Posted on 08/11/2003 7:12:43 AM PDT by ninenot
Forget the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and our excellent adventure in Liberia. Forget about Kobe, Arnold, Arriana, Scott and Laci. The biggest news of the entire week is that on August 8, 2003, the IRS was unable to convince a jury in Memphis, Tennessee that the Federal Tax Code requires the citizens to pay individual income taxes. I kid you not.
I watched as many Sunday news programs as I could possibly stand, and I didn't hear a single mention of the IRS' debacle in Memphis. If you ever had doubts about the mainstream media being controlled by the federal government, doubt no more.
For those not already aware, FedEx Pilot Vernice Kuglin began studying the IRS Code some years ago, and was simply unable to find anywhere in the code that she was required to pay federal income taxes.
And here's the most remarkable part: Back in 1995, Kuglin wrote letters in good faith to the IRS, asking them to show her where the Tax Code requires individual citizens to pay federal income taxes. Incredibly, the IRS never answered a single one of her letters!
As she studied the facts, laws and related documents more, Kuglin became convinced that, regardless of the IRS' failure to respond one way or the other, she was exempt from paying federal income taxes. So, Kuglin filled out W-4 forms showing 99 exemptions, and turned them in to her employer. Doing that meant Kuglin got to take home almost all of her paycheck each payday, instead of what was left after the feds ravaged it.
The IRS went after Kuglin for six counts of tax evasion on $920,000.00 income, and for filing "false" W-4 forms, charges that could have put the 58 year-old Kuglin in federal prison for up to 30 years and cost her 1.5 million in fines.
Apparently, things didn't go quite the slam-dunk way federal prosecutor Joe Murphy thought they would. My money says the IRS wishes they had never gone after Kuglin at all. In fact, after the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts, Murphy is reported to have demanded that the judge order Kuglin to file her forms, pay her taxes and "obey the law". The judge reportedly replied, "Sir, I don't work for the IRS."
Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.
Jurors tend not to be very sympathetic with tax scofflaws, since each one of them is also a taxpayer and they understandably feel resentment towards anyone not paying "their fair share". So in order for this federal jury to completely vindicate Kuglin, the government's failure to prove their case against her had to have been clear and unequivocal!
I haven't read the trial transcript yet, but I must assume the federal prosecutor at least tried to twist some vague and ambiguous section of the Tax Code to make it look like it applied to Kuglin. I don't know that, but I'll bet he tried. What else could he use to prosecute her with?
Thanks to the IRS' arrogance and stupidity, and Kuglin's refusal to plead to lesser charges, Kuglin accomplished what Bob Schultz and the other "tax protesters" had been denied all along: To force the IRS into a public debate and to answer the question of whether or not the Tax Code requires an individual to pay personal income taxes. Kuglin and her two attorneys, Larry Becraft and Robert Bernhoft, have unequivocally forced the IRS to show its hand, and 12 judges hearing that debate ruled the answer to be "NO".
I think it's time for everyone reading this to send a very polite letter to the IRS, telling them they read about the case in Memphis, and is it true that there is no section in the U.S. Tax Code that requires an individual citizen to pay federal income taxes?
Don't be threatening in any way, or announce that you plan to stop paying federal income taxes. This request is for your personal edification, and you just simply want to know the truth.
Like Kuglin, you probably won't get an answer back, but just to prove you sent the letter and that they received it, be certain to send the letter via certified U.S. Mail, with a return receipt requested. When you get that receipt back, staple it to a copy of the letter you sent the IRS, and put it somewhere real secure, like a personal safe or bank deposit box.
I don't have to explain why, now do I?
Now, how many calls to FOX' Bill O'Reilly will it take to convince him we know he's doing a spin in the No-Spin Zone by sitting on this story? Start e-mailing O'Reilly at oreilly@foxnews.com, and be sure to give him your city and state. He's gonna love me.
Carl F. Worden
I'd like to see a transcript of this trial!
By the author's logic, the jury which returned a not guilty verdict in the O. J. Simpson murder case intended to signal that murder should be legal.
I am surprised that Boortz hasn't picked up on this.
I will do some research. See if we can get some independent verification.
IRS Loses Tax Case Against FedEx Pilot - Conspiracy Planet - http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=111&contentid=909
IRS Loses a Big One - NewsMax.com - http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/8/9/164934
Change the "is it" to "it is" and change the "?" at the end to a ".". To ask the IRS if what the jury/court already decided is true is just dumb. This is a fight. Someone just won. You don't ask the loser if the winner won. He's likely to lie or otherwise try to subtract from the victory of the winner.
Also found an article talking generally about the case. Basic detail, but here is the here.
Um, I'm not so sure about that. Now I didn't follow the O.J. trial so I don't know what was said, but I suspect the argument presented to the jury was that O.J. didn't do it. I would be surprised if the argument was that the legal code permitted him to commit murder.
But I agree with you; this case needs more careful attention and analysis.
Doesn't matter who passes the laws, doesn't even matter if the prosecutor is right on the law, if juries refuse to convict.
Lunacy describes those who don't understand that the tax on fuel is what pays for road's. The rats alway's us this line.
If you 'voluntarily' decide to pay 'your share' then so be it. But this lady (and every other American) is under no obligation to follow that which can not be proven to be legally binding upon them. To suggest otherwise is to not understand the meaning of freedom.
Here is an excerpt from a report on the 2000 LP convention ...
At the party's convention, which ends here today, Tennessee delegate Vernie Kuglin says she may have caught her libertarian spirit growing up in Nigeria as the child of missionary parents. "I think I developed a libertarian attitude in my soul from the Africans there, who lived very free," she says. "They didn't have much government intrusion in their lives at that time."LinkIt wasn't until 1992, however, that she first heard of the Libertarian Party - which since its beginnings in 1971 has campaigned for a radical reduction in the role of the government in the lives of American citizens.
"The logic of it made sense to me," says Ms. Kuglin. "I liked the idea of responsibility, of individual choice."
One thing though, I'm a fan of the US military. If a tax rebellion occured we'd have to kiss our defense goodbye. This is all well and good on a theoretical standpoint, but scary as hell in reality.... unless you are looking forward to anarchy.
It has always been my understanding that the gasoline tax and auto registration fees cover the largest part of road expenses. Except for Interstate Highways, the local and state govt's handle most road projects and repairs. The Federal Income Tax feeds a bloated bureaucracy and massive entitlement programs. How, in a system where many pay NOTHING, can you say anyone is paying their FAIR SHARE? As long as the gov't confiscates my money to pay someone else to sit on their lazy butt; nothing is fair.
Again this shows you do not understand freedom. If american citizens can be forced to obey what the government demands which can not be legally proven to be binding upon them, then in fact we have the Chinese system here already.
The constitution originally provided for a method of taxation that would fund the existence of a military. It is the 'income tax' on american citizens that is in question here.
The author assumes the lady was acquitted because she was not convicted. Wrong, there could very well be a hung jury here. The court docs on the PACER site have not been posted yet.
The Flat Tax or a Nat'l Sales Tax would beat our current system and lower, if not eliminate, the need for the IRS.
A sales tax would be good because it would bring illegal aliens into the system. Of course its downside is that it would turn all merchants into Federal Tax Collectors.
We had a military that defeated the England twice, Spain, Mexico, and won a civil war without an income tax.* The chief purpose of the income tax is funding the welfare state. The legitimate functions of government don't need an income tax.
This case will likely not change anything, but even if it did the issue deserves serious discussion, not the sort of hysterics the democratic party uses for every issue.
*Income taxes were passed at times, but never made it throught the courts.
Actually the lunacy is when people are led to believe income taxes not gasoline taxes paid at the pump pay for roads...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.