It can all be found here:
Read all of page 5 & 6, lines 9 thru 24 of the oral argument!
Read the case here:
In the transcript of the Oral Argument:
He (Chief Justice Rhenquist) and the United States attorney (Kent Jones) admit there is NO statute (LAW) that makes it a crime for “failure to file” an income tax return!
QUOTE: “I’m not familiar with a statute that makes that a crime by itself” …”but the fact that you didn’t file…frankly…it’s my impression that that would not by itself be a crime”… then it says on pg. 6 lines 20-25 of the transcript, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William Rhenquist said: “We’d better not let the word get out”…”We’ll keep it just among ourselves”… and they have the nerve to laugh about it! The attorney then defers all Title 18 (??) questions to Justice Kennedy.
UNITED STATES V. CRAFT (00-1831) Web-accessible at:
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. SANDRA L. CRAFT No. 00 1831 Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia join, dissenting. “That the federal tax lien did not attach to the Grand Rapids property is further supported by the consensus among the lower courts. For more than 50 years, every federal court reviewing tenancies by the entirety in States with a similar understanding of tenancy by the entirety as Michigan has concluded that a federal tax lien cannot attach to such property to satisfy an individual spouses tax liability.8 This consensus is supported by the IRS consistent recognition, arguably against its own interest, that a federal tax lien against one spouse cannot attach to property or rights to property held as a tenancy by the entirety.9”
Footnote 8: See IRS v. Gaster, 42 F.3d 787, 791 (CA3 1994) (concluding that the IRS is not entitled to a lien on property owned as a tenancy by the entirety to satisfy the tax obligations of one spouse); Pitts v. United States, 946 F.2d 1569, 1571 1572 (CA4 1991) (same); United States v. American Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 255 F.2d 504, 507 (CA5), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 835 (1958) (same); Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620, 622 623 (CA3 1952) (same); United States v. Hutcherson, 188 F.2d 326, 331 (CA8 1951) (explaining that the interest of one spouse in tenancy by the entirety property is not a right to property or property in any sense ); United States v. Nathanson, 60 F. Supp. 193, 194 (ED Mich. 1945) (finding no designation in the Federal Revenue Act for imposing tax upon property held by the entirety for taxes due from one person alone); Shaw v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 245, 246 (WD Mich. 1939) (recognizing that the nature of the estate under Michigan law precludes the tax lien from attaching to tenancy by the entirety property for the tax liability of one spouse). See also Benson v. United States, 442 F.2d 1221, 1223 (CADC 1971) (recognizing the Government s concession that property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety cannot be subjected to a tax lien for the debt of one tenant); Cole v. Cardoza, 441 F.2d 1337, 1343 (CA6 1971) (noting Government concession that, under Michigan law, it had no valid claim against real property held by tenancy by the entirety).
Footnote 9: See, e.g., Internal Revenue Manual º22.214.171.124.3 (RIA 2002), available at WESTLAW, RIA IRM database (Mar. 29, 2002) (listing property owned as tenants by the entirety as among the assets beyond the reach of the Government’s tax lien); id., º126.96.36.199.3 (recognizing that a consensual lien may be appropriate when the federal tax lien does not attach to the property in question. For example, an assessment exists against only one spouse and the federal tax lien does not attach to real property held as tenants by the entirety. ); IRS Chief Counsel Advisory (Aug. 17, 2001) (noting that consensual liens, or mortgages, are to be used as a means of securing the Government s right to collect from property the assessment lien does not attach to, such as real property held as a tenancy by the entirety (emphasis added)); IRS Litigation Bulletin No. 407 (Aug. 1994) ( Traditionally, the government has taken the view that a federal tax lien against a single debtor-spouse does not attach to property or rights to property held by both spouses as tenants by the entirety. ); IRS Litigation Bulletin No. 388 (Jan. 1993) (explaining that neither the Department of Justice nor IRS chief counsel interpreted United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983), to mean that a federal tax lien against one spouse encumbers his or her interest in entireties property, and noting that it do[es] not believe the Department will again argue the broader interpretation of Rodgers, which would extend the reach of the federal tax lien to property held by the entireties); Benson, supra, at 1223; Cardoza, supra, et 1343.