Tax Protester Statutory Arguments
Tax protesters in the United States make a number of statutory arguments that the assessment of the federal income tax in the United States violates the statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that the statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within the statutes exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.
These kinds of arguments are distinguished from related constitutional arguments and general conspiracy arguments. Statutory arguments presuppose that Congress has the constitutional power to assess a tax on incomes, but that the Congress has simply failed to impose the tax by statute. Supporters of such arguments may or may not be inclined to contend that constitutional and conspiracy arguments apply as well.
The courts that have been presented with such arguments have ruled them to be spurious, unpersuasive, frivolous, or all three.
Read more about Tax Protester Statutory Arguments: Definition of The Terms "state" and "includes", Arguments About The Legal Obligation To Pay Tax, Argument That Acquittal in A Criminal Tax Case Proves There Is No Law Imposing Tax Liability, Arguments About The Amount To Be Taxed, The 861 Argument, Arguing The Law in Court
Famous quotes containing the words tax and/or arguments:
“Parents are used to being made to feel guilty about...their contribution to the population problem, the school tax burden, and declining test scores. They expect to be blamed by teachers and psychologists, if not by police. And they will be blamed by the children themselves. It is hardy a wonder, then, that they withdraw into what used to be called “permissiveness” but is really neglect.”
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)
“It has often been argued that absolute scepticism is self-contradictory; but this is a mistake: and even if it were not so, it would be no argument against the absolute sceptic, inasmuch as he does not admit that no contradictory propositions are true. Indeed, it would be impossible to move such a man, for his scepticism consists in considering every argument and never deciding upon its validity; he would, therefore, act in this way in reference to the arguments brought against him.”
—Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)