Talk:Tax protester/Archive 9

Zeitgeist reference deleted per Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment
Pursuant to the overwhelming consensus reached at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, attempts to introduce discredited tax protester theories as "fact" will be deleted on sight. Because the theories put forward in the Zeitgeist film are exactly that sort of nonsense, any reference to the film as factual will equally be deleted on sight. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Although Famspear correctly reverted this edit by 69.177.13.165, an anon who had deleted my comment and replaced it with his own vulgar rant, I am restoring the comment made by 69.177.13.165 because it is important to bring under the light the sort of thing which Tax protesters have been lead to believe. The comment added by the anon was:
 * THIS JUST IN FUCKERS THE MOVIES TRUE AND PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO PAY TAXES AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO COVER IT UP THE TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS
 * Where the "truth" has prevailed, however, is in the article, and not on the movie to which this protester refers. If people didn't have to pay taxes, we wouldn't. However, over two-hundred years ago, the people of the United States entered into a contract with one another. The contract was this: we would all agree to abide by a government to be formed among ourselves, to pay taxes as needed, to obey the law, and occasionally even to go to war with other countries, all in exchange for the guarantee that we would have a government which would do its best to protect us from foreign enemies, pass laws designed to keep moving the country forward, and enforce those laws. The government has kept its end of the bargain by fighting our enemies around the world, locking up criminals who are a danger to us all here at home, forcing people to keep their express and implied contractual obligations, and atone for injuries they cause to others.
 * The film that the anonymous poster cites is one in which people who don't like paying taxes develop a theory for why the aforementioned contract between the people has ceased to exist, thereby alleviating them of the need to pay those taxes. However, a government once instituted does not cease to exist without knowledge of the people due to the occurance of some archaic forumla of events. The film (and the anon, by advocating it) suggests that the people are being tricked into believing that the government continues to exist. But in fact, it is the belief of the people itself which causes a government expressly contingent on the consent of the governed to exist. If the anon were correct, every murderer now sitting in prison would have to be set free, because there would be no legitimate government having put them there. But there is simply no basis in fact to deny the continued existence of the United States, as there is no evidence to show that the majority of Americans do not believe that the United States continues to exist. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 20:55, 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) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issue; Rubin, Chodorov
User Arthur Rubin seems intent on keeping the article as it is, with a strident pro-American-nationalist-statist bias. It should not up to A. Rubin or wikipedia to decide what is and what is not 'fringe' or mainstream; the reader must be given neutral info and then decide on his own. If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited. I mean, are people like Frank Chodorov really that 'fringe' or psychopathic? It is indeed possible to be a coherent thinker and not divinize the centralized, statist policies of modern American government.

Or does Arthur Rubin consider himself an indisputable authority and entitled to coercion of his opinion on others in the manner of a monarch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.32.112 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're attempting to describe the world as it is, not as it should be. I can concur that the income tax is immoral without agreeing that it is, or even should be, illegal.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Arthur Rubin, the income tax exists, as is demonstrated by the billions of dollars paid pursuant to it annually. It is certainly proper to report that courts and experts have characterized the opinion that it does not exist as a fringe belief. bd2412  T 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you fellows are not listening. Wikipedia should not unqualifiedly cite pro-government sources who state that tax-protesters' arguments are "bizarre" and leave it at that. Who the heck is Evans?

Courts report it is a fringe belief? So what. Is Wikipedia an agent of the American government or an independent encyclopedia? American courts have reported that witchcraft is real and massacred children due to the "court's judgment" (Salem). Mafiosi similarly state that the concept of the Mafia is an "anti-Italian conspiracy theory." So what? We can report the statements of American courts, but an encyclopedia should not be the slavish lackey of any all-too-human wielder of power.

Whether the tax-protesters arguments are sound or not is a POLITICAL JUDGMENT. If Wikipedia is going to cite a pro-statist source, then they should also cite a reasonable alternative source (like Chodorov) for the sake of balanced objectivity.

If we just categorically judge all tax-protesters as insane schizophrenics with "bizarre" arguments, how has our understanding progressed?

An objective encyclopedia does not make political judgments. I mean, should Wikipedia describe the current Iraqi guerilla war as legitimate resistance movement against militaristic American occupation or a lawless terroristlike insurgency against lawful authority? Encyclopedias should present arguments from BOTH and ALL SIDES, not be feudal servants of any particular political regime, and suspend political judgment so the reader can think on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear IP172.129.32.112/63.3.10.129: A "strident pro-American-nationalist-statist bias?". "Political judgments"? What "political judgments?" Iraq guerilla war? Hold the phone a second.


