Talk:Tax protester constitutional arguments/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Taxing labor or income from labor

The court examples listed as an detailed explanation are one sided and violate WP:POV. Typically remarking in the beginning that "The defendant was convicted of tax evasion" and ending with something along the lines "No issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" is not found in the text of the Court's decision."

The amount of weight in the current court examples could be construed as an attempt to discredit tax protesters (manipulation of the readers understanding by means of diversion). While the validity of the examples is well documented, the amount of examples violates WP:UNDUE, putting substantial emphasis on court conviction and focusing the reader unsuccessful tax protesters. Without any mention, NONE AT ALL, of cases where tax evasion cases filed by the government have been unsuccessful and examples where the tax protester was acquitted. Most notably, a brief summary of numerous acquittals regarding Tom Cryer, mentioned in the section above.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no cases where such an argument has been successful or acquitted. Tom Cryer was acquitted of criminal charges of willful failure to timely file U.S. Federal income tax returns (which is different from this section) - he still has to pay the tax. No tax protester argument was won or "successful" in his case. Morphh ^(talk) 17:59, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

The cases cited in the text fall into two categories. One set are those which are typical of the cases deciding the issues raised by tax protesters (those are the cases where, universally, the issue was decided against the protester). The second set is the group of cases which tax protesters routinely point to as "proof" that there is no obligation to pay income tax - except that those cases often tend to not be tax cases at all, or are not federal tax cases (state income tax cases have no bearing on federal law), or are quoted completely out of context, and this misquotation is rejected by courts to which it is presented. bd2412 T 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have begun adding citations to the Jackson article. I also re-arranged the paragraph breaks in the introduction, based on what seems to me to be a grouping by topic. I hope this doesn't make for "too many" introductory paragraphs, or paragraphs that are too short. Also, I'm weak on the rules for Wikipedia citation form, especially for citation to law review articles, so, uh, bear this in mind.

Dear Sparkygravity: Tax protester arguments are, from a legal standpoint, the equivalent of arguing in an article on Scientific Studies of The Moon, that the Moon is made of green cheese. No tax protester argument has ever won in a U.S. federal court of law. Not once. Not ever. Tax protester arguments are beyond being merely extreme fringe positions.

Occasionally, a tax protester will be acquitted in a criminal tax case, just as persons accused of murder are sometimes acquitted. A jury's "not guilty" verdict in a criminal tax case is not a ruling that the tax protester arguments raised in the case were valid. (In fact, in the United States a jury verdict is not a court ruling at all.)

The article does not violate the NPOV rule on undue weight. Indeed, Wikipedia would be affording undue weight to tax protester arguments if Wikipedia were to strain to avoid conceding the disclosure of the batting average of tax protester arguments in court -- which, as of this week was still exactly 0.0000 -- that's federal court cases from the early 1860s to the present year, 2008. If you think about it, this is a remarkable record. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear, I put the paragraph structure back due to requirements in WP:LEAD that state the lead should be no more then four paragraphs. I know it is the same text but I think breaking it up like that would be an issue for our FA process. Morphh ^(talk) 20:35, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Morphh: Thanks, I thought there might be a problem. As you know, I'm relatively weak on this technical stuff. Famspear (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to editor Sparkygravity: If we were to add a brief summary of "tax protester acquittals" (which I suppose we could do), then Wikipedia would have to balance that with a mention of "tax protester convictions." -- otherwise, we could be giving a false impression. If we're talking numbers here, the numbers are overwhelming in one direction -- and I'll give you one guess as to which direction. Again, the problem here is that listing "tax protester acquittals in criminal cases" in this article could, in the absence of an explanation, leave the reader with the false impression that a not guilty verdict in a criminal case means that the law under which the defendant was acquitted is invalid. That is certainly the argument that tax protesters tend to make but, as with all tax protester nonsense, it is not only legally incorrect, it's legally frivolous. The U.S. legal system does not work that way.

Indeed, in the Cryer case you mentioned, Mr. Cryer's tax protester arguments were specifically rejected by the court (I think that's even documented in the article on Cryer). As counter-intuitive as it may sound, had the court ruled in favor of Cryer on his tax protester arguments, he could not have been found not guilty by the jury -- for the simple reason that by definition a court ruling in Cryer's favor would have meant dismissal of the case. The jury would have gone home without rendering any verdict.

