Anti-Defamation League Online Homepage    ADL Home |  Militia Watch Dog Archive Home |  Law Enforcement |  Search |  About |  Contribute

 

Militia Watchdog Graphic

Last Updated, August 29, 1999

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

Part Five

By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP

rule
rule

Distributing "jury nullification" literature in courthouse or to veniremen punished as contempt or obstruction: Turney v. State (Alaska Supm 1997) 936 P2d 533; Fully Informed Jury Assn v. County of San Diego (9th Cir unpub 2/23/96) 78 F3d 593(t); and see also N.J. King, Silencing Nullification Advocacy inside the jury room and outside the courtroom, 65 Univ.  of Chicago Law Rev. 433 (1998); perp not entitled to have judge instruct jury on nullification.  Jones v.  City of Little Rock (1993) 314 Ark 383, 862 SW2d 273 cert.den 512 US 1237;  similarly punishing as contempt or obstruction someone threatening jurors with criminal violence or nuisance lawsuits.  US v.  Ippolito (MD Fla 6/9/98) 10 F.Supp.2d 1305; jury members are not judicial or public officers and not required to swear to uphold the US Constitution. US v. Spurgeon (8th Cir 1982) 671 F2d 1198; (tax scofflaw could question potential jurors about whether they had ever issued declarations of "free white status" but not about membership in the Aryan Brotherhood [which requires prison experience] or in the Aryan Nations) US v. Masat (5th Cir 1990) 896 F2d 88  

rule
rule

Nuisance forms 1099; punished:  US v. Barbara Olson (10th Cir unpub 4/14/92) 961 F2d 221(t)(punished as a false statement and a fraudulent claim, 18 USC 287 & 1001); (punished as obstructing the administration of the tax laws, 26 USC 7212, and malicious intent presumed from the filing of the false 1099 forms) US v. Winchell (10th Cir 1997) 129 F3d 1093; similarly (sent Notice of Bills Due to various people involved in the foreclosure sale of  his farm, and then filed phony 1099s against them; convicted under 26 USC sec. 7212 for "corruptly" interfering with the IRS even though none of the 1099s was against an IRS employee but the forms were filed with the IRS) US v.  Yagow (8th Cir 1991) 953 F2d 423; ditto (filed phony 1099s against employees of the Farmers Home Admin, also held that the offense is committed when the forms are submitted to the IRS and does not require that IRS fully process them) US v. L.T. Hanson (9th Cir 1993) 2 F3d 942; similarly (sent false 1099s only to his victims and not to the IRS, but heavily fined under 18 USC sec. 1001, for making false statements to the govt on the very reasonable expectation that his victims would forward copies of his forms to the IRS)  US v. Meuli (10 Cir 1993) 8 F3d 1481 cert.den 511 US 1020;  similarly (first sent Demand letters and then filed phony 1099s against his former employer, several IRS employees, and the non-govt tow truck operator who all cooperated in the tax audit and the seizure of his truck, also sent them letters claiming to have filed liens against them; this is not protected as "petitioning the govt", sentenced to six months)  US v. Kuball (9th Cir 1992) 976 F2d 529; (filing numerous phony 1099s against everyone involved in his foreclosure punished under 18 USC sec. 1001 for filing false reports with the govt, this is not protected as "petitioning the govt", and because some of the victims were govt employees in their govt duties the punishment is suitable enhanced according to the sentencing guidelines) US v.  Citrowske (8th Cir 1991) 951 F2d 899;  (punished as part of a scheme to obstruct justice) US v. Koff (9th Cir 1994) 43 F3d 417 cert.den 514 US 1008; (false 1099s and fictitious liens against traffic court judge gets 60 days of jail for indirect criminal contempt) People v. Smeathers (1998) 297 IL App.3d 711, 698 NE2d 181;  (a scheme for harassing people, especially judges and IRS employees, using false 1099 forms -- falsely reporting to the IRS payments made to the victims which the victims, naturally, hadn't mentioned on their own tax returns, thereby generating an audit -- was marketed by Roger Elvick, et al., and resulted in his conviction, and the conviction of several of his followers, for conspiracy to file false tax documents, under 18 USC sec. 371 & sec. 1011 and 26 USC sec. 7206, and other offenses.  Elvick, for example was sentenced to five years prison after one federal trial and was also tried and convicted in other courts) US v.  Lorenzo [&  Elvick] (9th Cir 1992) 995 F2d 1448 cert.den 510 US 881; and US v.  Hildebrandt (8th Cir 1992) 961 F2d 116 cert.den 506 US 878; and US v.  Dykstra (8th Cir 1993) 991 F2d 450 cert.den  510 US 880; and in US v.  Rosnow (8th Cir 1992) 977 F2d 399 cert.den 507 US 990, it was mentioned how these people also filed false CTR (currency transaction reports) against their victims, and how Elvick pleaded the Fifth Amendment rather than testify on behalf of several of his followers; the IRS has taken the precaution of running background checks on such 1099s that lack the purported recipient's Soc.Sec. number -- altho some of the perpetrators have been able to find out and use their victims' Soc.Sec numbers.  Similarly the perp who ran a tax evasion "school" and instructed people to file false 1099s and then demand corresponding tax refunds was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the US and to obstruct the collection of taxes and the sentence was greatly enhanced following the sentencing guidelines because the perp had a leadership role, had encouraged other people to violate the law, had targeted govt employees as victims, and because of the large amounts of money claimed, and sentenced to three years of prison and two years of probation.  US v.  Telemaque (8th Cir 1991) 934 F2d 169.   Also (filing a false CTR against the presiding judge during a trial was added to the previous charges of falsifying govt checks and sentenced for a total of 6 years) US v.  Wiley (5th Cir 1992) 979 F2d 365; filing false 1099s punished with four months prison and when mountebank failed to show up for delivery to prison on pretext he was appealing to a make-believe court, convicted of failing to surrender and another year and a day of prison was added to his sentence. US v.  Morse (8th Cir unpub 4/12/94) 21 F3d 433(t)

