Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax protester

Tax protester
Less common spelling, current content just a POV quote.Squidwina 19:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page needs to be extensively reworked. --Rodschmidt 4:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) --Rodschmidt 13:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV essay/rant. Megan1967 00:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there is no Tax protester article, I would think this should be Renamed and cleaned up. Gazpacho 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having contributed this article (which I recognize certainly needs development), I feel compelled to defend it.  There is such a creature as a 'tax protestor,' a term which is used by the IRS, by courts, and by tax professors and practitioners.  W/respect to the POV, it is frankly very hard to write about people who think that the Sixteenth Amendment is invalid because Ohio was technically not a state until 1953, or that the word 'income' could not conceivably include wages, without sounding judgmental.  Indeed, some tax protestors have become quite legendary for taking multiple appeals to the Supreme Court on various theories (and invariably getting shot down).  I borrowed the section (with permission of the author, as noted) because it was succinct, and I saw no point in reinventing the wheel.  In any event, I contend that the topic, however set forth, is certainly encylopedic.--BD2412 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * PS - sorry about the spelling, they get us into the '-or' habit in law school.
 * Comment. This page has now been substantially expanded since the initial votes for deletion. --BD2412 22:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.
 * 1) 'If tax protestor' is a US legal term as opposed to 'tax protester' as a general term for a person in any country not paying their taxes and whatnot, I think there should be separate articles for the two.
 * 2) I think the quoted material should not be there unless it is impossible to provide a NPOV explanation of the legal term, as the author's opinion expressed in the quote doesn't seem to add any insight into the factual content and may cause unnecessary offence to some people. Squidwina 10:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.
 * 1) Let's start with the aspects of this topic that are the least controversial: when the phrase first appeared in print; to whom, by name, it referred; how it has expanded over time; whether or not it is a legal term, and if so, where defined; a list of specific people who self-identify as "tax protestors"
 * 2) A list of the specific arguments, with citations to court cases for those that have been tested - this is where the article will become huge, particularly if both sides of every argument are included
 * 3) The phrase "disagree with the tax laws" is ambiguous: does it mean someone who wants the law to be changed, or someone who disagrees with someone else about what the law is?
 * 4) Is it possible to draw a distinct line between "such a creature" and people who are confused by the tax code and have genuine doubts and unanswered questions? In other words, is "tax protestor" a distinct population?
 * 5) Reference to "Holocaust deniers" is too far afield and merely shows the author's bias. (No one self-identifies as a Holocaust denier, it is entirely a slur-word.) It might be appropriate in a page about the psychology of people who question mainstream beliefs about points of law and history, but there the topic should be fully explored.
 * 6) It is easy for a schooled lawyer to ridicule the rest of us, but tell me this: if the personal income tax is an excise (as the corporate income tax is), and if an excise is a tax imposed on the happening of an event, then what's the event?
 * Comment. In any event, I think we are beyond arguing whether this article should exist, and into arguing what it should say.  I will note that there is no legal distinction between the '-er' or '-or' spellings; I've seen them used about equally in legal texts/documents, and I'll self-correct to the more common usage.  I would clarify that 'tax protesters,' as the IRS defines the term, do not want to change the law b/c they believe the law as written has no effect.  It is hard to draw a line between the stubborn and the merely confused, as the term applies to the belief, not the reason for it.  Also, sorry if I seemed to be ridiculing anyone, that was not my intent - I'm really not a 'schooled lawyer' yet - I'm still just a law student until May. --BD2412 18:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Probably could use a little cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. May need cleanup, but it's a valid topic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep so long as it's cleaned up. --Spinboy 21:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.
 * 1) I believe the term "tax protestor" first applied to people who signed 1040's "under protest" (to reserve their right to disclaim the signature in case it turned out they weren't required by law to sign). Parenthetically, when Form SS-5 (Application for Social Security Number) came out in 1937, many people signed it "under protest" according to the New York Times.  The people listed in the first paragraph wouldn't have been called tax protestors, they would have been called rebels, revolutionaries or traitors.
 * 2) I believe the "movement" started around the 1950's, with Arthur Porth and a few others.  See http://www.anti-irs.com/newsletters/1997/oct97.html
 * 3) What would be proper primary source materials? The court cites and IRS publications you referred to?  What else?
 * 4) They tend to call themselves the "freedom movement," "patriot movement" or "tax honesty movement."
 * 5) Mr. BD2412, please contact me at rod underscore schmidt at hotmail
 * Note. Renamed to the more common spelling, Tax protester. --BD2412 02:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Renamed here too, to avoid double-redirect.
 * This discussion has now been going on for 2 weeks, and it seems clear that the article is staying... what do I do now? Remove the header?  --BD2412 03:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep. Tax protesters (and very similar "mortgage protesters") are decidedly a noteworthy phenomenon.  More note needs to be taken of their links with The Posse Comitatus and similar groups, but the phenomenon is real and the info on the page is fairly good. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wasted an hour of Googling myself today just looking for (and not finding) a central respository of the information this page includes, references, or links to. macbigot 14:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Add links to the IRS, other governments pages on this issues, and what-the-heck, a protestor or two. It would probably be a good idea to open the article with a warning such as 'you can go to prison for misunderstanding this page.' The IRS now has a nice article on absurd tax arguments (with court citations) at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106498,00.html  -- also see quatloos http://www.quatloos.com