Perhaps some Wikipedia article expansion is in order on the legal concept of why an acquittal of a tax protester in a criminal tax case is not a "tax protester victory" in the sense in which tax protesters pretend it is -- but I think that point would go more appropriately in Tax protester statutory arguments or Tax protester conspiracy arguments or some place like that. It's not an argument about the "constitutionality" of the tax law.

By contrast, a protester's conviction -- in a criminal tax case where the protester argued about the constitutionality of the federal income tax law -- could go in this article, at least in my opinion.

If we could find an actual federal criminal tax case where a tax protester argued that the federal income tax law was unconstitutional and the judge ruled that the tax protester's argument was correct (so that the case was thrown out on that very basis -- without being decided by the jury), that would definitely be worth mentioning. Such a case would make banner headlines in the U.S. legal community. There is no known record of any such case, ever. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tax protester "acquittals" are relevant to the extent that other tax protester's erroneously point to them as "evidence" that the income tax is somehow illegal. However, I believe this contention is covered in the conspiracy theory article. bd2412 T 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my criticisms so quickly, I'm assured that my complaint has been noted and leave it to your capable and conscientious talents to improve the section.--Sparkygravity (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Material moved from above, to restore original comments [response to Famspear's comments about fringe positions, etc.]:

You have the liberty to believe that. But, WHY should the VALIDITY of the arguments have anything to do with the PRESENTATION of these arguments? The main tax page itself may well dismiss tax protestors as fools, but does THEIR page about them have to be ONLY about dismissing them as fools, too? It is one thing to MENTION that their ideas have been uniformly rejected by the courts, but quite another to make an article about them SOLELY about that rejection. For instance, Jesus Christ's teachings were dismissed by the Roman authorities. He was tried, convicted, and executed for them. So was Socrates. Surely, you are not SUGGESTING that articles about those two be CONFINED to what the courts thought of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP70,231.242.82: The article is not restricted or confined to what "the courts think." The article shows both what the tax protesters say the law is, and what the courts have ruled the law to be. The article shows both sides, and does so without stating that "the protesters are right" or "the courts are right."

Do you believe the main article dismissed tax protesters as fools? It does not. The tax protester articles in Wikipedia state what the tax protesters arguments are, and also state what the courts have ruled (and in some cases what others have said about tax protesters).

I'm not sure, but I think you might be assuming that merely because tax protesters do come off as incompetent boobs or fools, that there is something wrong with the presentation in the article. You would be wrong if you thought that. Tax protesters are indeed incompetent boobs and fools -- but the article presents the material in neutral way.

The reason that you may perceive tax protesters as being portrayed as foolish is that legal authorities have overwhelmingly ruled that tax protester arguments are legally frivolous, and the article accurately reports that. That is legal reality. Not one single tax protester argument has ever been upheld in a U.S. federal court of law. Not one. There is nothing that you and I can do to change that. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to try to change that, or to give equal weight to tax protester arguments alongside the actual law. In fact, giving equal weight to all sides would violate Wikipedia rules. You may want to review the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all sides.

Just as an aside, I would note that many, many people have had their lives ruined by the delusion of tax protester arguments. When tax protesters cross the line from merely espousing their delusional nonsense to acting on their beliefs, they move into the criminal arena. You cannot begin to know the devastation and heartache caused by these people unless you have studied them for years, or unless you have been personally affected by them. I have not been personally affected by them (although I have received threats); I have, however, studied them for several years. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I think I should have said "threat" not "threats." If I recall correctly, I have been threatened by a tax protester only once, and that was right here in Wikipedia. The veiled threat was, of course, ineffectual anyway, since he/she did not know who I am. Famspear (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, my first post to a discussion page reguarding law. I will do my best.--InstallerMan talk) 8, April 2009 (UTC)

This Section seems to be the very crux at which all of the contention originates. Most of the law cases are thrown out, or quashed because of improper use of legal terminology, and the Wiki is supporting that miss interpretation. Most of the legal citations that are used to disprove the claims made by citizens, have phrases like, "the income tax is unconstitutional", or "I'm not obligated to file a return" or "I'm not obligated to pay income tax", are all obfustications that are hiding the real intent of the citizens, which if properly addressed on theses pages, might actually come to some conclusions.

The skill of crafty jurisprudence of the United States Court systems are to be ignored at our freedoms peril. The court routinly looks for ways to accomplish its goals in one frame without affecting huge waves of conflict in others. Therefore, the instructions to quash, the definitions as frivious, etc. Will ALL occur by default, anytime a court sees a citizen use a legal term, carrying legal precident, in a common way, thus creating an easy way to dismiss the suit.

The Above intentions being more accurately translated as: "I'm not obligated to accept the claim that what is reported on my W2 is true or correct, and that while required to file (a tax return) an explanation, I have recourse to forms for rebuttle.", "I'm not obligated to pay tax on my time and labor.", ( Because anything that IS INCOME as defined by the IRC is taxible by definition... see previous paragraph for 'Quash-Me-Now-Landmine' ), "any tax on my time, labor, or what I exchange that time and labor for is by consitutional definition required to be apportioned." ( Article 1, Section 2)( Artical 1 Section 9) of the US Constitution. Since the Supreme Court has ruled in 1985 (citation needed) that the IRC IS IN FACT Constitutional, we must interpret the IRC with ultimate context being that it does not conflict with the Constitution.

"Direct Taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession, and enjoyment of rights" ( USSC Knowlton v Moore, 178 US 41 1900 )

Which when added to this, follows that a tax on your time spend in occupation is a direct tax by definition.

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right." (USSC Butcher's Union v. Crescent City Co. 111 US 746 1883

"Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a priviledge." Jack Cole Co. v Alfred T. MacFarland, 206 Ten. 694 Supreme Court of Tennessee 1960

"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax... The legislature may declare as 'priviledged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'priviledge' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right." Simms v Ahrens, 271 SW 720 1925.

It is to be noted that the IRC does NOT attempt to violate this legal understanding of income.

The initial tax legislation (1862) included poorly constructed ( logically confusing definitions as to what was actually being taxed ), its verbage was reinacted in 1894 with minor alterations. The construct remaining the same, and was tested in the courts in 1895. Pollock v Farmers Loan & Turst 157 US 429 and 158, US 601 1895. The court found two seperate and important findings. One, that a tax upon property or income derived from property, already in possession is a undeniably a tax on the property itself and must be apportioned. Second, "That all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect [excise] taxes;" ( summarized later ) "..taxation on income was in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such." - Upon empolyees of the government because of their benifit via federal priviledge as opposed to benifitting from their inherent right of common gainful employement. ( THAT BEING THE DISTINCTION that defined Income prior to the addition of the 16th ammendment. )

Further clarification of that legal term: "income" is given by the Treasury Dept. to the Congressional Record Mar. 27 1943: "The income tax is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and priviledges... the income is NOT the subject of the tax."

And remembering the Articles 1Sec2 & 1Sec9, combined with the much miss-interpreted 16th Ammendment about "Congress shall have the power to lay and collected taxes on incomes [Receipts resulting from the exercise of federal priviledge.] without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Peck v Low USSC 1918 "The 16th Ammendment does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects." Reaffirming the proper interpretation of right-vs-priviledge which is the crux behind what is and is not "income" as legally defined. Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 1916 "The provisioners of the 16th... conferred no new power of taxation."

Brushaber v Union Pacific 240 Us 1 1916 "the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax, relieved from apportionment, is wholly without foundation." ; "the ammendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Consitution" This ruling depending greatly on the case law which already to date, had pre-defined "income" as that which was discretionary gain resulting from the discretionary exercise of a priviledge, instead of the exercise of the right to monetary compensation for labor, which is NOT the 1895 interpretation of "income".

And thus I conclude my first Discussion with the statement that we need to go back through ALL of the taxation-protest pages with a fine tooth comb, and clarify in each case whether the protester was utilizing income in the common webster dictionary manner, (i.e. the Right to trade time for currancy, for which it is not legal to tax directly without apportionment. ) or if he was refferring to the exercise of federal priviledge ( The legal statute's case law interpretation of 'income' which IS consitutionally taxible in any way, without apportionment. )

Further, I would like to ensure that, since this IS the proper place for discussion, that this commentation remain in place, not because it mearly falls under the actual topic of this particular page. ( Which it does. ) Is heavily referenced. (Which is its. ) But that it IS by default discussion, and worth of consideration. Is not frivilous, as it is an earnest attempt to seek knoweldge, and deserves thoughtful rebuttle with equal attention to references. Natrually I am pleased to receive any guidance on how to post better. Or relocation of this material within the discussion page, but I will repost this information to the discussion page if attempted to be removed without comment. Thanks --InstallerMan talk) 8, April 2009 (UTC)

Commentary moved from article

The following commentary inserted anonymously (much of it apparently off topic) has been moved from the article to here:

In the Federalist Papers (No. 64) it states:

Others, though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed, are adverse to their being the SUPREME laws of the land. They insist, and profess to believe that treaties like acts of assembly, should be repealable at pleasure. This idea seems to be new and peculiar to this country, but new errors, as well as new truths, often appear. These gentleman would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it. They who make laws may, whithout doubt, amend or repeal them; and it will not be disputed that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them; but still let us not forget that treaties are made, not by only one of the contracting parties, but by both; and consequently, that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter or cancel them. The proposed Constitution therefore has not in the least extended the obligation of treaties. They are just as binding, and just as far beyond the lawful reach of legislative acts now, as they will be at any future period, or under any form of government.

And this commentary as well:

The first sentence of this section is clear in establishing how a bill related to raising revenue must originate, and clarifying that the Senate can propose changes or pass (concur) as they would on all other bills. What has never been put before a court is the fact that the 16th Amendment significantly raises revenue, and it originated in the Senate. (Senate Joint Resolution)

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

The 16th Amendment had never been approved by signature or otherwise. This consideration could also be used to dispute every amendment from the 20th Century.

Keep in mind there are only 2 ways to change a constitution, you can amend or repeal. Amend is to add to or clarify. Repeal is to remove or strike out. There is a misconception that the states alone can grant additional powers or revoke explicitly withheld powers, but such powers exist in the people alone, unless otherwise granted through constitution to the states to grant such powers. The only way to change the principles of the Constitution is through a convention of each state. This argument has not yet been brought before the court.

Please discuss below, if needed. Famspear (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, the material states that the Sixteenth Amendment "raises revenue" and then goes on to discuss the constitutional rules for enactment of statutes that raise revenue. First, that is incorrect. The Sixteenth Amendment does not "raise revenue." The Amendment does not impose a single penny of tax on anyone. Second. the material that follows relates to the method of enacting a statute. The Sixteenth Amendment is not a statute. It is a constitutional amendment. The method for proposing and ratifying such amendments is found in a completely different place in the constitution. The methods described in the verbiage shown above do not even apply to constitutional amendments. Third, the material is simply off topic.

Now, look at this verbiage:

Keep in mind there are only 2 ways to change a constitution, you can amend or repeal. Amend is to add to or clarify. Repeal is to remove or strike out. There is a misconception that the states alone can grant additional powers or revoke explicitly withheld powers, but such powers exist in the people alone, unless otherwise granted through constitution to the states to grant such powers.

The above verbiage is not legally precise, but in any case it's unclear what it has to do with the article.

Now, look at this:

The only way to change the principles of the Constitution is through a convention of each state.

That is incorrect. There are two methods for amending the Constitution. One is through the state legislatures, and the other is through constitutional conventions. Yours, Famspear (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Voluntary compliance

Id like to see a section in the article that deals with how the tax code specifies voluntary compliance in filing tax returns, as my understanding is that thats one of these tax protestors claims.. that the tax is actually voluntary. and also a bit more on a progressive tax being unfair and descriminatory and therefore unlawful. anyone have a link to these supreme court decisions? -24.60.8.8 (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's already covered in the article Tax protester statutory arguments. (And there is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that specifies voluntary compliance in filing tax returns.) Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm referring to the "voluntary" arguments. Those are already covered in Tax protester statutory arguments.

The "progressive" argument is already covered in this article, with citations to the Supreme Court decisions. I think you can find the decisions at findlaw.com and other web sites, but if there's no link in this article, I'll try to add one. Famspear (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, on the Supreme Court decisions on the "progressive tax" argument, I added a link to findlaw.com. You may have to register with findlaw to view the text of the decisions, but I think it may be a free registration. The link is found in the footnote, along with the citation. Famspear (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Split the page.

Having done some further research on the Fourteenth Amendment issue, I am now convinced that this article should be split into pages addressing arguments by individual amendments, or by groups. Specifically, we should have Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments, Tax protester First Amendment arguments, and Tax protester Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments, with a remaining "catch-all" for anything else constitutional. bd2412 T 11:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that if we had to split the article, it seemed most logical to do so under "Taxing labor or income from labor" based on material size and article structure. This section likely has enough content to create an article and could provide a sufficient summary style structure. I'm not sure the content we currently have in the other sections justifies an article for each Amendment. Could you explain further why you think this should be broken up by Amendment? If we did create sub-articles, should we keep (rename) Citizen of the several states and turn it into a more extensive article on the Fourteenth Amendment? Is this something we can do after FA as we build the articles or are you suggesting we do this during the FA process? For an article at this level, I think we go into sufficient detail, so the sections as they stand my provide a sufficient basis for a summary if a more detailed article was created. So I don't expect that this would change the standing or quality of the article for FA. Do you feel otherwise? Morphh ^(talk) 14:59, 06 March 2008 (UTC)

If we were to keep Citizen of the several states, that name would have to go! I'm thinking of breaking it up by amendment because I think each amendment-based contention could be expanded to sustain an article. I view the material on taxing labor or income from labor as falling under the Sixteenth Amendment (since it's largely about the power to tax "income" granted thereunder). That would still be a pretty bulky piece. There have been plenty of First Amendment tax protester schemes involving bogus churches and ministers, and there are plenty of fifth and fourteenth amendment contentions (which go together in my mind because both cover due process). bd2412 T 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just sort of "eyeballing it" as to length, it seems the last section, the one on the wages argument(s), is pretty long. Maybe that should be the separate article? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

On another point, I am still working on secondary sources for the article, and was about to add a lot of citations to the Christopher S. Jackson article. Should I go ahead with that, or hold back for a while? Famspear (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely go ahead with adding citations. If we split the article later, we split it with the citations already there. bd2412 T 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I will try to add more secondary sourcing this weekend. Famspear (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of the lengthy discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states, I am now absolutely convinced that this page will have to be broken into sub-pages. We should have an article on the citizenship arguments alone! bd2412 T 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with a breakup if we're talking about splitting the article into pieces. This article should be the main article for constitutional tax arguments. If sub-articles are created to expand on those arguments, then each section in this article that has a sub-article would become a summary (and could be summarized further to reduce length if needed). Main tags would be added under the header of the section for a summary style format. Morphh ^(talk) 18:37, 07 March 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely a workable option. bd2412 T 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We really do need to have another look at this. Time to split something. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 19:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I maintain my earlier contention that it should be split by the article or amendment to which the argument applies. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and split off Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. There are already comments in the main article. Many of the issues cited have "answers" that say things like, "This case did not deal with taxes," as if, unless it's tax law, it isn't law at all... or as if that's sufficient reason for the courts to strike down those arguments in tax cases. The fact that there has yet to be a case won in court is sufficient answer. The article is about "Tax Protester Constitutional Arguments," so it seems to me that the only thing that replies can hope to accomplish is to start...well...an argument. Shouldn't the Tax Protester Constitutional Arguments be all that's in this entry? Move the snappy comebacks to Discussion and let the reader make up her own mind. If not, it should probably be retitled, "Tax Protester Constitutional Arguments and Wikipedia Editorial answers." TravellerDMT-07 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The point is, in fact, that if it isn't tax law, it isn't tax law at all. The United States income tax is set forth in its own specific collection of federal statutes. A court case that examines a state statute can have no relevance to the federal income tax, and a court case that examines another federal area of law can have no relevance to the federal income tax. Thus, when an opponent of the federal income tax raises an argument based on what a court said in a decision about a state statute, or a non-tax federal statute, the fact that said decision has been cited by the person opposing the tax is itself a demonstration that said person lacks both a relevant basis for doubting the legality of the income tax, and lacks an understanding of the law. bd2412 T 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear TravellerDMT-07: This has already been pretty well discussed in various talk pages. Move the snappy comebacks to the discussion page? Absolutely not. The answer is no, under Wikipedia's rules you don't show just one side in the article itself. Tax protester arguments are extreme fringe positions to put it mildly. Fringe positions generally do not even rate a Wikipedia article unless those fringe positions are notable. In the case of tax protester arguments, the fringe positions are notable -- in part because so much time is wasted in the judicial system with these nonsensical arguments that the Congress and the courts have instituted specific penalties for even raising the arguments on tax returns or in court.

To present the material in the way you are describing would, ironically, violate the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view by straining to present fringe points of view without also showing, in the article, how the legal system treats them. Imagine an article on the composition of The Moon as being made of green cheese. To omit clear citations to scientists who assert that The Moon is actually made of moon dust and rocks, etc., etc., would be to violate the maxim of Neutral Point of View by giving what is called undue weight to a fringe, minority position. Tax protester arguments, in the legal world, are the equivalent of arguing that The Moon is made of green cheese. We're talking about literally thousands of court decisions, and not even one tax protester argument has ever been upheld. Not even once.

