Tax protesters

 

Tax protesters belong to a group of people who believe they are not the subject which should be taxed. Actually they are tax evaders who think they have uncovered new interpretations of law. But, most of them still simply repeat the same arguments that have been rejected by courts time and time again.
As a result, the conduct of those individuals or groups can be treated as tax resistance. The term expresses the refusal to pay a tax for conscientious reasons. The only one fact is that the resister does not want to support the government or its activities. Typically they do not accept their liability as the tax laws themselves are lawless or do not apply to them as tax protesters do. They personally are more concerned with not paying for what they oppose than they are motivated by the desire to save more money as tax evaders do.
The case of Cheney v Conn took place in the UK. An individual refused to pay taxes because the government` s income would be used to obtain nuclear weaponry in unlawful contravention. His arguments were dismissed when the judge stated that:''what the taxation statute itself enacts cannot be unlawful, because what the statute says and provides is itself the law, and the highest form of law that is known to this country.''
The tax evasion statute is illustrated in Internal Revenue Code section 7201.Tax evasion is defined in the US as follows:
Any person who disobediently attempts in any way to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof will be find guilty of a felony, and so will be fined not more than $100.000, in the case of corporation $500.000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Following the statute and related case law, the prosecution must prove each of these three elements:
" The 'mens rea' or 'mental' element of wilfulness-means the specific intent to break an actually known legal duty
" The 'attendant circumstance' of the existence of a tax deficiency-an unpaid tax liability
" The 'actus reus'- an affirmative act in any mode constituting evasion or an attempt to evade either
1. the assessment of a tax or
2. the payment of a tax

An affirmative act in any mode is sufficient to fulfil the third element of the offence. It means an act which would otherwise be perfectly legal. For example, to move funds from one bank account could serve tax evasion to flourish. If an individual attempts to fill a false tax return the conduct could be defined as an intentional evasion of the assessment of the tax.

Application to tax protestors is the statute which means an exception to the general rule under the US jurisdiction. The general rule states that 'ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defence to criminal prosecution'. Framed by the Cheek Doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a genuine belief that a person is not disobeying the Federal tax law, for example misunderstanding of the tax liability caused by the complexity of the tax law itself, would be a valid defence to a charge of 'wilfulness' (awareness of breaking the tax law), even if the belief is unreasonable. The rule might appear to be of some comfort to tax protesters who stress, for example that salary is not income.
On the other hand, to state that a certain person has such a good faith belief is not so relevant in court. The crucial decision is made by the jury, or the judge in a non-jury trial whether the defendant has the good faith belief they declare. Respecting the wilfulness, the placing of the burden of proof on the prosecution is of restricted utility to a defendant whom the jury does not believe.
The Cheek Doctrine provides the tax protesters with another uncertain restriction. Under the Cheek Doctrine, the mistaken belief that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and the mistaken belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional are not understood as beliefs that a person is not breaking the tax law.
Moreover, other facts have been stated in the Cheek case:
" some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional-they are submissions of a different order; they can not be treated as innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code; they reveal full knowledge of provisions and a conclusion, but wrong; those provisions are unenforceable
Although Cheek paid his taxes for years, he studied the tax law on his own and concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay it.
" The Court stated that the Congress do not realise that a taxpayer could ignore the duties levied without risking the punishment and to refuse to utilise the mechanisms provided by the Congress in order to present his claims of invalidity to the courts; Cheek was free to pay the tax from year to year; without paying the tax , he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court; and what is more he had a right to appeal to a higher court if it would be unsuccessful. Cheek took neither course in some years; in the cases he did he was reluctant to accept the outcome;
It seems that he is in no position to claim his good faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates wilfulness or provides a defence to criminal prosecution. Although he was free in the first case, but like defendants in criminal cases, someone who wilfully refuses to fulfil his liability must take risk of being wrong.
" The outcome of the court has been that beliefs are not a defence to a charge of wilfulness; the arguments about Federal income tax and its constitutionality 'reveal full knowledge of the provisions and a studied conclusion; however wrong, that those are unenforceable', the Supreme Court may have been warning that these constitutional arguments might actually help the prosecutor prove wilfulness.