Tax cheats don't draw comic strips

[Monkey Angst]

Sorry about the lack of a strip today, but all my free time is being consumed by a notice I received from the IRS indicating that I need to pay an additional $500 on my 2005 return. Right now I'm up to my ears in paperwork trying to figure this out, and I'm afraid there isn't any mental faculty left for cartooning, or hygiene or eating, for that matter.

If I get this sorted out, I'll draw a strip. If not, well, I suppose I'll be in debtor's prison or something. They still have those, right?

[Loki]

So, you're one of those evil tax felons, like most naive or wimpy 'merikans?  I would have hoped for better from dissident political satirists. 

The 'Insidious Racketeering Scheme' regulations are so at odds with the law and so laden with fraud that signing a 1040 in most cases technically amounts to one or more felonies, however rarely prosecuted.  That's true for a range of reasons, from fraud in Philander Knox's certification as if ratified of the 16th Amendment and fallback for lack of valid ratification to an 1895 SCOTUS precedent holding a similar post-Civil War tax scheme as unConstitutional, to conflicts wherein it's impossible to create an auditable definition of "income" which can be applied equally to US citizens without violating many other rights (eg, 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th Am's especially), to intentional fraud in IRS interpretation of "861" and other Tax Code provisions, to so many complex and often conflicting provisions that most IRS "customer service" staff and tax professionals can't figure out what it's supposed to mean, leaving the entire tax code "void for vagueness". 

It's only a misdemeanor to refuse to commit one or more felonies by filing false returns sworn under 18 USC 1001 et al statutes, under law designed to get anyone if they want because there is no way to fully legally comply without both waiving many civil rights and structuring one's life to have cash flow very far below the poverty level. 

As to who the DOJ approves prosecuting, they save the ninja thug SWAT style home invasions not for people who they claim owe money, but to censor highly legally protected speech, and in turn intimidate others into playing along with the criminal racket rather than dare to stand up and try to obey the law and work to eliminate the IRS.  Dr. Tom Clayton is their current target down in Texas, because he dared to fund Larken Rose's video and Web site about how the IRS violates its own law over Section 861 misinterpretation.  They're trying to kill Irwin Schiff by "diesel therapy" (where they run an elderly, poor health political prisoner around the country in irons, making communication difficult and stressing the target emotionally and phsyically), as apparently the IRS doesn't like books about the "IRS Mafia" based on actual experience with how they don't play by their own rules in court when challenged. 

If you somehow think IRS records are an accurate basis for that criminally implemented tax code, think again.  Among other things the IRS has accused me of over the years is not reporting a 1099 client payment of low 5 figures, which they jumbled and showed as the IRS itself paying me.  If you inspect the law about filing of returns being voluntary, only if one wishes to challenge the pro forma return and bill the Secretary of the Treasury of his designee is responsible for preparing, you might find they never prepare such returns according to the law, and in cases where they do so after the fact, ignore expenses and deductions while treating all cash movement, including obvious lateral transfers between accounts, as if net taxable income.  IOW, they use mafia thug extortion tactics because it's impossible to implement the Tax Code enacted by Congress and comply with the Constitution plus be consistent with just that Tax Code itself. 

When the IRS accuses someone of being a cheat and sends letters to banks or securities dealers to seize assets, who's the crook?  The 2nd Circuit ruled that requires a court order, whereas the IRS intimidates most financial institutions in conspiring in what is rightfully a criminal extortion and theft racket.  How do we prosecute the IRS, when the DOJ is a criminal co-conspirator?  In the case of prosecution of Dr. Clayton for funding Web speech and an educational DVD critical of IRS illegal activities, the US Attorney's office was contacted about a civil rights prosecution of the IRS.  The DOJ said don't bother, as it would be a conflict of interest, since DOJ is working with the IRS as a party to that illegal speech censorship and related violent intimidation and political prosecution conspiracy. 

As to criminal law and Federal prosecutions, most people think the standard is based upon whether someone violated what the law may appear to codify as criminal.  That's not true.  It's primarily a business decision, with a financial cost of prosecution and benefit matrix, where in many US Attorney districts cases below $100,000 value are below the threshold for prosecution unless they're selected for one of three alternate reasons.  One is a private, usually commercial organization, doing the investigation and handing it to the Fed's, such that the cost-basis is reduced and may qualify at $5k or $10k level.  In theory that differential enforcement of law isn't seen as illegal.  The others are if someone is a political target and all other policy is suspended, or if there's a political lynch mob effort, such as the Gonzales prosecutions of plain text sexual fantasy web sites containing zero legally "obscene" speech, but tripping the Rabid Religious Reich lynch mob pandering button to use government to violate rather than protect civil rights. 

As to the IRS, except for a few cases of non-citizens or territory residents with simple financial circumstances, it's nearly impossible to not be a tax felon without being a nonfiler, as about a sixth of Americans are.  In those cases, it's nearly impossible to not be both at risk of IRS persecution [sic, & sick], and commit misdemeanor violations of circular and highly questionable law which penalizes noncompliance with fundamentally illegal regulations, without also structuring one's life to survive largely outside the economic systems intrinsic to this society. 

This country needs more people who stand up and refuse to play along. 

As to criminal government enterprises, which is the most obnoxious relative to domestic and international rights laws?  The Insidious Racketeering Scheme, the largely drug policy and partially sexuality based 'Prison Industrial Complex' (as defined by Noam Chomsky), or its predecessor and recurrent major player under the Bush regime, the Military Industrial Complex? 

More importantly, how might we expeditiously topple any or all of those? 

[Monkey Angst]

Ah, yes... the tax protester, a perennially-blooming flower of internet discussion forums. Is it the first of the year already?

Rambling, incoherent post roughly as long as the tax code itself? Check,
Assertions of the tax code as illegal through tortured, convoluted interpretations of obscure points of law? Check.
Irritating
Allegedly-humorous reassignment of initials for the IRS? Check
Profoundly condescending, snotty dismissal of anyone who disagrees, probably using the word "naive?" Check. Points off for not using "sheeple," though.

You mentioned that the 16th Amendment was certified "as if ratified." Pray tell, which of the hoary old saws about the ratification of that amendment is your basis for this -- That Ohio wasn't a state? That Taft wasn't an American because Ohio wasn't a state? That there were semicolons instead of commas in some of the texts? Or maybe something new this time?

The sixteenth amendment and the tax code (USC Title 26) have been repeatedly upheld by the courts. But of course, your knowledge is superior, because you don't want to pay your taxes. 

More importantly, how might we expeditiously topple any or all of those? 

"We" being tax protesters? Topple anything? HA! Right! First start working on making coherent points if you want anyone to take you seriously. You might start by not referring to your audience as "naive" or "wimpy" in your opening sentence. Until then, people will take you for little more than a smug asshole, and with very good reason.

[virginia monkey]

Well my only advice is find out what their talking about quickly because the IRS has some nasty penalty fines, a school org i was part of filed incorrectly on one tax return and had $1500 penalty on top of back taxes because they forgot to check the second nonprofit box.

[Monkey Angst]

Well my only advice is find out what their talking about quickly because the IRS has some nasty penalty fines, a school org i was part of filed incorrectly on one tax return and had $1500 penalty on top of back taxes because they forgot to check the second nonprofit box.

Yeah, I'm taking care of it. It was an error on my part, not including a Schedule D with my return -- so they didn't know that the stock options I sold last year were already included on my W-2.

[virginia monkey]

Well my only advice is find out what their talking about quickly because the IRS has some nasty penalty fines, a school org i was part of filed incorrectly on one tax return and had $1500 penalty on top of back taxes because they forgot to check the second nonprofit box.

Yeah, I'm taking care of it. It was an error on my part, not including a Schedule D with my return -- so they didn't know that the stock options I sold last year were already included on my W-2.

well just be happy that they didn't sic the tax collectors on you. seen as they use shotguns and the like. especially the outsourced collectors.

[Debt On]

I'm with Loki.  I'll happily pay my taxes when my government stops killing people with the money.

[Monkey Angst]

I'm with Loki.  I'll happily pay my taxes when my government stops killing people with the money.

And a lot of people would happily pay their taxes if the government would stop giving the money to poor people. Or old people. Or schools. If everyone tied paying their taxes to their pet boondoggles, we'd have no revenue at all.

I believe in stopping the war, but it's a lame excuse not to pony up for the things the government should be doing.

[Debt On]

But if Thoreau had never done it we wouldn't have gotten that great article about Civil Disobedience.  Even if the government does a few things right, it's hard to pony up when they get so much of it wrong.

Lots of people withhold taxes and donate it to charity.   Nothin wrong with that. 

(For the record, I pay my taxes.  My job makes me.)

[Monkey Angst]

But if Thoreau had never done it we wouldn't have gotten that great article about Civil Disobedience.  Even if the government does a few things right, it's hard to pony up when they get so much of it wrong.

Agreed. But my input on those matters takes place at the ballot box. It might make me feel better if I withheld my tax dollars, knowing that I wasn't funding the military-industrial complex, but then I'm also a believer in the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words, don't hold yourself to a different standard than everyone else. If I refuse to pay my taxes, I'd have to be comfortable with the end result of everyone else doing so too. And I'm not.

[Debt On]

That's too bad.  I think it would be GREAT if everyone didn't pay their taxes. 

As for voting, it only encourages 'em.  The only things they listen to is money and power.

[Pym]

Coming from a highly taxed country, but with a multitute of social programs I can see the annoyance of overtaxation...
   But DebtOn you say if everyone didn't pay their taxes it would be 'GREAT'.  What do you think would happen?  What would be so 'great'?  And please avoid the 'that would show 'em' argument... I just want to know if you actually have some reasoning here...

[Debt On]

Is this a test?  And how does the "that would show 'em" argument avoid reasoning?  Seems like a good enough reason to me...

But to expand on that,

1.  If everyone didn't pay their taxes for political reasons it would demonstrate a profound dissatisfaction in the public with the current government.  It would also show a greater public participation and awareness in politics, something that I think is very necessary.

2.  Neither US political party even comes close to the politics I'd want them to, which makes me think the changes I'd like to see would require a very fundamental and structural shift.  That kind of lack of participation could be a catalyst for that shift.

3.  Most people paying taxes see only a minimal return from that investment, especially from the federal government.    No college, no health care and poor public schools (mostly funded by local property taxes).  The temporary drying of the well could lead to a more sensible distribution of the water.

[Traitorfish]

I'm all for taxes, in principal, but like Debt On said, the US is doing some stupid stuff with the cash (and the UK is only marginally better). The problem doesn't really lie in taxes, though, but in several fundamental flaws in western, particularly American, society.
Mass refusal to pay taxes as a protest could be a good idea, if you organised enough people to do it. Problem is, a protest like that may well get taken over by stupid freaking suburban middle class neo-liberal scumbags (yeah, I'm not very tactful), which would destroy any real underlying meaning.

[Monkey Angst]

Problem is, a protest like that may well get taken over by stupid freaking suburban middle class neo-liberal scumbags (yeah, I'm not very tactful), which would destroy any real underlying meaning.

Already has been. I know maybe two people who don't pay their taxes out of objection to the war or other issues. Most of the tax protesters I've encountered just don't want the gummint to get "their" money.