You know those kooks who go around not paying their taxes and saying there’s no law to make them? Well, a pair of tax-evading renegades in New Hampshire are finding out the hard way that tax evasion can lead to an armed standoff with federal agents. Ed and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire haven’t paid income taxes since 1996, despite being convicted in January of evading taxes on almost $2 million of income generated by Elaine’s dental practice. The pair have cloistered themselves inside a 110 acre compound where they enjoy the glorified lives of tax fugitives. From the LA Times:
Government and law officials have cut off power, Internet, house phone, cellphone, television and mail service to the couple’s 110-acre compound. But their house is equipped with solar panels, a watchtower, a satellite dish and a stockpile of food.
The United States has between 250,000 and 500,000 tax protesters, and not one of them has ever prevailed definitively in court. Even our tax-evading friend from last week, Tom Cryer, should expect a nasty backhanded slap from an appellate court. As for the Brown’s, their fight is not about money:
The government, Ed says, is at a point of “communism in its purist form.”Elaine nods.
“It’s not communism though,” says the Massachusetts man. “It’s totalitarianism.”
“It’s Marxism,” interjects Tibbetts, 60.
“No, no, no, guys, guys, don’t give me that,” says Ed, raising his voice. “I’ve done 15 years of research here.”
Look, just pay your taxes. If you don’t, you may get an unwelcome visit from the IRS’ executive customer support team, better known as the FBI.
N.H. couple evade death and taxes [LA Times]
(Photo: Jim Cole / AP)
More From Consumerist
-
Would You Turn Down Game Show Winnings Just Because Of The Taxes Involved?
-
State Goes After Man For Tax Bill From 1995
-
Reminder: If You Filed A Tax Return Extension, You’ve Got Until 10/15 To File The Real Thing
-
Since We’re Bad At Paying Online Sales Taxes On Our Own, States Want Retailers To Take Charge
-
Amazon Figures Out How To Funnel California Sales Tax Back Into Its Own Pockets
Sorry but if they purchased the land, live “off the grid” without landline phone/electricity/water that tax dollars built, and draw income without using government services (like healthcare subsidies or something)…why exactly should we be upset that they are not paying taxes?
Just keep them off our roads.
oh, i don’t know, i think it’s pretty similar.
hey, i pay my taxes, but to sit here & argue that the IRS & the income tax isn’t built on a house of cards seems very silly. we can talk about how people are fighting the tax based on typos, or we could talk about how the supreme court absolutely refuses to hear any cases that question the legitimacy of the law, or the method of taxation, or whether the taxation fits the definition framed by the constitution & applicable law. we could also talk about double jeopardy or “innocence before guilt” (except in tax court), how different circuits have ruled differently on taxes (seems depending on which circuit you live in, the income tax is a direct or indirect tax, or neither or both).
i <3 tax protesters. as long as they’re around fighting the man, i know i’m safe. plus, it’s always fun to see ppl thwart poorly written laws.
@mac-phisto:
FYI, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, that’s the definition of the law (this isn’t physics). It’s not like there is some abstract “higher” view of the law. Also FYI, when the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal, they’re (a) saying that the Circuit court got it right, and (b) there’s nothing that’s worth reviewing in the decision.
As was pointed out, above, Title 26 is the law that requires you to pay income taxes. In fact, it’s on the very first fucking page.
The reason the IRS doesn’t answer the letters of these loony tax protesters is because:
1. It’s a waste of time.
2. One letter will spark more letters. If the IRS answers one letter, then isn’t it obligated to follow up when the tax loonies ask the next question? Where does it end? Tax law is complicated and vague in some places – if the IRS were obligated to answer every crazy question, it would have to pay a bunch of lawyers to answer taxpayer questions (which, in itself would create issues). Tax protesters have shown no end of ingenuity when it comes to making up wacko legal theories, after previous legal theories get shot down by the courts.
3. It’s a waste of time. If murder is illegal, should I be acquitted of strangling my wife if I had previously written to the sheriff asking him what law made it illegal to murder someone?
