Quatloos! > Tax Scams > Tax Protestors > EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases

Tax Protestor Cases Exhibit
("Damn, We Lost Again! And why is it that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")

---

January 30, 2001

The Honorable Paul Henry O'Neill
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary O'Neill:

[1] Enclosed, please find a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Roger Cole. Mr. Cole is asking for information regarding statutory authority requiring the payment of taxes. I would appreciate any information you could send regarding Mr. Cole's inquiry.

[2] Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp
Member of Congress
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C.

* * * * *

January 8, 2001

Dave Camp
U.S. Representative
137 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Camp,

[3] I have attached hereto two letters sent by your colleges, [sic] John Ensign of Nevada and Dan Burton of Indiana. Congressman Ensign states that he "cannot point to a specific place in the law where it says you must pay income taxes." Is he correct? If he is wrong and there is a specific statute that "requires" people "to pay" income taxes, I would appreciate your identifying it for me, since I can not find it either -- though I have found numerous statutes that specifically require the payment of numerous other federal taxes.

[4] The CRS Report referred to in his letter is patently ludicrous. It pretends that those asking where in the Code an income tax "liability" is established are raising "magic words." However, the Privacy Act Notice in a 1040 booklet specifically states you need only "file a return or statement with us for any tax your are liable for." So if there is no law that makes one "liable" for income taxes, the Government officially notifies you that you are not required to file (or pay) income taxes. 1 So why would the specific issue of liability be resorting to "magic words"? And while the CRS Report mentions Code Sections 1 and 63, these sections are not mentioned in that Privacy Act Notice. Obviously, if these Code sections were relevant to the payment of income taxes, they would be mentioned there. And while Section 6012 is mentioned in the Privacy Act Notice, there is nothing in that statute that says anything about "paying" an income tax or establishing such a tax "liability."

[5] Congressman Burton's letter states that "the word 'liable' or the terminology 'liability for income tax' is not included in any section of the Internal Revenue Code." Do you concur in his assessment? Given, therefore, Congressman Ensign claim that no specific law requires anyone "to pay" income taxes; Congressman Burton's claim that no law makes anyone "liable" for an income tax; and the Government's claim (as contained in the Privacy Act Notice of a 1040) that one need only file (and pay) a tax for which one is "liable" -- wouldn't these all add up to the fact that no one is required to pay income taxes?

[6] Please tell me if you agree with Congressmen Ensign's and Burton's assessment of the situation. If they are wrong could you identify for me the Code Sections that specifically make me "liable" for income taxes and requires me to pay that tax. 2 Thank you in advance for your reply.

Sincerely Yours,

Roger W.E. Cole, Sr.

FOOTNOTES

1 There are, of course, numerous provisions in the Code establishing "liabilities" for other Federal taxes.

2 In response, please do not, like Congressman Burton, refer me to the 16th Amendment. That is merely an enabling statute and does not impose any legal obligations upon me to do anything. And please (as did both Congressman Burton and Ensign) do not refer me to the CRS Report. I have already given you three examples of the ludicrous claims made in that Report.

END OF FOOTNOTES

* * * * *

August 24, 1998

[7] Thank you for contacting me regarding the "voluntary" nature of the federal income tax. I am happy to respond.

[8] As a result of a number of constituent requests and questions regarding the "voluntary" nature of our Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and questions regarding taxpayer "Liability", I have attempted to get some answers to these questions. You will not be surprised to learn that answers to these questions, I have discovered, are somewhat complex and are reflective of the overall complexity that our system of taxation offers. With a background in veterinary medicine, and not law, I must rely on congressional experts and resources to address your valid questions.

[9] Let me start by saying I cannot point to a specific place in the law where it says you must pay income taxes. However, as is pointed out below, the courts have determined they feel the laws on the books require you to pay income taxes. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has offered the following explanation:

"We do not have a voluntary tax system in the sense that payment of taxes is optional. There are specific provisions of law which require the payment of income taxes. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to pay these taxes or file the required returns. The phrase 'voluntary tax system' is commonly used in discussion of our tax compliance system. The United States does have a system of collecting taxes that depends to a certain extent upon voluntary compliance. Although this country does have withholding on certain types of income, much of the income tax revenues comes from tax on other sources of income (such as interest, dividends, self-employment, etc.) where the individual must supply the information for the system to function efficiently. Supplying this information is not voluntary in the meaning of "optional."

[10] Another explanation revolves around the use of the word "liable." CRS has attempted to explain this as well:

"Frequently, the contention is made that the income tax statute does not use the magic words "individual is made liable," therefore, an individual is not liable for income taxes. The federal courts have characterized these defenses as "arrogant sophistries" and "blatant nonsense." The federal income tax is imposed on the taxable income of every individual (IRC1). Taxable income is defined in IRS 63. Every individual whose gross income exceeds specified amounts is required to file an income tax return under IRC 6012. These sections, working together with many others, make an individual liable for income taxes."

[11] I know these explanations will probably not give you a direct answer to your questions. You'll have to make your own decision about what to do with this information.

Sincerely,

John E. Ensign
Member of Congress
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C.

* * * * *

December 11, 1997

Dear Mr. * * *

[12] Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Income Tax. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

[13] You are correct in your assertion that the word "liable" or the terminology "liability for income taxes" is not included in any section of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[14] For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Congressional Research Service publication entitled "Frequently Asked Questions concerning the Federal Income Tax." I believe that this carefully researched report will answer your question more fully, and any others you may have as well.

[15] The recent Senate hearings highlighted some of the most egregious examples of problems with the current IRS structure and management. I strongly believe that Congress has a responsibility to protect taxpayers from an overzealous IRS. As you may know, on November 5, 1997, the house of representatives passed the IRS restructuring and Reform Act (H.R. 2676) with my strong support. H.R. 2676 would shift the burden of proof in tax liability proceedings from the taxpayer back to the IRS; it establishes an oversight board to review and report on the IRS to Congress and the President on an annual basis; and it overhauls the management, administration, and oversight structure of the IRS. The Senate will hopefully consider H.R. 2676 in the very near future.

[16] In addition, several bills have been introduced this year to reform the IRS and to simplify our tax system that I believe are worth serious consideration. These include H.R. 1040, introduced on March 12, 1997, by Congressman Dick Armey of Texas, to replace the current tax system with a 17% flat tax, H.R. 1325, introduced on April 15, 1997, by Congressman Dan Schaefer of Colorado, to repeal the income tax and enact a National retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States; the Tax Code Termination Act (H.R. 2490) introduced on September 17, 1997, by Congressman Steve Largent of Oklahoma, to sunset the existing Internal Revenue Code as of December 31, 2001; H.R. 2483 introduced on September 16, 1997, by Congressman Bill Paxon of New York, to sunset the Internal Revenue Code effective December 31, 2000; and the Tax Freedom Bill (H.J. Res. 70), introduced on April 10, 1997, by Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas, to repeal the IRS.

[17] Rather than continue with such a complex income tax system, I believe enacting a flat tax or a National sales tax could provide several advantages over the current system. A National sales tax would encourage saving and investing because only consumption would be taxed. Compliance would be far-easier for individual taxpayers, and they would no longer have to fear being harassed by an ovrzealous IRS.

[18] Once again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of any further assistance to you in the future, please don't hesitate to write or call.

Sincerely,

Dan Burton
Your Member of Congress
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C.

Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit