Court Opinion

ID: 9486408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:47:25.046379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:42.799868
License: Public Domain

WIGGINS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I dissent from part 1 of the opinion of the court. I concur in the balance of the opinion.
The opinion accurately characterizes the “taxpayers” as “tax protesters”. It might have further characterized them as “tax resisters”, as well. These “taxpayers” were typically wage earners whose sole income was devised from wages.
The majority disagrees with the district court in its conclusion that Huebner was guilty of count 1, the count alleging an attempt to evade or defeat income tax liability. It points to the fact that a scheme such as that presented here was held in Edwards v. United States, 375 F.2d 862, 867 (9th Cir.1967) to be merely a postponement of disclosure or payment, not an intent to deprive the government of its tax revenue.
I think this conclusion is in error. The filing of fraudulent bankruptcy forms had the immediate effect of releasing wages seized by the IRS to the “taxpayer”. Such a release effectively “evaded” the prompt and just payment of the taxes seized. That the tax remains payable is of little present concern: the next effort to collect taxes can be met with similar acts of evasion. In my view, Huebner was guilty of attempting to evade the income tax liability of the “taxpayers”.
Because the holding today unnecessarily restricts the IRS in its effort to collect taxes from that portion of the public who resist *355collection, I dissent from part 1 of the opinion.