Income Tax is voluntary compliance/taking the 5th

[the inquirer]

According to former Internal Revenue Commissioner Miller in Congressional hearings last week, the income tax is based on voluntary compliance. If I understand the meaning of voluntary, I believe that means not mandatory. Now, I am sure that there is a way to spin this beyond the meaning that a reasonable person would hold; so, I am curious to read your responses.

Here's a link to a site with a copy of the c-span link:
http://libertycrier.com/government/the- ... voluntary/
(I figured that Joe Miller's site would be good since he is a West Point graduate and a former U.S. Magistrate Judge)

I also find it interesting in the pillar of truth and honesty that one of the top IRS officials takes the 5th. Who does that? Well, I think we all know... Those who commit criminal acts and don't want to be prosecuted for them. That's pretty clear cut.

[AndyK]

1 - Voluntary compliance encompasses the concept that taxpayers prepare and file their own returns without specific, immediate duress -- whith the knowledge that, should they not do so, they could become liable for fines, penalties and / or criminal prosecution. "Voluntary" in contrast to a state/government wherre the officials come in (ahead of time) examine all the information, and tell the taxpayer what to pay. It's a subtle distinction, but id specifically does NOT include the option of 'not mandatory.'

2 - The IRS official was facing a Congressional committee which had significant legal powers -- including holding her in contempt of Congress (go directly to jail) -- far beyond what occur in a normal court of law. For example, the Committee could ask her specific questions about specific taxpayers which she would be legally bound to NOT answer due to the IRS tax code. Hoewver, if she did refuse, she could have been sent to jail. Her refusal to testify before the Salem Witch Trials merely preserved her legal rights with respect to ant later legal actions. Should she have testified, anyyhing she said could have been used in any future criminal or civil actions against her -- specifically contrary to the rights inherent in the 5th.

[Famspear]

According to former Internal Revenue Commissioner Miller in Congressional hearings last week, the income tax is based on voluntary compliance. If I understand the meaning of voluntary, I believe that means not mandatory. Now, I am sure that there is a way to spin this beyond the meaning that a reasonable person would hold; so, I am curious to read your responses.

As noted, the term "voluntary" in federal income tax parlance means that you are expected to voluntarily file your federal income tax return and pay your federal income tax. There is a catch, though. You also have a legal obligation to do those things. And if you willfully fail to file or pay by the due date, there are both civil and criminal penalties for that.

Any argument to the contrary is a frivolous tax protester argument.

I also find it interesting in the pillar of truth and honesty that one of the top IRS officials takes the 5th. Who does that? Well, I think we all know... Those who commit criminal acts and don't want to be prosecuted for them. That's pretty clear cut.

It's also pretty clear cut that people who are completely innocent also take the 5th. It happens all the time. And - surprise! - lawyers advise clients who are innocent to take 5th all the time. These people know something you don't know.

[Famspear]

PS: Notice that I said "voluntary" in federal income tax "parlance."

If you look up the actual federal income tax statutes in something called the Internal Revenue Code, you will find that the word "voluntary" is not found in any of the provisions imposing the obligation to file or pay.

The term "voluntary" is a term that people -- including IRS personnel and even judges -- have used to distinguish the federal income tax system from tax systems such as sales tax and property tax. In the cases of sales tax and property tax, the taxing authority does not depend on your "voluntary" act of reporting the amount of the tax. In the case of sales tax and property tax, somebody else tells you what the amount of the tax is.

[Famspear]

It is astonishing that so many Americans really do believe that if a person pleads the Fifth Amendment, he or she must be guilty of a crime.

"[to] Incriminate ... to expose [oneself] to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 690 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

In terms of speaking or testifying, an "incriminating statement" does not mean "a statement by a guilty person that can be used against that person."

An "incriminating" statement includes ANY statement that tends to increase the danger or likelihood that the person making the statement will be accused, charged or prosecuted – even if the statement is true, and regardless of whether that person is guilty or innocent of any crime. Thus, even a person who is innocent of any crime who testifies truthfully can be incriminated by that testimony. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege against being compelled to be a witness against oneself:

protects the innocent as well as the guilty.... one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

--from Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001) (per curiam) (bolding added; internal quotation marks omitted).

And:

.....truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.

--also from Ohio v. Reiner (bolding added).

From another Supreme Court decision:

......At the outset we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person's constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. The right of an accused person to refuse to testify, which had been in England merely a rule of evidence, was so important to our forefathers that they raised it to the dignity of a constitutional enactment, and it has been recognized as "one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen." Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 610. [ . . . ] The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury. [ . . . ] a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

--from Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 350 U.S. 551 (1956) (bolding added).

[Flatulating Bovine]

I find it truly amazing that adults - anyone of average intelligence over the age of 18 - would simply read the word "voluntary" and conclude that it must mean just what they think it means, and further not be able to consider that they might want to verify that. But even more amazing and deplorable is that these types often take it so far as to argue the point for years and years, in their own tax cases, online, on forums, etc., without having the slightest interest in whether the word "voluntary" in this context might have a slightly different meaning than the one they desire.

I guess at some point, if someone is stupid enough, perhaps it is impossible to form "intent" necessary to commit an "intentional" offense, and maybe that is why these people continue to exist and breed. I'm going with the movie Idiocracy's theory that stupidity is more likely to reproduce and therefore types like this won't actually be stamped out over time, but instead will become more populous.

[fortinbras]

The voluntary feature of tax compliance is that the taxpayer is allowed, within certain legal limits, to structure his financial transactions so as to minimize his tax liabilities. This is in distinction to what was probably the ancient and medieval model, where the Sheriff of Nottingham kicked in the door, scoured the house for anything of value and then grabbed a lamb on his way out. It also is in distinction to the Communist model, where the government sets each person's tax liabilities without regard to their personal financial decisions and experiences.

[AndyK]

We are bordering on feeding a troll.

Except to the extent that it is necessary to correct his lies and rebut his misleading statements, it would porbably be best to not encourage him.

[wserra]

When the Speaker of the House says, "I'm not interested in who's going to resign, I'm interested in who's going to jail", the only sensible legal advice is to decline to answer absent a grant of immunity.

[Olsenfin]

When the Speaker of the House says, "I'm not interested in who's going to resign, I'm interested in who's going to jail", the only sensible legal advice is to decline to answer absent a grant of immunity.

BULLSEYE!!

[Gregg]

Last night I was out testing the perimeters of the suspension of one of my cars, and listening to Bill Cunningham on the radio. (before he was nationally syndicated he started out locally doing a "free legal advice on the radio" program). Now, I know Cunningham personally, and have for 30 odd years long before he was anything but a local lawyer and whatever you may think of his radio/TV character, "Willie" is one helluva criminal defense attorney.

Anyhow, last night he was just railing on the IRS official who took the 5th before congress (and the IRS scandal is centered on the Cincinnati Office where the department in question is). All I could think of during the entire rant was "So tell me Willie, if she was YOUR client, would you have NOT let her take the 5th?"
Much was made of the fact that she made a statement and then refused to answer questions, and how no Judge would permit that in a courtroom blah blah blah... and he knows damn well that being compelled to appear before a Congressional Committee is exactly not appearing in a courtroom. He was playing to the mob. As I said, I have no doubts whatsoever that Cunningham is a damn fine attorney, he knew what he was saying was crap, and yet....

This is, among many other things, what's wrong with America these days, people who know better stirring up the ones who don't.

[fortinbras]

I am not altogether sure if ANYTHING this lady would say would incriminate her or any of her colleagues, but it's pretty obvious that the Hearing was a political grandstand and she pretty much deprived them of their main event.

We've had so much of these fake scandals, like the Acorn business and that poor woman who was bullied out of her Small Business Admin job - both because of fudged videotapes, that it's about time someone put the brakes on.

Of course, we were all taught to fear and hate anyone who pleaded the Fifth .... right up to 1987 when Ollie North became (acc. to the rightwingers) the "Fifth Amendment Patriot".

[AndyK]

Au contraire

Where would the congress critters (of all parties) be if they couldn't distract the public eye from their lack of actually governing the country by holding these posturing, peacock tail fluffing "inquiries?"

Look back to the various IRS / Tax Code hearings which took place in the 1980's. Citizen after citizen paraded in front of the committee whining about the evil jack-booted thugs had abused them and IRS officials didn't rebut (much less reply to) their complaints and / or allegations. (Never mind that the law specifically forbids any IRS employee or officer from discussing ANY open tax case.)

So, absent any response by the IRS, Congress revised the tax laws, this time adding the 10 deadly sins.

Surprise, surptise Some years later, after the dust settled and the various citizens (who had testified / whined before the committee) had their day in Tax Court; EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM LOST. Some of them to the extent that they ended up facing criminal charges.

But, what does that matter? If a congress critter can get a few free minutes on television bashing the IRS, who cares if any facts get in the way?

[JamesVincent]

Something interesting I found involving the 5th. Off topic but an interesting read.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2013 ... 705259921/

A Batavia High School teacher's fans are rallying to support him as he faces possible discipline for advising students of their Constitutional rights before taking a school survey on their behavior.

But John Dryden said he's not the point. He wants people to focus on the issue he raised: Whether school officials considered that students could incriminate themselves with their answers to the survey that included questions about drug and alcohol use.

[LPC]

(Never mind that the law specifically forbids any IRS employee or officer from discussing ANY open tax case.)

Or any *closed* tax case.

[AndyK]

(Never mind that the law specifically forbids any IRS employee or officer from discussing ANY open tax case.)

Or any *closed* tax case.

Closed internally, agreed. However, anything which has gone to Tax Court (or any of the other tribunals, is public record and open for discussion to the extent that the information has been revealed in court.

[jcolvin2]

I am not altogether sure if ANYTHING this lady would say would incriminate her or any of her colleagues, but it's pretty obvious that the Hearing was a political grandstand and she pretty much deprived them of their main event.

We've had so much of these fake scandals, like the Acorn business and that poor woman who was bullied out of her Small Business Admin job - both because of fudged videotapes, that it's about time someone put the brakes on.

Of course, we were all taught to fear and hate anyone who pleaded the Fifth .... right up to 1987 when Ollie North became (acc. to the rightwingers) the "Fifth Amendment Patriot".

Good discussion of whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment claim when she appeared before Congress:

http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/20 ... .html#more

[Famspear]

(Never mind that the law specifically forbids any IRS employee or officer from discussing ANY open tax case.)

Or any *closed* tax case.

Closed internally, agreed. However, anything which has gone to Tax Court (or any of the other tribunals, is public record and open for discussion to the extent that the information has been revealed in court.

In the Sixth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, as I recall, that is the rule.

Not in the Fifth Circuit. I refer to the long and painful (especially for certain IRS employees) saga of the infamous case of "Elvis Johnson."

[Famspear]

For some background on what happened in the case of Elvis Johnson, see:

Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307 (5th Cir. 1997).

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?q ... 95&scilh=0

EDIT: From the Court's decision in this case:

Consistent with the district court's summary judgment in 1986, we decline to follow the Ninth and Sixth Circuits and judicially create an exception to § 6103 for tax return information disclosed in "public records". Our analysis of the text of § 6103, the legislative history, and the pertinent case law compels us to conclude that there is simply no basis for creating such an exception. Instead, we follow the approach of the Fourth and Tenth Circuits, modified by the Seventh Circuit's "source" analysis in Thomas. If the immediate source of the information claimed to be wrongfully disclosed is tax return information ("return" or "return information" pursuant to § 6103), the disclosure violates § 6103, regardless of whether that information has been previously disclosed (lawfully) in a judicial proceeding.....

--from Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1318-19 (5th Cir. 1997) (italics in original).

If you're an IRS employee in Texas, Louisiana or Mississippi, take heed.

[Famspear]

The 14-year-plus-Elvis-Johnson-saga must have been a gut-wrencher for several government employees. Johnson pleaded guilty in 1981. It appears that his litigation against the IRS employees started in 1983. I know of at least seven reported decisions from 1983 to 1997. This one from 1986 gives additional details on the fact pattern:

Johnson v. Sawyer, 640 F. Supp. 1126 (S.D. Tex. 1986), at:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?q ... 16&scilh=0

EDIT: I think the final result was that the Internal Revenue Service ended up paying $3.5 million to Elvis Johnson, but the individual IRS employees were off the hook. Stipulation of Dismissal in the case was finally entered in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston in February 1998.

The government's case wasn't helped at all by the fact that the government had blatantly violated the plea agreement with Johnson.