date: August 25, 2004

[ASITStands]

Thanks, Dan.

[Imalawman]

Imalawman wrote:

Absolutely. He [Tommy Cryer] will owe taxes, penalties and interest at both the federal and state level. He will not get so lucky in civil court. His victory was pyrrhic at best.

Not only that, but on the Federal taxes the government doesn't even need to go to civil court to take Cryer's assets to satisfy the back taxes, etc. The IRS can simply levy on his assets without a court order. Too bad.

The state doesn't have to go through the court either, although I guess I was assuming he'd fight the assessments. The state can't start collection procedures until any appeal or protest is resolved.

[RyanMcC]

Anybody see this video Tom Cryer made after the verdict?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ

[Quixote]

Anybody see this video Tom Cryer made after the verdict?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ

Does it have kittens in it? Youtube needs more kitten videos.

[Demosthenes]

Anybody see this video Tom Cryer made after the verdict?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ

Does it have kittens in it? Youtube needs more kitten videos.

Here's a tax attorney and a kitten. Does that count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmIGnKXp70

[webhick]

Anybody see this video Tom Cryer made after the verdict?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ

Does it have kittens in it? Youtube needs more kitten videos.

Here's a tax attorney and a kitten. Does that count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmIGnKXp70

You know, if I squint really hard....the tax attorney kinda looks like Pinky.

[Demosthenes]

[laughing] Shhhh....