Volume 9 No. 2 - Adask's law

fenses used by illegal tax protesters have been
routinely dismissed by the courts. Illegal tax
protesters, however, ignore these decisions
and claim that no one from the Government
will answer their questions.
Even if IRS agents answer our questions,
we may not rely on their answers.
According to the United Block Co. Inc.
vs. Helvering Commissioner of Int. Rev.
decision of 1941, “taxpayer accepts
advice of revenue officials at peril of
taxpayer.” I.e., even if government answers,
there’s no assurance the answers
are correct, nor are IRS agents
liable for giving faulty advice.
Some of the more common tactics and
defenses raised by illegal tax protesters and
rejected by the courts are: (1) the income tax
is voluntary, 10 (2) wages are not income, 11
(3) the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly
ratified, 12 and (4) the IRS has the duty to
prepare tax returns for the taxpayer. 13
Good faith vs. true faith?
One defense that must be carefully
handled is the “good faith” defense, which is
used to refute willfulness. Illegal tax protesters
routinely attempt to prove that they “believed”
they did not have to file tax returns or
pay taxes. Many of the reasons they use,
such as the ones mentioned above, may seem
unbelievable. Nevertheless, this is an issue
that must go to the jury. In the seminal case
of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201
(1991), the Supreme Court held that a
taxpayer’s “belief’ that he or she was not
required to file a tax return, however incredible
such a misunderstanding of and beliefs
about the law might be, does not have to be
objectively reasonable. Rather, the standard
is subjective.
Still, this defense is not insurmountable.
(Cheek claimed that he did not file tax
returns because he believed that he was not a
taxpayer within the tax laws, that wages are
not income, that the Sixteenth Amendment
does not authorize the taxation of individuals,
and that the Sixteenth Amendment was
unenforceable. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 195.)
[Please see the following article, “Good Faith
vs. True Faith” for further consideration of
the faith/belief elements of modern tax prosecution.]
In an attempt to present a good faith
defense, most illegal tax protesters will attempt
to introduce copies of the Constitution,
the IRS Special Agents Handbook, various
court decisions, protester publications,
as well as other documents. The admissibil-
ity [but not validity] of these documents is
generally left to the discretion of the court. 14
To limit or prevent an illegal tax protester
from introducing these documents into evidence,
consider arguing that (1) the content
of these documents are more prejudicial than
probative 15 [the Constitution is “prejudicial”?
Ha!] and (2) the admissibility of these documents
invades the province of the court to
instruct the jury on the law. 16 [The law is
only marginally relevant in courts of Equity.]
The key is to distinguish between a misunderstanding
of the law versus a disagreement
with the law. Whether to object to the
admission of these protester documents [the
Constitution and IRS “Handbook” are “protestor
documents”?!] however, is a trial strategy
that varies from case to case and circuit
to circuit.
Whether or not the documents themselves
are admitted into evidence, a defendant
will generally be allowed to testify about
his or her beliefs during the prosecution period
and what he or she relied on to form
those beliefs. 17 Evidence about what the law
is or should be may be excluded. However,
evidence that is relevant to a jury’s determination
of what a defendant thought [believed]
the law was may not be excluded. 18 A defendant
who testifies that he or she knew the law,
but disagrees with – or does not like – the law,
is not entitled to a good faith instruction. 19
I suspect judges give a “good
faith instructions” to juries to provide
a handy excuse to find the defendant
Not Guilty of a criminal offence by virtue
of their defendant’s intent. If you
wanted to extend the spiritual interpretation
of these trials, the “good faith
instruction” is something like a blessing,
benediction, or even a “Papal indulgence”
wherein the penitent (now
seen to be a “remorseful” member of
the state’s church of “good faith”)
might be ordered to say 100 Hail
Reno’s rather than go to jail. If you got
“good faith,” baby, you can’t be convicted
of a crime. The problem is that
statutory “good faith” and spiritual
“true faith” in God are mutually exclusive.
If legal documents, protester publications
or similar protester-type documents
[articles of the defendant’s belief/faith] are
introduced or if the defendant is allowed to
testify about what the law is, ask for a limiting
instruction. [Apparently, only the lawyers
and judges can testify on “what the law
is”. The rest of us are bound like medieval
serfs to unquestionably believe and obey our
“high priests”.] Such an instruction should
remind the jury that the document/statement
is the defendant’s understanding of what the
law was; that the jury is the judge of the
facts, not the law [Which “law”? The
judge’s? The legislatures? The Constitution?
The statutory “faith”?]; and that the document/statement
was admitted solely for the
purpose of showing the defendant’s state of
mind and not to prove the actual requirements
of the law.
Finally, because illegal tax protesters do
not limit their illegal schemes to the Federal
arena, do not forget to look for documents
that may be on file with a state or county
government, such as state tax returns or property
tax filings. These records, or the lack
thereof, may serve as evidence of willfulness
[lack of statutory “good faith”] in the Federal
case.
Ms Ihlo apparently refers to Protestors
who argue they are “Citizens”
of a constitutional “State” (like “Texas”)
and therefore not liable to pay Federal
income tax. But Ms. Ihlo misstates that
argument by alleging the Protestors
claim to be “citizens” of a corporate
“state” (like “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS”
or “TX”) which they believe is simply a
franchise (harlot) of the “mother” corporation
called “UNITED STATES”.
Whether the Protestors are right or
wrong remains to be seen. But their
arguments usually have much more
complexity and legal depth than Ms.
Ihlo implies. . . . In a sense, Protestors
are statutory non-believers. What does
any belief-based government do with
infidels? Jail ‘em. At best.
Coordination and
communication
As important as coordination and communication
have been to the expansion of
the illegal tax protester movement, both have
also been critical to the United States’ attempt
to bring illegal tax protesters into compliance
[belief] with the tax laws. Providing
coordination and promoting communication
is a principal role of the Tax Division. With
roughly 20 years of experience in prosecuting
these cases, the Tax Division has amassed
a collection of responses to the motions filed
by illegal tax protesters and is currently developing
a motions bank of these materials.
Identification of nationwide schemes to avoid
overlap and successive prosecution issues is
also one of the Tax Division’s core functions.
36 ANTISHYSTER Volume 9 (1999 A.D.) www.antishyster.com adask@gte.net 972-418-8993