 * No, Wikipedia rules do not require that reader be given "neutral info". The Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View provides that the sources themselves can be biased, as odd as that may sound to a newcomer! Instead, Neutral POV requires that competing "biased" viewpoints be presented without Wikipedia itself saying who is right and who is wrong (it's more complicated than that, but I'm simplifying here) -- with a caveat.


 * The caveat is that Wikipedia is not required to give, and should not give, equal weight to all sides -- and especially should not give equal weight to fringe positions. What is a fringe position is determined by the weight of the authorities in the applicable field. In the case of tax law, the final authority on what the law is under the U.S. legal system is a court of law.


 * In the case of tax protester arguments, the overwhelming weight of authority is that tax protester arguments are not only fringe positions, but have absolutely no legal merit at all. Tax protester arguments are classic examples of fringe positions. Indeed, it's worse than that. In the entire history of the Republic, not one single tax protester argument described in any of the related Wikipedia articles has ever been upheld by any federal court (Supreme Court or otherwise). Never Not even one. No exceptions. This is a remarkable record.


 * In the case of this article and related articles, both sides are indeed being presented.


 * Now let's look at this verbiage:


 * If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited.


 * What is meant by "pro-establishment propaganda"? What is going on here? Both sides are already presented in the articles. Daniel Evans is a "pro-establishment propagandist"? And why is that? Because he accurately reports on the legal status of tax protester arguments? Good grief.


 * And this verbiage:


 * If we just categorically judge all tax-protesters as insane schizophrenics with "bizarre" arguments, how has our understanding progressed?


 * Our understanding of what? What in the world are you talking about? What does this have to do with the article? If a source such as Daniel Evans states that tax protester arguments are "bizarre" (which, by any objective legal determination, they are, by the way), that's his prerogative. Where are you coming up with language like "insane schizophrenics"? You are wildly overstating your case.


 * As Daniel Evans knows, and as anyone else who has studied tax protester cases (I have been studying them for at least nine years, and very intensively for about 2 and half years), the arguments are indeed bizarre. And, as long as we're on the subject of mental illness, it appears to me (I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist) that there are indeed an inordinately high number of individuals with severe mental problems who bring tax protester arguments. In fact, that's one of the problems: tax protester activity does involve, to a large degree, psychopathic delusion. I don't even want to get into the details, but we're talking here about criminal activity -- faked "quotations" from court cases, non-existent "rulings", bizarre arguments that one case says one thing when it says almost exactly the opposite, bizarre arguments about non-existent legal doctrines, such as the one that if you spell your name in "ALL CAPITALS" that this has some sort of legal significance (it doesn't). This is just scratching the surface. When Daniel Evans says that tax protester arguments are "bizarre", he is absolutely correct, by any objective measure.


 * But more to the point, that's my opinion. By contrast, the Wikipedia article itself does not take sides -- it does not say that Evans is right about tax protester arguments being bizarre, or that Evans is right about anything else, for that matter.


 * I invite you to take a deep breath, step back, and read Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * Sorry, but this article is not about a "political" issue. It's a about a legal subject. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, another anonymous user has tried provided the following edit summary explanation:


 * i am not pro or anti tax, but whether their arguments are 'mistaken' and 'bizarre' is a POLITICAL JUDGMENT, which an disinterested encyclopedia should refrain from making; see talk page)

Again, even assuming that the Evans material were to be a "political judgment" (which it is not), that is not a valid objection. Read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The material is a direct quote of Daniel Evans. Daniel Evans is a source. There is no Wikipedia rule that prohibits quoting a reliable, previously published third party source, even if that source is biased and even if that source is rendering a political judgment. I think some editors need to step back and familarize themselves with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please review my comments above. Famspear (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, look at this edit summary:


 * citing a proestablishment propagandist is un-objective

See the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. There is no requirement that a SOURCE be objective, or that a source not be a "proestablishment propangandist" -- whatever that means. And referring to Daniel Evans, one of the leading recognized experts in the field, as a "proestablishment propagandist", is not going to help your credibility here in Wikipedia.