The "answers" are not "Wikipedia editorial answers." They are the answers provided by court rulings. A statement that "no court has ever upheld this argument" or "this case was not a tax case" is not a Wikipedia editorial answer, any more than any other statement in the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (should have been put here in the first place)

Famspear, you are a JOKE! Is this article about TAX PROTESTOR ARGUMENTS or RESPONSES to taxpayer arguments? Imagine an article on Jesus Christ being ONLY about Pontius Pilate's judgment of Christ. After all, his ideas were "rejected by the courts" in Judea. They even sentenced him to death and crucified him. That MUST mean his ideas are "conspiracy theories", amnd that MUST mean his ideas should NEVER be presented without a SWIFT denounciation of them by reference to the court's unanimous "rejection" of them. Imagine if an article on Martin Luther was ALL about the Catholic church's response to Martin Luther. Imagine if an article about Israel was ALL about the Arab responses to Israel. Imagine if an article on Darwin was only about the church's response to the theory of evolution. Imagine if the article on Gallileo was ONLY about the churches' "rejection" of his ideas. HAVILY BIASED and intellectually challenged people like you have no place in civilized society, let alone as the ONLY voice on an encyclopedia on a matter affecting millions. As long as you can be a block on any meaningful information getting on this page on this topic, this article will remain the JOKE that you are. Cheers back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.242.82 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor at IP70.231.242.82: Thank you for sharing that with us. You may want to consider re-reading the article. It's full of both (A) tax protester arguments and (B) responses to those arguments in the form of court decisions, etc.

Also, I am not a "block" on "meaningful information" getting on this page on this topic, and neither is anyone else. I have no ability to block anything.

I am not "HAVILY BIASED" as you put it, and I am not "intellectually challenged," and I do indeed "have my place" in this civilized society. Please refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. You may want to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While I strongly disapprove of the personal attacks of the anonymous user, he did make some good points. The style of this article is the following: 1.protesters claim this and this 2.this was rejected in this and this trials. This form can subconsciously imply that the protesters are wrong since the court ruled it so. While I acknowledge most of the people here sincerely believe this, I nevertheless believe a ruling of a court is just another point of view (for example US being a totalitarian country where courts uphold the ruling parties instead of laws, and people protesting against it) and therefore court's point of view should not be allowed to have the last saying on each point protesters make. I believe this two points of view should be kept apart. Smalcat (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, when determining if a tax is valid, or a theory is frivolous or not, it is the decision by the courts that decides if the argument is right or wrong. Thus far, the theories the protestors use have consistently been found wrong by the courts. It's not just a "point of view", it's the deciding point of view. --Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ravensfire2002 is correct. Actually, one of the arguments impliedly raised by tax protesters, even today, is that there is some sort of "real law" that is different from what the courts rule the law to be, and that court rulings are just "another opinion." Under the U.S. legal system, that view is certainly incorrect, and indeed that view is itself legally frivolous. The view betrays a basic misunderstanding of how the U.S. legal system is set up. Court "opinions" about the law are not merely "opinions of fact" in the same way that you or I might have an opinion. I may believe that Paris is a beautiful city, and lots of other people may agree with that -- but it's still our opinion and, to be more specific, it's an opinion of fact. By contrast, in the United States, England, and other countries whose legal systems descend from the English common law, a court ruling (or, more precisely, a holding, a statement of law accorded precedential, stare decisis effect) is not merely "just another point of view" in the way that my view of Paris would be.

Now, a word about Wikipedia's rule on Neutral Point of View. The article does not say that the tax protesters are right, or that the court rulings are right. It is certainly correct, from a legal standpoint, for me to say here on this talk page that the court rulings are legally correct by definition -- but the article itself does not say that. The mere fact that the reader reaches the conclusion, after reading the article as presented, that the tax protesters are a bunch of delusional losers, that does not mean that the article lacks a neutral point of view. Actually, even adding a statement to the article that under the U.S. legal system the courts are correct by definition would not violate Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View as long as the statement would be properly sourced, etc. Again, it's not Wikipedia taking that position, it's Wikipedia reporting on what reliable, previously published third party sources have said.

