Arguments about tax administration and process
Some arguments relate to the regulatory process, the authority of IRS employees to assert penalties, the IRS authority to seize assets, or the validity ofArguments about lack of regulations
Some tax protesters have tried to argue that because the Department of the Treasury has promulgated official regulations for some but not all Internal Revenue Code provisions, there can be no obligation to file income tax returns or pay taxes. The courts have uniformly rejected this argument, ruling that duties imposed by statute cannot be avoided merely because the IRS or some other agency has not promulgated a regulation under that statute, and that the mere fact that a statute specifies that an agency is authorized to promulgate a regulation does not necessarily mean that the agency is required to do so. For court decisions on the "lack of regulations" arguments, see ''Carpa v. Smith''; ''United States v. Langert''; ''Russell v. United States''; ''United States v. Washington''; ''United States v. Hicks''.Arguments about authority of IRS employees to collect penalties
Some tax protesters argue that even if the Internal Revenue Code provides for penalties, IRS employees do not have the authority to assert penalties—basing the argument on Internal Revenue Code section 6020(b)(1) which states: :Authority of Secretary to execute return. :If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise. Some protesters contend that this provision shows that IRS agents have no authority to impose penalties unless they have a delegation from the Secretary of the Treasury. Tax protesters sometimes assert that court decisions that IRS agents have delegated powers from the Secretary of the Treasury constitute a blatant disregard for the law, which tax protesters cite as proof that the finding of the court is somehow opposite of what the law says. At any rate, under , , and and the Treasury regulation at 26 C.F.R. section 301.6020-1(a)(1), IRS agents do indeed have the delegated power to prepare section 6020(b) returns (see ''Craig v. Lowe''). See also Delegation Order 5-2, which specifically delegates this authority to Internal Revenue Agents, to Tax Auditors, to Revenue Officers of grade GS-9 and above, and to various other IRS personnel. In ''Craig'', the taxpayer argued that only the Secretary of the Treasury himself or herself was authorized under section 6020 to prepare returns for taxpayers despite the plain language of section 6020 which uses the word "Secretary" (without the phrase "of the Treasury"). Under section 7701(a)(11)(B), where used in the Internal Revenue Code without the phrase "of the Treasury," the term "Secretary" means the "Secretary of the Treasury ''or his delegate''" (Italics added). The phrase "or his delegate" is defined in part as "any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized … to perform the function mentioned or described …". The Court rejected the taxpayer's argument, and ruled that an IRS Revenue Agent "plainly falls" within the cited Treasury regulation. Another group of protesters claims the existing law demands income tax only from federal employees and residents of US territories. Their argument does not ''rely'' on nonpassage of the 16th Amendment, but does suggest it. They have asked the IRS and other authorities to cite the laws requiring others to pay income tax. This group claims never to have received an answer.Arguments about authority of IRS employees to seize assets
Some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service has no authority to seize assets to satisfy tax claims. For example, tax protester Irwin Schiff's web site, in reference to the 2005 Federal trial resulting in his most recent conviction and imprisonment on tax charges, includes the statement: "… the Government’s prosecutors and Judge Dawson interceded in order to prevent me from proving that all IRS seizures are illegal, and not provided for by law." In ''United States v. Rodgers'', the United States Supreme Court stated: ::Administrative levy, unlike an ordinary lawsuit, and unlike the procedure described in §7403, does not require any judicial intervention, and it is up to the taxpayer, if he so chooses, to go to court if he claims that the assessed amount was not legally owing. Similarly, in ''United States v. Baggot'', the Supreme Court stated: ::The IRS need never go into court to assess and collect the amount owed; it is empowered to collect the tax by nonjudicial means (such as levy on property or salary, 26 U. S. C. §§ 6331, 6332), without having to prove to a court the validity of the underlying tax liability. After the decisions in ''Rodgers'' and ''Baggot'', Congress provided for limited exceptions to the general rule that court approval is not required for a levy by the Internal Revenue Service. For example, an IRS levy on a principal residence must be approved in writing by a federal district court judge or magistrate. The statute authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to seize assets without going to court is . In the case of ''Brian v. Gugin'', a group of taxpayers (including a Mr. Ralph Brian) sued a group of IRS and other government employees, (including Ms. Phylis Gugin), for what the taxpayers claimed was a violation of their rights. The following is an excerpt from the court’s decision in the case: ::The plaintiffs' premise for their complaint is that the IRS agents were required to have a court order in order to be able to legally seize property for delinquent taxes. Unfortunately, this is a faulty premise. Title 26 U.S.C. §6331 authorizes the IRS to seize property of any person liable for any tax upon ten days notice. The plaintiffs are incorrect in stating that §§6331 and 6321 only apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The statute specifically states that any person may have their property levied upon. 26 U.S.C. §§6331(a) and 6321. The plaintiffs also cite 26 U.S.C. §7402 which grants jurisdiction to the district courts to issue orders, processes and judgments as well as enforce IRS summons. This section does not require a court order in order to levy on property under §6331. ::A "levy" by definition is a summary non-judicial process which provides the IRS with prompt and convenient method for satisfying delinquent tax claims. … e IRS has the option under §6502 to collect its assessment by ''either'' a levy or a court proceeding … ::Accordingly, the IRS agents were acting within the authority granted under §6331 and no court order was required for the attempted levy on Ralph Brian's property. Concerning the constitutional violations alleged by the plaintiffs, this court cannot find that any constitutional rights were allegedly violated if the attempted seizure was lawful under §6331. ::It is important to note that the plaintiff Ralph Brian is not without a course of action under the Internal Revenue Code. If the delinquent taxes claimed are not delinquent, the taxpayer may bring an action with the IRS for a refund. In a variation on this argument, some tax protesters have argued that section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code should allow the IRS to seize only the salary of an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia. This argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in ''Sims v. United States''. Tax protesters have presented variations of this argument, which the courts have ruled to be without legal merit. See, e.g., the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in ''James v. United States''. See also ''Peth v. Breitzmann''; ''Pawlowske v. Chrysler Corp.''; and ''Craig v. Lowe''. See also the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in ''Maisano v. Welcher''. Since at least 1867, the Federal tax collector has also held the power to sell property of a delinquent taxpayer to satisfy a Federal income tax liability, even before physically ejecting the taxpayer from the property. See the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of ''Arguments that the IRS must follow the Fair Debt Collection Act
At least one tax protester has argued that the IRS must follow the FederalThe Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB control number) argument
One contention of tax protesters is that they are not liable to file returns or pay taxes because, they argue, Form 1040 or some other Federal tax form, or the related instructions, or a Treasury Regulation, does not contain an "OMB control number" (a number issued by the U.S.OMB control numbers and the ''Lawrence'' case
Some tax protesters have argued that criminal defendant Robert Lawrence was successful with an OMB control number argument when his case was dismissed by a federal court in 2006. According to the court record, the IRS agents who had calculated Mr. Lawrence's tax liability discovered errors they themselves had made—based on information obtained from Lawrence's own tax returns, regarding the taxpayer's tax basis in certain property Lawrence had sold. With respect to certain properties the taxpayer had sold, the IRS agents discovered that he had more tax basis than they had originally calculated—therefore, lower gains or even losses, and thus lower taxes. The IRS agents brought their errors to the attention of the government lawyers, who then asked that the charges be dropped. Lawrence then asked the trial court to order the government to reimburse him for his legal fees. The court ruled against him on that. He then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—to try to obtain a reversal of the trial court's refusal to order the government to compensate him for the legal fees he had incurred. At the Court of Appeals, Lawrence contended that he should be reimbursed because the government's conduct against him had been "vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith." He raised his PRA/OMB control number argument—an argument he had also raised at the trial court level. In March 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the OMB argument. The Court also rejected his request for reimbursement for the legal fees he incurred. The following is an excerpt from the Court's decision: ::According to Lawrence, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) required the Internal Revenue Service to display valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) numbers on its Form 1040…. Lawrence argues that the PRA by its terms prohibits the government from imposing a criminal penalty upon a citizen for the failure to complete a form where the information request at issue does not comply with the PRA. Lawrence never explains how this argument is even relevant to the three counts involving tax evasion, but even as to the other three counts, it must fail … Lawrence's brief represents an attempt to prove that the PRA could present a valid defense to the criminal charges. Yet Lawrence conceded at oral argument that no case from this circuit establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction that so holds. In contrast, the government referenced numerous cases supporting its position that the PRA does not present a defense to a criminal action for failure to file income taxes … Lawrence provides no explanation of how government conduct can be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith when there is no law contrary to it."The ''Wunder'' case
In the case of ''United States v. Wunder'', the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stated: ::Although the defendant constructs an elaborate argument as to why section 3512 f title 44 of the United States Code, relating to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)should apply to this case, … we are unable to see how section 3512 is relevant. This section, by its terms, applies only to information requests made after December 31, 1981. The tax years in question here were 1979, 1980, and 1981. Clearly, tax returns for 1979 and 1980 would not be affected by the PRA. As for the 1981 return, it did display the appropriate control number, and the regulations do not need a number because the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation. Defendant was not convicted of violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return. … The Paperwork Reduction Act, therefore, does not apply to the statutory requirement, but only to the forms themselves, which contained the appropriate numbers.The ''Patridge'' case
In the case of ''United States v. Patridge'', the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a tax evasion conviction, and rejected the convicted taxpayer's OMB control number argument, with these words: ::Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. Section 3507 f the Paperwork Reduction Actrequires periodic review, not a periodic change in control numbers. PatridgeOther cases involving OMB control numbers
Despite the presence of the OMB control number on Form 1040 and despite the language of regulation 1320.6(e) above, tax protesters have repeatedly litigated several variations of the "OMB control number argument" without success. See ''McDougall v. Commissioner'' (taxpayer's argument—that the 1987 Form 1040 fails to display an OMB control number—was rejected by the Court, with the Court stating that the 1987 Form 1040 does contain the OMB control number, in upper right corner of form; taxpayer's argument—that Form 1040 lacks the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notice—was rejected by the Court, with the Court noting that the statement appears in the instructions for the form and further noting that a failure to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act would not invalidate an IRS form, as the "mandate for collecting Federal income tax information comes from Congress"); ''United States v. Barker'' (taxpayer's argument—that IRS forms must carry valid control numbers from the Office of Management and Budget to be valid—was rejected); ''Salberg v. United States'' (taxpayer's argument—that although the 1981 Form 1040 contains an OMB control number, the form is invalid because it does not contain an expiration date—was rejected; Court rules that even if the law required an expiration date, the "1981" date on the form would so qualify as an expiration date); ''United States v. Cavins'' (taxpayer convicted of tax evasion argued that his indictment should have been thrown out because Form 1040 did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act; argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court stated: "An OMB control number is clearly displayed at the top of each form. If the Form 1040 displays the control number required by § 3512, 'nothing more is required.'"); ''United States v. Dawes'' (taxpayer's argument—that the tax regulations and IRS instruction books must contain an OMB control number—was rejected); ''Lonsdale v. United States'' (taxpayer's argument—that relevant IRS forms in connection with summonses, liens or levies must contain OMB control numbers for the summonses, liens or levies to be valid—was rejected); ''Karkabe v. Commissioner'' (taxpayer's arguments—that Form 1040 did not display a valid OMB control number, and that the Form 1040 was "bootleg" and "illegal" -- were rejected by the court). ''Pate v. Commissioner'' (taxpayer's OMB control number argument—that the Paperwork Reduction Act "may in some manner negate statutory penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay taxes" -- was ruled to be without merit, with the U.S. Tax Court stating that the "requirement to file tax returns and the imposition of penalties for failing to do so represents a 'legislative command, not an administrative request'", and that the Paperwork Reduction Act "provides no 'escape hatch' from penalties for failing to file tax returns"; taxpayer's argument—that under ''Pond v. Commissioner'', the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act "call into question" certain well-established judicial precedents—was rejected). Lindsey K. Springer, a proponent of the Paperwork Reduction Act/OMB control number argument, raised the issue in his own federal criminal tax case. His argument was rejected by the court, and the jury found him guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, three counts of tax evasion, and two counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. The OMB control number argument and variations of this argument have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a)., as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2008-14, I.R.B. 2008-4 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury (superseding Notice 2007-30); see also Notice 2010-33, I.R.B. 2010-17 (April 26, 2010). In ''Cargill v. Commissioner'', an $8,000 penalty was imposed on taxpayer Judy Cargill under in connection with her appeal in which she persisted in making the OMB control number argument after having been notified that the argument was frivolous.Arguments about the status of the IRS
Some tax protesters argue that the IRS is not a government agency, or that the IRS is not mentioned in the statutes, or that the IRS has no authority in the absence of established internal revenue "districts," or that the IRS has no authority outside the District of Columbia.Arguments that the IRS is not a government agency
Many tax protesters claim that because the Internal Revenue Service itself was not created by statute and because the IRS has no legal capacity to sue or be sued, the IRS is not a federal government agency. Some claim it is a Puerto Rican trust. Others claim that the IRS does not lawfully exist. The courts have uniformly rejected such arguments. As explained below, the "Internal Revenue Service" is referred to in statutes and regulations as an "agency," as a "bureau," and as an "administrative unit" of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Although the IRS, as a bureau within the Treasury Department, was not created by statute (and no law requires that the IRS, as a bureau within an executive department, be "created" by statute), the United States Supreme Court, in ''Chrysler Corp. v. Brown'', specifically referred to theArguments that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in the statutes
Some tax protesters claim that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in the statutes. Imprisoned tax protester Irwin Schiff has contended that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in Subtitle A (the subtitle dealing specifically with income tax) of the Internal Revenue Code. The "Internal Revenue Service" is, however, mentioned in many statutes. For example, the "Internal Revenue Service" is mentioned in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (see, e.g., ; ; ; ; and ). Overall, the Internal Revenue Code contains at least 200 specific references to "Internal Revenue Service" (including references in headings of sections, subsections, etc.). Many Internal Revenue Code sections contain multiple references to "Internal Revenue Service" (for example, fourteen mentions in , ten mentions in , eighteen mentions in , and thirty-six separate mentions in ). At least nineteen references to "Internal Revenue Service" are found in titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 31, and 42 of theArguments about the lack of internal revenue districts
Some tax protesters have argued that because internal revenue districts or IRS district directors were abolished pursuant to section 1001 of theArguments about authority of Internal Revenue Service outside the District of Columbia
Another argument raised by tax protesters is that under section 72 of title 4 of the United States Code, the IRS has no authority outside of Washington, D.C. That argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in ''Hughes v. United States'' by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington in ''In re Myrland'', by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in ''United States v. Springer'', by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota in ''United States v. Kuyper'', and by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in ''United States v. Barringer''.Case No. 14-03132, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Aug. 27, 2014), aSee also
* Tax protester history in the United States *Notes
External links
Sites presenting tax protester arguments: