Talk:Tax protester arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Attribution

Material in this article was split out from the overly-long Tax protester article. The edit history of this material is contained with that article. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More unsourced, unverifiable tax protester rhetoric

Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user has inserted the following tax protester rhetoric into the article, which has been removed for the reasons stated below:

However, the real thrust of most tax protesters' arguments centers around the IRS's inability to produce the law, in writing, that requires every individual citizen to pay the income tax. Numerous petitions and lawsuits have been filed by individuals and organizations against the IRS for this law, but the IRS repeatedly refuses to show the law, even though the Freedom of Information act guarantees this. This illegal government practice, not allowing the citizens to see or read the law with which they are being forced to comply, is the very hear tof the tax protester movement. Why would the govenrment repeatedly refuse something it should have the obligaiton to do unelss it cannot do it, unless there is no law. In a letter, Senator Daniel Inouye stated that "Based on the research...by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions which...reqire..an individual to pay an income tax." [ . . . ]
However, a recent court has recognized the legality issues of the 16th Amendment. In 2003, US District Court Judge James C. Fox sais, "If you...examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a suffiecient number of states never ratified that amendment." [ . . . ]
More importantly than the legality of the 16th Amendment is the actual powers it conferred. Two types of taxes, direct and indirect, are allowed by the constitution. Direct taxes must be apportioned, meaning divided equally among the people. Indirect taxes are excise taxes, taxes on goods or services that you choose to use. A gasoline tax would be an indirect tax because you coudl choose to ride your bicycle instead. The income tax falls under neither of these two categories and is only claimed to be legal through the 16th Amendment's creation of new govenrment powers and a enw form fo taxation. This claim has been refuted though, not onyl by protesters, but by the Supreme Court itself. In the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining, the Supreme Court ruled "the provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation." Numerous other Supreme Court cases from 1916 to 1923 verified this decision, such as Stratton Independents v. Hogarth, Southern Pacific v. Lowe, Bowers v. Quervo Empire, Burnett v. Harmel, Doyle v. Mitchell. Time and time again the Supreme Court has found there to be no constitutional basis for this tax. The New York Times, on January 25, 1916, reported these finsings to the public, saying, "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax."

This is the usual false information from tax protesters. Aside from violating the rules on Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, the materials are objectionable as follows.

The material repeats the usual false tax protester rhetoric about the “IRS's inability to produce the law, in writing, that requires every individual citizen to pay the income tax.” The IRS has cited the applicable statutes over and over, and some of the statutes are even listed in the IRS instructions for Form 1040. See Tax protester statutory arguments.

The statement that “the IRS repeatedly refuses to show the law, even though the Freedom of Information act guarantees this” is patently false. The Freedom of Information Act does not guarantee that the IRS must show tax protesters or anyone else “the law” that imposes the income tax, etc. And not only has the IRS cited the laws on innumerable occasions, the law is publicly available at local libraries, on government web sites, on the Cornell University Law School web site, etc., etc.

The verbiage about Senator Daniel Inouye and his “letter” is completely unsourced, violating Wikipedia rules on Verifiability. Further, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has never performed any research showing or concluding that there is no provision requiring an individual to pay income tax. Indeed, just the opposite. CRS has even published materials about the application of the Federal income tax laws.

The verbiage about direct and indirect taxes is the same old tax protester rhetoric. Please read Tax protester constitutional arguments and articles on Brushaber and Pollock and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The statement “Time and time again the Supreme Court has found there to be no constitutional basis for this tax” is absolutely false. Since 1913, neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that there is no constitutional basis for the Federal income tax. Indeed, every tax protester argument on this point that has been presented to the Federal courts has been rejected.

Regarding the supposed statement by The New York Times, on January 25, 1916, saying, "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax” – The Times may well have said that, as the courts have said that over and over. That is a correct statement of the law. The problem is that the tax protesters have ignored the rulings in those cases as well as the rest of the text of those cases. The reason the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the government to levy a new tax (specifically an income tax) is that the Congress has always had that power to levy income taxes. Go back and read the actual texts of the cited court cases – not some verbiage from a tax protester. Sorry. Have a nice day. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Please review this article. Try to avoid opinion, limit yourselves only to facts and, for once, open your eyes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fca neo (talk • contribs) .

Dear fellow user Fca neo: Please review this article and try to limit your comments regarding neutral point of view to something that actually points out or discusses neutral point of view. Vague references to "facts" and "opinion," without more, are less helpful than provision of specific examples. Also, the enigmatic statement "open your eyes" itself seems to evoke a non-neutral point of view.

The material in this and related articles has been extensively studied by many Wikipedia editors for many months, and is actually (in my opinion) in very good shape, both from a technical legal standpoint and from the standpoint of the Wikipedia concepts of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. You may want to consider reviewing those rules.

Also, you may want to consider signing your talk page (discussion page) posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which will automatically add your signature. Thanks, yours, Famspear 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed; some hair-splitting

I removed the following sentence:

"These are predomantly [sic] US based arguments that will not stand in most courts in other countries."

I removed it not because it is incorrect; indeed, I would agree it is basically correct. The reason I removed it is that it is arguably original research, or at least unsourced (unverifiable), or both, AND because (at least in my opinion) it's a bit off topic. Yes, the article is about tax protester arguments that are predominantly U.S. based, and that's because the article is about arguments about U.S. law. I don't even know if other countries have the phenomenon of tax protesters in the same way that the U.S. does. And the statement that the arguments will not stand in most courts in other countries, while probably correct, at least arguably misses the point that tax protester arguments never stand in U.S. courts either. Indeed, the arguments are so frivolous that this is essentially why the treatment of this kind of material has been limited in Wikipedia to articles specifically about tax protesters, etc. Yours, Famspear 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a largely meaningless statement, but it brings up a question. Is this article about the United States specifically or about some universal tax protester concept? The current wording of the article implies that it is universal. The article should either be modified to make it clear it applies only to the United States, or modified to include arguments (if they exist) from other countries. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear editor Mateo SA: Hmmmm. Good point. By the way, I'm glad to see you back. I started editing here late in 2005, right around or shortly after the time you were contending with one or more "contributors" who were, in my opinion, seriously degrading the quality of the tax-related articles to put it mildly. As you well know, it's a seemingly never-ending battle to keep the crazy, unverifiable, non-neutral point of view stuff out of Federal income tax-related articles. There is something about Federal income tax that began pulling "certain people" out of the woodwork, beginning especially in the mid-1970s. I have been studying tax protesters and their arguments for years, and a bit more intensely in the past couple of years or so.
Anyway, I have never seen any reference to "tax protesters" (in the sense of people who make totally meritless, frivolous arguments about the validity of tax laws or the application of those laws) in a country other that the U.S., but if you want I will look around and see what I can find. If, eventually, nobody can find anything "non-U.S" on this, maybe we can figure out how the article should be reworded to be clear that it's talking specifically about a U.S. phenomenon, if appropriate. Yours, Famspear 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is a US phenomenon, and have tried to reword the article accordingly LeContexte (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced, non-neutral POV, unverifiable commentary moved from article

The following commentary has been moved from the article to here:

The basic fact is, that the IRS does not assign liability for not paying the income tax. There is NO law requiring anyone to pay a income tax, stating that it is a mandatory tax that individuals are liable for, or assigning a panalty for not paying the tax. It is not sufficient for the IRS and legal system to say, pay your income tax or else.
If there is a LAW stating that the income tax is a mandatory tax, why is it not listed here? What section of the lawbooks is it under? Laws are stated clearly, and if they are not stated they have no effect as a result of being vauge or non existant. Therefor, I challenge any proponant of the income tax to clearly list the LAW here to prove that there is actually a LAW.

More explanation later. Yours, Famspear 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: Dear anonymous user at IP 75.72.81.229: The arguments in the above commentary, (which was posted by IP 75.72.81.229), have been covered over and over here in Wikipedia. Please read all talk (discussion) pages.

The statement that "the IRS does not assign liability for not paying the income tax" is nonsensical. The legal obligation for filing tax returns and paying the related taxes is imposed by statute, not by the IRS. The IRS is simply the government agency charged with enforcing the statute.

Regarding the IRS Tax Code, there is no such thing as a tax that is not "mandatory." There is no such thing as a "table of taxes you are liable for" -- taxes are not listed that way in the statute.

The whole voluntary - not voluntary argument has already been covered and explained.

And, for the gazillionth time, please read the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to:

26 U.S.C. § 1

26 U.S.C. § 11

26 U.S.C. § 6151

26 U.S.C. § 6651

26 U.S.C. § 6011

26 U.S.C. § 6012

26 U.S.C. § 7201

26 U.S.C. § 7203

26 U.S.C. § 7206

All this is covered in much more depth at:

Tax protester

Tax protester history

Tax protester arguments

Tax protester constitutional arguments

Tax protester statutory arguments

Tax protester conspiracy arguments

Please read all these articles in full. Then, if you have any questions, post your questions on the talk (discussion) page for the applicable article. Thanks, Famspear 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the comments by IP 75.72.81.229 challenging "any proponant [sic] of the income tax to clearly list the LAW here to prove that there is actually a LAW" -- aside from the fact that Wikipedia editors have done just that, over and over, I would point out that Wikipedia editors are not here as "proponents of the income tax." Neither are we here for the purpose of proving to you or persuading you that there "actually is a (Federal income tax) law." The obligations to file Federal income tax returns and pay income taxes are imposed by U.S. Federal law, and are easily verifiable by referring to the Internal Revenue Code, the regulations, and the case law, regardless of what you or I or anyone else says. We are here to edit Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Tax protester arguments → Tax protester arguments in the United States This article deals almost exclusively about this phenomenon in the United States. Please discuss at Talk:Tax protester#Requested move. —  AjaxSmack  06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs Correct Title

Tax Protester Arguments is NNPOV. The individuals who dare to stand up against the legal cult are tax freedom advocates. They're not protesting. They're standing up against a system of slavery that was instituted to replace the previous institution of slavery in this nation. They're not doing this by "protesting." They're doing this by refusing to participate in the "voluntary" gift of their legitimate property to an abusive state. 206.124.31.24 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: The purpose of this talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the related article. The term "tax protester" is a legal term; it's use here is not "non-neutral point of view." Although term "tax protester" has negative connotations in the minds of some people, its use in the context of an encyclopedia article about tax protesters is both neutral and proper.
I understand that you feel there is injustice with respect to what you call the "cult," the tax system, the "abusive state," and so on. Wikipedia, however, is not properly used as a cyberspace soapbox for airing your grievances. The internet is a big "place." Please consider looking for an appropriate forum for airing your grievances. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a legal term. That's because your legal cult--backed by the same folks who think slavery is okay--thinks it is legitimate. The point was not that the title has a negative connotation. The point was that it's incorrect. These people are not protesters. These people are people who have been punished for keeping their property. As for your "soapbox" crack--were it not for your use of it as a soapbox and a media outlet for your cult, comment would not be necessary. Further, there was a call to action which you dismissed as a "grievance." It was not. 206.124.31.24 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what to say to that. This is an Encyclopedia. Would you expect to open Britannica and find "tax freedom advocates" as the primary title for such content? WP:TITLE discusses the manual of style for naming articles.
Article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
I'm sorry but "tax freedom advocates" or a similar title is not what the general audience would most easily recognize for the topic content. While you don't consider these activities as tax protesting, the general audience does. Morphh (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why assume the general audience is illiterate?206.124.31.24 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP 206.124.31.24: We don't need to assume, and we do not assume, that the general audience is "illiterate." Indeed, with respect to tax law and tax protesters, a literate, well-read audience is more likely to be aware that "tax protester" is a legal term. A literate audience will also realize that "tax freedom advocates" is simply a term dreamed up by a tax protester somewhere to try to avoid the use of the "tax protester" term. The problem for tax protesters is that this tactic wouldn't get them anywhere. If everyone started saying "tax freedom advocates," then eventually that term would acquire the same negative connotations that now adhere to the term "tax protester" -- which itself originally did not have negative connotations. As long as tax protesters do the things they do and say the things they say, they will continue to cause people to look at tax protesters in negative ways that result in negative connotations for the term "tax protester." And the reason it's a legal term is not that a "legal cult--backed by the same folks who think slavery is okay--thinks it is legitimate". Sorry, but the inclusion of accurate material in encyclopedia articles about legal matters does not convert Wikipedia into a "soapbox" or "media outlet" for the legal profession. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of the article to reflect the fact that these arguments are made not only by tax protesters, but also by tax resisters and people who pay taxes despite a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the judiciary. There may even be more of these sorts of arguments made these groups than by tax protesters. Mpublius 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: We have been through this over and over. If an individual makes the arguments described in the article, that person is a "tax protester" -- by definition. For example, a "refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the judiciary" is, in the context of Federal income tax matters, an example of a very typical tax protester position. We have had many tax protesters post right here, in the talk pages of Wikipedia, statements to the effect that they do not recognize the legal authority of courts of law, complete with angry, blanket charges that the Federal judiciary is corrupt. (Incidentally, a refusal "to recognize the legitimacy of the judiciary" is a legally frivolous position, regardless of whether the refusal occurs in a tax dispute, a contract dispute, a property dispute, or any other kind of dispute.) The arguments described in this article are, by definition, tax protester arguments. They are well documented. Trying to recharacterize tax protesters -- as "tax resisters," or as "people who pay taxes despite a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the judiciary," to avoid the term "tax protester" and to avoid the negative connotation that the term has acquired by virtue of these bizarre kinds of arguments -- gets you nowhere.
Your distaste for the use of the legal term "tax protester", and your repeated attempts to remove the term, are well documented in various articles and talk pages here in Wikipedia. As has been documented for you over and over, "tax protester" is a legal term. In response to your specific objections, we have even added documentation to a Wikipedia article showing how the use of the term has developed in our legal system over the years.
Yes, the term "tax protester" does indeed have certain negative connotations when used to refer to people who make legally frivolous arguments about the validity or application of Federal income tax laws. No, other Wikipedia editors are not going to agree to delete this term because of your personal beliefs or the excuses you have provided. And trying to delete the use of the term in Wikipedia would not change the fact that "tax protester" is a legal term that will continue to be used in courts of law -- whether you like it or not.
I respectfully suggest that you abandon your POV pushing on the whole subject of the use of the term "tax protester" in Wikipedia. Generally, you should not change the title of a Wikipedia article for the reason you gave, especially where consensus is clearly against your position. You have been unsuccessful in your efforts to persuade other editors that Wikipedia should avoid the use of this term. Yours, Famspear 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More rhetoric moved from article

The following material has been moved from the article to this talk page:

More recently, data mining of the Internal Revenue Code and Code of Federal Regulations shows that claims of misapplication have merit. The data mining process can produce a list of taxable income which only lists foreign earned income as taxable, or income that is not exempt. (see What is taxed)

First, Wikipedia cannot take the position that "claims of misapplication have merit." We need neutral point of view here. Second, the reference to "lists of foreign income" is a reference to the "861 argument," which has been uniformly ruled by the courts to have no legal merit, and which is already addressed in the article on Tax protester statutory arguments. Third, this verbiage is unverified, unsourced. Yours, Famspear 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV material moved from article

The following material, which was inserted at the end of a quotation in the article, is being moved here:

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" for the TRUTH, not propaganda, regarding the Unconstitutional and Illegal Income Tax Fraud being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve and the American government.

This language is non-neutral point of view. Also, the article itself already contains at least one link related America: Freedom to Fascism. See the bottom of the article. Yours, Famspear 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that editor Morphh reverted the material. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theorists

An anonymous user deleted the reference to the fact that some conspiracy theorists promote tax protester arguments, on the ground that the reference was "irrelevant." I re-inserted the reference.

I'm not following the logic of the deletion. Irrelevant in what sense?

Some individuals who are "conspiracy theorists" do indeed push tax protester arguments. Not only that, but these people basically argue that the imposition of Federal income taxes in the United States is an illicit, malevolent "conspiracy" that has continued for over ninety years -- even specifically using the word "conspiracy." For example, see Irwin Schiff, one of the most prominent of tax protesters. If you read lots of tax protester literature, you may find that the putative "conspiracy" aspect is a very important focus for many (not necessarily all) people who push tax protester arguments.

I don't have a strong sense that the reference to the "conspiracy theorists" absolutely has to be in the article -- I just don't see the logic of deleting it on the grounds of relevancy. Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: See also Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-post script: Perhaps what the anonymous user was implying was that "conspiracy" theorist is relevant only in the later section that specifically talks about conspiracy (??). If that's the case, then I think the proper argument would be not that the mention of conspiracy theorists in the earlier section is "irrelevant" -- but instead that the mention is "tangential" or "immaterial". On that basis, I guess I would not have a strong objection to removing the reference from the earlier section, as the anonymous user did. Yours, Famspear 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing in before editing. I see no need to subjectively identify particular groups beyond the definition of "tax protester", of those people who can be attributed to the claims in this category. The inclusion of many other groups could be, but are not posited in this article. I do agree however, the proper argument would be that this inclusion is moreso immaterial or tangential than irrelevant. A conspiracy theorist may or may not agree with this section, and the mere addition of this language is distracting to the reader. Avery 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Averykins/Avery: OK, and based on our discussion, I have reverted the article back to your version. Thanks, Famspear 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced verbiage

A new user changed the introduction to read as follows:

Tax protester arguments, more accurately called tax honesty arguments, are a number of theories that deny that an individual is made liable by the law, as written, to file a return or pay an income tax. Invariably, the federal government is unable to prove any such liability nor do they even make an attempt to do so. Tax honesty arguments are typically based on asserted beliefs that the government is administering the tax law outside the limits of the black-letter law and the original intent of the nation's Founding Fathers.

I reverted the material for the obvious reasons. No sourcing, lacks neutral point of view. Also, the statement that "[i]nvariably, the federal government is unable to prove any such [Federal income tax] liability nor do they [the government] even make an attempt to do so" is blatantly and hilariously false. After many years of reported tax protester cases, not one single tax protester theory has ever been upheld by a single Federal court.

As clearly documented in the various Wikipedia articles on tax protester arguments, no one ever even brought a tax protester argument to court in a reported case until after World War II, over 150 years after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, over 80 years after the first Federal income tax in the 1860s, and over 30 years after the inception of the modern income tax in 1913. Tax protester cases did not really start in earnest until 1975, which was 186 years after the Constitution was ratified -- and 62 years after the enactment of the modern income tax in 1913. Famspear 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, all those tax protesters who refused to pay their taxes were held liable for their unpaid taxes and were required to pay them—plus penalties and interest. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And, as far as the hilarious statement that "[i]nvariably, the federal government is unable to prove any such [Federal income tax] liability nor do they [the government] even make an attempt to do so" -- tell that to the members of all the juries who convicted the following present and former jail birds: Irwin Schiff, Charles Thomas Clayton, Bonita Lynne Meredith, Wayne Bentson, Richard Simkanin, William J. Benson, Robert Clarkson, Larken Rose, Kent Hovind, and on and on. I guess the members of all the juries in those cases just figured the government never "proved", and never made an "attempt" to prove, any Federal tax liability against all those defendants in all those cases -- but the juries just decided to send all those people to prison anyway. Famspear 23:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The role of the judicial system section

Can someone please tell me how this section does not violate the copyright policy? The entire section contains a big copy paste of copyrighted text and nothing else. How is this not a violation of copyright? I would prefer to discuss this first before taking any action.JS747 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear user JS747: Under U.S. copyright law, it is perfectly legal to reproduce sections of copyrighted text under the Fair Use Doctrine, as was done here with material that is simply a quotation from Mr. Evans' copyrighted work. Why did you think that merely quoting an excerpt would violate "copyright policy"?
By the way, I believe editor BD2412 has particular expertise in copyright law. Famspear (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not refering to US copyright law. Some of the reasons why I questioned this are as follows. I was referring to the copyright policies and guidelines of wikipedia which state in part:

Contributors' rights and obligations
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either
1.you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
2.you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.''
In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL until they enter the public domain.
In the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy.

It appears to me the this contribution does not meet either of these criteria.

If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates).

The contribution appears to fail to meet this criteria above as well.

What about fair use?
Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted

It also appears to fail to meet this criteria as well.

Acceptable use
Text
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

It also appears to violate this criteria

Unacceptable use
Text
1. Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source.
2. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.
3. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source.
4. All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL.

And this one too. There were a couple of others as well but I'm having trouble finding them and I have to go out right now. I'll get back to them later.JS747 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's an easy answer to the above concern. It happens that I personally asked Dan Evans if I could copy liberally from his FAQ, and he expressly authorized me to do so (so long as he was cited as author of the quoted content). I can probably dig up the email from Evans authorizing this use. bd2412 T 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an easy answer to address one of the above concerns. Cite the permission in the proper manner as defined by wikipedia standards. However, this alone does nothing to address any of the other concerns.JS747 (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm the author of the quoted material in question, and I have no objection to its inclusion, but I question whether it is appropriate, for at least two reasons. First, the quoted material seems to be stylistically wrong, because it is providing an explanation instead of supporting an explanation. An encyclopedia should not be a series of quotations from other sources, but should represent a synthesis of sources. Second, the issue of the role and meaning of court decisions should really be addressed in a broader jurisprudential context, to which this article should refer, rather than creating a second (and perhaps redundant) explanation of what is meant by "law." Evansdb (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dan: On your first point, my sense is that in Wikipedia, your material as a secondary source (a Wikipedia term roughly analogous to "secondary authority," as opposed to "primary authority" in legal research) is actually to be preferred over what Wikipedia calls "primary sources") as providing the explanation -- with the primary sources being used to support the explanation. In effect, the Wikipedia concept turns the rule that we as lawyers are used to dealing with on its head. Whereas in law, the Primary Authority is preferred over Secondary Authority, in Wikipedia the Secondary Source is in some sense preferred over the Primary Source.
Parenthetically, I would point out that I don't particularly like this Wikipedia concept much myself, as the concept is difficult to implement in law-related articles -- where Primary Authorities (Wikipedia primary sources) are sometimes more readily available than Secondary Authorities (Wikipedia secondary sources). There does, however, seem to be a Wikipedia bias in favor of secondary sources as the main support for article material -- as a way of curbing the tendency of Wikipedia editors to engage in unwanted "original research."
I would like to address your second point as well - hopefully I can get to it this weekend.
In the meantime, any improvements to this article that you believe are needed based on your comments, or other changes based on any other concerns you may have, or any suggestions you may have, would be heartily appreciated. Thanks - and thank you for all the research you have done on tax protesters over the years. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section until it can be brought into compliance with wikipedia guidelines I stated above. I have no problem having this information itself included. The format by which it was included it what I have a problem with. 100% of the section was a literal copy-paste from another website. That alone is a violation of WP standards JS747 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work on redrafting the section from multiple sources. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review notice

I think we're close to submitting Tax protester constitutional arguments for Featured Article status. Please help in the peer-review of this article to get it ready for submission. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protestor/tax resister?

Shouldn't there be a note that the USDOJ has begun to refer to those who do not believe there is a legal requirement to pay income tax as tax resisters, as "protesters" seem to imply they have a legal right to not pay taxes (something like that, anyway)? I'm not saying it warrants a page-move, but... —Micahbrwn (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear Micahbrwn: I believe that term mentioned by the DOJ in the quote in the article is "tax defier".
Using the term "protester" definitely does not now imply, nor has it ever implied, that someone has a legal right not to pay taxes. I think the distinction that the DOJ is making is that, for departmental purposes, they're starting to use the term "tax defier" as a synonym for what the courts and the DOJ (and, until 1998, the IRS) have been calling "tax protesters" for over 30 years.
In making that departmental terminology change, there is no implication that the term "tax protester" will now somehow apply to someone who has a legal right not to pay taxes. Indeed, there is no legal right not to pay taxes in that sense. I don't think there is an implication that the courts will necessarily stop using the term "tax protester" in formal court decisions.
What DOJ is talking about is, I think, restricting the department's own use of the term "tax protester" to a person who is refusing to pay taxes he or she legally owes only as a means of expressing opposition to how tax dollars are spent, etc. Such a person is not making a frivolous argument that the tax law is something other than what it really is, or that the tax law does not exist, etc.
Unfortunately, there is no legal right to refuse to pay taxes as a means of expressing opposition to how those tax dollars are spent. In fact, as noted in this or another article, one of the very earliest cases where the term "tax protester" was used was one where the guy was protesting the Vietnam War (early 1970s). He was convicted, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Even if your motives for "protest" are pure, you're still legally guilty if your conduct and mental state go beyond simple speech, etc., and you get into actually refusing to pay or refusing to file tax returns.
"Tax protester" is the generally used legal term -- and it has been used by the courts for over 30 years. "Tax defier" is not really even a "new" term -- just an alternative term.
In short, the only change at this point is a departmental one, within the DOJ. The DOJ is going to refer to "tax protesters" (as that term has usually been used by the courts) as being "tax defiers". Famspear (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was thinking of the term "tax defier". not "tax resister." Still, don't you think what you said above (somehow) should be included in the article somewhere? —Micahbrwn (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)