User:BD2412/draft RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a Request for Comment with respect to edits made to a variety of articles by persons espousing tax protester theories. The articles at issue include:

[edit] Why this is important

The basic premise of the tax protester movement is that, based on some legal formulation or another, the income tax is unenforceable and income earners can therefore get away with not paying taxes. In support of this claim, they cite language from various statutes, cases, and other legal documents, and provide an interpretation of those documents that justifies their position. The problem is that although these arguments might sound reasonable to the lay person, they are based on the misinterpretation and mischaracterization of the authorities on which they rely, and have therefore been rejected by courts in which they have been raised. A person who believed such a theory and failed to pay their income tax on that basis would face stiff civil and perhaps criminal penalties. The standard retort of tax protesters is that this is just part of the massive conspiracy between Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Federal Courts to continue collecting taxes which those parties know to be illegal or unconstitutional. Nevertheless, even if that were true, the persons relying on the theories would suffer the penalties described.

The criticism of tax protester arguments is a statement of fact borne out by literally thousands of court decisions and by statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President that permit penalties to be assessed where such arguments are brought. Those who disagree with the law should work to change the law rather than stringing together incorrect definitions of legal terms in order to prove that no such law exists. With respect to my perceived guardianship of this article, a review of the article history demonstrates that it has repeatedly been subject to enormous text dumps of materials cut and pasted from tax protester sites, and making blatantly legally incorrect claims about the meaning of specific cases or of specific terms used in statutes. External links have repeatedly been removed that would take the user to sites that say little more than "you don't have to pay taxes; buy my book/buy my CD's/buy a ticket to my seminar to find out how". The article has repeatedly been corrected from changes asserting that it has been "proven" that income earners are not obliged to file their taxes, although the reasons given in support of this "proof" have universally been rejected by the courts. I have no objection to presenting the claims that have been brought, if those claims are balanced by an explanation of why the courts have deemed them incorrect. Otherwise, leaving such information in the article would be akin to allowing a claim that if you see someone else's bicycle unattended on the sidewalk, you are free to take it because laws againt stealing do not expressly apply to bicycles; or because laws against stealing bicycles are unconstitutional or legally unenforceable anyway because the Constitution does not permit laws against stealing bicycles, or because one court acquitted someone charged with stealing a bicycle, even though the acquittal was on technical grounds that were later overturned. That the income tax is constitutional, enforceable, and applies to income is well settled law.


BB69 has been adding various nonsensical or obviously false material on tax related articles and citing or quoting only tangentially related sources that don't back up his claim. He of course thinks or claims to think they do, but it's fairly obvious that is wrong. His posts lacka rudimentary understanding of argumentative structure to the point it's hard to believe he even believes what he's typing. Instead it appears he's just having fun at our expense.

BB69's refrain is that he "cites sources". However, his citations amount to verbal gematria - taking individual words from statutes or other sources of law, picking out definitions of those words from cases that have nothing to do with the point at hand, and then citing those definitions as Gospel to demonstrate that the words of the Constitution and the tax code mean something other than the obvious meaning which the courts have discerned. Where authoritative citations disagree with his own incorrect statements, he treats those authroties as mere opinions, and removes them as a response to the removal of his own nonsense arguments. Finally, of particular concern, BB69's statements amount to an endorsement of acts that violate U.S. tax law. Specifically, he has repeatedly inserted into articles claims that wages need not be reported as income, and that taxes need not be paid on income.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The behavior goes back farther, but obvious enough examples from recent edits include this edit adding original research that includes mostly irrelevant citations that don't back up the added material. BB69 then proceeds to replace the materia after it has been removed and remove other actually cited material. And again removing properly cited material. BB69 then proceeds to replace his own material several times [1] [2] and is reverted by at least three separate editors. The real problem is that BB69's edits are not actually backed up by any sources, and the ones he does cite don't support his claims. - Taxman Talk 20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here, BB69 removes citations to legal authority, claiming in the edit summary that they do not stand for the proposition that he claims must be proven - this is premised on a nonsense argument about pocket commissions which does not reflect anything required by law. In this edit, BB69 adds a dangerously inaccurate statement that "taxpayers do not have to pay these fines and the IRS has been shown to not have jurisdiction to even assess these fines", and adds a bevy of linkspam to the page. I corrected this statement by introducing NPOV language indicating that this was merely a tax protester belief (and that people who refuse to pay fines can be jailed for it); BB69 then reverted my corrections without explanation. BD2412 T 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BB69 also twice added the following material to Income tax in the United States diff, diff:

"Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." Conner v US 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

I looked up the case cited and read it from end to end, and can confidently attest to the fact that the long quote does not exist anywhere in that case. I do not know if BB69 is making this up, or has simply blindly copied it from someone else's website, but the quote does not exist in the case. Furthermore, although the short qoute at the beginning of the paragraph does appear in the case, here it is taken completely out of context. The court was not discussing "compensation" meaning wages, but was quite explicitly discussing "compensation" meaning money paid by an insurance company to compensate a homeowner for having to stay in a hotel after the house burned down. The court placed no emphasis on the word "income", and in any event was not distinguishing income from wages (which are not discussed in the case at all), but rather was distinguishing income from reimbursement for a accidental loss. Again, I do not know if BB69 is intentionally presenting false information by claiming that this case refers to wages, or whether he has been hoodwinked. However, in neither case can he be permitted to continue adding clearly false information to tax articles. BD2412 T 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you I am not intentionally presenting false information. I am taking information from sources that have provided me with other corrrect information. I apologize if the quotes were not in the court cases. I had no reason to believe they weren't. In fact, if you can show me how I can read a whole court case, I can assure that wouldn't happen again. Thank you for your cooperation. BB69 Talk 16:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69
I have posted the entire text of that opinion on this RfC's talk page. I suggest that you reconsider the reliability of the sources from which you are receiving this information - this is not the first case you have cited that stands for propositions that are either irrelevent to or the opposite of what you claim (and, in fact, this case was reversed in part on appeal, Conner v. United States, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971), and the taxpayer was required to pay tax on part of the insurance reimbursement at issue). I would also stress that, even if you had not posted the non-existent quote, this case is typical of your arguments in that it claims that a court made a statement on the applicability of the income tax to wages, when in fact wages are simply not mentioned at all, except as something which can be taxed as income. BD2412 T 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

President Taft never said what you claim about the Sixteenth Amendment, but about other tax provisions that he hoped Congress would pass - the quotes you added to the article were cobbled together out of context from different parts of a speech that covered multiple topics. BD2412 T 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rawhide4u is trying to manipulate the system to gain sympathy while pushing a scam which asserts that there is no income tax. I encountered this user was with respect to his edits to Irwin Schiff, an article which has been subject to frequent attacks by tax protesters - persons who, like Schiff, adhere to various unreasonable conspiracy theories to justify their greed-driven claims that they don't have to pay income tax. Many of the people who forward such theories are scam artists, who use claims of an easy out from paying taxes as a way to sell their books, tapes, and lectures.[3] This user's first edit to the article was to change an NPOV statement - that Schiff claims that taxes are applied incorrectly - to a POV declaration that Schiff shows taxes are applied incorrectly. [4]. This, despite the fact that Schiff has recently been sentenced to 13 years in prison for fraud based on a federal court finding that Schiff's claims about the tax code were nonsense. In short, this editor added a completely and provably false statement into the article, which I corrected. This editor then made a series of similar edits to the Schiff article, claiming for example that Schiff's encouraging people to break the law "helped many individuals" [5] (apparently based on "testimonials" on the website where Schiff sells his books from people who now feel good about cheating on their taxes), and adding links to Schiff's website that support Schiff's conspiracy theory. I did not remove these claims, but balanced them with additional information, including Schiff's own statement that "the entire federal judiciary is involved in a monumental, criminal conspiracy to collect income taxes in violation of law". He has behaved similarly with respect to other articles - here, Rawhide4u removed a large block of text added by another contributor who is an acknowledged expert on the tax code: [6]. I restored the text, and re-wrote some of it to make it more encyclopedic.

With respect to this user's activities on my talk page, there has been a notice posted atop the page all month long stating that I'm trying to take a Wikibreak, and asking users, "Please do not post messages here during my absence unless you have an emergency." Despite this notice, and my respectful request to keep the conversation in one place, this user made sixteen edits to my talk page, including restoring posts that I had archived (I pointed out to him early on exactly why I was removing those posts and where these posts were being archived[7], and I added links to my archives on my talk page just for his convenience [8]). Rawhide4u's conduct has been, frankly, trollish, e.g. "I should have known Irwin Schiff was written by an Attorney. Your attempt to "discredit" his findings seems quite obvious. In regard to Schiff's birth place, date, etc. I am NOT a fanatic of his. I just happen to know how to read the Internal Revenue Code Book. Perhaps you should acquire one, it may enlighten you."[9] (along with the clearly false statement that "there is NO law requiring individuals working, for a non-governmental company, are liable to pay income tax". Further posts to my talk page contained comments like "You are most definitely NOT a trial Attorney.... What University did you attend??....LOL" [10]; "Your analogy... is extremely poor. ... That University of yours is looking better every moment….LOL"[11] Despite his complaints about my archiving, he also deleted (without archiving) our conversation from his talk page[12]. And despite all this, he comes here to complain about me. Coincidentally, this comes a few weeks after I nominated another load of tax protester propaganda for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement - it should come as no surprise that, shortly after this event, an editor who claims that there is no income tax and flaunts illegal conduct should seek to snipe at me until he gets a rise out of me, and then complain of my behavior. I have conducted myself properly with respect to this user and his factually incorrect, agenda-pushing edits, and I will engage in no mediation with one who so blatantly seeks to abuse the privilege of editing Wikipedia. BD2412 T 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Text of the "Tax Honesty Movement" article:

