IRS vs. KUGLIN

The Sierra Times ^ | Carl F. Worden

[webber]

IRS vs. KUGLIN

By Carl F. Worden

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?

Carl F. Worden
The Sierra Times

---

Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times
SierraTimes.com™
A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
The Sierra Times

---

If this turns out to be another one of those "Gotcha" Fairy Tales, please don't let me know. I want to believe that this news is true. PLEASE?

[lvmyfrdm]

ANSWER: THE IRS CAN (AND PROBABLY HAS ALREADY) ATTACHED A TAX LIEN AGAINST ALL HER ASSETS, MEANING SHE CANNOT SELL ANY ASSET WITHOUT PAYING EVERY CENT TOWARD THE OWED TAXES. THEY ALSO CAN AND WILL LEVY AGAINST HER BANK ACCOUNTS, CAR, PERSONAL PROPERTY ABOVE $1000, GARNISH WAGES FROM FEDEX, AND ON AND ON. AND, YES, THIS IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. THIS WOMAN WILL BE DESTROYED FINANCIALLY.

You are probably right, because they are absolutely lawless, and the banks will put a lien on property because they are too afraid of the IRS to ask what authority they have to do it. The sad part is the general public will stand on the sidelines and cheer the IRS on.

But you know what, if they actually had the authority to do what you say, why did they wait this long, since 1996. That should tell you something. If they had the authority, why didn't they use it before now. The are hoping for an ignorant judge, who doesn't understand the tax laws, to give them the authority to burn her, law or no law.

[lvmyfrdm]

So who knows where the law is that makes a Citizen of the United States who workings and lives in the United States liable for "income" taxes ?

Bet I don't get an answer. Everyone knows so much about title 26, I just want that one section.

[jwh_Denver]

This is exactly why no one knows what is really going on. They would rather the IRS steal everything they own then dare to question their authority to do a dang thing to anyone. The IRS is suppose to be a servant to the people.

You and I both know that the IRS was never intended to serve the people but rather the government. And don't give me this "coward" s**t when they have so much power over people. It doesn't matter whether the power is real or intimated, they can put anybody through the ringer and squeeze out your money into your lawyer's pocket.

This Kuglin case is good but watch how things get back to normal. Look, if you want to be broke hero then go right ahead. But to change the system, it's going to take a lot of people to do it. Until then I will lay low when it comes to the IRS.

[jwh_Denver]

Not if they received 500,000 of them.

Yep, they'll come in one door and out the back door to be taken away with the garbage. But I'm not taking the chance they will read mine and .........

But you get 500,000 people with nails through ball bats marching on DC and I will join them. I will not fight the IRS because I'm not a billionaire.

[lvmyfrdm]

You and I both know that the IRS was never intended to serve the people but rather the government. And don't give me this "coward" s**t when they have so much power over people. It doesn't matter whether the power is real or intimated, they can put anybody through the ringer and squeeze out your money into your lawyer's pocket.

just checking to see how many people love their money more than freedom. Got my answer. I would like to have some idea if my kids are going to live in absolute tyranny.

By the way, since the IRS doesn't need a law to do what they will. What makes you think you will ever be safe, even when you do what you think is legal. You are signing a form under penalties of perjury, do you truely understand what you are signing? Or could what we are saying be true, and you are saying you have corporate income you don't have, or foreign income, you don't have, or maybe you are claiming to be a state or federal employee and don't realize it.

[jwh_Denver]

They just won't answer you either. Sean Hannity, journalist, could ask on your behalf, but he thinks you should just shut up and pay your fair share, too.

LOL! Can I decide my "fair share?"

[lainie]

Hey, I've given more facial wrinkles, worrisome thoughts and sleepless nights to the cause than the average joe. I think I should be able to count them against my "fair share." You think?

[nunya bidness]

She's not going to jail for evasion, but she still owes the taxes.

I brought it to your attention that Kotmair (the paragon of cases like this) and you flinched. I brought it to your attention that you could cross Becraft and you flinched.

Now both the law and the lawyer (Becraft) have just won a case and you are making determinations without engaging the participants.

I'm putting you in the coward column. When you want to step up and debate the people who truly address this issue let me know. Otherwise, I'll just put you in the category as a malcontent, authoritarian, and sychophant with no foundation but a nice pet owner who has sons who are LEO's but fails to think.

I'll be waiting on you and Poohbah and the old guy with his colorful links. You guys lost and your temple is crumbling based on logic and the law.

[lainie]

now, 1:45 a.m. pacific Sunday

http://live.str3am.com:2150/listen.pls

[superloser]

Baloney! A lien is only valid if it is signed by a judge or comes out of the judicial system somewhere. Elsewise, I could file a lien against you tomorrow with the same effect as the IRS. Come on now....

Many people have had IRS "liens" nullified because of that simple fact of law.

[templar]

YOU have a computer, do you realize how easy it is to search for specific information with a computer?

Yeah, I know how easy it is. I do a substantial amount of legal research on the computer (for personal reasons, I'm not a practicing legal professional, I'm just a Pro se type by nature). I sometimes end up reading hundreds of pages from dozens and dozens of assorted published cases in order to know the current meaning of a single ruling or phrase in the law. There just isn't enough time for almost anyone to understand the whole tax code, particularly when it doesn't always seem to mean the same thing in different cases.

Definitions, even the wording of the laws, by themselves, are almost meaningless in practice. They're just a place to start research. It's the court rulings that will determine what the laws actually mean in practice, because that is what will (usually) get you exhonerated or convicted. Appropriate use of the various decisions about your particular situation (your argument before the court about the meaning and application of the law) can result in a new decision that will be new law to use in future cases . Most people (myself included), even if they have the time and knowlege to understand the law, don't have the legal, argumentive and oratorical skills to argue before a court and obtain a new ruling on a point of law (actually, very few practicing attornmeys do, particularly at the appellate level).

Our parents didn't have the access to information that we have and that's part of the reason we believe things that are not true.

Our parents had access to the law libraries, the same as you or I do today.

The only difference a computer makes is the convenience and speed of research. Actually going down to the local law library is still needed as you may have no luck in finding the latest law and rulings (i.e. slip laws, pocket parts) unless you subscribe to one of the professional legal research databases (expensive).

[templar]

It ought to be rescinded and replaced with a flat tax or national sales tax.

A flat tax will change nothing except the tax rate for some people. The IRS will still be there and still be the same old thing. It's the intrusive income tax system that needs ot go, IMO. I advocate a NRST, and have for the past 30 or so years. NRST is, in essense, an excise tax and is consistant with the original intent of our founding fathers.

[sinkspur]

When you want to step up and debate the people who truly address this issue let me know.

Kotmaier? Irwin Schiff?

You crack me up, and are no different from an Area 51 conspiracy loon.

[phil_will1]

"A flat tax will change nothing except the tax rate for some people. The IRS will still be there and still be the same old thing. It's the intrusive income tax system that needs ot go, IMO."

Well said, Templar. Congress has been trying for more than 85 years now to define what taxable income is, and every time they pass new legislation, the concept gets more confusing and compliance costs go up as a result. Most of the complexity comes from calculating the deductions, not coming up with the gross amount. The Flat Tax would therefore fail to address the primary problem, which is the ambiguousness of the code itself and the resultant potential for tyranny by the IRS.

The Flat Tax was a good improvement when it was first introduced, but its time has come and gone. There are far more attractive options, such as the FairTax, out there.

[Torie]

It's in section 1 of Title 26 of the federal statutues. It begins as follows starting with married individuals and surviving spouses, and goes on to cover singles, heads of households, etc.:

a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is:              The tax is:
Not over $36,900                   15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150  $5,535, plus 28% of the excess
                                    over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess
                                    over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over         $35,928.50, plus 36% of the
 $250,000                           excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000                      $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the
                                    excess over $250,000.

I hope that helps.

[montag813]

Baloney! A lien is only valid if it is signed by a judge or comes out of the judicial system somewhere. Elsewise, I could file a lien against you tomorrow with the same effect as the IRS. Come on now....

You can't "file a lien". You can only sue me and win a judgment. Such a judgment would be totally wiped out by a Chapter 7 filing. A tax lien is not. A state equivalent is called a tax warrant and is also not dissolved by bankruptcy. Learn the law please before spouting "baloney".

[superloser]

It still has to go through court, elsewise, it is considered the equivalent of a bill of attainder and thereby null and void. It *still* needs to go through the courts.

Perhaps you too should go talk to an auditor.

[StriperSniper]

"you're not paying your fair share."

Really changed my opinion of Sean.

Yeah, Drudge should take over his slot. ;-)

[Jack Black]

Sean isn't very smart in my opinion. He's like the guy down at the bar who listens to Rush all the time and can kinda repeat it back, but often misses the key points that make Rush so fun. No one watching him can really take his seriously as anything other than an entertainer. Curtis Silwa seems more capable of actual thought.

[superloser]

Here is the process a friend of mine went through and what ended up happenning which pretty much got rid of it.

He had been unemployed for a couple of years and, oops, forgot to file his taxes.

So the IRS sends out an "administrative form" (I forget the number of it) to him and to his bank declaring a lien against his checking account to which they intend to apply a Hoover. There is one signature, that of some bureaucrat.

The bank honors it, thinking it is legitimate. It is not.

He protests to the bank and offers to take them to court over it. The bank backs down. He sends an ugly letter to the IRS which rescinds the illegal "lien" they have "placed" against his account.

Mind you, there is no judgment in this case as of *yet*. In fact, he has yet to get a letter from the IRS even asking him to come down to their offices to figure this out. It has not gone to tax court. It has not gone to any court whatsoever.

Anyone can fraudulently file "paperwork" that "declares" a lien against property. It all depends on whether or not that "paperwork" is honored or not.

Sending out a declaration of "We have placed a lien..." is standard IRS procedure -- before anything even goes to tax court or the taxpayer gets a demand to show up at their local IRS office.

So, I say, BALONEY! What they do is illegal and, as this seems to be commonplace, as I've heard of it happenning more than once -- what they are doing *is* illegal as it has never been ajudicated. Period.