My Disappointment Over a Tax Crime Trial

[bobhurt]

Last week I attended the last 3 days of a 5-day tax crime trial that began 6 October 2014. The Federal Grand Jury indicted the defendant for 5 counts of tax evasion and 5 counts of willful failure to file. The parties' lawyers selected the jurors, discussed a prosecution's motion in limine to suppress discussion of the law (including Constitution), made opening statements, and began examining witnesses on Monday.

The Government (prosecution, Assistant US Attorney, Department of Justice) called 9 witnesses, during the balance of 3 days. The Defense and Government agreed on jury instructions with the judge, and then examined the Defense's only witness, the defendant, on Thursday. On Friday the Defense redirected examination of the Defendant, the attorneys made closing statements, the Judge charged the jury, and sent them to deliberate at lunch time.

Allowing time for lunch, the Jury returned a verdict about an hour later: guilty on all 10 counts. The judge allowed bond and sent the defendant and counsel to the US Marshal to deal with the bond and fit the defendant with an ankle bracelet, and ordered the parties to appear for sentencing in January.

The judge allowed presentation of only two laws during the trial, through a reading of the indictment - 26 USC 7201 (tax evasion) and 7203 (willful failure to file a tax return). The Government presented, and Court admitted into evidence a huge pile of documents - tax returns, investigation reports. The Defense presented a couple dozen appellate court opinions, a cover of the 1040 booklet that showed "voluntary self-assessment" or "voluntary compliance," a statement the defendant had attached to a tax return, and one other document.

The court refused to admit the Defense’s appellate opinions and sent the jury out of the room twice to scold the Defense for allowing the defendant to mention what the law or a court opinion says, and to threaten the defendant with contempt charges for trying to discuss the law or its meaning. The court allowed the defendant only to express belief about the law, so as to show state of mind. Otherwise, the judge declared that he would instruct the jury as to the law.

The Defense attorney pursued the strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant had no criminal intent and honestly believed the law does not require the defendant to file tax returns or pay income tax. Clearly, the jury did not believe the defendant.

The Government masterfully presented the case, and in cross and closing tied everything in the case together so that nobody with common sense could believe the defendant innocent.

As I watched the defendant's nightmare unfold, I wondered what feat of logic possessed the judge to think it possible that a defendant who committed alleged crimes because of belief about the meaning or applicability of the law could possibly defend against the accusations without fully discussing the source of the belief that the law did not apply to the defendant.

After all, a trial over whether someone committed a violent murder seldom has to do with confusion over the law or its meaning. Rather, it has to do with the facts. But when the issue has first to do with the meaning and application of the law, shouldn't the court allow the parties to present their related arguments?

Yes, I muse over the apparent injustice of a conviction in a court that allowed no discussion of the law or whether it applies or does not apply. Do not mistake my musing as confusion. I have absolutely NO confusion about one reality. If the defendant in a case like this cannot prove reliance on some authority (like written advice of a lawyer or CPA) suggesting that the defendant does not have to file a return or pay income tax, the jury will convict the defendant.

If the patriot or tax protester communities of the USA ever hope to beat the IRS/DOJ in a tax issue like this, they really need to take a different approach.

Until that happens, it seems to me most sensible to make oneself judgment-proof, spend one's energy making lot of money, and organize one's affairs so as to pay the minimum taxes possible. It does not seem to make sense to evade taxes or fail to file returns.

Oh, sure, the Defendant will file an appeal, and has already decided to buy the transcripts for $3500. Maybe the Circuit will decide the Court made a huge mistake. It could happen. Then what? A new trial?

Meanwhile, just imagine the overall expense of a 5-day trial, an appeal, and legal representation, the wear and tear on your psyche, the cost to your loved ones of your absence during a lengthy stay in federal prison, and having your income pillaged for years by the IRS insistence on your paying the tax plus penalties and interest.

I feel chagrin and disappointment at the guilty verdict. And so I want to give a piece of my mind to the Pied Pipers of the tax protester / honesty movement, and their dupes.

If you teach some theory of the law or Constitution that leaves earners believing they need not file returns or pay tax, you are a scoundrel if you do not also teach a proven method of beating the IRS and DOJ in federal court when they come after your earner for willful failure to file or for tax evasion, etc.

You who listen to the advice of the Pied Pipers should think long and hard before you up and quit filing returns or paying taxes. If you fail to heed my warning, and a Grand Jury indicts you as a result, do not plan on winning your case because you won't have the opportunity to present your law theories in court.

Also, do not plan on your family standing beside you while you rot in federal prison. They will probably despise you for causing them such trouble, and maybe they will move on to find companions to replace you, companions who behave with better common sense.

You see, the courts have ruled against the tax protester arguments so assiduously that you have to deny reality to think you can get away with flouting the courts' obvious interpretations of the laws. That means the notion that you do not owe a tax return or taxes for your work-a-day wages or commissions has become a POLITICAL ISSUE. You will NOT win it in federal court in today's legal climate.

But you can win it politically if you organize your community to CHANGE the law. It should become obvious, even to the IRS and DOJ, that normal Americans do not owe income or wage tax because they do not engage in revenue taxable activities, or because they don't fit into the class of persons to whom the income and wage tax laws apply.

Or you might want to support an effort to raise related issues in State Court. But you will not win in Federal Judicial Court with tax protester arguments because the court will never allow those arguments to escape your lips, certainly not within earshot of the jury.

One more point for those of you who feel absolutely convinced the tax code does not apply to you. Attend one or more tax crime trials in a federal court near you. You need the education.

I feel so terribly disappointed that a marvelously hard working and successful fellow American most likely faces a long prison sentence, and could have avoided it by requiring Tax Protester gurus to show proof of success in federal court prior to following their advice.

[The Observer]

The judge allowed presentation of only two laws during the trial, through a reading of the indictment - 26 USC 7201 (tax evasion) and 7203 (willful failure to file a tax return)

And that was correct, given those were the laws the defendant was accused of violating.

The court rejected all of the court opinions and sent the jury out of the room twice to scold the Defense for allowing the defendant to mention what the law or a court opinion says, and to threaten the defendant with contempt charges for trying to discuss the law or its meaning.

Again, that was correct. Only judges are allowed to interpret and explain the law to the jury. The jury must be given one correct interpretation of what the law means, not forced to judge between the slanted views of the prosecution and the defense. But Bob, you and others have been told this time and time again. You just don't like it because the results go against your erroneous beliefs.

The court allowed the defendant only to declare belief about the law, so as to show state of mind.

And once again, the court acted correctly to limit the defendant to a proper defense. Belief is a way for a defendant to show why he made the decisions he did in order to prove lack of criminal intent.

The Defense attorney pursued the strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant had no criminal intent and honestly believed the law does not require the defendant to file tax returns or pay income tax. Clearly, the jury did not believe the defendant.

And you know why the jury didn't believe the defendant? Because the jury knows that everyone who is liable for taxes has to pay. They are not going to believe a person who purposely and willfully pursued frivolous and nonsensical arguments about why they don't owe taxes.

The Government masterfully presented the case, and in cross and closing tied everything in the case together so that nobody with common sense could believe the defendant innocent.

As it should be. A good prosecution should make it abundantly clear to a jury why they should return a guilty verdict. But no matter how good a defense a tax protester puts up, the odds are tremendously long that he will convince a common sense jury that his stupid baseless arguments prove he didn't willfully commit tax violations.

As I watched the defendant's nightmare unfold, I wondered what feat of illogic possessed the judge to think it possible that a defendant who committed alleged crimes because of belief about the meaning or applicability of the law could possibly defend against the accusations without fully discussing the source of the belief that the law did not apply to the defendant.

There was no illogical behavior on the part of the judge. These are the time-honored rules of the courtroom, Bob. They weren't invented just for tax protesters. By your logic, the courtrooms of America should be turned over to defendants so that they can have a chance to overturn laws that they don't individually like or agree with. If we followed your lack of logic to its extremity, it would mean that every law that was passed by a legislative body would be liable to being declared null and void merely because some jury got horn-swoggled into agreeing with the defendant's interpretation of the law.

As an example, Bob, let's say that you are held up and pistol-whipped by a criminal. He gets arrested and goes to trial. His defense lawyer then presents to the jury his interpretation of what those laws really mean about assault with a deadly weapon and armed robbery. The jury agrees with the defense and the criminal is found not guilty, not because the jury didn't believe that you were robbed and assaulted. They would have found him not guilty because they were convinced the law did not cover what he did to you in order for it to be a crime. But guess what, Bob? Your troubles do not end there. Your criminal buddy is now waiting outside the courtrooom because he is unhappy that he was prosecuted. So he decides to rob and assault you again. And there won't be a prosecution again. And probably not an arrest. Why? Because the law was found to be deficient in that courtroom. And the prosecutor is not going to waste time trying to convict your assailant because he cannot defend a law that already has lost in the courtroom. Nor will he waste time prosecuting similar crimes because your trial established a precedent that every defense attorney will use to defend their clients.

After all, a trial over whether someone committed a violent murder seldom has to do with confusion over the law or its meaning.

And that is because, Bob, the court is the only party that gets to provide the interpretation of the law to the jury. Attorneys may take up an issue of interpretation with the judge with the jury not present, but that is the extent of it.

If the defendant in a case like this cannot prove reliance on some authority (like written advice of a lawyer or CPA) suggesting that the defendant does not have to file a return or pay income tax, the jury will convict the defendant.

And that is how it goes in 99.9% of jury trials for tax protesters. And that is how it should be: tax protesters are breaking tax laws.

If the patriot or tax protester communities of the USA ever hope to beat the IRS/DOJ in a tax issue like this, they really need to take a different approach.

No other approach while breaking the laws are going to work, Bob. Because they are still breaking the law. If you break the law and the prosecution can prove it to a jury of the accused's peers, it is going to result in a conviction. You might see a tax protester get lucky and get a Cheek defense win, but it's a rarity. Most juries are not going to buy the argument that somehow the tax protester was so naive that he believed that tax laws didn't apply to him. Typically the prosecution can show that the tax protester was not acting so naively in regards to transferring or hiding assets, consulting with professionals about tax law and being advised that his beliefs were wrong, selling his tax belief packages to others for gain, and making statements to third parties that tend to show that he knew different about the tax laws.

Until that happens, it seems to me most sensible to make oneself judgment-proof, spend one's energy making lot of money, and organize one's affairs so as to pay the minimum taxes possible. It does not seem to make sense to evade taxes or fail to file returns.

Some tax protesters do that, Bob. They work low-paying jobs that typically pay cash, live in low-cost housing (trailer homes as an example) and tend to not have a very interesting life. They have problems attracting or keeping spouse/lovers and tend to end up resembling that proverbial crazy uncle that people keep locked in the root cellar. Is that the type of life you would recommend to people to avoid taxes?

And so I want to give a piece of my mind to the Pied Pipers of the tax protester / honesty movement, and their dupes.

If you teach some theory of the law or Constitution that leaves students and truth seekers believing they can not file returns or pay tax, you are a scoundrel if you don't also teach a proven method of beating the IRS and DOJ in federal court when they come after your student for willful failure to file or for tax evasion, etc.

You who listen to the advice of the Pied Pipers should think long and hard before you up an quit filing returns or paying taxes. If you fail to heed my warning, and a Grand Jury indicts you as a result, don't plan on winning your case because you won't have the opportunity to present your law theories in court. Also, do not plan on your family standing beside you while you rot in federal prison. They will probably despise you for causing them such trouble, and maybe they will move on to find companions to replace you, companions who behave with better common sense.

Uh, Bob, now you are stealing our material here on Quatloos. We have been telling people that very same thing for the last 13 years or so. Has it taken that long for you to realize the same thing?

You see, the courts have ruled against the tax protester arguments so assiduously that you have to deny reality to think you can get away with flouting the courts' obvious interpretations of the laws. That means the notion that you don't owe a tax return or taxes for your work-a-day wages or commissions is a POLITICAL ISSUE. You will NOT win it in federal court in today's legal climate.

No, you have gone off the rails again, Bob , because you still want to believe that you are not liable for tax. It is not a POLITICAL ISSUE that causes courts to rule against tax protesters. It is a LEGAL issue because there are laws that say you have to pay tax and there are laws that say if you don't pay tax willfully, you can be convicted and punished.

But you can win it politically if you organize your community to CHANGE the law to make it obvious, even to the IRS and DOJ, that normal Americans don't owe income or wage tax because they don't engage in revenue taxable activities, or because they don't fit into the class of persons to whom the income and wage tax laws apply.

Finally, you have it right. Tax protesters should be spending their time and money to organize, support and lobby candidates, and vote to overturn the tax laws. It's called "the Amercan way." And you know something, Bob? They can't be convicted of a tax crime for doing so.

Or you might want to support an effort to raise related issues in State Court. But you will not win in Federal Judicial Court with tax protester arguments because the court will never allow those arguments to escape your lips within earshot of the jury.

And now you fall back into the koolade barrel. No, Bob, tax protester cases in state court lose for the same reason they do in federal court - because there are laws against not paying your taxes.

One more point for those of you who feel absolutely convinced the tax code does not apply to you. Attend to one or more tax crime trials in a federal court near you. You need the education. You will learn that it does not matter what you think. It matters what the judge and jury think.

A good piece of advice, Bob. What matters is that the judge will interpret the law due to his training, education, research and analysis of what the law means. That is what he "thinks." What matters to the jury is whether the facts of the case tend to prove that the defendant was in violation of the law that the judge interpreted for the jury. The judge does not get to interpret the meaning of the facts presented to the jury. That is their job.

I feel so terribly disappointed that a marvelously hard working and successful fellow American most likely faces a long prison sentence, and could have avoided it by requiring Tax Protester gurus to show proof of success in federal court prior to following their advice.

Bob, a lot of gurus present false case citations, claim certain trials resulted in wins that supported their interpretation of the law or just plain lie. So I am not sure how good of an idea iit is to demand proof from a guru. They will just lie to you in order to collect their fee. The best way is to look at tax cases and see the long term results over the last 30 or 40 years regarding tax protester beliefs.

[notorial dissent]

Bobby, your biggest problem is that you are fundamentally and simple not honest.

Your plaintive whine about the poor tax protester might have some gravitas if I didn't know it was you, well not really, it wouldn't have any more then since I don't have any sympathy for one of your "protesters" than I do an ordinary one.

The plain fact of the matter is that the law exists, it is generally quite specific, and best of all, it is not subject to your self centered wishful interpretations. You don't like the law, so therefore in your eyes the enforcement of that law is a matter of "interpretation" and "politics" when in fact it is just a matter of following the law.

You've been around this tango often enough so you know what the dance steps are by now, and you've certainly had it explained to you often enough, so your carrying on about what the judge did or the prosecutor did or that they denied the protester his defense ring just as falsely as the rest of your arguments.

I will admit that your poor pitiful tax protester dialogue is an improvement over your usual rant, but in the end it is still the same collection of false assumption, false accusation, and false pathos, and pretension at knowing what the law is better than the people who handle it on a day to day business and are paid to know what it is.

Len would give this one a well deserved -0-.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I would use the pondsford, nord Davis letters. Like a member here said, any letter/affidavit goes into your file and shown to the jury. Nord davis letter makes it a condition that if prosecuted his letters to the IRS is to be given to the jury. He educates the jury thru his letters to the IRS.

You see bob, the IRS does not prosecute people who will win. That's why pondsford had a 30 year lien but they never took him to court.

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

I would advise you to download nord Davis "pardon me but" PDF

[Patriotdiscussions]

Found this for you bob



The following Treatise has been used successfully in destroying IRS criminal investigations. Here is how it was done --

The moment you receive a letter from the IRS, that is the beginning of an IRS investigation. That letter is giving you notice of "Due Process of Law" to be heard and the IRS has now begun an "Administrative Record" under "Administrative Law."

You must respond to that letter for it is your only opportunity to create an "Administrative Record" for yourself. This is very important, for under Administrative Law, a Judge can only review the "Administrative Record" of the executive agency. THE JUDGE CANNOT HEAR ANYTHING NEW. By the time you have reached the Court, it is to late to create a defense.

You may need to make alterations to the Treatise to meet your needs. At the end of the Treatise, you should make a request of the IRS to correct any misunderstandings that you may have. This will show a "good faith" effort on your part. (the IRS has never given an answer which shows "bad faith" on their part.)

The next step is to make an "Affidavit of Mailing" that describes the contents of the mailing (the "Treatise") and the name and address of the friend that is "Certify Mailing" the "Affidavit" and "Treatise" to the Internal Revenue Service. If you don't know how to make an "Affidavit of Mailing," your local Clerk of Court should be able to help you.

Why is it important to have a friend mail your response to the IRS via "Affidavit of Mailing?" The main purpose is so that you may have a witness that can introduce your "Administrative Record" (the "Treatise") into the "Record of the Court" (if you find yourself in the Court as a Defendant). Your friend can testify that he did the mailing under oath and that he can describe the contents of the mailing. There is nothing the Judge can do to stop your "Administrative Record" from going before a jury.

Your "Administrative Record" destroys the issue of "Willful" and no conviction can be had. Furthermore, anything that goes into the "Record of the Court" is "public record" that can be published by the press. Do you see why the IRS will always drop a criminal investigation.

A word of warning: What is described above is for the criminal side of the IRS Code, it has nothing to do with the civil aspects of that Code. The only defense for a civil issue appears to be a Common Law "Plea in Abatement" which is beyond the scope of this Treatise.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Include stuff like



In the case of Lucas v. Earl, [1930] 281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that:

"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added]

[AndyK]

PD has, yet again, demonstrated his total ignorance of how the law and the courts work.

PD has established a new global persona: The antethesis to the "World's Foremost Expert" -- "The World's Foremost Moron" (Which leads to a possible title "Official Wrongster Of Quatloosia"

Simply said, the refutation is

A defendant, or potential defendant, CAN NOT impose anything upon the court. He must act within the framework of the established laws and rules.

This, however, only applies here, not on Planet Merrill where the concept of creating one's own administrative record is embedded in the paralegal system.

[.]

Our new favorite troll demonstrates yet again that there is no limit to the gibberish that may be thrown randomly into any discussion.

I guess he's unappreciative of the fact that Bob doesn't like the fact that TPs always lose in court. Without exception. That it ruins their lives.

Never mind. Throw up some more crapola. Trolling must go on, by any means!

[JamesVincent]

..... Like a member here said, any letter/affidavit goes into your file and shown to the jury.....

Bullshit. No regular, knowing member here has said that since it isn't true. There was a considerable discussion here involving affidavits and there is no law that requires a judge to even consider an affidavit UNLESS it is relevant to the case at hand AND it is of proper type AND it is a type of case where an affidavit would even come into play. It may very well go into your file, that does not mean it will ever see the light of day. As far as showing something to a jury unless it is an action that requires an affidavit in support then nothing would be shown to the jury. And if you are talking about an affidavit from some nit-wit concerning his interpretation of the IRC I guarantee it would never be shown to a jury since, like was previously and correctly explained, the judge is the only one in the court to interpret laws. They very well may show it to a jury, just to show what a whackjob you are and how you have meaningfully tried to find ways to evade your taxes. They can then use it to show intent and blow any chance you had at a Cheek type defense. Congratulations on blowing your own case.

[Patriotdiscussions]

PD has, yet again, demonstrated his total ignorance of how the law and the courts work.

PD has established a new global persona: The antethesis to the "World's Foremost Expert" -- "The World's Foremost Moron" (Which leads to a possible title "Official Wrongster Of Quatloosia"

Simply said, the refutation is

A defendant, or potential defendant, CAN NOT impose anything upon the court. He must act within the framework of the established laws and rules.

This, however, only applies here, not on Planet Merrill where the concept of creating one's own administrative record is embedded in the paralegal system.

(12) ‘‘Administrative record’’ includes, where applicable,
the request for determination, all documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by the applicant in respect of the request for determination, all protests and related pa- pers submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, all written correspondence between the Internal Revenue Service and the applicant in respect of the request for determination of such protests, all pertinent returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the notice of determination by the Commissioner.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/rules/Title_XXI.pdf

[Famspear]

Include stuff like



In the case of Lucas v. Earl, [1930] 281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that:

"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added]

Baloney! More idiocy from Patriotdiscussions....



As everyone here except, apparently "Patriotdiscussions," is aware, this is the famous fakery regarding Lucas v. Earl. This verbiage is not a statement by the U.S. Supreme Court at all.

This is the famous material from the Respondent’s brief. This was from the brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. It's not a statement by the Court itself, and it appears nowhere in the text of the Court's opinion.

Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the Respondent’s brief are physically re-printed as a headnote ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself. This verbiage, like any headnote or syllabus, is not part of the Court’s opinion.

The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected these arguments. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case.

Again and again, Patriotdiscussions illustrates his lack of knowledge of the law and of legal materials.

[Duke2Earl]

Please note that on September 2nd the Troll de jour posted:

"There are lots of tax protestors locked up, I know why and I am not one of them. Thanks for your concern."

And today he posts his fallacious sure fire way to be immune from income taxes.

[JennyD]

PD has, yet again, demonstrated his total ignorance of how the law and the courts work.

PD has established a new global persona: The antethesis to the "World's Foremost Expert" -- "The World's Foremost Moron" (Which leads to a possible title "Official Wrongster Of Quatloosia"

Simply said, the refutation is

A defendant, or potential defendant, CAN NOT impose anything upon the court. He must act within the framework of the established laws and rules.

This, however, only applies here, not on Planet Merrill where the concept of creating one's own administrative record is embedded in the paralegal system.

(12) ‘‘Administrative record’’ includes, where applicable,
the request for determination, all documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by the applicant in respect of the request for determination, all protests and related pa- pers submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, all written correspondence between the Internal Revenue Service and the applicant in respect of the request for determination of such protests, all pertinent returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the notice of determination by the Commissioner.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/rules/Title_XXI.pdf

Just because the IRS has it's own administrative record does not mean that it is used in a courtroom to help instruct a Jury, it's something like the old comparing Apples to Oranges argument and coming up with lemons..

Every Federal Agency has an "administrative record" of what they do it's for auditing purposes and to keep a clear file on what's going on, without them things would be scattered everywhere and you'd have pages rummaging through rooms full of loose paper that is higher than they are tall (hmm I have a cute mental image of a room full of lost pages in the paper mountain)

Is this admissible in court? Only to show the process that has already been done, NOT to show every bit of friviouls paper that someone sends into them. The Jury, as stated, does not get to have multiple interpretations of the law, so any of that TP stuff would of course never see the Juries eyes..

So.. what's next, writing it on your forehead so the Jurors can read it?

[chronistra]

(12) ‘‘Administrative record’’ includes, where applicable,
the request for determination, all documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by the applicant in respect of the request for determination, all protests and related pa- pers submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, all written correspondence between the Internal Revenue Service and the applicant in respect of the request for determination of such protests, all pertinent returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the notice of determination by the Commissioner.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/rules/Title_XXI.pdf

"RULE 210. GENERAL
(a) Applicability: The Rules of this Title XXI set forth the special provisions which apply to declaratory judgment actions relating to the qualification of certain retirement plans, the value of certain gifts, the status of certain governmental obligations, the eligibility of an estate with respect to installment payments under Code section 6166, and the initial or continuing qualification of certain exempt organizations or the initial or continuing classification of certain private foundations." -- same source, first paragraph

Now what leads you to conclude a declaratory judgment action on one of the specific topics enumerated is the same thing as a trial for criminal tax evasion?

[notorial dissent]

Let's not try and gild the skunk cabbage here, it will still stink all the same. Sovrunidjitjibber is a liar and a fraud.

Lucas v. Earl does not say anything he posted, and in fact the holding was the exact opposite.

...(there is) no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it...

Mr Justice Holmes concluded with

The fruits cannot be attributed to a different tree from that on which they grew.

Sovrunidjitjibber is wrong, and lying, in this, just has he has been wrong with everything else he has posted.

[Famspear]

Found this for you bob...

[snip the idiotic nonsense posted by Patriotdiscussions]

Oh, yes, Bob Hurt has a friend indeed! "Patriotdiscussions" is here to help you, Bob! PD is scouring tax protester web sites for any gibberish he can find.

PD, you should know that Bob Hurt has been doing this for years. He doesn't need your help to find gibberish and Lucas v. Earl fakery. Bob has his own web pages, and is well known to the regulars here.

PD, you are an endless source of entertainment! How did you get to be so talented???!!?

[operabuff]

PD has, yet again, demonstrated his total ignorance of how the law and the courts work.

PD has established a new global persona: The antethesis to the "World's Foremost Expert" -- "The World's Foremost Moron" (Which leads to a possible title "Official Wrongster Of Quatloosia"

Simply said, the refutation is

A defendant, or potential defendant, CAN NOT impose anything upon the court. He must act within the framework of the established laws and rules.

This, however, only applies here, not on Planet Merrill where the concept of creating one's own administrative record is embedded in the paralegal system.

(12) ‘‘Administrative record’’ includes, where applicable,
the request for determination, all documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service by the applicant in respect of the request for determination, all protests and related pa- pers submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, all written correspondence between the Internal Revenue Service and the applicant in respect of the request for determination of such protests, all pertinent returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the notice of determination by the Commissioner.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/rules/Title_XXI.pdf

That is an accurate description of the administrative record that the Tax Court will look at in deciding the various declaratory judgment actions that are within its jurisdiction.

But the subject here is criminal law and what evidence the court will allow before the jury in a criminal prosecution. The court will decide whether each piece of evidence that either the prosecution or the defense attempts to introduce is admissible in evidence. So getting documents in the administrative record doesn't help you.

It also doesn't help you in most civil tax cases, where the issue before the court is your tax liability. In a tax deficiency case (as opposed to the declaratory judgment cases where this definition is relevant), the court will redetermine the tax liability for itself - how the IRS went about determining the liability in the first place is (except in very rare circumstances) irrelevant. So again, the admissibility of material in the administrative record (or administrative file) will depend on the court's ruling on each piece of evidence submitted.

However, the Tax Court does allow folks like yourself to present their theories about the tax law. Once they've found them baseless, however, you'll be risking financial penalties if you persist in wasting the court's time with them.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt wrote:

The Defense presented a couple dozen appellate court opinions, a cover of the 1040 booklet that showed "voluntary self-assessment" or "voluntary compliance," [ . . . ]

I don't have time to check the Form 1040 instructions for every year, but the year 2013 booklet from the IRS web site certainly does not include any such language, on the cover or anywhere else.

But, if one of the instruction booklets DOES include that language, I'm not sure that the defendant's attempt to try to admit that into evidence to show lack of willfulness would be a good idea. A rational jury could find that the defendant's awareness of the materials in the Form 1040 instructions (whether they included the "voluntary self-assessment", etc. language or not) is EVIDENCE OF WILLFULNESS, not evidence of LACK of willfulness. But, I guess if the defendant is desperate......

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt wrote:

The Defense attorney pursued the strategy of convincing the jury that the defendant had no criminal intent and honestly believed the law does not require the defendant to file tax returns or pay income tax. Clearly, the jury did not believe the defendant.

The test for lack of willfulness in the context of U.S. Federal tax crimes is not "honest belief" or even, strictly speaking, any old actual belief.

Willfulness connotes the "voluntary, intentional violation of a KNOWN legal duty" -- a duty of which the defendant is AWARE. A defendant can be AWARE of the existence of the duty without "honestly believing" that it is a legal duty. The Supreme Court has stated that lack of willfulness relates to an actual GOOD FAITH belief that is BASED on a misunderstanding CAUSED BY THE COMPLEXITY OF THE TAX LAW.

Studying the texts of court cases and IRS instruction booklets and straining to interpret them the way YOU want to interpret them is not necessarily going to result in an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law". The more extensive your "study," the more likely that a rational jury can find that you were FULLY AWARE of the legal duty and that you simply REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT IT WAS A LEGAL DUTY - which is precisely what Bob Hurt and all other tax protesters do.

Bob Hurt and Patriotdiscussions are FULLY AWARE that the law is what the Quatloos regulars report the law to be; it's just that Bob Hurt and PD refuse to accept that the legal duty is what it is. And that refusal to accept it is really a DISAGREEMENT with the law.

[Famspear]

From the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cheek:

[ . . . ] in deciding whether to credit [defendant John] Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions......

--Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991) (large font added), at

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?q ... 60&scilh=0