David Schwartz (mail):

The site contains bizarre statements like: "The system can function only if most people voluntarily comply with their duty to pay." Doing something voluntarily and complying with a duty are precisely opposite in meaning. In fact, one could define "voluntary" as "an action performed in the absence of a duty to perform it".

11.17.2008 7:03pm

TerrencePhilip:

That's an awesome site. There's an old website here dealing with similar arguments, with the classic Easterbrook quote, "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest."

11.17.2008 7:06pm

OrinKerr:

David,

I suppose one could define it that way. But if you're not a lawyer, isn't that sentence pretty easy to understand?

11.17.2008 7:10pm

Anderson (mail):

bizarre statements

I suppose a libertarian would find it bizarre, but I doubt that many other people would. And I find libertarians bizarre. So it's all relative, I guess.

11.17.2008 7:12pm

road warrior99 (mail):

Well it doesn't really matter what these people think, until the illuminati change the law and Obama does away with taxes all together (yea right) these people should just stop grumbling and pay their taxes!

11.17.2008 7:16pm

wolfefan (mail):

In context, I don't find the statement David Schwartz references particularly bizarre, but we can all judge for ourselves. Here's the relevant paragraph; I think the last sentence pulls it together and seems very sensible.

"So what does the IRS mean when it says it relies on “voluntary compliance”? It is referring to the primary method by which it enforces the (mandatory) duty to pay taxes. The IRS recognizes that this is a huge country and there are hundreds of millions of people who have a duty to pay taxes. The IRS can’t follow each of us around personally and force us to pay. The system can function only if most people voluntarily comply with their duty to pay. If everyone in the country simultaneously stopped complying with the tax laws, the IRS would be helpless. It doesn’t have the resources to bring 200 million tax prosecutions. So the primary method of tax enforcement used in this country is the fact that most people voluntarily go ahead and comply with their mandatory duty to pay their taxes."

11.17.2008 7:17pm

David Schwartz (mail):

I suppose one could define it that way. But if you're not a lawyer, isn't that sentence pretty easy to understand?

Personally, I find it impossible to understand. The worst thing you can do is respond to tax protestors with evasive and deceptive arguments. If you're not going to respond with precise truths, why bother?

I can show comparably ridiculous responses on other pages too. The tax protestor arguments are 100% nonsensical garbage. So why not respond to them with precise razor-sharp logic to show that they're garbage? Why state deceptive half-truths?

For example, my page on "income taxes are voluntary" would go like this: Yes, officials sometimes say that, but it's Orwellian double-speak. You are in fact required by law to pay income taxes and they will make your life miserable or put you in jail if they don't. "Voluntary" means in the absence of requirement by law or custom, and you are required to pay income taxes by law, so anyone who says income taxes are "voluntary" is simply in error.

11.17.2008 7:18pm

David Schwartz (mail):

wolfefan: That entire paragraph is nonsensical Orwellian double-speak. You cannot "voluntarily comply" with a "mandatory duty". If I will shoot you if you don't give me your money, and you know this, it is then impossible for you to give me your money "voluntarily".

Why make an argument in response to a tax protestor that any intelligent fifth grader can pick apart in seconds? Their arguments are 100% garbage, so why not show why this is so with accurate statements?

11.17.2008 7:21pm

wolfefan (mail):

Hi David -

Maybe I'm missing something. Let's try another example. The law says I can't go more than 25mph in a school zone. When I approach the school zone, I may either comply voluntarily by lowering my speed, or I may decide not to comply unless I am forced to by a police officer who will make me stop completely.

Likewise, if I owe $1000 in taxes, I may comply voluntarily by sending in a check, or I may be forced into compliance by having the money seized. I will comply either way, but I will make a voluntary choice as to the form compliance will take.

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree, but the paragraph seems pretty reasonable to me.

11.17.2008 7:36pm

Ted Frank (www):

I don't find wolfefan's argument persuasive. But that's okay, because the tax protestors' argument is even less so.

David, it's "voluntary" in the sense that the system relies upon voluntary compliance. The tax collector doesn't come to your house and assess you or send you a bill. One can complain that the choice of words is meant to put a pretty face on the system, and I wouldn't use that phrase myself, but the tax protestors' equivocation of insisting that when the IRS said it was "voluntary" in that one narrow context means that it is legally "voluntary" in all senses of the word is tendentious.

11.17.2008 7:50pm

Ex-Fed (mail) (www):

Ah, tax protesters. So much fun.