This reminds me of another point. Sometimes readers will come to Wikipedia and say in effect: "But wait, this article isn't neutral, because it doesn't give equal weight to all sides; the article makes it appear that the weight of authority is (fill in the blank -- e.g., the weight of authority is for the court rulings and against the tax protesters, for example)." Well, as odd as it may sound at first, Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia does not mean giving equal weight to all sides. In fact, straining to give equal weight to all sides could well be a violation of neutral point of view.

As I have said many times, U.S. tax protester arguments -- and there are probably hundreds of these crazy, wacky arguments floating around the internet -- are the legal equivalent of the argument, in a science article on The Moon, that The Moon is made of green cheese. No reputable scientist will take the position that The Moon is made of green cheese. In Wikipedia, in an article on The Moon, there is no requirement that Wikipedia editors carefully give "equal weight" to the Green Cheese Argument.

The same is true of tax protester arguments in the legal arena. Giving equal weight to these arguments would tend to mislead the average reader about the standing of tax protester arguments in U.S. law itself. Try to think of a situation where not one single tax protester argument has ever been upheld in any U.S. federal court ever, in the entire history of the United States. That is precisely the situation we have today (as of November 2008). Despite all the garbage on the internet, there is literally not one single recorded case of any court ever upholding one of these arguments. No exceptions. None. Not even one. This is a remarkable record. Tax protester arguments are the equivalent of Green Cheese arguments. Famspear (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ultimately, when determining if a tax is valid, or a theory is frivolous or not,..." That is the biggest issue I see. We are not supposed to determine this here. We are trying to present what specific groups think, talk and act about it.

"The same is true of tax protester arguments in the legal arena. Giving equal weight to these arguments would tend to mislead the average reader about the standing of tax protester arguments in U.S. law itself". I agree in general. It should be clearly stated that all the tax trials ended with clear support of the income tax. However, the style is horrible. I stumbled on this page after seeing the America: Freedom to Fascism movie, which I considered highly manipulative and biased so I wanted some neutral reading : ). Well, after reading this article I believe I know what is going on, but can not help but feel I still have not read something neutral (other way around this time). Tax protesters point of view (which I personally do not believe holds any water) is well, not well stated.

"As I have said many times, U.S. tax protester arguments -- and there are probably hundreds of these crazy, wacky arguments floating around the internet -- are the legal equivalent of the argument, in a science article on The Moon, that The Moon is made of green cheese. No reputable scientist will take the position that The Moon is made of green cheese." I find this completely irrelevant. Nobody is forcing an reputable scientist to believe the moon to be made of green cheese (or a knowledgeable lawyer to believe income tax is optional). However if there will be a notable community about claiming we heave a green cheese moon, their point of view should be stated in an article, without physics discrediting every single point they make. Criticism should be put in a separate section(s). For example, I am a natural scientist. I could do the same thing as done here to every page about any religion's miracles. My argument: we need to protect people from drowning while trying to walk on water and stuff.

Apart from that, I disagree about this theme to be as silly as the green moon. Constitution has changed and the spirit of the sixteenth amendment is in great contrast with previous taxation. If the protesters would change their stance from we do not need to pay taxes into we should not need to pay the taxes they would be fully credible. Still as is, their points should be stated without the constant we know better lawyer attitude. (as religion pages are left without we know better science attitude) Smalcat (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Smalcat: In the legal world (which is what we are talking about), tax protester arguments are indeed very analogous to a "Moon is made of Green Cheese Argument." Again, the article does not state that the protesters are wrong and the government is right. What the article does is to state what the Protester Argument is, and then states what the Court Ruling is/are. I don't detect a "we know better lawyer attitude" in the article.

If I am understanding you correctly, I respectfully disagree about what I assume is the idea that the tax protesters' point of view should be stated in the "tax protester" article, without discrediting every single point they make.

First, the only thing the article is doing is showing both sides. If the tax protesters' view is "discredited," it is not because the article says the protesters are wrong; it's because most normal people assume (correctly, by the way) that when literally every single court decision for over 200 years goes against the protesters, then the protesters are legally incorrect. That's the reader's call to make.

Second, to set up the tax protester article without showing both sides in that article itself (even in a misguided effort to try to be "fair," or to give "equal weight" to all sides) is called "POV forking," and it is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Again, Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to both sides, and it does not mean setting up a separate article on a lunatic fringe topic and deliberately omitting one side of the debate in that same article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For more information POV forking, see WP:POVFORK. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Smalcat: Oh, and to put this in greater perspective, the history of this and other articles is that originally, there was just one "tax protester" article. Persons pushing tax protester arguments were posting in that article, and in various articles on "income tax" or "income tax in the United States" or whatever. This was about three years ago. It got so bad that a consensus developed in Wikipedia that information on tax protester should be kept in the tax protester article. Again, if the article were not to show both sides (i.e., if the article were not to show that all the court decisions go against the tax protesters), a person reading the tax protester article without reading the other tax articles in Wikipedia could be misled as to the nature of the "debate" (such as it is) and the nature of the weight of the authorities -- which is all going one way (against the tax protesters). The tendency to want to be even-handed and fair to the tax protesters is well-intentioned, but misguided. The rule prohibiting POV forking is a good one in my opinion. As another editor put it, you won't get in trouble for believing or even acting on the theory that The Moon is made of Green Cheese. Many people get in serious trouble all the time for believing and acting on tax protester theories. We are essentially talking about criminal activity here. Not only that, but Congress has enacted a law that allows the IRS to impose a $5,000 penalty on anyone who even raises these arguments on a tax return. People are also fined large sums just for raising these kinds of articles in a court of law. I was just reading a case last night where someone received a $20,000 fine for this very thing. It's fairly common.

Aside from the point that we should not be violating our own Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia editors should not be putting Wikipedia in the position of misleading readers about what tax protester arguments are all about. Tax protester arguments are not part of "patriotic" activities (as the protesters often claim). These are scams, these are frauds, and they involve criminal penalties. The lives of innocent family members are also ruined by these activities as well. This is not just an academic or theoretical problem. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood. What I proposed was to keep the article as is with all the points pro and contra as are, only move the arguments pro into one section and arguments contra into another.

I further believe you are emotionally attached to the whole thing, I will guess you come from USA and are perhaps even in the lawyer business so you should notice you are less likely to be impartial than me a non US citizen, not paying this taxes and frankly only mildly interested in the whole affair. I am interested in keeping wikipedia impartial though. So I would propose an exercise to anyone willing. Pick a country with a dictatorship, corrupt courts, and then read this article as if it was about tax protesters in that country. Take into account most of the pro arguments are made by outlawed insurgents and most of the contra by the people working for the corrupt courts. Than judge if you will if this is an impartial article. I am not claiming US is such a country in fact I believe it is not; however, some tax protesters on the other hand do claim such things.

One last thing. I detest the subtle discredit given to me by salutations like: "Dear Smalcat: Oh,..". I would politely ask you to go without.

Smalcat (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the salutation "Dear Smalcat" is a "subtle discredit"? In the United States, the use of the term "dear" in a salutation is standard. For example, please see other posts on this talk page. Certainly, no "discredit" is intended where an American uses this salutation. Even in formal business letters, this is standard in the United States.

The bizarre argument that because I "come from USA," or because I may be in the "lawyer business", I am therefore "emotionally attached to the whole thing" (and, presumably, therefore less likely to be "impartial" than someone who is a "non US citizen"), is pretty close to a personal attack, which violates Wikipedia rules. Please restrict comments to the merits of the material itself, not to fellow editors.

I respectfully disagree with the idea of moving the pro arguments into one section and the contra arguments into another. If anything, that would make the material more difficult to understand, in my view. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article would not be served well by splitting the content into pro/con sections. See WP:STRUCTURE, WP:CSECTION, and WP:PACL. Morphh ^(talk) 16:30, 03 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. From a legal standpoint, the response of the courts has indeed been that tax protester arguments of the type outlined in this article are equivalent to the "moon is made of green cheese" science arguments. Setting up a "pro" section would be like having a section explaining why we should believe the moon to be made of green cheese, it gives the argument undue weight. Taxes, like corporations and money itself, are entirely a legal construct. Our courts have been given the task of defining the parameters of this construct, so the decisions of courts are "reality" in this realm as much as the findings of science are reality in the realm of astronomy. bd2412 T 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The simple point remains: This article should describe a group of people that share a common interest (ie protest something). Right now it is about showing they are wrong. Not good. Smalcat (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Smalcat, I respectfully disagree. Nowhere does Wikipedia state that "they are wrong." The reason you are getting that impression is that, as the article correctly notes, every single tax protester argument has been rejected by the courts. The courts have ruled that the tax protesters are wrong. Again, I think your reaction to the article is simply a normal reaction to the fact that the article does not give equal weight to all sides. Again, I think this has been covered before; Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all sides. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)