A note of clarification on Tom Cryer: the gub’ment cannot prosecute him for the same crime twice. Even if the judge royally fucked up during the trial. That’s double jeopardy at work, folks, as already commented on. What they WILL do, however, is sue him for the taxes he owes. And they’ll win. It’s a lot easier for the IRS to win a tax suit than it is to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Cryer’s failure to file taxes was willful.
@JustAGuy2:
I don’t think this is quite accurate. The legislature writes the law while the supreme court interprets the legislature’s work.
In other words, the supreme court doesn’t get to invent new laws (in theory, at least), they may only interpret existing laws.
I also don’t think this is entirely accurate. They could also be saying that they do not want to review the decision because the results will be a nightmare. They could simply be putting off the decision because the issue is not critical enough.
I’m thinking the former. Let’s say the supreme court did take a look at some of these cases. If they were to find that the government actually does not have the power to enforce the income tax, the result would be mind-boggling. People would be suing for a refund on every penny they ever paid. People would be suing to recover ANCESTOR’S back-taxes. Plus interest. The legislature would have to fight to legally re-instate the income tax and then THAT would be fought up to the supreme court. Legislators and jurists would fight for years over who can collect back payments and how much.
I don’t think the supreme court is declining their cases because they are all too cut-and-dried as much as they don’t want to be the ones to open the political Pandora’s Box. I sure wouldn’t touch it!
@Macphisto:
the cry was no taxation without representation. ie: why should we pay taxes to you. when you are across the ocean, have no idea what is truly going on here, and with very very very little representation in parliament on deciding the colonies fate.
@ bay state darren
i like my tin foil hat, thank you.
@JustAGuy2: actually, FYI, what you are talking about is commonly referred to as “legislating from the bench”. the problem with your incredibly simplistic view of the american judicial process is the assumption that everyone can be right. when you have federal justices making rulings all over the legal spectrum regarding income tax, it’s pretty obvious that the laws need a little tweaking. they can’t even legally define what constitutes income, for god’s sake!
read this snafu of a judgement & then you’ll understand why people protest taxes:
[pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov]
that case has more twists than a sock hop. here’s my favorite part (emphasis mine):
there’s also a great part in there about how a law is a law even before it’s actually a law (see pgs. 17-18 regarding whether a law passed in 1996 applied to earnings prior to 1996).
incidentally, this judgement overturns a previous unanimous decision by the same court less than a year prior. if that doesn’t scream “we don’t know what the hell we’re doing!!11!1″, i don’t know what does.
@mac-phisto:
1. They overturned the prior decision because the gov’t came back with a different line of argument, which is entirely valid.
2. The section doesn’t state that “a law is a law even before it’s actually a law,” it states that, since the Congress went to the effort of changing the law in 1996 to disallow, we can assume that the law prior to 1996 allowed. The court recognized that this was less than an ideal situation, but the law isn’t always perfect or crystal clear, that’s why we have courts in the first place.
3. The point of the section you cite is that, if Congress has the power to tax something, it can tax it, regardless of what it _calls_ it. Congress could decide to call income “snurglebutts,” and pass a snurglebutt tax – so long as the thing that’s being taxed is something Congress has the authority to tax (i.e. is something that Congress hasn’t been banned from taxing), then the tax is valid. The court is looking at the question of what, fundamentally, Murphy’s award actually _is_.
The judgement is dealing with a difficult issue, whether a very particular payment made to Murphy is in fact taxable, and in an area where the law isn’t crystal clear. Notice that the bulk of the opinion is on whether the punitive damages paid to Murphy are actually income, which is somewhat unclear in the tax code, since compensatory damages aren’t generally taxable, and the code is largely silent on punitive damages. If Murphy had been contesting whether her wage income was taxable, the decision would have been two pages long, most of which outlining the sanctions she and her attorneys faced for filing a frivolous appeal.
Is the tax code too convoluted? Yes. Is there clear room for improvement in its clarity? Yes. Is it tough to write a code that takes every eventuality into account? Yes. Is there any doubt among any serious legal scholar that the taxation of income (broadly defined, including wages and salaries) is legal under the Constitution and statutes of the US? No.
People, judgment contains only one “e” in the US.
That said, JUSTAGUY2, I read the opinion the same way you did. But there’s no use trying to argue with the dime-store legal analyses put forth by MAC-PHISTO, whose comment demonstrates the danger of having a little knowledge. It really smacks of somebody with an incomplete legal education.
@pinkbunnyslippers:
What’s wrong with you? Did you even read my post? How do you shut down BROADCAST RF services without affecting EVERYONE around?
@nequam:
You’re right, sorry about the wayward “e”
It is in fact possible to avoid paying taxes, you just have to do it legally. Yes there is a legal way to never again have to pay income tax.
Have your social security number rescinded. If you have your SSN rescinded you are not legally required to pay income tax afterwards.
There are drawbacks to this. Think about how many forms and applications require a SSN (it’s so astoundingly pervasive in modern society it’s stupid). Also you will be forfeiting your social security and any government funded disability rights.
This site ([www.buildfreedom.com]) has a lot of good information about this topic.
Now this is not going to be easy either. Expect to be taken to court by the IRS EVERY SINGLE YEAR for many many years to come. I personally know a man that had his SSN rescinded years ago, and the IRS has been taking him to court every year for at least 15 years. Every time, they get in front of a judge, his lawyer explains the situation to the judge, and the judge rules against the IRS, and grants the defendant attorney’s fees.
It’s a way of life more than a hobby if you catch my drift. The IRS claims that my acquaintance owes them 11.3 million dollars in back taxes (and that was 5-6 years ago), yet every year they fail to collect.
I personally only see this a being a viable option if you are going to make enough money that you will never need to draw social security, but it is in fact legally possible to never pay income tax. I’m guessing that these people did not go about this the legal way, they just stopped paying taxes – not the right way to go.
@jglessner:
This man you personally know who has beaten the IRS (and gotten his legal fees paid) every year for the last 15 years – what courts have these cases been in? You shouldn’t have a problem telling us his name, either, since these court cases are a matter of public record. Frankly, I’d love to meet him, since he obviously knows something that a lot of billionaires with extremely high-priced legal and tax consultants don’t – they’d certainly give up claim to Social Security payments in exchange for never paying taxes.
@jglessner
Oh, yeah, that rambling website just FILLS me up with trust and confidence in their legal reasoning! I mean how can you doubt them when they write such sensible stuff as:
“The main purpose of the Social Security system is to turn people into slaves.
The Social Security Act is a monstrous lie. It was created and devised and intended unjustly, fraudulently, and maliciously to deprive the individual of his/her birthright, good name and character, and to legally steal his wealth. Some people claim that the Social Security Act was a plot to rid the individual sovereign of his absolute rights, and, further that the underlying purpose was to render the individual subject to, and the object of, the tax laws and other related contractual obligations. The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facia evidence that:
1) The numbered citizen is a card-carrying and practicing member of socialism.
2) He has voluntarily waived his absolute right to:
a) Personal Security
b) Personal Liberty
c) Personal Property”
BWAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAA!!!
Learned Hand, eat your heart out!
They have every right to challenge the IRS.
Has anyone ever watched the documentary “America Freedom to Fascism” by Aaron Russo? It’s available on Google video for free (officially authorized)
[video.google.com]
I don’t see these people as crazies trying to evade taxes but rather they are the some of the few who are not awake and not part of the mass sleeping horde. Watch the documentary and make up your own mind.
@JustAGuy2: you got my point, so that works for me. murphy qualifies as a tax protester too, which is why i brought the case into the ring. herein lies a case where it is unclear – even within the context of the laws – whether she owes the tax or not. when a board of federal justices has a problem with rectifying tax codes, i think there is room within our political system for people that feel the tax system needs some reform.
@nequam: and thank you for providing a striking example of someone with a stunted ability to debate. if you have nothing better to offer than an ad hominem attack, why don’t you just keep your opinions to yourself?
Or if you are under 30 and will never be able to draw social security (at least not for retirement) anyway.
@mac-phisto: Ooooh … I struck a nerve. I hope I’ve not discouraged you, however, from continuing your studies at the Wikipedia School of Law. : P
Slavery is involuntarily working without compensation. If you pay 38% of your income in taxes, you are 38% a slave.
Your ‘fair share’ is to keep 100% of the efforts of your labor. Anything other than that, unless given voluntarily, is inherently unfair.
@mac-phisto:
Double jeopardy and the presumption that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty are criminal law principles. The assessment of income tax is a civil matter.
@FinanceGuru:
In Cryer’s case, there was a criminal prosecution for willful tax evasion, in which Cryer was found not guilty (because, due to a quirk in the criminal statute, conviction would require that the accused _knew_ he had an obligation to pay tax – if someone is totally and genuinely convinced that he doesn’t have to pay income tax, he can skate). The IRS cannot attempt to try him on those criminal charges again. It can, and will, however, pursue him civilly, and is extremely likely to win easily and get the taxes plus penalties.
@JustAGuy2: I’m familiar with the Cryer case, and am all too familiar with the distinction between tax crimes and civil tax assessment.
@FinanceGuru:
Clearly you are – should have read your previous post before I commented.
Anyone who owns a “compound” is just asking for it, IMHO!
@some_yahoo:
Is somebody FORCING you to work? Then you aren’t a slave.
@some_yahoo:
Don’t want to pay taxes to the US Gov’t? Don’t live in the US! Makes sense to me.
@bluesunburn:
The poor in the US pay no income taxes.
They’re the ones not paying their fair share.
Should they leave here?
I think so, but that’s beside the point.
“If you don’t, you may get an unwelcome visit from the IRS’ executive customer support team, better known as the FBI”
Nothing, absolutely nothing, would be more embarassing to someone than the IRS Guy showing up at your day flanked by FBI agents and some third-party company to take your stuff from your house. Good thing I pay my taxes.
WV.HILLBILLY – it is called income redistribution for political gain. IE the democrats. Without their troops of dependents that party would cease to exist.
I wouldn’t mind paying taxes if it wasnt spent so frivolously. I’ll pay for roads, parks and improvement and maintenance of our communities but $XXX billions going to a war that I don’t even understand why we are really in is beyond me.
I’d rather put a man on mars.
I am forced into taxes. Did the IRS ask me if I was going to use services this year? I will answer that one for you…NO I don’t want your filthy govt. programs, please allow me public domain so I can ride my horse through your lawn and crap on it.
I had scoliosis as a child,, now bent,, have lifelong Irritable Bowel Syndrome(at 5 days old they called it spastic stomach and colon),,seperated right shoulder, have been abducted by a serial killer/rapist 20 yrs ago(years of therapy, rescued by FBI)in Prague, OK
Relocated from there to make a fresh start {out of the frying pan, into the fire} moved to Spiro, OK where attended welding school. A 6’8″ cop by the name of Dale Whitecotton TRIED to blackmail me out of sexual favors,, 6 stitches in head at ER, and several false PI’s later( 3 months worth),, i got his badge in court ,, worked my ass off all my life,welder, heavy equipment operator, mechanic, till 45 yrs,, now 54,, yet they tell me I am not eligable for disability,, SO tried to be self employed,, THEN,, I made $6000 in 2006,,, that took me a year to pay the $400 i owed uncle sam,, so now the business is OVER,, CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT A MOTHER/GRANDMOTHER/WIDOW/POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME IS TO DO,, SO UNFAIR,,
The good news is I own my own property(w/trailer) , so I am not out on the street,,, just borrow and beg to keep my utilities on,,,
ANY SUGGESTIONS would be well appreciated
Robin