THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; WHAT DOES IT MEAN ANYWAY?

 

As a language expert, I am absolutely astounded by the misleading nature of the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS statements to the public. The IRS states that its authority to demand a return is in Sections 6001 and 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code.  However, neither 6001 nor 6011 is specific.  For example, 6001 states that, "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title..." and Section 6011 states: "The general requirement to file returns and statements applies to any person who is made liable for any tax by this title."  Actually, however, there is no section that makes you or me liable for the tax.

 

Those of you who have been hanging around the Freedom Movement know that the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments guarantee you the right to remain silent and not testify against yourself or provide information in response to an unreasonable search and seizure. Also, the government "requires" us to spend dozens of hours preparing an elaborate return without any compensation.

 

Another deception in the code is the use of the word "shall." For example, the word "shall" has a permissive connotation when it is used in a statute that could make a mandatory connotation unconstitutional.  The government, however, is determined to have its cake and eat it too.  They say that the word "shall" in Section 6012 (the section that allegedly requires the filing of returns) is mandatory; but in Section 6020 B, the Statute that requires the government to file a return if the "taxpayer" does not file a return is permissive.

 

And, although the government continually maintains in its publicity and writings about the Internal Revenue Code that we have a "voluntary" tax system; they continue to criminally attack individuals who have not volunteered to file returns.

 

The Privacy Act Notice states that the government can give anything an individual puts on a 1040 Return to the Department of Justice.  In essence, the Privacy Act is a Miranda Warning.  The end result of all this obfuscation is that the IRS now requires individuals to voluntarily waive their Constitutional Rights.  Because the system is supported by the employers, the law enforcement agencies and the terrified and dumbfounded juries; there will probably not be major change until the system becomes so unbearable to the millions of self-employed that only the employed are paying the income tax; and even the employed are not voluntarily filing returns.  Such a situation would force change; but until then, the individuals on the front lines will have to be prepared for a long and difficult battle which will require study, knowledge, computer skills, research skills and commitment.  Don't get discouraged because you are right; but hang in there; your efforts will be rewarded.

 

INTERVIEW WITH BILL CONKLIN October 28, 1994 regarding his current case  before the Supreme Court and the history leading up to the petition for cert.

 

 

 

I:  Bill, you have been in the Freedom Movement quite a long time, haven't you?

 

B:  I got started back in 1976.  Some guys set up an organization called the National Tax Strike during that year and they rented an old house about two blocks from my house for the National Headquarters.  I wandered in there from time to time and I thought they were nuts. They were telling people that there were a lot of problems with the income tax.  They got me started thinking about the situation.

 

I:  You got started thinking, but how did you get onto the front lines of the fight?

 

B:  Well, the IRS appointed me.  You see, after I started studying the situation, I opened my big mouth and a local newspaper wrote an article about me.  A couple of weeks later, the IRS sent me an audit notice.  I was audited to punish me for taking public stand on the problems with the Income Tax System.

 

I:  How did the audit go?

 

B:  Well, the IRS was not very nice to me and they summoned all my bank accounts and declared that all the deposits in the accounts were undeclared income even though I had filed returns and declared all my income.  They wanted another $25,000 in taxes from me all based on bogus math. I didn't even make $25,000 that year.

 

I:  It sounds like they really wanted to punish you!

 

B:  Yea, that is what I figured, but I don't like to be pushed around, so I decided that I would devote the rest of my life to helping tame this out-of-control agency.  I started to fight back and during the process I won six published wins in the Circuit Court of Appeals relating to administrative mistakes the IRS had made.

 

I:  Sounds like the IRS has spent a lot of time fighting with you in Court!

 

B:  They sure have, but the government doesn't seem to care about anything except snuffing out a critic like me.  The more I researched the Code, the madder I got.  I realized about 1985 that there is a severe problem with the Fifth Amendment and the alleged filing requirement; so I decided to attempt to make some change.  I am convinced that our government will do anything that it wants to do and that we can only make change by effective challenge of the inequities in the system.

 

I:  So what did you do?

 

B:  Well, I decided to make myself the guinea pig.  I knew that I had been classified as an illegal tax protestor and that the IRS was monitoring my case through the criminal investigation division.  I spoke with several attorneys and they all advised me that I waive my Fifth Amendment Rights, voluntarily when I file a tax return and that the IRS can use the information on the tax return because I have voluntarily waived my Fifth Amendment Rights.  I was real upset about the situation so I tried to figure out a way that I could comply with the alleged filing requirement and still not voluntarily waive my Fifth Amendment Rights?

