Talk:Tax protester arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Attribution

Material in this article was split out from the overly-long Tax protester article. The edit history of this material is contained with that article. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overly long again

This article has already reached 59k - I propose splitting it into 3 sub-articles, one on the constitutional arguments (e.g. 16th Amendment is invalid; 1st/5th/14th says I don't have to pay; TONA); a second on the statutory arguments (e.g. "no statute says I have to pay a tax on wages"; OMB control number; the 861 arg.); and a third argument for general wackiness (e.g. I don't have to pay taxes because the court spells my name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and the like). bd2412 T 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I agree with BD2412, because this topic (just the tax protester arguments) can still stand some more expansion. We haven't even yet incorporated all the main arguments -- such as the "income tax is voluntary" argument (which is a variation on the "there is no law requiring me to pay or file" argument, but based on a different theory). Yours, Famspear 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Done - should be easier to break each down now. bd2412 T 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major format changes

Due to the major format change, we should make sure we have updated all the What links here links. I'd also like to note that I think we should change the format slightly. Remove the bullets and turn them into paragraphs. Change the numbers sections to headers and add a "main" tag to link to the page. Morphh 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to check all the "what links here" stuff. Does anybody want to handle the other stuff? Yours, Famspear 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have umpteen Tax Protester pages, I was actually thinking of putting together a template to link them all. bd2412 T 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear BD2412: Well, will a template get me lots of hot dates with sexy Italian chicks? Oh, wait a minute, my spousal unit at home would never go for that. Seriously, I'm gonna show my ignorance here: I don't know how a template works or what it does, but I trust your judgment. Go for it! Yours, Famspear 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok.. Made the changes - While I think the other format looked great, I think this follows wikipedia's higher standards. Wikilinks in titles and bullets do not fair to well on GA or FA review. The paragraphs should probably be flushed out a little more to provide a better summary of the main article. Morphh 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We're also in need of references on these articles. Morphh 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On additional references in the articles, any specific suggestions? Yours, Famspear 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any specific suggestions. Books, Internet articles, Magazines... something that says this information is valid and can be verified here. I'll add some fact tags and perhaps we can fill some in. Delete them if you think it does not require a source. Morphh 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: In my view, the fact tags are not needed. If we try to add even more citations where you have added the tags, we're just duplicating the citations in the related articles to which links have already been provided. What we can do is be more specific in the articles about which of the categories of fallacies, etc., is covered by each given example. The four related articles, on tax protester "history," "constitutional arguments," "statutory arguments," and "general conspiracy arguments" already contain (what I view at least) as massive amounts of citations to Primary authority. I think you would be hard pressed to find other articles in Wikipedia, even in the legal area, that are as extensively sourced as these articles.

Further, the tag placed at the end of this article is attached to a quotation (in quotation marks) directly preceded by a specific citation to the Arkansas case from which the quotation. This is a classic example of a "sourced" statement -- a direct quote, in quotation marks, with a citation to the source.

Your thoughts? Yours, Famspear 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors. I went ahead and removed the rest of the tags and replaced them with references to the materials already covered in the articles. It seems a bit duplicative to me, as the article already contains links to the related articles on constitutional, statutory and conspiracy arguments -- but I've tried to keep the references in this article brief. In my opinion we just don't want the articles to be overly repetitive. Yours, Famspear 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It is the general view that articles may not rely on other Wikipedia articles for verifiability. Suppose that article A relies extensively on certain cases that are cited in article B, and so linked. A later edit to Article B replaces those cases with others, and the citations in question are removed. Article A now has no citations, and neither an editor of A nor an editor of B will necessarily know that fact. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New court ruling

I don't have time to review this and make the edits right now so I thought I would post and perhaps someone can if there is anything worth including Court ruling shakes ground under IRS. Morphh 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that article is talking about the Murphy decision (August 22, 2006, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) discussed at Tax protester constitutional arguments and Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Murphy is remarkable in that the court actually went against the grain of the mainstream of court decisions on what is "income" -- especially since the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. No tax protester arguments were made in the Murphy case, and the case will almost surely be of no help to tax protesters. What the court basically ruled was that a recovery of damages for a personal injury (in that particular case, a non-physical injury, emotional distress) -- not received in lieu of something that would be taxable -- is not "income" within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, and thus cannot be taxed as "income."
Tax practitioners will be watching Murphy to see whether the government goes for an en banc hearing, or tries to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court. I suspect (and at least one other commentator has stated) that the Murphy decision stands a fair chance of being thrown out. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lawrence case

[The following commentary added by anonymous user at IP 24.9.112.211 on 8 September 2006:]

I wonder about the case filed in Federal Distict Court in Peoria, Illinois (U.S. Government v. Robert Lawrence Case No. 06-10019) On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) motioned the court to dismiss all charges against the defendant, Robert Lawrence, in federal District Court.

Filed & Entered: 05/12/2006 Order on Motion to Dismiss Docket Text: TEXT ORDER granting [27] Motion to Dismiss as to Robert Lawrence. Case is dismissed with prejudice. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/12/06. (HK, ilcd)

Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Mihm. Parties present via phone by AUSA Chambers and Brost, Atty Stilley and defendant Lawrence at 9:15 a.m. on Friday, 5/12/06 - same held. Discussion held re: trial set for 5/15/06. Motion for Protective Order [24] as to Robert Lawrence is granted. Protective order to enter. Govt to file motion in limine as to paper reduction act. Motion to be on file by end of 5/12/06. Defendant indicates he will not have any expert witnesses testifying - same agreed to by Atty Stilley. Motion to continue withdrawn. Counsel to be present by 8:45 a.m. on Monday, 5/15/06 for jury trial. (Court Reporter KH.) (KB, ilcd)

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence's defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: move for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley's tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th.

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ's discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency's administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence's criminal trial).

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number.

Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.

I believe the 16th amendment was indeed ratified but it conveyed no new taxing authority on individuals. The IRS code itself defines "income" as gains associated with positions of privilege or government employment. The Lawrence case proves that taxes on individuals are illegal. The IRS tax form can not be a legal form based on the PRA because there is no statutory authority to justify IRS use of the form. Individual U.S. citizens are not required to file a tax return unless their income is derived from positions of privilege (government employee) or they are officers of a corporation. The income tax was meant to be a tax on corporate income, not the labor of individual citizens.

I close with one of my favorite Supreme Court rulings:

In Butcher's Union, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him." Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.112.211 (talk • contribs).

[The preceding commentary added by anonymous user at IP 24.9.112.211 on 8 September 2006.]

Dear anonymous user at IP 24.9.112.211: Based on a google search it appears much of the material you posted was commentary copied and pasted from other web sites. The Lawrence case has been all over the internet. Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- the phony arguments bandied about on tax protester web sites about this case were exposed right here in Wikipedia several months ago.

For starters, see the OMB control number argument.

Next, look at this verbiage (for stylistic purposes I removed some paragraph breaks):

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence's defense attorney Oscar Stilley. The tactic threatened exposure of IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: move for dismissal, with prejudice. Stilley's tactic paid off. [ . . . ] The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice.

This verbiage is apparently intended to leave the false impression that the case was dismissed because of a "surprise tactic" relating to the "OMB control number argument."

As I explained several months ago on a Wikipedia talk page, I have access to the court record in the Lawrence case. It seems that the IRS agents who had calculated Mr. Lawrence's tax liability discovered errors they themselves had made -- based on information obtained from Lawrence's own tax returns, regarding the taxpayer's tax basis in certain property Lawrence had sold. (Tax basis is basically the amount that you paid for something, subject to certain adjustments. The amount realized on a sale less your tax basis amount equals your gain. If the tax basis amount exceeds the amount realized, then you have a loss.) With respect to certain properties the taxpayer had sold, the IRS agents discovered that he had more tax basis than they had originally calculated -- therefore, lower gains or even losses, and thus lower taxes. The IRS agents themselves brought their errors to the attention of the government lawyers, who then asked that the charges be dropped (and they were). The IRS employees recognized that their calculations had incorrectly stated Lawrence's tax liability. This has nothing to do with "OMB control numbers," and the court made no ruling in the Lawrence case about OMB control numbers.

As you can see from the separate Wikipedia article cited above, the OMB control number argument is pretty silly, for three reasons: First, the absence of an OMB control number on a tax form would not negate a statutory obligation to file tax returns on that form or pay the related taxes; second, every court that has rendered a ruling on the OMB control number argument has rejected the argument, and third IRS FORM 1040 DOES CONTAIN THE OMB CONTROL NUMBER ANYWAY, AND HAS FOR EVERY TAX YEAR SINCE 1981!

Now, to review some more of your errors, let's look at the statement: "The IRS code itself defines 'income' as gains associated with positions of privilege or government employment." That statement is incorrect. This is another problem for people who try to make frivolous tax protester arguments: they can't even agree among themselves. In actuality, as many tax protesters have correctly pointed out, the Internal Revenue Code itself does not define "income" at at (although it does define "gross income", "adjusted gross income" and "taxable income"). Nowhere does the Code say that "income" is LIMITED to "gains associated with positions of privilege or government employment." (That's similar to what is known as a "3401 argument" -- incorrect, and worse -- legally frivolous).

Now, regarding the "ruling" from one of your "favorite" Supreme Court cases, the Butchers' Union Co. case (it's also one of my favorite cases -- I love it when tax protesters bring it up) there are a few problems. First, the quoted language is not a ruling in the case. Second, the Court in that case did not rule Federal income taxes invalid in any way. Read the following language from a Wikipedia article:

Butchers' Union Co. was a case involving interpretation of the Louisiana constitution and certain ordinances of the city of New Orleans. The Court ruled that the Louisiana constitution and the New Orleans ordinances did not impermissibly impair a pre-existing obligation under a contract when those laws effectively ended a slaughter-house business monopoly by the Crescent City Company. No issues regarding the power to tax incomes from businesses, vocations, or labor were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" does not appear in the text of the decision.

See Tax protester constitutional arguments (bolding added).

Have a nice day. Yours, Famspear 12:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was the anonymous editor. My name is Geno. Thank you Famspear for taking the time to repeat your case here. I am just a web surfer and find these "conspiracy" arguments interesting. I am sincerely looking for the truth. I wouldn't label myself a tax protestor, but I must admit, the so called "tax protestors" have some compelling points, especially in light of the many other "conspiracy theories" floating around regarding the 9/11 disaster. I apologize for going there, but refer to the Jim Marrs book, "The Terror Conspiracy:Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty." I also read the Peter Hendrickson book, "Cracking the Code."

Why doesn't the IRS just answer the simple question presented by the tax protestors? They're banners shout "Show Me the Law" as they protest in Washington D.C. It is the arrogant attitude of the IRS that compels me to sympathize with the tax protestors. It is the government's refusal to address the 1st amendment rights of the tax protestors to petition for redress of grievances that make me wonder if there is some truth to their message.

Kind regards, Geno September 13, 2006

Dear Geno: Thanks for your comments. Regarding the "Show Me the Law" rhetoric, the IRS has answered the question, over and over. Citations to the actual statutes are found in IRS publications. Also, the actual statutes are available for free on the internet.
The "Show Me the Law" rhetoric is a device used by tax protesters to hide the truth and to falsely make it appear that the IRS is "arrogant" or is hiding something, when in fact it is the tax protest movement that is always hiding the ball. Many tax protesters are well aware of the statutes, including but not limited to 26 U.S.C. § 1, 26 U.S.C. § 6012, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, 26 U.S.C. § 6651, and 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Tax protesters tend to treat the statutes the same way they treat the case law: When you point out that the laws do exist, the protesters simply deny that the law means what it says. This is intellectual dishonesty on the part of tax protesters, not dereliction on the part of the IRS in failing to "show them the law."
Look, the IRS does not need me to defend it. In the real world, I work on behalf of taxpayers. I deal with the IRS as an adversary. But it is useless to pretend that the tax protester movement isn't a bunch of baloney. It is baloney. I have studied tax protester arguments for years. There's a reason they always lose in court. It's not because of some conspiracy. It's because tax protester arguments are baloney -- on every level. Every time I see a new tax protester argument, or a report about some new case that the protesters say was decided in their favor, etc., I look it up and -- I am always disappointed. When you study the actual texts of the statutes, regulations and court decisions they cite, you find that the tax protest movement is underpinned by innumerable false theories, false statements about what the courts have ruled, phony quotations that are easy to catch because the protesters don't realize or don't care that the actual texts are readily available to more and more people now, inability to understand the basic tenets of U.S. law and how the legal system works, and so on.
I hope you read the various tax protest articles here in Wikipedia very carefully. Yours, Famspear 11:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geno, a postscript. After reading my last comment -- that I hope you read the various articles, etc. -- my comment comes back to me as sounding arrogant, and so I apologize. I know you don't need unsolicited commentary from me or anybody else on what you should read! My excuse is that I was grumpy and half-asleep this morning, and trying to get my son ready for school when I wrote my comments -- which is no excuse at all. Yours, Famspear 14:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. added to Tax protester constitutional arguments

Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user inserted some incorrect language regarding the Stanton case in the article on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I have moved that material to Tax protester constitutional arguments and added some additional information showing what the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in the case.

Tax protesters have been posting here in Wikipedia regarding the Stanton case since before I began editing here (late in 2005). Unfortunately for tax protesters, Stanton is another classic case where the United States Supreme Court UPHELD the income tax as constitutional -- in this case under both the 5th and 16th Amendments! You would think they would at least try to avoid citing cases with rulings that directly contradict their arguments! Yours, Famspear 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.

Dear fellow editors: I have added information on this case to the article on Tax protester constitutional arguments. Although this was a case of statutory construction, I have added it to the "constitution" article (and not at Tax protester statutory arguments), as I think the protesters essentially make a constitutional argument -- albeit an incorrect one -- based on this case. Yours, Famspear 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words?

