Reply #30: She was acquitted of criminal charges... [View All]

[Sir Jeffrey]

and she entered into a settlement with the IRS in 2004.

From the IRS link I cited earlier:

"Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the
exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12,
2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which
she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and
penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT
177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004)."

From your link:

"Kuglin wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions but said she didn't get a response.

Murphy, in closing arguments on Thursday, said Kuglin did have an opportunity to discuss her situation with the IRS, to learn what she owed and what documents she was required to file "and she didn't."

Defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her.""

Tax evasion is a CRIME. Crimes require proving the crucial element of INTENT. The attorney for the prosecution probably dropped the ball during the trial and did not prove that Kuglin *intended* to defraud the IRS. She fooled them into thinking that she really didn't know she had to pay income taxes and the prosecution didn't overcome it.

Notice they still got her for the back taxes in the civil trial i.e. no need to prove criminal intent.

Besides, claiming that income tax laws "did not apply to her" doesn't mean that the entire income tax is a fraud. If I get put on trial for murder, and I did not do it, I argue that the murder law does not apply to me. I don't argue that there is no murder law.