Tax protester (United States) Totally Explained

Everything about Tax Protester United States totally explained

The term tax protester as used in the United States has been defined as a term applying to "persons who claim the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, and who therefore fail to file a tax return or file returns with no income or tax data supplied." Legal commentator Daniel B. Evans has defined tax protesters as people who "refuse to pay taxes or file tax returns out of a mistaken belief that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, voluntary, or otherwise doesn't apply to them under one of a number of bizarre arguments"
Tax protesters use a constitutional arguments, such as claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified or that it's unconstitutional generally. As well, they may claim that income tax violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or that Federal Reserve Notes don't constitute cash or income.

Origin of term

In the United States, the term "protest" as applied to a tax generally means "a declaration by a payer, esp. of a tax, that he doesn't concede the legality of a claim he's paying". Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary defines a tax protest as:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a refund and, if the claim isn't allowed by the IRS, to sue for a tax refund in Federal district court.
   The term "protest" is also used to describe a taxpayer's formal written request for review, by the Appeals Division of the IRS, after the IRS issues a "Thirty-Day Letter" proposing an increased tax liability following an IRS examination of a tax return.
   In 1972, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania used the term tax "protestor" (protester) in United States v. Malinowski. This case, however, involved a taxpayer who was a member of the Philadelphia War Tax Resistance League who was protesting the use of tax money in the Vietnam War. The taxpayer wasn't making arguments that the tax law itself was invalid; he was essentially protesting the war, not the tax. The taxpayer had filed a false Form W-4, and admitted he knew that he wasn't legally entitled to claim the exemptions (allowances) he claimed on the W-4. Thus, Malinowski might be termed a tax resister rather than a tax protester. He was convicted, and his motion for a new trial or acquittal was denied.
   Beginning in the mid-1970s, U.S. Federal courts began using the term “tax protester” in still another, more narrow sense -- to describe persons who raised frivolous arguments about the legality of Federal taxes, particularly income taxes. This particular technical sense of the term is the sense described in the remainder of this article.
   The first two reported federal cases in which the courts used the term in this manner may have been Gilbert v. Miriami and United States v. Scott, coincidentally decided only two days apart. In Gilbert v. Miriami, the taxpayer (Walter Gilbert) sued the District Director of Internal Revenue (Charles Miriami) asking for injunctive and declaratory relief from enforcement of the internal revenue laws, including a request for a judgment that the statute prohibiting most suits to restrain the assessment or collection of Federal taxes was unconstitutional. The court rejected the taxpayer's claims. In Scott, the court noted that an undercover government agent had sworn out an affidavit regarding the agent’s infiltration into a "tax protester" organization. The case itself upheld the conviction of the leader of that organization, who had failed to file tax returns from 1969 to 1972, based on Constitutional arguments against the validity of the income tax.
   A person could be both a tax protester and a tax resister if he or she believes that tax laws don't apply to him or her and also believes that taxes shouldn't be paid based on the use to which the taxes are put. Some tax resisters have put forth legal arguments for their position — for instance that they can't pay taxes for nuclear weapons development because this would put them in violation of the Nuremberg Principles — that could be considered varieties of tax protester theories.

History

World War II. One of the first people to fit this description was Vivien Kellems, a Connecticut industrialist and political activist who specifically protested monthly tax withholding. In 1948 she refused to withhold taxes from the wages of her employees, based on the claim that the government had no power to require such withholding. The IRS then seized the money owed from her bank account. She brought suit against them and, in a book she wrote, asserted that she won, although she didn't challenge the constitutionality of tax withholding itself.
She lost a separate case challenging the constitutionality of withholding itself, and continued in legal battles and appeals, until her death in 1975, ultimately unsuccessful in challenging the withholding of tax. The tax protester movement began to develop a greater following in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many books, lectures and other materials promised to help people avoid having to pay taxes. In 1975, the term “tax protester” began to appear in reported court decisions.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that people are attracted to the "tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there's no legal requirement to pay federal income tax." The court called the tax protester arguments "wholly defective and unsuccessful." Ideas associated with the tax protester movement have been forwarded under different names over time. These ideas have been put forth, for example, in the broader Christian Patriot and Posse Comitatus movements, which generally assert that the Constitution has been usurped by the federal government.

