Some of the legal theories that people refuse to pay income tax are: If you`re being reviewed by the IRS for tax evasion or sued, hire a local tax attorney. It is important to note that there is no valid argument for completely refusing to pay taxes. On the contrary, you should be prepared to pay off any taxes you may owe. Ed Hedemann, who works as an independent contractor for several nonprofits and lives in Brooklyn, has not paid federal income tax since 1970. He pays Social Security, Medicare, state and local taxes, but refuses to pay federal income tax every year because he opposes any war and all U.S. military spending. It`s hard to determine how many people choose not to pay federal taxes in protest, and how much the IRS will punish for it, Hedemann said. The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee estimates that there are several thousand each year who refuse to pay some or all of the federal income taxes, or refuse to pay federal excise taxes on local services or fixed lines because they are against the war. The number has changed over the years and was likely at its peak in the early 1970s, when about 20,000 rejected at least some of their income tax and 500,000 rejected their phone taxes, he said.
Hedemann predicts that the number will increase this year and over the next few years, but “it`s far too early to tell.” The Law: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall not enact any law that respects a religious community or prohibits its free exercise; or the restriction of freedom of expression or freedom of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peacefully and ask the government to make amends. However, the First Amendment does not provide for the right to refuse to pay income tax for religious or moral reasons, or because taxes are used to fund government programs that are rejected by the taxpayer. Similarly, it is well regulated that the RFRA does not grant the right to avoid paying taxes for religious reasons. The First Amendment does not protect commercial speech or speech that aids or incites taxpayers to illegally refuse to pay federal income tax, including returns that promote abusive tax avoidance systems. Relevant case law: United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – The Supreme Court has held that the general public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs that are contrary to the payment of taxes do not provide a basis for refusing to pay, stating: “The tax system may not work, if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violated their tax system. religious beliefs.
Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007) – Der 2. The county upheld the imposition of a frivolous $5,000 penalty on the taxpayer and concluded that collecting tax revenue for expenses that violated the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act of 1993, or the Ninth Amendment. United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2000) – The 7th Judicial District dismissed the defendant`s challenge to the federal tax on free-duty work because these laws were not limited to the defendant or other employers related to religion in general, and there was no indication that they had been enacted for the purpose of increasing religious practices. Adams v Commissar, 170 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1999) – Der 3. The county confirmed tax loopholes and penalties for failing to file tax returns and pay taxes, noting that the Restoring Religious Freedom Act did not require federal income tax to reflect Adams` religious beliefs that paying taxes to fund the military is contrary to God`s will. and that their beliefs are not reasonable grounds for penalties. United States v.
Ramsey, 992 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1993) – Noting that Ramsey “does not have the right of the First Amendment to avoid federal income tax on religious grounds,” the 8th Circuit rejected his argument that filing federal tax returns and paying federal income taxes violates his pacifist religious beliefs. Wall v. United States, 756 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1985) – The 8. The county upheld the imposition of a frivolous $500 penalty on Wall for a “war tax deduction” in its federal tax return based on his religious beliefs, stating that “the necessities of tax collection through a sound tax system increase government interests convincing enough to outweigh the rights of free exercise of those who consider tax offensive on religious grounds in good faith. hold”. United States v.
Peister, 631 F.2d. 658 (10th Cir. 1980) – The 10th District founded that Peister`s right to religious freedom under the First Amendment had not been violated, rejecting his argument that he was exempt from income tax because of his vow of poverty after becoming pastor of a church he founded. Salzer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-188, 108 a.m. T.C.M. (CHC) 284 (15. September 2014) – The court found Salzer`s justification for not paying taxes frivolous because he opposed the government`s “socialist” policies, noting that “the legal obligation to file a tax return exists regardless of a taxpayer`s personal political, economic, social or religious beliefs.” Other cases: Droz v. Commissioner, 48 F.3d 1120 (9 Cir.
1995); Boardman v. Shulman, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2012-6987 (E.D. Cal. 2012); United States v. Ogilvie, no. 3:12–CR–00121–LRH–WGC, 2013 WL 6210645 (D. Nev. 27 November 2013). Gardner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2017-107, 113 T.C.M. (CCH) 1482 (2017) The IRS did not respond to MarketWatch`s request for comment on Americans refusing to pay taxes in protest. This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment has not been formally ratified or because the State of Ohio was not strictly speaking a state at the time of ratification. Proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue. The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress has the power to collect and collect income taxes, regardless of the source, without division between the different states and regardless of a census or enumeration. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803); see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussion of the joint congressional resolution of 1953, which confirmed Ohio`s status as a state retroactive to 1803) and was issued by proclamation in 1913.
Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the amendment. Under article V of the Constitution, only three-quarters of States are required to ratify an amendment. There were enough states that ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, even without Ohio, to complete the number required for ratification. In addition, following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of income tax laws. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since then, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of federal income tax. In Reverend Rul. 2005-19, 2005-1 B.C. 819 and in Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. In `609, the IRS discussed this frivolous argument in more detail and warned taxpayers of the consequences of trying to make a claim on these grounds.
Relevant case law: Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994) – The 5th District ruled that the defendant`s appeals challenging the Sixteenth Amendment against income tax legislation were frivolous and justified. Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) – The 7th District has imposed sanctions on Miller for taking a “manifestly frivolous” stance, stating, “We find it difficult to understand why the long and uninterrupted series of cases that generally uphold the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment, Brushaber v.