Again, read the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

--THis is the origianl poster. In your personal opinion as magisterial legal generallisimo, do you consider midwestern Amish kids who refuse to participate in war as "mentally ill?" to what extent are you projecting your own politics into this analysis?

many thoughtful people understand the bloodshed-bound nature of "the state", and refuse to get involved in the whole sordid business of human politics, which is always tainted with guilt by association and bloodshed. many civilized people understand that "the state" is founded inevitably on bloody warfare, and, in a humanitarian perspective, warfare always amounts to self-vindication without due process of law.

i mean, constantly citing establishment theorists and IRS people for the 'correct' view on these matters is self-referentially retarded--its like trying to conduct an independent investigation on whether Jews in Germany were truly acting as a corporately subversive group by constantly refering to Nazi officials opinions on the matter. the self-referentiality of the citations is ridiculous and any logical person sees through them.

only moral degenerates would subscribe to the theory that human courts were to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria. Human courts have sanctioned the worst crimes in history.

Listen, if you knew me, you would know im not some partizan or lunatick. i just hate one-sidedness. granted that many tax-protesters are mentally unstable and some of them are even predatorial-minded, but it is also true that only in exceptional cases is governmental taxation-enforcement different from outright extortion and protection racketeering--America is evolved and civilized in its taxation system, but there are traces of primitivity in all human activities. Would you consider English peasants who resisted the Danegeld as mental nutcases? You must remember "the law" is intimately involved in history, and in very mundane intergroup competition. this doesn't mean we shouldn't support the american government or any other comparatively civilized govt with taxes (equivalent to religious almsgiving), but that we should not take an absolutist dogmatic stand against so-called 'fringe' whackos. it was once considered a fringe position by the american court for persons to disbelieve in witches and black masses--people should remember human beings, including 'official' bureaucrats and experts, are not gods-on-earth but error-prone evolved-insectivores with tendencies toward Machiavellianism and self-deception. what is needed is more ethical humility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.103.38 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear IP172.167.103.38: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us, but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. This article and the related articles are about tax protesters who make legally frivolous arguments about some legal point about the law. This article is not about people who object to the tax law on the various kinds of grounds you listed. Wikipedia already has articles on that.


 * Whether you are correct when you contend that "constantly citing establishment theorists and IRS people for the 'correct' view on these matters is self-referentially retarded" as you put it is beside the point -- for the simple reason that the article does not "constantly" do that. Courts of law are not "establishment theorists" and courts of law are not "IRS people." And there are probably as many citations in the article to actual, officially published court decisions as there are to "IRS people" or to "establishment theorists" (whatever that is supposed to mean).


 * Referring to another Wikipedia editor as a "magisterial legal generallisimo" is not going to get you anywhere here, and may be considered a violation of Wikipedia rules against personal attacks. Please try to control your emotion and deal with the text itself.


 * And look at this verbiage:


 * only moral degenerates would subscribe to the theory that human courts were to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria. Human courts have sanctioned the worst crimes in history.


 * Again, this talk page is not the proper place for you to be venting these kinds of feelings. Further, the article says nothing about any "theory that human courts are to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria". Please stay on topic.


 * Look at this rhetorical question you posed:


 * Would you consider English peasants who resisted the Danegeld as mental nutcases?


 * What????? You're comparing English peasants who resisted the Danegeld to people who argue that a court of law has no jurisdiction over you if the court spells your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS??? Come on, now. Again, this article is not about people who merely "resist" a tax on some moral or philosophical ground. The article is about people who make preposterous, legally frivolous arguments about what the law actually is -- either on tax returns or in court -- about the U.S. federal income tax.


 * And this:


 * the self-referentiality of the citations is ridiculous and any logical person sees through them.


 * With all due respect, that is in my view a meaningless statement. "Self-referentiality" of citations? We cannot properly document court cases -- either in terms of what the tax protesters themselves have contended in court, or in terms of what the courts have ruled about what the protesters have contended -- without citing the actual court cases. Sorry, but that's the way it is.


 * Again, Please review the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, especially: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user(s): This is the article that covers what you are talking about: Tax resistance. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: Let's look at this verbiage:


 * If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited. I mean, are people like Frank Chodorov [ . . . ]

This is exactly what I am talking about. I'm just guessing, since I haven't read Chodorov's work but I would think Chodorov is not generally going to be providing dissenting opinions to tax protester arguments. I can't speak for Chodorov or for Evans, but I suspect that Chodorov's views and Evans' views are not necessarily opposed to each other. I suspect that Chodorov's view is that taxes (or some specific taxes) are BAD. He did not, as far as I know, make any of the arguments listed in any of the Wikipedia articles on tax protesters.

There is a big difference between (A) arguing that taxes are immoral, that the uses to which they are put are immoral, and arguing for resisting payment on grounds of principle (which is generally called "tax resistance") and (B) making phony, frivolous statements (especially on tax returns, or in court) about what the law actually is.

Now, it is probably true that some but not all tax protesters do what they do BECAUSE they happen to believe that taxes are immoral, etc., etc. In other words, they are not being motivated by an actual, good faith belief based on some sort of misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the law. Instead, some of them are psychologically impaired to the extent of trying to delude themselves into believing that BECAUSE the tax law is "bad", the law THEREFORE must somehow not really be the law. I wouldn't put Chodorov in that category. In other words, I have never seen anyone claim that Chodorov made any kind of legally frivolous argument about what the law actually is. Again, I have not read his works.

By contrast, I think what my anonymous friends are talking about when they talk about the Amish, about the English peasants (and the Danegeld), and about Frank Chodorov, is really tax resistance, which is (I would think, typically) a philosophical and intellectually honest position about the morality or wisdom of taxation in general, or the morality or wisdom of one tax or another. See the article on tax resistance. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

--This is the original poster again. Being a non-bureaucratic-elite non-specialist and additionally a non-Wikipedian, I was not aware of the esoteric distinction between tax-protesters and tax-resisters. In deed, what I had more in mind is what is called here "tax resistance" according to your explanation. But still this Evans guy sounds arrogant. Thank you for the free lecture and patience with my lack of academical-legalist esoterism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.137.164 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a "for" or "other uses" tag at the top of the article would be appropriate to assist in the clarification regarding "tax resistance".  Morphh   (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section POV
The lead section to me seems blatantly biased against tax protestors. The second quotation, for example, uses the phrase "bizarre arguments" and is itself extremely biased. The inclusion of such a quotation does not really make sense to me, especially because it doesn't really add any new information other than the "bizarre" statement. A second and more important example is the fact that the lead section seems to assume that all tax protestors refuse to pay taxes. One can protest taxes and still pay them. Many of the more educated tax protestors are well aware of the legal consequences of refusing to pay taxes and as a result continue to pay them, despite feeling that they are unconstitutional. Indeed, the definition of "protestor" used in the next section is consistent with this claim. 76.93.90.245 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear user at IP76.93.90.245: My thought on this is that the lead section cannot go into all the detail that supports it. I believe the article as a whole supports the statements in the lead regarding the "bizarreness" of tax protester arguments. All or almost all tax protester arguments are, almost by definition, legally frivolous, and I suspect that this is what commentator Daniel B. Evans is saying.


 * Separate point: Although it may not be obvious at first, there is no requirement that Wikipedia articles not have quotations that are "biased". (I know that's not what you were saying, but I just want to emphasize that point.) It's OK for source material (e.g., quotations) to be "biased" -- indeed, neutral point of view in Wikipedia does not mean absence of biased points of view in the source material.


 * On balance, I would argue that the lead fairly reflects the substance of the article.


 * However, on your separate point about the lead section seeming to "assume that all tax protesters refuse to pay taxes" -- I'll take a closer look at that.


