Tax protester conspiracy arguments are arguments raised by tax protesters who assert that the imposition of the federal income tax in the United States is the result of an illicit conspiracy. These kinds of arguments are distinguished from related constitutional arguments and statutory arguments. Those arguments attempt to show that the income tax is contrary to correct interpretations of the Constitution or statutes. Supporters of such arguments may contend that constitutional and statutory arguments apply as well, and raise conspiracy arguments to explain how and why every branch of the United States government nonetheless permits the collection of supposedly illegal taxes.
Read more about Tax Protester Conspiracy Arguments: Conspiracy Arguments, in General, Conspiracy Theory Regarding Government Employees and Tax Forms, Conspiracy Arguments Involving Zionism and Freemasonry, Arguments About Money, Alleged Immunity or Exemptions For Minority Groups, Civil Liability
Famous quotes containing the words tax, conspiracy and/or arguments:
“In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)
“If we are on the outside, we assume a conspiracy is the perfect working of a scheme. Silent nameless men with unadorned hearts. A conspiracy is everything that ordinary life is not. It’s the inside game, cold, sure, undistracted, forever closed off to us. We are the flawed ones, the innocents, trying to make some rough sense of the daily jostle. Conspirators have a logic and a daring beyond our reach. All conspiracies are the same taut story of men who find coherence in some criminal act.”
—Don Delillo (b. 1926)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)