How do tax protesters avoid the IRS?

Question

The tax honesty movement states that there is no law requiring regular working Americans to pay income tax (watch Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism", you can watch it for free on Google). Many say that they don't file. How do you that? If you have a job, your employer takes taxes out of your check, so even if you don't file, you're still paying.

Some people say to file a zero return, which means you don't claim any income (because the Supreme Court has ruled that "income" is gains from corporate or investment activity, not wages from work), but that seems a bit like daring them to come after you.

The courts have failed to convict almost everyone who has fought the IRS on grounds that there is no law requiring them to file. But that is, of course, AFTER the IRS has siezed all their property and bankrupted them with legal fees. In hoping to avoid that, how do you bail out?

Yes, they have their earnings siezed and go to jail BEFORE going to court and being found not guilty. Just because the IRS destroys peoples lives doesn't mean that they're guilty.

Answer 1

I don't have to watch your link, I've already seen it. Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism" is a movie full of inaccuracies and out-of-context quotes.

I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.

BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated,
[QUOTE]
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so."

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.
[END QUOTE]

A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."
[END QUOTE OF CASE]

Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. Here is a larger portion of the transcripts where that quote was made.
[QUOTE]
"I will say I think, you know, colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment...And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever...set it aside."
[END QUOTE]
The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside.

As I have pointed out in other answers, the Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance.

Finally, the quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it.

You are also inaccurate in your statement about income. Here are a couple of court cases for you.
In Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930), the court said, "There is no doubt the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them."

In Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978), the court said, "Wages usually are income."

In United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990), the court said, "Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

Here is a list of just a small portion of the CONVICTED tax protestors (what you call tax honesty),
Ed and Elaine Brown
Irwin Schiff
Bill Benson
Larken Rose
Walter Hoyt (died in prison)
Nancy Montgomery-Ware
Robert Clarkson
Edward L. Cotmair
Kent E. Hovind

BTW, the IRS pursues a criminal trial as a method of last resort. Most of the time, the IRS will file civil proceedings. I should note that the IRS is practically 100% successful in civil proceedings. Also, even after a criminal conviction, the IRS does levy and/or seize the person's property. So, not only is the tax protestor a convicted criminal, but they are also penniless. Also, even if the IRS loses a criminal proceeding against a tax protestor (which is rare), they have ALWAYS been successful in the civil proceedings following the criminal trial. Vernice Kuglin, acquitted of "willful failure to file" charges, ended up paying the IRS over $520,000 on the $960,000 in income she evaded taxes on. If she had paid her taxes properly, she would have only paid about $300,000.

Sherry Peel Jackson, her criminal trial starts Monday, Oct. 29.

Edit: Thumbs down? ROFLMAO! Ok, go ahead and believe you don't have to pay taxes. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, who's trial started on Oct. 29. Found GUILTY on all four counts of "willful failure to file" her income taxes on Oct. 30.

Answer 2

How do they avoid the IRS? Simple. They don't.

Where do you get the idea that "The courts have failed to convict almost everyone who has fought the IRS on grounds that there is no law requiring them to file?" That is a patently false statement. The truth is that a very small percentage of people prosecuted for tax evasion have gotten off the hook legally. Call it jury nullification or poor preparation on the part of the prosecution.

Your claims about what the Supreme Court have classified as income are also patently false. The court has made no such ruling. If you think it has, please post a legal reference to the case. Be careful, though. I'll tear you apart if you mis-interpret the ruling or post some bogus tax-kook site.

That idiot Russo is just a garden-variety criminal trying to keep his backside out of prison. That film is a farce. And your question about withholdings pretty much proves that it is. If you don't file a return, the IRS will review your liability based upon the information it has. If it looks like you are due a refund, they won't bother with you. If they sit quitely by for 3 years, they get to keep your refund. Of course, only an idiot would let the government keep their money but I guess there must be a few.

You're being lied to by common criminals and you've swallowed their feces. Don't be a fool.

By the way, you don't go to prison until AFTER you're convicted. So anyone in prison for tax evasion IS a convict!

Answer 3

The "Zero Return" theory was Irwin Schiff's main point.

Where is he now? In federal prison for what is going to amount to the rest of his life. He will never again take a breath as a fee man. What a great life.

All tax protesters eventually either end up in jail, lose everything or usually both. Ed and Elaine Brown left a comfortable life and, when they get out of prison (if they get out of prison) they will be homeless and penniless. Again, what a great life.

Aaron Russo died a couple of month's ago. His estate will have to pay all of his back taxes (plus penalties and interest)to the feds and California before this heirs see a dime.

The moral of the story: File your returns and pay your taxes (Yes, Virginia, wages are taxable), you will be much happier in the long run.

Answer 4

There has no been one court case won in favor of a tax protester. If you think our taxes are unfair, many Europeans pay a lot more than Americans do. I do agreed that our Tax Codes should be revised to encourage more people to save for their own retirements. There are many rules which provides confusion and potential fraud. If governments (Federal, state and local) did not collect taxes then how can they provide services to the people?

Answer 5

You are misinformed. Tax protestors have been convicted pretty much every time they've been tried - and go to jail AFTER being tried, not before.

Tax protestors get away with it for awhile, since it can take awhile for the IRS to catch up to them and prosecute. Contrary to what you've heard, the IRS can't just put somebody in jail without a trial where they are convicted.

Answer 6

Not much more to add is there John Doe? Oh yes there is, section 8 of the first ammendment of the constitution gives congress the power to levy taxes. So even if the 16th wasn't properly ratified, how do you get past the 1st ammendment?

Answer 7

Most people don't successfully avoid them. The citations about the law and court rulings are incorrect. The majority of these people have their earnings seized and some have gone to jail. Do more research.