Aaron Russo

[ShadesOfKnight]

Ok, a newbie comes out swinging so to speak.

Quatloos says that no one has ever won against the IRS.

Aaron Russo says that some folk have, and in fact provides a couple examples.

To keep it simple, Vernice Kuglin. She won, did she not?

So, which of the two opposite statements (no one ever won against the IRS/Someone did win against the IRS) is right?

Initial evidence supports Russo, but I am unsure at this point.

[Dr. Caligari]

Vernice Kuglin won a criminal case. The jury failed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had willfully violated the tax laws, so she was acquitted and did not go to jail.

She did not win her civil case against the IRS. She was assessed taxes, interest and penalties, and her wages were garnished. She eventually settled that civil case and paid the IRS a ton of money.

[jkeeb]

Hey, if Aaron Russo said it (and we have it on film), it must be true. I mean Cheek won in the Supreme Court!

[Disilloosianed]

Yeah, the only "win" civilly is that I found a case where she wasn't sanctioned.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Vernice Kuglin won a criminal case. The jury failed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had willfully violated the tax laws, so she was acquitted and did not go to jail.

She did not win her civil case against the IRS. She was assessed taxes, interest and penalties, and her wages were garnished. She eventually settled that civil case and paid the IRS a ton of money.

So, did she win, or not? It's kind of a binary thing. She wins, or she loses. Which is it? Or is this merely wordplay, like asking the definition of "is?"

[ShadesOfKnight]

Hey, if Aaron Russo said it (and we have it on film), it must be true. I mean Cheek won in the Supreme Court!

Not understanding the Cheek reference (newbie, remember), and ignoring the tone of arrogant assholier-than-thou, I have to ask:

What is your point? Just because it's on film, it *can't* be true?

[wserra]

Quatloos says that no one has ever won against the IRS.

You never read that here. Lots of people win against the IRS. It happens all of the time. Those wins aren't based on Russo's delusions, though.

Moreover, since wins against the IRS are not at all uncommon, what does that mean for that "the courts are rigged" BS?

[Disilloosianed]

Actual, it's not binary. She had to pay the tax, penalties and interest, which was obviously not what she intended to do. She just didn't end up in jail too. If you count not being imprisoned, but losing substantial sums of money as a win, then yeah, she wins. Some of us don't see escaping Club Fed as a big victory.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Quatloos says that no one has ever won against the IRS.

You never read that here.

Yes, actually I did. Go to this address:

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm

And you will see this:

"These various constitutional and anti-IRS theories have had a ZERO success rate. "

A "zero success rate" is the same as saying "no one has ever won."

Moreover, since wins against the IRS are not at all uncommon, what does that mean for that "the courts are rigged" BS?

See, that's the point of my question. Who is right? Is it a "ZERO success rate" or are there victories against the IRS?

It's binary, and not knowing the courts as well as some I figured I'd ask to resolve the contradiction.

[wserra]

Vernice Kuglin won a criminal case. The jury failed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she had willfully violated the tax laws, so she was acquitted and did not go to jail.

She did not win her civil case against the IRS. She was assessed taxes, interest and penalties, and her wages were garnished. She eventually settled that civil case and paid the IRS a ton of money.

So, did she win, or not? It's kind of a binary thing. She wins, or she loses. Which is it? Or is this merely wordplay, like asking the definition of "is?"

Why didn't you read Caligari's answer? She won the criminal case (against DOJ, not the IRS, BTW), meaning that she's not going to jail. She lost the civil case, meaning that she owes the government a whole lot more than if she had just paid, and lost on her argument that she didn't have to pay at all. That last is the argument no one has ever won.

So, did OJ win, or not? It's kind of a binary thing. He wins, or he loses. Which is it? Or is this merely wordplay, like asking the definition of "is?"

[Nikki]

Kuglin won in the sense that she didn't have to go to jail for criminal evasion.

However, she still had to py a ton of money to the government to settle up on taxes, penalties, and interest.

If you want to call that a win, go for it.

Some evaders count major wins when they aren't nailed for sanctions.

BTW: A "zero success rate" refers to getting out of paying taxes. In that sense, it's 100% accurate.

[jkeeb]

The "Cheek" reference refers to the Cheek case where a protestor named Cheek had his conviction overturned by the Supreme Court because the instruction given by the District Court did not allow for a "willfulness" defense of "I truly believed the BS that I did not owe tax." Some people say this is a win for tax protestors.

The rest of the story. Since the Supremes remanded the case back, a new trial was held and Cheek was convicted yet again.

[ShadesOfKnight]

Actual, it's not binary. She had to pay the tax, penalties and interest, which was obviously not what she intended to do. She just didn't end up in jail too. If you count not being imprisoned, but losing substantial sums of money as a win, then yeah, she wins. Some of us don't see escaping Club Fed as a big victory.

So it IS akin to defining "is." We're defining "win" as not having to pay anything to the government? Or are we defining "win" as to whether or not a criminal offense is happening?

See, when discussing LAW, it seems reasonable to this outsider that one would naturally examine CRIMINAL courts... the civil courts operate according to different rules, not least of which being that they are almost Napoleonic (guilty until proven innocent, and no jury) in their character...

So, did she win, or no?

[Quixote]

Quatloos says that no one has ever won against the IRS.

Cite?

I think you mean that several posters on this board say that no tax denier theory has ever prevailed in court. At least three people that I know of have been acquitted of criminal charges. Lloyd Long was acqitted of willful failure to file because he convinced a jury that he was too stupid to know he had to file. Vernice Kuglin may have convinced the jury of something similar, or the jury may not have bought filing a bodus W-4 as lying to the government. (The government's case hinged on that point.) In a third case, the taxpayer, who is somewhat famous but whose name I repeatedly forget, was charged with willful failure to file, a crime he was arguably innocent of. He was not charged with tax evasion, a charge he was clearly guilty of. So he walked. No TPs ever cite that case as a win.

[ShadesOfKnight]

BTW: A "zero success rate" refers to getting out of paying taxes. In that sense, it's 100% accurate.

Funny. If ever you have to use "in that sense" and "100% accurate" in the same sentence, it seems that someone isn't being wholly forthright.

Unfortunately, this kind of wordplay seems to be common on BOTH sides of the fence, which is why I find myself unable to accept either argument. Neither side seems able to simply state objective fact clearly and succinctly.

[wserra]

Quatloos says that no one has ever won against the IRS.

You never read that here.

Yes, actually I did. Go to this address:

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm

And you will see this:

"These various constitutional and anti-IRS theories have had a ZERO success rate. "

Do you believe that "constitutional and anti-IRS theories" are all that people litigate over in tax cases? Actually, they constitute a tiny fraction of all tax cases, just as the morons who bring them constitute a tiny fraction of all Americans.

And no, no one has ever won on that gibberish.

[Disilloosianed]

See, when discussing LAW, it seems reasonable to this outsider that one would naturally examine CRIMINAL courts... the civil courts operate according to different rules, not least of which being that they are almost Napoleonic (guilty until proven innocent, and no jury) in their character...

Yet again.....won criminally, lost civilly. Law is what I do, by the way, so take this for what it is worth -- the only Napoleonic courts in this country are those in Louisiana, both criminal and civil. Civil courts are part of the law and they really don't operate by different rules. Frankly, from what I've seen, criminal courts are closer to being Napoleonic, considering that they are almost entirely determined by set penal codes now, and not common law. *Shrugs* But the point is, I wouldn't want to have a judgment against me in either.

[Prof]

Actual, it's not binary. She had to pay the tax, penalties and interest, which was obviously not what she intended to do. She just didn't end up in jail too. If you count not being imprisoned, but losing substantial sums of money as a win, then yeah, she wins. Some of us don't see escaping Club Fed as a big victory.

So it IS akin to defining "is." We're defining "win" as not having to pay anything to the government? Or are we defining "win" as to whether or not a criminal offense is happening?

See, when discussing LAW, it seems reasonable to this outsider that one would naturally examine CRIMINAL courts... the civil courts operate according to different rules, not least of which being that they are almost Napoleonic (guilty until proven innocent, and no jury) in their character...

So, did she win, or no?

You are a little mistaken, here. The burden of proof in civil cases ranges from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of the evidence" while criminal cases require a showing of "beyond reasonable doubt." All criminal cases generate a right to a jury, as preserved in the Constitution. The highest burden of proof is always in a criminal case, and the burden is always on the government.

Civil cases, whether the plaintiff is the government or not, is not "Napoleonic."

If a person files in the Tax Court, there is no jury, but the taxpayer/plaintiff does not have to pay the tax and seek a refund before filing his lawsuit in tax court.

If a person wishes to pay the tax and contest, he can file a lawsuit in US District Court, and may be entitled to a jury, depending on whether a jury would have been accorded in a similar case filed in 1789 (the test for the right to a civil jury).

Our clients frequently win contests with the IRS based upon disputes over the tax laws as set out in the IRC, both in Tax Court and US District Court and Bankruptcy Court.

No one has ever won a federal civil lawsuit against the IRS on the BS theories set out on the internet by folks like Shiff, etc. Vernice and the 861 proponents are classic examples.

[Quixote]

"These various constitutional and anti-IRS theories have had a ZERO success rate. "

A "zero success rate" is the same as saying "no one has ever won."

Is English not your primary language? Stating that those particular theories have never worked is a far cry from "no one has ever won." Does Russo allege that he has an example of any of the theories winning? No, he doesn't, proving that there is a limit even to Russo's lies.

[ShadesOfKnight]

No one has ever won a federal civil lawsuit against the IRS on the BS theories set out on the internet by folks like Shiff, etc. Vernice and the 861 proponents are classic examples.

So, sticking strictly to Kuglin. She wins in criminal court, claiming that there was no law requiring her to file... but loses in civil court...

So we say she lost?

Back to an earlier point I made, it seems reasonable to think that a criminal court is the more correct when asking questions of law and whether or not someone "wins" in a contest of law...

But I'm no lawyer, so perhaps reason doesn't apply? LOL