 * Note: Another editor has recently re-worked the lead section a bit, and I didn't check to see whether that was done before your comments or after them, so please take that into consideration. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have re-read the lead, and to some extent I can see your point about the lead section assuming that all tax protesters refuse to pay taxes, etc. The problem is that these are fairly authoritative definitions from heavy-duty sources. The term "tax protester" is of course used more broadly to refer to people who simply make the frivolous arguments described in the various Wikipedia articles -- regardless of whether those persons actually refuse to file or refuse to pay (and of course, there's no conceivable way to check every person who makes tax protester arguments to verify whether that person actually pays or actually files returns). I think I need to do some more thinking on this point. Maybe we kind find another broader definition to add to the article to clarify that the term "tax protester" is indeed used to describe not only people who refuse to pay, but also people who pay but still espouse the frivolous arguments. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that it's highly likely that most tax protesters (if we define the term to encompass those who believe the theories) do pay taxes. Given the size of the movement an the attention it draws, there would be a lot more people in jail if they didn't. bd2412  T 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on another re-read of the lead, I would say that the definitions do fit. The article is simply providing examples of two different definitions from reliable, previously-published sources, and the article is making it clear that these are direct quotations from those sources. I don't read the material as implying that somehow those definitions are the only valid definitions of "tax protester". So, the article is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that some "tax protesters" by someone else's definition would include people who believe and talk about frivolous arguments, etc., but pay their taxes anyway. I do not, however, think it's necessary that the lead for the article be expanded to include such people in the definition -- unless we can find a reliable, previously published source that provides such an expanded definition. Over all, I would argue that the article is pretty well balanced. Famspear (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the sources quoted be relatively unbiased, though? I would say that the term "bizarre arguments" does bias the definition enough to violate POV. I agree that the quote is from someone who is a legitimate source and SHOULD be included in the article. However, it may be more appropriate to put that quote somewhere else rather than the Lead Section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.89.16 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The short answer would be no. In a sense, the "definition" is "biased" -- and that's OK. We're talking about a legal term for people who make arguments on tax returns or in courts of law that are prohibited. As odd as it may sound, there is no First Amendment right (or any other kind of legal right) to make any argument you want to make on a tax return or in a court of law, just as there is no legal right to lie under oath, or to defame someone, or to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater. In Wikipedia, Neutal Point of View not only does not require that sources be unbiased, the rule virtually assumes that sources often are biased. And that's OK. The article is about a legal topic and, from a legal standpoint, tax protester arguments are indeed bizarre, almost by definition. Moving the quote down in the article could be construed as an misguided attempt to improperly afford equal weight to the tax protester "point of view." Wikipedia does not need to sugar coat the definition of "tax protester." By definition, tax protester arguments are arguments that not only have zero legal validity; these are arguments which, if presented on a U.S. federal income tax return or in a court of law, can result in penalties of $5,000 to $25,000 or even more. Famspear (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Start-class?
The WikiProject header on the talk page lists this article as Start-class...but the article seems to be more complete and better-sourced than that. It should probably be at least B-class. Is there any reason why it's still listed as Start-class? FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could just be that it hasn't been re-rated. Maybe just a request to the Taxation project? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated it - I agree it has increased in quality and appears to meet our B-class standards. Morphh   (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure
Why do we have two "Arguments" sections? Could we either merge them, place one as a sub-section of the other, or at the least put them in the same area of the article (one after another, and not one up top and the other after penalties). Morphh  (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The first section links to Tax protestor arguments, which looks like the main article for all such arguements. It's a brief intro to some of the different categories of arguements.  The second arguement section is labeled Constitutional arguements, but only covers Cheek.  It might makes sense to replace it with a brief section of the major tax protestors, putting it above Penalities.  I think this was a relic before all of the expansion work that you, Famspear (and countless others) did to the entire series.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

article title
Is there a reason this article isn't located at Tax protester? There's no need for the parentheses. Any objection to moving it back?Prezbo (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean I understand that the article is located here because it's US-centric, but I don't think that's a good reason, especially given that the phenomenon is basically limited to the US afaik.Prezbo (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a number in Canada, including a certain Lavigne who posts his bizarre theories on various inappropriate Usenet groups, and reports from Australia and the UK. I don't see many reports from non-English-speaking countries, but the phenomenon may exist elsewhere.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I stand corrected. My point though is that (imo) the only good reason to include a parenthetical clarification in an article title is if there are multiple articles about different topics with the same name and the reader needs to be informed which of those topics the article is about.  If the article is too US-centric that's something that should be corrected, not something that should be pointed out in the article title.Prezbo (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I consider this "uncontroversial"?Prezbo (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen a nifty (and wholly specious) claim from New Zealand. I suppose we could have a relatively short article at Tax protester on the boosting of such theories around the world, but I don't know if any other countries actually use the phrase "tax protester" as it is used in U.S. courts. bd2412  T 23:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So do you object to changing the title? I don't see why other countries couldn't be covered in this article, even if the term is limited to the US.Prezbo (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not crazy about a title change, but I can't put my finger on exactly why. It used to be there, and there certainly is some reason that it was moved here. bd2412  T 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the edit summary for moving it was "US-centric title" and there's no talk page discussion as far as I can tell.Prezbo (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position one way or the other. I would tip slightly toward leaving it like it is, just because the marginal benefit to changing it would be small. Famspear (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to go ahead with this.Prezbo (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Prezbo: You may want to consider waiting. You seem to be the only one in favor of a name change. Famspear (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well nobody is giving a real reason for not moving it, and there will probably be no further comment. In any case though I can't do anything about it since the page is protected.Prezbo (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want me to respond to your comment: the fact that the marginal benefit is small isn't really a reason not to do something, you could say the same about fixing a typo.Prezbo (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparent transcription error in source
The quoted phrase "And, this is important, and taxes specific and concrete action to violate the law." should probably be "takes", although I admit that it says "taxes" in the source. Not quite sure how to put that in the article. GreenReaper (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear GreenReaper: I have added the Latin word "sic" after the word "taxes" to note that this is apparently a transcription error. Thanks! Famspear (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

United States Court of Federal Claims
The Court of Federal Claims hears some income tax cases as well, and has much the same standards for dealing with frivolous litigation as the District Courts. This may be a trivial detail, but I think it is worth mention, probably in the same section as the District Courts. bd2412 T 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for NPOV conflict
IP 67.164.224.243 added the neutrality template to the top of the article, but given the outcome of the RfC and its corresponding comment at the top of the article source, as well as the fact that there is no consensus on this talk page's 2009 & 2010 discussions that finds the article to violate NPOV, I reverted this IP's edit to remove the neutrality dispute tag. I had just re-read the NPOV discussions on this talk page yesterday, so forgive me if I missed anything. John Shandy`  &bull; talk 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You beat me to the revert - you didn't miss anything. Humorously, the IP did not remove the warning about POV tags and the talk page.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename to "Tax protesting" from "Tax protester"
The identification of the article should be with the subject, ie. tax protesting, and not with the individual or group, ie. the tax protester. Therefore, the name should be changed to "Tax protesting" IMHO. Int21h (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (We use nouns here. The correct grammatical form, even your argument were accepted, would be "tax protestation".)
 * Disagree. "Tax protesting" has a long and honorable history.  This is referring to "Tax protester"s as defined in the article, who use alegal or illegal methods.  The term you are trying to conflate with this article is tax resistance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming. This is the term courts have used to identify those who use pseudolegalistic reasoning to deny the existence of an obligation to pay taxes. bd2412  T 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming. The term "tax protester" is indeed the term used by the courts, over and over. And the Wikipedia articles on this topic (this one included) are not limited to "tax protesting" in the sense I believe my colleague intends. The articles properly deal with a variety of matters involving tax protesters, including specific named individuals and groups, some of them quite well known in the legal world. With all due respect, I see no need at all to change the name of this article (or any of the related articles, if that issue comes up). Famspear (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming per Arthur Rubin, bd2412, and Famspear. My sentiments exactly.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Save-A-Patriot Fellowship
What is the story behind Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF) organization? It is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia? Maxal (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical tax protestor stuff - nothing obviously notable. Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What a Joke!
It is hilarious to see the writers of the article themselves patting themselves on the back and making statements as to how the article overall is "balanced".

Where are quotations of the subjects themselves whom this article portrays in such as negative light?

Looking at the references one can clearly see this is a one-sided story, the official line rammed down the throats of the innocent reader. Where are the links to the main "tax protestor" arguments?

A summation of the convictions of protestors in court as a subtle suggestion of the invalidity of their arguments is absurd for reasons that are revealed in your very "article" and that are well known beyond the flatulent air in which self-congratulating government line purveyors circulate: and that is this:

In the overwhelming majority of "protestor" cases, where there is a jury, the jury is PREVENTED from hearing the argument relied on by the defendant. In most cases, the jury is prevented from even reading or hearing the law itself. At the Appeals level, as the article already revealed, due process is inexistent, because the argument is considered frivolous without review.

Therefore, to list any cases in which a jury was involved and did not hear the defendant's argument; or an appeals court, where the argument was considered frivolous without review, or the review was superficial without addressing key points of the argument; is dishonest. Honesty would include for example, the blatant irregularities (crimes) committed against defendants in these types of cases, of which examples abound but the white-wigged lords who write the official line cannot be troubled to include!

