Talk:Tax protester

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.
High This article has been rated as High-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] Archives

[edit] Dale Eastman and the "Tax Honesty Movement"

1. Dear Mr. Dale R. Eastman or User at IP address 4.158.201.8: Regarding your questions to me personally at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_Honesty_Movement, thank you for your comments.

2. Yes, speaking of your being busy with other things, I am pretty much in the same position right now. Because I do lots of tax stuff, this is the busiest time of year for me, until Monday, April 17th (because April 15th falls on a Saturday this year). I can’t promise you that I will be able to get to your tax commentary in any meaningful way.

3. Also, if we ever do have time for this, I would say that rather than posting material on your web site, a much more efficient method of communication – one that I suspect would result in a lot more people reading what we have to say -- would be to talk about it here at Talk:Tax protester.

4. Regarding your comments, yes, I guess I am a big city lawyer. For what it’s worth, I did drive a truck in my first job many years ago (it was only a delivery van, not a big truck, but whatever).

[edit] Formal legal analysis versus incorrect idiosyncratic interpretation

5. I can tell you at this point, that you are the umpteenth tax protester or "tax honesty movement" member to review these statutes, regs, and court decisions. Both your analysis and your conclusions are incorrect as a matter of law. That’s nothing against you personally. Part of it is that you’re not trained to do legal analysis and part of it is your overall approach.

6. I have briefly reviewed the material at your web site. Many of the cases you cite, especially Eisner v. Macomber, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., and the Merchants' Bank case, have been exhaustively covered by other tax protesters over the years. Unfortunately, the so-called "analysis" that tax protesters apply in studying these cases is not a correct formal legal analysis.

7. In your web site you instead apply an "idiosyncratic interpretation" to what are essentially very technical legal texts. To analyze law properly, you must instead use principles of formal legal analysis used to study not only tax law but contract law, property law, criminal law, tort law, and all other areas of American law. Formal legal analysis cannot be “learned” merely by studying the texts of one, or five, or even a hundred court decisions.

[edit] How to learn to perform formal legal analysis

8. You cannot learn formal legal analysis merely by studying the statutes and regulations you discuss on your web site. Learning to do formal legal analysis cannot be done in the way you have tried to do it. You learn to perform legal analysis by becoming a lawyer.

9. The process of just getting into law school in the first place is a rigorous winnowing that few people can withstand. You first have to graduate from an accredited college or university with at least a bachelor’s degree. Then, you have to apply to a law school and sit for the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). Many college graduates simply do not have the college grades or the LSAT scores to be accepted by a law school.

10. Once you are accepted and enter law school, you gradually learn to perform correct legal analysis not by having a professor "lecture" as a professor would in high school or college, and not primarily by reading a "textbook." Instead you go through a rigorous, formal process using two methods: the Socratic method and the case method. Law school in the United States is akin to a military boot camp -- for the mind. However, instead of lasting about six weeks, law school lasts three years.

11. Further, many law schools are very competitive. Many law schools have what is called "grade deflation." That is, if you were an A student in college, you will usually end up being a C or a B minus student in law school. Even if you graduated from college in the top of your class, law school can be a rude awakening. If there are three hundred people in your first year class, you are essentially competing with nearly three hundred clones of yourself, in terms of ability to perform. Your competition is not merely college students, not merely college graduates, but instead college graduates who have been accepted into law school. Most people simply cannot make the cut.

12. A further hurdle is that some law schools deliberately "flunk out" a large number of law students after the end of the first year. So some people don’t make it – even after having gone this far.

13. The law students who do make it gradually learn to perform correct legal analysis in part by studying literally thousands of court decisions (and statutes and other legal materials) of all kinds – not just tax law decisions – in a very intense, rigorous academic atmosphere. They start with old English cases (our law originally comes from something called English common law) with archaic and very technical language. They study contracts, property, torts, criminal law, constitutional law, legal research and writing, civil procedure, evidence, principal and agent, corporations and partnerships, trusts and wills, marital property rights, employment law, secured transactions, and on and on. A doctor of jurisprudence degree requires about 88 to 97 semester hours of law, depending on the law school – and this is AFTER four years of college, AFTER graduating from college, AFTER having taken the LSAT, and AFTER having been accepted for admission to law school.

14. And AFTER having gone through all this for three years after college and AFTER HAVING earned a doctor of jurisprudence degree, you are still not finished. You still have to sit for the bar examination – often a two or three day affair, administered under the supervision of the highest court in your state (usually called the state Supreme Court). If you pass the bar examination, you are finally licensed by the state Supreme Court as an attorney – and THEN you can start legally advising other people about what the law is and how it applies. Only then are you legally qualified to advise other people about what the constitution, the statutes, the regs, the treaties, the court decisions and other legal materials really mean and how they should be interpreted.

15. With all due respect, the method of "analysis" you use on your web site – this idiosyncratic interpretation -- does not conform to the rules of legal analysis. This means that not only are your conclusions incorrect as a matter of law, your method of "reasoning" is also incorrect as a matter of law. Using your method of interpretation, you would fail the first semester of law school. The rules cannot be learned in a day or a month or a year of reading actual statutes, regs, and court decisions in the way you obviously have been reading them.

16. However, that is not to say that you would actually use your method of reasoning if you actually were in law school. If you actually were in law school, you would quickly learn to spot the errors in the "analytical" method you use on your web site -- and you would I suspect learn to do it right.

[edit] Idiosyncratic interpretation results in lack of credibility

17. Some of these court decisions you talk about on your web site are what legal scholars call "leading cases" in the world of tax law. In particular, most tax lawyers can remember some leading cases after studying them in law school. You lose credibility right off the bat by analyzing these leading cases incorrectly on your web site, and by rendering incorrect conclusions about what the cases stand for. Because you lose credibility when you post an incorrect conclusion about a leading case, you immediately lose credibility on the internet.

18. You will notice that I have not addressed any of the material on your web site specifically. Hopefully in the next few weeks I will have time after tax season dies down a bit to provide an example for you of how to correctly interpret one of the cases you discuss on your web site.

[edit] Wikipedia treatment of the article on the "tax honesty movement"

19. Regarding the article on the Tax Honesty Movement, the article needs some clean up from a Wikipedia standpoint. My personal vote was to delete the article because I argue that whatever parts of the article can comply with Wikipedia’s rules can be presented more cogently in the article on tax protesters. It’s not necessarily a big deal whether the article stays or is deleted. My personal vote was for deletion, not a vote for suppressing basic information to the effect that so-called tax honesty movement exists. However, if anyone tries to mislead people into thinking that the tax honesty movement is not a continuation of and part of the tax protester movement, they violate Wikipedia rules. If anyone tries to use a Wikipedia article to try to persuade people that that the tax laws are being "misapplied," etc., etc. (and it matters not what specific words they use to try to hide what they are doing), then they are violating Wikipedia policies, rules, guidelines, etc. Wikipedia is not a cyberspace soapbox. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

20. If the Wikipedia community decides that the article stays, the article’s content is like the content of any other article: it’s subject to the Wikipedia rules including Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. If the article is deleted, the information on the tax honesty movement is already covered at Tax protester. Either way, proponents of the tax honesty movement who contribute text to a Wikipedia article will be subject to having their material edited or deleted the same as anyone else. This is an encyclopedia.

21. Well, it's 12:50 am on a Monday morning where I am. I have to go to work in the morning! Thanks for your interest. Famspear 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Eastman's Reply

22. Mr./Ms.? Famspear. Thank you for the reply. I thank you ahead of time on behalf of the Tax Honesty Movement, and on behalf of those that call us Tax Protestors, for the time you will be putting into this as your schedule will permit (after the 17th.) Both sides of the issue will learn from our dialog, And I hope to make the case that the Tax Honesty Movement is real, and valid.

23. I've taken the liberty of numbering our paragraphs for easier reference.

24. I'm going to start this even though we both won't have time to deal with this. I will be duplicating this on the page I set up. On that page I can use color to enhance discernment as to whose words are whose. [1]

[edit] Naked Assertions

25. Well then, on to it: In your paragraphs 5,6,& 7, you basically repeat the same mantra. What you attempt to say with that mantra, as paraphrased by me, is: "Dumb trucker don't know how to read the law".

26. You state in paragraph 5: Both your analysis and your conclusions are incorrect as a matter of law. You state in paragraph 6: Unfortunately, the so-called "analysis" that tax protesters apply in studying these cases is not a correct formal legal analysis. As frustrating as I imagine this is going to be for you, I'm going to call those statements for what they are: NAKED ASSERTIONS.

[edit] Because I'm a lawyer and I said so

27. In your paragraphs 8 through 14 you wave the flag of the rigors of lawyer school. (Rhetorical: So what. Half of you graduated at the bottom of your class.) In your paragraphs 5 through 18 you essentially wrote a hit piece in an attempt to attack my credibility by expounding upon your "formal" education.

[edit] Logic vs. Credentials

28. You have no "authority"; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis as you did in paragraphs 5 & 6. You have no authority; no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not see it, the lurkers who will read this can not see it. A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I do not worship at the alter of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials, I pay attention to whether the credentialed person says things that make sense. Remember, on the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog. Your paragraphs 8 through 14 have been neutralized. With 8 through 14 neutralized, support for your naked assertions in paragraphs 5,6,7,15,16,& 17 is also neutralized. The playing field is now level.

