Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. U.S. v. Dickerson, 413 F2d 1111
A person cannot be forced to submit records for inspection. U.S.A. & Fred J. Rosauer v. Johanna; Van Poperin, U.S. District Court of Minn., 4th Div. 4-71 Civil 635
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486,489
IRS summons was not entitled to enforcement if the purpose of the investigation was to obtain evidence for a pending criminal case. Donaldson v. U.S., 400 U.S. 517 (1971)
One does not derive income be rendering services and charging for them. Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed Rep 110
The citizen is immune, has a right to be free from such taxation and regulating, duties, obligations, sanctions as a matter of law. U.S. v. Texas, 384 U.S. 155; Wilson v. U.S., 221 U.S. 361
Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights….Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. U.S. v. Dickerson, 413 F2d 1111
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to the pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform through the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, US Constitution
Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the constitution. Regal Drug Co. v. Wardell, 260 U.S. 386
Pennsylvania declares income tax, graduated style, as illegal, and outlaws it in the state of Pennsylvania. Amidon v. Kane, Pa.279 A.2d 53
Internal Revenue Service could not seize private records even with a seizure warrant. Vincent R. Hill v. Jay G. Philpott, Dist. Dir. Of IRS, et al, No. 18487, Jan. 1971, 7th Cir. Ct. Of Appeals
Jeopardy Assessment of IRS now prohibited by Supreme Court in January 13, 1976. Laing v. U.S., 493 F2d 1211
IRS must obtain a court order to compel a taxpayer to surrender his books, papers and records for audit. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945 (9 C.A., 1973); 26 U.S.C., Section 7402(b) Reasonable compensation for labor on service rendered is not profit. Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 PA. 239
There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. Oliver v. Halstead, 196 V.A. 992
The right to labour and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry. Bogni v. Perotti, 112 N.E. 643
The right to acquire property includes the right to acquire property by labour. State v. Julow, 31 S.W. 781; 48 Am Jur 2d, Sections 1-3
The right of the citizen to choose and follow an innocent occupation is both a personal and property right. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall 321
Federal reserve notes are valueless. IRC, Section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.
A check is not money. School Dist. v. U.S. Nat’l. Bank, 211 P2d 723
The term “person†as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. (Private citizen/individual is not a person) 26 U.S.C., Section 7343
No excise tax may be imposed upon a right secured by the Constitution. Grosican v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax. Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 The individual right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise (tax) cannot be imposed. Redfield v. Fisher, 135 Ore 180
An excise tax involves the exercise of a privilege. Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107
Realizing and receiving income is not a privilege that can be taxed. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455
Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 456
It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)
Taxpayer who alleged unlawful seizure and subsequent use of his tax information could pursue remedy through Bivens action, or through other applicable tort action. Stokwitz v. U.S., 831 F2d 893 (9th Cir. 1987)
Excise tax is one not directly imposed upon persons or property. New Neighborhoods v. WVA. Workers Comp. Fund, 886 F2d 714 (7th Cir. 1986)
Wages are income for purpose of internal revenue. U.S. v. Connor, 898 F2d 942 (3 rd Cir. 1990); Coleman v. CIR, 791 F2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Properly executed levy does not automatically entitle government to taxpayer property. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gill, 960 F2d 336 (3rd Cir. 1992)
Notice of deficiency is “ticket†to the court that allows taxpayer to challenge tax assessment before paying it. Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992)
To prove violation of tax evasion statute, government must demonstrate the existence of a tax deficiency, that the defendant acted willfully, and that the defendant took an affirmative step to elude or defeat the payment of tax. U.S. v. Robinson, 974 F2d 575 (5th Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Beall, 970 F2d 343 (7th Cir. 1992)
When there is reasonable doubt about meaning of revenue statute, doubt is resolved in favor of those taxed. Security Bank Minnesota v. CIR, 994 F2d 432 (8th Cir. 1993)
Objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness. To show willfulness in criminal tax cases, government must show awareness of legal duty. U.S. v. Cheek, 882 F2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1989)
U.S. v. Hilgeford, 7 F3d 1340 (7th Cir. 1993)
Offense of failure to file tax return consists of three elements: 1) defendant was required to file tax return; 2) he failed to file return; and 3) he acted willfully. U.S. v. Nichols, 9 F3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1993)
Unlike treasury regulations, IRS rulings do not have the force of law and are merely persuasive authority. Constantino v. TRW. Inc., 13 F3d 969 (6th Cir. 1994)
Once proper assessment has been made, taxpayer’s recourse is to pay the tax and bring suit for refund. Hempel v. U.S., 14 F3d 572 (11th Cir. 1994)
Tax court decision on questions of statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review. Wolpaw v. CIR, 47 F3d 787 (6th Cir. 1995)
Federal tax liens do not automatically prime all other liens; rather, priority is government by federal common law principle that first in time is first in right. Monica Fuel, Inc. v. IRS, 56 F3d 508 (3rd Cir. 1995)
The state can only tax and regulate something it created. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wallace 418
The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. NY RE: Merriam, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1973)