When I was a prosecutor, I had one who claimed that the United States District Court did not have jurisdiction over him because the courtrooms had American flags with gold fringes, which established that they were admiralty courts and not courts of general jurisdiction. Judge Hupp, God rest him, wryly said "I'll pretend you're a boat."

11.17.2008 7:59pm

_quodlibet_:

"The system can function only if most people voluntarily comply with their duty to pay." Doing something voluntarily and complying with a duty are precisely opposite in meaning.

Voluntarily complying: You write a check to the IRS.

Involuntarily complying: The sheriff auctions off your possessions and uses the proceeds to pay your tax obligation.

Know the difference; it could save your life.

In fact, one could define "voluntary" as "an action performed in the absence of a duty to perform it".

Forget about duty or obligation; an action can be said to be involuntary if it is physically forced (e.g., the knee-jerk reflex is involuntary) or if it is coerced under threats.

11.17.2008 8:14pm

Sean M:

The IRS has been debunking this stuff for a while, as well:

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

11.17.2008 8:23pm

PubliusFL:

wolfefan: "Maybe I'm missing something. Let's try another example. The law says I can't go more than 25mph in a school zone. When I approach the school zone, I may either comply voluntarily by lowering my speed, or I may decide not to comply unless I am forced to by a police officer who will make me stop completely."

You may be technically correct, but that still makes things confusing for ordinary people, which helps the tax protesters persuade some of them that their explanation of "voluntary" makes more sense. Because you are basically saying that compliance with tax laws is "voluntary" in the sense that compliance with ANY law is "voluntary." In other words, the government can't reach into your head and MAKE you comply with the law, but it'll punish you if you don't, so it hopes the threat of punishment will keep the number of those who don't down. The system will break down if most people decide not to "voluntarily" pay taxes in the same way that it will break down if people decide not to "voluntarily" refrain from stopping at stop signs or committing murder. But no one describes stop sign laws or murder laws as depending on a system of voluntary compliance. Doing so with tax laws just confuses people.

11.17.2008 8:39pm

OrinKerr:

David Schwartz writes:

The worst thing you can do is respond to tax protestors with evasive and deceptive arguments.

What a bizarre statement. Surely it is worse to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York City than it is to respond to a tax protester with evasive and deceptive arguments. When you say that "the worst thing you can do is X," that means it is worse than any other conceivable option. Completely incomprehensible language, if not deceptive and evasive.

11.17.2008 8:39pm

Brett Bellmore:

Tax protesters are guilty of magical thinking, and I tell them so any time I encounter one: Let's suppose everything they say is actually true: Judges draw their pay from taxes, so why in Hell would they expect it to matter???

It's magical thinking, the belief that there's some formula you can recite, and the government will leave you alone despite the fact that it HAS to collect taxes whether or not you're right. Sorry, the government is not some supernatural creature you can bind by reciting the right words. It's something much more dangerous, a human organization which doesn't care if you're right.

11.17.2008 8:46pm

dude:

LOL, Orin.

11.17.2008 8:56pm

Pensans:

Whose interest is it in to believe the preposterous lie that the current system is just and legitimate? Certainly, the list includes U.S. judges, prosecutors and lawyers.

The error of the tax protestors is mistaking the appropriate response to an alien and arbitrary system of laws. The two possible responses are acquiescence and rebellion -- obedience or violence. They have chosen peaceful disobedience and so are mocked and ridiculed by the same soft sophisticates who would tremble and grovel before the threat of force.

I believe that the appropriate response to their legal arguments is a respectful legal reply and thankfulness that they have not chosen violence. On the other hand, if one wanted to push them toward violence, continuing to mock them would probably be useful.

11.17.2008 9:18pm

Nunzio:

It's very difficult to reason with people in a cult, which is what these tax protesters are. They are immune to reason. Having dealt with a few of them, I find myself thinking that the death penalty should apply to tax evasion.

11.17.2008 9:18pm

loki13 (mail):

Pensans,

Sometimes, it is good to mock. I realize that our society is increasingly bereft of humor, but if you can't make fun of these loons, who's left? It's the whole Aristotelean version of humor- we feel better through the misfortune of others.

And I get the same perverse enjoyment out of the tax evaders that I do when I read the Darwin Awards. Does that make me a bad person? Perhaps. But at least I'm a bad person with a smile.

Anyway, with your formulation of violence, I guess the first time through it's a farce, then it repeats as tragedy.

