Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax protester conspiracy arguments


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester conspiracy arguments

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A mishmash of bizarre conspiracy theories with no reliable independent sources to confirm that these out-there theories are at all notable. (Example claims include that the USA secretly never achieved independence from England, and that all court cases in the USA are invalid because the defendant's name is in all capital letters.) No evidence is given to assert that these theories are at all notable or widespread. Krimpet (talk/review) 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; most such theories are sourced and the ones that aren't can be removed. These arguments come up regularly and tax experts constantly have to warn their clients that they won't work. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; This is one of several related tax protester articles and admittedly has received the least amount of attention when compared with all the other articles in the group. I believe this article has potential. The sourcing for the various theories needs to be beefed up. As ridiculous as the theories are (for example, the argument about the defendant's name in all capital letters), these theories actually are raised in real court cases (I've studied the cases). The fact that the theories have no legal merit or factual merit and are uniformly rejected by the U.S. courts does not mean that the phenomenon is not worth an article, at least in my opinion. Yours, Famspear 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A summary article of this sort is highly appropriate. Yes, the quality of the article is variable, and some parts are better sourced than others, just as some of the WP articles summarized here are more complete or more accurate. But there are no lack of possible sources: everything discussed has been actively brought to public notice, and most of it to legal notice, and the new accounts and legal proceeding are available. I would urge a Speedy Keep.DGG 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep DXRAW 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that some theories aren't sourced is an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. The nominator's comments are curious—the capital letters theory is sourced, and the fact that this theory was mentioned and dismissed in a published opinion would seem to be evidence of its notability. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only sources are a couple of anti-tax websites and court opinions. The anti-tax websites are not reliable sources, and while the court opinions may be reliable (it's hard to confirm considering they don't link to anything) they alone do not establish notability; plenty of people make outrageous claims in court on a daily basis, and there's nothing that asserts that these particular claims are noteworthy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I would gladly withdraw my nomination if reliable sources can be found asserting their notability, but as-is there's no evidence provided that this is more than a couple guys who made weird claims in court and documented them on their websites. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is not attempting to prove that the tax protesters' claims are correct; it is documenting that those claims have been made in court and have been rejected by the courts. Are you saying that that it is extraordinary to claim that those arguments have been made?
 * My previous paragraph notwithstanding, here is a reliable source I believe establishes the notability of the capital letters claim: IRS Revenue Ruling 2005-21, regarding "Frivolous tax returns; use of “straw man” to avoid tax." This argument is also referenced in IRS Notice 2007-30, which describes a number of theories ruled frivolous. These include some of the theories mentioned in our article, including the Admiralty Courts claim (item #33 in the IRS Notice), and the Federal-Reserve-notes-are-not-money claim (item #11 in the IRS Notice).
 * I definitely agree that the article needs improvement. Probably it would help to add those IRS notices as references to the article. — Mateo SA (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep Per above - Morphh   (talk) 12:41, 01 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree that anti-tax (tax protester) web sites are, by definition, not reliable sources for statements about what the law is. These sites are, however, reliable sources for showing that tax protester do raise these arguments. Regarding the separate issue of notability and the assertion that there is "no evidence provided that this is more than a couple guys who made weird claims in court and documented them on their websites" -- well, we agree that more sourcing needs to be added to the article. If only it were only a "couple of guys" who were making these kinds of legally frivolous claims, both on tax returns and in court proceedings. As I recall, only about 7% of all reported Federal taxation decisions in a recent year involved dealings with tax protester arguments. However, seven percent is still (in my view) a sizeable chunk of legal system time wasted on tax protester nonsense. This has been such a problem that in the early 1980s the Congress even enacted to deal with the problem of people raising these claims on tax returns. Also  was enacted for the problem of people raising these claims in the United States Tax Court (imposing a penalty of up to $25,000) -- and the district and appellate courts regularly impose penalties for raising the arguments as well. Indeed, just a few months ago (in 2006) the Congress changed the law to increase the section 6702 penalty from $500 to $5,000 (note: the text of section 6702 at the Cornell Law School web site linked above has not yet been updated for the increase to $5,000). In enacting these Internal Revenue Code provisions, the Congress arguably is treating this as a "notable" problem. I think that's good enough for Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.