Another IRS tax case.

[Suddenly]

Actually, he can. Section 6673 .

Congress specifically put this into the law to deal with tax protesters "obstructing the appeal rights of others."

That isn't going to apply in a criminal court. That code section only applies to "Tax Court" and any civil proceeding before any other court w/r/t taxation,.

To overtly sanction someone for "friviously" contesting a criminal case would be so unconstitutional as to make one's head spin.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"The IRS has already made attempts to collect, and now Cryer faces criminal charges."

Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#Cryer.27s_2009_Tax_Court_case

The IRS asserts that Cryer owes $848,806.00 in Federal income tax plus $615,384.37 in section 6651(f) penalties for fraudulent failure to file tax returns, $212,201.50 in section 6651(a)(2) penalties for failure to timely pay the taxes, and $43,044.84 in section 6654 penalties for failure to timely pay estimated taxes.[15]
Cryer's statement in the petition, in explanation of why he disagrees with the IRS determination, is: "The amount of the claimed deficiency is disputed. The correct amount is $0.00." Cryer has requested that the trial be held in New Orleans. No trial date has yet been set.[16]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That isn't going to apply in a criminal court. That code section only applies to "Tax Court" and any civil proceeding before any other court w/r/t taxation,.

To overtly sanction someone for "friviously" contesting a criminal case would be so unconstitutional as to make one's head spin.

That's what I was trying (but failing) to say.

A "frivolous" case only applies to a plaintiff.

 

[Aepervius]

Just out of curiosity , is this tax refusal thingy only a US phenomenon ? I never heard of anybody refusing to pay their tax in other country (all those I know of, which did not pay, frauded willingly).

 

[MarekM]

Just out of curiosity , is this tax refusal thingy only a US phenomenon ? I never heard of anybody refusing to pay their tax in other country (all those I know of, which did not pay, frauded willingly).

There are two types of individuals that refuse to pay taxes. Tax resisters and tax protesters. Resisters recognize that they are violating the law, yet refuse to pay for various reasons, such as refusing to support a war the particular nation is engaged in. It seems that resisters are fairly common in many different countries.

On the other hand, protesters argue that income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, doesn't apply to them, etc. This seems to be exclusive to the United States. I'm really not sure why this is.

 

[Bob Klase]

On the other hand, protesters argue that income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, doesn't apply to them, etc. This seems to be exclusive to the United States. I'm really not sure why this is.

Probably because there's no other country that uses our constitution.

 

[Suddenly]

That's what I was trying (but failing) to say.

A "frivolous" case only applies to a plaintiff.

It can apply to a civil defendant if the defense to a civil complaint is frivolous.

 

[Suddenly]

On the other hand, protesters argue that income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, doesn't apply to them, etc. This seems to be exclusive to the United States. I'm really not sure why this is.

There is a huge thread in the conspiracy theory section about Brits that argue along the same lines.

 

[MarekM]

Probably because there's no other country that uses our constitution.

Is there anything inherently unique about the United States' constitution that would lead one to believe they didn't have to pay income taxes?

Most constitutional arguments that tax protesters rely on are grounded in constitutional notions adopted by many countries. Examples being self-incrimination, eminent domain, substantive due process, bans on slavery, etc.

 

[MarekM]

There is a huge thread in the conspiracy theory section about Brits that argue along the same lines.

Thanks. I'll check that out.

 

[drkitten]

Is there anything inherently unique about the United States' constitution that would lead one to believe they didn't have to pay income taxes?

Yes.

There's a ban in the Constitution that specifically mentions certain types of taxation (that may or may not include income tax, depending upon which cases you read); this was fixed by later amendment, but it's easy to convince oneself that that specific amendment is somehow flawed (e.g., was printed in the wrong color ink or something). Ergo, it doesn't apply and therefore income taxes are unconstitutional.

There's also the principle which is more strongly held in the US than in most other countries that if the Constitution does not specifically authorize an action, the government can't take it (as opposed to most English-speaking Parliamentary systems where the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy says that Parliament can do anything it likes, up to and including overturning things like substantive due process). If there were a flaw in the enabling legislation, the IRS would be illegal in a way that does not typically apply in Parliamentary countries.

Of course, these arguments are a load of fetid dingos' kidneys, but tax protesting isn't about what's true, but what you can convince yourself is true.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The only other country I lived in was Ecuador, and they had a value added tax instead of a tax on income. A substantial part of the economy just ignored it. When I was there, the economy was in crisis (their currency devalued something horrible, triple digit inflation, dollarization, nationwide strikes and a mostly bloodless coup). Few people had money at all. I have no idea if the attitudes toward taxes I observed are typical.

There is in our history a pretty strong distrust of the "guvmint". Some of this distrust runs to absurd ideas.