rule
rule

 Counterfeit Form 1040 (the "Eugene May Return", with different captions than the official form, usually "income" relabeled as receipts, and signed without any affirmation): US v. Ferguson (7th Cir 1986) 793 F2d 828 cert.den 479 US 933; US v. May (ED Mich 1983) 555 F.Supp 1008; Lonskey v. CIR (3/26/85) TC Memo 1985-143; Stapleton v. CIR (3/26/85) TC Memo 1985-144; Franklin v. CIR (3/26/85) TC Memo 1985-140; Unroe v. CIR (3/27/85) TC Memo 1985-149; (alteration of form punished as frivolous under 26 USC sec. 6702) Beard v. US (D. Ariz unpub 2/17/84) 54 AFTR2d 5264, 84 USTC para  9349; (govt got injunction to stop the production of Eugene May forms) US v. May (ED Mich 1983) 555 F.Supp 1008; Weller v. CIR (8/5/85) TC Memo 1985-387; (filing a "statement in lieu of a return") Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; (marking up a form 1040 with questions instead of providing information) Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; Beard v. US (ED Mich 1984) 589 F.Supp 881; (using a homespun  tax form that supposedly converts Federal Reserve Notes into "constitutional" money) Butler v. CIR (6/25/85) TC Memo 1985-30; (filing false W-4 forms to prevent employer withholding of income tax) US v. Clark (5th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 485 cert.den _US_, 119 S.Ct 227;

rule
rule

Unsigned tax form is not a valid return: Dunham v. CIR (2/9/98) TC Memo 1998-52 (and fined for all the time that passed before he submitted a valid tax return); US v. Golden (6th Cir unpub 2/25/86) 786 F2d 1167(t); mostly blank (Porth) return: US v. Porth (10th Cir 1970) 426 F2d 519 cert.den 400 US 824; McCoy v. CIR (1982) TC Memo 1982-570; US v. Golden (6th Cir unpub 2/25/86) 786 F2d 1167(t); Beard v. US (D. Ariz unpub 2/17/84) 54 AFTR2d 5264, 84 USTC para  9349; Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; Cupp v. CIR (10/14/75) 65 Tax Ct 68 aff'd (3d Cir 1977) 559 F2d 1207;  ("Fifth Amendment" return - no useful information for any questions) Sochia v.  US (5th Cir 1994) 23 F3d 941 cert.den 513 US 1153 and again Sochia v.  CIR (8/12/98) TC Memo 1998-294; ditto Dorgan v. Miller (ND Supm 1980) 297 NW2d 418; ditto Sherrer v. CIR (4/14/99) TC Memo 1999-122; ditto (not only Fifth Amendment objections to every financial item but failed to provide his phone number, his marital status, his occupation, number of exemptions, residency info, etc., yet wanted a refund) Dorgan v. Kouba (ND Supm 1978) 274 NW2d 167; Cavanaugh v. CIR (8/19/91) TC Memo 1991-407 aff'd (10th Cir unpub 2/9/93) 986 F2d 1426(t); Betz v. US (2/3/98) 40 Fed.Claims 286, 81 AFTR2d 611, 98 USTC para  50199 app.dism (FC 1998) 155 F3d 568(t); Jenny v. CIR (1/3/83) TC Memo 1983-1; (perp wanted a declaratory judgment that he could claim the Fifth Amendment rather than report any income) Weninger v.  Simon (D Colo unpub 1/27/77) 40 AFTR2d 5595, 77 USTC para 9199; ditto Sochia v.  US (5th Cir 1994) 23 F3d 941 cert.den 513 US 1153;  (a return which responded "Fifth Amendment" on at least five important lines, and was larded with more than 90 pages of copies of the Magna Carta, the Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, and other historic reprints, as rightly characterized as "a declaration of war against the IRS" and as a failure to file a return) US v.  Farber (8th Cir 1982) 679 F2d 733 cert.den 459 US 874;  (more precisely, a purported return which has only zeros or no useful info is punished, not as failure to file a return, but as filing a "frivolous return" under 26 USC 6702)  Tornichio v. US (ND Ohio unpub 3/12/98) 81 AFTR2d 1377, 98 USTC para 50299; ditto Ghalardi Income Tax Education Foundation [& Webber] v.  CIR (12/30/98) TC Memo 1998-460; ditto ("The plaintiff in this case admits that his purported return claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege instead of providing any financial data. ... Such a purported return is, as a matter of law, frivolous ... since it asserts a position which has no basis in law, and it does not contain information from which the plaintiff's tax liability can be determined.  A blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege on a purported tax return, which in effect constitutes a refusal to file a return, is not made in good faith. ... Such unfounded assertions of a Fifth Amendment privilege are patently frivolous and thus squarely within the core of conduct proscribed by 26 USC sec. 6702." M.D. Miller v.  IRS (ND Ind unpub 5/17/85); ditto (a mostly blank return with notations claiming objections under the Fourth, Fifth and other amendments and offering to amend or refile " if you [the IRS] will please show me how to do so without waiving my Constitutional rights" is frivolous; "Returns filed by taxpayers containing asterisks and language similar to or identical to the language used by appellants regarding constitutional rights have been found to be frivolous as a matter of law ...." Kriemelmeyer v. CIR (Minn. Tax Ct unpub 10/8/91); ditto (a good faith defense is negated by the perp's deliberate refusal to provide useful information on a tax return) US v. Barney (8th Cir 1982) 674 F2d 729 cert.den 457 US 1139;  ditto (where all financial items got only a Fifth (and other) Amendment objections, "Filing of a tax form is not synonymous with filing a tax return.  A tax return is a tax form containing sufficient information from which the commission can determine tax liability.") Dorgan v. Kouba (ND Supm 1978) 274 NW2d 167; ditto  Dorgan v. Miller (ND Supm 1980) 297 NW2d 418; ditto US v. Heise (6th Cir 1983) 709 F2d 449 cert.den 464 US 918; ditto (Fifth Amendment return is clearly a frivolous return, and the provision penalizing frivolous returns - 26 USC sec. 6702 - is not void for vagueness nor does it impair the taxpayer's civil rights) Eicher v. US (1st Cir 1985) 774 F2d 27:  (Fifth Amendment does not excuse failure to submit a usable return) Cupp v. CIR (10/14/75) 65 Tax Ct 68 aff'd (3d Cir 1977) 559 F2d 1207; (failure to provide any information on tax return is tantamount to no return at all) US v. Brown (10th Cir 1979) 600 F2d 248; ditto Gajewski v. CIR (11/10/76) 67 Tax Ct 181 aff'd (8th Cir 1978) 578 F2d 1383;  (similarly Fifth Amendment claims, no useful info, and "signed under protest")  Blaty v. CIR (10/1/84) TC Memo 1984-518; ditto (such a 1040, containing only the perp's name, Social Security number and signature, but no other information, does not qualify as a tax return sufficient for discharging the tax debt under bankruptcy laws) In re B.E. Billman (Bankr.  SD Fla 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 281, 39 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1519; (claimed Fifth Amendment for virtually every line, even refusing to give his Soc.Sec.  number) US v. Vance (11th Cir 1984) 730 F2d 736 reh.den 736 F2d 1528;  (refusal to sign does not prevent fraud prosecution)  US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; similarly for "Fifth Amendment" return which had only a few items properly filled in but not enough for the IRS to accurately compute the perp's tax liability.  Reiff v. CIR (11/30/81) 77 Tax Ct 1169; Parker v.  CIR (2/2/83) TC Memo 1983-75 aff'd (5th Cir 1984) 724 F2d 469; Tornichio v. US (ND Ohio unpub 3/12/98) 81 AFTR2d 1377, 98 USTC para 50299;  (requirement that tax returns be signed under penalty of perjury does not violate perp's freedom of religion) US v. Dawes (10th Cir 1989) 874 F2d 746 cert.den 493 US 920 error coram nobis granted on other grounds (10th Cir 1990) 895 F2d 1581; (perp erased printed words about penalty of perjury and then signed, held not a valid return) Cupp v. CIR (10/14/75) 65 Tax Ct 68 aff'd (3d Cir 1977) 559 F2d 1207;  (similarly a return with a signature but no other data) Hudson v. US (9th Cir 1985) 766 F2d 1288;  Vaughn v. US (WD La 1984) 589 F.Supp 1528;   (use of false or garbled Soc.Sec. numbers on tax return is evidence of fraudulent intent) US v. S.L. Heard (4th Cir unpub 2/23/98) 135 F3d 771(t), 81 AFTR2d 873; similarly (submitting tax return with no useful information and with false Soc.Sec. number) Sherrer v. CIR (4/13/99) TC Memo 1999-122; ( similarly (submitting a tax form with no useful information, while not compliance with the obligation to file a tax return, is strong evidence that the perp "admitted he was required to file tax returns and consequently an issue of fact is not involved".) Dorgan v. Miller (ND Supm 1980) 297 NW2d 418; ditto Dorgan v. Mercil (ND Supm 1977) 256 NW2d 114; (argument that "he may not be compelled to report his income, regardless of his liability for taxes. This belief ... is wholly specious. ... The Sixteenth Amendment's grant of power 'to lay and collect taxes on incomes' gave Congress power to accomplish that end by all means which are appropriate", including requiring people to report their incomes.)  Lemmon v. IRS (WD Mo unpub 3/6/78) 78 USTC para 9310, 41 AFTR2d 1186;  (writing on form 1040 that it is not intended to be a tax return does not insulate from penalties for filing a false or frivolous return) Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; similarly Kelly v.  US (1st Cir 1986) 789 F2d 94; similarly Wm. Belz v. US (6th Cir unpub 3/10/86) 787 F2d 588(t); similarly  Holker v. US (8th Cir 1984) 737 F2d 751; similarly Jensen v. US (D Mass unpub 3/1/84) 53 AFTR2d 1067, 84 USTC para 9283 (and cannot use an unsigned return to procure a refund at the same time he tries to evade fraud or perjury charges by failing to sign it); ditto L.R. Olson v. US (9th Cir 1985) 760 F2d 1003; similarly Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; similarly Dorgan v. Kouba (ND Supm 1978) 274 NW2d 167;  (cannot submit an unsigned form 1040 marked "Not a tax return" and simultaneously claim is not a false or frivolous return while trying to obtain a tax refund with that document) Holker v. US (8th Cir 1984) 737 F2d 751;  (submitting a mostly blank return which claims no tax liability and demands a refund of the withholding is sufficient, in the case of an already convicted tax evader, to revoke his probation) US v.  Rifen (8th Cir 1980) 634 F2d 1142;  (sending a letter demanding a refund of all taxes previous collected and presenting discredited arguments is a "frivolous return" in the terms of 26 USC 6702 for imposing a fine) Krah v. US (ND IL unpub 12/11/87) 71A AFTR2d 3001, 88 USTC para 9147; (filing 1040 which says nothing more than a claim for tax-exempt status is not a return) Johnson-El v. US (1980) 224 Ct of Claims 753, 650 F2d 288(t); ditto Cherry-El v. CIR (7/19/82) TC Memo 1982-404; (refusing to allow IRS to examine his ledgers on the pretext that, as he did not regard paper money as real money, he had not written down any dollar amounts) Wilber v. CIR (8/31/87) TC Memo 1987-439 aff'd (8th Cir unpub 11/10/88) 871 F2d 1092(t); Cauvel v. CIR (10/10/89) TC Memo 1989-547; (tried to excuse failing to file tax returns for several years on pretext it "would require him to commit perjury because he is not an 'US individual'.") Koar v.  US (SDNY unpub 9/2/97) 80 AFTR2d 6797 rept adopted (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748: (ditto on pretext he did not want to swear that he had received "dollars" because he does not believe that FRNs are real money) Weninger v. Simon (D Colo unpub 1/27/77) 40 AFTR2d 5595, 77 USTC para 9199; ditto Kearse v.  CIR (6/6/88) TC Memo 1988-249 aff'd (4th Cir 1989) 883 F2d 69(t);  (ditto on pretext that he "cannot lawfully sign any agreements with a foreign god such as the United States") Cauvel v. CIR (10/10/89) TC Memo 1989-547; when the protester fails to file a usable tax return, the IRS may reconstruct a probable estimate of his income by other means, including his employers records, his bank records, surveillance of his place of business, etc., at which point the burden shifts to the protester to show where the IRS was wrong. Sherrer v. CIR (4/14/99) TC Memo 1999-122; ditto Sherrer v. CIR (4/13/99) TC Memo 1999-122; this IRS estimate of his income need not be exact nor without error so long as it establishes that the perp's income was above the minimum for which a tax return is required. US v. Drexler (D Minn unpub 11/30/73) 74 USTC para 9716, 34 AFTR2d 6123

rule
rule

First Amendment does not protect tax evasion:   US v. Kuball (9th Cir 1992) 976 F2d 529, 70 AFTR2d 6080, 92 USTC para  50501; US v. Barnett (9th Cir 1982) 667 F2d 835 at 842; US v. Solomon (9th Cir 1987) 825 F2d 1292 at 1297 cert den 484 US 1046; US v. Citrowski (8th Cir 1991) 951 F2d 899 at 901; US v. Fleschner (4th Cir 1996) 98 F3d 155 cert.den (as Clarkson v. US) 521 US 1106 (holding meetings and charging money for lectures or advice to evade taxes not protected speech); ("Petitioners argue that filing federal income tax returns violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment.  Noncompliance with the tax laws is not protected by the First Amendment. ... The requirement that petitioners shall prepare and file their tax returns does not violation the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.") K.O. Butler v. CIR (8/5/99) TC Memo 1999-263;   (Fifth Amendment does not entitle someone receiving money from criminal activities to deny the existence of the amounts in his tax returns) US v. Brown (10th Cir 1979) 600 F2d 248; Vaughn v. US (WD La 1984) 589 F.Supp 1528; Dorgan v. Kouba (ND Supm 1978) 274 NW2d 167;  (there was a holding that illegal activity need not be described on the return by claiming the 5th amendment [Garner v.  US (1976) 424 US 649] but the same decision said that the litigant was caught between claiming the 5th amendment so his tax return could not be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution for illegal gambling or facing different criminal liability for failing to file a tax return, in any case there is no 5th Amendment privilege for failing to submit a tax return at all) Tornichio v. US (ND Ohio unpub 3/12/98) 81 AFTR2d 1377, 98 USTC para 50299; Hartman v. Switzer (WD Penn 1974) 376 F.Supp 486; (requirement to fill out and submit a tax return does not violate either Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights) Ebert v. CIR (12/17/91) TC Memo 1991-629 aff'd (10th Cir 2/23/93) 986 F2d 1427(t); ditto (especially where the perp has refused to provide information about his residence, his marital status, his phone number or whether this is a joint or individual return, none of which could possibly be self-incriminating) Dorgan v. Kouba (ND Supm 1978) 274 NW2d 167;  Walker alias Theonaleth v. CIR (4/5/93) TC Memo 1993-138 aff'd (2d Cir 1994) 19 F3d 9(t) (cannot excuse tax evasion as an exercise of religion); ditto US v. Genger (9th Cir unpub 3/21/88) 842 F2d 1295(t); (even though one law requires the perp to fill out the form, this does not immunize him from another law which criminalizes false statements on that form) US v. Meuli (10 Cir 1993) 8 F3d 1481 cert.den 511 US 1020;  (cannot excuse refusal to sign tax return under penalty of perjury on grounds of religion) US v. Dawes (10th Cir 1989) 874 F2d 746 cert.den 493 US 920 error coram nobis granted on other grounds (10th Cir 1990) 895 F2d 1581; "Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax."  US v. Lee (1982) 455 US 252 at 260; taxation or its paperwork not involuntary servitude: Secora v. US (D Neb unpub 4/18/97) 79 AFTR2d 2686; similarly LaRue v. US (7th Cir unpub 9/8/97) 124 F3d 204(t), 97 USTC para 50703, 80 AFTR2d 6275 cert.den 523 US 1096; Ginter v. Southern (8th Cir 1979) 611 F2d 1226 cert.denied 446 US 967;  tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous", and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924;  Fifth Amendment does not relieve of filling out return: McCoy v. CIR (1982) TC Memo 1982-570; Ryan v. CIR (1976) 67 Tax Ct 212 aff’d (7th Cir 1977) 568 F2d 531 cert.den 439 US 820; Hudson v. US (9th Cir 1985) 766 F2d 1288; similarly Schroeder v. Mich. Dept of Treasury (Mich. Ct of Claims unpub 5/12/80); Reiff v. CIR (11/30/81) 77 Tax Ct 1169; (argued that the tax laws impaired his right to form contracts, court noted that the law of contracts holds that "the laws which exist at the time of the making of the contract in question enter into and form a part of that contract") Ijams v. Bryan (D Kan unpub 9/18/79) 44 AFTR2d 6050, 79 USTC para 9629; because failure to file tax returns is not an "infamous" crime, an indictment is not necessary for prosecution.  US v. Dawes (10th Cir 1989) 874 F2d 746 cert.den 493 US 920 error coram nobis granted on other grounds (10th Cir 1990) 895 F2d 158; (First Amendment does not protect the filing of bogus liens against an IRS agent as if it were "petitioning the govt for redress") US v.  Reeves (5th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 1323 cert.den 479 US 837; (ditto for filing bogus forms 1099)  US v. Kuball (9th Cir 1992) 976 F2d 529; (similarly cannot excuse bogus lien on pretext it was filed in anticipation of a civil suit against the individual IRS employee, since the proper defendant would have been the govt generally and the purported cause of action was hopeless) US v. Reeves (5th Cir 1985) 752 F2d 995 cert.den 474 US 834 and conviction upheld after remand (5th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 1323 cert.den 479 US 837;  (First Amendment does not protect a frivolous tax return as if it were petitioning the govt for redress of grievance) Vaughn v. US (WD La 1984) 589 F.Supp 1528;  (fines and penalties imposed for frivolous tax return do not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment") Vaughn v. US (WD La 1984) 589 F.Supp 1528; first amendment does not prevent injunction against a group which is preaching and encouraging tax fraud, especially when it is charging money for this. US v. Shugarman (ED Va 1984) 596 F.Supp 186; ditto US v. Kaun (7th Cir 1987) 827 F2d 1144; and such encouragement and instruction is punishable as aiding & abetting false claims against the US govt. US v. Greatwood (9th Cir unpub 6/29/99)

rule
rule

 Tax laws apply only to "federal" areas: {NOTE: This nonsense appears to arise from a tortured reading of the definition for United States given in 26 USC sec. 3121(e), with the cranks going to dictionaries to try to prove that "includes", as used in the definition, means "only" - but the Tax Code defines "includes" very differently in 26 USC sec. 7701(c) and United States is defined in 26 USC sec. 7701(a)(9), making it clear that throughout the Tax Code, altho only some provisions apply to Samoa and Puerto Rico, they always apply to the fifty states.}  Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dism (5th Cir 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 98 USTC para  50157; Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440; US v. Mundt (6th Cir 1994) 29 F3d 233; Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); US v. Freeman (D NJ unpub 1993) 71 AFTR2d 1272, 93 USTC para 50296 aff'd 16 F3d 406 cert.den 511 US 1134 ("federal courts have never accepted these arguments"); Secora v. US (D Neb unpub 4/18/97) 79 AFTR2d 2686; US v.  Kitsos (ND IL unpub 3/28/91); US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para  50465; US v.  R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); US v. Kettler (10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t);  In re Becraft (9th Cir 1989) 885 F2d 547; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Valldejuli v. US (SD Fla unpub 12/20/96) 78 AFTR2d 7492 (this argument "routinely" rejected); In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94); Wesselman v. CIR (2/28/96) TC Memo 1996-85; US v. Barbara Olson (10th Cir unpub 4/14/92) 961 F2d 221(t); Eccles v. CIR (3/2/95) TC Memo 1995-89; (federal jurisdiction supposedly limited to DC)  US v. Knudson (D Neb 1997) 959 F.Supp 1180; A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; K.L. Anderson v. CIR (7/8/98) TC Memo 1998-253;  Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623 (refuting argument that IRS can only tax in Puerto Rico and DC); ditto In re Busby (MD Fla unpub 10/2/98) 82 AFTR2d 6924; (this argument raised in a criminal appeal was "frivolous squared" and perp was fined for frivolous appeal under a provision which had previously been applied only to civil appeals) US v. A.D. Cooper (7th Cir 1999) 170 F3d 691; (similarly for Securities laws) SEC v.  Zubkis (SDNY unpub 7/15/98) Fed.Sec.L.Rep para 90263 recons.den (SDNY unpub 8/21/98); (similarly for Social Security) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B; Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; (this notion is "simply wrong") US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; ditto Ross v.  US Internal Revenue Special Agents (SD Ind 1991) 793 F.Supp 180; (this argument "defies credulity") US v. R.W. Collins (10th Cir 1990) 920 F2d 619 cert.den 500 US 920; ditto M.H. Cotton v. US (10th Cir unpub 10/14/94) 39 F3d 1191(t), 74 AFTR2d 6778; ("simply impossible") Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct unpub 6/3/94) 634 NE2d 1375(t); Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); Eckert v. Lane (WD Ark 1988) 678 F.Supp 773;  In re Weatherley (Bankr. E.D. Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427; Christensen v. Ward (10th Cir 1990) 916 F2d 1462 cert.den 498 US 999; In re Wm.G. Walters (Bankr., ND Ind. 1993) 166 Bankr.Rptr 119, 71 AFTR2d 1047 (citing 26 USC sec. 7701(a)(10) for definition of United States); Skurdal v. USA (D. Mont unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918 ("not a resident of the District of Columbia ... not even a resident of nowhere"); similarly  Isaacson v.  US (9th Cir unpub 9/9/94) 35 F3d 571(t), 74 AFTR2d 6354; Albers v. IRS (D. Neb unpub 2/15/96) 77 AFTR2d 1234, 96 USTC para 50197 aff'd 105 F3d 662 cert.den 520 US 1221; US v. Ward (11th Cir 1987) 833 F2d 1538 cert.den 485 US 1022; In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394; R. Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98); R. Miller v. Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96); (tried to argue that he could sue the US without any sovereign immunity because he supposed that the US meant only the District of Columbia) Wardell v. IRS (D Ore unpub 10/20/95) 76 AFTR2d 7290; US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; (this argument analyzed and debunked) Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375;  (tried to argue that only the [municipal] Superior Ct of DC, not a local federal court, could hear his suit against the IRS) Onkka v. Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860;  "All United States citizens, irrespective of where they reside in the US, are subject to the IRC.  All individuals are subject to federal income tax on wages." J.B. Smith v. US, IRS, et al. (D. Ida unpub 7/30/93); ("Nor does the seat of govt clause, US Constitution art.I, sec. 8 clause 17, provide a limitation on the exercise of federal power under the commerce clause.  Rather this clause states that the federal govt has the full panoply of sovereign powers over those areas used for federal purposes over which states have ceded their authority.  Zubkis appears to argue that federal power can only be exercised in Washington, DC, and other federal areas but not over him in California.  This argument is frivolous.  The clause gives the federal govt power over certain geographic areas.  It does not prevent the federal govt from exercising powers under other provisions of the Constitution, such as the commerce clause, in other other geographic areas." SEC v.  Zubkis (SDNY unpub 7/15/98) Fed.Sec.L.Rep para 90263 recons.den (SDNY unpub 8/21/98);   (tried to argue that IRS could not tax income obtained entirely in one state without interstate commerce) N.J. Wilson v. US (D Colo unpub 5/5/98) 81 AFTR2d 2240 suit dism with prejudice (D Colo unpub 8/21/98) 82 AFTR2d 6239; Cox v.  CIR (10th Cir unpub 10/28/96) 99 F3d  1149(t), 78 AFTR2d 7015, 96 USTC para 50598; ditto Noah v.  CIR (10th Cir unpub 7/16/98) 153 F3d 727(t), 82 AFTR2d 5291, 98 USTC para 50567;  (tried to argue that income is taxable only if derived from an activity dependent on a govt license or which is "detrimental to the well being of a sovereign citizen") Kinkade v. CIR (6/1/99) TC Memo 1999-180;    

rule
rule

with reference to the "Buck Act" (altho the perp could not explain what the Buck Act was) Johnson v. IRS (CD Cal 1994) 888 F.Supp 1495; US v. Kolchev (9th Cir unpub 4/5/94) 21 F3d 1117(t), 73 AFTR2d 1817;  (the Buck Act, Oct.  9, 1940, 54 Stat 1059, now 4 USC secs.  105-110, expressly allows for states, counties, municipalities, etc. to collect sales and income taxes, but not other taxes, for transactions within "federal areas", which generally means military bases, national parks, and federal buildings)

rule
rule

 tax laws apply only to federal officers & employees:    Eccles v. CIR (3/2/95) TC Memo 1995-89; Kolchev v. CIR (9th Cir unpub 2/1/95) 75 AFTR2d 839; Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440; Collorafi v. US (EDNY unpub 12/2/83) 53 AFTR2d 464, 84 USTC para  9107; Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50 (this plaintiff later convicted for printing fake money orders); Craig v. Lowe (ND Cal unpub 3/7/96) 78 AFTR2d 5488, 96 USTC para  50416 aff’d 108 F3d 1384; Sherwood v. US (ND Cal unpub 12/9/96); US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469; US v. Freeman (D NJ unpub 1993) 71 AFTR2d 1272, 93 USTC para 50296 aff'd 16 F3d 406 cert.den 511 US 1134 ("federal courts have never accepted these arguments"); Baronowski v. US Govt thru the CIR (ED La unpub 3/10/86) 58 AFTR2d 5172, 86 USTC para 9436; Hirsh v. CIR (4/21/97) TC Memo 1997-184; Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; In re Angstadt (Bankr. ED Penn unpub 8/17/94); R.S. Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623; In re Weatherley (Bankr. E.D. Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427; Cauvel v. CIR (10/10/89) TC Memo 1989-547; Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; Albers v. IRS (D. Neb unpub 2/15/96) 77 AFTR2d 1234, 96 USTC para 50197 aff'd 105 F3d 662 cert.den 520 US 1221; (even though perp was a federal employee -- USPS -- he argued that his govt employment was not taxable because "not an interstate commerce activity") Harrell v.  CIR (6/15/98) TC Memo 1998-207; (apparently a similar argument about perp's employment working on the railroad, all the livelong day) US v. J.O. Steiner (9th Cir unpub 5/14/92) 963 F2d 381(t); ("Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, this argument has been rejected repeatedly by the courts.") Skala v. Johnson (WD NC unpub 8/14/98)