11.17.2008 9:32pm

Dave Hardy (mail) (www):

I found amusing a couple of variations:

1) Person doesn't have to repay mortgage, because after all, once having made the loan, the bank carried the loan on its books as an asset. Which means that the bank gave no consideration, since its assets were precisely the same after the loan as before.

2) Person doesn't have to repay loan because it was made in paper money, and under the Constitution only gold and silver can be used for currency (Constitution actually saying that States cannot issue currency other than gold and silver), so that the loan was of no value.

3) Elaboration on admiralty point: if you step inside the bar of the court, you submit to its admiralty jurisdiction, so if going pro se you must speak from outside the bar.

4) Best of all: the secret to law is that lawyers and judges have a code in which they say the opposite of what they mean to express. You can force the judge out of this by repeatedly demanding that he speak English to you.

11.17.2008 9:36pm

wm13:

I am rather sympathetic to these protestors. I don't believe that people from Mars, or computers with artificial intelligence, or Plato and Aristotle, would understand why the argument that a court with gold-fringed flag lacks jurisidiction is laughable, whereas the argument that the Civil Rights amendments make abortion legal is the law of the land. It certainly isn't logic that gives us the answers. Law is nothing but the will of the elite, and all teaching to the contrary is a lie. The tax protestors who believe that lie are fools, but I wish I could have their belief that law depends on justice, or logic, or consistency, or anything but the interests of the powerful.

11.17.2008 9:36pm

Soronel Haetir (mail):

Prof K,

I'm not so sure, getting rid of NYC would shake up the populace enough that something new could grow. Whether that something was good or bad doesn't really matter, I'm tired of stagnation.

11.17.2008 9:39pm

wolfefan (mail):

Hi -

Sorry if I wasn't more clear. Ted and others have said it better than me.... thanks...

11.17.2008 9:39pm

David Schwartz (mail):

It's very difficult to reason with people in a cult, which is what these tax protesters are. They are immune to reason. Having dealt with a few of them, I find myself thinking that the death penalty should apply to tax evasion.

Have you tried reasoning with them? I haven't seen much evidence that people have tried to reason with tax protestors. Instead, I see responses to their arguments that are almost as bad as their arguments.

The page on why wages are subject to income tax is filled with nonsene as well. I could pick it apart piece-by-piece, but there's not much point. The correct response is found nowhere on the page, which is:

"Wages are taxed as income because there is really no other good way to make an income tax system work. So that's the way ours is structured. Yes, you do have a basis in your labor, but that basis is accounted for by the deductions you are allowed (such as the standard deduction, the amount of income not subject to income tax, and so on). As a practical matter, there's no better way to account for a person's basis in their labor. Yes, not all of your wages are income in the common-sense meaning of income because you do not have a zero basis in your labor."

The arguments it does make are mostly wrong. For example, one argument it makes is that your basis in something is, conceptually, the amount you paid for it, and conceptually not its value. If that were correct, why would your basis in inherited property be its fair market value as of the date it became yours? Why wouldn't you have a zero basis? Why would a basis be adjusted for depreciation? The amount you paid doesn't decrease.

Bluntly, I honestly believe that these kinds of poor responses to tax protestor arguments play into the hands of the con artists. Well-meaning potential victims come to them with these arguments and the tax protestor con artists rip them apart by pointing out the flaws in these counter-arguments. (The con artists definitely don't believe their own arguments, but they know how to rip the wrong responses apart.)

11.17.2008 9:42pm

Josh644 (mail):

I'm afraid you guys arguing against David have got it wrong. "Voluntarily" means doing something without being required to do so. Near school zones, you are required to slow down -- even if no police officer is present.

11.17.2008 9:45pm

Edward A. Hoffman (mail):

Ex-Fed wrote:

Judge Hupp, God rest him, wryly said "I'll pretend you're a boat."

I miss Judge Hupp.

11.17.2008 9:51pm

Nunzio:

Have you tried reasoning with them?

Yes. They are immune to reason. There is no Platonic definition of "income," as they want to believe.

11.17.2008 9:53pm

Fub:

Brett Bellmore wrote at 11.17.2008 8:46pm:

Tax protesters are guilty of magical thinking, and I tell them so any time I encounter one: Let's suppose everything they say is actually true: Judges draw their pay from taxes, so why in Hell would they expect it to matter???

One belief I heard years ago was akin to that: No judge will ever rule against the IRS because if he does, he'll be next on the IRS list for prosecution. It does at least sound plausible.

It's magical thinking, the belief that there's some formula you can recite, and the government will leave you alone despite the fact that it HAS to collect taxes whether or not you're right. Sorry, the government is not some supernatural creature you can bind by reciting the right words. It's something much more dangerous, a human organization which doesn't care if you're right.

I think that's a very accurate observation -- magical thinking drives these beliefs. Law can be very confusing to those who don't even know how to begin understanding it. So it must be magic, and the right incantation will make it work.

Magic legal incantation theories abound as well in other areas of law besides tax law. Just for instance, the belief that the UCC has replaced the Constitution, so that all legal arguments should cite the UCC; the belief that adding the words "under protest" when you sign a traffic ticket will void the ticket in traffic court; and the "fringed flag" maritime law belief so humorously cited above, just to mention a few.

11.17.2008 9:55pm

OrinKerr:

David Schwartz,

I suppose the tax protestor movement will thrive until someone with your rare knowledge and articulateness will destroy it once and for all.

11.17.2008 10:04pm

David Schwartz (mail):

Yes. They are immune to reason. There is no Platonic definition of "income," as they want to believe.

There are three types of tax protestors. Two of them are immune to reason.

One is the con man. He doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He knows the people who listen to him are suckers. He sells books and tapes, gives speeches and seminars, and the like. He is immune to reason because he already knows he's completely wrong. (He'll happily explain to you in precise detail what's wrong with the *other* tax protestor arguments and why his will 'work' even though the others didn't.)

The second is the split personality. He knows he's wrong, but he likes the fact that he's not paying taxes. Since he hasn't gotten caught yet (or thinks nothing will happen even though he has), his rationale is simply that it has worked for him. He is immune to reason (on the tax protestor arguments) because he already knows he is wrong. He probably fears that if he stops believing the tax protestor arguments, he'll lose his Cheek defense. He is, however, willing to listen to reason in another way -- explain to him that the Cheek defense is extremely unlikely to work and if he works things out now, he almost certainly will not face any criminal charges. (Especially if he has no significant means. He can file an OIC.)

The third type is the true believer. These are the people who honestly see themselves as patriots. They are *not* immune to reason, the only question is how many of them actually exist. They love to try to explain their arguments to you, so it's not hard to get them to reason. They generally believe that reason is on their side, so it can help to point out to them that it's not.

When I was in Houston in the mid-80's, I spent some time with people in the tax protestor movement. I can tell you that I met quite a few people in that third category. Many of them came to realize they were surrounded by a bunch of wackos. (Arguably, including me.)

11.17.2008 10:12pm

David Chesler (mail) (www):

I'll second that on the magic incantations. Sometimes the law makes complete sense, sometimes it makes sense if you understand how it got that way (same as etymology), other times there are conventions and terms of art that are not at all obvious. If they were all obvious, we wouldn't need lawyers. (For instance, the right-pondian crossed check, or the phrase "with prejudice", or various statutes of limitations and frauds. For other examples, look especially to any of the amateur lawyer columns, especially when things are in conflict, or any legal-related story that makes it into the odds-and-ends section of a newspaper.)

What is the word that is more accurate than "voluntary" to describe a system of self-policing that would break down and need to be restructured if people didn't follow the rules even when they could probably get away with them?

11.17.2008 10:14pm

David Schwartz (mail):

Orin: You are very funny. I will revise my primary claim. The site is, overall, pretty good. It is patient and thorough. It does, however, contain many bizarre (and outright false) statements.

11.17.2008 10:21pm

Mitchell J. Freedman (mail) (www):

I liked Judge Hupp, too. I remember my first appearance in front of him because it was the first judge I had been in front of who had his bailiff not only require us to all stand when Judge Hupp appeared, but also had us recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I was wondering at that point if Hupp was going to be a right wing ideologue who would make his decision first, and dress it up in whatever argument came to mind. Instead, I found Judge Hupp a straight shooter who called things from a deep and practical sense of experience. Other attorneys who I later queried felt the same.

I was sad when I heard Judge Hupp had passed away. He was a great judge for trial lawyers to appear in front of and he is definitely missed.

11.17.2008 10:24pm

ResIpsaLoquitur (mail):

True story: the day before my contracts exam in my first year of law school, my buddy and I go over to Coney Island to enjoy some chili dogs and grumble about contracts in general. After a bite, we head back to the car and overhear a pizza man talking to his buddy about court. Curious, we pause to listen in.

We hear something about "contracts" and "jurisdiction" and wonder how the pizza man knows about these things. Finally, we interrupt, introduce ourselves as law students, and ask what's up. Pizza man: "My buddy here got busted for pot. I'm trying to tell him how to get out of it."

Intrigued, we beg the pizza man to enlighten us. "My point is that they served him process improperly," he says. "They typed his name in all-capital letters, and that's not his name."

He goes on: "Anyway, if that don't work, I've got some great arguments he can use on the judge. Did you know the Constitution only allows for three types of law?"

Really? we wonder.

"Yeah. Three types: admiralty, equity, and common law. Now, equity's dead, nobody uses that anymore. There's also this case—"

Wait for it.

"It's called Erie v. Tompkins. It got rid of common law in America."

We're aghast.

"So all you've got left is admiralty law. So that's all the judge can use in court."

OK, but how does that get you out of pot charges?

"Well, see, back when the U.S. passed the 14th Amendment, it forcibly made everyone born here into U.S. citizens. We've all been made into chattel of the U.S. government. And the U.S. has mortgaged us out to other countries to pay off its debts."

No kidding.

"So here's how you get out of jurisdiction: you declare that the U.S. doesn't own you anymore. You take your Social Security Card, see, and you write 'U.C.C. 1-207' on the back of it. That lets you reserve your rights in yourself, so the U.S. doesn't own you anymore."

OK, but what's that got to do with Admiralty law?

"Well, Admiralty law is all we have left in America. So when the judge claims he's got jurisdiction over you, you just tell him you're captain of your own ship."

Like I said, true story.

As an afterthought, I did a LEXIS search on criminal cases mentioning UCC 1-207. First case I found? United States versus Timothy McVeigh. Hey, if a mad bomber can make those kinds of arguments, you know they're a winner. (Sarcasm.)

11.17.2008 10:43pm

HipposGoBerserk (mail):

I ran into one once on the Mall in DC. Once some one had the temerity to tell him that the Code is law and requires income tax be paid, he got out a $20 dollar bill and ranted about it not being real money, just a "Federal Reserve Note" - at which point I brought out a quarter dollar and offered to trade.

He shut up and went away.

HGB

11.17.2008 10:46pm

David M. Nieporent (www):

Can I put in a plug for Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ? Dan has been arguing with the tax protester kooks on the internet for at least a decade, and has compiled most of their arguments and rebuttals.

11.17.2008 10:49pm

Pensans:

As to the issue of the flag, it seems to me that a court's correct use of its symbols of authority are necessary to its legitimacy.

If a federal judge were to conduct court under the flag or seal of a foreign nation, it would raise questions about its legitimacy. If a federal judge signed his orders as "admiral X" rather than asserting his own judicial office, this would raise questions about his orders legitimacy.

Tax protestors point out that the flag under which federal courts sits has addended to it an additional elements -- the golden fringe -- which is not part of the statutory definition of the flag. In this, they are absolutely correct.

In general, when Congress by law and the President by delegated authority thru executive order have defined a symbol of authority, why would a court charged with applying such laws add to the legal definition an additional element that upsets any portion of the population? When this is brought to their attention, why wouldn't they remove the additional element rather than mocking those who object.

If the courts wanted to add a gavel to the flag, a republican elephant, a democrat donkey would that be ok? If the courts wanted to add a rainbow, smiley face, picture of Obama, would that be ok?

A golden fringe that some associate with military tribunals? Why not just stick to the flag as defined by statute and executive order?

If the fringe is meaningless, why not dispense with what exceeds the legal definition of the flag?

11.17.2008 10:52pm

Jon Roland (mail) (www):

The Siegel site and others like it have been around for a while and have been thoroughly discredited by persons who know how to reason logically, as Schwartz has begun to do.

What many here seem not to acknowledge is that the burden of proof of the authority to require people to file returns and pay taxes rests on the tax collector, not the alleged taxpayer. Tax protesters find no unbroken logical chain of authority for what from the IRS demands back to the Constitution, and Siegel does not provide such a chain, because there is none. The government has refused to provide proof of its authority despite many demands and lawsuits from many people, who reasonably take that refusal as evidence that there is no authority. It is the ancient principle of quo warranto. We have a report from the GAO that there is no such authority, and a videotaped effective admission of it by a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who resorted to a Jewish gang threat when pressed on the issue.

So it is not as though tax protesters don't have well-reasoned legal arguments. There is a host of lawyers who have done the analysis and written extensive briefs in support of the protesters' positions.

No, the only authority for what the IRS does is physical force, not law. Many people are okay with that. They imagine that the government must have such authority because the courts are enforcing it, or that it needs taxes to "pay its bills". Corrupt court decisions prove nothing, and it doesn't need the money. It can create as much as it needs out of thin air. The problem with doing that is that it causes inflation unless a similar amount is withdrawn from circulation by borrowing or taxation. Lately, it has been doing more borrowing, although that alternative is in danger of running out of gullible lenders, and when that happens no rate or kind of taxation will avoid hyperinflation.

We can look forward to a meltdown like that of Argentina, except that it will be all the developed countries participating. Hope you have stocked up on barter goods.

11.17.2008 11:21pm

crane (mail):

Tax protesters - ah, the memories.

I used to work for the IRS, specifically the section your return gets sent to if the computer system flags anything wrong with it. Usually it was just a typo or math error, but sometimes a return would come up where the taxpayer was trying to pull a fast one. Our manual actually had an appendix with a list of all the frivolous arguments people used to get out of paying taxes. It was great fun to read.

My personal favorite was the magic sequence* of letters and numbers that, when typed onto the "other" line in the refundable credits section, would supposedly cause the federal government to give you several thousand dollars. (More like a $500 penalty for filing a frivolous return.)

*Not telling you what it is, just to be on the safe side. Sometimes the IRS slips up and these things get through.

11.17.2008 11:24pm

amcalabrese (www):

When I was clerking at the Tax Court, we had these folks occasionally. My judge had one where the husband settled but convinced his wife to fight out the case.

Best story I heard (from an IRS attorney who claimed it happened in the 1980s), though I am not sure if it is true, involved some tax protestors in Montana or North Dakota who were supposed to attend a Tax Court session in Chicago (the Tax Court judges ride circuit). They never made it to court. According to the IRS attorney, the protestors never showed up.

Instead of driving or taking an airliner to Chicago, they decided to save some money. One of the group had an old WWII vintage bomber he restored. So the protestors took the bomber, followed I-94 down into Chicago, and showed up over O'Hare requesting permission to land. They were arrested on landing and so had to request a postponement.

11.17.2008 11:30pm

David Schwartz (mail):

Instead of driving or taking an airliner to Chicago, they decided to save some money. One of the group had an old WWII vintage bomber he restored. So the protestors took the bomber, followed I-94 down into Chicago, and showed up over O'Hare requesting permission to land. They were arrested on landing and so had to request a postponement.

What were they arrested for? Did the plane not have a certificate of airworthiness?

11.17.2008 11:38pm

don de drain:

I've been a tax controversy attorney for many years, including a stint as an AUSA. I too miss Judge Hupp. Once in a while those who are "constitutionally challenged" (as the IRS calls them these days, as they are not supposed to use the phrase "tax protestors") come up with an argument that has merit. Many years ago I wrote an opinion as an IRS attorney where the "taxpayer" had hauled in to the IRS a very large quantity of pennies to pay a debt of a few hundred dollars. The taxpayer insisted that the IRS accept the pennies. The IRS employees in question refused to accept them, and the taxpayer then got the press involved.

The IRS employees then got the IRS attorneys involved, and the matter landed on my desk to write a legal opinion on whether IRS was required to accept the pennies. At that time Title 31 of the US Code had not been revised, and there was an ancient statute on the books which said that pennies are legal tender for debts not exceeding 25 cents. That was the statute the local IRS folks cited to in support of their position that they did not have to accept the pennies.

I wrote an opinion stating that the local IRS had to accept the pennies in payment but that, in order to avoid any claims by the taxpayer that the pennies were not counted properly, the local IRS people could require the taxpayer to be present while they counted the pennies as a condition of accepting payment.

11.17.2008 11:56pm

OrinKerr:

Jon Roland,

it's funny, when we last debated constitutional law, your arguments reminded me of something that I couldn't quite place: Now I realize that they reminded me of tax protester arguments. Your apparent agreement with the tax protesters brings it full circle.

I do have to ask about one thing you say, though:

We have a report from the GAO that there is no such authority, and a videotaped effective admission of it by a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who resorted to a Jewish gang threat when pressed on the issue.

Could you explain to us the role of the Jews in this story more broadly? I would be very interested to hear if you think there is more of a Jewish angle on this question.

11.18.2008 1