Time: Tue Oct 29 17:15:06 1996
To: EBRyans <ebryan19@fellini.syr.vcomm.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: ComLaw> Fwd: piml] IRS defeated in court?
Cc: 
Bcc: 

This is VERY old news.

/s/ Paul Mitchell


At 06:28 PM 10/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>
>>From: "Cravens, Roger D." <rbg3@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV>
>>To: C-NEWS All <c-news@world.std.com>, "'piml'" <piml@mars.galstar.com>
>>Subject: piml] IRS defeated in court?
>>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 96 13:31:00 EST
>>
>>
>>Nothing in the following is meant to be any sort of legal advice.
>>Consult your lawyer.  Use no hooks.  Avoid heavy machinery.
>>
>>From: GREG MCNEIL
>>Subj: US V Long Proof of no inc
>>Conf: Flat_TAX (1308)                 Read: No        Status: Public
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>>MAN FREED ON TAX CHARGES by Bill Keller
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>>This article is, of itself almost as remarkable as its subject. More than
>>mere "patriot" theory, this article outlines a successful step-by-step
>>strategy that defeated the IRS in court. The article lists the first case
>>the defense use, and the argument that case proved. Then it lists the
>>second case and second argument, and the third, etc. In sum, the article
>>lists a logical chain of arguments that build on each other to persuade a
>>jury that 1) Wages are not taxable income; 2) The IRS cannot tax a man's
>>right to work for wages; and 3) Mr. Lloyd Long was not obligated to file
>>or pay income taxes. The article contains information on how to order a
>>complete court transcript of the Long case that can fill in the gaps that
>>necessarily exist in the following
>>brief outline.
>>
>>Of course, just because the strategy worked in one particular case before
>>one particular jury, does not mean it will work in every case before
>>every jury. Nevertheless, what has worked before, could work again, and
>>at minimum, offers a preliminary how-to-do-it manual for locking horns
>>with the IRS in court.
>>
>>begin:
>>
>>In an amazing court case involving the "income tax", a Chattanooga jury
>>agreed with the argument by the defendant that the "income tax" is
>>actually an EXCISE TAX and applied only to certain classes of people (US
>>v. Long, Eastern District of Tennessee, CR 19391, October 15, 1993)
>>
>>Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama,
>>assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended
>>Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee who was charged by the IRS with
>>willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 1989 and 1990.
>>
>>In presenting the case for the IRS, assistant US Attorney Curtis Collier,
>>assisted by IRS special agent Michael Geasley, declared that Mr. Long had
>>gross income in excess of $49,000 for each of the years 1989 and 1990,
>>and that he had "willfully" failed to file income tax returns for those
>>years as "required by law".
>>
>>The defense admitted that Mr. Long did in fact have income in excess of
>>$49,000 for each of the years in question, and that he did not file a
>>return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt
>>that he was not "liable" for an income tax, not was he "required by law"
>>to file.
>>
>>Defense testimony presented a case entitled Brushhaber v Union Pacific
>>Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court
>>that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax
>>any new subjects: it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax
>>was imposed. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax
>>on corporate privileges and privileged occupations.
>>
>>The defense then brought a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy, wherein an
>>excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and
>>consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue
>>certain
>>occupations and upon corporate privileges.
>>
>>Mr. Long's attorney also brought out a case entitles Simms v. Ahrens,
>>wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax
>>nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.
>>
>>The defense then brought up a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher, wherein
>>the court ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be
>>taxed for the mere privilege if existing, but that the individual's right
>>to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot
>>be imposed. Defense also noted studies done by the congressional research
>>service showing the INCOME TAX to be an EXCISE TAX.
>>
>>Next the defense noted that in a Tennessee Supreme Court case Jack Cole
>>v. Commissioner, the court ruled that citizens are entitled by right to
>>INCOME or EARNINGS, and that this right could not be taxed as a
>>privilege. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case, Corn v. For, the
>>court ruled that individuals have a right to combine their activities as
>>partnerships; and that this is a natural right, independent and
>>antecedent of the government. The prosecution did not
>>challenge or attempt to refute any of the cases cited, or the conclusions
>>of the courts.
>>
>>> TAKE NOTE ..This section
>>
>>Defense brought out in testimony that the fact nowhere in the entire IRS
>>Code was anyone actually made liable for the income tax! The IRS's own
>>privacy act notice cites only three sections, and none of these sections
>>makes anyone liable for the tax. They also proved that this was not an
>>oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no
>>one could misinterpret who was made liable for the alcohol tax.
>>
>>Defense then presented the mission statement of the IRS stating that the
>>income tax relied upon "voluntary compliance" and a statement from the
>>head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS which in essence
>>showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol
>>tax, which is 100% enforced.
>>
>>Mr. Long stated in 1988 he knew that; the income tax was in fact an
>>excise tax; that he as not enjoying any corporate privileges nor engaged
>>in any privileged occupation; that income or earning from the exercise of
>>common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise; that nowwhere
>>in the IRS
>>Code was he made liable for the tax and the income tax was voluntary. But
>>Mr. Long was still so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid his
>>voluntary assessment. He then began a series of letters to the IRS
>>explaining that he had
>>no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government. He
>>asked for direct answers to questions such as "Am I required to file
>>federal income tax returns?" and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?"
>>The IRS never gave a direct answer to any of his questions. Instead they
>>inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and
>>generally avoided answering. So Mr. Long testified that he decided to
>>stop volunteering.
>>
>>The IRS brought in two "expert" witnesses. Both were actually IRS
>>employees who had received training as professional witnesses. Upon cross
>>examination by Mr. Becraft, one witness, a Ms. Jeu, stated that a secret
>>code known only to the IRS, and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record,
>>showed that the IRS knew that he was not required to mail or file a
>>return. Ms. Jeu made every effort to avoid this admission to the point
>>that she was beginning to frustrate the jury. The other witness, upon
>>cross examination by Mr. Becraft, gave testimony that conflicted with the
>>privacy act notice.
>>
>>The government also attempted to insinuate "guilt by association" by
>>claiming Mr. Long had known and relied upon persons of questionable
>>character. They argued that the writers of some of the books he read, and
>>people he knew, had
>>been convicted of tax-related charges in the past and were in fact
>>criminals.
>>
>>Mr. Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a
>>crime by a court did not invalidate everything he said. To illustrate his
>>point, he pointed out that the Apostle Paul was a murderer, but that by
>>the grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles. He added that
>>he, Mr. Long did not rely on anything that he did not personally check
>>out thoroughly. In summation, Mr. Becraft reminded the jury that Galileo
>>was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with what everyone
>>else knew was a "fact"; and that Columbus, acting on a belief that
>>conflicted with what everyone else knew was a "fact" discovered something
>>no else thought existed. The jury agreed with the defense. By finding Mr.
>>Long "NOT GUILTY" on all counts, they have ventured into uncharted
>>territory in their monumental decision. A Chattanooga TV station quoted a
>>government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS
>>will handle such cases in the future. They indicated that they will be
>>less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in
>>their favor.
>>
>>Lloyd Long
>>5048 Roarks Cove Rd.
>>Decherd, Tenn  37324
>>(615)967-1402
>>
>>* No person is subject to taxation on his income who is not SPECIALLY
>>* DESCRIBED in the statute imposting the tax or not clearly within the
>>* meaning of the general terms which the statute employs. A statute is
>>not
>>* to be extended by -IMPLICATION- to make liable persons other than those
>>* comprehended within its terms..
>>* 85 C.J.S. 1092
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail