Paying taxes: Not optional

This article about the IRS taking the fight to tax evaders contains one of the best bits of unintentional comedy you’ll see this year:

Also last month, a federal court in Nevada held Irwin Schiff, a well-known promoter of what the Justice Department called “frivolous tax evasion excuses,” liable for more than $2 million in taxes and penalties in a case involving unpaid taxes for 1979 through 1985.

Schiff argued that penalties shouldn’t apply on the grounds that he suffers from a “chronic and severe delusional disorder” that resulted in his irrational and incorrect beliefs about to the federal income tax system. The court rejected that.

This is the tax-avoider’s version of the guy who killed his parents and then begged the court for mercy on the grounds that he’s an orphan. You’ve got to hand it to these guys, they don’t know the meaning of the word “quit”. (Or the word “shame”, or the word “chutzpah”, or the word “bogus”, or…you get the idea.)

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
This entry was posted in Skepticism. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Paying taxes: Not optional

  1. Dennis says:

    I’d have to agree that Schiff probably is delusional, but not nearly as much as the jerks who sent him good money to learn his “secrets” of how to avoid paying taxes, and then got nailed by the feds. Those people are idiots.

  2. Tim says:

    In reality, a few of the arguments made by those who say the income tax amendment was passed illegally and is therefore legally null and void are *not* without some merit. The ratification of this amendment came under VERY suspect circumstances where a few of the cases are concerned.

    However, it’s abundantly clear to almost anyone who has an IQ of at least room temperature — Celsius — that no court is going to be swayed by these arguments, largely because they don’t want to open Pandora’s Box even if they do acknowledge some of the anti-tax arguments. The social consequences are just too great for ANY court, even with the most conservative and anti-tax judges presiding. I suspect that even Paul Bettencourt wouldn’t support those arguments given the consequences.

    No matter how much evidence one may use — sometimes legitimate, sometimes totally bogus — that either (a) the Sixteenth Amendment was never legitimately ratified or (b) that the income tax is *voluntary* in the sense that payment isn’t required, is asking to be thrown in the slammer for three to ten.

  3. Mathwiz says:

    LOL! This sounds like one of Chuck Shepard’s “News of the Weird” entries, in the “Compelling Explanations” (or maybe “Least Competent Criminals”) category.

    Have you passed it on to him?

Comments are closed.