[edit] Trained for Logic

29. In paragraph 10, you state: Law school in the United States is akin to a military boot camp -- for the mind. EXCELLENT! Good, Good. You can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results are wrong (or not).

[edit] If we agreed, there would be no discussion

30. I'll admit that the point brought forth in paragraphs 5, & 6, is a possibility, and ONLY a possibility, because otherwise you and I would have nothing to discuss. We have a collision of analysis "results". However, as pointed out in the paragraph 28, because you say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: "Because I'm the Mommy, that's why."

[edit] Logic vs. Decree

31. You can tell me how you think. You can give me reasons for why you think the way you do. You can give me information to think about. What you can not do is tell me WHAT to think. That just doesn't cut it in a society that is supposed to be based upon personal Liberty.

[edit] The law MUST be understandable

32. You are familiar with the "Void For Vagueness Doctrine"? That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well- recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221 , 34 S. Ct. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638 , 34 S. Ct. 924 CONNALLY v. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)

33. Connally continues: The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture. The citizen cannot be held to answer charges based upon penal statutes whose mandates are so uncertain that they will reasonably admit of different constructions. A criminal statute cannot rest upon an uncertain foundation. The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and providing a punishment for their violation, should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of its requirements and the courts upon another.'

34. In paragraph 7, you state: In your web site you instead apply an "idiosyncratic interpretation" to what are essentially very technical legal texts. On March 18th my wife and I viewed the free screening of Aaron Russo's new movie: America From Freedom To Fascism. [2] I was with approximately 750 other people of common intelligence that have the same "idiosyncratic interpretation" of the law that I do. We "differ as to its application" with you. Admitted by the We the People organization [3] these showings are presently, mostly, "preaching to the choir". Every showing has been in packed houses. It's a small, but not insignificant, and growing choir, that "differ[s] as to its application" with you.

35. The "Void For Vagueness Doctrine" is espoused specifically in regard to tax law in the Gould v. Gould case. The concept presented stands on the merits of its self-evident, logical truth: In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55 , 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189. GOULD v. GOULD , 245 U.S. 151 (1917)

[edit] Logic vs. Decree (reprise)

36. Now, tell us all again, why do we need you (lawyers) to interpret laws for us?

[edit] Time does not now permit

37. In paragraph 18 you state: You will notice that I have not addressed any of the material on your web site specifically. Yes, I have noticed. We can get on with this after about the 21st.

38. Again, thanks for the time you have/are going to put in to this discussion. I hope that the removal of the Tax Honesty Movement article will wait until after we can pick this up.

[edit] Let's get back to the article

I'll throw in my two cents. Famspear was certainly trying to be helpful but I must strongly disagree with his comments above: "a much more efficient method of communication... would be to talk about it here at Talk:Tax protester". The talk page is not for working out legal issues, in fact, that's not what Wikipedia is for at all. Nearly all of this discussion is completely frivolous and should be carried out anywhere but here. Wikipedia is here to report facts from published reliable sources, and this talk page is reserved for how to improve this article. The only discussion should be about what evidence there is for various positions and what are the prominent viewpoints. We can't have any original research, we must comply with the verifiability policy, and then balance it with the neutral point of view. Again, anything beyond that needs to stay elsewhere. So unless evidence can be presented for the existence and prominence of this Tax Honesty movement being separate from the general tax protestors, then it doesn't get covered. And if it is covered, it only gets covered in relation to it's importance. Grand claims require greater evidence. So given that it is obvious the courts have upheld taxes repeatedly, any views against that must be presented as alternate views and not stated as facts. As much as we may not agree with the level of taxation (I don't) that doesn't matter at all. What we are tasked with here is producing a balanced article that characterizes significant viewpoints, not establishing truth. - Taxman Talk 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Taxman and other editors: Without getting into specifics about what I intended with respect to a discussion with Mr. Dale Eastman, the user at IP 4.158.201.8, I have to say that Taxman's point -- that this talk page should be reserved for efforts to improve the Tax protester article -- is well taken. Upon reflection, I agree that this talk page may not be the most appropriate place to dialog with Mr. Eastman. (As I had already told Mr. Eastman, it's pretty unclear whether I would be able to get to Mr. Eastman's commentary in any meaningful way, anyway.) However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman's comments posted above. Thanks, Famspear 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Taxman says: Grand claims require greater evidence. No Sir, they don't. They only require the same evidence any other claim requires... And you don't get to set that bar for the evidence required.
Taxman says: Nearly all of this discussion is completely frivolous... The magic government word that means If we address what you have before us, the US income tax, as presently executed will collapse. But then you know that "frivolous" is a Tax Honesty Movement "HOT button word."
Taxman is correct as to proper forum, which is why I put together my own page. [4]
I am mirroring my dialog Mr. Famspear. I have no problem with deleting my previous post to this forum each time I put something else here with a link to the page where I am recording the dialog. I have no problem with Mr. Famspear doing the same thing.
I didn't really want to put a debate discussion here. Famspear is correct that it will get read more so here, and thus offer more chance to educate. On the other hand Famspear may not be comfortable with loosing his anonymity if he emails me directly. (There are web page based mail utilities out there if that is a concern. In effect, they become anonymous remailers.)
Mr. Famspear says: However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman's comments posted above. That comment could be taken two different ways. Are you giving me a compliment?
Posted-Dale Eastman.

Regarding Mr. Eastman's response to Taxman's commentary above:

Mr. Eastman, in response to Taxman's statement that grand claims require greater evidence, states: "No Sir, they don't. They only require the same evidence any other claim requires... And you don't get to set that bar for the evidence required." Sorry, but under the rules of Wikipedia, grand claims do require greater evidence. Specifically:

Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.[5] (emphasis added).

When a claim is out of the mainstream, Wikipedia editors properly demand stronger sourcing than is otherwise demanded. This applies regardless of the truth or falsity of the claim. And, yes, Taxman and all the other editors of Wikipedia, in concert, essentially do get to set the bar for the evidence required. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works. Yours, Famspear 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In this regard, please also review the following:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.
[. . . ]
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. [6] (emphasis added).

Yours, Famspear 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship Prevails At Wikipedia

Mr. Famspear, as a tax lawyer, is expected to engage the topic of the U.S. income tax after the 17th. of March. If the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is so wrong, he should be able to prove it.

Mr. Abramson is invited to join in that discussion. If Mr. Famspear refuses to engage, or fails to prove the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is wrong, By default, Mr. Abramson will be known as an IRS COLLABORATOR attempting to cover up the truth.

Please have your yes / no answers to the first 74 questions ready for posting by the 21st. Posted by Dale Eastman. Web site:[7]

p.s. After the 17th. you can post those answers on any current comment line of the Trial Logs Blog Spot. [8] That forum will not have any problem with us discussing these issues over there.

(sigh) - Yes, I and 290,000,000 other Americans are part of a conspiracy to assess income taxes against the few dozen people who realize that the IRS is really a holding company run out of Puerto Rico and Ohio is not really a state, and the U.S. ceased to exist in 1861 anyway (and the Republicans are really reptilian alien overlords). However, since I don't want the terrorists and the fascists and the communists coming in and blowing up my neighborhood and killing my family because my government has no money to defend the homeland, I think I'll go ahead and continue my part in the conspiracy, which involves surrendering a third of my income to taxes. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I and 290,000,000 other Americans are part of a conspiracy to assess income taxes against the few dozen people who realize that the IRS is really a holding company run out of Puerto Rico and Ohio is not really a state, and the U.S. ceased to exist in 1861 anyway (and the Republicans are really reptilian alien overlords) Ridicule doesn't change what the law says. Are you going to discuss what the law says after the 17th? You will even have a tax lawyer on your side of the debate unless he chickens out.
However, since I don't want the terrorists and the fascists and the communists coming in and blowing up my neighborhood and killing my family because my government has no money to defend the homeland, I think I'll go ahead and continue my part in the conspiracy, which involves surrendering a third of my income to taxes. Non sequitur.
Where and how do I get your attention to continue this? I am going to be extremely busy for the next two weeks and just will not have time until after the 17th to educate you and the lawyer. Noon, Main Street. After the 17th. You're good with ridicule, let's see how you do on reading comprehension. 74 questions. Yes or no. See you after the 17th. Posted by Dale Eastman. Web site:[9]
Hmmm, no thanks, I'm an intellectual property attorney, not a tax attorney. I'll leave the debates to the tax experts and those who care about what happens on the internet outside of Wikipedia. If you'd ever like to argue that the government has no power to grant trademarks, or that the USPTO is failing to properly apply the law, and that all of the federal court decisions assessing damages for trademark violations are part of a government conspiracy in furtherance of such an improper application, then I'll take you up on it. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Mr. Famspear, Today is April 21, 2006. I, Dale Eastman, am calling you out. Your choice of forums are as follows: You can email me directly; You can email me via an anonymous remailer utility; you can post your comments on the HaloScan portion of Trial Logs Blogspot; or You can post your comments on the misc.taxes news group. Your comments will be transferred to my web page basically unedited. I will correct typo's, hyperlink references, and format your text as best I can to best represent what you are stating. Just tell me what you want. My answers will be on that same page, and I will post an alert in the forum of choice to let you know when I have responded. I will look for your response here unless you choose to engage by email to me directly. I'm just a dumb ex-truck driver, so you should be able to make mincemeat out of me, eh? http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html

Dear Mr. Eastman: First of all, I'll decide what the "choice of forums" is. The forum might be something other than what you listed. Second, I'll decide what we're going to do in that forum. Third, if I were you I wouldn't be so eager to get to whatever it is you want to get to. You are not going to be a happy camper. For now, if you want, you can watch my talk page here in Wikipedia -- it'll probably be a while, but I'll try to get a message to you there in the next few weeks. Regards, Famspear 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply posted: http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html
DRE - 4/22/06 - 18:18 CDT.
No reply from Mr. Famspear, as of 4/29/06 - 18:24 CDT.
In other posts, Mr. Famspear has defended the conventional belief as the IRS would have others believe. That make Mr. Famspear a "defacto" IRS Agent.
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS [or its defacto agents]. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.
Silence can only be equated with fraud. Are you a fraud Mr. Famspear? http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/famspear2.html
DRE - 4/29/06 - 18:24 CDT.
You are suggesting, then, that User:Famspear has "a legal or moral duty to speak"? Since you have claimed no authority to impose on Famspear any legal duty, you must be referring to a moral duty. When does one have a moral duty to speak? To prevent an immoral act. Hence, Famspear only has a moral duty to speak if so doing would prevent an immoral act - but he has been asked by you to articulate his opposition to your position. Hence, if Famspear is a fraud, it must be because his failure to speak against your position (thus far) is a failure to speak against an immoral act. So, do you concede that your act of taking the position that income taxes need not be paid is an immoral act?
By the way, I saw the question you asked, "is labor property" - it is too simplistic to be answered with a "yes" or "no". As you may know, labor can have multiple meanings, as can property. Do you mean "labor" as in the process of bearing a child? Do you mean "property" as in real estate? I'm quite certain that the birth process is not real estate. Here are two serious questions for you: is it permissible for the state in which you live to amend its constitution so as to permit the state to establish a religion, and to enforce that amendment by enacting a law requiring you to cease the religious practices in which you engage, and instead take up a different religion sanctioned by the state? Is it permissible for the state in which you live to amend its constitution to provide that persons convicted of evading taxes in that state shall be executed by torture? BD2412 T 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply posted: http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/BD24121.html DRE - 4/30/06 - 01:10 CDT.
Reply edited. DRE - 4/30/06 - 10:42 CDT.

[edit] Subdividing out this article.

This article is rather lengthy, and should actually be broken down some. I propose having a single "overview" article on tax protesters with links to two sub-articles, one on tax protester history (covering the famous tax protesters, the adoption of the "Tax Honesty Movement" sobriquet, and the cons and scams) and one on tax protester arguments. Thoughts? BD2412 T 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! If BD2412 handles the mechanics of breaking the current article down into "sub-articles," I would certainly try to expand on both the proposed "history" sub-article and the proposed "arguments" sub-article. I "sub-mit" to everyone that having the two sub-articles would allow Wikipedia to do more justice to both "sub-topics." I would be glad to dive into the writing of the "sub-stance" of these sub-articles some time later this spring (right now I am partially "sub-merged" in the flood of tax season work). Well, now I'm running out of ideas for words with a "sub-prefix" (can you tell tax season is driving me crazy?)! Yours, Famspear 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The basic split is done - but all three articles now look a bit rough. I didn't move links over yet, that needs to be done as well (some may be moved, others simply copied). BD2412 T 19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-Centric

It'd be nice if someone could find some information on similar issues in other countries, or generalise the introduction better - the article is really only about Tax Protesters in the States as it stands. I'm sure similar behaviour has occured elsewhere (Australia, for instance)WilyD 13:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Be bold... if you have some contributions or can find the facts about other countries then by all means add them... Drew1369 16:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary moved from article to talk

The following comment was posted into the article by 207.200.116.132:

All reference to the Tax Honesty Movement has been removed from this encyclopedia by the ignorati who cannot stand the intellectual challenge to their impaired, emotion-driven psyches. The removal of this material is itself an example of the obstacles encountered by those who promote logical thought, truth, and integrity in the administration of tax law.

I must admit, I find it somewhat bemusing to be labelled "ignorati" by someone who apparently speaks for a movement that holds that dollar bills are not "money", that court opinions have no effect because they spell the name of the accused in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and that the IRS is really a Puerto Rican collection agency that the President allows and the Congress funds because they're all in on the "conspiracy" levy taxes. BD2412 T 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Reason article that is referenced in the links at the end. Its tone seems more respectful and thus closer to NPOV than this article. The Reason author ultimately doesn't believe the line of argument, but he is curious and interested as opposed to the point of view of this article. BD2412 seems to have been guarding this article for a while, and I think his contempt shows. Everyone has a point of view. NPOV is difficult. Why is there all this hubub about calling some of this phenominon the Tax Honesty Movement? Pretend were not talking about the US for a second and think about how to write this. As the Reason article points out, not everyone agrees. Some are frustrated by others that worry about CAPITAL LETTERS. However most seem sincere. "Tax Honesty" means something subtle but important to them. They are not against the gas tax for instance. And there seems to be a lack of fairness in a system that requires advanced legal training to understand the law. All the arguments may have been brought before a court before, and some of the defendents may be "cranks", but people are individuals. If the system treated these people with respect and answered their questions clearly and with detail...as it does for other issues!...then perhaps they wouldn't seem like cranks anymore. Not everything is false. For instance it appears there were some irregularities in the passage of the 16th Amendment. Perhaps the Secretary of State was wrong to certify it, but the courts say that is a political problem and they are bound by it. That is fascinating!

For a start, is this NPOV? "These arguments generally contain logical fallacies, selective interpretation of perceived syntactic ambiguity in statutes and cases, and convey a general misconception about the structure of the legal system and the operations of the government." Gearspring 15:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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. BD2412 T 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I sympathize with the difficulty of keeping that junk out. I have not followed this article, so I don't know how it got to this point. I am only looking at its current state. Still I don't understand your need to rebut all the claims being brought. I am not totally against the idea, but I think it would be best in its own section. Should an athiest be hanging out at the Catholic article making sure no one is fooled that God exists? --Gearspring 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The difference is, in this country you don't get fined or put in jail for believing that God does or does not exist. If readers come upon a theory that says, for example, you don't have to pay your taxes if you declare yourself to be a religious institution, some may try that and face dire consequences - at the very least, having to pay a hefty penalty to the IRS. Whether you believe the claim or not, failing to pay taxes based on it will bring penalties, which is part of the complete picture with respect to the subject matter of this article. BD2412 T 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: The question has been raised with respect to a statement in the article: Is this neutral point of view? "These arguments generally contain logical fallacies, selective interpretation of perceived syntactic ambiguity in statutes and cases, and convey a general misconception about the structure of the legal system and the operations of the government."

Well, it is certainly correct to say that tax protester arguments contain each of these attributes (logical fallacies, selective interpretation, etc., and general misconceptions about the legal system, etc.). Perhaps the article will eventually be expanded to give examples of each under explicit topic headings created for that purpose. More sourcing may help.

Wikipedia presents to its editors an interesting problem. By its nature, Wikipedia allows non-experts to edit in fields of expertise. In the case of articles about law, such as tax law, the problem is compounded by what I argue is a tendency among a few people to believe that they can obtain what they essentially regard as expertise in the field without actually going through what lawyers, CPAs and others go through to obtain tax expertise. Now, it is perfectly possible for non-lawyers and non-CPAs to make accurate edits to articles on tax law. Wikipedia proves that. Unfortunately, there is something about law that gives some people the impression that even without having gone through the fire of formal training, they can somehow "know" the law better than people who have gone through the fire. Maybe you don't see this as much with fields like brain surgery or elementary particle physics, etc. There is something about law -- even something as technical as tax law -- that allows normal people (i.e., people who are not tax geeks like me) to believe that they can understand the most technical aspects of tax law by reading tax protester web sites on the internet. Before the internet, it was hard copy such as books by Irwin Schiff.

The fact is that the statement about logical fallacies, selective interpretation and misconceptions about the legal system is accurate with respect to tax protester arguments. Now, the next question is: Can this particular accurate statement be presented in a Wikipedia article so that the article maintains a neutral point of view? I would argue that to deliberately omit such a statement from the Wikipedia article -- apparently for the reason that we don't want to appear to be taking sides -- would be a mistake. Here's why.

One of the tenets of Wikipedia is that not all arguments need be given equal weight. If we were to write an article that talks about the moon and, for some reason we decide that it's important enough to state that some people believe the moon is made of green cheese, it does not violate the rules of Wikipedia to point out that no reputable scientist or moon expert adheres to the green cheese theory. I argue that it would also be perfectly neutral point of view to point out that there are logical fallacies, etc., or whatever, in the green cheese argument.

The statement that there are logical fallacies, etc., in tax protester arguments is verifiable. There are actual rules you can follow to prove this. The mere fact that pointing all this out results in one theory (for example, the theory that the Federal income tax is perfectly constitutional and is being "applied" -- for all intents and purposes -- properly) being presented in an article as having more "weight" than an alternate theory (that the income tax is somehow invalid and that 99.999% of all legal experts since 1913, literally thousands and thousands of experts, have been befuddled and wrong about it or somehow engaged in malevolent conspiracy, and that every single court that has ruled on it has been "wrong") does not mean that the article lacks neutral point of view. A statement that something contains a "logical fallacy" can actually be verified. A statement that tax protesters argue based on misconceptions about the legal system as a whole is not only verifiable, it has been verified in court decision after decision. A statement that tax protester arguments routinely include selective interpretations is also verifiable, and it's not merely an opinion.

The reason: Law, like brain surgery and elementary particle physics, has its own technical rules which are beyond the ken of the average person. Law is not hard science in the way that physics is, but law does have its own rules of analysis. These rules can be learned, and are learned -- but only after years of both intensive and extensive study. Whether a particular tax protester argument is legally incorrect can actually be objectively determined. Granted, one may need to have been formally trained in law or at least tax law to be able to discern exactly why a particular tax protester argument is legally invalid. But that is a cross we must bear. Tax protester arguments, by definition, are based on argumentative forms that do not follow the rules of legal analysis that apply not only to tax law but to the law of contracts, property, torts, copyright, etc., etc. Tax protester arguments are essentially based on a foundation of mush, of nonsense. To pretend in an encyclopedia article that these arguments are not frivolous and cannot be objectively determined to be frivolous is to do a disserve to the readers of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia allows non-experts to edit in expert fields. However, if Wikipedia is to become a reputable source of knowledge, the experts who edit here must hold the non-experts to the same standards to which the experts hold each other. To demand less would impair the usefulness of Wikipedia, especially in the more complex technical fields of knowledge. Yours, Famspear 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: A post-script: I would also like to respond to some of the comments by my fellow editor Gearspring. Gearspring cites another article and mentions that it is more "respectful" than the Wikipedia article. Without having read the other article, and assuming arguendo the validity of Gearspring's observation, I would argue that Wikipedia, in its present configuration with respect to the tax protester article, is more than respectful enough to satisfy the rules of Wikipedia.

The fact that some tax protesters are now claiming that they are not tax protesters but are instead part of something called the "tax honesty movement" is interesting. Some have even written that the "movement" contains people who are not necessarily questioning the validity of the tax laws but just want some answers from the government. Unfortunately, having studied tax protester cases and their literature for years, I would argue that statements like this are disingenuous. There is something shrill and unnatural about the particular tax protester demand "Show us the law!" Imagine a small group of murderers banding together on the internet, etc., and fomenting literature that insists that the laws against murder actually are unconstitutional, that all the courts have always been wrong about the interpretation of those laws, and that 99.9999% of all experts are wrong about the laws on murder -- and then, after the code sections that every court and every legal expert recognizes as those code sections imposing criminal penalties for murder have been cited over and over and are published for all to see, imagine these same people continuing to scream, "Show us the law!"

Gearspring's comment: "And there seems to be a lack of fairness in a system that requires advanced legal training to understand the law" is also interesting. My response is that Gearspring is in my opinion absolutely right. That the system is so complex and arguably unfair is -- whose fault? It's our fault. We set up the system and elected the Congress that created the system. There are lots of laws and aspects of our legal system that can be improved. Unlike the tax laws, we did not set up the rules of physics regarding the behavior of elementary particles -- so we can't blame ourselves for that. But the tax law, like the laws of physics -- can be accurately learned only after years of intensive and extensive study. That, too, may not be fair -- but the lack of fairness thereof is of no moment for purposes of our discussion. The existence of the "fact" (assuming arguendo that it is a fact) that the tax law is monumentally unfair, or complex, or stupid, does not change the reality that tax protester arguments are legally invalid and legally frivolous (to use the technical legal term). The existence of that fact also does not change the reality that any encyclopedia article that does not make clear that the courts and legal experts are agreed on that point is NOT neutral point of view. Taking sides is one thing, but adherence to the "neutral point of view" concept does require that we put all "sides" in context -- we are not required to give equal weight to the green cheese argument.

The following statement is also interesting: "All the arguments may have been brought before a court before, and some of the defendents [sic] may be 'cranks', but people are individuals. If the system treated these people with respect and answered their questions clearly and with detail...as it does for other issues!...then perhaps they wouldn't seem like cranks anymore." I wish that this were true. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service and courts have answered all these tax protester arguments with what I contend is more than enough clarity. The problem seems to be not lack of clarity on the part of the government, but unwillingness on the part of a small minority to accept anything that does not comport with their own view. Many tax protesters seem not to understand why others do not want to engage or argue or debate them. The reason often is because people understand that many tax protesters are not willing to accept any view other than their own. The following statements are also revealing: "Perhaps the Secretary of State was wrong to certify it, but the courts say that is a political problem and they are bound by it. That is fascinating!" Gearspring seems to imply that the courts are somehow not doing their job properly here. Law is a highly technical, specialized body of knowledge. Every first year law student who has studied constitutional law is aware of the term "political question." I won't go into the legal technicalities, but Gearspring's statement seems to imply -- whether he or she realizes it or not -- that the courts should simply ignore the rules of law -- in particular the political question doctrine -- and simply render decisions based on the desired "result" -- the desired result in this case apparently being that the Sixteenth Amendment should be somehow ruled "unconstitutional" or "not properly ratified." Whether Gearspring realizes it or not, this is roughly equivalent to arguing that physicists should change their analyses and conclusions about how quarks and bosons, etc., operate -- should ignore the rules of physics -- because someone doesn't like the "result" that those rules seem to bring us. Again, law is not a hard science, and the rules of law are, unlike the laws of physics, man-made. The rules of law are often uncertain and ever-changing in the hands of legislators, bureaucrats and judges. But the rules of law are a bit more objectively determinable and "knowable" than some non-lawyers may realize. In reading the Wikipedia article on tax protesters, we should keep that truth in mind. Yours, Famspear 22:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


With respect to Famspear's point on the political question doctrine, Wikipedia has a brief but informative article on the topic. The doctrine basically says that the court will stay out of a dispute that hinges on political considerations, rather than law. Since no one challenged the propriety of the passage of the 16th Amendment for over a half-century after its passage, the courts have left it to Congress to decide whether, for example, the Amendment itself or the laws passed under it should be repealed. Congress has not done so, but has only modified those laws, although certainly members of both parties on the committee responsible for tax legislation would be aware of the constitutional arguments. BD2412 T 04:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


I brought up the 16th Amendment issue not to argue the courts are wrong, but to show that there is gold in them there hills. The "political question" answer of the courts is fine by me. But the history was researched by the "cranks" of the Tax Protester movement. They almost had their trump card and were stymied at the last moment. I think this aspect should make it to the article. I realize tax protesters are likely to lose in court, and I don't want the article to imply otherwise. I don't however hold the belief that the tax protesters are disingenuous. I am sure some are, but I have met a few that are not. Also, the rules of law are more amorphous than you acknowledge. There can be different and opposing interpretations of the law that are binding on you depending on where in the country the issue would be decided. Now, I am not saying this is true with tax law, but the issues that tax protesters raise tend to be fundamental ones that exploring will educate us about important aspects of our government. I read some of your discussion on an earlier debate. The argument was exploring the word profit. If I have a dollar, and you have a dollar, and then we trade them with each other. Did either one of us profit? If I have a book and you have your own copy of the book and we trade, did anyone profit? If I give you a book and you give me a dollar, did anyone profit? Perhaps the book normally sells for two dollars, does that mean I took a loss, and you had a profit? The answer may be that a court has been asked this question and the answer did not depend on my logic, and now we are bound by it. OK. Let's quote the case. But even before we do that, I would be happy with the following addition as a start. Since we are in agreement on the lack of fairness of law too complicated for an average citizen to understand. Let's put a statement in the article about the lack of fairness and its contrast with the belief that law must be understandable to be valid. As to your statement that the article meets the Wikipedia standard; The article point of view is the tax protesters are cranks, they are disingenuous, the questions they raise are dishonest, and the people involved are stupid for raising frivolous arguments. Be generous, the 16th Amendment issue wasn't frivolous the first time it was raised.--Gearspring 02:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gearspring: For ease in reading, I have moved your comments down below those of BD2412, to keep everything in chronology. You make some interesting points and suggestions. I don't want to get into your questions (rhetorical or otherwise) about "profit" (and the examples of the books, etc.) right now, and bluntly I'm pretty "snowed under" with work (i.e., not much time to edit Wikipedia right now). The discussion on profit (for Federal income tax purposes) can get technical, so I want to save that for a time when we have time to give it its due.

I would like say that your comment that the 16th Amendment issue wasn't frivolous the first time it was raised is a good one! Your key language -- the first time it was raised -- says it all. The first time the issue was raised in a court of law, it had no legal merit, but it might not have YET been frivolous (in one sense) at that time. It became a frivolous argument after being raised over and over and rejected over and over. The term frivolous does have colloquial, non-technical meanings -- such as "of little value or importance" or "trifling" or "trivial" or "not properly serious or sensible" or "silly and light-minded" (all from Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d College Ed. 1976)). Another one I've seen somewhere is "not worthy of serious consideration." But you can argue that it at least was not "frivolous" in one narrow, technical legal sense: no court had ruled on it before the first time it was argued. Some courts have indicated that a "frivolous" argument in the context of Federal income tax law is one that has been repeatedly raised in numerous court cases and has repeatedly been ruled to be without merit. At some point, a legally meritless argument does become legally frivolous -- so I agree with your point. Let's continue the dialog -- I'll probably be the one who's late in getting back to you for awhile, as my "real world" work load is interfering with my "Wikipedia time" lately. Yours, Famspear 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS -- Dear Gearspring: One more thing, on the comment about gold in the hills and the argument that the protesters almost had their trump card -- ummmmm wellllll, I have to disagree, in the sense that from a legal standpoint, the "16th Amendment was not properly ratified argument" never had a snowball's chance in "you know where." It's just not a valid, meritorious legal argument, on any level. I won't go into all the legal reasons why this is so, but they're covered in the court decisions on this. Also, your statement that "the rules of law are more amorphous" than I acknowledge is interesting. I disagree with your characterization of the degree to which I have acknowledged that the rules of law are amorphous. Law can appear very amorphous. Paradoxically, however, law is both much more uncertain and much more definitive -- at the same time -- than most non-lawyers (especially tax protesters) realize. Unless you have studied the texts of literally thousands and thousands of court decisions, statutes, regs, etc., and have had access to all the things to which law students and lawyers have access, you just can't really appreciate the whole picture. If that sounds elitist -- I'm sorry. I don't know whether you're a lawyer or not.

I read about Einstein's special theory of relativity and his general theory of relativity, and I think I understand some of the basics. It's interesting for me to think about the topic. But I have no expertise in physics or mathematics. There is simply no way for me to "know" relativity theory in the same way that Ph.D.s in physics and mathematics "know" the theory -- any more than it's possible for me to fully know French impressionism the way Monet knew it merely by walking through his garden at Giverny and gazing at his paintings (which I have done). I can only know a small part of what Einstein and Monet knew about their fields of expertise. Yours, Famspear 14:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I took my car to Tires Plus a few weeks ago, and they gave me this song and dance about how I needed something done with my brakes, which cost me $55. They also said I needed to replace all four (relatively new) tires, claiming that there were 'deep microscopic cracks' in the sidewalls. I balked at that and went to Goodyear for a second opinion; they told me my tires were fine and I had not even needed the "repair" that had been performed on my brakes. It's unfair that auto repair is so technical, and that my doctor, my electrician, and my computer guy all have specialized knowledge upon which I must depend, but which I lack the time to acquire myself. But that is the organic solidarity that governs the society in which we live. Despite my frustration at lacking knowledge of specialized areas, I am not telling people that they can substitute mineral oil for motor oil in their cars, or that snake-oil will cure their cancer. I lack the training to make these assertions, and experts who have the appropriate training will tell me otherwise. If someone were to post such a statement in the article on engines or on cancer, I would hope that an expert would point out the mythology of that assertion, lest I be tricked into ruining my motor or letting the cancer consume me. BD2412 T 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Eastman Replies

[edit] 74 Numbered, Yes/No Questions Remain Unanswered

I'm keeping this reply short in an attempt to get Mr. Famspear, the tax lawyer, on point.

I find it interesting that Mr. Famspear could find time to post 2,636 words but he can't find the time to publicly answer 74 numbered Yes/No questions. Subtracting 74 "yes" or "no" answering words from the 2,636 words he did find the time to post would leave him 2,562 words to prove the conclusion as incorrect. It is just this arrogance of the "establishment" in refusing to address honest questions that drives the Tax Honesty Movement.

The 74 questions I ask are ALL "No-Brainer" questions. I cite passages of Supreme Court decisions, tax statutes, and tax regulations followed by reading comprehension questions.

When I ask a question of the preceding passage, I am asking, in essence, 'Did the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Secretary of Treasury state "X Y Z"?' Any person with average reading comprehension skills can readily see that the Supreme Court, Congress and the Secretary of Treasury did indeed state "X Y Z".

The "reply" by Mr. Famspear to my last sentence has already been posted by Mr. Famspear above. He said, "Unfortunately, there is something about law that gives some people the impression that even without having gone through the fire of formal training, they can somehow "know" the law better than people who have gone through the fire."

Okay Mr. "Gone-Through-The-Fire" Famspear, PUBLICLY ANSWER the first 74 questions on my web site and then use your other 2,562 words to prove that the words highlighted by the questions on my web site don't mean what they say. The questions start on the fourth page of my web site. http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/ Posted: 13:12 EDT 5/13/06. Edited by DRE: 10:12 EDT 5/14/06

[edit] We are here to edit Wikipedia, not to answer Mr. Eastman's 74 questions

Dear Mr. Dale Eastman:

First, let’s review how you got to this point in Wikipedia. In late March of 2006, an article entitled “Tax Honesty Movement” was nominated for deletion by a Wikipedia editor, BD2412. Various Wikipedia readers posted comments pro and con regarding the issue of whether the page should be deleted. You opposed deletion of the article. I, Famspear, favored deletion. After discussion, the article was deleted.

During that process you, Mr. Eastman, apparently posted comments related to whether the so-called “Tax Honesty Movement” itself is viable, or valid, etc. Your post also included a re-hash of certain tax protester arguments about the validity of the U.S. Federal income tax itself, including a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) -- the holding of which you (and tax protesters in general) ignore or, even with your presumably “average reading comprehension skills,” did not read or comprehend (see below). You also referred to your own website, apparently urging others to view your website materials regarding your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Federal income tax laws.

I reviewed your website and found you are repeating arguments and conclusions made by other tax protesters – arguments and conclusions which are not only legally incorrect, but which have been repeatedly ruled legally frivolous in court. The cases you cited are the same cases cited over and over by tax protesters down through the past 30 years or so. Every court that has been presented with the arguments you raise has rejected them.

Early in this process, you visited my own user page at Wikipedia and discovered that in addition to my having a childhood love of baseball and an interest in airplanes, etc., I am a lawyer with an interest in the subject of income tax in the United States. At some point you also discovered that Wikipedia editor BD2412 (who had nominated the article for deletion) is also a lawyer. In referring to your comments about tax law and to me personally, you wrote:

If you want to take on the comments, and since your userpage states: ‘I am an American attorney with an interest in Income tax in the United States’, then how about a little one on one, you and I. You, a hifalutin big city lawyer, and me, a dumb ex-truck driver. Since you are the educated one, expect lot's [sic] of questions.

(Bolding added).

At my suggestion we moved the discussion to the talk (discussion) page for the Wikipedia tax protester article. (Later, it was determined that perhaps this page was also not an appropriate place for what you had in mind.)

On 3 April 2006, I, Famspear, acknowledged your comment about my being a lawyer without lingering on my credentials (which you, not I, had brought up anyway). I explained the process of acquiring legal expertise and credentials. I also pointed out that your idiosyncratic interpretation of tax law does not conform to the rules of legal analysis, and that your conclusions are legally incorrect. My discussion of the process of obtaining legal skills and credentials was not focused on me personally; it was presented in response to your own remarks.

You, Mr. Eastman, then responded with statements like:

What you [Famspear] attempt to say with that mantra [regarding the process of acquiring legal expertise], as paraphrased by me [Dale Eastman], is: Dumb trucker don’t know how to read the law”. [ . . . ] As frustrating as I [Dale Eastman] imagine this is going to be for you, I’m going to call those statements what they are: NAKED ASSERTIONS. [ . . . ] you [Famspear] wave the flag of the rigors of law school [ . . . ] by expounding upon your “formal” education.

You, Mr. Eastman, went on:

You [Famspear] have no “authority”; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis [ of the tax law . . . ] You have no authority, no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed [sic] person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not see it [ . . . ] A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I [Dale Eastman] do not worship at the alter [i.e., altar] of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials. [ . . . ] You [Famspear] can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results [regarding the tax laws] are wrong (or not). [ . . . ] What you can not do is tell me WHAT to think. That just doesn’t cut it in a society that is supposed to be based upon personal Liberty. [ . . . ] Now, tell us again, why do we need you (lawyers) to interpret laws for us?

This is interesting. First, you go to my user page and discover I’m a lawyer. Then you go to the trouble of pointing out that fact to me in the early stages of discussion.

Then you say that my diploma is “presently meaningless.” You say that I, Famspear, have no credibility, except to the extent I ESTABLISH CREDIBLITY IN A DIALOG WITH YOU, MR. DALE EASTMAN. You apparently fear I might scan a picture of my law school diploma and post it on the internet. You then say that if I were to do that, such a scan would be “called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless.”

Then, ironically, you say that you, Mr. Eastman, do not “worship at the alter [altar] of the bar.”

Really?

When you take the trouble, first, to bring my legal credentials into the discussion -- and second, to try to “neutralize” the very credentials you yourself brought into the discussion, you are (1) setting me up as your Authority Figure, and (2) then trying to tear your Authority Figure down.

In response to my statement about law school being akin to a “military boot camp for the mind,” you responded: “EXCELLENT! Good, Good. You can use that well disciplined mind of yours to PROVE my analysis results are wrong (or not).”

On 3 April 2006, I, Famspear, responded by stating:

[i]t’s pretty unclear whether I would be able to get to Mr. Eastman’s commentary in any meaningful way, anyway. However, we have all gained some valuable information from Mr. Eastman’s comments posted above. [closed parenthesis deleted]

You, Mr. Eastman later posted the following comments on the Talk page for the Wikipedia Tax Protester article:

Mr. Famspear, as a tax lawyer, is expected to engage [with Mr. Dale Eastman on] the topic of the U.S. income tax after the 17th of March [actually after the 17th of April, at the close of tax season]. If the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is so wrong, he [Famspear] should be able to prove it. [ . . . ] Mr. Abramson [BD2412, the editor who nominated the Tax Honesty Article for deletion] is invited to join in that discussion. If Mr. Famspear refuses to engage, or fails to prove the TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is wrong, By default, Mr. Abramson will be known as an IRS COLLABORATOR attempting to cover up the truth. [ . . .] Please have your yes / no answers to the first 74 questions [posed by me, Dale Eastman, on my own web site] ready for posting by the 21st [of April].

(Bolding added).

On 21 April 2006, you posted in the same Wikipedia page, as follows:

Okay, Mr. Famspear, Today is April 21, 2006. I, Dale Eastman, am calling you out. Your choice of forums are as follows [ . . . .] I’m just a dumb ex-truck driver, so you should be abel [able] to make mincemeat out of me, eh?

(Bolding added).

Mr. Eastman, your impatience grew as shown by the following comments you posted:

No reply from Mr. Famspear, as of 4/29/06.
In other posts, Mr. Famspear has defended the conventional belief [that the Federal income tax laws are constitutional and are being correctly administered] as the IRS would have others believe. That make[s] Mr. Famspear a “defacto” IRS Agent. [ . . . ]

You then paraphrased the following language – taken totally out of context -- from the court decisions in United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), 70-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9336 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 831 (1970) or United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 77-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9330 (5th Cir. 1977), to somehow imply that if I or BD2412 do not answer your questions, we are somehow guilty of some sort of “fraud”:

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading . . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS [or its defacto agents – bracketed verbiage added by Mr. Eastman]

After still having received no reply, you, Mr. Eastman, posted on 13 May 2006 as follows:

I’m keeping this short in an attempt to get Mr. Famspear, the tax lawyer, on point. [ . . . ] he [Famspear] can’t find the time to publicly answer 74 numbered Yes / No questions [posed by Mr. Dale Eastman] [ . . . ] It is just this arrogance of the “establishment” in refusing to address honest questions that drives the Tax Honesty Movement.

(Bolding added).

Mr. Eastman, I sense from your commentary that you are a man desperately searching for answers. At the present time, you seem desperate to get me to answer your questions about tax law.

“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”

Proverbs 25:2 (Rev. Stand. Vers.)

Mr. Eastman, your attempt to get me “on point,” as you put it, is totally misplaced. Let me clue you in.

“On point” here in Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia editors must take the time to answer your 74 questions about tax law, Mr. Eastman. “On point” here in Wikipedia means editing Wikipedia. That is why the rest of us – at least, most of the rest of us -- are here.

Your attempt to get me to what you personally believe is “on point” and your reference to my failure to address your “74 questions” as somehow being “arrogance” on MY PART illustrate that you, Mr. Eastman, are overly convinced of your own importance, that you are overbearingly proud, and that you are haughty – in short, your attempts and your references and manner show classic arrogance on your part, not mine.

Because your IP address changes often and you apparently have not registered an account in Wikipedia, I’m haven’t researched all your posts. It does appear you have done little if any editing of actual Wikipedia articles. Your posts here are mainly on the talk (discussion) pages, and seem to be aimed at trying to get me or BD2412 or both to answer your 74 questions.

You, Mr. Eastman, like most people who make tax protester arguments, do not claim (as far as I can tell) to have any formal legal or accounting training. You presumably believe that you have arrived at the correct interpretation of the Federal income tax laws, albeit one already presented by other tax protesters to the courts – and rejected by the courts, the Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, and the vast body of thousands of lawyers, certified public accountants, law professors, and other legal scholars in the United States who have studied the tax laws since the modern Federal income tax laws were enacted, beginning in 1913.

You and many other tax protesters complain that other people (particularly government employees) “don't address the actual written words of law.” Yet, when presented with the actual words of the statutes, regs and court cases, you twist them to suit your own purpose – which is to persuade other people that the tax law is somehow what you say it is rather than what it really is. (Below, I’ll give an example with the case you mentioned in a Wikipedia talk page post.)

You say at one point, in referring to editor BD2412, that if you “don't address the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES, REGULATIONS, and appropriate Supreme Court rulings, then anything you have to say about the "INCOME" tax is Hearsay [capitalization is Mr. Eastman’s, not mine].” Ironically, had you, Mr. Eastman, understood the Wikipedia article on Hearsay to which you linked, you would have also understood that your statement is laughable. I suggest you go read the definition of “hearsay” carefully. You are embarrassing yourself.

Now, let’s look at the example of the court case you did cite in the talk pages of Wikipedia – the Merchants’ Loan case. Your Wikipedia post included a tired, old, often repeated, discredited tax protester argument that “income” for Federal income tax purposes somehow means only “corporate profits” and not other kinds of income (such as wages, salaries, dividends, interest, rent, gain on sale of stock, etc.) because of a mention by the Court in the Merchants’ Loan case of a statute enacted in 1909 that taxed corporate profits. Like many tax protesters who have argued this in court over the years – and have always lost – you included the same old quote from the case. Even with what you apparently feel are your magnificent interpretive skills, you ignored or were unaware of what the Court actually ruled in Merchants’ Loan – either because you don’t know what a holding is or you don’t know how to determine what the holding is, or maybe because you know that the holding in Merchants’ Loan essentially contradicts your argument that income means only “corporate profits.”

Here’s a clue, Mr. Eastman: One of the first rules in analyzing case law is to determine what the court actually decided – based on what the parties in the dispute actually fought about. Everything else stated in a court decision – everything that does not form a part of the court’s rulings on the issues actually decided – is not a rule for which that case stands. (Note: I am deliberately not using the technical legal terminology here.)

To be specific, the Supreme Court ruled in Merchants’ Loan that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the specific tax statute applicable at the time (which was a 1916 tax statute, not the 1909 statute), a gain on a sale of stock by the estate of a decedent (in that particular case, the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased,) is included in the income of that estate, and is therefore taxable to that estate for Federal income tax purposes. The Court was not presented with, and did not decide, any issue involving the taxability of “wages” or “corporate profits” or any other kind of income except the gain on the sale of the stock by the estate. An estate’s gain on a sale of stock is not a “corporate profit.” The “estate of a decedent” is not a “corporation.” The estate of a decedent cannot have “corporate profits.” The term “corporate profits” does not even appear in the text of the Court’s decision in Merchants’ Loan.

Not only that, but the 1916 tax statute also imposed income taxes on the income of individuals – real, living people. Real, living people are not “corporations” with “corporate profits.”

You, Mr. Dale Eastman, apparently did not realize these points, or you deliberately chose to ignore their significance. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of statutes, regulations, and case law is full of these kinds of errors.

Worse, your hilarious, idiosyncratic “interpretation” -- that “income” must somehow mean ONLY “corporate profits” – based on a reference in the text of the case to the 1909 corporation tax law -- could not have succeeded as a legal argument even if the taxpayer in the case had actually been a corporation. You apparently were unaware of that as well.

Your idiosyncratic interpretation of Merchants’ Loan isn’t even original with you. You are simply repeating arguments raised over and over by tax protesters for over twenty years – arguments that are ruled legally erroneous every single time they are raised. Here are examples of eight different court cases where tax protesters cited the same erroneous Merchants’ Loan “corporate profits” argument -- and LOST: Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv., 593 F. Supp. 1540, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9845 (N.D. Ind. 1984), aff’d, 773 F.2d 126, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9661 (7th Cir. 1985); Stoewer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 13, T.C. Memo 2002-167, CCH Dec. 54,805(M) (2002); Reinhart v. United States, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,658 (W.D. Tex. 2003); Fink v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 976, T.C. Memo 2003-61, CCH Dec. 55,068(M) (2003); Flathers v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 969, T.C. Memo 2003-60, CCH Dec. 55,067(M) (2003); Schroeder v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 220, T.C. Memo 2002-211, CCH Dec. 54,851(M) (2002), aff’d, 2003-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,511 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1220 (2004); Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-268, CCH Dec. 56,200(M) (2005); Ho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-41, CCH Dec. 56,447(M) (2006).

And you, Mr. Eastman, want Wikipedia editors like me and BD2412 to get “on point” -- to play along with you and your “74 questions?” You want to be taken seriously here in Wikipedia?

One of the hallmarks of tax protester rhetoric here in Wikipedia and elsewhere is the infantile tactic of demanding that government employees or legal experts or others somehow “prove” to the tax protesters that the tax protesters are wrong about the tax law, with many tax protesters apparently feeling that the tax protesters (not the courts) should somehow be the final arbiters of whether the tax protesters are right. Many protesters say things like: “Show me the law that makes me liable for the tax.”

When tax protesters make demands like this, they are not really asking for an answer that they will accept. Indeed, any answer the government or anyone else gives them – especially citations to the specific code sections and case law -- that does not comport with their own view is rejected and “rationalized” away. Tax protesters argue that they “study” the same statutes, regs, and court decisions as legal experts. Yet, in court, tax protesters are losers on the arguments they claim are “correct.”

Mr. Eastman, here’s a clue for you: With some exceptions, government employees are under no moral or legal obligation to respond to questions from you, Mr. Dale Eastman, about the validity or meaning of the tax laws, any more than they are under an obligation to respond to questions about the validity or meaning of the laws on contracts, or property, or murder, or the environment, etc. Here is another clue: I and the other editors of Wikipedia are under no moral or legal obligation to you to answer your 74 questions. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to try to extract the answers from me or BD2412 or anyone else.

The laws -- the statutes, regulations, court decisions, etc. -- are required to be published as a matter of public record -- and are a matter of public record. In addition, the IRS and other government agencies publish mountains of forms, instructions, and other secondary materials to explain the law. Some publications include citations to specific statutory and regulatory provisions. Others do not.

However, neither the IRS, nor the President, nor your Congressman, nor the tax lawyers, nor the CPAs, nor the law professors, nor anyone else on the planet is under some sort of “obligation” – moral, legal, or otherwise -- to persuade you or prove to you that the law is what they say the law is. Some people of course may make efforts to educate you – but they are not here to prove to you to your own personal satisfaction that they are correct and that you are wrong.

You might want to ask yourself this question: Why don’t government employees and Wikipedia editors and other people want to debate with Mr. Dale Eastman and other people who espouse tax protester arguments? Ahhhh! Is it because they fear that Mr. Dale Eastman is right, and all the Congressman, IRS employees, lawyers, CPAs, and tax professors are wrong? Is it because they are engaged in a vast, selfish conspiracy to protect their own jobs and economic interests?

Mr. Eastman, I hope this won’t come as too much of a shock, but the reason that most people don’t want to debate you or discuss with you the tax law and your interpretation of the tax law is that most people DON’T CARE what your interpretation of the tax law is. Based on what appear to be your own implied admissions, and based on the enormous amount of verbiage you have posted on your web site, you, Mr. Eastman, do not have the knowledge to be taken seriously when you speak or write about tax law matters. Virtually any lawyers, CPAs, tax professors, IRS employees, etc., etc., who bother to review your materials will quickly see them for what they are: attempts by a untutored person to formulate his own, idiosyncratic interpretation of a mind-numbingly complex subject.

Let’s look again at one of your posts. You made the following comments, in referring to me and statements I made about your idiosyncratic way of “analyzing” tax law:

You [Famspear] have no "authority"; no credibility, to make such statements about my analysis [[ . . . . ] You have no authority; no credibility whatsoever, except that which you create in your dialog with me. Unfortunately, Dear learn-ed [sic] person, That beautiful sheepskin hanging on the wall behind you is presently meaningless. I can not [sic] see it, the lurkers who will read this can not see it. A posted scan will be called a forgery and dismissed as meaningless. I do not worship at the alter [sic] of the bar. I do not pay attention to credentials, I pay attention to whether the credentialed person says things that make sense. Remember, on the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog. Your paragraphs 8 through 14 have been neutralized. With 8 through 14 neutralized, support for your naked assertions in paragraphs 5,6,7,15,16,& 17 is also neutralized. The playing field is now level.

Again, you seem to have a strong urge to debate with me and BD2412 about whether your “analysis results” are right or wrong. You may want to ask yourself why you feel that way. The rest of us don’t care.

In reference to my comments about the importance of legal education in developing the ability to do proper legal analysis, you said:

because you [Famspear] say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: ‘Because I'm the Mommy, that's why.’

Your reference to “Mommy” is interesting (see below). Also, I, Famspear, did not “say so” on any “authority of my education.” Again, I did not mention that I was a lawyer until you brought it up first. Had I not happened to have already listed my legal background (in addition to my interest in airplanes, baseball, and other things) on my own Wikipedia user page, you would not have known I am a lawyer. Here in Wikipedia, one does not need expert credentials to edit in an area of expertise. Yet you, Mr. Eastman, chose to make my credentials and those of Mr. BD2412 an important part of your attempt here to get us to answer your “74 questions.” As we say in the legal profession, you yourself “opened the door” when you made other peoples’ credentials an issue.

You have informed other people of the existence of your own web site, through the talk (discussion) pages of Wikipedia. Other people can read your materials. A few people may be persuaded by what you write. In my opinion you are doing yourself, your family, and your readers a disservice. If you have any IRS problems because you have not complied with the tax laws, you are a “player,” of course. I hope for your sake and that of your family you are not a player in that game.

Mr. Eastman, in the “game” of enforcing the tax law (i.e., the job of IRS employees), in the game of representing taxpayers with tax problems in dealing with the IRS (my job), in the game of pontificating about what is or is not the law (the job of legal experts), you simply are not a significant player.

I am not your therapist or your “Mommy.” You may want to consider, however, whether your attempt to engage in a debate or discussion or question and answer session with me or BD2412 or others is part of your attempt to set other people up as your Authority Figure -- your substitute “Mommy” -- so that you can then try to tear the Authority Figure down. Whatever problems you may have had with Mommy or Daddy (or whoever in your personal life is really behind all this) are for you to sort out by yourself. For purposes of Wikipedia, what I, Famspear believe or say about the tax law should not even matter to you, Mr. Dale Eastman -- just as what you believe or say about the tax law does not matter to most of the rest of us here in Wikipedia. The rest of us are here to edit Wikipedia.

You, Mr. Eastman, seem to have a burning urge to have me or BD2412 answer the “74 questions” you want to pose to us. I gently suggest that you go back and think hard about your underlying motivation, and the underlying reasons for your anger. I and the other editors of Wikipedia do not want to know what your motivation and reasons are. We are not your therapists. You sort it out.

I have given you just one example of a Federal tax case (Merchants’ Loan) where your interpretation was legally incorrect, and I have given you some hints as to why it is incorrect. That is enough. I feel no urge to prove to you or to myself that you are wrong and I am right. My daily energies are aimed at real life. Real life for me is dealing with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of taxpayers, not at debating with you or answering your “74 questions.” Please stop using Wikipedia to try to get me and other editors to answer your questions. You have been wasting your time, and Wikipedia is not the proper forum for what you are trying to do.

Good luck, Famspear 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Far better to discuss fuure interests in real property like fee simple determinable or in trusts, like the rule agianst prepetuities than to talk to a stone wall ;). John wesley 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Good luck, fammy... P.S. I may get to meet Marv Chirelstien. John wesley 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on article

Dear fellow editors: On 5 October 2006 an anonymous editor at IP 216.81.197.249 inserted the following commentary in the article page:

Note: Whomever wrote this is obviously biased against any attempt to hold the US Government accountable to the Constitution, and/or loves paying taxes to no end!

If it's OK to do this, I removed the coding and moved the text of the comment here to the talk (discussion) page, so the editor's comments can be seen more readily. Yours, Famspear 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enigmatic material moved from article, for discussion

The following enigmatic material has been moved from the article, for discussion:

The supreme court has ruled numerous times that an individual's argument is frivolous. Reasons for this include an obtuse perspective of the law, and the attempt to argue the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This is frivolous because the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the income tax from an indirect excise tax to a direct tax, and thus its ratification is immaterial within this topic. An excise tax in relation to the equivocal definition of 'income' in the Sixteenth Amendment, has been legally defined innumerable times by the supreme court, in addition to that, in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909. Which, incidentally, remains legally binding to this very day. As a consequence, the self-assessment forms become optional. Although it is up to the individual to prove that they are receiving no corporate excise. Individuals are found guilty of tax evasion and even imprisoned because of their lack of understanding for the law.True laws of the American income tax.

Yours, Famspear 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear what is meant by the phrase "an individual's argument is frivolous." Which argument? Which individual? The statement that the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the income tax from an indirect tax to a direct tax is correct; however, the connection between that statement and the statement that the "ratification is immaterial within this topic" is unclear.

The meaning of the phrase "the equivocal definition of 'income' in the Sixteenth Amendment" is unclear as there is no definition (equivocal or otherwise) of income in the Sixteenth Amendment at all.

It is correct to say that the U.S. Supreme Court has defined "income" in various court decisions. The reference to the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 is enigmatic -- is this possibly a reference to the Merchants' Loan case?

The statement that "the self-assessment forms become optional" might be a reference to the Federal income tax forms. There is nothing "optional," however, about the legal duties to file returns and pay taxes -- and to use the forms prescribed the IRS for that purpose.

The verbiage "Although it is up to the individual to prove that they are receiving no corporate excise," aside from not being a grammatical sentence, is nonsensical. This might be an attempt to state the incorrect, frivolous "income means only corporate profits" argument. Clarification is needed.

The statement that "Individuals are found guilty of tax evasion and even imprisoned because of their lack of understanding for the law" might be true in some particular case. Under the Cheek doctrine, an honest, good faith belief that one is not violating the tax law based on a misunderstanding of the tax law is a valid defense with respect to the element of "willfulness" in a tax evasion prosecution, even though that belief is irrational and not objectively reasonable. However, that doesn't mean that someone hasn't been wrongly convicted somewhere -- for example, because a jury simply refused to believe that a defendant had a good faith belief. Any comments, anyone? Famspear 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Readers: I also note that the removed verbiage ends with a link to the "usa-the-republic.com" web site, ironically referred to as "True laws of the American income tax." What a joke. That web site is not, as a general proposition, a reliable, proper source for an encyclopedia article on the tax law or any kind of law. Here's an example of some of the stuff found on that web site:

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It is true that not only can it NOT be found in Title 31 U.S.C., but it is nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.

This kind of nonsense has already been exposed here in Wikipedia. See Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments. In addition to being mentioned at least 170 times in the Internal Revenue Code itself, this U.S. government agency (in this case, the Treasury Department bureau known as "Internal Revenue Service") is specifically mentioned several times in titles 31 and 5 of the United States Code. See, for example:

31 U.S.C. § 301(f)(2)
31 U.S.C. § 330(c)(1)
31 U.S.C. § 713(a)
5 U.S.C. § 500(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9508(a)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(b)(1)(A)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(b)(2)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(a)(1)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(b)(1)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(d)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(e)(2)

This is the kind of stuff that passes for "legal" research or knowledge on the internet. Wikipedia is unfortunately a frequent target of this kind of material. Yours, Famspear 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protest merging into this page

I've discovered there's a separate stub article called Tax protest. It doesn't contain much, if any, material in addition to this article, except perhaps some (unsourced) statements linking some tax protesters to white supremacists. But I'd thought I'd post the merge templates before just turning it into a redirect, as there might be something I missed. Anyone see something useful in that article? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Wow, I didn't know it was there, either. In my opinion, there is virtually nothing of substance in the article Tax protest that isn't already found in one or more of the following: Tax protester; Tax protester history; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Agreed... merge it Drew1369 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - Merge Morphh (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Tax protest to a redirect to this page (Tax protester). The tag's been up for a week, and Tax protest was a stub to begin with. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move. —Mets501 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following move request deals with this article ("Tax protester") as well as related articles listed below, all of which deal exclusively or almost exclusively about these phenomena in the United States and should be titled accordingly. (See also: WP:BIAS)

—  AjaxSmack  06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Survey - Support votes

  1. Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Tax protester arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Morphh (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Tax protester arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, Tax protester conspiracy arguments, other articles oppose. nirvana2013 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

  1. Oppose - Tax resistance is not exclusively a US phenomena. Mahatma Gandhi was not a US citizen, for example. If articles like tax resistance are US centric, then they require editing not moving. Start US sub-articles if you like, but no article move. nirvana2013 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"Start US sub-articles if you like" -- that is what this move will accomplish. It will preserve the edit histories and talk pages with the US specific articles while freeing up the generic titles for non-geographically biased overview articles. See also comments below. —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - Tax protester, Tax resistance, Tax revolt, Conscientious objection to military taxation, Weak Oppose - Tax protester history. Morphh (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If there is comparable tax protest elsewhere, expand the articles until they need to be divided; if there isn't. leave them at the simplest name that describes the content. Don't dismabiguate unnecesarily out of political correctness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This is a weak "oppose." Yours, Famspear 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. If someone would like to expand on the phenomenon in other countries, they are more than welcome to do so, and split off parts of the article that are country-centric later. SnowFire 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In these cases, however, entire articles are about the US and the edit histories and talk pages should remain with the US specific articles. See also comments below. —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - I would prefer that the articles be expanded or improved to give a more international focus, rather than it have their titles changed, particularly Tax resistance and Conscientious objection to military taxation.

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Tax resistance is widespread; consider anachoresis. Tax protest of the sort discussed in these articles requires a binding written Consitution, unamendable by revenue legislation, which can be read to forbid some widespread taxes; it also requires a court system which is (at least in the hopes of the protesters) capable of striking down the tax. This set of circumstances may well be rare outside the United States.

But my point above remains: whether or not these are peculiarly American phenomena, we don't need to, and shouldn't, disambiguate until we have parallel articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, "United States" in the title is not intended to disambiguate but to be a description of the article subject as with Separation of powers under the United States Constitution, Overseas expansion of the United States, United States invasion of Panama, 99th United States Congress, or United States Intelligence Community none of which disambiguate.
Although some of these topics could apply outside of the US (e.g., tax resistance, tax protester), these articles have nothing about the general concept except a single-sentence dictionary definition at the beginning (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary).
Nirvana2013 suggested above starting US sub-articles but 99+% of the content is already about the US and the edit history and talk pages would be lost. And it is a stretch to have any generalized definition of some of the topics (e.g., Tax protester constitutional arguments).
These are very good articles but their US-centrism goes beyond bias; their titles are inaccurate and should be moved. If they are moved, new non-geogrpahically biased overview articles at the generic titles could be created to further describe the concepts in general terms. —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not follow that. By this logic, any article about something that occurs only in the United States, whether Senatorial courtesy or Snail darter, would have to say so in the title (as opposed to the intro, as they do). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: The titles of these articles are not only accurate but fairly precise. Obviously, a title (such as "tax protester constitutional arguments") that does not even mention geography cannot be "geographically biased." I concur with editor Pmanderson/Septentrionalis: "we don't need to, and shouldn't, disambiguate until we have parallel articles."
Until we have information to the contrary, we assume that the tax protester phenomenon is peculiar to the United States. As the tax protester phenomenon is only a part of a larger concept such as "tax resistance" (which of course may well be a multi-national phenomenon), we don't need to specifically say "United States" in the title of each article, any more than we would state in an article on The Alamo that the subject is a "United States" phenomenon. We don't title that article "The Alamo in the United States" merely because there might be an "alamo" in another country.
Obviously, the legal concept of "separation of powers" is found in many countries. Many countries have engaged in "overseas expansion." I believe that more than one country has "invaded Panama" (e.g., both the USA and Spain). Many countries have an "intelligence community" (a group of intelligence agencies). And more than one country probably uses the term "Congress" to apply to a political or other body (even in the U.S., the term "congress" may be used for a variety of organizations). In the event that we later locate information that the term "tax protester" is used in a substantial way in other countries to describe some phenomena in those other countries, we can deal with the situation at that time, in my opinion.
By contrast, "tax resistance" is a more worthy candidate for a title like "tax resistance in the United States" than are the various articles on "tax protest." Yours, Famspear 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Post-script: I note that The Alamo does in fact link to a disambig page, as there are identified, specific multiple uses for the term, such as the movie "The Alamo," and so on. Also, I now notice that I read the list too quickly, and that "Tax resistance" actually is on the list. Perhaps I should modify my vote to the extent that "Tax Resistance" is not limited to the USA as a phenomenon. Famspear 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In the articles that I listed for Support, I believe these are fairly complete articles specific to the U.S. I don't expect someone looking at these articles would add content from another country. Using Famspear's example, it would be like adding the "Alamo" details of another country to the main Alamo article. It is clear that the Alamo article is specific, even though it does not state so in the title. If I wanted to write about the "Alamo" from another country, I would create a new article with a specific title. I don't agree with all the suggestions, opposing the less specific articles for the reasons stated by many. I'm looking at the article and thinking - Does it make sense to take this content and put it all under a sub-topic of "United States" and create other country headers? With the articles that I supported, my thought was "no". This move would also require new articles to be created with the generic title (currently held by the article) and basic topic content with a summary style for the U.S (a split with talk preservation may be the better description). This easily allows other countries to add content to the generic page without feeling like their interfering with a country specific article. As the other countries grow content, they in turn can split their content to a sub-article. The intent is to allow for other countries to expand this topic data. I think the best way to do this is to move some of these articles rather then keeping them and expecting people to expand an already detailed country specific article to include a minor global addition. Morphh (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If this is a real problem, someone will add an "In other countries" section; if no one has, it's not yet a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I likely wouldn't on a very detailed well written article such as the ones discussed. I expect the reason these articles are currently U.S. biased is probably for that reason. It is more likely someone would expand a generic article already formated for a global view. Morphh (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Definition

Common use of the term - I'm not sure if there is another term for this but "Tax protester" is also used in the media to define an individual that participates in a protest or rally in regard to taxes even if the group does not deny the obligation to pay a tax. For example, this FairTax rally in Orlando Image:Orlandotaxrallypic1.jpg and similar one in Atlanta was stated in the media to be tax protestors.[10][11] These groups do not deny the obligation to pay nor do they defy tax collection. Such groups want tax policy change and take peaceful group action to promote change and awareness. Should this common misuse of this term in popular culture be defined in the article? Morphh (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: Yeah, or should the article say that it's just an alternative use of the term? Also, even the courts used to use the term to describe people who did not deny the obligation to pay the tax, but were just people protesting government policies, such as the Vietnam War. I forget where it is, but I believe it's in a footnote in Tax protester history. Yours, Famspear 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enigmatic language

A new user has inserted the following unsourced, non-neutral verbiage in the article:

There have been supreme court rulings that state that the Income Tax is unconstitutional however the IRS has claimed that the supreme court's rulings are "inaplicable". THAT is ilogical [sic].

In the past, there have indeed been Supreme Court cases where the Court ruled certain very old versions of Federal income tax statutes to be unconstitutional -- for example, the 1895 Pollock case, as covered in various Wikipedia articles, interpreting an 1894 statute. The verbiage above, however, is misleading, and the IRS is actually correct. Except for the Murphy decision from the year 2006 (a decision, by the way, that was later vacated), which was not a Supreme Court case, there has been no Federal court decision ruling that the income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the current tax code, is unconstitutional. Even in the Murphy case, the court did not rule the income tax itself unconstitutional.

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on tax protester arguments under the 1954/1986 Code is the famous case of Cheek v. United States -- also covered here in Wikipedia. In Cheek, the Supreme Court stated:

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

The Supreme Court in Cheek continued:

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205-206 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). The tax protester, Mr. Cheek, was ultimately convicted and went to prison.

The Supreme Court rulings from the late 1800s and from the period prior to World War II -- that various income tax statutes in the past were unconstitutional -- are indeed legally inapplicable to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Generally, those rulings have been overturned by Constitutional amendment or have been overruled by the Supreme Court itself. Yours, Famspear 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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