rule
rule

Taxes are "voluntary": Wilcox v. CIR (9th Cir 1988) 848 F2d 1007; US v. Tedder (10th Cir 1986) 787 F2d 540; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Gravitt v. US (ED Mich unpub 11/4/97); Ebert v. CIR (12/17/91) TC Memo 1991-629 aff'd (10th Cir 2/23/93) 986 F2d 1427(t); Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812;  US v.  Schiff (2d Cir 1989) 876 F2d 272 ("to the extent that income taxes are said to be voluntary, however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount.  The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, ... and the average citizen knows that the payment of income taxes is legally required."); Schiff v.  US (2d Cir 1990) 919 F2d 830 cert.den 501 US 1238;  Newman v. Schiff (8th Cir 1985) 778 F2d 460;  Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440; A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; Koar v. US (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748; Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; ("Appellants' claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance.") US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193; ("Federal tax obligations are imposed by federal statute and are not voluntary.") US v.  G.D. Bell (ED Calif unpub 8/27/97) 80 AFTR2d 6455; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060 ("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 the moths, ... because he acted upon [that claim he] now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he had been burned."); Liddane v.  CIR (7/14/98) TC Memo 1998-259 ("willful obtuseness"); Graber v. US (SD Iowa 1997) 993 F.Supp  685, 80 AFTR2d 6223 ("just plain goofy"); Morgan v. US (MD Fla unpub 9/16/96) 78 AFTR2d 6633; Walker alias Theonaleth v. CIR (3/12/96) TC Memo 1996-124; US v. J.R. White (9th Cir unpub 12/20/90) 921 F2d 282(t) ("wholly  without merit"); (perp convicted of tax evasion could not allege ineffective assistance on grounds his atty refused to argue that income tax was voluntary or that US citizens are "exempt from taxation being free individuals and not creatures of the govt.") US v. D.D. Murphy (7th Cir unpub 6/10/99); In re Shugrue (Bankr., ND Tex 1998) 221 Bankr.Rptr 394 ("Apparently this Debtor feels that it is every other citizen's obligation to pay his share of the costs attendant to the running of the govt of the United States.  He alleges he does not have to pay taxes because it is a voluntary system and he chooses not to participate.  ...  the court came to the rather quick and obvious conclusion that the words coming from the Debtor's mouth made no more sense than the words written on the Debtor's pleadings."); Alaska Computer Brokers v.  Morton (D Alaska unpub 9/6/95) 76 AFTR2d 6458, 95 USTC para 50510; Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; the IRC, at 26 USC 1, says clearly that a tax is "imposed on the taxable income of every individual", which pretty much negatives the notion that income tax is either voluntary or contractual or applicable only to certain special populations.  Tornichio v. US (ND Ohio unpub 3/12/98) 81 AFTR2d 1377, 98 USTC para 50299; Ficalora v. CIR (2d Cir 1984) 751 F2d 85 cert.den 471 US 1005; Charczuk v. CIR (10th Cir 1985) 771 F2d 471;  similarly ("He denies having voluntarily assumed any obligation under the revenue laws.  While I accept this latter assertion, it simply is not true that a citizen can 'opt out' of his or her obligations under the Internal Revenue Code.") US v. O'Ferrall (D Dela unpub 5/4/84) 54 AFTR2d 5315, 84 USTC para 9843;  tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous" and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924; Carter v. Rubin (ND Calif unpub 12/28/95) 77 AFTR2d 1291 ("These assertions are based on fundamental misconceptions of the established relationship of the citizen to the US govt under the Federal Constitution.  It the the govt which decides for the people, not an individual who decides for himself, when a person shall be tax exempt, accusations of perjury notwithstanding.  Likewise, it is the govt which decides for the people, not the individual who decides for himself, when a person is in fact a citizen of the US."); "If you think paying taxes is voluntary, you may end up doing volunteer time in federal prison." Patrick Dunne, Can't just say No to income tax, Houston Chronicle, 14 April 1995, and quoted in Christopher S. Jackson, The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest, 31 Gonzaga Law Review 291 (1996)(also a good source on other tax dodges)

rule
rule

  Income tax is "excise" and reciprocal to benefits or privileges used: Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff’d (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; Parker v. CIR (5th Cir 1984) 724 F2d 469; Lonsdale v. CIR (5th Cir 1981) 661 F2d 71; US v. Ferguson (SD Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 8 aff’d 793 F2d 828 cert.den 479 US 933; US v. Foster [& Madge] (D Minn unpub 5/27/97); Eccles v. CIR (3/2/95) TC Memo 1995-89; US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; DeWitt v.  CIR (10/4/95) TC Memo 1995-476 aff'd (11th Cir 1996) 101 F3d 710(t); Wm. Belz v. US (6th Cir unpub 3/10/86) 787 F2d 588(t);  (argument that the IRS can only inquire about "excise" taxes) Russell v. US (WD Mich unpub 11/23/94) 75 AFTR2d 495, 95 USTC para 50029; US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 cert.den 502 US 1060; Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; Daigle v. US (6th Cir unpub 1/29/96) 76 F2d 378(t); (arguing that "this govt has not helped me in any kind of way, it has done nothing for me. They don’t deserve the money") Walker alia Theonaleth v. CIR (4/5/93) TC Memo 1993-138 aff'd (2d Cir 1994) 19 F3d 9(t); Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; M.J. Olson v. US (Fed Claims unpub 8/26/98)  82 AFTR2d 6174; Cullinane v. CIR (1/4/99) TC Memo 1999-2; (income tax is an indirect tax authorized by the Constitution, but "the debate over whether the income tax is an excise tax or a direct tax is irrelevant to the obligation of citizens to pay taxes and file returns.") US v. Melton (4th Cir unpub 3/8/96) 86 F3d 1153(t), 77 AFTR2d 2361 cert.den 519 US 820; Ficalora v. CIR (2d Cir 1984) 751 F2d 85 cert.den 471 US 1005; Charczuk v. CIR (10th Cir 1985) 771 F2d 471; US v. Rhodes (MD Penn 1996) 921 F.Supp 261 aff'd (3d Cir 1996) 101 F3d 693(t) & (3d Cir 1997) 107 F3d 9(t)

rule
rule

 that federal income tax is "contractual": US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122;  US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476;  A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122;  US v.  R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); (similarly, claim that Social Security is a contract which perp can repudiate) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B (court quoted from Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, 363 US 603, that Soc.Sec is "noncontractual", and said "Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion ... Social Security is not a voluntary system, and he did not become a participant in it by contract.  His arguments regarding fraudulent inducement or that the fact that he may have been a minor when he obtained his SSN therefore are not persuasive."); ditto US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); similarly Kish v. CIR (1/13/98) TC Memo 1998-16; similarly Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); Skurdal v. USA (D. Mont unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; Van Hall v.  IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410; tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system"  - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous", and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924

rule
rule

rule

Militia Watchdog Militia Watchdog Graphic Table of Contents
Mark Pitcavage E-Mail