BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

522 Posts
That's why the forms are referenced to as "Contributions" not "Taxes". It has always been a voluntary program but evolved into the debacle that it is now with all those piggies feeding at the trough. Vehicle registration is also an illegal state tax requiring non commercial vehicles to pay a "Road Tax" The constitution provides that the citizens be allowed to travel the highways and byways untaxed except for reasons of commerce. I worked with a guy years ago that carried a form from the state that stated citizens have no requirement to license a vehicle. It still did not help him from getting stopped every time a LEO pulled up behind him and saw no plates. What a hassle. I believe in paying my fair share but as a country and a state we waste far to much money.

3,089 Posts
I'll volunteer to sit on that jury and hear the case as argued by both sides before I make a decision.

Premium Member
7,795 Posts
The only thing certain about that is the IRS lawyer's career is probably damaged.

Beyond that, there isn't much that hasn't been said.

As long as one guy at a time stands up, he will fall.... with prejudice.

When we all get fed up, it is almost always too late.... Especially in this day of "instant retribution".

1,634 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
a few more

The second one they lost recently.
This involved a coin dealer in NV, and his lawyer made the IRS look like monkeys.
The gist of that one to the jury was do you pay on the face value (whats printed on the money) or on the actual worth of the money at the time.
The IRS said on the Face Value (they couldn,t tell people to pay on a dollar thats worth .55cents, that would cut the tax revenue by almost half) well thats what the coin dealer had payed on except they were antique US Gold coins. Stamped $10 + $20 dollars, but worth way more just for their gold content.

and another (this was sent trascript w/notes)

Hauert was indicted on five counts Se. 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc.
Hauert wanted to know the OFFENCE statute he was accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question?"
Judge: "Certainly."
Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The term "any person" is ambiguous.
Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for.(Looking at Prosecutor) Do you know what he's asking for?"
Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for either."
Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."
(Hey, isn't he presumed to to know the law?)
Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought in the I.R.Code book.)
Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return..."
Judge: "Sounds clear to me."
Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."
Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this Title...What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax? Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made the subject of the tax?"
Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over again for what felt like an eternity.")
Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute, referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"
Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of breaking."
Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire case,
Judge: "No problem, Mr. Proscutor, I'm sure that you can provide a copy of that statute."
Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which statute defined the offense.)
Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Retutn. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES agains the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supplt the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such statute exists). Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a dismissal!
1 - 6 of 6 Posts