Defiant Tax Protester Gets Seven Year Sentence

Star Telegram.com ^ | 4-30-04 | Toni Heinzl

[Central Scrutiniser]

Defiant tax protester gets seven-year sentence

By Toni Heinzl

FORT WORTH - He calls himself a "Christian patriot" and a "political prisoner."

Convicted in January on 29 counts of violating U.S. income tax laws, Bedford businessman Richard Simkanin remained defiant in his anti-government stance at his sentencing Friday.

Simkanin, 59, told U.S. District Judge John McBryde that after spending thousands of hours studying federal tax laws, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, he concluded that he did not agree with the tax laws.

But McBryde had heard enough. Going beyond federal sentencing guidelines, McBryde sentenced Simkanin to seven years in prison and ordered him to pay $302,000 in restitution to the government.

In explaining the tough sentence, McBryde cited Simkanin's history of radical anti-government beliefs and his "contempt and disrespect" for the federal government and the federal courts.

"He and those who share his views have a cultlike belief that laws that are generally accepted by citizens of the United States are not applicable to them," McBryde said. "The defendant has entrenched himself in anti-government groups."

McBryde said Simkanin would continue to violate income tax laws. The judge recalled that Simkanin threatened to kill federal judges and that he surrendered his Texas driver's license but continued to drive with a home-made ID card.

On Jan. 7, a federal jury convicted Simkanin on 10 felony counts of failing to withhold about $139,000 in taxes from employees' wages at his company, Arrow Custom Plastics, and 15 felony counts of filing false tax refund claims for about $235,000.

He was also found guilty of four misdemeanor counts for failing to file individual income tax returns from 1998 to 2001. Simkanin had an estimated gross income of about $410,000 during these years, prosecutors said.

Arch McColl, the Dallas lawyer representing Simkanin, said he would appeal. McColl had asked for a sentence of 41 months at the low end of the federal guidelines. He described Simkanin as a non-conformist American in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau.

"He has a sincere, well thought-out position that is at odds with the government position," McColl said. "Reasonable people disagree about the tax laws. My client is an American citizen who, like Thoreau, walked to the beat of a different drummer."

But prosecutors pointed to Simkanin's long history of law-breaking, saying the last time he filed complete individual and corporate federal income tax returns dates back to the mid-1990s.

"We're going to have chaos in this country if individual citizens are allowed to decide unilaterally which laws are constitutional and which aren't," Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis said. "The sentence for Mr. Simkanin was quite severe and appropriate."

Jarvis noted that Simkanin's defiance of the federal courts continued even after his conviction in January.

In a court judgment entered March 11, Simkanin and Arrow Custom Plastics' new owner, James Keffer, to whom he sold the business Feb. 17, agreed to file employment tax returns for the years 2000 through 2003 within 30 days. The judgment was issued by McBryde in a civil action filed by tax attorneys for the Justice Department in December to force Simkanin to comply with tax laws.

But the requested tax documents were not filed by the deadline, government lawyers said in a motion on April 21, asking McBryde to hold Simkanin and Keffer in contempt.

Simkanin rose to fame in tax protester circles -- and gained the attention of the IRS -- in March 2001 when he appeared in a full-page ad in USA Today with a group of like-minded citizens who announced their opposition to the federal income taxes. Later that year, prosecutors sent Simkanin a target letter notifying him that he was under investigation.

The group behind the ad, We the People, soon portrayed Simkanin as a martyr for the cause of freedom from IRS tyranny.

While under investigation, Simkanin posted a warning on his Web site that spoke of the "fury of a fire" that would consume his adversaries. He wrote to the Treasury secretary that he had repatriated himself from the United States to the "Republic of Texas." He vowed to ignore the laws of the United States.

While tax protesters from the We the People group crowded McBryde's courtroom during the trial, hardly a handful of supporters showed up for his sentencing.

Wearing an orange jail jumpsuit and a blue jacket, Simkanin invoked Scripture, James 5:4. In his view, the passage means that a laborer's wages are withheld through fraud.

His face showed an expression of defiance and sadness. He expressed no remorse for his actions but regretted the effect of his prison sentence on his severely ill wife, Carole.

"I do apologize to my wife for what she will go through in my absence," Simkanin said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Abcdefg]

You seem to making an assumption beyond what the words say.
"Tax Imposed" and then it talks about filing requirements for married people.
I am not saying the law doesn't exist and I pay my taxes. I don't see it in this citation. Maybe I am the one needing glasses

[VRWC_minion]

Read reg 1.

[VRWC_minion]

In the meantime, one of the ways to intepret law is to determine the words have an alternative meaning than the one commonly understood. In as much as 99.9% of the people who read section 1 understand that it imposes a tax on people and determines the rates to apply, what other meaning does it have for the flag fringe group ?

[VRWC_minion]

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE

CHAPTER I--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

PART 1--INCOME TAXES--Table of Contents

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),
on the income of a nonresident alien individual

[VRWC_minion]

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax.

In
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual
who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable
year is, except as provided in section 933 with respect to Puerto Rican
source income, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident
alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see
sections 871 and 877.


(c) Who is a citizen.

Every person born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules
governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title
III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For
rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive,
of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S.
163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to
persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born
in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For
special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost
citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see
section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of
becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a
final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

[Abcdefg]

I can't speak for those people, so don't assume I can or that I am one of them.
Where is regulation 1.1? what section is it in, or can you just cut to the chase and post it?

[Abcdefg]

I posted too soon, thanks for putting the cite out there for me. Works for me.

[ancient_geezer]

Maybe I am the one needing glasses

Perhaps you are, I'd get it taken care of, if I were you:

Refer to reply #53 again, specifically the excerpt of the Melton case, and use the hyperlinks provided to read the text of the tax code sections if necessary, not just the section headers and labels.

• "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
  26 U.S.C. s 1."

Along with the requirement to file:

section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.

Makes you liable to pay tax due.

If necessary we will go into the terms gross & taxable income covered in the statutes as well.

However you may be assured the Supreme Court definitely includes your wages and salaries and any compensation earned within the boundries of what is taxable by statutes enacted by the Congress.

Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

• "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."

• "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "

 

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

• The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.

• "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."

• Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

• "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

[Abcdefg]

Thanks for your patience. I clearly see that the requirement is in the code.

[VRWC_minion]

The Code of Federal Regulations contains the text of public regulations issued by the agencies of the Federal government. Proposed regulations and regulations issued so recently that they are not yet in the Code of Federal Regulations database, may be found in the Federal Register.

The Code of Federal Regulations does not include statutes enacted by Congress, decisions of the Federal courts, or treaties. Statutes enacted by Congress are available, for the most part, in the United States Code. Some of the decisions of the Federal courts (particularly recent decisions) are available through the Federal Court Decisions and Rules page of the U.S. House of Representatives Internet Law Library. A collection of treaties is also available through the Treaties and International Law page of the Internet Law Library.

For a regulation contained in the Code of Federal Regulations to be valid, the agency issuing the regulation must be authorized to issue the regulation either by a statute enacted by Congress or by authority granted in the Federal Constitution.

[ancient_geezer]

Now the real problem is how do we go about the major job, of repealing that tax and putting a tax system more a appropriate to a free society in its place.

[Abcdefg]

We need to take the vote away from the parasites, but how likely is that?

[ancient_geezer]

Taking away the vote is not a particularly good way to go, if you wish to preserve your own.

Why not make sure everyone actually participates in the tax system and are made aware of burdens that government imposes upon us all, not just the few here and there.

To remove perception of the tax burdens of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high and government grows ever larger because a majority of the electorate do not perceive proportionately the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.

The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

 

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

• It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.

[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:]

• "A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person."
  --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

Federalist #12:

• "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:

• "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."

Federalist #21:

• It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. ... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.

[SteveH]

This sounds like a vendetta carried off at the local level (just using the IRS as a handy weapon), although if true it would seem to illustrate or highlight the types of abuses that can occur under the current federal tax system.

I have become acquainted with a local IRS employee. He seems to be working for them as an auditor of sorts, although it is not clear to me (or apparently to many others as well). Anyway, he is different in that, besides being very abrasive even towards people he befriends, he never gives out any email address or USMail address. I imagine that at least part of that is for good reason, but I even know policemen who are less paranoid / private than he is. It makes one wonder, what kinds of things go on in the IRS that would make an ordinary employee go to such lengths to keep his privacy from people he comes into regular social contact with?

I also wonder if you had a chance to check into the taxpayer's bill of rights for any support there? I am not sure if it is applicable to your case in particular, but I believe its overall intent is to curb the types of abuses that your case seems to exemplify.

[Chewbacca]

Seven years, huh?

Great. I guess he can throw all his old tax forms out and start fresh when he gets out of jail.

You only are required to keep 7-yrs worth correct?

[Jaysun]

This isn't such a funny letter to me. There was a note taped to my door two days ago from a "Revenue Compliance Officer" ordering me to call him at once. I called the number and left him a message. Today the guy came to my house an pompously began to rattle off the things that I'm going to need to prepare for his review.

I was livid. First, I paid tens of thousands in taxes last year - and that's before you count gasoline tax, utility tax, telephone tax, travel tax, sales tax, vehicle registration, etc. So I stopped the guy from rambling long enough to say, "I pay enough as it is. If you guys want to rob me for more you're going to have to work for it, because I'm damned sure not going to help you do it." He then told me that I needed to listen and comply for my own sake. I followed that up by telling him that he needed to get the hell out of my foyer for his own sake.

I don't doubt that I've opened the floodgates of hell on myself, but I couldn't resist. They confiscate way too much as it is, then this guy expects me to fall at his feet when he shows up. I'm glad that he left because I was too the point that I wanted to twist his head off. I figured that a refusal to cooperate was better than assault or manslaughter.

[Jack Black]

"We're going to have chaos in this country if individual citizens are allowed to decide unilaterally which laws are constitutional and which aren't," Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis said. "The sentence for Mr. Simkanin was quite severe and appropriate."

Excellent point, your majesty. May I suggest that you next sentence the Mayor and Justices of the Peace of San Francisco to seven years in jail. You can then move on to the County Supervisors in Portland, Oregon. After all in flaunting clear state laws on marraige to advance their personal gay agenda they were unilaterallyl deciding which laws are constitutional.

Oh, nothing is happening to them? It's not a double standard or politically motivated prosecution, is it?

[Jack Black]

Am I the only one who has heard, seen, and participated in shoving it to the IRS? They are a joke!

Personally I live by the old rule, if you don't like the laws, work to change them, but obey them. Now there are obvious limits to this, such as gun confiscation laws, or laws like those passed in Nazi Germany that were simply immoral.

However as much as I dislike the tax laws they don't rise to this level. Taxes are a neccessary evil, and there is, at least, a constitutional ammendment that clearly authorizes the income tax.

Finally I see nothing that makes me think the IRS is a joke. Like other "three letter" organizations they have huge powers, lots of men with guns, a compliant judiciary and a proven track record of destroying those who cross them. I'd probably rather piss off a mob boss than an IRS office.

I don't think they can be defeated with legalisms, as was tried here, but still respect this fellow for following his beliefs. Still I think if he was making $400,000 a year he would have been better off paying his taxes, staying out of jail, and working to fix the system some other way. Alternately if he just really hated taxes he should have hired Terry Heinz's tax accountants. Via trusts, charities, relocations and off-shoring he could probably have paid almost nothing to the IRS anyway.

[Jack Black]

Now the real problem is how do we go about the major job, of repealing that tax and putting a tax system more a appropriate to a free society in its place.

WE HAVE A WINNER !!

[Mad Dawgg]

"A good accountant can save you 50% on your taxes every year, and do it perfectly legally!"

See this is where I have a problem with the tax system!

The system is set up in such a way that I have to either spend massive amounts of time studying tax law or I must PAY someone to make sure I don't over pay the government!

Does anyone else have aproblem with this? Because, it sure does not seem right to me!