Non Payment of Taxes resulting in Revoked Driver's License

[massvocals]

I have a question what your opinion on DOR , mass taking driver lic for non payment taxes failure to file ? ?

another question , what if you have not filed due to all this stuff that is on going in courts over taxes fed wise and state for about 10 year keeping in mind you own nothing homeless and can not pay nor want to come to an agreement that you would fail to come to pay anyhow > would you file a tax payer relief to hard ship ? for number of years 10
and would the agency come to honor it .. ? what the percentage ? send comments would you fight the driver lic issue ? or file hardship ?
whats happening hendrickson case is it still ongoing jury out he win or lose ? where do you find the updates for his court case

massvocals@comcast.net

[webhick]

Please clarify what DOR is.

Probably Department of Revenue, especially considering the context.

[mutter]

Please clarify what DOR is.

Probably Department of Revenue, especially considering the context.

the state may reclaim ITS drivers license from you any time it wants and for any reason. Because its theirs not yours. Of course its kinda BS to take it for anything that doesnt relate to the DMV laws. IE income taxes. Plus its illogical. I dont pay my tax so you attempt to force me not to drive to work, legally that is.

[The Operative]

I have a question what your opinion on DOR , mass taking driver lic for non payment taxes failure to file ? ?

An important point is that driving and having a driver's license is a PRIVILEGE and not a right. Face it, a state has the power to regulate who will be given the privilege to operate a piece of dangerous machinery. A state also has the power to make failure to file state tax returns a crime. Failing to file a federal tax return is also a crime. If a state decides to punish those who break certain laws by revoking a privilege, it is within their power.

another question , what if you have not filed due to all this stuff that is on going in courts over taxes fed wise and state for about 10 year

What stuff are you talking about? Are you talking about cases where you are involved or are you talking about other tax related cases? If you are talking about other tax related cases, then you should know that there are currently no issues that affect whether the average citizen has to pay income taxes. If you are a resident or citizen of any of the fifty states and you earn more than the standard deduction, then you have to file a tax return.

keeping in mind you own nothing homeless and can not pay nor want to come to an agreement that you would fail to come to pay anyhow > would you file a tax payer relief to hard ship ? for number of years 10
and would the agency come to honor it .. ? what the percentage ? send comments would you fight the driver lic issue ? or file hardship ?

Hard to determine without specific details. You need to discuss everything with the IRS.

whats happening hendrickson case is it still ongoing jury out he win or lose ? where do you find the updates for his court case

In his civil case, which has been over for some time, he was instructed by the court to NEVER use the erroneous arguments in his book on his own tax returns ever again. In his criminal case, that is still on-going. The docket and various documents filed in the case can be found on PACER. However, just keep stopping by here and if anything interesting happens, someone will post it, even if he wins (which is highly unlikely).

[grixit]

Agreed. Drivers licenses should only be taken for offenses related to driving. For instance, here in CA, the Sec of State can order your license revoked if you have too many DUIs. No court proceeding is required.

[Gregg]

Agreed. Drivers licenses should only be taken for offenses related to driving. For instance, here in CA, the Sec of State can order your license revoked if you have too many DUIs. No court proceeding is required.

I disagree, I think it should be yanked for things like child support etc.. but then you get into who is deciding why they can do it, which is admittedly a slippery slope.

I have my own pet solution for the guys (and you see them every once in a while) who get their 24th DUI (and yes, we have one here now on his 24th)...let them process the first 1,2 3 whatever the same as now...but on your 4th one, you get 4 years in a special tent city prison, modeled on civil war incampments....your 5th one you get 5 years, 6th one 6 years etc... no one will get 24 DUIs anymore, cause drunks don't live that long....

(I especially like the tents in states like New Hampshire, Montana etc...)

[Gregg]

Oh, and while we're discussing this exitable boy (who totally hijacked a thread, by the way) can we get someone to pickup some decaff and deliver it to Massachusetts, between the Kennedys and this guy, it looks like they really need it.

[Number Six]

People with DWI's or with debts to a state agency have tried all sorts of plans to avoid penalties. I don't know anyone who has succeeded, but for argument's sake there are books out there that give the desperate, hope:

EX Boozie's "Outlaw Bible"; Boston T. Party's "You and the Police" and "Bullet-Proof Privacy" with practical suggestions. Only cash or a money order, silver, gold.

[mutter]

As the license belongs to the state they can jack it from you any time and for any reason they want.
I thought Delaware was behind the times but i see were not. Our DMV laws specifically list why they will suspend or revoke your license. its an automatic 6 months suspension on DUIs
and a permanent revokation for the third. DMV themselves review bad drivers records and whom ever is the deligate can suspend or revoke without having to go to court. Cos the bad driver has already been convicted of it when DMV reviews it
I was pulled over for a brake light and was informed my license was suspended. I was shocked and ask the cop what the hell for. he goes "did you forget to pay a ticket?"
The voluntary compliance center suspended my license for not paying a seat belt ticket!
Of course the next day I paid the ticket and got my license back, but it cost me $25 more than if I had just paid the ticket.
As far as revoking for lack of payment of taxes or child support, Ill borrow from the 16th amendment. "From whatever source derived" The source of the debt to the state doesnt matter at all. Only that there is a debt.

[fortinbras]

There are reasons, other than dangerous driving, that a court may use to suspend or revoke drivers licenses; e.g. non-payment of taxes; Wells v. Malloy (D Vt 1975) 402 F.Supp 856 aff'd 538 F2d 317; failure to pay court fines; City of Milwaukee v. Kilgore (Wis.App 1994) 185 Wis.2d 499, 517 NW2d 689; failure to get or maintain car insurance. State v. Cuypers (Minn.App 1997) 559 NW2d 435; State v. Palkovich (Minn.App 11/14/95); failure to pay child support; Richey v. Richey (La.App 1997) 704 So.2d 343; Tolces v. Trask (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 285, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 (“deadbeat dad” who was a doctor not only lost drivers license but also his license to practice medicine until he paid up); Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of the Court (6th Cir 2001) 269 F3d 533 (ditto for drivers license and license to practice law); Crowley v. Crowley (Ind.App 1999) 708 NE2d 42; deadbeat parent can be denied US passport because failure to support one’s children is “a serious offense against morals and welfare” and would likely be exacerbated if the deadbeat leaves the country. Eunique v. Powell (9th Cir 2002) 302 F3d 971; conviction for drug offenses. People v. Zinn (Colo 1993) 843 P2d 1351; ditto State v. Bell (Iowa 1997) 572 NW2d 910; shoplifting gasoline from a filing station, failure to pay liabilities from previous car accident, with the comment that license suspension or denial for deadbeating will definitely encourage more responsible behavior from people who thought themselves judgment-proof from ordinary civil litigation. Sullins v. Butler (1940) 175 Tenn 468, 135 SW2d 930; ditto Shultz v. Heyison (MD Penn 1975) 439 F.Supp 857; ditto Azubuko v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (1st Cir 9/3/96) 95 F3d 1146(t) cert.den 520 US 1157; ditto Reitz v. Mealey (1941) 314 US 33, 86 L.Ed 21, 62 S.Ct 24.

Most of these offenses relate to a failure (or refusal) to hand over money. Driving also requires money, so people who claim not to have the money to feed their children or pay their taxes shouldn't be allowed to waste money on their cars. Ooops, now they have the money! Whatta surprise!

This is the result of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, adopted by every state as a result of a 1996 Act of Congress. Any sort of license can be denied while child support remains unpaid -- driver's license, professional and business licenses, and even recreational licenses such as hunting and fishing licenses. It's proven remarkably persuasive in reducing the public burden caused by deadbeat parents.

[Joey Smith]

For a recidivist tax protestor, i.e., hasn't filed or paid for two or more years, take the license away. Since state tax dollars are used to fund state highway projects, etc., it makes sense to deny somebody the privilege of driving on something they didn't help pay for.

Not that it will keep them from driving, of course, but it will allow the police to impound their vehicle, etc., to make their lives miserable until they do cough up the dough they owe.

[SteveSy]

For a recidivist tax protestor, i.e., hasn't filed or paid for two or more years, take the license away. Since state tax dollars are used to fund state highway projects, etc., it makes sense to deny somebody the privilege of driving on something they didn't help pay for.

Gee, and I always thought gas taxes paid for the roads...Since it takes gas to drive on them I would have assumed they were paying to use that service.

Absolutely stupid to take away a license for nonpayment of taxes. I thought all TP's lived in shacks, and cleaned pools. By your way of thinking they couldn't just cough up the money, they don't have any and now they can't drive to make any. Just like the stupid law to take away a license for child support, taking away their means to make money is counter productive and stupid. Not to mention extremely unfair considering that a custodial parent who denies visitation never faces that possibility nor can the non-custodial parent simply report them to the AG office and have them foot the bill for compliance like custodial parents can for child support.

[fortinbras]

Just like the stupid law to take away a license for child support, taking away their means to make money is counterproductive and stupid.

The child is not cheated out of her right to support because one or the other parent is being stubborn or hostile. The courts have held, repeatedly and consistently, that child support must be paid even if the custodial parent is being a jerk about visitation rights and the like. If the non-custodial parent doesn't like it, he (or she) must apply to the court for a remedy.

There are plenty of instances of the deadbeat parent being plenty prosperous and simply refusing to pay. There are instances not only of driver's licenses being suspended but also the licenses to practice medicine or law, until the offender pays up. So far, this system of "encouraging" child support payments has been rather effective; more so than giving the offending parent free room and board at taxpayer expense.

[SteveSy]

Just like the stupid law to take away a license for child support, taking away their means to make money is counterproductive and stupid.

The child is not cheated out of her right to support because one or the other parent is being stubborn or hostile. The courts have held, repeatedly and consistently, that child support must be paid even if the custodial parent is being a jerk about visitation rights and the like. If the non-custodial parent doesn't like it, he (or she) must apply to the court for a remedy.

I don't want to hijack the topic but, I'll respond one more time this.

Why should a non-custodial parent be required to pay, and possibly lose their license if they can't even see their children they're paying for? Why isn't the system reciprocal? Money isn't everything. All a custodial parent has to do to enforce compliance is report the offender to the AG's office and they pick it up at the State's cost. If you are denied visitation you as the non-custodial parent must fork up the dough to fight it and then hope the lawyer doesn't railroad you in the process. If we are going to tie license revocation to child support then we should certainly apply it for visitation, which is far more important than money. Prisons by far are filled with people who grew up in a one parent family. Increasing welfare and child support does not help the welfare of the children as much as parent participation does, the facts are very clear on this.

There are plenty of instances of the deadbeat parent being plenty prosperous and simply refusing to pay.

Plenty? Whatever, I'm sure there are enough, but overall being late on child support is due to the parent's inability to pay. With two kids it's 30% of your income in Texas, it does not take in to consideration any responsibilities you may have in a new relationship with new kids. It also doesn't take in to account the mothers income. If you're late on payment you have to pay interest, but you get nothing for make up time if you are due visitation and you're denied. It is all about the money and little to nothing to do with the welfare of the children. Go look at the statistics. The top offenders are not rich people going off and partying, people who have money as a percentage almost always pay it. It's by far low income earners barely able to make it who lose their job that don't. More importantly there is no mechanism whatsoever to insure the children are even getting benefit of the money. Mom could be dropping the kids off at the grandparent's house and blowing every penny of the support which I believe is far more common than a parent not paying.

There are instances not only of driver's licenses being suspended but also the licenses to practice medicine or law, until the offender pays up. So far, this system of "encouraging" child support payments has been rather effective; more so than giving the offending parent free room and board at taxpayer expense.

Effective as in collecting revenue, maybe. More effective in insuring children welfare is taken care of absolutely not. I would like you to produce some statistic showing compliance increased significantly due to the license law.

Take a look at this: http://www.ancpr.org/ronhenry.htm

If you want to respond let's start another thread.

[fortinbras]

I don't have any sympathy for deadbeat parents. If they really don't have the money, or are dissatisfied with the other parent's parenting, they shoud have applied to the court to revise the support payments. But they shouldn't make their kids suffer because of hostility to their ex. I have seen plenty of instances of kids suffering permanent damage because of deadbeat parents.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I don't have any sympathy for deadbeat parents. If they really don't have the money, or are dissatisfied with the other parent's parenting, they shoud have applied to the court to revise the support payments. But they shouldn't make their kids suffer because of hostility to their ex. I have seen plenty of instances of kids suffering permanent damage because of deadbeat parents.

Let's not over simplify this one. If you want to see "the system" at its worst, you only have to see what happens in some custody and visitation situations. Sadly, IMHO there is no more dysfunctional part of the judicial system, but I realize they're dealing with borderline sociopaths in some cases. There is a dearth of wisdom and good-will is not exactly rampant. Ego dominates and it exacerbates secondary and tertiary issues (usually financial).

A self-proclaimed victim of the system will do truly stupid things just to strike back. Toss in a few too many drinks and you can wind up with emergency room visits in the middle of the night and bailing people out of jail. Or worse.

Hey folks, it's your local taxes that keep the colored strobe lights on on the top of those cruisers all night.

Until we find a way to prevent humans from participating in irrational relationships that ultimately result in children it's going to be a burden on all of us.

As someone who has been a foster parent multiple times over the years, and at the risk of being considered old-school, tell your idiot friends (or those considering making babies) that their kids aren't something they should assume they can dump on the rest of us after their marriage experiments.

[Prof]

JRB said:

As someone who has been a foster parent multiple times over the years, and at the risk of being considered old-school, tell your idiot friends (or those considering making babies) that their kids aren't something they should assume they can dump on the rest of us after their marriage experiments.

To borrow -- with great sincerity -- a current phrase:

"Thank you for your service."

[fortinbras]

Ditto from me.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Our family considers our experiences to be one of the key reasons our biological children did not wander far into typical stupid adolescent behavior.

I still have a very vivid visual memory of one of our pre-adolescent daughters running into the kitchen and whisper-screaming "Mom! Dad! There's cop cars out front!" as if it were the neatest and most exciting thing that had ever happened 'round here.

Needless to say they saw things happen to kids they would never forget.

[LPC]

If you want to see "the system" at its worst, you only have to see what happens in some custody and visitation situations. Sadly, IMHO there is no more dysfunctional part of the judicial system, but I realize they're dealing with borderline sociopaths in some cases. There is a dearth of wisdom and good-will is not exactly rampant. Ego dominates and it exacerbates secondary and tertiary issues (usually financial).

Some years ago, I tried a will contest before a long-time judge of the local probate court. The judge was long-time, but also had a reputation for delaying decisions and screwing up cases. About three years after my trial, he was transferred to a different court, never having issued a decision in my case.

To what court was he transferred? Why "family court" of course, where he could screw up child custody and family issues instead of estate and trust issues.

And I don't think that this is atypical. I think that we devote our best judicial resources for the cases that involve the most money, and our worst judicial resources to the cases that involve "only" the welfare of helpless children and other human relationships.

Which is one of the reasons that I am "LPC," meaning "liberal piece of crap." I care about children.