Adrian Tymes writes:
> Anava000@aol.com wrote:
> > check this site out carefully. It is a bit long... but you will never
> > look at community citizenship the same again.
> Nope, I view it quite the same as I did before. Any to everyone else
> on the site, I say: don't waste your time with this link.
This is actually a "tax protestor" argument, slightly disguised: its
main point is to ostensibly provide a means by which you don't have
to pay income tax. A good resource for the failure of such arguments
to be accepted by the courts is the "Tax Protestor Hall of Fame" at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/sloan.html. It presents a long
list of cases where the courts rejected "soverign citizen" arguments as
well as the many others which have been advanced to support non-payment
The Sloan case at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/sloan.html
is typical. Some excerpts:
Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn
to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal
requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these
people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and
because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison;
there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
Also basic to Mr. Sloan's "freedom from income tax theory" is
his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but
rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the
State of Indiana, and a "master"--not "servant"--of his government.
As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction
of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been
previously rejected as well. "All individuals, natural or unnatural,
must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of whether
they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal
government. Lovell, 755 F.2d at 519; cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937
(Studley's argument that "she is not a 'taxpayer' because she is
an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous.
An individual is a 'person' under the Internal Revenue Code.").
The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of
Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue
these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity
of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection
of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful
of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less
sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote
their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan,
yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him.
It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding
the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm
his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our
decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be
that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view.
We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT