• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

If you don't think a person's actions can have both civil and criminal ramifications, talk with O.J. Simpson next time you see him.

Why are you constantly bringing in irrelevant portions to this argument? The statement was that not paying taxes should be a civil issue and handled as any other dept.

I took issue with that, and that you are arguing with me, it would seem you agree with that, even if your words don't seem to fit.

So what the hell are you doing?

orrigional issue being responded to
Here's what the 'feds' should do: file a civil suit for monies due. If they get their judgment, they should rely on the exact same processes afforded others that win a judgment. no more, no less.

The IRS should have no greater recourse than that which the court provides any other entity.
 
Why are you constantly bringing in irrelevant portions to this argument? The statement was that not paying taxes should be a civil issue and handled as any other dept.
Okay, for starts, could you please get the proper spelling of the word that means an obligation? It's "debt," not "dept'. Your posts are hard enough to decipher as it is without people having to try to figure out what department you're writing about when you mean debt. Thank you.

Next, your claim that "not paying taxes should be a civil issue" is not correct. Okay, maybe you can argue that it shouldn't be a criminal issue, but the fact remains that it can be a criminal one as well. See the last link in my previous response to qayak.

I took issue with that, and that you are arguing with me, it would seem you agree with that, even if your words don't seem to fit.
This is incomprehensible, verging on gibberish. Please rewrite and resubmit.
 
I see a couple reasons to use violence against criminals. One is to prevent the criminal from doing harm to others. I don't think we have to worry about the Browns commiting 'tax evasion' to their neighbors. Thus far, the Browns are non violent. This is the logic usually applied to warrants, it's why there are so many outstanding warrants. The cost of executing the warrants far exceeds the benefits. The law enforcement community just waits until the perps get caught running a stop sign.
 
I see a couple reasons to use violence against criminals. One is to prevent the criminal from doing harm to others. I don't think we have to worry about the Browns commiting 'tax evasion' to their neighbors. Thus far, the Browns are non violent. This is the logic usually applied to warrants, it's why there are so many outstanding warrants. The cost of executing the warrants far exceeds the benefits. The law enforcement community just waits until the perps get caught running a stop sign.

So as long as you do not commit violent crimes but are ready to commit violence at the drop of a policeman's hat, you are free to wander around?

The problem here is that we know where they are, it is not like we would need to track them down like most of the warrants you are talking about.
 
A little question for everyone;

Do you pay your taxes out of a sense of duty, or do you pay your taxes out of fear of what will happen if you don’t?

Duty. I am all for raising taxes even. Gotta pay yer debts, ya know.

I have kids in public school (taxes), friends in the military (taxes), drive on roads (taxes), use parks both national and state (taxes), frequent libraries (taxes), .......

I feel bad that you pay your taxes out of fear. It just seems rather illogical selfish to accept all the fruits of taxes yet not want to pay any taxes.
 
Duty. I am all for raising taxes even. Gotta pay yer debts, ya know.

I have kids in public school (taxes), friends in the military (taxes), drive on roads (taxes), use parks both national and state (taxes), frequent libraries (taxes), .......

I feel bad that you pay your taxes out of fear. It just seems rather illogical selfish to accept all the fruits of taxes yet not want to pay any taxes.
Why can't it be duty and fear? I pay out of a sense of duty, for exactly the reasons you describe. But would I pay as much if there wasn't a fear factor involved also? Look at how much you paid in taxes last year. Would you have paid that much if the bottom line on your 1040 said, "Recommended Donation"? Do you think everyone would?
 
Why can't it be duty and fear? I pay out of a sense of duty, for exactly the reasons you describe. But would I pay as much if there wasn't a fear factor involved also? Look at how much you paid in taxes last year. Would you have paid that much if the bottom line on your 1040 said, "Recommended Donation"? Do you think everyone would?

Which is exactly why so many ideas of libertarian charity instead of goverment just don't work on the large scale.

Sure most people would like to pay less, as it is perfectly legal to pay more if you don't feel you are supporting the goverment enough. I don't think many do though.
 
Why can't it be duty and fear? I pay out of a sense of duty, for exactly the reasons you describe. But would I pay as much if there wasn't a fear factor involved also? Look at how much you paid in taxes last year. Would you have paid that much if the bottom line on your 1040 said, "Recommended Donation"? Do you think everyone would?


YEs, but you acknowledge your taxes pay for many of the services you enjoy. You don't create fantasy worlds where the services would continue despite no taxes as some libertarians seem to espouse. (let's not get started on reducing services which is viable but should be entertained BEFORE tax cuts are initiated IMO)

As to fear, perhaps you also would steal from the bank if you did not fear the long arm of the law. I don't know.

If the amount was optional, I don't know if I would pay less. If I felt others were doing so, I might be tempted myself. Otherwise, I'd stick with what I am used to. I see taxes as a social compact - that we all have agreed (through our votes) to pay under a certain system. As long as we all keep to the arrangement, all is good. If not, chaos ensues. We can always change the parameters too via our representation.
 
As to fear, perhaps you also would steal from the bank if you did not fear the long arm of the law. I don't know.
No, because I would be hurting others - the bank and its depositors.

But I would drive a lot faster if I didn't fear the long arm of the law, because I know I can drive safely a good 15 mph faster than the 70-75 I normally do on the interstate each morning.
If the amount was optional, I don't know if I would pay less.
Heh. I'll bet...

How many people would not pay a damned penny? They'd spend their entire paychecks as soon as they got it, just as they do today, whether they were waiting tables for $4.00/hour plus tips or re-routing people's hearts for $5,000 a pop. Then when April 15 rolled around, they'd shrug and say, "I can't afford to pay that..."
If I felt others were doing so, I might be tempted myself.
And they would. See above.

Otherwise, I'd stick with what I am used to. I see taxes as a social compact - that we all have agreed (through our votes) to pay under a certain system. As long as we all keep to the arrangement, all is good. If not, chaos ensues.
Yup. The IRS headquarters building in Washington, DC, has Oliver Wendell Holmes's words, "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society" on it.
 
Are you one of those guys who claims that the laws don't actually exist?
No, I'm one of the guys who thinks that one of the guys who claims that the laws don't exist is encountered, it should be rather simple to quote the laws, rather than simply responding with personal abuse, and while those who say "ignorance is no defense" have a point to a certain extent, when someone contacts the government and explicitly asks for an enumeration of the laws regulating their behavior, and the government absolutely refuses to do so, that person no longer has a civic duty to follow the alleged laws.

By that argument the enforcement of any law is citizens pressuring the government to do their violence for them.
Well, more precisely, citizens asking for the enforcement of a law is such.

In a technical sense this may be true--in a democracy, the majority may exert force within certain boundaries, and one's vote is an exercise of that force. But is there an other way to have democracy and rule of law?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't enforce the laws. I'm just saying that we shouldn't pretend that we're pacifists and committed to non-violence if we have the police engage in violence on our behalf.

It may be a crime, but it is not violence (depending on how it was stolen, if it were done by robbery or machine vandalism my answer is different).
Why is destruction of the machine violence, but destruction of the papers not?

Hm... wouldn't call it rebellion because the stalker is acting unlawfully. It would be violent, it may be justified, but wouldn't be civil disobedience.
What if the stalker isn't acting unlawfully? And how is that relevant? If I think that a child molestor got off too lightly, so I attack him, is that not civil disobedience on the basis that the victim engaged in violence?

Because terrorism is used to describe everything from someone spitting ont he streets to someone flying a plane into the WTC. It has no meaning because it is overused.
Myquestion was not how terrorism has no meaning, but how CD has meaning but terrorism doesn't. CD is used to refer to anything from burning draft cards to burning down buildings.

Why are you constantly bringing in irrelevant portions to this argument? The statement was that not paying taxes should be a civil issue and handled as any other dept.
I've already pointed out that other debts can be criminal matters as well, and you don't seem to have anyresponse to that except a strawman. Normally, debts are incurred with the creditor extended credit willingly, in the knowledge that default is possible, with the expectation of profit if the debtor discharges the debt. That doesn't apply to tax debt; the debt isn't incurred by the IRS loaning money, as it is in normal debts.
 
No, I'm one of the guys who thinks that one of the guys who claims that the laws don't exist is encountered, it should be rather simple to quote the laws, rather than simply responding with personal abuse, and while those who say "ignorance is no defense" have a point to a certain extent, when someone contacts the government and explicitly asks for an enumeration of the laws regulating their behavior, and the government absolutely refuses to do so, that person no longer has a civic duty to follow the alleged laws.
Do you have evidence that this has happened?
 
No, I'm one of the guys who thinks that one of the guys who claims that the laws don't exist is encountered, it should be rather simple to quote the laws, rather than simply responding with personal abuse, and while those who say "ignorance is no defense" have a point to a certain extent, when someone contacts the government and explicitly asks for an enumeration of the laws regulating their behavior, and the government absolutely refuses to do so, that person no longer has a civic duty to follow the alleged laws.
For your reference, again. Criminal penalties, as opposed to civil ones, are highlighted:

Those who act on frivolous positions risk a variety of civil and criminal penalties. Those who adopt these positions may face harsher consequences than those who merely promote them. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1991), “Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like moths, these people sometimes get burned.”

Taxpayers filing returns with frivolous positions may be subject to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 (twenty percent of the underpayment attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations) or the civil fraud penalty under section 6663 (seventy-five percent of the underpayment attributable to fraud). Additionally, late filed returns setting forth frivolous positions may be subject to an addition to tax under section 6651(f) for fraudulent failure to timely file an income tax return (triple the amount of the standard failure to file addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1)). See Mason v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-247, 88 T.C.M. (CCH) 398 (2004) (frivolous arguments may be indicative of fraud if made in conjunction with affirmative acts designed to evade paying federal income tax).

Moreover, section 6702 provides for the imposition of a $500 penalty against any individual who files a frivolous income tax return. The legislative history underlying this section states, “the Committee is concerned with the rapid growth of deliberate defiance of the tax laws by tax protesters. The Committee believes that an immediately assessable penalty on the filing of protest returns will help deter the filing of such returns.” S. Rep. No. 494, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 277, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 781, 1023-24.

In the 1980s, Congress showed its concern about taxpayers misusing the courts and obstructing the appeal rights of others when it enacted tougher sanctions for bringing frivolous cases before the courts. Section 6673 allows the courts to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 when they come to any of three conclusions:
  • a taxpayer instituted a proceeding primarily for delay,
  • a position is frivolous or groundless, or
  • a taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies.
An appeals court explained the rationale for the sanctions in Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 72 (7th Cir. 1986): “The purpose of § 6673 . . . is to induce litigants to conform their behavior to the governing rules regardless of their subjective beliefs. Groundless litigation diverts the time and energies of judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless costs on other litigants. Once the legal system has resolved a claim, judges and lawyers must move on to other things. They cannot endlessly rehear stale arguments . . . . [T]here is no constitutional right to bring frivolous suits . . . . People who wish to express displeasure with taxes must choose other forums, and there are many available.”


Taxpayers who rely on frivolous arguments may also face criminal prosecution for: (1) attempting to evade or defeat tax under section 7201, a felony, for which the penalty is a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to 5 years; or (2) making false statements on a return under section 7206(1), a felony, for which the penalty is a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 years.


Persons who promote frivolous arguments and those who assist taxpayers in claiming tax benefits based on such arguments may also face various penalties such as: (1) a $250 penalty under section 6694 for each return prepared by an income tax return preparer who knew or should have known that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous (or $1,000 for each return where the return preparer’s actions were willful, intentional or reckless); (2) a $1,000 penalty under section 6701 for aiding and abetting an understatement of tax; and (3) criminal felony prosecution under section 7206(2) for which the penalty is up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 years for assisting or advising about the preparation of a false return or other document under the internal revenue laws.
 
No, I'm one of the guys who thinks that one of the guys who claims that the laws don't exist is encountered, it should be rather simple to quote the laws, rather than simply responding with personal abuse, and while those who say "ignorance is no defense" have a point to a certain extent, when someone contacts the government and explicitly asks for an enumeration of the laws regulating their behavior, and the government absolutely refuses to do so, that person no longer has a civic duty to follow the alleged laws.

Two comments here:
1. Do you know what a run-on sentence is?
2. If you don't think the law exists, then don't pay your taxes, go for it!
 
Absolutely. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Which is why I don't get why more don't consider McVeigh as the greatest patriot in modern history. If the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and an insurrection is good now and then, he would seem to be a real American hero.
 
I've already pointed out that other debts can be criminal matters as well, and you don't seem to have anyresponse to that except a strawman. Normally, debts are incurred with the creditor extended credit willingly, in the knowledge that default is possible, with the expectation of profit if the debtor discharges the debt. That doesn't apply to tax debt; the debt isn't incurred by the IRS loaning money, as it is in normal debts.

But it is not the debts that are criminal, it is the actions around them. So in this case it would mean there is no penalty for tax evasion but making structured transactions to avoid notice would be illegal.
 
Because terrorism is used to describe everything from someone spitting ont he streets to someone flying a plane into the WTC. It has no meaning because it is overused.
You've asserted this a couple of times so I wanted to respond to it. I think many and perhaps most words are overused. I don't think most really lose any and all meaning. I certainly don't think "terrorism" has become trite or cliche or that it is so vague as to rely no meaning. If you ask most people what comes to mind when you say terrorist I'm willing to bet few if any will mention people spitting on the street.

It is often mssused I'll confess but it is still, IMO, a very useful word.
 
It is often mssused I'll confess but it is still, IMO, a very useful word.

It would be if we could actually keep it for acts of terrorism.

What do you call people who bomb bridges, roads, railways, pipelines, oil refineries, etc.?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom