Tax protester statutory arguments
Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay. These statutory arguments are distinguished from , although related to, constitutional, administrative and general conspiracy arguments. Statutory arguments presuppose that Congress has the constitutional power to assess a tax on incomes, but that the Congress has simply failed to levy the tax by enacting a specific statute. Definition of the terms "state" and "includes". In connection with various arguments that the Federal income tax should not apply to citizens or residents within the fifty states, some tax protesters have argued about the meanings of the terms "state" and "includes". Tax protester arguments. One argument is that the definitions of "state" and "United States" in most subparts and  the general definition in the Internal Revenue Code are what other amending code sections refer to as "a special definition of 'state'", where the statutory definitions include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and some other territories, without mentioning the 50 states. Under this argument, the definition of "state" within the Code in general, or within those certain subparts of the Code, refers only to territories, or the possessions of the federal government, or the District of Columbia. Alaska and Hawaii were formerly included in the "special" definition of a "state" until each was removed from that general definition by  the Alaska Omnibus Act and the Hawaii Omnibus Act when they were respectively admitted to the Union. Under the following tax protester argument, the term "state" is used in an international meaning of "nation" or "sovereign." The argument is that this meaning refers to the foreign status of each state to every other state including the federal state, under private international law. Under this argument, all court opinions on the subject of states being foreign to each other (and also to the federal state and possessions) have upheld this concept, and have distinguished between meanings of foreignness by using the  terms "private international law" and "public international law". Under this argument, the latter term deals with the authority the 50 States delegated to the United States government to represent American interests outside of America, grouping all those that are bound by the United States Constitution as one body, relative to those that are not bound, such as France or Britain. Under this argument, the term "private international law" signifies the foreignness of the sovereign states, or nations, of the United States system to each other, within the system. Tax protesters argue that the importance of the definition applies where the  term "state" is the reference to the federal state as defined within a subpart or generally, then when "state" is referenced in other definitions (such as "employee") within relevant places, it has the same meaning. There are two Code sections that define "employee" within the whole of the Internal Revenue Code and both are found in parts of the Title where "state" is governed by this "special" definition. Tax protesters argue that each section defines the term "employee" as being limited to someone who works within or in the employ of a state, or who is an officer of a  corporation, while the courts have ruled that the term "employee" is not limited to those persons. The definition of "wages" is that remuneration which is earned by an "employee." Tax protesters argue that normal income taxes are taxes on wages and some laws that require things like filing a return are only required of employees. Tax protesters argue that there are also no conflicting definitions of "state" or "United States" to this interpretation in Title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code) -- that both of the two times either of these terms are defined as "the 50  states," the terms are localized to the subpart. Under this argument, in those two subparts that define "state" as the 50 states, there is no mention of the District of Columbia or any territories in that definition. The Internal Revenue Code general definition of the term "state" in section 7701 is as follows: Some tax protesters argue that, in connection with the phrase "to include the District of Columbia," the term "include" generally should have the meaning of exclusivity of whatever is being listed if the list is made in a certain way. In such situations, of which the definition  of "State" is an example, the argument goes that no things not in the list are included with what is included. Other subparts of the Internal Revenue Code list the District of Columbia and territories of the United States in response to the definition of "State," or geographically, the "United States" (26 C.F.R § 31.3132 (e)-1) The Internal Revenue Code general definition of the terms "includes" and "including" is as follows: Some tax protesters argue that in the 1911 case of "Montello Salt Co. v. Utah", the Supreme Court stated that the term "including" is generally interchangeable with "also" but not  necessarily, and can sometimes have a meaning of exclusivity. The "Montello Salt" case was not a Federal tax case, and no issues involving the meaning of the terms "state" or "includes" or "including" as used in the Internal Revenue Code were presented to or decided by the Court. The word "tax" is not found in the text of the "Montello Salt" decision. Court rulings on the Internal Revenue Code definitions of "state" and "includes". In a 1959 tax case, the United States Supreme Court indicated that the term "includes" in the Internal Revenue Code () is a term of expansion, not  a term of exclusivity. Subsection (c) of section 7701 provides: Similarly, in the case of "United States v. Condo", the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: No federal court has upheld the argument that the term "state" as used in the Internal Revenue Code excludes the fifty states or that the term "state" means only the "District of Columbia." The argument that the term "state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories was specifically rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in  United States v. Ward. Similarly, in the case of "Nieman v. Commissioner", the taxpayer argued that "Congress excludes the 50 States from the definition of "United States", for the purposes of 26 U.S.C., Subtitle A." The United States Tax Court rejected that argument, stating: See also "United States v. Bell" (taxpayer's argument -- that the term "United States" encompasses "only territories and possessions such as the 'Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa' [ . . . ] but not the contiguous 48 states, Hawaii and Alaska" by contending that the term "include" was a term of "limitation"—was rejected). See also  Friesen v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument—that Nebraska was "without" the United States and that as a Nebraska resident the taxpayer was "alien to the foreign Federal jurisdiction" and therefore not subject to income tax—was rejected). The argument that the United States does not include all or a part of the physical territory of the fifty states, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a). The private sector employee argument. An argument linked to  the meaning of the words "includes" and "including" is the argument that for Federal income tax purposes, the term "employee" under Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c) does not include a regular, private-sector employee. The courts have uniformly rejected this argument. The text of section 3401(c), which deals only with the employer's withholding requirements and not with the employee's requirement to report Internal Revenue Code section 61 compensation for personal services (whether called wages, salaries, or any other term), is as follows: In "Sullivan v. United States", taxpayer Grant W. Sullivan argued that he had not received "wages  and was not an employee" under Internal Revenue Code section 3401(c). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Sullivan, stating: In "United States v. Ferguson", taxpayer Joy Ferguson argued that she was not an "employee" under section 3401(c), and that she therefore could not have "wages." The court ruled against her, stating: In "Luesse v. United States", taxpayer Chell C. Luesse of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, argued that he received no "wages" because he was not an "employee" under section 3401(c). The court ruled against Mr. Luesse. In "Richey v. Stewart", the court stated: In  United States v. Charboneau, the court stated: In "McCoy v. United States", the court stated: Joseph Alan Fennell's argument — that the compensation he received in exchange for "non-federally privileged private sector labor" was not taxable—was rejected by the United States Tax Court. Fennell appealed his Tax Court loss, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Fennell's challenges were "frivolous on the merits in any event." Similarly, in "United States v. Buras", the argument that the taxpayer can be subject to the federal income tax only if he benefits  from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was ruled to be without merit. See also "Olson v. United States" and "Nichols v. United States". A penalty of $1,000 under Internal Revenue Code section 6673 was imposed by the U.S. Tax Court on Patrick Michael Mooney for presenting frivolous arguments. The court rejected his argument that his wages earned from a private employer were not taxable. The court also rejected his argument that the term "employee" was limited to "someone performing the functions of a public office." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that  an argument by Robert S. Morse that his income was not subject to federal taxation because it was derived from employment in the "private sector" was frivolous, and that Morse was liable for monetary sanctions, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for making a frivolous argument. The argument that only certain types of taxpayers (such as only Federal government employees, corporations, nonresident aliens, residents of the District of Columbia, or residents of Federal territories) are subject to income tax and employment tax, and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax  return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a). Arguments about the legal obligation to pay tax. Some tax protesters argue that there is no law imposing a Federal income tax or requiring the filing of a return, or that the government is obligated to show the tax protesters the law or tell the protesters why they are subject to tax, or that the government has refused to disclose the law. The Internal Revenue Code as a statute enacted by Congress. A "New York Times" article on July 31, 2006 , states that when filmmaker Aaron Russo asked an IRS spokesman for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress. The version of the Internal Revenue Code published as "title 26" of the United States Code is what the Office of Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives refers to as "non-positive law." It  is one of a number; titles 2, 6–8, 12, 15, 16, 19–22, 24–27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 40–43, 45, 47, 48, and 50 are "non-positive law". However, according to the United States Statutes at Large, the original version of the current 1986 code was enacted by the Eighty-Third Congress of the United States as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, with the phrase "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." The Code was approved (signed into law) by President Dwight D. Eisenhower at 9:45 A.M., Eastern  Daylight Time, on Monday, August 16, 1954, and was published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large. Section 1(a)(1) of the enactment states: "The provisions of this Act set forth under the heading 'Internal Revenue Title' may be cited as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1954'. Section 1(d) of the enactment is entitled "Enactment of Internal Revenue Title Into Law", and the text of the Code follows, beginning with the statutory Table of Contents. The enactment ends with the approval (enactment) notation on page 929. Section 2(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the name  of the Code from the "1954" Code to the "1986" Code. The Internal Revenue Code is also separately published as title 26 of the United States Code. Regarding the legal status of the United States Statutes at Large, provides (in part, with italics added): In the case of "Ryan v. Bilby", the taxpayer, Dennis Ryan, had been convicted of failure to file tax returns. He therefore sued the district court judge, the prosecutor, his own attorney, two magistrates, and the IRS agents in the case. Ryan's lawsuit was thrown out. He then appealed to the United States Court of  Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against Ryan and stated: The Court of Appeals imposed penalties on Mr. Ryan under 28 U.S.C. section 1912, in the form of ordering him to pay double costs, for filing a frivolous appeal. Similarly, in "Young v. Internal Revenue Service", the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana stated: Similarly, in "United States v. McLain", the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota stated: Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected the argument that "the Internal Revenue Code has not been enacted into 'positive  law'". Some tax protesters have actually argued that the Internal Revenue Code itself says that the Code has "no legal effect." The courts have rejected this argument as well, and have imposed penalties for making this argument. The argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "law," the argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "positive law", the argument that nothing in the Internal Revenue Code imposes a requirement to file a return or pay tax, and similar arguments, have been identified as frivolous arguments for purposes of the $5,000 penalty for taking a frivolous position on a  tax return. Specific Code provisions. Although the specific statutes imposing an income tax may be generally unknown to persons other than tax lawyers, certified public accountants, enrolled agents and other tax specialists, such statutes exist. Internal Revenue Code sections 1 () (relating to individuals, estates and trusts) and 11 () (relating to corporations) are examples of statutes that expressly "impose" an income tax on "taxable income" (with section 1(a), for example, expressly using the phrase "[t]here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [ . . . ]" and section 11 stating: "A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of  every corporation."). The term "taxable income" is in turn defined in section 63 () with reference to "gross income" which in turn is defined in . In "Holywell Corp. v. Smith", the United States Supreme Court (in a unanimous case) stated the legal significance of : Regarding civil monetary penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, states (in part): Regarding Federal income tax returns for single (unmarried) individuals, provides (in part): Further provisions of section 6012 refer to tax return filings for other individual taxpayers (e.g., married persons filing joint returns, surviving spouses, heads of household, married persons filing separate returns) as well  as for other entities such as corporations, estates, and trusts. See also . Civil monetary penalties for failure to timely file tax returns (denominated as "additions" to tax) are mentioned at . Under , with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed "in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary"" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return must be filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc. Criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes  are mentioned at : Under : See also and . The Federal tax evasion statute follows the language of statutory provisions such as Code section 1 (the imposition statute for the individual income tax), with both statutes using the word "imposed": The "show me the law" argument. Some tax protesters such as Edward Brown and tax protester organizations such as the We the People Foundation have used the phrase "show me the law" to argue that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose the laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal income taxes—and to  argue that there must be no law imposing Federal income taxes. The official Internal Revenue Service web site contains references to specific code sections and case law, including (duty to file returns in general); (duty to file income tax returns in particular); and (duty to pay tax at time return is required to be filed) and (definition of gross income) and (timing of duty to file). The year 2007 instruction book for Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on page 83, contains references to (relating to record keeping); (general filing requirement); (specific income tax return filing requirement); and (duty  to supply identification numbers). The IRS web site includes a section on tax protester arguments with citations to statutes (including the duty to pay the tax) and court decisions and a page with a link to the entire Internal Revenue Code as published by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. A related argument that has been raised is that the taxpayer may not be penalized for tax evasion unless the taxpayer knows that section 7201 is the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code that criminalizes the conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh  Circuit has rejected this argument as "frivolous," and has stated: The argument that an individual does not owe federal income tax because the Internal Revenue Service has failed to identify any federal taxing statute has been rejected by the U.S. Tax Court, and has been ruled to be frivolous. Demanding an explanation of tax obligations. A variation on the "show me the law" argument, the "there is no law requiring an income tax" argument, and the "IRS refuses to say what law makes U.S. citizens liable for income tax" argument is the contention that the IRS has an affirmative duty  to respond to taxpayer demands for an answer as to why taxpayers must pay income taxes. This argument is based on tax protester theories about both constitutional law and statutory law, but the constitutional and statutory arguments will be described together here for purposes of presentation. Some tax protesters claim the following language from a court decision in "Schulz v. Internal Revenue Service" (2005) means that a taxpayer has a due process right to demand a response from the IRS as to why he or she is subject to taxation: . . .absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court , IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order. . . . any individual subject to [such a court order] must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply and cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing." The taxpayer Robert L. Schulz filed motions in a federal court to quash  administrative summonses issued by the IRS seeking testimony and documents in connection with an IRS investigation. The court in "Schulz" did not rule that a taxpayer has a right to have the IRS explain why he or she is subject to taxation, and that issue was not presented to the court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of "the taxpayer's" motions for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the summonses posed no threat of  injury to the taxpayer, as the IRS had not yet initiated enforcement proceedings against him. In other words, the taxpayer was not entitled to a court order to quash the summonses "until" the IRS went to court to demand that he comply with the summons or otherwise face sanctions—something the IRS had not yet done. Once the IRS took that action, the taxpayer would then have ample opportunity to challenge the validity of the summonses. The court was emphasizing that the law requires the IRS to use the judicial process to punish lack of compliance with an administrative summons ; the summons is not self-enforcing. This is true of "any" government request where the citizen is free to ignore the request until the government brings enforcement action. Courts adjudicate only actual controversies. In the "Schulz" case the court left open the possibility that the IRS might decide to drop the investigation and never enforce the summonses, or that the plaintiff might voluntarily comply with the request. Until the IRS took the taxpayer to court, the injury was merely "hypothetical." While there is disagreement over exactly how "imminent" an injury has to be before a taxpayer can obtain relief from  a court, this is separate from the obligation to timely file a tax return (which is imposed by statute). The "Schulz" court did not rule that the IRS was required to "explain" to the taxpayer why he had to pay taxes, but rather that the taxpayer could not obtain a court order to quash the summonses until the IRS first went to court against him. Additionally, the taxpayer was challenging requests for documents and testimony for an "investigation" (similar to challenging a subpoena or warrant), not demanding that the IRS explain to him why he was subject to taxation. The  court did not rule that a taxpayer has no "obligation" to respond to a summons until the IRS undertakes proceedings against the taxpayer. The court essentially ruled that the taxpayer cannot be "punished" for failing to comply until the taxpayer has violated a court order mandating compliance. A subsequent attempt by taxpayer Robert L. Schulz to obtain a court order quashing an IRS "third party" summons issued to the internet payment service known as PayPal was rejected by a Federal court in June 2006. In a separate case, Schulz and his We the People Foundation organization argued unsuccessfully that , based on the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the government should have a duty to respond to a taxpayer's demand for an explanation as to why taxpayers are subject to income tax. On May 8, 2007, the Schulz argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in "We the People Foundation, Inc. v. United States". On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and  his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes; (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings. The "income taxes are voluntary" argument. Some tax protesters argue that filing of Federal income tax returns or payment of taxes is  voluntary (in the sense of "not a legal obligation") based on language in the text of numerous court cases, such as the following: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint" (from the U.S. Supreme Court case of "Flora v. United States".) Protesters cite documents that, they argue, stress the voluntary nature of taxes: In "Flora", the Supreme Court ruled that a Federal District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit by a taxpayer for a Federal income tax refund where the taxpayer has not paid the entire amount assessed  (the rule, known as the "Flora full payment rule", does not apply to U.S. Tax Court cases or bankruptcy cases). Tax protesters sometimes cite the language in cases like "Flora" for the contention that filing of tax returns and paying taxes is not legally required, i.e., that the filing of returns and paying of taxes is, in that sense, "voluntary". In the "Flora" case the taxpayer did not contend, and the court did not rule, that there was no legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay the related taxes. The Court's ruling in "Flora" was almost  the opposite: the taxpayer was required to pay the "full amount" of tax claimed by the IRS to be owed by the taxpayer before the court would even hear a lawsuit by the taxpayer against the government to determine the correct amount of tax. The quoted language from "Flora" refers to the Federal income tax: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." The key words are "voluntary" and "distraint." Like many legal terms, "voluntary" has more than one legal meaning. In the context of the quoted sentence, the income tax is voluntary in  that the person bearing the economic burden of the tax is the one required to compute (assess) the amount of tax and file the related tax return. In this sense, a state sales tax is not a voluntary tax - i.e., the purchaser of the product does not compute the tax or file the related tax return. The store at which he or she bought the product computes the sales tax, charges the customer, collects the tax from him at the time of sale, prepares and files a monthly or quarterly sales tax return and remits the money to the taxing  authority. In "Flora", the Court used the word "voluntary" in opposition to the word "distraint." Distraint is a legal term used in various contexts. For example, distraint is used to refer to the act of a landlord who withholds property of the tenant already in the landlord's possession to secure payment of past due rent. The property "held for ransom," in a sense, is said to be "distrained," or "distressed." The key connotation of the word "distraint" is that there is often a taking of possession or withholding of property to induce a debtor to pay an obligation. Once  the debt is paid, the property is released. By contrast, the Internal Revenue Service does not seize the property of taxpayers each January to induce taxpayers to file a tax return and pay the tax by April 15. The IRS relies on "voluntary" compliance as the term is used in this sense. In the separate sense of the word "voluntary" in which some tax protesters use the term, the obligation to pay the tax and file the return is not voluntary—for either income tax or sales tax. For example, the Internal Revenue Code is full of statutes specifically imposing  the obligation to file returns and pay taxes, and imposing civil and criminal penalties for willful failure to do so on a timely basis (see above). The difference is that in the case of the income tax, the taxpayer files the return, whereas in the case of the sales tax, the seller (not the customer) files the return. Likewise, the word "assessment" has more than one tax law meaning. In the quote from "Flora" the term "assessment" does not refer to a statutory assessment by the Internal Revenue Service under and and other statutes (i.e., a formal recordation of the  tax on the books and records of the United States Department of the Treasury). The term is instead used in the sense in which the taxpayer himself or herself "assesses" or "computes his or her own tax in the process of preparing a tax return", prior to filing the return. Similarly, the word "deficiency" has more than one technical meaning under the Internal Revenue Code: one kind of "deficiency" for purposes of relating to statutory notices of deficiency, U.S. Tax Court cases, etc. (meaning, usually, the excess of the amount that the IRS claims is the correct tax over the  amount the taxpayer claims is the correct tax—both computed without regard to how much of that tax has been paid) as opposed to another kind of "deficiency" for purposes of the case law under the tax evasion and other criminal statutes (meaning, essentially, the amount of unpaid tax actually owed). Tax law, like other areas of law, is replete with words like "voluntary," "assessment," and "deficiency" that have varying meanings depending on the varying legal contexts in which those terms are used. With respect to the use of the term "voluntary," no court has ever ruled that there is  no legal obligation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to timely file Federal income tax returns or to timely pay Federal income taxes. Failure to file tax return. Another argument that has been raised is the theory that the federal income tax cannot be assessed against an individual who has not filed the related federal income tax return. This argument was rejected in "Carroll v. United States". Formal assessment of tax. Some tax protesters have argued that the tax must be formally assessed (officially recorded, under section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code, on the books of the  office of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury) by the Internal Revenue Service before a federal tax liability can exist. No court has upheld this argument. Internal Revenue Code section 6151(a) provides that: The argument that no tax is owed unless the tax is first officially assessed by the IRS was specifically rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which cited section 6151(a), in "United States v. Ellett", citing "United States v. Daniel", "United States v. Hogan", and "United States v. Dack". Similarly, under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, there is no requirement that an otherwise  valid federal tax be officially assessed to be considered valid in bankruptcy. Indeed, until the enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, the section 362(a)(6) prohibition on assessment without prior court approval applied to valid pre-petition taxes. With the 1994 Act, that restriction was eliminated by an amendment to section 362(b)(9), which now provides that although the taxing authority may assess a valid pre-petition tax without first obtaining court approval, a tax lien that would otherwise arise after the assessment will have no effect until certain specified events occur. By contrast, there is no "requirement" that the  IRS assess the tax in order for the tax to be considered a valid legal claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., in the absence of a tax lien securing the tax, an unassessed tax can be classified as a valid priority unsecured claim under or a valid general unsecured claim, as applicable). The argument that a person is not required to file a tax return or pay tax unless the Internal Revenue Service responds to the person's questions, etc., and variations of this argument, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $ 5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a). Implementing regulations. Another argument made by tax protesters is that a given section of the statute (i.e., a given section of the Internal Revenue Code) must be supported by an implementing regulation for that particular section in order for that section to be legally valid, or that the lack of an implementing regulation for that section makes that section unenforceable. This argument has been uniformly rejected by the courts. Argument that acquittal in a criminal tax case proves there is no law imposing tax liability. One tax protester  argument is that the acquittal of a defendant in a Federal criminal tax case proves that there is no law imposing the Federal income tax liability, or that the acquittal relieves the defendant of liability for the Federal income tax. No court has accepted this argument. One well-known example of the continuing tax problems for acquitted defendants is the case of Vernice Kuglin, who was acquitted in her year 2003 criminal trial on charges of Federal income tax evasion. Kuglin's tax problems were not negated by her acquittal, and in 2004 she entered a settlement with the government  in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. On April 30, 2007, the "Memphis Daily News" reported that Kuglin's tax problems continued with the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against her assets in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin had "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story." Arguments about the amount to be taxed. Some protesters have argued that tax should be based on amounts other than the amount of money or the fair market value  of property or services received. Value of gold or silver coins. Some people have argued that with respect to the receipt of gold or silver coins, taxpayers need only report as income the "face value," and not the higher actual fair market value, of the coins. In the "Joslin" case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that under and 26 C.F.R. 1.61-2(d)(1), a taxpayer who bargains to be paid for his services in legal tender (in this case, silver dollar coins) must report the income at the fair market value (numismatic value), and not  at the lower face value. Similarly, in the "Cordner" case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a taxpayer who receives Double Eagle gold coins as a distribution from a corporation must report as income the fair market value of the coins, not the lower face value. In this case, where a coin, by reason of its value to collectors or by reason of the intrinsic worth of its contents, has a fair market value in excess of its face value, it is treated as "property other than money" for purposes of , resulting in taxation  at fair market value. The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that under , in the exchange of Swiss francs for U.S. Double Eagle gold coins, the taxpayer is taxed at the aggregate fair market value, and not the lower face value. In this case, the taxpayer and the government argued about whether the Double Eagle coin was legal tender. The court stated that it would not have to decide the issue. The court stated: "Because the key element is the excess of market value over face value, it is immaterial that such coins may be legal tender at their face value ." In still another case, a taxpayer's argument – that gold and silver coins should, for Federal income tax purposes, be valued at their face value, while foreign coins, in general, should be valued according to their precious metal content – was rejected. The court stated: "Coins which are not currently circulating legal tender are property to be valued at their fair market value for purposes of section 1001(b) ... This result is unaffected by the fact that such coins may still be used as legal tender at their face value." Taxpayers have attempted to argue that the "Cordner" Doctrine (see above) should  not apply where the coins remain in circulation, as the coins in the "Cordner" case (gold coins) had been withdrawn from circulation. This argument has been rejected. In the "Stoecklin" case, the court ruled that the taxpayer who receives coins (in this case, silver dollar coins) as compensation for services is taxed at the fair market value of the coins, not the lower face value, regardless of whether or not the coins have been withdrawn from circulation. Similarly, in the case of "United States v. Kahre", the criminal defendants’ arguments – that where gold or silver coins are currently circulating, the  taxpayer may report the coins as income at their face value and not at the higher fair market value – were rejected. The "Kahre" case also made news because although the defendants lost their argument that the receipt of circulating coins could be taxed at the lower face value, the defendants were not convicted of the criminal charges against them, with the main defendant drawing a hung jury. Kahre was later convicted and is currently serving a 15-year sentence in a federal penitentiary. The 861 argument. The 861 argument refers to Internal Revenue Code section 861, entitled "Income from sources  within the United States". This provision delineates what kinds of income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States when taxes are assessed of resident aliens, nonresident aliens, and foreign corporations. The provision does not apply to U.S. citizens, but the language of Section 861 is occasionally cited by tax protesters who claim that the statute excludes some portion of the income of U.S. citizens and resident aliens from taxation under the provisions of the Code. Courts have uniformly held this interpretation to be incorrect, and proponents of the argument who have used it as a basis  for not paying taxes have been penalized and even jailed. For example, actor Wesley Snipes was found guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file Federal income tax returns, although he was acquitted of charges to conspire to defraud the US government. He was sentenced to three years in prison. Snipes has appealed that conviction.) Arguing the law in court. One contention by some tax protesters is that a taxpayer should be allowed to introduce, as evidence in court, copies of statutes, cases or other materials to persuade the jury about what the law is. Courts do not allow  this procedure as, under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to do this. Instead, disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the  judge instructs the jury on the law. Examples of applications of this rule in tax controversies are "United States v. Ambort", "United States v. Bonneau", and "United States v. Willie". In a criminal tax case, a taxpayer is allowed to present evidence about what the taxpayer "believes" the law to be—but only in an attempt to demonstrate, as a defense, an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, not to try to persuade the jury that the taxpayer's belief is correct. An actual good faith belief based on a  misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law negates the "willfulness" requirement for a conviction (see "Cheek v. United States"). External links. Sites presenting tax protester arguments: