Despite my ability to find large amounts of humor in original source tax material, taxes are a serious matter. The IRS has been directed by Congress to stamp out frivolity in tax submissions. Code Section 6702 requires the Service to make a list of frivolous tax positions. There is some pretty wacky stuff on the list like the idea that you can cut your tax by writing “nunc pro tunc” on your return (They don’t say anything about “Ali ali oxen free”. Maybe you can try that). There is one item on the list of frivolous positions, that I don’t like to call frivolous:
The First Amendment permits a taxpayer to refuse to pay taxes based on religious or moral beliefs.
That is what Elizabeth Boardman was in US District Court over. Ms. Boardman has been at peace activism for a long time. She is an author of several books including “Taking A Stand: A Guide To Peace Teams And Accompanimnet Projects”. She went to Iraq to act as part of a peace team, where she tells me she met my good friend Tom Cahill. I asked Tom for a little more background on her, but his memory of her is a little hazy. Frankly, it is understandable. Tom is much more memorable than most people you will meet. Like the IRS, the District Court did not have much sympathy for her views. Here is some of the story:
When filing her federal tax returns for the 2007 and 2008 tax years, Plaintiff fully completed the returns with accurate information but remitted only about half of her federal income tax liability. In a letter attached to the tax returns, Plaintiff explained that “her conscience and religious beliefs would not allow her to pay the full amount due.” Plaintiff’s letter also offered evidence that the withheld funds were on deposit with a financial institution and maintained that she would pay the funds if they were allocated toward peaceful purposes.
Further correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant resulted in Defendant stating that Plaintiff’s justification was frivolous and not supported by law. Once Plaintiff’s argument was deemed “frivolous,” the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (“TRHCA”) allowed Defendant to deny any additional administrative or judicial review. As a result, Plaintiff’s demand for a Tax Court determination was unsuccessful. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant misrepresented various aspects of the tax collection process and misconstrued Plaintiff’s statements. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s threats of imminent seizure compelled Plaintiff to pay her outstanding liability for the 2008 tax year.
…….Plaintiff also takes offense to the word “frivolous” being used to describe a taxpayer’s reliance on moral or religious grounds as a justification for refusing to pay their taxes. Although Plaintiff claims that she does not challenge the tax system or “seek to restrain assessment or collection of tax,” she does request a permanent injunction forcing Defendant to promulgate new procedures for collecting taxes. In doing so, Plaintiff “seeks to enforce the intent of Congress, which is to protect and preserve an established religious practice.”
The District Court was with the IRS.
The Court has no doubt that ruling in Plaintiff’s favor would negatively impact Defendant’s established methods of assessing taxes. It is also clear that compelling Defendant to adopt procedures catering to the religious or moral views of every taxpayer would significantly burden tax collection. Indeed, the costs of administering the tax system may become prohibitively expensive, threatening the system’s integrity, if Defendant allocated tax revenue based on the individualized beliefs of each taxpayer. Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s suit challenges statutory framework pertaining to tax assessment and collection, and, if Plaintiff is successful, she would “impermissibly restrain and hamper ability to assess and collect taxes.”
Ms. Boardman’s attorney, Robert Kovsky, thinks the District Court did not grasp their point. He wrote to me:
Our legal position is set forth in the Complaint and in our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Both documents are available on my website at www.kovsky.com To summarize the legal position: Elizabeth is maintaining a religious practice of war tax resistance similar to practices that have been carried on by many persons for many years. The practice requires filing of full and complete tax returns, accompanied by a refusal to pay in part or in whole for reasons based on religion or conscience. It is understood that the IRS will move to collect any unpaid amount, plus statutory costs and penalties. The resister feels compelled by religion or conscience to follow this route rather than to pay as of their own free will for war and weapons.
We contend that the practice of religious war tax resistance was given safe harbor in an Act of Congress in 1982 and has been recognized by the courts. It appears from the experience of Elizabeth, as alleged in the Complaint, that the IRS is now trying to suppress such practices. The policy of the IRS set forth on its website is to declare that such a practice is “frivolous.” We contend that Elizabeth’s practice is protected by the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. We contend that the IRS is required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to respect and accommodate the practice.
We believe that the District Court did not properly address our contentions in its decision to dismiss the case and we have filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just today, the Court of Appeals filed a Time Schedule Order setting initial dates for the filing of briefs. As of now, our opening brief is due on or before April 8, 2013.
You may want to check out the briefs he provides in his link to get a better feel for the argument. I can understand the IRS not having a lot of patience with this activity, but then I always remember Henry David Throreau. Thoreau’s extremely influential work “Civil Disobedience” was inspired by a night he spent in the Concord jail after he refused to pay poll tax to protest the Mexican War. For more information on War Tax Resistance check this out.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.
Originally published on Forbes.com Jan 6th, 2013