Talk:Tax protester (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] Funny stuff / Eastman

There is a lot of funny stuff on this discussion page.

Dale Eastman should publicly tell the IRS what his views are on income tax law, and ask them to tell him if they take issue with any of it, especially as regards his return (if filed). Then he'd learn how accurate his arguments are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.123.84 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Eastman's "arguments" could be archived, as they relate to his opinion of the topic, rather than of the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I agree. It's been a year and a half, and Eastman has probably suffered enough humiliation, with people in other places on the internet having commented on this material (I would argue that I didn't do it to him; he really did it to himself). Maybe archive everthing prior to, say, January of 2007? Famspear 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The latest from Mpublius

I'm not sure, but it now appears that Mpublius may have abandoned the mediation cabal he requested. He has now opened a request for arbitration on the Tom Cryer article: [1] Famspear 17:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I'm gonna have to challenge the overall neutrality of this article. There seems to be a blatant disregard for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.78.231 (talk • contribs)

Could you provide an example of where the article violates NPOV policy? If you have a viewpoint that is of sufficient weight and supported by reliable sources that is not present in the article or subarticles, please supply the information for review. Morphh (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


I just read the article for the first time. It comes off as a whole as making anyone who thinks taxes unconstitutional has being a nut. With uses of words such as "frivolous", "bizarre," and continual use of phrases such as "based in law/fact" it comes off as very POV agaist tax protesters. The fact is, they have a case, they just get bullied. It needs a rewrite for NPOV reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.181.238 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear new user at IP 207.162.181.238: If you come away from reading the article with the sense that tax protester arguments are bizarre and silly, that does not mean that the article lacks a Neutral Point of View as that term is used in Wikipedia. Tax protester arguments are indeed bizarre and silly. By definition, they not only have no legal merit, they are legally frivolous. No tax protester argument has ever been upheld in any Federal court ruling anywhere. Not even once.
Let's talk about what Neutral Point of View means in Wikipedia.
As odd as it may sound to a newcomer, there is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits non-neutral language such as "bizarre" and "frivolous." These are the terms actually used in the source materials, not terms created by Wikipedia editors. Neutral point of view does not require that the SOURCE -- or the SOURCE MATERIAL -- be neutral or unbiased. The fact that a legal commentator refers to tax protester arguments as "bizarre," and the fact that tax protester arguments are uniformly ruled to be legally frivolous (which is a legal term actually used in the text of the statute and in the actual texts of court rulings) does not disqualify the use of those terms in the Wikipedia article.
Here's the rule:
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
For example, where a court rules a tax protester argument to be "frivolous" (something that courts do all the time), it is perfectly fine to document that in Wikipedia with an adequate description that "frivolous" is the court ruling. We as Wikipedia editors cannot delete "points of view" in Wikipedia merely because they are liberal, conservative, leftist, rightist, or merely because they make tax protesters look bizarre or foolish.
Neither can we as editors delete references to source material merely because the material is biased. Neutral point of view means that Wikipedia itself does not take a position that this source's viewpoint is correct, or that source's viewpoint is incorrect. You will notice that nowhere in the article does Wikipedia state that "the courts are right" or that "the tax protesters are right." (True, the courts are legally correct and the tax protesters are wrong -- that's because of the way law is defined in the United States, and that is a separate issue.)
Another misunderstanding that I believe you may have is that a Wikipedia article should treat both sides with equal weight. Again, review the rules on Neutral Point of View. Neutral point of view does not mean equal weight for both sides.
Further, treating tax protester arguments with a weight equal to that of the actual court rulings would be the legal equivalent, in a Wikipedia article on "The Moon," of treating arguments that the Moon is made of green cheese with the same weight as descriptions of the composition of the Moon from NASA scientists, etc. Neutral point of view does not mean affording equal weight to both sides.
Please review the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, while it may be NPOV, I think it lacks views of the protestors themselves. This article almost seems as if someone from the IRS wrote it himself. The article is full of anti-protestor views, but fails to get the other side of the story. I'd write one myself, but Im not a tax protestor :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.173.148 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP70.10.173.148: This is an introductory article. The related articles go into detail on the tax protester arguments themselves. Originally, there was just one article, and it got too big. See:

If you come away thinking that this or other articles seems as though it was written by the IRS, that's because the IRS agrees with the courts that the tax protesters are wrong about what the law is. As of this date (late May 2008), in the entire history of the American republic, not one single tax protester has ever won a U.S. federal court ruling on a tax protester argument. Not even once.

What the articles do is to list the tax protester arguments and then state what the courts have ruled on those arguments, without taking sides between the tax protesters and the courts. If that ends up making it look like the tax protesters are a bunch of fools, that's because the tax protesters never win on their arguments. Wikipedia does not say "the tax protesters are wrong and the courts are right." What Wikipedia says is "the tax protesters say this and the courts have ruled that." Neutral point of view does not require that Wikipedia give equal weight to the tax protester arguments and the court decisions. In fact, straining to give equal weight to the tax protester arguments would violate neutral point of view. This is covered in more depth in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoner litigation restrictions.

I removed reference to statutory restrictions on frivolous claims by prisoners because those are really outside the scope of the article. The statute is aimed at prisoners who file frivolous suits against the prison, and its purpose is to deprive them of the ability to file multiple such suits in forma pauperis. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that was getting a bit tangential on my part. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just happened to have some firsthand experience with that provision. No, not as a prisoner - I interned one summer for a federal judge, and I was assigned to handle all those pro se prisoner appeals. Quirky stuff. bd2412 T 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but I bet it was so much fun! Famspear (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Than it is obvious that whoever wrote this article has bias or an agenda to discredit any form of protest against taxes. I suppose if you revise the article and get rid of one sided argument here, we would have the ability to move forward and not feel this article is a soap box for a tax lawyer who says himself tax protestors are crazy.

Put all your bias into a section Criticisms of tax protestors. Or else this is biased and not educational at all. State what tax protestors believe, add some court case history and then give us a section titled "criticisms of tax protestors". That is all you need to do.

I am calling out and challenging the neutrality of this, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Satv365: No, sorry, but it is not obvious that "whoever wrote this article has bias or an agenda" etc. (Note: I wrote part of the article myself.) Indeed, there are certain forms of protest against taxes that are perfectly legal. This article is not about those legal forms of protest.
This article is about legally frivolous arguments about the validity or application of the U.S. federal income tax. Congress has passed a law imposing civil monetary penalties for raising these arguments in a court of law. Not only that, but following these arguments to avoid paying federal income taxes can and does land some people in federal prison. That's not my rule, and that's not Wikipedia's rule either. That's the law, whether you or I like it or not.
You have not identified any "one sided arguments" in the article. You have not identified any "bias" in the article. You have not identified a single unverified statement, or a single example of non-neutral point of view. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. I encourage you to consider providing specific examples of specific language in the article that you believe should be improved.
A word of caution: Please avoid making comments about other editors. Comment on the material itself, and be specific.
Now, getting back to your charge about "bias" and "agenda." Generalized charges that other editors are "biased" or that other editors "have an agenda" are ineffective, and pretty much miss the point. It would be correct to say that almost all editors have a bias. It may also be correct to say that many editors also have an agenda. However, under the rules of Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong with that.
The point in Wikipedia is for the editor to put aside the bias or the desire to push an agenda, and to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including especially Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "victories at the State Level"

I would say your comments here reinforces my neutrality claims here. You need to list facts and not bias. This article pretty much calls Tax Protestors as nutcases, and wasting the courts time. You may wish to add some of the victories at the State Level of Tax Protestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.255.90 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no "victories at the State Level" against the federal income tax, which is generally the subject of tax protest. No state court has the authority to assess a federal income tax deficiency, nor to conduct a civil or criminal trial against based on a person's failure to pay the federal income tax. And it is the courts and the executive branch that call tax protesters "nutcases, and wasting the courts time"; the article accurately reports that this is the position of all levels of government. bd2412 T 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP68.187.255.90: No, neither my comments nor anything else here reinforces your "neutrality claims." The Wikipedia article lists only correct information, supported by reliable sources. Indeed, you have not even identified any language in the article that you feel is non-neutral, much less persuaded anyone of that. Generalized statements that the article is not neutral are not acceptable.
On your comment about "nut cases," many, many tax protesters are indeed nut cases -- in my opinion. All you have to do to understand that is to read some of the wacky stuff they come up with. The bulk of tax protester literature is also blatantly false, with fake quotations and real quotations used to "support" fake descriptions of what the courts ruled. I have studied hundreds and hundreds of these cases for years.
And, by definition, tax protesters are wasting the courts' time. That's what frivolous litigation means -- essentially: taking up the time and resources of the legal system without having any valid case at all.
Many tax protesters do have severe personality problems, in my opinion. But that's my opinion. I am biased. I am a Wikipedia editor. All Wikipedia editors are allowed to be biased. There is no rule against that.
The rule on neutral point of view relates to Wikipedia articles -- not to Wikipedia editors, and not to the sources. As strange as it may sound, Wikipedia editors are allowed to be biased, and sources used in the articles are allowed to be biased. The Wikipedia article itself, however, should be presented with a neutral point of view.
Now, a word about what neutral point of view is NOT. Under the rules of Wikipedia, neutral point of view does NOT mean giving equal weight to both sides. If you came away after reading this article with the idea that tax protesters are full of baloney -- you came away with the correct impression. That, however, has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article. That has to do with the sources -- the actual law and the actual court rulings cited in the article.
By the way, this article is essentially about tax protesters with respect to Federal income tax. As editor BD2412 has noted, Federal tax issues are generally decided in Federal courts, not state courts, and I'm not clear on what you mean by "State Level." At any rate, there are no "victories at the State Level of Tax Protesters" with respect to tax protester arguments about Federal income tax. None. Not even one.
There are a few criminal tax cases (Federal cases) where tax protesters are acquitted by a jury -- just as defendants in murder trials are sometimes acquitted. Under the U.S. legal system, a jury acquittal in a criminal tax case does not constitute a court ruling that the Federal tax law is invalid, etc., or that the tax protester's argument about the tax law had any validity whatsoever. Indeed, if a court were to rule the tax protester's argument to be valid, then by definition there would be no need for a jury to reach a verdict. That's the way the U.S. legal system works.
I and other editors would be interested in hearing any specific suggestion for improvement of the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel B. Evans

I just mentioned this on the page for Talk:Tax protester constitutional arguments as well, so pardon me for redundancy, but aren't we holding the opinions of "legal commentator Daniel B. Evans" in too high regard, considering he hasn't been deemed notable enough to deserve an article of his own? Quotation of his writings is found all over articles in this series, but his definition of a tax protester in the pre-TOC paragraph of this article seems POV and rather harsh. Maybe I'm just a libertarian conspiracy theorist, but my gut feeling is that a movement which has gained so many adherents (including attorneys, accountants, and ex-IRS agents) should be treated a with some delicacy as far as definition is concerned. My own personal point of view is that the tax protesters have a lot more going for them then Scientologists and members of the Flat Earth Society, but I certainly wouldn't use Wikipedia to express that point of view—particularly within paragraph 1. Just my two cents—there's probably a clear response to this. — atchius (msg) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Flat Earth Society is more a tongue-in-cheek irony thing, and Scientology is a religion, which is not susceptible to normal proofs and disproofs. However, tax protesters are followers of a legal theory, which can be disproven by being brought before a court and being found incorrect by a judge (or, in the case of pretty much all tax protester theories, by a slew of judges in a body of decisions that all point one way). Granted, the conspiracy theories invoking a fraud perpetrated by the whole of the U.S. federal and state government may not be susceptible to disproof, but arguments about, for example, whether Congress intended "income" to include "wages" are settled beyond rational dispute. As for Evans, well he's a top authority on the subject (as hobbyists go), and is not a government officer, so he has no basis for holding his views other than his well-documented research on the theories. Perhaps he should have his own article, but that's not my call. bd2412 T 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Evans is a source, a secondary source. He is possibly the single most authoritative secondary source on tax protesters (considering the amount of work he has done on the topic), and has been quoted on this topic in places like the New York Times, if I recall correctly.
Regarding the comment that Evans' "definition of a tax protester in the pre-TOC paragraph of this article seems POV and rather harsh": First, it IS POV (point of view). It's Evans' POV, whether biased or not, whether neutral or not. And that's perfectly fine under the rules of Wikipedia. Evans is a source, and sources can be as biased and non-neutral as they want to be. Second, Evans' point of view happens to reflect precisely the tenor of the language used by the courts in case after case, to describe tax protester arguments. I have studied the actual texts of hundreds and hundreds of these cases, going back to the first reported cases back in the 1970s, and even back before they were called "tax protester."
Regarding the comment that the tax protester movement "has gained so many adherents (including attorneys, accountants, and ex-IRS agents)" and "should be treated a with some delicacy as far as definition is concerned" -- I would completely disagree. The number of attorneys, accountants, and ex-IRS agents who adhere to tax protester arguments is almost infinetesmally small compared to the vast majority. And remember, not one single tax protester argument has ever been upheld in a court of law. Not one. Not ever.
Tax protester arguments are, fundamentally, a scam, a con. Again, tax protester arguments, without exception, are the legal equivalent of arguing before a group of NASA scientists that The Moon is made of green cheese. Famspear (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just as a follow-up. The following is not so much a response to editor Atchius as it is a general comment.

I haven't totalled it up, but the number of attorneys, accountants and ex-IRS agents who are on the record as having espoused tax protester arguments is probably less than fifty or so. That's out of a total population of hundreds of thousands of attorneys, two to three hundred thousand certified public accountants, and so on.

One danger in Wikipedia is that a loony, fringe group (of which the tax protester group is certainly a prime example) will be accorded more weight than it deserves in the encyclopedia, due to the "open" nature of editing. Tax protesters and their arguments currently have no less than six separate Wikipedia articles devoted to the topic, and that's not counting separate articles on individual protesters like Irwin Schiff and references to them in other tax law articles. The articles have been extensively vetted (for about the past two years) for compliance with the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. These Wikipedia concepts are quite sufficient.

My own personal point of view is that tax protesters have absolutely nothing going for them -- either legally or socially or politically. It is true that merely "believing" a tax protester theory is not a crime. However, tax protesting, when taken beyond the point of merely believing or expressing an opinion, can and often does ultimately result in criminal behavior for which long prison terms are imposed.

Even putting the criminal penalties aside, taking a tax protester position on Federal income tax returns is so serious that Congress has also provided civil monetary penalties for doing so (and recently increased the civil monetary penalty from $500 to $5,000).

I have been studying this topic for years and I have seen the examples of the lives that have been wrecked or ruined by this nonsense. We're not just talking about the innocent people who are taken in by these often persuasive scams -- we are also talking about the innocent family members of those people, who also suffer.

Wikipedia has already bent over backwards to give tax protesters a place to publish their theories (as if there aren't enough places for this already on the internet). These articles are the result. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not compromise its own rules -- especially the rule against according undue weight -- by straining to lend some sort of credence to tax protester arguments. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


"Wikipedia has already bent over backwards to give tax protesters a place to publish their theories (as if there aren't enough places for this already on the internet). These articles are the result."
It appears that you openly admit that the creators and editors of this article are guilty of forking? I believe so. JS747 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear user JS747: You may want to re-read the rules on content forking. Content forking is the creation of a separate article for the purpose of avoiding the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. By contrast, the tax protester articles are an attempt to illustrate the tax protester arguments. The articles themselves are required to conform to NPOV, as are all Wikipedia articles. If the articles were merely non-neutral content forks, then they would have simply been deleted as content forks long ago. Famspear (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Famspear: Your points are noted. I am somewhat familiar with the act of forking. I am a new user so I am still learning. I was basing my comment on the quote from you that I stated above. Which I believe you asserted that these articles were created in a response to "wikipedia bending over backwards" to other tax protester related articles on wikipedia. My initial thoughts on your statements were: Why create new articles on a subject if articles on the subject already exist on wikipedia? Isn't that the very definition of forking? Why not just edit the original articles to reflect what you believe to be a NPOV? Is my interpretation of your assertions incorrect, if so why?
The editing guidelines of forking states that "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." My comments were to address the possibility of a content fork and not a POV content fork. So the comments you had made about pov and npov don't apply. You also stated that "if they were non-netural content forks, they would have been deleted a long time ago." If you could provide evidence of this, then I would probably agree with you.JS747 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
These are not "forks" as there are not two different articles purporting different facts. These were theories originally put in articles like Income tax in the United States and Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which were disruptive to those articles because they tended to constitute enormous cut-and-paste dumps of text from tax protester websites (which is, of course, also a copyright violation). Over the course of the past three years, the arguments put forth in these various text dumps have been thoroughly analyzed and numerous court decisions have been cited where the arguments have been deemed legally incorrect (and, in most cases, frivolous). In short, this is not a "fork", but the creation of new articles from material incorrectly inserted into existing articles. However, people continue to buy into bogus theories, and we continue to report how those theories have actually fared when put to the test in courts of law. bd2412 T 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear JS747: The articles in question were originally various articles on tax law topics. My understanding is that tax protesters were chronically posting tax protester nonsense in articles on taxation (such as Income tax). My understanding is that a decision was made at some point, possibly before I began editing here in late 2005, that instead of constantly dealing with all this in gazillions of different tax law-related articles, there should simply be an article called "Tax Protesters" or whatever. I believe that was the state of affairs when I came to Wikipedia.

So, as tax protesters continued to put unsourced material in tax articles, that material was moved to the article on Tax Protesters. Eventually, that article just got so big that an administrator split it out into the following: Tax protester; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments; Tax protester history.

Now, tax protesters have continued to bombard the "regular" tax articles, and that material is often moved to the applicable "tax protester" article. Now, the six tax protester articles have become very large.

To answer your comments about POV forking: POV forking is essentially the opposite of what we are doing here.

Example: Let's suppose we're talking about a Wikipedia article on The Moon. Let's assume that the article contains extensive citations to scientific journals on various aspects of the Moon, its history, its composition, and so on. Now, along come members of an organization called "The Moon Is Really Made of Green Cheese and All the Scientists Have Been Engaged in a Conspiracy to Lie To Us About It All Along Society." These people begin changing the Wikipedia article, arguing that the Moon is really made of green cheese, adding nonsensical arguments not accepted by 99.999% of all scientists or moon experts. A decision is made by consensus in Wikipedia that the Green Cheese arguments appear to be fringe positions. The material is removed.

The Green Cheese people don't give up; they keep adding the material back.

Rather than simply continuing to delete the material, Wikipedia decides to create a separate article called "The Green Cheese Theory of the Moon" or whatever.

That is what I understand happened with Wikipedia and tax protesters.

Now, let's change the facts a bit. Suppose that the Green Cheese people themselves create the article, and start using the article to simply say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese -- essentially circumventing the main article on the Moon. The Green Cheese people simply want to use Wikipedia to push their own point of view about the Moon -- a view that they strongly insist they really believe. Under the rules of Wikipedia, this would be a POV Fork, and the article could be deleted on that basis.

HOWEVER, the Wikipedia community might instead say: No, we can retain this separate "The Green Cheese Theory of the Moon" article, but the article is going to have to be modified to reflect Neutral Point of View (and all other Wikipedia rules). So, the Green Cheese article is modified -- keeping the Green Cheese arguments in it, but also including the citations to places where reputable scientists contradict the Green Cheese theory, etc. In other words, the article could be converted from a "POV fork" (i.e., an unacceptable attempt to circumvent Wikipedia rules) to an article about a fringe theory about the moon that includes BOTH sides (the majority position and the fringe position). Again, Wikipedia would not say, in the Green Cheese article, that "The Scientists are right" or "The Green Cheese People are right" UNLESS Wikipedia is making clear WHO IS MAKING THE STATEMENT. For example, Wikipedia could say "Professor Harvard, chairman of the NASA Scientists Society on the Moon, says that the Green Cheese theory has no merit" with a citation to the scholarly journal in which Professor Harvard's comment appears. This is not Wikipedia taking a non-neutral position. This is Wikipedia reporting what a previously published reliable third party source has written.

Again, the source itself is not required to be neutral, and the source material in the Wikipedia article is not required to be neutral. The source can be biased. The material can be biased. All sources are biased, or are at least assumed to be biased.

Neutral point of view does not mean "we cannot report any biased point of view in a Wikipedia article." Neutral Point of View means reporting those biased, non-neutral points of view from reliable, previously published third party sources -- but presenting that material in a neutral way, essentially by reporting all sides, by not making unsourced statements as to which source is "correct", and by carefully editing the language of the articles to remove implications that Wikipedia is taking a position on which source is correct.

The mere fact that an article leaves the impression that one side is right and the other side is wrong does not mean that the article lacks neutral point of view. If 99% of the experts say one thing, and a small minority of people argue something else, the Wikipedia article can report that fact. Neutral Point of View does not mean straining to try to present both sides as having equal weight among authorities that field.

Tax protester arguments are a classic example of arguments that have literally zero validity, yet are presented in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia articles do not say that the protesters are right or wrong, but the articles also do not hide the fact that 99.99% of all authorities (and one hundred per cent of all U.S. Federal court decisions, as of mid January 2007) reject tax protester arguments.

Again, in the context of tax protesters, a POV fork would be an article set up by the protesters purporting to show, in a non-neutral manner, that the tax protester are right. Almost by definition, a POV fork is a non-neutral article that attempts to push one particular point of view in a non-neutral way.

By contrast, the tax protester articles you are talking are not POV forks. These articles were created as attempts by the Wikipedia community to allow a space where tax protester arguments can be presented -- BUT, presented in conformity with Wikipedia rules including the rule against allowing undue weight to an extreme fringe, minority position. Famspear (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source

Dear user Arthur Rubin: you have recently moved the additions I have made: "Some people take issue with the way the IRS itself has defined this term. They believe that the IRS has falsely identified individuals as "tax protesters" simply because they have criticized the IRS or the Income Tax.[24]"

You also added a "unreliable source?" tag to the end of my addition. Can you please explain why you believe that www.senate.gov is an unreliable source? You also added a contradict tag to the section you moved it to. Can you please explain why you believe there is a contradiction here? Thank you. JS747 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At best, the senate.gov site would give evidence that it was said, not that the person who said it was reliable. At worst, it would mean that the "testimony" was given in some senator's office, but I have little doubt that the hearings were actually held. As for the contradiction, the IRS is forbidden from using the term tax protester, possibly in response to the investigation in which that testimony was taken, and that's noted in the section. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tweak requested

"A defendant prosecuted under Federal tax laws who argues that tax laws are unconstitutional incurs the risk that his or her own words may help the prosecution prove the element of willfulness, even if the defendant’s belief is genuine and in good faith"

This comes across as a warning or advice and a bit WP:CRYSTAL

Something cast more like:

"In Cheek a defendant prosecuted under Federal tax laws who argued that tax laws were unconstitutional ..."

Might read better. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28 6 February 2008 (GMT).

Dear editors: I simplified it. Actually, I guess we didn't need to go into this much detail here (and I think I may be the editor that put this here originally), anyway, as it's already covered in the "Cheek" article. Hope it worked. 16:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famspear (talk • contribs)
Famspear, this statement is also present in the Tax protester constitutional arguments article (currently section 8 - titled "Arguments about constitutionality in criminal cases"). While we're looking at it, I think the section in the constitutional article, which consists of two sentences, is probably too short to justify a section header for this statement. Perhaps it can be integrated into another section or something... Morphh (talk) 2:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor Morphh: Maybe it should just be moved into the introductory section of that article??? Famspear (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That might work out well. It would be a good closer for the lead I think. After laying out all of the basic arguments and stating that they have all been rejected, a final statement that using such arguments can be used against them for willful tax evasion. Morphh (talk) 3:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review notice

I think we're close to submitting Tax protester constitutional arguments for Featured Article status. Please help in the peer-review of this article to get it ready for submission. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for comment at Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments

Dear editors: A user called “Ram2006” has begun inserting material in the article Internal Revenue Code to the effect that the “title 26” version of the Internal Revenue Code (as opposed to the 1954/1986 Internal Revenue Code as amended) is non-positive law. While it is of course technically correct to say that “title 26” itself is “non-positive law,” the effect of the edit appears to me to be the beginnings of another tax protester rant about the Internal Revenue Code itself not being “the law” or not being “positive law” which of course (in the minds of tax protesters) leads to “there’s no law that makes me liable for income tax.” The positive law/non-positive law tax protester argument is already covered at length in Tax protester statutory arguments. I have reverted Ram2006’s material in Internal Revenue Code a couple of times, but he or she has responded with personal attacks, and insists on re-inserting his/her material.

I have now inserted some verbiage in Tax protester statutory arguments that explicitly states what Ram2006 is stating: that “title 26” is indeed “non-positive law” (a true statement, but it doesn’t mean what the tax protesters think it means, of course). I have added this new verbiage right before the verbiage that explains that the “Internal Revenue Code” itself (not the version published as “title 26,” but the actual 1954/1986 Code, as amended, as scattered throughout the many, many volumes of the United States Statutes at Large published since 1954 is “positive law,” and is of course “the law” enacted by actual Acts of Congress.

I have pointed out to Ram2006 that this topic is already covered at Tax protester statutory arguments, to no avail.

I would like to ask fellow editors for clarification on the following points.

1. Are Ram2006’s edits considered to be insertion of tax protester rhetoric for purposes of Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment?

2. If yes, then under the consensus that such edits be “reverted on sight” per Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, at what point -- if any – could his/her repeated attempts to re-insert the edits be considered vandalism, such that his edits can be disposed of without regard to the three-revert rule? In other words, to what extent, if any, does the three-revert rule apply (or not apply) here?

At any rate, I think that if Ram2006’s edits are allowed to stand, then we are going to have to add balance to Internal Revenue Code article by copying much of the same material shown at Tax protester statutory arguments – defeating the purpose for which the tax protester related articles were created. I would argue that all the material on title 26 as “non-positive law” should go with the related material at Tax protester statutory arguments and not at Internal Revenue Code.

Thoughts? Please respond at Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, the frivolous argument statutes have been challenged in court, and found to be constitutionally valid

An anonymous user added the following verbiage to the article, which was removed by another editor:

Some argue that the imposing of penalties for bringing forth supposedly frivolous arguments violates first amendment rights of freedom of speech and right to petition and that it restricts fifth amendment rights to due process by discouraging tax protesters from activating a legal proceeding. Considering the courts' generally hostility to tax protester cases, they object that the "frivolous argument" statute is applied arbitrarily to suppress the tax protester movement Cf. for example Robert Schulz, http://www.givemeliberty.org/ The constitutionality of the "frivolous argument" statutes themselves have yet to be challenged in court.

The last sentence is blatantly false. The frivolous argument statute, which is section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code, has of course been challenged in court. And it has been upheld as constitutional. It took me only about two minutes to find a court case on this.

See Hazewinkel v. United States, 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9152 (D. Minn. 1983). In that case, the plaintiff Albert Hazewinkel sued the United States government, contending that both section 6702 and section 6703 were unconstitutional. Here is an excerpt from the text of the court’s decision:

The plaintiff filed an income tax return for the 1982 tax year in which he objected to substantially all of the questions regarding his income on the grounds of self-incrimination. On June 6, 1983, the Internal Revenue Service assessed a $500.00 penalty for filing a frivolous tax return. That penalty was imposed pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §6702. The plaintiff paid 15 percent ($75.00) of the penalty and filed a claim for refund which was denied on June 30, 1983.
The plaintiff filed this Complaint on July 26, 1983 seeking a refund of the $75.00 paid to the IRS. The basis of the plaintiff's Complaint is that 26 U. S. C. §§ 6702 and 6703(b)(c) violate, inter alia, Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution and the first, fifth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution. The government has counterclaimed for the remaining $425.00 of the penalty assessed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Origination Clause
The plaintiff argues that 26 U. S. C. §6702, which provides a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, is unconstitutional because it violates Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which provides that:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with the amendment as on other bills.
The provision in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1, which permits the Senate to propose or concur with Amendments, has been interpreted very broadly. See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 108 (1911). Even very substantial amendments to the original legislation are permitted. Id. This court concludes that any amendments made by the Senate did not violate the origination clause.
Jury Trial
The plaintiff also contends that he has a right to a jury trial to determine whether his assertion of the fifth amendment privilege was frivolous. The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not guarantee every plaintiff the right to a jury trial. If no disputed issues of fact remain for the fact finder, a court may appropriately grant a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56; Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 565 F. 2d 815 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, 439 U. S. 322 (1977). Moreover, after examining the record the court finds no merit to the plaintiff's fifth amendment claim.
Due Process
The plaintiff argues that §§ 6702 and 6703(b) & (c) violate both procedural and substantive due process because there is no right to a prior hearing and because the word "frivolous" is unconstitutionally vague. Neither of these contentions is meritorious. The plaintiff is presently exercising his due process right to prompt judicial review immediately after an adverse determination by the Internal Revenue Service. This procedure satisfies procedural due process. See Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U. S. 752, 762 (1974). Moreover, the term "frivolous" has a well understood meaning and is not unconstitutionally vague. The court has examined the remaining contentions of the plaintiff and does not find any of them to be meritorious.
The government has also moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim for the remaining $425.00 of the penalty. This court is mindful that this is a motion for summary judgment and is guided by the familiar principle that summary judgment should not be granted unless the moving party has established its right to judgment "with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy and unless the other party is not entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances." Vette Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 612 F. 2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir. 1980). The court must give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts. Id. at 1077.
In the present case the relevant facts are undisputed. The plaintiff filed an income tax return and refused to provide any relevant information concerning his income.
26 U. S. C. §6702 provides that anyone who files what purports to be an income tax return but which does not contain sufficient information upon which to judge the correctness of the self-assessment may be fined $500.00 if that filing is due to a position which is frivolous. The only objections plaintiff made to filing a completed tax return were frivolous constitutional arguments. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service was entitled to assess a $500.00 penalty.

The court ruled against the plaintiff (the taxpayer) and granted the government (the United States) its motion for summary judgment, and specifically granted the government's motion to collect the frivolous return penalty against the taxpayer. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now added a total of five court cases where taxpayer's specifically argued that section 6702, the frivolous return penalty statute, was unconstitutional, on various grounds. The courts have uniformly ruled such arguments to be without legal merit.
This is a typical example of how Wikipedia works in the area of tax protester articles. A user will come in and add some blatantly incorrect information to an article -- something so blatant that it is easily shot down in just a few minutes by a quick search of the case law. Famspear (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist reference deleted per Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Pursuant to the overwhelming consensus reached at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, attempts to introduce discredited tax protester theories as "fact" will be deleted on sight. Because the theories put forward in the Zeitgeist film are exactly that sort of nonsense, any reference to the film as factual will equally be deleted on sight. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Famspear correctly reverted this edit by 69.177.13.165, an anon who had deleted my comment and replaced it with his own vulgar rant, I am restoring the comment made by 69.177.13.165 because it is important to bring under the light the sort of thing which Tax protesters have been lead to believe. The comment added by the anon was:
THIS JUST IN FUCKERS THE MOVIES TRUE AND PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO PAY TAXES AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO COVER IT UP THE TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS
Where the "truth" has prevailed, however, is in the article, and not on the movie to which this protester refers. If people didn't have to pay taxes, we wouldn't. However, over two-hundred years ago, the people of the United States entered into a contract with one another. The contract was this: we would all agree to abide by a government to be formed among ourselves, to pay taxes as needed, to obey the law, and occasionally even to go to war with other countries, all in exchange for the guarantee that we would have a government which would do its best to protect us from foreign enemies, pass laws designed to keep moving the country forward, and enforce those laws. The government has kept its end of the bargain by fighting our enemies around the world, locking up criminals who are a danger to us all here at home, forcing people to keep their express and implied contractual obligations, and atone for injuries they cause to others.
The film that the anonymous poster cites is one in which people who don't like paying taxes develop a theory for why the aforementioned contract between the people has ceased to exist, thereby alleviating them of the need to pay those taxes. However, a government once instituted does not cease to exist without knowledge of the people due to the occurance of some archaic forumla of events. The film (and the anon, by advocating it) suggests that the people are being tricked into believing that the government continues to exist. But in fact, it is the belief of the people itself which causes a government expressly contingent on the consent of the governed to exist. If the anon were correct, every murderer now sitting in prison would have to be set free, because there would be no legitimate government having put them there. But there is simply no basis in fact to deny the continued existence of the United States, as there is no evidence to show that the majority of Americans do not believe that the United States continues to exist. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protestor/tax resister?

Shouldn't there be a note that the USDOJ has begun to refer to those who do not believe there is a legal requirement to pay income tax as tax resisters, as "protesters" seem to imply they have a legal right to not pay taxes (something like that, anyway)? I'm not saying it warrants a page-move, but... —Micahbrwn (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Micahbrwn: I believe that term mentioned by the DOJ in the quote in the article is "tax defier".
Using the term "protester" definitely does not now imply, nor has it ever implied, that someone has a legal right not to pay taxes. I think the distinction that the DOJ is making is that, for departmental purposes, they're starting to use the term "tax defier" as a synonym for what the courts and the DOJ (and, until 1998, the IRS) have been calling "tax protesters" for over 30 years.
In making that departmental terminology change, there is no implication that the term "tax protester" will now somehow apply to someone who has a legal right not to pay taxes. Indeed, there is no legal right not to pay taxes in that sense. I don't think there is an implication that the courts will necessarily stop using the term "tax protester" in formal court decisions.
What DOJ is talking about is, I think, restricting the department's own use of the term "tax protester" to a person who is refusing to pay taxes he or she legally owes only as a means of expressing opposition to how tax dollars are spent, etc. Such a person is not making a frivolous argument that the tax law is something other than what it really is, or that the tax law does not exist, etc.
Unfortunately, there is no legal right to refuse to pay taxes as a means of expressing opposition to how those tax dollars are spent. In fact, as noted in this or another article, one of the very earliest cases where the term "tax protester" was used was one where the guy was protesting the Vietnam War (early 1970s). He was convicted, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Even if your motives for "protest" are pure, you're still legally guilty if your conduct and mental state go beyond simple speech, etc., and you get into actually refusing to pay or refusing to file tax returns.
"Tax protester" is the generally used legal term -- and it has been used by the courts for over 30 years. "Tax defier" is not really even a "new" term -- just an alternative term.
In short, the only change at this point is a departmental one, within the DOJ. The DOJ is going to refer to "tax protesters" (as that term has usually been used by the courts) as being "tax defiers". Famspear (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issue; Rubin, Chodorov

User Arthur Rubin seems intent on keeping the article as it is, with a strident pro-American-nationalist-statist bias. It should not up to A. Rubin or wikipedia to decide what is and what is not 'fringe' or mainstream; the reader must be given neutral info and then decide on his own. If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited. I mean, are people like Frank Chodorov [2] really that 'fringe' or psychopathic? It is indeed possible to be a coherent thinker and not divinize the centralized, statist policies of modern American government.

Or does Arthur Rubin consider himself an indisputable authority and entitled to coercion of his opinion on others in the manner of a monarch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.32.112 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We're attempting to describe the world as it is, not as it should be. I can concur that the income tax is immoral without agreeing that it is, or even should be, illegal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As per Arthur Rubin, the income tax exists, as is demonstrated by the billions of dollars paid pursuant to it annually. It is certainly proper to report that courts and experts have characterized the opinion that it does not exist as a fringe belief. bd2412 T 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you fellows are not listening. Wikipedia should not unqualifiedly cite pro-government sources who state that tax-protesters' arguments are "bizarre" and leave it at that. Who the heck is Evans?

Courts report it is a fringe belief? So what. Is Wikipedia an agent of the American government or an independent encyclopedia? American courts have reported that witchcraft is real and massacred children due to the "court's judgment" (Salem). Mafiosi similarly state that the concept of the Mafia is an "anti-Italian conspiracy theory." So what? We can report the statements of American courts, but an encyclopedia should not be the slavish lackey of any all-too-human wielder of power.

Whether the tax-protesters arguments are sound or not is a POLITICAL JUDGMENT. If Wikipedia is going to cite a pro-statist source, then they should also cite a reasonable alternative source (like Chodorov) for the sake of balanced objectivity.

If we just categorically judge all tax-protesters as insane schizophrenics with "bizarre" arguments, how has our understanding progressed?

An objective encyclopedia does not make political judgments. I mean, should Wikipedia describe the current Iraqi guerilla war as legitimate resistance movement against militaristic American occupation or a lawless terroristlike insurgency against lawful authority? Encyclopedias should present arguments from BOTH and ALL SIDES, not be feudal servants of any particular political regime, and suspend political judgment so the reader can think on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Dear IP172.129.32.112/63.3.10.129: A "strident pro-American-nationalist-statist bias?". "Political judgments"? What "political judgments?" Iraq guerilla war? Hold the phone a second.
No, Wikipedia rules do not require that reader be given "neutral info". The Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View provides that the sources themselves can be biased, as odd as that may sound to a newcomer! Instead, Neutral POV requires that competing "biased" viewpoints be presented without Wikipedia itself saying who is right and who is wrong (it's more complicated than that, but I'm simplifying here) -- with a caveat.
The caveat is that Wikipedia is not required to give, and should not give, equal weight to all sides -- and especially should not give equal weight to fringe positions. What is a fringe position is determined by the weight of the authorities in the applicable field. In the case of tax law, the final authority on what the law is under the U.S. legal system is a court of law.
In the case of tax protester arguments, the overwhelming weight of authority is that tax protester arguments are not only fringe positions, but have absolutely no legal merit at all. Tax protester arguments are classic examples of fringe positions. Indeed, it's worse than that. In the entire history of the Republic, not one single tax protester argument described in any of the related Wikipedia articles has ever been upheld by any federal court (Supreme Court or otherwise). Never Not even one. No exceptions. This is a remarkable record.
In the case of this article and related articles, both sides are indeed being presented.
Now let's look at this verbiage:
If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited.
What is meant by "pro-establishment propaganda"? What is going on here? Both sides are already presented in the articles. Daniel Evans is a "pro-establishment propagandist"? And why is that? Because he accurately reports on the legal status of tax protester arguments? Good grief.
And this verbiage:
If we just categorically judge all tax-protesters as insane schizophrenics with "bizarre" arguments, how has our understanding progressed?
Our understand of what? What in the world are you talking about? What does this have to do with the article? If a source such as Daniel Evans states that tax protester arguments are "bizarre" (which, by any objective legal determination, they are, by the way), that's his prerogative. Where are you coming up with language like "insane schizophrenics"? You are wildly overstating your case.
As Daniel Evans knows, and as anyone else who has studied tax protester cases (I have been studying them for at least nine years, and very intensively for about 2 and half years), the arguments are indeed bizarre. And, as long as we're on the subject of mental illness, it appears to me (I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist) that there are indeed an inordinately high number of individuals with severe mental problems who bring tax protester arguments. In fact, that's one of the problems: tax protester activity does involve, to a large degree, psychopathic delusion. I don't even want to get into the details, but we're talking here about criminal activity -- faked "quotations" from court cases, non-existent "rulings", bizarre arguments that one case says one thing when it says almost exactly the opposite, bizarre arguments about non-existent legal doctrines, such as the one that if you spell your name in "ALL CAPITALS" that this has some sort of legal significance (it doesn't). This is just scratching the surface. When Daniel Evans says that tax protester arguments are "bizarre", he is absolutely correct, by any objective measure.
But more to the point, that's my opinion. By contrast, the Wikipedia article itself does not take sides -- it does not say that Evans is right about tax protester arguments being bizarre, or that Evans is right about anything else, for that matter.
I invite you to take a deep breath, step back, and read Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Sorry, but this article is not about a "political" issue. It's a about a legal subject. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, another anonymous user has tried provided the following edit summary explanation:

i am not pro or anti tax, but whether their arguments are 'mistaken' and 'bizarre' is a POLITICAL JUDGMENT, which an disinterested encyclopedia should refrain from making; see talk page)

Again, even assuming that the Evans material were to be a "political judgment" (which it is not), that is not a valid objection. Read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The material is a direct quote of Daniel Evans. Daniel Evans is a source. There is no Wikipedia rule that prohibits quoting a reliable, previously published third party source, even if that source is biased and even if that source is rendering a political judgment. I think some editors need to step back and familarize themselves with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please review my comments above. Famspear (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, look at this edit summary:

citing a proestablishment propagandist is un-objective

See the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. There is no requirement that a SOURCE be objective, or that a source not be a "proestablishment propangandist" -- whatever that means. And referring to Daniel Evans, one of the leading recognized experts in the field, as a "proestablishment propagandist", is not going to help your credibility here in Wikipedia.

Again, read the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

--THis is the origianl poster. In your personal opinion as magisterial legal generallisimo, do you consider midwestern Amish kids who refuse to participate in war as "mentally ill?" to what extent are you projecting your own politics into this analysis?

many thoughtful people understand the bloodshed-bound nature of "the state", and refuse to get involved in the whole sordid business of human politics, which is always tainted with guilt by association and bloodshed. many civilized people understand that "the state" is founded inevitably on bloody warfare, and, in a humanitarian perspective, warfare always amounts to self-vindication without due process of law.

i mean, constantly citing establishment theorists and IRS people for the 'correct' view on these matters is self-referentially retarded--its like trying to conduct an independent investigation on whether Jews in Germany were truly acting as a corporately subversive group by constantly refering to Nazi officials opinions on the matter. the self-referentiality of the citations is ridiculous and any logical person sees through them.

only moral degenerates would subscribe to the theory that human courts were to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria. Human courts have sanctioned the worst crimes in history.

Listen, if you knew me, you would know im not some partizan or lunatick. i just hate one-sidedness. granted that many tax-protesters are mentally unstable and some of them are even predatorial-minded, but it is also true that only in exceptional cases is governmental taxation-enforcement different from outright extortion and protection racketeering--America is evolved and civilized in its taxation system, but there are traces of primitivity in all human activities. Would you consider English peasants who resisted the Danegeld as mental nutcases? You must remember "the law" is intimately involved in history, and in very mundane intergroup competition. this doesn't mean we shouldn't support the american government or any other comparatively civilized govt with taxes (equivalent to religious almsgiving), but that we should not take an absolutist dogmatic stand against so-called 'fringe' whackos. it was once considered a fringe position by the american court for persons to disbelieve in witches and black masses--people should remember human beings, including 'official' bureaucrats and experts, are not gods-on-earth but error-prone evolved-insectivores with tendencies toward Machiavellianism and self-deception. what is needed is more ethical humility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.103.38 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP172.167.103.38: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us, but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. This article and the related articles are about tax protesters who make legally frivolous arguments about some legal point about the law. This article is not about people who object to the tax law on the various kinds of grounds you listed. Wikipedia already has articles on the
Whether you are correct when you contend that "constantly citing establishment theorists and IRS people for the 'correct' view on these matters is self-referentially retarded" as you put it is beside the point -- for the simple reason that the article does not "constantly" do that. Courts of law are not "establishment theorists" and courts of law are not "IRS people." And there are probably as many citations in the article to actual, officially published court decisions as there are to "IRS people" or to "establishment theorists" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Referring to another Wikipedia editor as a "magisterial legal generallisimo" is not going to get you anywhere here, and may be considered a violation of Wikipedia rules against personal attacks. Please try to control your emotion and deal with the text itself.
And look at this verbiage:
only moral degenerates would subscribe to the theory that human courts were to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria. Human courts have sanctioned the worst crimes in history.
Again, this talk page is not the proper place for you to be venting these kinds of feelings. Further, the article says nothing about any "theory that human courts are to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria". Please stay on topic.
Look at this rhetorical question you posed:
Would you consider English peasants who resisted the Danegeld as mental nutcases?
What????? You're comparing English peasants who resisted the Danegeld to people who argue that a court of law has no jurisdiction over you if the court spells your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS??? Come on, now. Again, this article is not about people who merely "resist" a tax on some moral or philosophical ground. The article is about people who make preposterous, legally frivolous arguments about what the law actually is -- either on tax returns or in court -- about the U.S. federal income tax.
And this:
the self-referentiality of the citations is ridiculous and any logical person sees through them.
With all due respect, that is in my view a meaningless statement. "Self-referentiality" of citations? We cannot properly document court cases -- either in terms of what the tax protesters themselves have contended in court, or in terms of what the courts have ruled about what the protesters have contended -- without citing the actual court cases. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Again, Please review the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, especially: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user(s): This is the article that covers what you are talking about: Tax resistance. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: Let's look at this verbiage:

If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited. I mean, are people like Frank Chodorov [ . . . ]

This is exactly what I am talking about. I'm just guessing, since I haven't read Chodorov's work but I would think Chodorov is not generally going to be providing dissenting opinions to tax protester arguments. I can't speak for Chodorov or for Evans, but I suspect that Chodorov's views and Evans' views are not necessarily opposed to each other. I suspect that Chodorov's view is that taxes (or some specific taxes) are BAD. He did not, as far as I know, make any of the arguments listed in any of the Wikipedia articles on tax protesters.

There is a big difference between (A) arguing that taxes are immoral, that the uses to which they are put are immoral, and arguing for resisting payment on grounds of principle (which is generally called "tax resistance") and (B) making phony, frivolous statements (especially on tax returns, or in court) about what the law actually is.

Now, it is probably true that some but not all tax protesters do what they do BECAUSE they happen to believe that taxes are immoral, etc., etc. In other words, they are not being motivated by an actual, good faith belief based on some sort of misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the law. Instead, some of them are psychologically impaired to the extent of trying to delude themselves into believing that BECAUSE the tax law is "bad", the law THEREFORE must somehow not really be the law. I wouldn't put Chodorov in that category. In other words, I have never seen anyone claim that Chodorov made any kind of legally frivolous argument about what the law actually is. Again, I have not read his works.

By contrast, I think what my anonymous friends are talking about when they talk about the Amish, about the English peasants (and the Danegeld), and about Frank Chodorov, is really tax resistance, which is (I would think, typically) a philosophical and intellectually honest position about the morality or wisdom of taxation in general, or the morality or wisdom of one tax or another. See the article on tax resistance. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)