Replies

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies

These are people who really believed in the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and then was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case against the IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively that irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will get creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the money you paid for the materials, your defense attorney’s fees, the value of your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a sensible individual.

Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

United States v. Schiff; “America’s leading untax expert” is convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of willful failure to file. Some expert!
*

United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
*

Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
*

Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get out of jail. He loses this too.
*

In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied too.
*

Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December 27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse and delay.
*

Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70 (January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana law or the Internal Revenue Code.
*

Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117 (January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S. income taxation.
*

Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No. 94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their affairs specifically to avoid the IRS’s lien for back taxes owed.
*

Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January 21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of government-related entities.
*

Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No. 99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.
*

Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021 (August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code (”IRC”) does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute or regulation that makes him “A PEOPLE, A Private Christian” liable under the IRC; as “A PEOPLE, A Private Christian” he did not earn “wages” or “gross income” as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he had no taxable “income” according to the meaning of the term and the Supreme Court’s definition of the term.
*

McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98 (February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to “Dear Taxpayer” were fraudulent, and that “income” cannot be defined — In addition to losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the court for making frivolous arguments.
*

House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ (January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not “persons” within the meaning of the IRS statutes as they are instead “citizens of the Sovereign State of South Carolina” and cannot be taxed by the United States

Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is unclear.
*

United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.
*

United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has “the Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or implied agreements with the Federal Government.”
*

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have “inland jurisdiction,” that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that they were “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.
*

United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over “sovereign citizens,” that he was not a “taxpayer” under the federal tax laws, and that the word “includes” is a term of restriction, not expansion.
*

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that “freeborn” state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a”person” under the tax code.
*

United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.
*

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.
*

Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments are takings.
*

United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
*

United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as “a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada,” to file income tax returns.
*

United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a “white, natural born, state citizen,” the income tax does not apply to him, that he is not a “person” or a “resident,” and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
*

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.
*

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
*

United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.
*

McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn’t owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.
*

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking.
*

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
*

Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income.
*

Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.
*

Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.
*

Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege from a governmental agency.
*

Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of “income” is vague.
*

Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to impose a “direct” tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on “taxable income,” and that “income” has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
*

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are “natural individuals” who have not “requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government.”
*

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from “sources,” not persons, and that the word “includes” is a term of limitation, not expansion.
*

United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
*

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a “nontaxpayer” because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.
*

McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into the “maritime flag of war.” A Favorite!
*

United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.
*

United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a “person” under the Internal Revenue Code.
*

United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued that as a “white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas,” the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to “Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas,” and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty.
*

Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States, and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.
*

Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla. 1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a “contract” with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security system.
*

United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress’ power to tax does not extend beyond the District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified lawfully.
*

United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
*

Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by “positive law,” that the tax code does not apply to “sovereign citizens,” that the tax code is a bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.
*

Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the government of the United States.
*

McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a “Sovereign Individual,” the “Common Law of the United States of America, a Republic” protected him from penalties for filing a frivolous tax return.
*

Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing foreclosure.
*

Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a “federal land patent” grants an interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.
*

Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a “land patent” which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County Recorder of Deeds Office.
*

Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.
*

United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.
*

City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses unconstitutionally restricts one’s right to travel.
*

State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a “free man” the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him without his consent.
*

State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana’s compulsory automobile liability insurance statutes are unconstitutional.