Important Court Cases

Below are some court cases that I believe are extremely important in your personal research into income tax issues. As many of you know, court cases are either won or lost. What is not important, except to the participants in the case, is WHETHER the case is won or lost, but WHY the case is won or lost. Anyone who has conducted a significant amount of legal research on these issues has already realized that federal courts are divided on many issues. One very important issue that has resulted in a diversity of decisions is the fact that the different circuits claim different opinions about whether or not the so-called income tax is a direct tax on property (your paycheck) or an indirect tax on certain activities or a hybrid tax that is a direct tax which does not require apportionment. But while the various circuits do not seem to understand the so-called income tax, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to understand it very well. So well, in fact, that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decision after decision over the past 120 years with only one view - the so-called income tax is an indirect tax in the form of an excise. It matters not that the lower courts do not seem to know the laws, the Supreme Court DOES know the laws. And we can rely on Supreme Court decisions as authoritative over all lower courts.

The IRS loves to quote lower court decisions on this issue, especially the ones that claim the so-called income tax is a hybrid direct tax that is levied on our paychecks without the encumbrance of any apportionment requirement. The IRS KNOWS this is a lie, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated otherwise every time it has rendered a decision on this issue. But the IRS hopes that YOU do not know this.

I have listed a number of court cases, many of them U.S. Supreme Court cases, that speak to various income tax issues. Some of these cases were lost by the individuals being pursued by the IRS, and some of them were victories. In all these cases, I have entered notes as to what are the issues that I believe to be key issues in each decision, and I have highlighted certain sections of these cases that I believe to be important.

Use these cases in your own research as you seek the truth, and as you consider if they might be valuable in your efforts to pay ONLY the taxes that you lawfully owe. Please check back here frequently as I add more cases.

Case	Description
Faretta v California	This case by the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be a decision as to whether or not a State can force a defendant to submit to representation by counsel. But I believe this case is about so much more. I believe this is the most important U.S. Supreme Court case on the issue of the 6th Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel and what that really means. The traditional perspective of attorneys and the courts is that you accept representation by counsel, where the attorney controls the case and the accused, or you represent yourself with no help from any attorney. I do not believe that the Constitution means that at all, and I believe the Supreme Court agrees. This case, I believe, is a very subtle attempt at changing this closely-held doctrine of the legal profession. The Supreme Court is subtle, not stating it abruptly, but gently stating it in many ways throughout the case. This case establishes, perhaps for the first time, the FACT that the 6th Amendment's guarantee of "assistance of counsel" really means that there are two options open to any accused. The first option is self-representation with no assistance of counsel. The second option is self-representation with assistance of counsel. Study this case carefully. Read my notes. Then consider how you can demand your 6th Amendment's guarantee of assistance of counsel.
US v Rivera-Corona	This is not an income tax case, but it DOES address the issue of effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. Here the defendant retained an attourney and then ran out of money. So he requested a court-appointed attorney, but was denied. The issue being decided was whetherthe denial ofcourt-appointed attorney prejudiced his case and reduced justice. The phrase "assistance of counsel" was used severaltimes, but apparently the Court did not understand the issue. The "assistance of counsel" was considered to be the same as "representation by counsel," in spite of the US Supreme Court in Faretta.
US v Graham	This case establishes so very clearly that the "person" subject to requirements and penalties can only be someone connected to an organized enterprise with a duty to perform some business functions within that organized enterprise and failed in those duties. "Person" within the IRC cannot be an individual who does not have a requirement within an organized enterprise. "Person" is not an individual required to file aForm 1040.
Botta v Scanlon	This is an employment tax case, and it relates to taxes withheld by corporation yet not paid over to the IRS. The question is, who is a person subject to liabilities and penalties? A corporation declared bankruptcy while still owing collected taxes to the IRS. The IRS couldn't collect the taxes and three corporate officers were assessed a penalty equal to the taxes owed. The men sued the IRS, seeking an injunction to stop the IRS from collecting, claiming they were not "persons" as defined in the IRC. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that that Section 6672 of the IRC of 1954 applied to "all those so connected with a corporation as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred." The statute was read in such a way that it did not include individuals who were not so connected with a corporation.
US v Burger	This is another employment tax case, again concerning taxes withheld by corporation yet not paid over to the IRS. The question is, AGAIN, who is a person subject to liabilities and penalties? "'Duty' under 6671(b) has a much more focused meaning than the generalized duty of all taxpayers to pay taxes and is expressly limited to the duty that attaches to the position an employee holds within a corporation." Does this include you? If not, then you need to know this Supreme Court decision.