While conducting a bit of research the other day I came across a wikipedia page intended to be seen as "debunking" various "tax protestor arguments".  Although a number of the "arguments" addressed are, indeed, nonsense, regardless of the individual item being addressed the page overall is a tedious repetition of carefully ambiguous or mis-directional case-law citations, sourced from quatlosers, Dan Evans and other IRS shills, and publications from the agency itself.

In a typical example, under the heading, 'Federal Government Authority' and the subheading, 'Sovereign individual, government privilege and similar arguments', we find this: "[I]n the case of Lovell v. United States the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated:

"Plaintiffs argue first that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any, privilege from an agency of government." This is not a basis for an exemption from federal income tax. [citation omitted] All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they received any "privileges" from the government. Plaintiffs also contend that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment. They are wrong; it does not. U. S. Const. amend. XVI [. . . .]"

Lovell v. United States

The "citation omitted" in this deliberately incomplete excerpt is to 'Holker v. United States', the case relied upon by the Lovell court as providing the authority for its otherwise unsupported declaration about "privilege".  However, the Holker court not only also doesn't supply any authority for the contention made in Lovell, it doesn't address the issue at all.  Here is that ruling in its entirety:

737 F.2d 751

84-2 USTC P 9602

Louis E. HOLKER, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 84-5076

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 1, 1984.
Decided June 26, 1984.

 

Louis E. Holker, pro se.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

Louis E. Holker was assessed a $500 penalty under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6702 for filing a frivolous tax return. He then commenced this suit under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6703(c)(2) for abatement of this assessment. The district court granted the government's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and we affirm.

2

In a letter to the IRS, Holker requested a tax refund for 1982, arguing that he owed no tax because he is a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained nor exercised any privilege from any agency of government." Holker enclosed with this letter an unsigned Form 1040 marked "NOT A TAX RETURN--For information only," two W-2 forms marked "INCORRECT," and a Schedule C profit and loss statement. On Schedule C, Holker claims to be in "construction" and he lists, among other things, gross receipts of over $15,000 which were also deducted as labor costs (despite directions in Schedule C not to include salary that the taxpayer paid to himself).

3

Under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6702, the questions presented to this Court are whether Holker filed "what purports to be a return" but which contains insufficient information by which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged or which contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect; and, if so, whether filing the purported return is due to a position which is frivolous. As the district court correctly noted, these are issues of law for the court to decide. See United States v. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681, 686 (8th Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1360, 67 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981)).

4

Although Holker denies having filed any document that purports to be a tax return, his argument is meritless. Taxpayers may not obtain refunds without first filing returns. 26 C.F.R. Sec. 301.6402-3(a)(1) (1983). With Holker's refund request to the IRS, he appended a Form 1040 and W-2 statements. Under the circumstances, we can only construe these documents as elements of a purported return. Nichols v. United States, 575 F.Supp. 320, 322 (D.Minn.1983). Any other construction of section 6702 would flout the intent of Congress to penalize any individual filing a frivolous return. See S.Rep. No. 97-494, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 781, 1024.

5

Holker's return facially indicates that his self-assessment is incorrect and that his position is frivolous. His W-2 forms show his receipt of wages totaling $15,060.96, yet he reported no wages on his Form 1040. His unexplained designation of his W-2 forms as "INCORRECT" and his attempt to deduct his wages as his cost of labor on Schedule C also establish the frivolousness and incorrectness of his position. See Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir.1982) (designation of wages received for services as untaxable income is frivolous).

6

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of 8th Cir.R. 14.

 

Thus, even without bothering to address the larger distinguishing features of this case as revealed in the circuit court's summary:

"In April 1983, plaintiffs filed separate Forms 1040 for the 1982 tax year. Each plaintiff claimed no income from wages or salaries during 1982, although each claimed a refund of all the federal income and Social Security taxes that had been withheld during the year. The Lovells also filed Schedule C forms on which they claimed that their gross receipts as "labor contractors" were totally offset by adjustments for the "cost of labor." Neither plaintiff signed the return; instead, they each wrote on the signature line: "not a tax return (see attached letter)." The letter explained that they sought a refund and that the forms filed were not tax returns but supporting documentation for their refund claims. The IRS assessed a $500 frivolous return penalty under s 6702(a); [FN1] plaintiffs paid 15% of the penalties and filed claims for refund which were denied by the IRS. Plaintiffs then filed the instant action in district court.";

and also without bothering to dwell on the quirks in the circuit court's unclarified declaration that everyone must pay "income tax on their wages regardless of whether they received any "privileges" from the government" (internal quote marks in the original), the plain fact is that the court actually DOESN'T cite any authority to support its thus empty words.  Whatever the Lovell court may have meant by that portion of its ruling, and whatever the IRS shills responsible for posting it may have meant to be taken from the excerpt by the casual reader (who almost certainly would not bother to read the Lovell case in its entirety, and follow up by reading the Holker case, thus discovering the subterfuge), it is not what the excerpt is intended to suggest.

The same is true of the remainder of the Lovell excerpt, which contains the declaration that, "Plaintiffs also contend that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment. They are wrong; it does not. U. S. Const. amend. XVI--" again, coyly leaving the alleged authority for this sonorous pronouncement out of the posted material and giving us just [...] instead.

Resorting to the actual Lovell ruling, we find that the omitted citation is to Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir.1984), and in that ruling we find the following: "The Supreme Court promptly determined in Brushaber... that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax.”  Proceeding to Brushaber, we find that what that Supreme Court ACTUALLY said is:

"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”

and to suggest the contrary would be idiotic (okay, they didn't use the word "idiotic"...), because that would cause:

So, the 5th circuit was flatly wrong in its declaration in 'Parker', and the 7th circuit has actually cited no authority for its own declaration in Lovell.  And yet, this Lovell excerpt is presented as authority for the contention of the IRS shills that "the courts have ruled" against the issue of "privilege" as an element of the "income" tax, and that the 16th amendment authorized a non-apportioned tax on what had been taxable only by apportionment prior to the amendment.

'Fraid not...

Anyway, what really caught my attention in this long page-full of mendacity was a several-time-repeated, sardonically-meant observation that a given ruling was cited by the "tax honesty" community, but wasn't even a case concerning a tax!  That is, these desperate shills were trying to suggest that unless a case directly addresses an application of the tax, nothing in its ruling can be relevant to the legal issues concerning the tax!  Among the Supreme Court rulings subjected to this criticism were those in Coppage v. Kansas and Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (cited by the community for its observation that economic activity is an activity of right, pre-existing government and inherent in every human being), and Murdock v. Pennsylvania (which held that the exercise of a right may not be taxed).  Each was disparaged as inherently inapposite to any analysis of the "income" tax, because the issues before those courts were not tax issues.

Think about this for a moment.  By this reasoning, the principle underlying one's right to remain silent when arrested, for instance, is irrelevant other than in "robbery cases" (the crime for which Ernesto Miranda was arrested)...  Considering how often Miranda has been cited over the years in non-robbery cases, it would appear that the "tax honesty community" is far from alone in having misunderstood how this sort of thing works!

Who writes this stuff?!

Well actually, we know who does.  Liars and connivers, who hope the rest of us are too stupid or too lazy to expose this trash and reveal to the world that their side is in the wrong.

Still, as intellectually obnoxious as they are, I suppose that in a way we should be grateful for these corrupt efforts.  As is discussed in more detail here, these desperate attempts by the law-defiers to construct the pretense of authority for their "positions" just emphasizes and makes unmistakable the fact that they actually have none, something that might be harder to demonstrate if they were just to stand silent.

These desperate efforts at obfuscation emphasize something else, too, which is that the only thing keeping the liars in power is our neighbor's ignorance, and the only thing necessary for the truth to prevail is for those of us who know it to spread it far and wide.