I see that those persons or organizations that are questioning the constitutional validity of the income tax statute are being bunched up with conspiracy theorists(!) in general. Is this really NPOV? Arguing on a sound legal basis about the actual contents of the 16th Amendment can hardly be seen as being equal to scrutinizing blurry video footage of 9/11 or counting frames of the Zapruder film, now can it? While this might not be a case of weasel words per se, it sure lends a glimmer of incredulousness to the article, and by extension the entire Wikipedia effort. If I'd be so inclined, I would suspect IRS influence here. Since I'm not, I won't, either. Tirolion 17:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor Tirolion: Many people or organizations that question the constitutional validity of the income tax statute bunch themselves up with conspiracy theorists -- indeed, conspiracy theory is an integral part of many of the leading tax protester arguments. Arguing that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional based on tax protester theories is not arguing on a "sound legal basis." By definition, tax protester arguments are arguments that have no legal merit and are also worse -- they are legally frivolous and have been so ruled by the courts.
If you feel that lumping tax protesters lends a glimmer of incredulousness to the article, I would say that is unfortunate. Again, it is not the Internal Revenue Service or the vast body of lawyers, CPAs, law professors, and other legal analysts who claim that there is a "conspiracy." It is the tax protesters themselves who, in large part, claim there is a conspiracy.
If you have not already done so, I would invite you to read all the other related Wikipedia articles, including Tax protester, Tax protester history, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, and Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Although the last listed article expressly deals with "conspiracy," there are express and implied "conspiracy" theories bound up in many of the arguments described in the other articles as well.
A large part of the articles in question have been edited by me. I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for the Internal Revenue Service. Indeed, I have been in an adversarial position with respect to the IRS in my professional practice since the late 1970s (with an intervening break for law school). It is my job to fight with the IRS when the IRS is wrong on a point of law, or on the facts. The articles in question accurately describe a sampling of tax protester arguments, etc., as well as the actual tax law -- including the treatment of tax protester arguments in court.
Again, one of the conspiracy arguments one sees from some tax protesters is that people like me (the lawyers, CPAs, law professors, judges, congreessmen and IRS employees) are conspiring to hide "the truth" from the American people about the tax law, to protect our own source of income and so on. This is not my conspiracy argument -- this is a tax protester conspiracy theory. According to some tax protesters, this "conspiracy" has been on going since the year 1913.
I began editing in Wikipedia in late 2005. My impression at that time was that Wikipedia was being "attacked" so to speak by tax protesters trying to insert false, UNVERIFIABLE and blatant non-neutral POV into legitimate articles on taxation in Wikipedia. Prior to my arrival here, a decision had apparently been made to try to concentrate tax protester arguments in an article on that subject. Because of the continual dumping -- and I do mean dumping -- of mountains of tax protester rhetoric copied and pasted from tax protester weblogs and private tax protest web sites, the material has grown in volume, and has therefore been broken down into several articles. Non-neutral point of view requires that if these frivolous arguments are going to be provided so much prominence in an encyclopedia, they at least be accompanied by information on what the Constitution and statutes actually say, and on what the courts have actually ruled. With respect to court decisions in particular, tax protesters uniformly misrepresent what all courts have ruled, based on misconceptions about how law works and in some cases based on outright fabrications, phony quotes, etc.
One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that we are not required to give equal weight to minority positions. Tax protester arguments, in the world of U.S. law, are the functional equivalent of arguments in the world of astronomy or physics that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat. Until and unless one accepts that reality, one will not understand the essence of tax protester arguments. Yours, Famspear 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your comment, Famspear. It might not be apparent from my painfully short previous comment, but I have absolutely no intent of neither defaming nor ridiculing the article. I am merely trying clumsily to point out some issues that stick out in it. I am happy that you have such an extensive expertise within the subject in question. Notwithstanding, there is a certain point that needs to be addressed regarding any and all issues pertaining to matters legal, however.
Being familiar with issues of law and jurisprudence, I trust you are most assuredly aware that courts -- largely consisting of inherently fallible human beings -- are equally fallible in and of themselves. Thereby follows that simply pointing to a court case does very little in the elucidation department. Rather, simple numerology usually shuts the opposition up, good and (usually) forever. The long and the short of it, I guess, is that it'd be of tremendous service to the article -- and the entire tax criticism subsection -- if the statute would be given. That way the entire 50+ pages of criticism could be dismissed with one simple number. A single one. Just like that.
I'm not trying to argue the veracity of any of the information nor any of the contributers, don't get me wrong. The topic is an interesting one, and if I may be so bold, I'd ascertain that it's quite an interesting subject for a lot of people. Regarding differing views; assume good faith, no? Tirolion 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tirolion: Thanks for your comments. First, I'd like to address these statements you made:

"I trust you are most assuredly aware that courts -- largely consisting of inherently fallible human beings -- are equally fallible in and of themselves. Thereby follows that simply pointing to a court case does very little in the elucidation department."

You are correct that courts consist of fallible human beings -- i.e., judges. The statement that it follows that simply pointing to a court case does little in elucidation, etc., is incorrect. Here's why.

Contrary to what some people may believe, under the U.S. legal system a judge's ruling on a point of law is authoritative. My personal belief or analysis of the law, or your personal belief or analysis is not authoritative. An individual's personal belief about what the law is may be correct -- but if it is correct, it is correct because the belief comports with what judges have actually ruled in actual court cases. Determining what the law is ultimately is a matter of court decision, made by a judge, and is simply not a matter of private analysis by you or me.