Arguments

Arguments made by tax protesters generally fall into several categories: that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified; that the Sixteenth Amendment doesn't permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income; that other provisions of the Constitution such as the First, Fifth, or the “Missing Thirteenth Amendment” eliminate an obligation to file a return; that citizens of the states are not also citizens of the United States; that the statutes enacted by the United States Congress pursuant to their constitutional taxing power are defective or invalid; and that the government and the courts engage in various conspiracies to conceal the above deficiencies.
In another Seventh Circuit case, the Court observed:

Penalties

In the United States, "protesting" Federal income taxes is not, in and of itself, a criminal offense. The United States Congress has, however, enacted Internal Revenue Code section 6702 "in an effort to deter tax protesters from filing frivolous returns."
   The penalty is $500 for positions taken on or before March 15, 2007. For positions taken after that date, the penalty amount has been increased to $5,000. The Internal Revenue Service has issued a list of positions considered to be legally frivolous. Shauna Henline, the senior technical adviser of the Frivolous Return Program at the Internal Revenue Service, has testified that the IRS receives about 20,000 to 30,000 frivolous tax returns per year, and that approximately 100,000 related letters and other documents are received each year.
   In some cases, taxpayers have argued that section 6702, the "frivolous argument" penalty statute, is itself unconstitutional. That argument was rejected in Hazewinkel v. United States (taxpayer's arguments -- that sections 6702 and 6703 violate both procedural and substantive due process because there's no right to a prior hearing, and that the word "frivolous" is unconstitutionally vague -- were rejected). See also Pillsbury v. Commissioner, a case in which taxpayer Leecil Pillsbury's argument -- that section 6702 violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause of the Constitution -- was ruled to be without merit.
   In that case, the court also ruled the following taxpayer arguments to be invalid: (1) the argument that section 6702 is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder; (2) the argument that section 6702 unconstitutionally authorizes the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment; (3) the argument that section 6702 unconstitutionally violates the doctrine of separation of powers; (4) the argument that section 6702 unconstitutionally violates the taxpayer's First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances. See also Duke v. Commissioner (tax protester argument that 6702 was unconstitutional was rejected by the court), Kane v. United States (taxpayer's argument -- that because section 6702 doesn't define the term "frivolous," the statute is unconstitutionally vague -- was rejected), and Hudson v. United States (taxpayer's arguments -- that section 6702 unconstitutionally violates taxpayer's First Amendment rights, that section 6702 violates due process rights by failing to provide a hearing before assessment of a penalty, that section 6702 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and that section 6702 is unconstitutionally vague -- were ruled to be without merit).
   The Congress has enacted Internal Revenue Code section 6673 imposing civil monetary penalties for making frivolous arguments in proceedings before the United States Tax Court. The law provides that frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Code also provides that the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals may impose penalties where the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."
   In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is deemed to have certified that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law". Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In one recent case, for example, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he shouldn't be fined $ 10,000 for his frivolous arguments".
   Congress has enacted section 1912 of title 28 of the United States Code providing that in the United States Supreme Court and in the various courts of appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages. A person who raises a frivolous argument in a Federal appeals court may also be subject to monetary penalties under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Treatment by Internal Revenue Service

Prior to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the "1998 Act"), the Internal Revenue Service had defined a tax protester scheme as "any scheme without basis in law or fact for the ostensible purpose of expressing dissatisfaction with the substance, form, or administration of the tax laws be [sic;"by"] either interfering with tax administration or attempting to illegally avoid or reduce tax liabilities."
   The IRS hasn't released records indicating who the agency defined as "illegal tax protesters" (coded as TC-148). In testimony before Congress in 1997, former IRS historian Shelley L. Davis contended that the IRS kept lists of citizens "for no reason other than that their political activities might have offended someone at the IRS [ . . . .]" and she charged that "anyone who offers even legitimate criticism of the tax collector is [labeledby the IRS as] a tax protester [ . . . ]"
   After the 1997 congressional hearings, Congress responded with the 1998 Act. Subsection (a) of section 3707 of the 1998 Act now prohibits "officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service" from designating a taxpayer as an “illegal tax protester” or using any similar designation for a taxpayer. By contrast, subsection (b) of section 3707 provides: "An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may designate any appropriate taxpayer as a nonfiler, but shall remove such designation once the taxpayer has filed income tax returns for 2 consecutive taxable years and paid all taxes shown on such returns."
   The IRS has concluded, in Service Center Advice 200107034 dated November 15, 2000, that the statutory prohibition on the use of the term "illegal tax protester" by IRS personnel doesn't prohibit the IRS from maintaining a database of frivolous tax return filers as part of its Frivolous Return Program. IRS Advice 200107034 states (in part):
� :The Frivolous Return Program in Examination [anadministrative component of the IRS] has the specific assignment of processing assessments of frivolous return penalties pursuant to [InternalRevenue Code] section 6702. The employees of that unit receive documents from throughout the country which IRS employees believe may qualify as frivolous returns under section 6702. The employees review the documents and make a determination of how to proceed.

� :When the documents come into the Frivolous Return Program, employees enter initial data into a computerized inventory database. [ . . . ] Initial data includes name, social security number, and tax examiner assigned the case. Later, a tax examiner reviews the documents to see if they qualify as frivolous. If the documents meet the frivolous test, the tax examiner does a compliance check to see if the taxpayer is properly filing returns. If the taxpayer is properly filing returns and isn't potentially subject to a frivolous return penalty, then the tax examiner deletes the individual from the database [ . . . ]

According to the IRS:
� :[ . . . ] Congress enacted section 3707 because of its concern that taxpayers may be stigmatized by a designation as an "illegal tax protester." [ . . . ] Under section 3707(a)(2), the IRS is required to remove illegal tax protester designations from its individual master file and disregard any illegal tax protester designation in a place other than the individual master file in the case of any illegal tax protesters designation made on or before July 22, 1998, the date of the enactment of section 3707. Although section 3707 prohibits the IRS from designating taxpayers as illegal tax protesters, it does provide that the IRS may designated [sic] any appropriate taxpayer as a nonfiler. However, the nonfiler designation must be removed once the taxpayer has filed income tax returns for two consecutive years and paid all taxes shown on the returns. Section 3707(b).

� :We conclude [ . . . ] that Congress was concerned that innocent taxpayers may have been mislabeled as illegal tax protesters. However, Congress didn't intend to limit the IRS's ability to maintain records and to make designations, other than the illegal tax protesters designation, where such designations are appropriate.

� :As a result of the enactment of sections 3707 [ofthe 1998 Act] and 6702 [ofthe Internal Revenue Code], the IRS [ . . . ] has tried to balance these competing obligations by focusing on the conduct of the taxpayers and specifically identifying those frivolous arguments asserted rather than applying a general label of tax protester.

The Criminal Investigation (CI) division of the Internal Revenue Service investigates reports of violations of the federal criminal tax statutes, including tax evasion under, willful failure to file tax returns or pay tax under, willful filing of false returns under, and violations of other statutes, and refers tax cases to the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution.

Treatment by the U.S. Department of Justice

The Department of Justice may obtain a federal court ruling to the effect that a specific tax protester activity constitutes the promotion of an illegal tax shelter under Internal Revenue Code section 6700, and may obtain a court order prohibiting that activity under, as it did in the case of United States v. Robert L. Schulz, We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and We the People Congress, Inc.. The Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutes violations of the federal criminal tax statutes, generally after an investigation and referral of a case by the Criminal Investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service. See, for example, subsection (d) of .
   As of February 2008, the Department of Justice was reported to be "planning a crackdown on the so-called tax protester movement." Assistant U.S. Attorney General Nathan Hochman, the head of the Tax Division of the Justice Department, stated: "Too many people succumb to the fallacy, the illusion, that you don't have to pay any tax under any set of conditions [ . . . ] That is a growing problem." According to a Bloomberg News report, the U.S. government has a 97 percent conviction rate in criminal tax denier cases.
   On April 9, 2008, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Nathan J. Hochman announced the launch of the National Tax Defier Initiative, also known as the "TAXDEF Initiative." In the announcement, Hochman stated:
� :Now, tax non-compliers come in a wide variety of folks, some of which can be brought into compliance through education, and other of which can only be brought into compliance through enforcement. Today, I want to focus on a particularly pernicious and egregious character in the tax non-compliance world: the tax defier.

� :The tax defier isn't someone who has a legitimate legal or factual dispute with the government about the amount of their tax due. We welcome such legitimate disputes administratively before the IRS, or in [court]. The tax defier isn't someone who is merely exercising his or her first amendment rights to challenge the tax policy choices of Congress.

� :Instead, the tax defier is someone who rejects the fundamental basis, the legal underpinnings of our entire tax system, and flies in the face of legal precedent going back decades that has upheld the Constitutional and statutory validity of that system. And, this is important, and taxes specific and concrete action to violate the law. It is the tax defier’s conduct which results in frivolous returns, bogus tax schemes, and frivolous claims that threatens the foundation of our tax system, in which will be and can be vigorously countered. Although the tax division and the IRS have been effective at times at going after tax defier activity, the problem demands constant vigilance.

� :Today, I want to renew and revitalize the tax division’s commitment to going after tax defier conduct by announcing the creation of the National Tax Defier Initiative, or the TAXDEF Initiative.

� :[ . . . ]

� :To the extent that protest defines someone who stands on a soapbox and decries the appropriateness of a particular tax policy, it’s a completely legitimate act to do so. However, when that protest turns into defiant conduct, which is the [filing] of a frivolous return, a bogus claim, engaging some of these bogus tax defier techniques on my right and left - that’s when the tax defiant conduct becomes criminal or civil prosecutable. [ . . . ] we decided to use the term tax defier to focus on the 100% illegitimate part of what these folks are doing. And, again, what we’re prosecuting is the conduct, not the mere exercise of their first amendment rights.

In United States v. Amon, Alan Amon was convicted of filing a false withholding allowance certificate under . Rather than having been indicted by a grand jury, Amon had been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a document called an information. He appealed the conviction, in part on the ground that the government's prosecution of him was "unconstitutionally selective." The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted that the trial court had agreed that Amon was "selected for prosecution because he's an active and outspoken [tax] protester."
   The trial court had ruled that Amon's "status as an active protester was insufficient to establish selective prosecution" and that no illegal discrimination occurs where the government prosecutes individuals "for actions which they take in failing to comply with the tax laws" where an effect of the prosecution is "to dissuade others from engaging in that kind of tax protest." The Court of Appeals agreed, stating: "Merely showing that the Government elected, under established IRS directives, to prosecute an individual because he was vocal in opposing voluntary compliance with the federal income tax law, without also establishing that others similarly situated were not prosecuted and that the prosecution was based on racial, religious or other impermissible considerations, doesn't demonstrate an unconstitutionally selective prosecution."

Responses

Many Appeals Courts have made blanket statements repudiating tax protester arguments. For example, see the Seventh Circuit case of United States v. Buckner:

For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered "objectively reasonable" in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the [[Taking

Arguments about constitutionality

The case of Cheek v. United States involves a U.S. Supreme Court decision on tax protester arguments. The Cheek case involved a tax protester who was prosecuted for tax evasion under . In Cheek, the Court stated:

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They don't arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws couldn't constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

The Supreme Court in Cheek continued:

We don't believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he's in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who “willfully” refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

After a remand by the Supreme Court, the tax protester in Cheek was ultimately convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear his petition for review of his conviction after the remand, and he was sent to prison.
If a jury finds that a criminal defendant had a subjective good faith belief due to a misunderstanding based on the complexity of the tax law (and not based on an argument about its constitutionality), that belief may be a defense with respect to the element of willfulness, even if the belief is unreasonable. This is due to the general mens rea requirement needed to hold someone criminally liable and the specific intent needed in the Cheek case and word willfully in the statute (see specific intent crimes). Persons acquitted of criminal tax evasion may still be prosecuted civilly, and required to pay the taxes assessed, along with civil penalties.

Further Information

Get more info on 'Tax Protester United States'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://tax_protester__united_states.totallyexplained.com">Tax protester (United States) Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.