Talk:Tax resistance
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. |
 To-do list for Tax resistance: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[edit] Reasons for Reversion of Karmafist's Edit of Dec 28 2005
1. User user:Karmafist deleted "Arab" qualifer from "Palestinian town of [[Beit Sahour]..." The qualifier is necessary to distinguish between Jewish Palestinians, and Arab Palestinians.
2. User user:Karmafist deleted "More recently, some foes of abortion and/or capital punishment have become tax resisters, refusing to pay taxes that are going to support those practices." Clearly, people who resist paying taxes that go towards abortion services are tax resisters. To delete this reference is puzzling and odd.
- MSTCrow 23:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would defend those edits on these grounds: 1) "Arab" seems to be an ethnic qualifier and I haven't seen evidence that the tax resistance in Beit Sahour was done only by Arab residents. 2) While people who resist taxes that pay for abortion certainly qualify as tax resisters, there was no citation on this description and I'm not sure any such tax resisters exist except in conjecture. -Moorlock 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- First, Beit Sahour is an Aran Palestinean town, it's not a pan-Palestinean town. Secondly, while I can't think of any citations per se, it seems to be a well-known occurrence. As such, I'd like to see anyone who can cite that it doesn't take place.
- MSTCrow 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- First, Beit Sahour is an Aran Palestinean town, it's not a pan-Palestinean town. Secondly, while I can't think of any citations per se, it seems to be a well-known occurrence. As such, I'd like to see anyone who can cite that it doesn't take place.
-
-
- I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there are tax resisters who resist because they don't want to pay for abortion or for capital-punishment, but I haven't actually seen evidence of any. Google searches for things like "pro-life tax resist[er][ers][ance]" and "anti-abortion tax resist[er][ers][ance]" turn up nothing. There are some religious tax resisters who mention warfare, capital-punishment and abortion as examples of things that they abhor because of their faith or their pacificism, but I haven't found anyone who has become a tax resister specifically because of government support for abortion or capital punishment. It seems likely that such people exist, but until we have more than this conjecture, maybe we should hold off on wikipediaing it. -Moorlock 01:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- As there are no reasonable standing arugments against qualifying the Palestineans in question as of Arab origin, but the existence of pro-life tax protesters has not yet been verified, the article will add that the Palestineans in question are of Arab origin, but refrain from mentioning pro-life tax protesters until which time their existence can be substantiated.
- MSTCrow 07:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- As there are no reasonable standing arugments against qualifying the Palestineans in question as of Arab origin, but the existence of pro-life tax protesters has not yet been verified, the article will add that the Palestineans in question are of Arab origin, but refrain from mentioning pro-life tax protesters until which time their existence can be substantiated.
-
-
[edit] No arguments for tax resistance
This article is clearly biased. There are no arguments for tax resistance. --Dissipate 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I kind of think the invocation of Jesus and Gandhi as tax resisters speaks for itself there - in any event, please feel free to add the arguments for... BD2412 T 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
How can quotes count as an argument? I don't get it. --Dissipate 05:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just saying, the article generally portrays tax resistance as a positive thing, before coming to (relatively unpersuasive) arguments against. BD2412 T 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that is the way you see it, but I see it as an article that has a section with 'arguments' (although I wouldn't call those arguments) against but no section for. --Dissipate 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Telephone excise tax
The article talks about resisting the telephone excise tax, which is part of the phone bill. Underpaying the bill is likely to result in disconnection of service. If this is really done, there should be a reference discussing it, and I see nothing in the refs cited. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Disconnection of service for failure to pay the excise tax isn't particularly common, and is not legal. -Moorlock 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that? IIRC, the taxes on services are bundled with the services taxed for purposes of making SNP/DISC decisions. Thus, the payment processing software had no way to distinguish among withholding payment for a particular interstate call, or pro-rata for all such calls, or for the tax. Partial payments are applied to basic services first, then to toll calls, then to optional services, and service cut-offs are done in the reverse order. But, I am relying on memory so I will yield to an actual source. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding of the law is that the phone company is the middleman for an obligation of the taxpayer to the IRS and that if the taxpayer refuses to pay the IRS, the phone company is legally obligated to report this refusal to the IRS, but because the taxpayer is not in arrears to the phone company but to the IRS, it has no cause to cut off service. Phone tax resisters have successfully explained this to phone companies using legal chapter-and-verse in order to have the tax removed from their phone bills (though as you suggest, the payment processing software is typically not set up to do this automatically). The hanguponwar.org site has more info. -Moorlock 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- While 26 CFR 49.4291-1 is not the most perspicuously worded reg I have read, it looks to me like the carrier could choose to deem that the tax is partly collected under the alternate accounting method, in which case the carrier is partly out of pocket and the IRS is partly out of pocket. The only reason to do this would be that it might be cheaper than the manual handling needed otherwise. Of course, the forgoing is OR. What matters is not my opinion abou the law, nor yours, which is why I would like to see a quality source for this topic, not a tax protester site. I wonder if the industry press has covered this? Robert A.West (Talk) 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I reworded to make it clear that our source is an advocacy website. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can't claim to be an expert on this tax law, but I do know that back when I had a phone in my name a few years ago, I stopped paying the excise tax, the phone company initially interpreted this as a simple underpayment. I wrote to them with the explanation that I had stopped paying the excise tax and why I thought the legal situation was as is described on the hanguponwar.org site. The company (S.B.C., formerly PacBell, now AT&T) erased the amount-due from my bill and stopped charging me the excise tax. -Moorlock 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- An interesting anecdote, but unfortunately it does not count as a source here. How many collection efforts have there been? How vigorously have they been pursued? Have any companies refused to honor such a request and just cut off service? If so, have they been reversed by PUC or IRS action? For example, prior to 2004, there was no deadline for reporting the refusal to the IRS, but since 2004 the phone company has had to report the refusal promptly, and failure to do so may result in the IRS's deeming that the company collected and must remit the tax. Has this changed anything? These are the things that independent sources might tell us, but advocates won't. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I provided a source that included citations of the law and first-hand accounts of people who have directly interacted with multiple phone companies. That's not too shabby as wikipedia sources go. You want more than that, 'you look it up. Jeebus. -Moorlock 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- As advocacy, the site fails WP:RS and is marginal as a source at best. You want the material in, the burden of evidence is on you to provide a reliable source. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I provided a source that included citations of the law and first-hand accounts of people who have directly interacted with multiple phone companies. That's not too shabby as wikipedia sources go. You want more than that, 'you look it up. Jeebus. -Moorlock 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- An interesting anecdote, but unfortunately it does not count as a source here. How many collection efforts have there been? How vigorously have they been pursued? Have any companies refused to honor such a request and just cut off service? If so, have they been reversed by PUC or IRS action? For example, prior to 2004, there was no deadline for reporting the refusal to the IRS, but since 2004 the phone company has had to report the refusal promptly, and failure to do so may result in the IRS's deeming that the company collected and must remit the tax. Has this changed anything? These are the things that independent sources might tell us, but advocates won't. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can't claim to be an expert on this tax law, but I do know that back when I had a phone in my name a few years ago, I stopped paying the excise tax, the phone company initially interpreted this as a simple underpayment. I wrote to them with the explanation that I had stopped paying the excise tax and why I thought the legal situation was as is described on the hanguponwar.org site. The company (S.B.C., formerly PacBell, now AT&T) erased the amount-due from my bill and stopped charging me the excise tax. -Moorlock 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding of the law is that the phone company is the middleman for an obligation of the taxpayer to the IRS and that if the taxpayer refuses to pay the IRS, the phone company is legally obligated to report this refusal to the IRS, but because the taxpayer is not in arrears to the phone company but to the IRS, it has no cause to cut off service. Phone tax resisters have successfully explained this to phone companies using legal chapter-and-verse in order to have the tax removed from their phone bills (though as you suggest, the payment processing software is typically not set up to do this automatically). The hanguponwar.org site has more info. -Moorlock 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that? IIRC, the taxes on services are bundled with the services taxed for purposes of making SNP/DISC decisions. Thus, the payment processing software had no way to distinguish among withholding payment for a particular interstate call, or pro-rata for all such calls, or for the tax. Partial payments are applied to basic services first, then to toll calls, then to optional services, and service cut-offs are done in the reverse order. But, I am relying on memory so I will yield to an actual source. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redudant Links?
First, I apologize for not noticing I was not signed in when added links and other info. Have made a note on the user page. User:208.59.123.46
Anyway, added two links to NWTRCC and Peace Tax Fund at bottom because didn't notice they were in the top right box. Sorry, box must have looked like an advert. Also added a description of Peace Tax Fund which was not on the page at the time. User:Carolmooredc Carol Moore 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Tax resistance → Tax resistance in the United States This article deals almost exclusively about this phenomenon in the United States. Please discuss at Talk:Tax protester#Requested move. — AjaxSmack 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Manifesto as External Link
There is explicit mentioning of tax resistance in the outstanding international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with an updated list of all signatories from 1993 to 2007), official websites http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm - http://www.themanifesto.info - why not adding it? Chrbartolf 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf
[edit] Tax Slavery
Tax Slavery is the absolute legal ownership of the ruler over a person's labor or income.
It describes a system in which a person's property rights are subordinated to the decisions or laws of the ruling class. It is a concept originating in the last days of the Roman Empire, when the jurisprudential concept of property of Ulpian, Mucius Scaevola et al. was substituted by the concept of property as a privilege, subject to revocation by edict of the emperor or his representatives.
Diocletian's institution of the death penalty for those that defied imperial price controls on oil and cloth were decried by Lactantius as slavery, since what differentiated a paterfamilias from a servant was his control over property. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flix2000 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Notable Tax Resisters
A section like this could go on and on as people add their favorites. I've replaced it with a link to the Category:Tax resisters page for now, but maybe it could be replaced by short summaries of a few particularly prominent resisters. -Moorlock 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definition and origins
Tax protester does a good job of defining what a tax protester is and shows that it is not a result of original research. This article should do the same; it should reference Blacks Law Dictionary or some peer-reviewed academic article in the opening line of this article.EECavazos (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tax resistance arguments versus tax protester arguments
Dear editors: The following were added to the article by another editor as being examples of arguments in favor of tax resistance:
-
- There is no way to file a tax return without voluntarily waiving one's Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to bear witness against oneself. (all information given to the IRS is done so voluntarily and they may use any or all information within your return against you in a court of law)
-
- There is no statute in the Internal Revenue Code that makes any American in the private sector liable to pay income tax. (citing Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns and What You Can Do About It by Bill Conklin).
I removed the verbiage, but I want to explain why. These are really, strictly speaking, Tax protester arguments, not tax resistance arguments. That is, these are legally incorrect, legally frivolous statements. This kind of material is already covered in the Wikipedia articles on tax protesters.
By contrast, tax resistance arguments seem to relate more to overall ideology or policy arguments by those who resist taxes.
See the distinction in the first two paragraphs of this article -- regarding the difference between tax protesters and tax resisters.
Also, this article is on tax resistance in general, and is not limited to the United States – while the two tax protester arguments that I removed really relate specifically and only to frivolous litigation involving the U.S. federal income tax.
By the way, Bill Conklin is well-known as a tax protester among people who study this kind of thing in depth.
And, just for the record, while it is indeed correct to say that "all information given to the IRS is done so voluntarily and they [the IRS] may use any or all information within your return against you in a court of law", it is blatantly incorrect to say that there is "no way to file a tax return without voluntarily waiving one's Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to bear witness against oneself." Indeed, there is a very specific rule under something called the Garner Doctrine about how to file a U.S. federal income tax return, fully reporting all income that should be included, and yet without waiving one's Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled, etc. In fact, it's very easy to do, if you have a good tax lawyer or CPA advising you. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
