Court Rulings regarding Tax Returns

[GoldandSilverEagles]

The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a person's right against self-incrimination. The requirement to file an income tax return does not violate the 5th amendment.

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment." Sullivan v. United States

"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness" as that term is used herein." Garner v. United States

Since Congress changes the tax laws daily, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g a person writes on the 1040 is self-incriminating, and subject to question. Only the DOJ can decide what they want to investigate and indict.

Let's get real. Am I legally required to be a "witness" against myself in a potential criminal case?

HELL NO!

And a 1040 is a great piece of evidence for their discovery.

Now, let the BS fly and the whiners whine......

[RyanMcC]

This issue is addressed in Dan's FAQ. GaSE could have easily found it on his own, but he isn't interested in reading it, so he won't. For everyone else, this specific issue is addressed here:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th

[Red Cedar PM]

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment." Sullivan v. United States

Interesting you would cite a case in which a person who is making the same argument you are was convicted of willful failure to file. Why don't you go back and actually read the supreme court opinion in that case instead of just cutting and pasting crap from some place you found on the internet.

[Famspear]

Gold, I believe we have already been through this. There is no Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to file a federal income tax return merely because something you are required to disclose on the return would, if disclosed, incriminate you. Under the Supreme Court decisions in Sullivan and Garner, you are not excused from filing a federal income tax return.

If you're really worried that disclosing something on a federal income tax return might incriminate you, your protection is very simple under the law -- all you have to do is assert the privilege.

For example, if you have $400,000 of income from illegal drug sales, you simply report the $400,000, but label the entry "FIFTH AMENDMENT."

This is not rocket science.

And no, the mere fact that Congress changes the tax laws frequently does not mean that "a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g a person writes on the 1040 is self-incriminating".

Let's get real, Gold: You have the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR ITEMS on your federal income tax return. The right to refuse to answer a specific question or item should not be confused with the imaginary "right" to refuse to file an income tax return at all. As the courts have said (I'm paraphrasing), a federal income tax return does not ask for information that is inherently connected with incriminating activity.

I'm sorry, Gold, but you are the one who is whining. The Supreme Court and all other federal courts have ruled against your theories. Read the Sullivan and Garner cases.

[Famspear]

To obtain fifth amendment protection, the taxpayer must show “substantial hazards of self-incrimination that are real and appreciable," and the taxpayer must have "reasonable cause to apprehend such danger.” Boday v. United States, 759 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1985), citing Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), in turn citing United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980). A taxpayer cannot simply make a blanket fifth amendment claim, but must assert the privilege specifically.

[Famspear]

Dear Gold: First, you say:

Since Congress changes the tax laws daily, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g a person writes on the 1040 is self-incriminating, and subject to question. Only the DOJ can decide what they want to investigate and indict.

Let's get real. Am I legally required to be a "witness" against myself in a potential criminal case?

HELL NO!

And a 1040 is a great piece of evidence for their discovery.

Then, ironically, you say:

Now, let the BS fly and the whiners whine......

I think you should have put the last sentence first.

The ability of you tax denier whiners to cite court cases -- and then imply that you somehow believe the law is somehow exactly the opposite of what the courts have ruled in those very cases -- never ceases to amuse me.

[wserra]

Gold, I believe we have already been through this.

Over and over. In fact, this point has become a good example of how it doesn't matter what anyone says. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says. People like GaSP will believe what they want, including (in the words of the Seventh Circuit) "preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest".

[LPC]

Since Congress changes the tax laws daily, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g a person writes on the 1040 is self-incriminating,

Nonsense.

Not only do the tax laws not change daily, but what you write on a tax form is incriminating only if it is willfully false. In other words, not only does the government need to prove that what you wrote is wrong, but that you knew that it was wrong when you wrote it.

There is no constitutional right to tax evasion. In order to avoid incriminating yourself on a tax return, all you need to do is not write anything that you know is false.

[.]

Our resident clown is nothing but a lame troll. He tried to divert attention from his potential criminal problems by pointing out my transposition of a couple of letters. Funny stuff, coming from the Emperor of spelling, grammar and usage errors, amongst other things.

He whined about "evidence" as if I were indicting or trying him. Unfortunately for him, people who could actually indict and try him have his statements all over this site and probably elsewhere.

I guess he'd like us and everyone else to forget his admission of not having filed for 15 years or so, which, try as he might, he can't purge. Our blowhard troll better hope no one in IRS CI or the DoJ becomes interested in his evasions and prevarications.

[The Operative]

"The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a person's right against self-incrimination. The requirement to file an income tax return does not violate the 5th amendment."

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment." Sullivan v. United States

"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness" as that term is used herein." Garner v. United States

Since Congress changes the tax laws daily, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g a person writes on the 1040 is self-incriminating, and subject to question. Only the DOJ can decide what they want to investigate and indict.

Let's get real. Am I legally required to be a "witness" against myself in a potential criminal case?

HELL NO!

And a 1040 is a great piece of evidence for their discovery.

Now, let the BS fly and the whiners whine......

The only BS that is flying is what you are spewing. Also, we are not whining, we are presenting facts.

Re: Sullivan v. United States
Next time, provide a complete citation (e.g. Sullivan v. United States 15 F.2d 809 (1927)). The citation provided on Clarkson's page is incorrect. The quote is actually from the lower court's opinion which was reversed by the Supreme Court in Sullivan v. United States 274 U.S. 264 (1927). You can read it at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/U ... 4.983.html or at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=259

Re: Garner v. United States
First, the case involved Garner's illegal sports betting and book-making under a NON-TAX criminal prosecution. The prosecution wanted to use his 1040 form as evidence showing his illegal occupation. The court ruled that the prosecution could use the 1040 form since Garner did not raise the fifth amendment privilege on the form itself. In referencing Sullivan, the court notes that it is possible "that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return..." In other words, Garner could have raised a fifth amendment privilege on his return in regards to his occupation. However, he would have still been required to make a return. You can read Garner at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/U ... 4-100.html

BTW, as LPC notes, Congress does not change the tax laws daily. Also, you cannot be prosecuted for anything that you put on a tax return THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY ILLEGAL or anything that is not intentionally false. Congress can pass a law making an activity or an act illegal, but a person who committed such an act before the law was passed cannot be prosecuted.

So, may you refuse to file a 1040 form using the fifth amendment privilege? No. However, you may use the fifth amendment privilege in regards to information on the return that may be incriminating in regards to a currently criminal act. You still have to report the income received, but you do not have to state how you received it.

BTW, my original statement still stands. Nothing you have presented contradicts my statement.

Edited to clarify a sentence.

[Imalawman]

Game, set, match.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong GSE?

[Pottapaug1938]

Game, set, match.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong GSE?

You forget -- he is NEVER wrong, as he himself will assure you. Trying to set him straight with the facts will only confuse him.

And, here's another point to ponder: if there indeed was a general Fifth Amendment right to decline to file a tax return, you'd better believe that this right would be exercised much more widely -- almost universally, I'll bet. Then, of course, a law would have been drafter to close that loophole. So, folks, forget about this "Fifth Amendment right not to file a tax return". Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, it just doesn't exist.

[.]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong GSE?

Of course not. The Emperor can't resist digging his hole ever deeper.

Despite "advice" from yet another mythical "friend" to shut up, he just can't bring himself to do it. Such is the life of a trollish TP.

[Duke2Earl]

As I pointed out previously, this "person" has no interest whatsoever in whether or not the 5th Amendment protects him or not from disclosures related to income from potentially illegal sources. What he is planning to lie about is the amount of income he made. His argument is that when (not if) he lies about the amount of his income on a 1040 that fact can be used against him. The answer is damn right it can. And the 5th Amendment does not protect him from that. So he gets to choose his poison... he can fail to file... in which case he still owes the tax plus failure to file penalties and interest. Or he can file and lie about the amount of his income... in which case he still owes the tax plus penalties for understatement, negligence, etc. plus interest. Nice lose-lose choice. In a real practical sense assuming sanity will not break out, he's probably better off not filing and staying deep in the weeds and hoping he's not noticed or it is more trouble than it's worth to squash him. Posting on the internet, especially where he is sure to be noticed is a remarkably bad idea... but we never said he was smart. The 5th Amendment bullcrap is simply him trying to justify to himself why he's such a brilliant person.... not so much.

[Duke2Earl]

A tax denier bringing up Brushaber is like Vizzini saying "inconceivable," - I do not think it means what you think it means. - With thank to Inago Montoya

"You killed my father... prepare to die."

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Not hop on the "things out of context and misquoted" bandwagon, but all tax laws are illegal due to the first amendment's prohibition of congressional law making activity.

The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly reads: "Congress shall make no law".

[LPC]

On another thread in this area, I posted the Brushaber decision and highlighted a section of the opinion which noted that, in a nutshell, a 5th Amendment argument was moot and invalid.

I think that the Brushaber decision was addressing the due process or "takings" clauses of the 5th Amendment, and not the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment.

[Brandybuck]

The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly reads: "Congress shall make no law".

I'll go with that!

[fortinbras]

Since Congress changes the tax laws daily, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g a person writes on the 1040 is self-incriminating....

I haven't seen that much legislation about the basic income tax, and I don't believe that you can give me an example of anyone who was prosecuted for providing information on a tax return that hadn't been incriminating in previous years.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Okay, here is what I don't understand probably because I have not done my own taxes in years. What part of the 1040 would potentially incriminate you? I remember being asked for occupation and putting down things like "wage slave", "migrant parks worker" and "other", but what else is there? Is there some check box for: "If you have committed an act of terrorism and would like to confess check here and attach form 1049FBIPNJ". (FBI Probable Nut Job)

Seriously.