His trial (two counts of tax evasion) which was scheduled to begin next week, has been delayed, and two new counts of willful failure to file have been added.
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/cryer37.pdf
Tommy Cryer - superseding indictment
-
Demosthenes
- Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
- Posts: 5773
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm
-
notorial dissent
- A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
- Posts: 13806
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm
-
ASITStands
- 17th Viscount du Voolooh
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm
May be wrong in my assessment of the case.
When I examined the first indictment, it alleged two counts of evasion based on failure to file returns for a trust. The affirmative acts included creating and using a trust to evade the reporting of brokerage income based on 1099-B forms issued to the trust.
Cryer in his first motion to dismiss alleged the affirmative acts were not acts of commission but omission. And, he further alleged the trust lost income for the years in question.
Other than a belief the trust was not liable for an income tax, what did he [or, the trust] omit but filing the return? And, if the trust truly lost income for the years in question, why would someone omit filing the return if it was in their best interest?
Of course, tax protester arguments aside.
This superseding indictment now includes the income from his attorney fees and adds two counts of failure to file returns. So, it appears to me they expanded the evasion counts [or, one might say, clarified the counts] to include his personal income.
That's what I see in the superseding indictment. I can't get around the fact Cryer claimed omission instead of commission. Without filing the returns [or, remedying the omission] how can he claim the acts were not acts of commission? Illogical.
When I examined the first indictment, it alleged two counts of evasion based on failure to file returns for a trust. The affirmative acts included creating and using a trust to evade the reporting of brokerage income based on 1099-B forms issued to the trust.
Cryer in his first motion to dismiss alleged the affirmative acts were not acts of commission but omission. And, he further alleged the trust lost income for the years in question.
Other than a belief the trust was not liable for an income tax, what did he [or, the trust] omit but filing the return? And, if the trust truly lost income for the years in question, why would someone omit filing the return if it was in their best interest?
Of course, tax protester arguments aside.
This superseding indictment now includes the income from his attorney fees and adds two counts of failure to file returns. So, it appears to me they expanded the evasion counts [or, one might say, clarified the counts] to include his personal income.
That's what I see in the superseding indictment. I can't get around the fact Cryer claimed omission instead of commission. Without filing the returns [or, remedying the omission] how can he claim the acts were not acts of commission? Illogical.