How Federal Income Tax Laws are Unfair
by Nastya Petrovitch
The Federal Income Tax Laws are unfair. They are too complicated and vague, making it hard to enforce. Because of their poor wording, nobody can agree on what the laws mean. Over the years, there has been a lengthy debate over whether it is a direct or indirect tax. People who believe that it is a direct tax say that income is property, while people who believe that it is an indirect tax say that income is not property. Because of this confusion as to the nature of the law, numerous Supreme Court rulings have conflicted with one another. If the Supreme Court justices, who are very well-versed in reading the law, cannot understand Federal Tax Laws, then the average American most definitely will not be able to. People do not know which ruling to abide by, because abiding by one ruling could get them in trouble for tax evasion in another ruling. This vagueness impinges on due process.
It causes people to be unfairly convicted of tax evasion. An example of this can be found in United States v. Critzer where a Native American was convicted of tax evasion, a ruling which was overturned later due to being unconstitutional (498 F.2d 1160, 4th cir., 1974). Mrs. Critzer asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs if profit gained from her property was taxable and the agency told her that it was not taxable. Mrs. Critzer relied on this advice and did not report that income. Unfortunately, the IRS held a different opinion, convicting her of tax evasion. It was later overturned, with the reasoning that conflicting stances of federal institutions prevented Mrs. Critzer from having the willful intent necessary for a conviction. The conflict over its interpretation not only caused Mrs. Critzer to be unfairly prosecuted, but also impaired the court’s ability to correctly interpret the law.
In order to make the Federal Income Tax Laws more fair, they need to be simplified. A complete overhaul of the law needs to be in order, and a new law needs to be written in its stead. It needs to either be definitively identified as a direct or indirect tax, or another category needs to be created. In order for laws to be fair, they need to be equally enforced. The first thing which needs to happen to ensure they are equally enforced is to make them clear enough that it is not constantly subject to misinterpretation. In 1913, Senator Elihu Root commented on the vagueness of the 16th Amendment during a debate by saying,
I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law[s] except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it (Dubroff 12).
Links for more information:
Income Tax. United States Individual Tax Site. http://www.usa-federal-state-individual-tax.com/income_tax.asp
Articles about Income. TaxAlmanac. http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Income
FAQs: Taxes. United States Department of the Treasury. http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/taxes/liability.shtml
Works Cited:
Dubroff, Harold. The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis. New York: CCH, 1979.
“Uncertainty of the Federal Income Tax Laws.” We the People Foundation. 8 August 2005.
United States of America v. Haggar Apparel Corporation. No. 97-2044. Supreme Ct. of the US. December 1998.
United States v. Critzer. 498 F.2d 1160. 4th cir. 1974.
Originally posted in Nastya Petrovitch’s blog at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/candy7468
Loading ...
4 users commented in " How Federal Income Tax Laws Are Unfair "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackNot a bad article, but IRC must be vague to allow non-existent law to be enforced.
Public law must be public, specific (Gould v. Goule), and understandable to the layman. IRC is none of that.
Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve. — RJ Sponsel
I agree with you, that the average American will not understand the Internal Revenue Code and more generally the Federal Income Tax Laws.
I also with you in the United States v. Critzer, according to me she was wrongly convicted.
But, I don’t when it comes to the citation of Senator Elihu Root; the context in 1913 was quit different form nowadays! I am a Tax lawyer, and I would say that today, businesses are interested in reducing their tax liabilities, especially with the globalization that we are in (honestly I would’ve try doing the same thing if I was in their shoes, who actually wants to pay more tax that he is suppose to pay). So by doing that, in a legal matter, federal sate is adding exceptions over exceptions on what it use to be a big general principal. This is the reason why.
Raphael S. Barchichat LL.B., LL.M.c.l., LL.M. Taxation
“Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” — RJ Sponsel
That money actually goes in their pockets…crooked bankers are running this country and as for federal income taxes….They are very unconstitutional.What Gives anyone the right to take our hard earned money.The 16th amendment doesnt give the IRS the right to take money from someones paycheck…period.I ask any IRS agent to show me PROOF where that money goes.I personally know 2 people who actually quit working for the IRS once they realized what was really going on.People are to weak and affraid to take a stand.It would take everyones effort together to make a difference.
Hey this is a very interesting article!
Leave A Reply