"The final arbiter on what the law is is a court of law". Typical argument of the priestly class! To protect us from the brood of vipers that populate the court system, our forefathers sacrificed everything to guarantee we would be judged by a jury of our peers. Is it not true, oh purveyors of Supreme Knowledge who Write these Words of "Wisdom", that juries were intended to view both the Law and the Facts? These are the same jurors whom judges and prosecutors conspire ALL THE TIME to prevent from hearing the arguments or even seeing the law relied on by the defendants! Gimme a break!

Judges have been quoted as saying :"I will not allow the Law into my Courtroom", but Famspear et al will never think these quotes, and the myriad others, mean anything, lest it confuse their intended victims, er. I mean audience.

The two instruments put in place to protect us from oppression, the jury system and the Grand Jury, have been manipulated into submission under the direction of the establishment, so that now they are merely an additional tool to assist in our servitude!

The courts are circuses, and the producers of the show are clowns. They lie, they steal, they perjure themselves, they falsify or erase the recordings, there's collusion between judges and prosecutors, etc. This is added to the crimes committed by the DOJ in preparing the kangaroo courts for the lynching of the defendants. They break in, terrorize, and steal, with bogus, often falsified affidavits, corrupt judges that sign them... the show is so perverse that your article is theatrical in its entirety...  what a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Got any reliable sources to back up your assertions? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your (now-deleted) reference to the "Thompson" case probably deserves a note on IRS fraud somewhere, as David Cay Johnston is a reliable source, but not in this article.
 * As for your only specific question related to the article, "Where are the links to the main "tax protestor" arguments?", he links to the tax protester arguments are at (duh!) Tax protester arguments, linked in the lede, and summarized in the section "Arguments". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is a joke.  It is quite amusing to watch the song and dance in this Talk-section. Read Framspear's long winded nonsense on why he justifies using the word "bizarre" in the lead section.  Pure comedy.  It doesn't take too much perusing through these Talk pages to see what Wikipedia is all about. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to pay taxes stand up for their legality if it means I get to keep reading hilarious drivel from tax protesters misinformed with counterknowledge. Perhaps you might stop reading this talk page and instead read the actual articles Tax protester (United States) and Tax protester arguments and learn just how frivolous and flawed their arguments really are.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear user at IP72.224.189.211: No, go back and read my comments. They're neither "long-winded" nor "nonsense." And please read Wikipedia policies. By the way, I did not use the word "bizarre" in the article. The source used that word. It's a direct quote from a reliable, previously published third party source.

However, tax protester arguments are indeed "bizarre". That's not just my personal opinion. Look up the legal term "frivolous." This is now March of 2012. In all the 99 plus years of the existence of modern federal income tax, not one of these goofy arguments has ever been upheld in a court of law. Not even one. They lose every time. The only thing that is a "joke" is the way a few people cling to these hilariously erroneous theories. Period. Famspear (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Cheek v. United States basically says that, yes you have to pay your taxes, but we might not throw you in jail for tax evasion if you really couldn't grasp that you have to pay your taxes. Of course, you only get one bite at that apple. bd2412  T 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2010 Austin suicide attack & Andrew Joseph Stack
Should we introduce coverage of the 2010 Austin suicide attack and Andrew Joseph Stack into this article?

Here is just one of many sources available:

I'm not sure myself. I think it's definitely relevant, but my concerns are more to do with weight and fit (in terms of where it should go). John Shandy`  &bull; talk 21:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My thought would be that the current articles on Stack and the Austin incident are coverage enough. I don't think we need to add the Stack/Austin attack material here. I would say, just leave this article as a sort of general overview. Famspear (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 22:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax protester definition is incorrect English
"A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax..." Then what do you call someone who protests paying taxes, but still pays? Can I not be a "tax protester" and still pay my taxes? 67.169.185.246 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends on which definition of "tax protester" you are using. This article is not about everyone who "protests" taxes. The definitions used in the article are explained in the article. Famspear (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize
The same family of tax protest arguments (natural persons, individual sovereignty, constitutionalism, common law) are showing up in other countries, e.g. Canada and the U.K..

I think it may be worthwhile to either change the title of this article to "Tax protesters in the U.S." or to change the article to be more cosmopolitan. —Moorlock (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an old issue. Various people keep changing the title back and forth. Last time, it was "Tax protester (United States)". Famspear (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have woven some of the Canadian material into the article. bd2412  T 03:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear BD2412: Thanks! Famspear (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Tax protester arguments"
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester arguments is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)