cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/15/86)
There has been a lot of discussion in net.taxes (and a little in net.legal)
of both:
1. IRS legal abuse
2. Constitutionality of the U.S. Tax Law
A number of people have been skeptical of:
1. Congressman George Hansen's integrity
2. The sources for these awful accounts of citizen abuse by the
IRS.
3. Whether the Constitutionality of the income tax is even arguable.
I couldn't resist entering the fray.
1. Congressman Hansen's legal problems started shortly after he started
investigating IRS practices. You may recall something similar happened
the Senator Montoya from New Mexico (NOT associated with any "extreme
right-wing" groups, as someone tarred Congressman Hansen) and Montoya
lost the next election -- after someone leaked his tax returns to the
press. Ten days after he started investigating IRS practices. Paranoid?
No, must have just been a coincidence. :-)
2. The incident described in net.taxes with the couple dragged out of
their VW in Alaska by IRS thugs has been adequately covered by the
general news media. I've seen rather memorable photographs of the
incident showing the IRS smashing in the windows of the VW and dragging
the couple out over the broken glass. I'm sure a lot of liberals will
have all sorts of excuses for this (after all, they were collecting
taxes), but I for one can't imagine ANY SORT of tax dispute in
which the government has any reason to endanger someone like that.
Also, the incidents in Congressman Hansen's book are adequately footnoted
with a variety of local newspapers -- not just the tax resistance movement's
literature.
3. Concerning the Constitutionality of the income tax, it seems clear that
while the 16th Amendment provides legal basis for the income tax, there
are some legitimate questions whether the 16th Amendment provides legal
authority for mandatory tax withholding and graduated income taxes.
One of the tax resistance groups in Michigan (We The People) several
years ago makes the claim that while the 16th Amendment provides legal
authority to collect individual income taxes, it didn't provide authority
to collect tax on any basis besides a head tax. (The Constitution
originally prohibited taxation not apportioned by state, except for a
head tax.) Certainly the argument isn't completely bogus. (For a
completely bogus anti-tax claim, there are tax resistance groups that
claim that the Constitution only allows money to be gold or silver. They
are wrong -- the Constitution gives Congress authority to print paper money.)
Incidentally, We The People was accused by IRS of being anti-Semitic, and
the national news media carried these accusations as fact. The head of
We The People specifically denied the organization had any anti-Semitic
beliefs, and mentioned that one of the board of directors was Jewish.
(Some tax resistance groups in this country do have anti-Semitic leanings --
some, like Posse Comitatus are pretty plainly anti-Semitic, but that's
certainly not the case with most of the tax resistance groups I'm aware of.)
4. Constitutionality of mandatory withholding: What I've read is that the
IRS has never won a case on mandatory withholding of taxes. There was a
factory owner in Connecticut who went along with mandatory withholding
during World War II (there was no withholding before World War II). After
the war, she decided to stop mandatory withholding, and very quickly ended
up in court. I've read that the IRS stopped appealing the case because
they were afraid that the ruling the courts were giving would become binding
on the entire district of the Northeast.
5. There is a guy back east claiming that the 16th Amendment was, in fact,
not properly ratified. As evidence, he cites an internal Treasury Department
report from the period just after World War I that warned the Secretary of
the Treasury that a number of states that had ratified the 16th Amendment
had ratified it in different form than the "official" text. Most of the
differences were minor punctutation and spelling errors, but some states
actually ratified a substantially different text.
6. Why haven't the courts taken seriously these claims? Well, partly,
a lot of lunatic fringe types have taken up a lot of court time arguing
against the income tax, and partly because the judges get paid on checks
from the Treasury Department. I have a slight acquaintance who, when
he and his lawyer went to court to challenge the Constitutionality of
one aspect of the tax code, the Federal District judge who was hearing
the case claimed that he didn't have the legal authority to find a law
un-Constitutional! (For those who don't know -- any Federal judge can
do so).
7. How many of you remember when the Fifth Amendment protection
against self-incrimination was removed from application to tax cases?
It was covered in all the newspapers about two years ago, in a case
originating in Sacramento. A guy who was being pursued by the Criminal
Investigation Division of IRS refused to testify about his financial
affairs and records on the grounds he might tend to incriminate himself.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (Thurgood Marshall dissenting) that
the self-incrimination protection would put "an unreasonable burden...
on the Federal Government" in tax cases. Funny, I thought that was the
reason for the Fifth Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, was
to put an unreasonable burden of proof on the government.
A number of you may recall the case early in 1985, also in Northern
California, where the IRS sent a request for information to an airline
pilot about his business expenses for some rental property. He failed
to respond to the request for information (which was a mistake). A month
later he received a bill for $80,000 in back taxes (which IRS has since
admitted was wrong -- he didn't owe them anything). They also attached
his bank accounts and garnished his wages as part of a "jeopardy
assessment" -- the IRS way of making sure you don't run off to South
America without paying them. They did much the same thing with his
house, prohibiting him from entering his own home. Then our friend
the pilot did the second stupid thing -- he wrote a letter saying
effectively, "This is my house, and any IRS agent that tries to take
it away from without a court order better know that I've got a shotgun
behind the door." Note that he didn't threaten any particular IRS agent --
he just said, "if you don't have a court judgement, you are a common
criminal and I will treat you as such."
Well, the Congress had passed a new law, effective January 1, 1985, that
allows the courts to hold a person WITHOUT BAIL if they are a threat to
public safety. This pilot, without a criminal history, was held without
bail, under this law. First person to be held that way in California
under this new Federal law. After about ten days his attorney persuaded
the courts that the guy wasn't dangerous and got bailed out.
Of course, he lost his job. The stress of living illegally in their
own home contributed to his wife committing suicide. Let me stress,
while the pilot did some stupid things, he didn't actually owe the IRS
any back taxes.
Now, both of these horrible examples aren't out of the anti-tax movement --
the Fifth Amendment being taken away was carried in a lot of newspapers,
including the San Francisco Chronicle, where I saw it (and clipped it --
why in just a moment).
8. Do the courts protect our liberties? No, and it isn't just tax cases.
How many of you remember last year when a court in Denver issued a
prior restraint order against West Publishing (the people that publish the
law books you find in just about all libraries West of the Missisippi)?
A judge had accused the Federal prosecutors of improper actions in a
decision involving a tax case. The Federal prosecutors found a judge,
and then an appellate court panel, to prohibit West Publishing from
publishing the judge's decision! I don't know what the final outcome
was on that case (of course, I'm not so sure the newspapers haven't been
prevented from publishing about it), but the fact that a judge's decision
could be prior restrained is real scary.
This case was also reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
I've gone on a long time beating this dead horse -- but those of you
who are so sure that our civil liberties are intact have got your heads
inserted into Fantasyland.eli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli) (02/18/86)
> There has been a lot of discussion in net.taxes (and a little in net.legal) > of both: > > 1. IRS legal abuse > 2. Constitutionality of the U.S. Tax Law > > > 1. Congressman Hansen's legal problems started shortly after he started > investigating IRS practices. You may recall something similar happened > the Senator Montoya from New Mexico (NOT associated with any "extreme > right-wing" groups, as someone tarred Congressman Hansen) and Montoya > lost the next election -- after someone leaked his tax returns to the > press. Ten days after he started investigating IRS practices. Paranoid? > No, must have just been a coincidence. :-) Yea, and I have this great bridge in downtown NY for sale. > A number of you may recall the case early in 1985, also in Northern > California, where the IRS sent a request for information to an airline > pilot about his business expenses for some rental property. He failed > to respond to the request for information (which was a mistake). A month > later he received a bill for $80,000 in back taxes (which IRS has since > admitted was wrong -- he didn't owe them anything). They also attached > his bank accounts and garnished his wages as part of a "jeopardy > assessment" -- the IRS way of making sure you don't run off to South > America without paying them. They did much the same thing with his > house, prohibiting him from entering his own home. Then our friend > the pilot did the second stupid thing -- he wrote a letter saying > effectively, "This is my house, and any IRS agent that tries to take > it away from without a court order better know that I've got a shotgun > behind the door." Note that he didn't threaten any particular IRS agent -- > he just said, "if you don't have a court judgement, you are a common > criminal and I will treat you as such." > > Well, the Congress had passed a new law, effective January 1, 1985, that > allows the courts to hold a person WITHOUT BAIL if they are a threat to > public safety. This pilot, without a criminal history, was held without > bail, under this law. First person to be held that way in California > under this new Federal law. After about ten days his attorney persuaded > the courts that the guy wasn't dangerous and got bailed out. > What!? What kind of law is this? Does this mean that the courts are empowered to take anyone off the street, with or without a criminal charge against them, and lock them away for an indeterminate period of time simply by declaring them a threat? Please clarify. > Of course, he lost his job. The stress of living illegally in their > own home contributed to his wife committing suicide. Let me stress, > while the pilot did some stupid things, he didn't actually owe the IRS > any back taxes. > Lovely, next they'll have us believing it was his own fault. > 8. Do the courts protect our liberties? No, and it isn't just tax cases. > How many of you remember last year when a court in Denver issued a > prior restraint order against West Publishing (the people that publish the > law books you find in just about all libraries West of the Missisippi)? > A judge had accused the Federal prosecutors of improper actions in a > decision involving a tax case. The Federal prosecutors found a judge, > and then an appellate court panel, to prohibit West Publishing from > publishing the judge's decision! I don't know what the final outcome > was on that case (of course, I'm not so sure the newspapers haven't been > prevented from publishing about it), but the fact that a judge's decision > could be prior restrained is real scary. > > > I've gone on a long time beating this dead horse -- but those of you > who are so sure that our civil liberties are intact have got your heads > inserted into Fantasyland. Sadly I find myself in agreement. Somewhere in the list of "famous last words" should have been the sentence "It can't happen here." Someone please refute this. (I'm not holding my breath) Some questions: Is there more information about this somewhere? Where? (Not illegal to publish, I hope) How shall we undo this mess? Can it be undone, or will it perpetuate itself (ala Judges unwilling to bite the soiled hand that feeds them)? It ends up sounding like "lunatics and fringe groups", but hearing this makes me flash back to "Atlas Shrugged". "At the point of a gun" & "with the victim's consent" indeed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elias Israel VenturCom, Inc. 215 First St. Cambridge, MA 02142 ..!harvard!cybvax0!vcvax1!eli "Let me tell you how it will be, its one for you nineteen for me" -- "Taxman", Beatles