I was just re-reading Huckleberry Finn. Here's some of Pap's view of the "govment" (I suspect the auto censor will have its way with the "n" word):

Whenever his liquor begun to work he most always went for the govment. his time he says:

"Call this a govment! why, just look at it and see what it's like. Here's the law a-standing ready to take a man's son away from him -- a man's own son, which he has had all the trouble and all the anxiety and all the expense of raising. Yes, just as that man has got that son raised at last, and ready to go to work and begin to do suthin' for him and give him a rest, the law up and goes for him. And they call that govment! That ain't all, nuther. The law backs that old Judge Thatcher up and helps him to keep me out o' my property. Here's what the law does: The law takes a man worth six thousand dollars and up'ards, and jams him into an old trap of a cabin like this, and lets him go round in clothes that ain't fitten for a hog. They call that govment! A man can't get his rights in a govment like this. Sometimes I've a mighty notion to just leave the country for good and all. Yes, and I told 'em so; I told old Thatcher so to his face. Lots of 'em heard me, and can tell what I said. Says I, for two cents I'd leave the blamed country and never come a-near it agin. Them's the very words. I says look at my hat -- if you call it a hat -- but the lid raises up and the rest of it goes down till it's below my chin, and then it ain't rightly a hat at all, but more like my head was shoved up through a jint o' stove-pipe. Look at it, says I -- such a hat for me to wear -- one of the wealthiest men in this town if I could git my rights.
"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free ****** there from Ohio -- a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane -- the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust. They said he could vote when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that ****** vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote agin. Them's the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me -- I'll never vote agin as long as I live. And to see the cool way of that ****** -- why, he wouldn't a give me the road if I hadn't shoved him out o' the way. I says to the people, why ain't this ****** put up at auction and sold? -- that's what I want to know. And what do you reckon they said? Why, they said he couldn't be sold till he'd been in the State six months, and he hadn't been there that long yet. There, now -- that's a specimen. They call that a govment that can't sell a free ****** till he's been in the State six months. Here's a govment that calls itself a govment, and lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock-still for six whole months before it can take a hold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, white-shirted free ******, and -- "

So yeah, I think guys like Springer and Cryer are following in this less than noble American tradition.

 

[boyntonstu]

No, I think I might have been wrong. I know the government collects on deficiencies in tax returns through civil proceedings, but it appears this case is a criminal prosecution. I was thrown off by the use of "plaintiff" rather than "prosecutor" in the briefs. Honestly I'm not sure why that is.

Here's the response outlining the specific sections of the code that were violated.

Apparently, Springer's not even arguing that there's no law requiring him to make a tax return. He's arguing that under the Paperwork Reduction Act, he doesn't need to disclose the required information. Here's the government's response to the argument.

You are correct.

Springer does not go anywhere but to address the PRA.

Does the PRA mean what it says?

If it does, there can be no penalty for not filing a 1040?

 

[MarekM]

Yes.

There's a ban in the Constitution that specifically mentions certain types of taxation (that may or may not include income tax, depending upon which cases you read); this was fixed by later amendment, but it's easy to convince oneself that that specific amendment is somehow flawed (e.g., was printed in the wrong color ink or something). Ergo, it doesn't apply and therefore income taxes are unconstitutional.

There's also the principle which is more strongly held in the US than in most other countries that if the Constitution does not specifically authorize an action, the government can't take it (as opposed to most English-speaking Parliamentary systems where the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy says that Parliament can do anything it likes, up to and including overturning things like substantive due process). If there were a flaw in the enabling legislation, the IRS would be illegal in a way that does not typically apply in Parliamentary countries.

Of course, these arguments are a load of fetid dingos' kidneys, but tax protesting isn't about what's true, but what you can convince yourself is true.

Very good points. I guess what I was getting at was the idea that regardless of the country you live in, many tax protester arguments will be available to you. Whether you're in the U.S. or elsewhere doesn't matter; the chances of judicial success are practically zero.

I'm thinking the high proportion of tax protesters we see comes from a variety of characteristics of the U.S. government and population; some of them pointed out by you and some by JoeTheJuggler, as well as others.

 

[MarekM]

You are correct.

Springer does not go anywhere but to address the PRA.

Does the PRA mean what it says?

If it does, there can be no penalty for not filing a 1040?

The penalties imposed are for failure to report income and pay taxes. As far as I understand, if Springer used a different form to accurately report income and he paid the taxes owed, he would not face penalties. The PRA cannot be used to negate these liabilities:

[T]he only PRA violations he asserts concern the IRS Form 1040. The failure-to-pay penalties have an independent and separate statutory basis under the Internal Revenue Code, however, that is not based on Mr. Springer’s failure to file Form 1040s for the tax years in question. As their name plainly indicates, they are based on Mr. Springer’s subsequent failure to pay assessed amounts. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(3). Consequently, because Mr. Springer has failed to articulate any cognizable violation of the PRA in connection with the imposition of the failure-to-pay penalties, § 3512(a) of the PRA provides him with no protection from those penalties.

[T]he obligation to file a tax return stems from 26 U.S.C. § 7203, not from any agency's demand. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not repeal § 7203. Repeal by implication depends on inconsistency that makes it impossible to comply with the newer law while still honoring the old one (citations omitted), and there is no such inconsistency between §7203 and the Paperwork Reduction Act. One reason for this is that § 7203 requires a “return” but does not define that word or require anyone to use Form 1040, or any “official” form at all. All that is required is a complete and candid report of income.

Plaintiff's allegations rely on the language of the public protection provision of the PRA, which states that “no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information ... if the collection of information does not display a valid control number.” 44 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(1). However, it is settled law that “the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation” and “such explicit statutory requirements are not subject to the PRA.” United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1191-92 (10th Cir.1991).