When section 6020(b) is lifted out of the Code and read literally, as petitioner has done, its scope is broad and its meaning and purpose hazy. But the Internal Revenue Code cannot be so read, for each section is not a self-contained whole, but rather a building block of a complex, interrelated statute. Based on its location in chapter 61 and the lack of any cross-references (other than the word “returnâ€), section 6020(b) is not to be read as a prerequisite to the Commissioner’s proceeding under section 6201(a)(1)(ch.63). Hartman v. C.I.R., 65 T.C. 542 (1975)
The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world. T.D.O. No. 150-01, 51 Fed Reg 9571, 2-27-86
The term “employee†specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, territory, or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. Fed. Reg., Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1943, Sec 404.104, pg 12267
Absent notice, such as where regulation is not sufficiently clear as to warn party of what is expected of it, agency may not deprive party of property by imposing civil or criminal liability. General Electric Co. v. E. P. A., 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Federal Courts must first determine what property or rights to property an individual has under state law in applying a federal revenue act for purpose of determining whether property may be sold for unpaid taxes. Herndon v. U.S., 501 F.2d 1219 (1974)
A failure substantially to comply with the statutory requirements as to the mode and manner or making the levy invalidates the tax; and there must be strict compliance with mandatory procedures…no tax can be sustained as valid unless it is levied in accordance to the letter of the statute. Hough v. North Adams, 82 N.E. 46
Anything that is a right cannot be subject to conditions or licensing. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275
The general term “income†is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Ballard v. United States, 535 Fed.Rep.2d 400, 404 (1967)
With the IRS’s broad power must come a concomitant responsibility to exercise it within the confines of the law. The Court has emphasized that no official is above the law, and that broad powers present broad opportunities for abuse. Mark v. Groff, 521 F.2d 1380
The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer†is bestowed upon them and their property seized. Botta v. Scanlon, 228 F.2d 304 (1961)
A lien is security for a debt, duty or obligation. Hurley v. Boston, 54 N.E.2d 183
A lien is a charge on property for payment of a debt or duty. Harpeth Motors, 135 F.Supp. 863
Lien is a charge on property to secure payment or performance of duty, debt, or other obligation. U.S. v. Phillips, 267 F.2d 374
Secretary of Treasury cannot, by regulations, alter revenue laws. Morril v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466 (1883) $1,000,000 in damages. Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Section 801(a)
Congress does not have the authority and jurisdiction to regulate commerce within the 50 states of the Union. United States v. Scarborough, 431 U.S. 563
Stops levies against personal bank accounts. U.S. v. Nat’l. Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713; 105 S.Ct. 2919
Treasury regulations require that the Form 23-C contain the taxpayer’s name, social security number and address, the name of the corporation, the character of the liability assessed, the amount of the tax, the taxable period involved, and the signature of a responsible officer (26 CFR, Section 301.6203-1). Robinson v. U.S., 920 F.2d 1157; Brewer v. U.S., 764 F.Supp. 309; Curley v. U.S., 791 F.Supp. 52; Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128
If the income tax liability has been established by assessment, there is no authority for summons. Rasquin v. Muccini, 72 F.2d 688
Tips are gifts and therefore not taxable. Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, NV, Judge Thomas W. Clary
We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977)
Government official has power to abate an income tax assessment even after the levy has been made. (26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) Section 6861(g)) Homan Mfg. Co. v. Long, 242 F.2d 645 (1957)
Employee. – For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee†includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee†also includes an officer of a corporation. 26 U.S.C., Section 3401(c)
Employer. – For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer†means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person… 26 U.S.C., Section 3401 (d)
Wages. – For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages†means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer…. 26 U.S.C., Section 3401 (a)
A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax. Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, 502
The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within which the law permits, cannot be doubted. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
An individual who is engaged in lawful, innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation is not subject to any income or revenue tax. All Americans by nature are free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. Included in the right of personal liberty and right of private property is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14
The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws. Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238; Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, 589
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg 2580
26 CFR 301.6020-1 Returns prepared or executed by district directors or other internal revenue officers. Preparation of returns—(1) In general. If any person required by the Code or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return fails to make such return, it may be prepared by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee provided such person consents to disclose all information necessary for the preparation of such return. Responsibility of person for whom return is prepared. A person for whom a return is prepared in accordance with subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall for all legal purposes remain responsible for the correctness of the return to the same extent as if the return had been prepared by him. (2) Status of returns. Any return made in accordance with subparagraph (1) of this paragraph and subscribed by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes. 26 CFR, Section 301.6020-1 Chapter 5200, Internal Revenue Manual – Delinquent Return Procedures
Refusal to file – IRC 6020(b) Assessment Procedure Scope This procedure applies to employment, excise and partnership returns…the following returns will be involved: Form 940 – Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return Form 941 – Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return Form 942 – Employer’s Quarterly Tax Return for Household Employees Form 943 – Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees Form 11-B – Special Tax Return – Gaming Devices Form 720 – Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return Form 2290 – Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles Form CT-1 – Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return Form 1065 – U.S. Partnership Return of Income
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Title 15 U.S.C., Section 17 ARS 44, Section 1404
The law reflects also a Congressional determination that the taxpayer (sic) should be afforded certain procedural rights, which IRS is bound to respect. Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161
Congress has determined that violations of the procedural rights at issue here are exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. 26 U.S.C., Sections 6213(a), (b)(2); 7421(a)
“Excise tax†is not one directly imposed upon persons or property. New Neighborhoods v. W. Va. Workers Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714 (4th Cir. 1989)
Properly executed levy does not automatically entitle government to taxpayer property. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gill, 960 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992)
Notice of deficiency is “ticket†to the court that allows taxpayer to challenge tax assessment before paying it. Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992)
When there is reasonable doubt about meaning of revenue statute, doubt is resolved in favor of those taxed. Security Bank Minnesota v. CIR, 994 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1993)
The mission of district offices is to administer the internal revenue laws (except those relating to alcohol, tobacco and firearms) within a geographically defined internal revenue district and to provide services to, and contact, with taxpayers. 1112.41, Internal Revenue Manual –
Administration Regional director (compliance). The ATF regional official principally responsible for administering regulations in this part concerning commodity taxes imposed by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau, and for collecting tax by levy (other than third-party levy). 47606 Federal Regulation
A state is prohibited from levying an excise, occupation, or privilege tax on activities conducted beyond its borders or jurisdiction. Buckstaff Bath House Company v. McKinley, 308 U.S. 358
Single violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provision prohibiting debt collector from using any false, deceptive or misleading representations is sufficient to establish civil liability under FDCPA. Clomon v. Jackson, 998 F.2d 1314 (2nd Cir. 1993)
Government official has power to abate an income tax assessment even after the levy has been made. Homan Mfg. Co. v. Long, 242 F.2d 620 (3rd Cir. 1952)
Revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment collection and relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. Bartell v. Riddlell, 202 F.Supp. 70 (1962)
Under 26 U.S.C., Section 6211, IRS cannot send a notice of deficiency for an employment tax. (Did they assess a liability for an employment tax?) 26 U.S.C., Section 6211
The power to tax involves the power to destroy. Crandell v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter power to the state, but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817
If taxpayer has informed an IRS agent that he believes that there is an error in assessment and the agent continues levy action, without, first determining if the taxpayer’s argument has merit, such agent loses his immunity from suit. Bothke v. Flour Engineers, 713 F.2d 1405
Offense of failure to file tax return consists of three elements: 1) defendant was required to file tax return; 2) he failed to file return; 3) he acted willfully. U.S. v Nichols, 9 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1993)
To show willfulness in criminal tax cases, government must show awareness of legal duty. U.S. v. Cheek, 882 F.2d 1263
Tax court decision on questions of statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review. Wolpaw v. CIR, 47 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 1995)
When tax returns were filed in plaintiff’s name by her fiduciary declaring income….and making her potentially liable for the tax due on that income, she became a “taxpayer†within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876 (1974)
Statute prohibiting suits to restrain assessment and collection of Federal taxes is directed at the person liable for taxes and is not intended to preclude courts from affording protection to one not liable to taxes whose property may be in danger of seizure and sale by taxing authorities. Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503 (1953)
The general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Ballard v. United States, 535 Fed. Rep.2d 400, 404
Our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145
For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern. Dodd v. U.S., 223 F.Supp. 785
This is where the structure differs. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules simply do not apply. Dwight E. Avis, Head ATF, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Senate Hearing Report, 83rd Congress, House of Representatives, House of Ways and Means 2/3/53 – 2/13/53
Tax protester’s First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances was violated when she was charged with corruptly endeavoring to intimidate and impede IRS agents by filing factually accurate, nonfraudulent criminal trespass complaints against agents after they entered upon protester’s property in total disregard of “no trespassing†signs and protester’s previous letters requesting that her privacy rights be respected. United States v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1106
Judicial Code provisions, rather than Internal Revenue Code provisions, were applicable and would give Federal District Court jurisdiction regardless of compliance with Internal Revenue Code provisions if property owner was a nontaxpayer. Gerth v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 894 (1955)
United States cannot take property from an innocent spouse to satisfy tax obligation of delinquent spouse. Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620 (3rd. Cir. 1952)
A tax penalty must be properly assessed and the taxpayer properly noticed before the penalty is enforceable. Stallard v. United States, 806 F.Supp. 152 (1992)
The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment, it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Penn. Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. (1959), CCH at page 659
The government has proven its case when it has established beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was required to file a return; that he knew that he was required to file a return; and that he willfully or purposefully, as distinguished from inadvertently, negligently, or mistakenly, failed to file such a return. U.S. v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 396; U.S. v. Matosky, 421 F.2d 410 (1970)
Congress has taxed income, not compensation. Connor v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, 1191
An excise tax on the business of a natural person, the business being lawful, not the subject of license nor exercised through a franchised, cannot be graduated in proportion to the net profits. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of the court. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973); U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263
Internal Revenue Service cannot prevail on a deficiency assessment and, thus injunctive relief may be appropriate when the asserted claim is entirely excessive, arbitrary, capricious, and without factual foundation. Shapiro v. Sec. Of State, 499 F.2d 527
The term excise tax and privilege tax are synonymous. American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880
Person voluntarily paying illegal tax has no claim for repayment. Austin Nat’l. Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 242 (1934)
Revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment collection and relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. Bartell v. Riddell, 202 F.Supp. 70
Notice is a condition precedent, its absence invalidates assessment, and waiver not accepted by Commissioner personally did not relieve taxing officials of their statutory obligation to give notice before assessment and collection, and in such situation the federal District Court could, and properly did, bring its equity powers into play, despite statute. Steiner v. Nelson, 259 F.2d 853 (1958)
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction having such jurisdiction (USTC Section 9375) as is conferred under the Internal Revenue Code (22 USCS Section 7442). 20 Federal Procedures, Tax Court Proceedings, Section 48:895
Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co., v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)
It has long been settled, by the solemn adjudication of the Supreme Court, that the United States do not possess any general right of priority or privilege over private creditors for the satisfaction of the debts due to them, founded upon any general prerogative belonging to the government in its sovereign capacity; but that all the priority or privilege which the government is at liberty to assert is or must be founded upon some statute, passed by Congress in virtue of its constitutional authority. S.H. Hawes & Co. et al. V. Wm. R. Trigg Co. et al., 65 S.E. 538 (1909)
Our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145
The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of the court. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)
A lawful tender of the amount due on a tax judgment and a refusal of it, amounts to satisfaction of the judgment. Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190
Internal Revenue Service, with its expertise, is obliged to know its own government statutes and to apply them realistically. Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Const., et al., 713 F.2d 1405 (1983)
Anything that is a right cannot be subject to conditions or licensing. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275
One accepts the advice of a revenue agent at his own peril. United Block Co. v. Helvering, 123 F.2d 704, cert. den. 315 U.S. 818
Judgment liens will not be enforced in equity where they have ceased to be enforceable at law. McCarthy v. Ball, 82 Va. 872
The taxes imposed by provisions 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau shall be collected by regional directors (compliance), the Chief, Tax Processing Center, and other ATF officials designated by the Director of the Bureau. 27 CFR, Section 70.51
District court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to taxpayer who contests IRS levy on his wages where taxpayer alleges that IRS failed to comply with pre-levy notice requirements; if IRS fails to comply with pre-levy notice requirements District Court has jurisdiction to enter injunctive relief for taxpayer. Jensen v. IRS, 835 F.2d 196 (1987)
Prohibition against restraint was invoked where taxpayer claimed withholding taxes were not collected from employees because withholding tax system is not constitutional. Orr v. Dietrich, 331 F.2d 52 (1964)
A state may not charge for nor tax a common law right which existed at the time of the formation of the state. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
If a taxpayer has informed an IRS agent that he or she believes that there is an error in an assessment and the agent continues collection action, without first determining if the taxpayerՉ۪ argument has merit, such an agent loses his or her immunity from a suit, and becomes personally liable for any damages inflicted upon the citizen. Bothke v. Fluor Engineers, 713 F.2d 1405 (1983)
One who voluntarily pays tax has no legal claim for its repayment, but one who pays more tax than law requires, under duress, has such a claim, and that duress could still be implied from institution of administrative or legal proceedings. Lincoln Nat’l. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 632 S.W.2d 227 (1982)
Section 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (I.R.C.) states: “No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed,†with certain exceptions, one of which is a civil action by a nontaxpayer who claims that his or her property has been the subject of a wrongful levy. Hollingshed v. United States, 85-2 USTC, 9772 (5th Cir. 1985)
The taxing authorities cannot assess a taxpayer who has neglected to make a return for a particular after the expiration of that year. Schmuck v. Hartman, 222 Pa. 190; 70 A. 1091 (1908)
It is a long recognized legal principle that a husband and wife are separate and distinct taxpayers even where they have filed a joint Federal income tax return. A determination for a particular year against a husband who filed a joint return with his wife is not res judicata against the wife for the same year…A wife who files a joint return with her husband is not a party privy to her husband in (income tax) litigation…. Henry M. Rodney, 53 T.C. 287, 307 (1969); Moore v. United States, 360 F.2d 353, 357-58 (4th Cir. 1966); Herrington v. United States, 416 F.2d 1029, 1034 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1001
Warrantless automobile seizures, which occurred in public streets, parking lots, or other open areas, involved no invasion of privacy and were not unconstitutional. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co., 18 How. 272, 351-52
The warrantless entry into the privacy of petitioner’s office by IRS agents violated the Fourth Amendment, since except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is “unreasonable†unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29; G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 358
The respondents (I.R.S.) offer no legislative history in support of their reading of Section 6331, and to give the statute that reading would call its constitutionality into serious question. We therefore decline to read it as giving carte blanche for warrantless invasions of privacy. Rather, we give it its natural reading, namely, as an authorization for all forms of seizure, but as silent on the subject of intrusions into privacy…We therefore conclude that the warrantless entry into petitioners office was in violation of the commands of the Fourth Amendment. G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 358, 359
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Title 15 U.S.C., Section 17;
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a citizen does not become a taxpayer until after he enters a civil contract with the I.R.S., by filing a tax return for the year involved. Morse v. U.S., 494 f.2D 876 (1974)
Taxes are not “debts.†Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 318; McKeesport v. Fidler, 147 Pa. 532; 23 A. 799; City Council of Charleston v. Phosphate Co., 34 S.C. 541; 13 S.E. 845
Liability to pay taxes arises from no contractual relation and cannot be enforced by common law proceedings, unless a statute so provides. Schmuck v. Hartman, 222 Pa. 190; 70 A. 1091
No matter how equitable a tax may be, it is void unless legally assessed. Joyner v. School Dist. Number Three, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 567;
The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, or to limit and distinguished between one kind of income tax and another; but its purpose is to relieve all income taxes when imposed form apportionment from consideration of the source whence the income is derived. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1
For taxation purposes there are fundamental distinctions between individuals and corporations. Kentucky R.R. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337, 339; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339
In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 557
Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 110
The terms duties, imposts and excises are generally treated as embracing the indirect forms of taxation contemplated by the Constitution. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 151
The requirement to pay an excise tax involves the exercise of privileges…..If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 @ 151, 152
The Constitution contains only two limitations on the right of Congress to levy excise taxes; they must be levied for the public welfare and are required to be uniform throughout the United States. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 153
Income tax return facially indicated that taxpayer’s self-assessment was incorrect and that his position was frivolous; thus, taxpayer, who had claimed that he was a natural individual and unenfranchised freeman who neither requested, obtained nor exercised any privilege from any agency of the government, could be assessed a penalty for filing a frivolous tax return. Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (1984) Tax Court
Although the Tax Court was upgraded from an executive agency to an Article I “legislative court†in 1969, that change did not extend the jurisdiction of the court to the full judicial power over “all cases, in law and equity,†that is vested in “constitutional courts†under Article III. 20 Federal Procedures, Tax Court Proceedings, Section 48 : 895
Tax Court is a legislative court, and that a Legislative Court is a court created by Legislature not named or described by Constitution. Gorham v. Robinson, 186 A. 832
The tax court’s jurisdiction is confined to determining the amount of deficiency or overpayment for the particular tax year for which the commissioner has sought a deficiency and the taxpayer has filed a petition for review; the tax court has no jurisdiction to order or to deny a refund, or to decide equitable questions; the taxpayer must resort to the district court or the court of claims for a resolution of such disputes or for an order granting a refund. Morse v. United States, 494 F.2d 876 (1974)
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction having such jurisdiction (USTC Section 9375) as is conferred under the Internal Revenue Code (22 USCS Section 7442). 20 Federal Procedures, Tax Court Proceedings, Section 48:895