"Tax Honesty Movement" is a phrase used to describe and identify a growing number of Americans who, based on extensive legal and historical research, believe there is no law requiring the average American to file a Federal or State income tax return.

Most of these average Americans are simply hard working, self-sufficient, self-reliant, self-employed, business-oriented types. There are more and more becoming an active part of this movement in a number of self-responsible ways through organized networking and organized education of the pertinent laws and non-existent laws. Books, movies, documentaries, live radio are all available or becoming available in regards to this movement.

The phrase "Tax Honesty Movement" was coined in 2001 or 2002 by a person or persons unknown. The phrase was adopted and popularized by radio talk show host and Tax Honesty advocate Dave Champion beginning in 2003 and has become the accepted descriptor for the growing affiliation of American groups and individual activists who believe there is no law requiring the average American to file a Federal or State income tax return.

The first recognized figure in the early Tax Honesty Movement [although the phrase had not yet been coined] is generally held to be Vivian Kellems. Kellems was a wealthy female industrialist who challenged the Federal payroll withholding statute [26 USC §3402] in 1948. Although Kellems challenge to the withholding requirement was legally off-point and resulted in Kellems losing her court battle, she is generally recognized as the forerunner of the modern Tax Honesty Movement.

Prior to the creation of the phrase “Tax Honesty Movement” those who believed there is no law requiring the average American to file a Federal or State income tax return were often referred to as “Patriots” or as being part of the “Patriot Movement”. This appellation was not necessarily accurate because the Patriot Movement is a much broader umbrella term that generally embraces issues and activities far beyond the belief that the average American is not required to file an income tax return.

The beliefs of those who consider themselves a part of the Tax Honesty Movement are based on research into the 16th Amendment (commonly referred to as the “income tax amendment”), U.S Supreme Court decisions (generally decided between 1916 and 1932) concerning the income tax, Federal taxing statues, tax regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, Treasury Orders, Treasury Decisions, and the Internal Revenue Manual. Their beliefs tend to be bolstered by the government’s long-standing refusal to respond to questions about the constitutionality of the tax, the proper application of the tax, or what section of the law makes the average American liable for the tax.

Despite the government’s continued silence on the details of the law, the IRS, Treasury Department, and the U.S. Department of Justice routinely dispute (in broad terms) the conclusions of the Tax Honesty Movement and warn people not to believe their claims. The U.S. government frequently refers to people who are associated with the Tax Honesty Movement as “tax protestors” or “illegal tax protestors”.

[edit] A note on the position of tax lawyers

Complaints have been raised that tax law is inaccessible to the lay person, and that lawyers use their specialized jargon to keep it that way - this is often framed as lawyers being part of the aforementioned massive conspiracy. Well, it is true that lawyers speak in jargon which is pounded into them over three years of law school, and lawyers in any given field will have an even more specialized jargon with respect to that field, tax lawyers being no exception. This jargon uses words like debt or hearsay or speech as shorthand for complicated legal concepts with very specific meanings that the average citizen might not associate with those words.

However, this is not radically different from any other field of specialization. If my doctor tells me that I need a renal bypass of my pelvic nerve, I'll have to take his word on it; if my auto mechanic suggests that I have my carburator intake valves re-wired, I won't know enough to dispute the point. Imagine if someone without medical or mechanical training were to begin posting information to Wikipedia stating that, based on the terms used in some medical text, it is possible for a person to breathe underwater, or based on some ancient treatise on engineering, the reader can replace the oil in your engine with milk. Imagine if, presented with evidence of drowning or of cars breaking down, that person were to claim these incidents were actually proof of some giant conspiracy to prevent these activities from being undertaken.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/d/2/User%7EBD2412_draft_RfC_2ea0.html"