Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges

[laFiera]

I would have imagined this would have been national news, but that wouldn't be for the best interest of the people...


Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago

 

[bctbct]

Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust


Seems like I recently heard managers of hedge funds are doing this also.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Cryer apparently, like the accountants and lawyers advising Wesley Snipes, is one of the morons who has managed to misread the Internal Revenue Code to mean they don't have to pay taxes. Every one of these theories has been debunked, and he will face massive penalties and likely prison.

 

[jpeyton]

More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Cryer apparently, like the accountants and lawyers advising Wesley Snipes, is one of the morons who has managed to misread the Internal Revenue Code to mean they don't have to pay taxes. Every one of these theories has been debunked, and he will face massive penalties and likely prison.

hmmmm...
I find it amusing that "A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file."

guess the federal jury couldn't be bothered to read the internal revenue code...
damn them!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: DonVito
Cryer apparently, like the accountants and lawyers advising Wesley Snipes, is one of the morons who has managed to misread the Internal Revenue Code to mean they don't have to pay taxes. Every one of these theories has been debunked, and he will face massive penalties and likely prison.

hmmmm...
I find it amusing that "A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file."

guess the federal jury couldn't be bothered to read the internal revenue code...
damn them!

D'oh! I posted while on the phone, and managed to scan the article without reading the title, much less understanding the point of it. I am dumb.

Nevertheless, I see this case as a fluke, rather than the start of a groundswell - there is simply no viable legal question that the federal government has the authority to tax similarly-situated people, or that the Internal Revenue Code is legal and binding. I imagine the defense attorneys just managed to confuse the jury enough to get an acquittal.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

Or Congress can just cut funding to certain things

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

Or Congress can just cut funding to certain things

The problem isnt really spending, its the poor allocation of funds thats the problem(well if you take out the Iraq war that is).

The US is towards the bottom on government spending per capita compared to the rest of the first world.

Plus, the majority of the spending is on social securty/medicare/defense/interest on debt. The funny thing is, no matter what we do, spending on three of the four can only go up, not down.

Everyone always talks about cutting government spending. It would be much better to properly allocate funds than cut. We already have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Taxes are a fact of life, get used to it, because if we dont change how funds are allocated, we could easily be seeing atleast a 50% tax rate at some point in the the future in order to cover liabilities medicare will amass. Anyone over 40 doesnt care because it wont matter in their lifetime(ie: currently elected officials AARP card carrying members, etc). Most under 40 are to stupid to care.

Cutting spending is a stupid propostion when we know that Medicare has the potential to lead to severe economic problems in the future. F' social security. Social security is chump change compared to medicare. Just look at GM, Ford, and Chrysler, their healthcare costs are jumping by astronomical amounts each year, which is why all three will have to do something radical or eventually go bankrupt. Now compare that to the demographics in the US and you can see why medicare is a problem.

Medicare SHOULD be the single biggest issue in the United States. But since its a future problem, its out of sight and out of mind. Not to mention the politicians dont want to piss off their core voter base.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust


Seems like I recently heard managers of hedge funds are doing this also.

And said loophole will get shut down quickly.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

Or Congress can just cut funding to certain things

The problem isnt really spending, its the poor allocation of funds thats the problem(well if you take out the Iraq war that is).

The US is towards the bottom on government spending per capita compared to the rest of the first world.

Plus, the majority of the spending is on social securty/medicare/defense/interest on debt. The funny thing is, no matter what we do, spending on three of the four can only go up, not down.

Everyone always talks about cutting government spending. It would be much better to properly allocate funds than cut. We already have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Taxes are a fact of life, get used to it, because if we dont change how funds are allocated, we could easily be seeing atleast a 50% tax rate at some point in the the future in order to cover liabilities medicare will amass. Anyone over 40 doesnt care because it wont matter in their lifetime(ie: currently elected officials AARP card carrying members, etc). Most under 40 are to stupid to care.

Under Al Gore's Plan, we would have used our extra cash to repay our debts, not give tax cuts to the top 5%.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

Or Congress can just cut funding to certain things

The problem isnt really spending, its the poor allocation of funds thats the problem(well if you take out the Iraq war that is).

The US is towards the bottom on government spending per capita compared to the rest of the first world.

Plus, the majority of the spending is on social securty/medicare/defense/interest on debt. The funny thing is, no matter what we do, spending on three of the four can only go up, not down.

Everyone always talks about cutting government spending. It would be much better to properly allocate funds than cut. We already have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Taxes are a fact of life, get used to it, because if we dont change how funds are allocated, we could easily be seeing atleast a 50% tax rate at some point in the the future in order to cover liabilities medicare will amass. Anyone over 40 doesnt care because it wont matter in their lifetime(ie: currently elected officials AARP card carrying members, etc). Most under 40 are to stupid to care.

Under Al Gore's Plan, we would have used our extra cash to repay our debts, not give tax cuts to the top 5%.

You haven't a clue on the medicare problem. Gore's locked box was for Social Security. And his lock box approached alone wouldnt have fixed things. There still would need to be adjustments to retirement age(highly unpopular amongst the core voters), or a reduced payout(even more unpopular amongst core voters).

FYI, there are only a handful of elected officals that will mention Medicare, I can count them on less than one hand. Medicare is the holy grail and isnt to be touched because of the AARP.

The demographics for medicare are horrible because not only will we have more collecting the benefits that paying for them, but political change will be next to impossible because the old will out number the young by a significant margin.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

Or Congress can just cut funding to certain things

The problem isnt really spending, its the poor allocation of funds thats the problem(well if you take out the Iraq war that is).

The US is towards the bottom on government spending per capita compared to the rest of the first world.

Plus, the majority of the spending is on social securty/medicare/defense/interest on debt. The funny thing is, no matter what we do, spending on three of the four can only go up, not down.

Everyone always talks about cutting government spending. It would be much better to properly allocate funds than cut. We already have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Taxes are a fact of life, get used to it, because if we dont change how funds are allocated, we could easily be seeing atleast a 50% tax rate at some point in the the future in order to cover liabilities medicare will amass. Anyone over 40 doesnt care because it wont matter in their lifetime(ie: currently elected officials AARP card carrying members, etc). Most under 40 are to stupid to care.

Under Al Gore's Plan, we would have used our extra cash to repay our debts, not give tax cuts to the top 5%.

You haven't a clue on the medicare problem. Gore's locked box was for Social Security. And his lock box approached alone wouldnt have fixed things. There still would need to be adjustments to retirement age(highly unpopular amongst the core voters), or a reduced payout(even more unpopular amongst core voters).

You just posted some random things? I said he would have used surpluses towards repaying our debt, rather than giving the richest 5% tax cuts. When did I ever mention medicare or social security?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More power to him.

I hope others follow the precedent he set.

Yeah, we need more tax dodgers to pick up burden from.

Or Congress can just cut funding to certain things

The problem isnt really spending, its the poor allocation of funds thats the problem(well if you take out the Iraq war that is).

The US is towards the bottom on government spending per capita compared to the rest of the first world.

Plus, the majority of the spending is on social securty/medicare/defense/interest on debt. The funny thing is, no matter what we do, spending on three of the four can only go up, not down.

Everyone always talks about cutting government spending. It would be much better to properly allocate funds than cut. We already have one of the lowest tax rates in the modern world. Taxes are a fact of life, get used to it, because if we dont change how funds are allocated, we could easily be seeing atleast a 50% tax rate at some point in the the future in order to cover liabilities medicare will amass. Anyone over 40 doesnt care because it wont matter in their lifetime(ie: currently elected officials AARP card carrying members, etc). Most under 40 are to stupid to care.

Under Al Gore's Plan, we would have used our extra cash to repay our debts, not give tax cuts to the top 5%.

You haven't a clue on the medicare problem. Gore's locked box was for Social Security. And his lock box approached alone wouldnt have fixed things. There still would need to be adjustments to retirement age(highly unpopular amongst the core voters), or a reduced payout(even more unpopular amongst core voters).

You just posted some random things? I said he would have used surpluses towards repaying our debt, rather than giving the richest 5% tax cuts. When did I ever mention medicare or social security?

Most of our debt is to the American people. And his plans wouldnt have solved the social security problem by itself.

And IIRC tax revenues are at all time highs even with the tax cut, so really... It still comes back to the poor allocation of funds.

 

[Hacp]

Most of our debt is to the American people. And his plans wouldnt have solved the social security problem by itself.

I'm not talking about social security. I'm talking about intrest payments on our debt. We keep borrowing and borrowing, but we never pay back. After a huge economic upswing, it would have been wise to consolidate our gains, and start paying back our debt, so our intrest payments could decrease. Instead, we used that money to reward the richest 5%.

And IIRC tax revenues are at all time highs even with the tax cut, so really... It still comes back to the poor allocation of funds.

IIRC, we were projected to have a 10 trillion surplus, which turned into a deficit.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Most of our debt is to the American people. And his plans wouldnt have solved the social security problem by itself.

I'm not talking about social security. I'm talking about intrest payments on our debt. We keep borrowing and borrowing, but we never pay back. After a huge economic upswing, it would have been wise to consolidate our gains, and start paying back our debt, so our intrest rates could decrease. Instead, we used that money to reward the richest 5%.

Not really, IIRC we have record or near record amounts of tax revenue even with the cuts.

What the main problems are

The Iraq War
Defense Spending in general
The largest real % change in government spending EVER, which is partially caused by the above two items, but not fully.

The tax cut would be fine without the three things about.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Most of our debt is to the American people. And his plans wouldnt have solved the social security problem by itself.

I'm not talking about social security. I'm talking about intrest payments on our debt. We keep borrowing and borrowing, but we never pay back. After a huge economic upswing, it would have been wise to consolidate our gains, and start paying back our debt, so our intrest payments could decrease. Instead, we used that money to reward the richest 5%.

And IIRC tax revenues are at all time highs even with the tax cut, so really... It still comes back to the poor allocation of funds.

IIRC, we were projected to have a 10 trillion surplus, which turned into a deficit.

Yeah and its been proven those projections wouldnt have come close to holding up. Those projections came at the peak of the dot com bubble and in no way shape or form sustainable.

But what is proven is that we are collecting more tax revenue than we were with higher tax rates.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hacp

Most of our debt is to the American people. And his plans wouldnt have solved the social security problem by itself.

I'm not talking about social security. I'm talking about intrest payments on our debt. We keep borrowing and borrowing, but we never pay back. After a huge economic upswing, it would have been wise to consolidate our gains, and start paying back our debt, so our intrest payments could decrease. Instead, we used that money to reward the richest 5%.

And IIRC tax revenues are at all time highs even with the tax cut, so really... It still comes back to the poor allocation of funds.

IIRC, we were projected to have a 10 trillion surplus, which turned into a deficit.

Yeah and its been proven those projections wouldnt have come close to holding up. Those projections came at the peak of the dot com bubble and in no way shape or form sustainable.

But what is proven is that we are collecting more tax revenue than we were with higher tax rates.

We wouldn't really know how much revenue we would have had without the rich tax cuts. We'll never know.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hacp

Most of our debt is to the American people. And his plans wouldnt have solved the social security problem by itself.

I'm not talking about social security. I'm talking about intrest payments on our debt. We keep borrowing and borrowing, but we never pay back. After a huge economic upswing, it would have been wise to consolidate our gains, and start paying back our debt, so our intrest payments could decrease. Instead, we used that money to reward the richest 5%.

And IIRC tax revenues are at all time highs even with the tax cut, so really... It still comes back to the poor allocation of funds.

IIRC, we were projected to have a 10 trillion surplus, which turned into a deficit.

Yeah and its been proven those projections wouldnt have come close to holding up. Those projections came at the peak of the dot com bubble and in no way shape or form sustainable.

But what is proven is that we are collecting more tax revenue than we were with higher tax rates.

We wouldn't really know how much revenue we would have had without the rich tax cuts. We'll never know.

Well as much as people say the economy sucks right now. Without the tax cuts it would only be worse. And even without them, we would still have the extremely poor allocation of funds. Gore may have said one thing, but even if he was elected, he doesn't hold Americas purse strings. Spending would have continued full speed ahead either way.

 

[Hacp]

Well as much as people say the economy sucks right now. Without the tax cuts it would only be worse. And even without them, we would still have the extremely poor allocation of funds. Gore may have said one thing, but even if he was elected, he doesn't hold Americas purse strings. Spending would have continued full speed ahead either way.

If I remember correctly, the Clinton Administration was the champion of the balanced budget.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Well as much as people say the economy sucks right now. Without the tax cuts it would only be worse. And even without them, we would still have the extremely poor allocation of funds. Gore may have said one thing, but even if he was elected, he doesn't hold Americas purse strings. Spending would have continued full speed ahead either way.

If I remember correctly, the Clinton Administration was the champion of the balanced budget.

Err, you know that Bush started his Presidency with a burst .com bubble, which was dragging everything down with it, 9/11, Katrina (Clinton, early, had Andrew, but Bush has had a couple of really bad seasons), WoT (I don't consider this a Bush only deal, any President after 9/11 had to do something, and that requires $$$ in the Billions), right?

It's not hard to balance a budget when tons of $$$$ is coming in relative to cost...you may hate Bush, but cut him a little slack, it's not like he inherited a great economy.

Chuck

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Hacp

Well as much as people say the economy sucks right now. Without the tax cuts it would only be worse. And even without them, we would still have the extremely poor allocation of funds. Gore may have said one thing, but even if he was elected, he doesn't hold Americas purse strings. Spending would have continued full speed ahead either way.

If I remember correctly, the Clinton Administration was the champion of the balanced budget.

Err, you know that Bush started his Presidency with a burst .com bubble, which was dragging everything down with it, 9/11, Katrina (Clinton, early, had Andrew, but Bush has had a couple of really bad seasons), WoT (I don't consider this a Bush only deal, any President after 9/11 had to do something, and that requires $$$ in the Billions), right?

It's not hard to balance a budget when tons of $$$$ is coming in relative to cost...you may hate Bush, but cut him a little slack, it's not like he inherited a great economy.

Chuck

I'm pretty sure Clinton raised taxes in order to balance the budget. The dot com boom happened with higher taxes than George H.W. Bush.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Hacp

Well as much as people say the economy sucks right now. Without the tax cuts it would only be worse. And even without them, we would still have the extremely poor allocation of funds. Gore may have said one thing, but even if he was elected, he doesn't hold Americas purse strings. Spending would have continued full speed ahead either way.

If I remember correctly, the Clinton Administration was the champion of the balanced budget.

Err, you know that Bush started his Presidency with a burst .com bubble, which was dragging everything down with it, 9/11, Katrina (Clinton, early, had Andrew, but Bush has had a couple of really bad seasons), WoT (I don't consider this a Bush only deal, any President after 9/11 had to do something, and that requires $$$ in the Billions), right?

It's not hard to balance a budget when tons of $$$$ is coming in relative to cost...you may hate Bush, but cut him a little slack, it's not like he inherited a great economy.

Chuck

I'm pretty sure Clinton raised taxes in order to balance the budget. The dot com boom happened with higher taxes than George H.W. Bush.

OK, I'm not following you here. You're saying that with a declining and/or stagnant economy, you wanted Bush to raise taxes? I'm not an economist, can you explain how that was going to help jump start the economy?

Chuck

 

[Thump553]

When I practiced in the midwest, it was an automatic disbarment for a lawyer not to file state income tax returns. They went so far as to require certification that not only had you filed, but that all your partners and subordinate attorneys had filed also-which lead to the highly uncomfortable situation of having to produce your income tax returns annually to your employer.

I agree with Don Vito-this verdict is a fluke, most likely the result of sloppy prosecution or poor evidentiary rulings by the trial judge. They will get him the next time around.