1 posted on
08/16/2003 7:37:25 PM PDT by
webber
To: webber
I saw this story on Fox News. The pilot worked for FedEx. She was a pleasant looking woman who smiled a whole lot and let her attorney do most of the talking. He was smiling a lot, too.
2 posted on
08/16/2003 7:41:48 PM PDT by
Judith Anne
(For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world...)
To: webber
To: webber
Since when does the IRS try its cases in regular courts? I thought they had a special IRS tax court that they heard these things in.
To: webber
It was on Hannity and Colmes about 3 evenings ago. Greta is suppose to interview the lawyer but the date isn't set yet.
Poor judge admitted that he didn't know what an excise tax is.
IRS couldn't provide a law that required her to file.
OH MY
5 posted on
08/16/2003 7:47:09 PM PDT by
lvmyfrdm
To: webber
To: webber
Kuglin doesn't go to jail, but, according the court, she still owes the taxes, plus penalties.
She won her freedom. What else, exactly, did she win? She's likely to go bankrupt paying these taxes.
13 posted on
08/16/2003 8:02:18 PM PDT by
sinkspur
To: webber
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?
How effing stupid can you get? Sending a letter to the IRS is waving an "audit" flag in front of them.
22 posted on
08/16/2003 8:22:02 PM PDT by
jwh_Denver
(If you've only got 2 cents to offer, don't bother.)
To: webber
Well, I suppose I'll be flamed for this, but I believe that all citizens of this country should pay the necessary amount of income tax to fund two things; the National defense and the National transportation infrastructure. I don't believe those two items constitute anywhere near 25% of my income though.
33 posted on
08/16/2003 9:17:53 PM PDT by
yooper
To: webber
The problem with a "win" of this type is that a jury decision only applies to the case at hand. It sets no precedent for use in other cases (it does not rule on the law itself, and does not establish 'case law' to cite in other trials). It may show a trial procedure that can be used in other cases to get aquittals for those who study the trial. If a trend of aquittals develops, it can end up changing the laws themselves on the legislative level (as it did with prohibition and, in some areas, marujuana).
37 posted on
08/16/2003 9:34:24 PM PDT by
templar
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson