Talk:Tax protester constitutional arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Tax protester constitutional arguments has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Unsourced commentary

The following unsourced commentary by IP 66.28.136.226 has been moved from the article to here:

However, the key point of the quotation--that constitutional restrictions on the federal taxing authority can (or do) exist--is pertinent in this and any legal action involving the tax code.

It is certainly correct to say that constitutional restrictions on the federal taxing authority can (or do) exist. It would also be correct to say that those restrictions are pertinent in some but not all legal actions involving the tax code (and pertinence depends on the nature of the controversy, as the vast majority of legal actions involving the tax code do not involve any dispute about the constitutionality of any code provision). Those points are not, however, the key point of the quotation, in my view.

The key point of the quotation is that it's OK for Congress to call something income and tax it as income even if it's not really income -- for the simple reason that there is no constitutional restriction that prevents Congress from doing so. The court is essentially saying (or implying) that the restrictions in the Constitution (such as apportionment for direct taxes other than income taxes, geographic uniformity for indirect taxes, no tax on exports, revenue measures must originate in the House, and so on) are NOT restrictions on what the Congress may or may not tax as "income."

More to the point -- whether IP 66.28.136.226 is correct about what the "key point" is, or whether I am correct about what the key point is -- it is not for either of us as Wikipedia editors to decide for ourselves and write in the article itself what we believe the "key point" of the quotation is. The article could, however, show what reliable, previously published third party sources have said the key point is. In the absence of such previously published third party source statements, the quotation can pretty much stand on its own. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel B. Evans

Aren't we using an awful lot of legal commentary by Daniel B. Evans, considering he doesn't seem notable enough to have his own article? (What actually made me curious was the use of one of his quotes in the first-paragraph, pre-TOC text on the Tax protester article.) — atchius (msg) 04:52, 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. I'm not sure I agree (or disagree) with the contention that he is not notable enough for his own article but, in any case, I don't think that notability of Evans for his own Wikipedia article is a prerequisite for using him as a Wikipedia secondary source, especially on a topic like this where he seems to have done more research than almost anybody else. Famspear (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should create an article for Evans. Seems notable enough to me. Morphh (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Evans is a biased source therefore shoud not be heavily relied upon, as he currently is. The tax protesters themselves should be the one who presents their argument. Not the person who you think should be the one to present it. The fact that he is an attorney and has done a lot of research is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JS747 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no one gets to "present their argument" here - see WP:SOAPBOX. The tax protesters have every opportunity to present their arguments in court. We simply report what the courts determine the law to be. If a court ever upholds a tax protester argument, that will be reflected here. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. However, arguments are being presented by Evans and other editors are presenting his arguments. He is not a news reporter nor is he a court reporter. He is an attorney with his own opinion which makes references biased when he is heavily relied upon. JS747 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear user JS747: With all due respect, I think that you as a newcomer are laboring under some misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Here's why.

Daniel Evans is a source. Under the rules of Wikipedia (including Neutral Point of View), as shocking as this may sound, sources are allowed to be biased. Sources are not required to be neutral. Wikipedia articles do indeed properly contain biased and non-neutral opinions of such sources. Please read the rules on Neutral Point of View.

Evans is a leading authority on tax protester arguments. The fact that he has a law degree, is an attorney, and has done lots of research and has been cited by others (including the New York Times) is indeed both legally and logically relevant to the use of his work as a reliable source on a legal topic.

From the rule on Neutral Point of View:

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: [1] (bolding added).

If, for example, a liberal think tank supports a particular position about whether the Alternative Minimum Tax is good or bad, it is OK to document that in Wikipedia with an adequate description that it is the liberal think tank that is taking that position. You cannot delete "points of view" in Wikipedia merely because they are liberal, conservative, leftist, rightist, etc. Neutral point of view does not mean the absence of bias in the SOURCE MATERIAL. In essence, it is OK for the source material to be biased, and it is OK for the source itself to be biased, as odd as that may sound to a newcomer. Neutral point of view means that Wikipedia itself does not take a position that this source's viewpoint is correct, or that some other source's viewpoint is incorrect. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that a source is not required to be non-biased. However, when I scroll thru the edits that have been made on these series of tax protester pages, what I see is many of the sources that are biased in favor of protesters are routinely removed and the sources the are biased against protesters are not. This is what concerns me as this activity results in biased articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JS747 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Utterly and demonstrably false statements are routinely removed from all Wikipedia articles. If someone says "Court X stated that there is no income tax", and a review of the opinion cited shows that Court X said no such thing, of course that nonsense will be removed. The same goes for fatuous assertions that the IRS can not point to the law that requires taxes be paid - when, in fact, the IRS has an entire webpage outlining the laws which require that taxes be paid. bd2412 T 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I completely disagree with the contention that Daniel Evans as a source is "heavily relied upon" in this article. As best I can tell, there are only two quotations from Evans in the article.

By contrast, a quick rough reading shows this article contains about 87 footnotes -- including citations to at least 43 actual court decisions, often with direct quotations from the texts. The number of citations to reliable, previously published third party sources is overwhelming.

Indeed, a large portion of the sourcing for this article -- especially the court cases -- came from the tax protesters who have posted it right here in Wikipedia! These are many of the very same court cases that tax protesters love to cite on scam websites (and of course the tax protesters cite these cases with fake quotations, or quotations taken out of context, or blatantly fake statements that a court ruled one way when the court ruled the opposite, and so on). Some of the fake quotations ended up here in Wikipedia, and are exposed in this very article. Famspear (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: If you read my comments you will see that I did not make the assertion that he is "heavily relied upon" I simply stated that he should not be heavily relied upon since he is a biased source. Do you disagree with this as well? Furthermore, your statements asserting that Evans is a leading authority on tax protester arguments, is a matter of opinion and I believe that it should be noted as such. What are the "qualifications" for one who can be considered a "leading authority"? Who is to determine these "qualifications"? As you can see, these "qualifications" would be impossible to determine by anyone editing these articles without exhibiting bias. However, everyone is certainly entitled to express their opinion. Also, I never made the assertion the Evans is not both legally and logically relevant to the use of his work as a reliable source on a legal topic. Did I say that his work was irrelevant? I don't believe I did. So I can't see why you would bring this up in response to my comments. I simply was stating that he is a biased source, should be noted as such and should not be heavily relied upon. Do you disagree with this statement? JS747 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear JS747: Well, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Therefore, when you wrote (with bolding added by me):

Evans is a biased source therefore shoud [sic] not be heavily relied upon, as he currently is. The tax protesters themselves should be the one who presents [sic] their argument. Not the person who you think should be the one to present it. The fact that he is an attorney and has done a lot of research is irrelevant.

I assumed that you were talking about the Wikipedia article and the supposed "reliance" you feel is placed the article itself, on Evans as a source. I think a reasonable inference from your statement would be that you were indeed making the assertion (1) that you feel Evans is "heavily relied upon" in the article itself -- currently, right now, and (2) that you feel this reliance is "bad" because Evans is biased. That's my reading of what you said.

The statement that Evans is a leading authority is indeed my opinion. He is just one source in the article. Do you want me to list his credentials here?

Regarding your statement:

Also, I never made the assertion the Evans is not both legally and logically relevant to the use of his work as a reliable source on a legal topic. Did I say that his work was irrelevant?

Again, these were your exact words:

The fact that he is an attorney and has done a lot of research is irrelevant.

(bolding added).

So, in what way do you think I misinterpreted what you wrote? Famspear (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, my apologies to all editors for my overuse of the bolding function today. I'm feeling overly feisty, and I haven't had lunch yet. Famspear (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Famspear: I agree I did make the assertion that I believed he was "heavily relied upon". However, I was mistaken when replying to your comments since I believed that you were commenting on my most recent comments and not the entirety of comments that I had made. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.
The comments that I made with regards to him being an attorney and "has done a lot of research is irrelevant", I believe you may be inadvertently taking these out of context. Or, maybe I just did not make myself clear enough. The comments about him "having done a lot of research is irrelevant" was not an attempt to question the reliability of his work but rather they were addressing your assertion that this is what makes him a "leading authority". I do not believe that simply because he is an attorney and has done a lot of research is what makes him a "leading authority". However, it seems that we are both is agreement in saying that purporting him to be a "leading authority" is a matter of opinion. The question to ask now is: Does stating your opinion in the article push it towards your pov? I don't see how it can't.--JS747 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
First, attorneys are generalists - that means that we train ourselves to become experts as the case demands; attorneys are, in particular, trained to research the law and determine from legal precedents what the courts have set forth in response to specific situations. Note that a law degree is a postgraduate degree that is more rigorous than any masters degree, and as much as some PhD's. Second, a review of the other parts of Dan Evan's website (specifically his posted CV) show that he graduated cum laude from a well regarded law school, has been admitted to the practice of law for over thirty years, is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell, has served as an officer in several American Bar Association sections, and has a substantial number of publications in a number of areas. Third, Dan Evans has, for whatever reasons, done an extensive amount of research on tax protester theories. His tax protester FAQ is enormous, thorough, and extraordinarily well-cited. He is, by any objective standard, an expert in this area of law. bd2412 T 08:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear JS747: Thanks for the clarification. On your comment: "The question to ask now is: Does stating your opinion in the article push it towards your pov? I don't see how it can't" -- the answer is that inserting Daniel Evans opinion into the text of the article is indeed an insertion of Daniel Evans' POV (point of view). Again, that's perfectly fine under the rules on Neutral Point of View (per the quotation from the rule, above.)

Now, let's look at your comment here:

I understand that a source is not required to be non-biased. However, when I scroll thru the edits that have been made on these series of tax protester pages, what I see is many of the sources that are biased in favor of protesters are routinely removed and the sources the are biased against protesters are not. This is what concerns me as this activity results in biased articles.

I think that what you might be feeling that the article overall is biased. What you may be thinking is overall bias is actually the weight of the authority. Remember, tax protester theories are legal nonsense. Not one has ever been upheld in one single Federal court case. In a Wikipedia article on tax protesters that conforms to the rules on Verifiability, Neutral POV, and No Original Research, the average reader is still going to come away with the sense that tax protesters are a bunch of misguided souls -- or worse. The reason for that is not that the article is biased. The article is presented with a Neutral Point of View -- but contains "biased" or "non-neutral" statements from sources -- which is perfectly OK. The reason for that is that the "evidence" (to use term in a non-legal sense) is overwhelming. There is literally no legal basis for tax protester arguments whatsoever. Indeed such arguments have been ruled not only to be without legal merit, but worse: they have been ruled to be legally frivolous. The mere fact that you get the impression from the article that one side is right and the other side is essentially nutty does not necessarily mean that the article itself lacks neutral point of view.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say that sources "in favor of protesters" are routinely removed. You may want to consider providing some examples, and then we can show (to the extent not already explained on the talk page or the edit summaries) why a particular source was removed. Famspear (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, there are a good number of peer-reviewed law review articles published by esteemed professors in reputable journals which address tax protester theories (I'll leave it to your imagination to guess what position they universally take). We can certainly supplement the sources in this article with their expert analysis. bd2412 T 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, Daniel Evans has been cited by Eva Rosenberg at Fox News Market Watch, here: [2], on 17 January 2008, in "The IRS Is Getting Serious About Tax Protesters' Frivolous Claims". Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Even so, there are lots of strong authorities that express this position - why rely on just one? I'm putting something together - I think you'll find it appropriate. bd2412 T 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear BD2412: Yeah, and since you're working on this, I am happy to hang back. The real world is closing in on me right now. I located one or two law review articles on tax protesters a while back, but it's just gonna have to wait. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Famspear, you are a JOKE! Is this article about TAX PROTESTOR ARGUMENTS or RESPONSES to taxpayer arguments? Imagine an article on Jesus Christ being ONLY about Pontius Pilate's judgment of Christ. After all, his ideas were "rejected by the courts" in Judea. They even sentenced him to death and crucified him. That MUST mean his ideas are "conspiracy theories", amnd that MUST mean his ideas should NEVER be presented without a SWIFT denounciation of them by reference to the court's unanimous "rejection" of them. Imagine if an article on Martin Luther was ALL about the Catholic church's response to Martin Luther. Imagine if an article about Israel was ALL about the Arab responses to Israel. Imagine if an article on Darwin was only about the church's response to the theory of evolution. Imagine if the article on Gallileo was ONLY about the churches' "rejection" of his ideas. HAVILY BIASED and intellectually challenged people like you have no place in civilized society, let alone as the ONLY voice on an encyclopedia on a matter affecting millions. As long as you can be a block on any meaningful information getting on this page on this topic, this article will remain the JOKE that you are. Cheers back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor at IP70.231.242.82: Thank you for sharing that with us. You may want to consider re-reading the article. It's full of both (A) tax protester arguments and (B) responses to those arguments in the form of court decisions, etc.
Also, I am not a "block" on "meaningful information" getting on this page on this topic, and neither is anyone else. I have no ability to block anything.
I am not "HAVILY BIASED" as you put it, and I am not "intellectually challenged," and I do indeed "have my place" in this civilized society. Please refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. You may want to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:30, 29 April 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] 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 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

We need to work on the lead. According to WP:LEAD, we should have a three to four paragraph lead (probably four due to the article size). Perhaps someone that is more familar with the article can expand this. The lead should summarize the entire article, so we should have something like a one sentence summary for each section header in the article or a sentence or two that describes multiple arguments.

On a second point, the section "Constitutional status of the 1986 Internal Revenue Code in case law" does not have enough content to justify its own section IMO. So I think we need to either expand it or integrate it into another section. Morphh (talk) 3:09, 05 February 2008 (UTC)

Once we get the lead expanded, I plan to updated it to a A-Class article on our WikiProject assessment. Perhaps a peer-review and then submit for FA status. :-) Morphh (talk) 22:07, 06 February 2008 (UTC)
I started to summarize the article into the lead. I've gotten through sections 1-3, although they may need further summarization and copyedit. With sections 4-10 to still included, we're really going to have to work at concise language. I'm sure we'll also have to work on the prose, as the lead should reflect the best (engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard according to FA). Morphh (talk) 4:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Added some more, I think I skipped sections 5 & 9. May need to fold them in. Morphh (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The section "Arguments about constitutionality in criminal cases" is another one that should probably be folded into another section. Not sure the short length justifies a section to itself or at least not a main section. Morphh (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice if we could find a couple more pictures as well. Morphh (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Added a couple. Morphh (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should take a look at sections 7,8, and 9 to see if we can fold this as sub-sections of other areas. Morphh (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned this up - looks pretty good now. Morphh (talk) 5:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Header naming

Per WP:HEAD "Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy (Early life, not His early life)." So considering this... since the article is titled "constitutional arguments", should we drop the "argument" term from the headers. For example, instead of having "Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments" and "Sixteenth Amendment effectiveness arguments", should we just say "Sixteenth Amendment ratification" and "Sixteenth Amendment effectiveness"? Morphh (talk) 2:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: I would say go for it. PS: I'm not editing much the last few days; I'm a bit tired. I can't figure out whether it's an allergy or a slight cold. Famspear (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Done Morphh (talk) 3:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hope you feel better soon.  :-) Look over the changes when you get a chance. I'm not sure if I got all the terminology correct in the lead - particularly things like stating a group of arguments were rejected, found to have no merit, or ruled legally frivolous, etc. They all sound the same to me but I expect there may be technical differences. Morphh (talk) 4:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they're all pretty much the same. Well, quite similar. A good argument can be rejected, when the court weighs all the considerations and finds the opposing argument better still. Tax protester arguments have routinely been rejected not because the opposing argument edged them out, but because they are found to be meritless and frivolous, meaning there is simply no legal basis for ever thinking they could be true. If an argument has been brought many times and rejected each times, to bring it again would similarly be frivolous. bd2412 T 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple other MOS things... we should go with one format of quoting. We're using both cquote and blockquote in this article - we need to choose one. I think I prefer blockquote or using the quote or quotation template (they each produce a different appearance). Also, according to WP:PUNC, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)." I'm seeing instances where we're not following this by including the punctuation in the quote, when it should probably be outside the quote. Morphh (talk) 3:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to blockquote for now... Morphh (talk) 4:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer cquotes. They are more attractive, I think. bd2412 T 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I kinda like them too but I know some that think they're too pretty and not professional looking for an encyclopedia. I'm not sure where the debate stands today. Doesn't matter too much to me - I picked blockquote as there was more of this then cquote, so it was easier at the time but I'm open to whichever. I'll provide some examples below for those that may be unfamiliar with the formats so they can voice their opinion. Morphh (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
“ this is the cquote tag ”

this is the quote tag or blockquote

this is the quotation tag

Just reading the MOS WP:MOSQUOTE and it states "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for "call-outs", which are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles). Use a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags." So I guess we shouldn't use the cquote tag. It doesn't mention the quotation tag. The quote tag fixes a paragraph spacing bug in blockquote and offers a pre-formatted attribution line. Morphh (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the term "Takings Clause" a proper noun? Should this be capitalized or lower case? Morphh (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made it lower case for now... Morphh (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it should be capped. Specific clauses of the Constitution are proper nouns. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote sections

We have a couple sections that are pretty much just a quote by Evans ("Repeal clause" and "Other arguments"). I have no issue with using Evans or using his quote, but we need to expand these sections in our own words to discuss the viewpoints, and then use Evans to either convey the view or expand on it. I don't think we should have his quote be the section. Morphh (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are also other sources besides Evans who have made the same points in peer-reviewed law review articles (I'm collecting these). bd2412 T 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Other arguments and Repeal clause - Do we have some court cases or something that we can put after the quote to close out the section? So and so ruled that this argument is ... Morphh (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
On the "repeal clause" point, I see that Daniel Evans mentions on his web site that there is no specific court case on this point. I believe his web site was last updated last summer, and I am pretty sure there have been no new court cases since that time on this subject. Nevertheless, I will do a little research and see if I can find any actual court cases on this.
Haven't been able to spend much time on the tax articles lately. Hats off to editors Morphh and BD2412 for the work now being done! Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have found one case so far that addresses this point, albeit indirectly. It's the Buchbinder case, which I have added to the article. Famspear (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also added the quote from the Supreme Court case of Eisner v. Macomber. The taxpayers in the Buchbinder case had quoted from Eisner v. Macomber -- but they had conveniently left out the relevant parts of the quote that negated their own frivolous argument. The Tax Court saw right through that. In Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment either modifies or partially repeals the original provisions of Article I of the Constitution -- with respect to taxes on income. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! This one too please. :-) Morphh (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added some citations to court cases on the "due process" Fifth Amendment arguments. This is fun - like shooting wooden ducks in a carnival! Famspear (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop adding cases for now. There are many more court decisions rejecting the "due process of law" argument under the Fifth Amendment. And, I'm sorry I haven't had time to devote to this project lately. Thanks again to Morphh and BD2412! Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review notice

I think we're close to submitting this article for Featured Article status. I've set up a peer-review to help get it ready for submission. Morphh (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I went through the automated peer-review. While some applied, I thought most didn't or could be argued as appropriate for the topic of this article (such as size and TOC). If everyone would give it a good look over... I plan to submit it for WP:FA. Once it is submitted, you'll want to keep an eye on the discussion. The quicker we respond to address issues, the more likely we'll turn comments or opposes into support. Morphh (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to editor Morphh! Famspear (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester constitutional arguments FAC

I have nominated Tax protester constitutional arguments as a feature article candidate. If you're interested in responding to comments and addressing any issues that arise, please add the above FAC page to your watchlist. Also consider voting on the article. Thanks Morphh (talk) 17:58, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split the page.

Having done some further research on the Fourteenth Amendment issue, I am now convinced that this article should be split into pages addressing arguments by individual amendments, or by groups. Specifically, we should have Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments, Tax protester First Amendment arguments, and Tax protester Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments, with a remaining "catch-all" for anything else constitutional. bd2412 T 11:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that if we had to split the article, it seemed most logical to do so under "Taxing labor or income from labor" based on material size and article structure. This section likely has enough content to create an article and could provide a sufficient summary style structure. I'm not sure the content we currently have in the other sections justifies an article for each Amendment. Could you explain further why you think this should be broken up by Amendment? If we did create sub-articles, should we keep (rename) Citizen of the several states and turn it into a more extensive article on the Fourteenth Amendment? Is this something we can do after FA as we build the articles or are you suggesting we do this during the FA process? For an article at this level, I think we go into sufficient detail, so the sections as they stand my provide a sufficient basis for a summary if a more detailed article was created. So I don't expect that this would change the standing or quality of the article for FA. Do you feel otherwise? Morphh (talk) 14:59, 06 March 2008 (UTC)
If we were to keep Citizen of the several states, that name would have to go! I'm thinking of breaking it up by amendment because I think each amendment-based contention could be expanded to sustain an article. I view the material on taxing labor or income from labor as falling under the Sixteenth Amendment (since it's largely about the power to tax "income" granted thereunder). That would still be a pretty bulky piece. There have been plenty of First Amendment tax protester schemes involving bogus churches and ministers, and there are plenty of fifth and fourteenth amendment contentions (which go together in my mind because both cover due process). bd2412 T 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just sort of "eyeballing it" as to length, it seems the last section, the one on the wages argument(s), is pretty long. Maybe that should be the separate article? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
On another point, I am still working on secondary sources for the article, and was about to add a lot of citations to the Christopher S. Jackson article. Should I go ahead with that, or hold back for a while? Famspear (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Definitely go ahead with adding citations. If we split the article later, we split it with the citations already there. bd2412 T 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I will try to add more secondary sourcing this weekend. Famspear (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of the lengthy discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states, I am now absolutely convinced that this page will have to be broken into sub-pages. We should have an article on the citizenship arguments alone! bd2412 T 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with a breakup if we're talking about splitting the article into pieces. This article should be the main article for constitutional tax arguments. If sub-articles are created to expand on those arguments, then each section in this article that has a sub-article would become a summary (and could be summarized further to reduce length if needed). Main tags would be added under the header of the section for a summary style format. Morphh (talk) 18:37, 07 March 2008 (UTC)
That is definitely a workable option. bd2412 T 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Taxing labor or income from labor

The court examples listed as an detailed explanation are one sided and violate WP:POV. Typically remarking in the beginning that "The defendant was convicted of tax evasion" and ending with something along the lines "No issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" is not found in the text of the Court's decision."

The amount of weight in the current court examples could be construed as an attempt to discredit tax protesters (manipulation of the readers understanding by means of diversion). While the validity of the examples is well documented, the amount of examples violates WP:UNDUE, putting substantial emphasis on court conviction and focusing the reader unsuccessful tax protesters. Without any mention, NONE AT ALL, of cases where tax evasion cases filed by the government have been unsuccessful and examples where the tax protester was acquitted. Most notably, a brief summary of numerous acquittals regarding Tom Cryer, mentioned in the section above.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no cases where such an argument has been successful or acquitted. Tom Cryer was acquitted of criminal charges of willful failure to timely file U.S. Federal income tax returns (which is different from this section) - he still has to pay the tax. No tax protester argument was won or "successful" in his case. Morphh (talk) 17:59, 06 March 2008 (UTC)
The cases cited in the text fall into two categories. One set are those which are typical of the cases deciding the issues raised by tax protesters (those are the cases where, universally, the issue was decided against the protester). The second set is the group of cases which tax protesters routinely point to as "proof" that there is no obligation to pay income tax - except that those cases often tend to not be tax cases at all, or are not federal tax cases (state income tax cases have no bearing on federal law), or are quoted completely out of context, and this misquotation is rejected by courts to which it is presented. bd2412 T 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have begun adding citations to the Jackson article. I also re-arranged the paragraph breaks in the introduction, based on what seems to me to be a grouping by topic. I hope this doesn't make for "too many" introductory paragraphs, or paragraphs that are too short. Also, I'm weak on the rules for Wikipedia citation form, especially for citation to law review articles, so, uh, bear this in mind.

Dear Sparkygravity: Tax protester arguments are, from a legal standpoint, the equivalent of arguing in an article on Scientific Studies of The Moon, that the Moon is made of green cheese. No tax protester argument has ever won in a U.S. federal court of law. Not once. Not ever. Tax protester arguments are beyond being merely extreme fringe positions.

Occasionally, a tax protester will be acquitted in a criminal tax case, just as persons accused of murder are sometimes acquitted. A jury's "not guilty" verdict in a criminal tax case is not a ruling that the tax protester arguments raised in the case were valid. (In fact, in the United States a jury verdict is not a court ruling at all.)

The article does not violate the NPOV rule on undue weight. Indeed, Wikipedia would be affording undue weight to tax protester arguments if Wikipedia were to strain to avoid conceding the disclosure of the batting average of tax protester arguments in court -- which, as of this week was still exactly 0.0000 -- that's federal court cases from the early 1860s to the present year, 2008. If you think about it, this is a remarkable record. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear, I put the paragraph structure back due to requirements in WP:LEAD that state the lead should be no more then four paragraphs. I know it is the same text but I think breaking it up like that would be an issue for our FA process. Morphh (talk) 20:35, 06 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Morphh: Thanks, I thought there might be a problem. As you know, I'm relatively weak on this technical stuff. Famspear (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to editor Sparkygravity: If we were to add a brief summary of "tax protester acquittals" (which I suppose we could do), then Wikipedia would have to balance that with a mention of "tax protester convictions." -- otherwise, we could be giving a false impression. If we're talking numbers here, the numbers are overwhelming in one direction -- and I'll give you one guess as to which direction. Again, the problem here is that listing "tax protester acquittals in criminal cases" in this article could, in the absence of an explanation, leave the reader with the false impression that a not guilty verdict in a criminal case means that the law under which the defendant was acquitted is invalid. That is certainly the argument that tax protesters tend to make but, as with all tax protester nonsense, it is not only legally incorrect, it's legally frivolous. The U.S. legal system does not work that way.

Indeed, in the Cryer case you mentioned, Mr. Cryer's tax protester arguments were specifically rejected by the court (I think that's even documented in the article on Cryer). As counter-intuitive as it may sound, had the court ruled in favor of Cryer on his tax protester arguments, he could not have been found not guilty by the jury -- for the simple reason that by definition a court ruling in Cryer's favor would have meant dismissal of the case. The jury would have gone home without rendering any verdict.

Perhaps some Wikipedia article expansion is in order on the legal concept of why an acquittal of a tax protester in a criminal tax case is not a "tax protester victory" in the sense in which tax protesters pretend it is -- but I think that point would go more appropriately in Tax protester statutory arguments or Tax protester conspiracy arguments or some place like that. It's not an argument about the "constitutionality" of the tax law.

By contrast, a protester's conviction -- in a criminal tax case where the protester argued about the constitutionality of the federal income tax law -- could go in this article, at least in my opinion.

If we could find an actual federal criminal tax case where a tax protester argued that the federal income tax law was unconstitutional and the judge ruled that the tax protester's argument was correct (so that the case was thrown out on that very basis -- without being decided by the jury), that would definitely be worth mentioning. Such a case would make banner headlines in the U.S. legal community. There is no known record of any such case, ever. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Tax protester "acquittals" are relevant to the extent that other tax protester's erroneously point to them as "evidence" that the income tax is somehow illegal. However, I believe this contention is covered in the conspiracy theory article. bd2412 T 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my criticisms so quickly, I'm assured that my complaint has been noted and leave it to your capable and conscientious talents to improve the section.--Sparkygravity (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Material moved from above, to restore original comments [response to Famspear's comments about fringe positions, etc.]:

You have the liberty to believe that. But, WHY should the VALIDITY of the arguments have anything to do with the PRESENTATION of these arguments? The main tax page itself may well dismiss tax protestors as fools, but does THEIR page about them have to be ONLY about dismissing them as fools, too? It is one thing to MENTION that their ideas have been uniformly rejected by the courts, but quite another to make an article about them SOLELY about that rejection. For instance, Jesus Christ's teachings were dismissed by the Roman authorities. He was tried, convicted, and executed for them. So was Socrates. Surely, you are not SUGGESTING that articles about those two be CONFINED to what the courts thought of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP70,231.242.82: The article is not restricted or confined to what "the courts think." The article shows both what the tax protesters say the law is, and what the courts have ruled the law to be. The article shows both sides, and does so without stating that "the protesters are right" or "the courts are right."
Do you believe the main article dismissed tax protesters as fools? It does not. The tax protester articles in Wikipedia state what the tax protesters arguments are, and also state what the courts have ruled (and in some cases what others have said about tax protesters).
I'm not sure, but I think you might be assuming that merely because tax protesters do come off as incompetent boobs or fools, that there is something wrong with the presentation in the article. You would be wrong if you thought that. Tax protesters are indeed incompetent boobs and fools -- but the article presents the material in neutral way.
The reason that you may perceive tax protesters as being portrayed as foolish is that legal authorities have overwhelmingly ruled that tax protester arguments are legally frivolous, and the article accurately reports that. That is legal reality. Not one single tax protester argument has ever been upheld in a U.S. federal court of law. Not one. There is nothing that you and I can do to change that. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to try to change that, or to give equal weight to tax protester arguments alongside the actual law. In fact, giving equal weight to all sides would violate Wikipedia rules. You may want to review the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all sides.
Just as an aside, I would note that many, many people have had their lives ruined by the delusion of tax protester arguments. When tax protesters cross the line from merely espousing their delusional nonsense to acting on their beliefs, they move into the criminal arena. You cannot begin to know the devastation and heartache caused by these people unless you have studied them for years, or unless you have been personally affected by them. I have not been personally affected by them (although I have received threats); I have, however, studied them for several years. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I think I should have said "threat" not "threats." If I recall correctly, I have been threatened by a tax protester only once, and that was right here in Wikipedia. The veiled threat was, of course, ineffectual anyway, since he/she did not know who I am. Famspear (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

I thought we had addressed all the main issues, but not enough to change the votes I guess. I thought it was closed a little early if the comments were read. The Gimmebot bot likely just looked at the count, which is not really how an FA should go in my view. Like most processes - it is a discussion and if the points are being addressed, it should be given a little more time to gain consensus. I thought the first two opposes whould be changed to support after this weekend (once we added some addtional footnotes - although I think the references section was enough to address the issue). I guess we can reread the comments and prepare for a resubmit after we feel good about it. The three main points seemed to be length, additional references, and the fundamental point of the article. We were addessing the additional referenes, which after Famspear goes through it, I'm sure will be sufficent. We're discussing length above, which we can address by creating some sub-articles with a summary style format. As far as the fundamental point of the article, I'm not sure how to best address Sparkgravity's concerns or if it is even the place in this article. Do we have any sources that state the general purpose of tax protesters is to battle against what they would deem as a miscarriage of justice? Morphh (talk) 15:24, 08 March 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised that this was suddenly closed. No matter - we'll just keep working on it. I am also thinking about the suggestions by editor Sparkygravity and other editors, and how to address them. Thanks to editors Morphh and BD2412 and all who have worked on this article. Happily, the never-ending work continues! Famspear (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)