A state legislator from Athol filed an answer on Thursday to the federal government's lawsuit against him seeking to collect more than half a million dollars in back-income taxes.
Rep. Phil Hart claims in the document that the IRS is wrong in asking him to pay eight years worth of business deductions, which he believes have been denied because of his book challenging the legality of the income tax.
It appears that Hart is claiming that he is immune from service of federal process as a state legislator, so long as the service is attempted during a legislative session. Sorry, Phil, federal law determines the propriety of federal process, not state law. And, whatever Idaho law, federal law provides legislative immunity only for legislative acts. Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998). Is it your position, Phil, that not paying income taxes is somehow a legislative act?The claims of the United States is barred as the 90 day letter (Notice of Deficiency) was served in violation of Idaho Constitutional Article III, Section 7 which bars Senators and representatives of Idaho from being served during the session of the legislature.
Rep. Phil Hart (R– Athol) wants gold and silver coin to be an alternative to paper money, formally known as Federal Reserve Notes. Hart, who is currently being sued by the federal government for unpaid taxes, wants gold and silver currency exempt from tax. He’s titled the bill the ‘Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2012′.
It'll take one hell of a nuclear war to give Wyoming a saltwater port. Of course if that happens no one will care what bills the legislature did or didn't pass.notorial dissent wrote:“creat(ing)e its own military and state wide currency” and “implementing a military draft, raise(ing) a standing army, or acquire an aircraft carrier”, although the last may have been said in jest-scarily it wasn’t, on the other hand we are talking about Wyoming.
The U.S. Justice Department wants a federal judge to toss out Idaho Rep. Phil Hart’s arguments that his status as a state legislator should bar IRS claims against him for back taxes.
Federal authorities are seeking to foreclose on Hart’s Athol, Idaho, log home for $550,000 in back federal income taxes, penalties and interest. In fighting the move, Hart claimed that because a notice of deficiency was sent to him while the Legislature was in session, the whole case should be tossed out.
Sounds like a garbled, tax-protester version of the "speech and debate clause" (Article I, section 6), except that:Federal authorities are seeking to foreclose on Hart’s Athol, Idaho, log home for $550,000 in back federal income taxes, penalties and interest. In fighting the move, Hart claimed that because a notice of deficiency was sent to him while the Legislature was in session, the whole case should be tossed out.
Which makes sense, because it has a clause not found in the US Constitution:notorial dissent wrote:I think what numbnutz is actually basing his fantasy on is Idaho constitution, Art III Sec 7, although like everything else to date, he has misread and misconstrued that as well.
So it's the supremacy clause that Hart doesn't understand, and not the speech and debate clause.SECTION 7. PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST. Senators and representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof; nor shall a member, for words uttered in debate in either house, be questioned in any other place.