 

I:  Sounds tough, how did you resolve the problem?

 

B:  Well, I sent the IRS a return with assessment information and supporting documentation.  I didn't sign the return, however, but I signed a Form 2848 and gave the IRS the power of attorney to sign the return for me if they could sign it without waiving my Fifth Amendment Rights.

 

I:  So what happened?

 

B:  The IRS accepted my return as filed for 1986, but in 1987, they fined me $500 for filing a frivolous return under Section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code.

I:  How did you react to that event?

 

B:  I paid, filed a claim for a refund and sued for a refund. The District Court Judge ruled against me and he told me in one hearing that the fatal flaw in my case is that if I won, it would over turn the federal income tax system.

 

I:  Did you lose the case?

 

B:  Yea, after five years, the judge finally ruled.  He ruled that I misunderstand the nature of the Fifth Amendment. But in so ruling, he took the position that information on a tax return is not compelled testimony and he took the position that I had taken a general Fifth Amendment objection on the Income Tax form even though I filled out the form and provided substantiating documentation.  He cited a 10th Circuit case against me in which an individual had provided NO information to the government. And he dismissed my argument that a "self-assessment" requires a signature on the tax form as frivolous without any discussion. He also discussed my reliance on counsel argument as frivolous, without any findings of law.

 

I:  Wow, that is heavy duty.  Did you appeal?

 

B:  Yea, I marched right up to the Court of Appeals and filed my appeal.  It wasn't there long, the Court of Appeals slam dunked me in just a couple of weeks and sanctioned me for filing a frivolous appeal?

 

I:  You mean that you were contesting an unjust penalty under Section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code and the Court of Appeals sanctioned you for asking them a question?

 

B:  That is correct, and I wouldn't believe it if it hadn't really happened to me.  The Circuit Court adopted the lower courts rendition of the law. I was astounded because the lower court simply failed to consider the Garner and Doe Supreme Court cases. These two cases are exactly on point.  In The Garner Court said that information on a tax return is compelled testimony and the Doe Court said that you waive your Fifth Amendment Rights if you admit to having books and records. A person cannot both take a general Fifth Amendment and waive his Fifth Amendment Rights at the same time.  Furthermore, the Circuit Court doesn't seem bothered that it changes the definition of a self-assessment from statute to statue as it suits them.  And they are going to sanction me $6,000 for not understanding the law.

 

I:  Wow, that is hard to believe!  What can you do about it?

 

B:  I flied a petition for a rehearing and it was denied. Yesterday my Petition for Certiorari was docked in the Supreme Court.  At least I am going to go down fighting. My Petition for Certiorari raises the issue that the Court of Appeals erred in taking the position that information on a tax return is not compelled testimony. It seems like those guys are the tax protestors and I am trying to protect the income tax; because if the Court of Appeals is right, then filing returns cannot be required by the government.  Of course since the Court decided not to publish the case, it isn't law.  The law is still the same as it always was, except for me, and I am going to be sanctioned because I misunderstood the law.

 

I:  How do you explain such a strange series of events?

 

B:  Well, I think it is obvious that we cannot raise an issue in Court that has the potential of causing problems with the alleged filing requirement.  There is going to be a judicial conspiracy to stop us.  The court has ruled in my case that white is black and they have fined me because I think that white is white.  George Orwell would understand this situation if he were still around to see it.  He would say: "I told you so."

 

I:  Do you have any hope of winning on the sanctions?

 

B:  Actually, I am sort of a pessimist now, but I won't give up without a fight and that means that I will take the issue to the Supreme Court twice. The next round with the Supreme Court will involve the issue of a violation of the right to due process.  If the court can sanction me for filing a frivolous issue in court for arguing that a penalty for filing a frivolous return is not frivolous; then the courts are not permitting any sort of meaningful due process on this issue.  However, I don't really think they care.  Their main concern is to keep the rabble in line.

 

I:  Is there any good to come from your case?

 

B:  Actually, there is.  I am writing an opinion letter right now on the language of the Court and Guy Curtis is reviewing the issue for an opinion letter.  The court has taken the position that information on a tax return is not compelled; therefore, the court has taken the position that filing returns and giving the government information is voluntary.  The Court has also taken the position that one can take the Fifth Amendment and answer questions at the same time.

 

            So, the Court has tied itself up in its own doublespeak, but since they aren't publishing their opinion, for obvious good reasons, it doesn't make much difference.

 

(The Supreme Court refused to hear Bill's Petition for Certiorari.  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals position that information on tax returns is not compelled remains as the law in this case. Eight years have gone by since this interview and the fight continues.)