The laws of physics are not what they are merely because all the scientists say so. In this respect, law differs from scientific subjects like physics. Under the U.S. legal system, the only correct legal determination is the one made by a judge in an actual court decision. That's an oversimplification, but if a person cannot accept that concept, he or she simply cannot fully understand the U.S. legal system. Sorry, but that's how law works.

The implication of your statement seems to be that because judges are people and people are fallible, that perhaps the tax protesters are "correct" about the tax law and the judges are incorrect. Whether that was what you meant to say or not, I just want to point out that the implication would be incorrect. The law is what the judge says the law is. That may sound harsh or arbitrary or pedantic, but that is a correct statement, under the U.S. legal system.

Regarding this verbiage:

The long and the short of it, I guess, is that it'd be of tremendous service to the article -- and the entire tax criticism subsection -- if the statute would be given. That way the entire 50+ pages of criticism could be dismissed with one simple number. A single one. Just like that.

If you missed the specific code cites, they are found in the article on Tax protester statutory arguments which I had already listed above. In my opinion it would simply be superfluous to repeat the same citations in every article on tax protester subjects. There are cross links to all the various articles. The whole point was that all the material is too voluminous to be easily contained in one huge article. The specific excerpt -- already shown in the aforementioned article on the tax statutes, is as follows:

Some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose, or is unable to find, any laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal income taxes -- and conclude that there must be no law imposing Federal income taxes. The official Internal Revenue Service web site contains references to selected specific code sections and case law, including 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (duty to file returns in general); 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (duty to file income tax returns in particular); and 26 U.S.C. § 6151 (duty to pay tax at time return is required to be filed). [footnote omitted] The year 2005 instruction book for Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on page 78, contains references to 26 U.S.C. § 6001 (relating to record keeping); 26 U.S.C. § 6011 (general filing requirement); 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) (specific income tax return filing requirement); and 26 U.S.C. § 6109 (duty to supply identification numbers). The IRS web site also includes a page with a link to the entire Internal Revenue Code as published by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. [footnote omitted]

Let's not kid ourselves. These and other Code sections have been repeatedly cited to tax protesters over the years. Many tax protesters do not take these actual citations to the actual laws as a satisfactory answer.

It's not that there is "no law," or that the government refuses to "point out the law" or that the relevant Wikipedia article does not give citations to that law. And no, "simple numerology" generally does not "shut up" tax protesters. Tax protesters generally refuse to accept that these statutes mean what they mean, or refuse to accept the courts' rulings on the meaning of these statutes. Aaron Russo, a filmmaker who promotes tax protester arguments, has even been reported as having made the ludicrous claim that the Internal Revenue Code itself is not a statute at all, falsely claiming that the Internal Revenue Code consists of "regulations" that were not even enacted by Congress (see America: From Freedom to Fascism). I invite you to read all the related Wikipedia articles in depth. Yours, Famspear 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you missed it, here are more citations and links to the actual statutes, as copied from the article Tax protester statutory arguments (with footnote omitted):

Internal Revenue Code sections 1 (26 U.S.C. § 1) (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 (26 U.S.C. § 11) (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly impose an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]"). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 (26 U.S.C. § 63) with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61.

Yours, Famspear 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Famspear, for your most articulate response to my (unfortunately quite rambling) utterances. Do not get me wrong, you can call any and all opposing views 'ludicrous' until the cows come home, I couldn't care less. The thing I was (and still am) pointing out is that by defending a stance with an all-encompassing "because they say so" doesn't really present a convincing case, I'm sure you agree. Oh, btw, you were right, I just hadn't browsed the USC enough for the statutes in question. I just hadn't found 'em yet when I wrote my previous yarn. Still, my opinion regarding the various issues still stand. The US bar is one bizarre bunch, I tell you that. (Tangential: it's been a strange couple o' years back here in the Old World. Folks are more + more happy that they're not living in the New One.) Cheers for your answer though, Famspear. G!d bless. Tirolion 21:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
That's because it's a cult: http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/23/27/ 206.124.31.24 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More unsourced, unverifiable tax protester rhetoric

Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user has inserted the following tax protester rhetoric into the article, which has been removed for the reasons stated below:

However, the real thrust of most tax protesters' arguments centers around the IRS's inability to produce the law, in writing, that requires every individual citizen to pay the income tax. Numerous petitions and lawsuits have been filed by individuals and organizations against the IRS for this law, but the IRS repeatedly refuses to show the law, even though the Freedom of Information act guarantees this. This illegal government practice, not allowing the citizens to see or read the law with which they are being forced to comply, is the very hear tof the tax protester movement. Why would the govenrment repeatedly refuse something it should have the obligaiton to do unelss it cannot do it, unless there is no law. In a letter, Senator Daniel Inouye stated that "Based on the research...by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions which...reqire..an individual to pay an income tax." [ . . . ]
However, a recent court has recognized the legality issues of the 16th Amendment. In 2003, US District Court Judge James C. Fox sais, "If you...examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a suffiecient number of states never ratified that amendment." [ . . . ]
More importantly than the legality of the 16th Amendment is the actual powers it conferred. Two types of taxes, direct and indirect, are allowed by the constitution. Direct taxes must be apportioned, meaning divided equally among the people. Indirect taxes are excise taxes, taxes on goods or services that you choose to use. A gasoline tax would be an indirect tax because you coudl choose to ride your bicycle instead. The income tax falls under neither of these two categories and is only claimed to be legal through the 16th Amendment's creation of new govenrment powers and a enw form fo taxation. This claim has been refuted though, not onyl by protesters, but by the Supreme Court itself. In the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining, the Supreme Court ruled "the provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation." Numerous other Supreme Court cases from 1916 to 1923 verified this decision, such as Stratton Independents v. Hogarth, Southern Pacific v. Lowe, Bowers v. Quervo Empire, Burnett v. Harmel, Doyle v. Mitchell. Time and time again the Supreme Court has found there to be no constitutional basis for this tax. The New York Times, on January 25, 1916, reported these finsings to the public, saying, "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax."

This is the usual false information from tax protesters. Aside from violating the rules on Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, the materials are objectionable as follows.

The material repeats the usual false tax protester rhetoric about the “IRS's inability to produce the law, in writing, that requires every individual citizen to pay the income tax.” The IRS has cited the applicable statutes over and over, and some of the statutes are even listed in the IRS instructions for Form 1040. See Tax protester statutory arguments.

The statement that “the IRS repeatedly refuses to show the law, even though the Freedom of Information act guarantees this” is patently false. The Freedom of Information Act does not guarantee that the IRS must show tax protesters or anyone else “the law” that imposes the income tax, etc. And not only has the IRS cited the laws on innumerable occasions, the law is publicly available at local libraries, on government web sites, on the Cornell University Law School web site, etc., etc.

The verbiage about Senator Daniel Inouye and his “letter” is completely unsourced, violating Wikipedia rules on Verifiability. Further, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has never performed any research showing or concluding that there is no provision requiring an individual to pay income tax. Indeed, just the opposite. CRS has even published materials about the application of the Federal income tax laws.

The verbiage about direct and indirect taxes is the same old tax protester rhetoric. Please read Tax protester constitutional arguments and articles on Brushaber and Pollock and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The statement “Time and time again the Supreme Court has found there to be no constitutional basis for this tax” is absolutely false. Since 1913, neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that there is no constitutional basis for the Federal income tax. Indeed, every tax protester argument on this point that has been presented to the Federal courts has been rejected.

Regarding the supposed statement by The New York Times, on January 25, 1916, saying, "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax” – The Times may well have said that, as the courts have said that over and over. That is a correct statement of the law. The problem is that the tax protesters have ignored the rulings in those cases as well as the rest of the text of those cases. The reason the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the government to levy a new tax (specifically an income tax) is that the Congress has always had that power to levy income taxes. Go back and read the actual texts of the cited court cases – not some verbiage from a tax protester. Sorry. Have a nice day. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Please review this article. Try to avoid opinion, limit yourselves only to facts and, for once, open your eyes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fca neo (talk • contribs) .

Dear fellow user Fca neo: Please review this article and try to limit your comments regarding neutral point of view to something that actually points out or discusses neutral point of view. Vague references to "facts" and "opinion," without more, are less helpful than provision of specific examples. Also, the enigmatic statement "open your eyes" itself seems to evoke a non-neutral point of view.

The material in this and related articles has been extensively studied by many Wikipedia editors for many months, and is actually (in my opinion) in very good shape, both from a technical legal standpoint and from the standpoint of the Wikipedia concepts of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. You may want to consider reviewing those rules.

Also, you may want to consider signing your talk page (discussion page) posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which will automatically add your signature. Thanks, yours, Famspear 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed; some hair-splitting

I removed the following sentence:

"These are predomantly [sic] US based arguments that will not stand in most courts in other countries."

I removed it not because it is incorrect; indeed, I would agree it is basically correct. The reason I removed it is that it is arguably original research, or at least unsourced (unverifiable), or both, AND because (at least in my opinion) it's a bit off topic. Yes, the article is about tax protester arguments that are predominantly U.S. based, and that's because the article is about arguments about U.S. law. I don't even know if other countries have the phenomenon of tax protesters in the same way that the U.S. does. And the statement that the arguments will not stand in most courts in other countries, while probably correct, at least arguably misses the point that tax protester arguments never stand in U.S. courts either. Indeed, the arguments are so frivolous that this is essentially why the treatment of this kind of material has been limited in Wikipedia to articles specifically about tax protesters, etc. Yours, Famspear 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a largely meaningless statement, but it brings up a question. Is this article about the United States specifically or about some universal tax protester concept? The current wording of the article implies that it is universal. The article should either be modified to make it clear it applies only to the United States, or modified to include arguments (if they exist) from other countries. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear editor Mateo SA: Hmmmm. Good point. By the way, I'm glad to see you back. I started editing here late in 2005, right around or shortly after the time you were contending with one or more "contributors" who were, in my opinion, seriously degrading the quality of the tax-related articles to put it mildly. As you well know, it's a seemingly never-ending battle to keep the crazy, unverifiable, non-neutral point of view stuff out of Federal income tax-related articles. There is something about Federal income tax that began pulling "certain people" out of the woodwork, beginning especially in the mid-1970s. I have been studying tax protesters and their arguments for years, and a bit more intensely in the past couple of years or so.
Anyway, I have never seen any reference to "tax protesters" (in the sense of people who make totally meritless, frivolous arguments about the validity of tax laws or the application of those laws) in a country other that the U.S., but if you want I will look around and see what I can find. If, eventually, nobody can find anything "non-U.S" on this, maybe we can figure out how the article should be reworded to be clear that it's talking specifically about a U.S. phenomenon, if appropriate. Yours, Famspear 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced, non-neutral POV, unverifiable commentary moved from article

The following commentary has been moved from the article to here:

The basic fact is, that the IRS does not assign liability for not paying the income tax. There is NO law requiring anyone to pay a income tax, stating that it is a mandatory tax that individuals are liable for, or assigning a panalty for not paying the tax. It is not sufficient for the IRS and legal system to say, pay your income tax or else.
If there is a LAW stating that the income tax is a mandatory tax, why is it not listed here? What section of the lawbooks is it under? Laws are stated clearly, and if they are not stated they have no effect as a result of being vauge or non existant. Therefor, I challenge any proponant of the income tax to clearly list the LAW here to prove that there is actually a LAW.

More explanation later. Yours, Famspear 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: Dear anonymous user at IP 75.72.81.229: The arguments in the above commentary, (which was posted by IP 75.72.81.229), have been covered over and over here in Wikipedia. Please read all talk (discussion) pages.

The statement that "the IRS does not assign liability for not paying the income tax" is nonsensical. The legal obligation for filing tax returns and paying the related taxes is imposed by statute, not by the IRS. The IRS is simply the government agency charged with enforcing the statute.

Regarding the IRS Tax Code, there is no such thing as a tax that is not "mandatory." There is no such thing as a "table of taxes you are liable for" -- taxes are not listed that way in the statute.

The whole voluntary - not voluntary argument has already been covered and explained.

And, for the gazillionth time, please read the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to:

26 U.S.C. § 1

26 U.S.C. § 11

26 U.S.C. § 6151

26 U.S.C. § 6651

26 U.S.C. § 6011

26 U.S.C. § 6012

26 U.S.C. § 7201

26 U.S.C. § 7203

26 U.S.C. § 7206

All this is covered in much more depth at:

Tax protester

Tax protester history

Tax protester arguments

Tax protester constitutional arguments

Tax protester statutory arguments

Tax protester conspiracy arguments

Please read all these articles in full. Then, if you have any questions, post your questions on the talk (discussion) page for the applicable article. Thanks, Famspear 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the comments by IP 75.72.81.229 challenging "any proponant [sic] of the income tax to clearly list the LAW here to prove that there is actually a LAW" -- aside from the fact that Wikipedia editors have done just that, over and over, I would point out that Wikipedia editors are not here as "proponents of the income tax." Neither are we here for the purpose of proving to you or persuading you that there "actually is a (Federal income tax) law." The obligations to file Federal income tax returns and pay income taxes are imposed by U.S. Federal law, and are easily verifiable by referring to the Internal Revenue Code, the regulations, and the case law, regardless of what you or I or anyone else says. We are here to edit Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Tax protester arguments → Tax protester arguments in the United States This article deals almost exclusively about this phenomenon in the United States. Please discuss at Talk:Tax protester#Requested move. —  AjaxSmack  06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs Correct Title

Tax Protester Arguments is NNPOV. The individuals who dare to stand up against the legal cult are tax freedom advocates. They're not protesting. They're standing up against a system of slavery that was instituted to replace the previous institution of slavery in this nation. They're not doing this by "protesting." They're doing this by refusing to participate in the "voluntary" gift of their legitimate property to an abusive state. 206.124.31.24 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: The purpose of this talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the related article. The term "tax protester" is a legal term; it's use here is not "non-neutral point of view." Although term "tax protester" has negative connotations in the minds of some people, its use in the context of an encyclopedia article about tax protesters is both neutral and proper.
I understand that you feel there is injustice with respect to what you call the "cult," the tax system, the "abusive state," and so on. Wikipedia, however, is not properly used as a cyberspace soapbox for airing your grievances. The internet is a big "place." Please consider looking for an appropriate forum for airing your grievances. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a legal term. That's because your legal cult--backed by the same folks who think slavery is okay--thinks it is legitimate. The point was not that the title has a negative connotation. The point was that it's incorrect. These people are not protesters. These people are people who have been punished for keeping their property. As for your "soapbox" crack--were it not for your use of it as a soapbox and a media outlet for your cult, comment would not be necessary. Further, there was a call to action which you dismissed as a "grievance." It was not. 206.124.31.24 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what to say to that. This is an Encyclopedia. Would you expect to open Britannica and find "tax freedom advocates" as the primary title for such content? WP:TITLE discusses the manual of style for naming articles.
Article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
I'm sorry but "tax freedom advocates" or a similar title is not what the general audience would most easily recognize for the topic content. While you don't consider these activities as tax protesting, the general audience does. Morphh (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why assume the general audience is illiterate?206.124.31.24 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP 206.124.31.24: We don't need to assume, and we do not assume, that the general audience is "illiterate." Indeed, with respect to tax law and tax protesters, a literate, well-read audience is more likely to be aware that "tax protester" is a legal term. A literate audience will also realize that "tax freedom advocates" is simply a term dreamed up by a tax protester somewhere to try to avoid the use of the "tax protester" term. The problem for tax protesters is that this tactic wouldn't get them anywhere. If everyone started saying "tax freedom advocates," then eventually that term would acquire the same negative connotations that now adhere to the term "tax protester" -- which itself originally did not have negative connotations. As long as tax protesters do the things they do and say the things they say, they will continue to cause people to look at tax protesters in negative ways that result in negative connotations for the term "tax protester." And the reason it's a legal term is not that a "legal cult--backed by the same folks who think slavery is okay--thinks it is legitimate". Sorry, but the inclusion of accurate material in encyclopedia articles about legal matters does not convert Wikipedia into a "soapbox" or "media outlet" for the legal profession. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More rhetoric moved from article

The following material has been moved from the article to this talk page:

More recently, data mining of the Internal Revenue Code and Code of Federal Regulations shows that claims of misapplication have merit. The data mining process can produce a list of taxable income which only lists foreign earned income as taxable, or income that is not exempt. (see What is taxed)

First, Wikipedia cannot take the position that "claims of misapplication have merit." We need neutral point of view here. Second, the reference to "lists of foreign income" is a reference to the "861 argument," which has been uniformly ruled by the courts to have no legal merit, and which is already addressed in the article on Tax protester statutory arguments. Third, this verbiage is unverified, unsourced. Yours, Famspear 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV material moved from article

The following material, which was inserted at the end of a quotation in the article, is being moved here:

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" for the TRUTH, not propaganda, regarding the Unconstitutional and Illegal Income Tax Fraud being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve and the American government.

This language is non-neutral point of view. Also, the article itself already contains at least one link related America: Freedom to Fascism. See the bottom of the article. Yours, Famspear 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that editor Morphh reverted the material. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theorists

An anonymous user deleted the reference to the fact that some conspiracy theorists promote tax protester arguments, on the ground that the reference was "irrelevant." I re-inserted the reference.

I'm not following the logic of the deletion. Irrelevant in what sense?

Some individuals who are "conspiracy theorists" do indeed push tax protester arguments. Not only that, but these people basically argue that the imposition of Federal income taxes in the United States is an illicit, malevolent "conspiracy" that has continued for over ninety years -- even specifically using the word "conspiracy." For example, see Irwin Schiff, one of the most prominent of tax protesters. If you read lots of tax protester literature, you may find that the putative "conspiracy" aspect is a very important focus for many (not necessarily all) people who push tax protester arguments.

I don't have a strong sense that the reference to the "conspiracy theorists" absolutely has to be in the article -- I just don't see the logic of deleting it on the grounds of relevancy. Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: See also Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-post script: Perhaps what the anonymous user was implying was that "conspiracy" theorist is relevant only in the later section that specifically talks about conspiracy (??). If that's the case, then I think the proper argument would be not that the mention of conspiracy theorists in the earlier section is "irrelevant" -- but instead that the mention is "tangential" or "immaterial". On that basis, I guess I would not have a strong objection to removing the reference from the earlier section, as the anonymous user did. Yours, Famspear 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing in before editing. I see no need to subjectively identify particular groups beyond the definition of "tax protester", of those people who can be attributed to the claims in this category. The inclusion of many other groups could be, but are not posited in this article. I do agree however, the proper argument would be that this inclusion is moreso immaterial or tangential than irrelevant. A conspiracy theorist may or may not agree with this section, and the mere addition of this language is distracting to the reader. Avery 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Averykins/Avery: OK, and based on our discussion, I have reverted the article back to your version. Thanks, Famspear 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/x/Talk%7ETax_protester_arguments_9482.html"