Paying Taxes: Unconstitutional Or Necessary Evil?

Paying taxes is a legal requirement in the United States, as outlined in the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States. This amendment was passed in 1909 and ratified in 1913, giving Congress the authority to impose and collect federal income taxes. Despite this, some individuals and groups have protested the constitutional legality of tax payments, citing various amendments such as the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments as grounds for their refusal to pay taxes. However, courts have consistently ruled against these arguments, upholding the legality of tax collection under the 16th Amendment.

Explore related products

Tax Law, State-Building and the Constitution

$110 $42.95

Direct Taxes And The Federal Constitution

$29.95

Constitution of the State of Colorado

$14.5 $14.5

The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution (The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan)

$24 $57

What Does the Constitution Say?: A Kid's Guide to How Our Democracy Works

$13.54 $19.99

Direct Taxes under the Constitution / by Charles J. Bullock 1900 [Leather Bound]

$17.75

The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution gives Congress the right to impose federal income tax

The 16th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This amendment settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and brought about significant changes in the American way of life.

The 16th Amendment was proposed by conservatives in Congress, who wanted to enact an income tax through a constitutional amendment. They believed that such an amendment would never be ratified by three-fourths of the states, as required for it to take effect. However, the amendment was unexpectedly ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, it officially took effect.

The 16th Amendment was a response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., in which the Court held that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were direct taxes and, therefore, had to be apportioned among the states based on population. The amendment effectively overruled this ruling and allowed Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states.

Some critics refuse to pay income tax, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegal

The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified on February 3, 1913, established Congress's right to impose and collect federal income tax. However, some critics refuse to pay income tax, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegal. These critics, also known as tax protesters, have made various arguments to support their stance.

One common argument is that taxation is a form of slavery and violates the 13th Amendment. However, courts have consistently ruled against this interpretation. Some protesters also argue that filing a tax return is optional, often misinterpreting the word "voluntary" in Form 1040 instructions. In reality, "voluntary" refers to the fact that taxpayers must file their returns independently rather than having the government do it for them.

Additionally, some critics claim that taxation is an unlawful seizure of property, violating the 5th Amendment. They also argue that taxpayers should not have to provide financial information due to the protection against self-incrimination provided by the 5th Amendment. However, courts have rejected these arguments, holding that the failure to comply with federal tax laws cannot be excused by invoking the 5th Amendment.

Another argument made by protesters is that income tax violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion. They claim that requiring individuals to write information on tax returns infringes on their freedom of speech, and that paying taxes goes against their religious beliefs. While the Internal Revenue Code does provide exemptions for churches and religious institutions, it does not grant exemptions for religious professionals. The courts have generally upheld these decisions, ruling that religious beliefs do not exempt individuals from their tax obligations.

In summary, while some critics refuse to pay income tax on the grounds of unconstitutionality, their arguments have been deemed frivolous by the IRS and rejected by the courts. The 16th Amendment clearly grants Congress the power to impose and collect income tax, and subsequent legal challenges to this interpretation have been unsuccessful.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not require federal income tax to accommodate religious beliefs

The United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose and collect taxes. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, established Congress's right to impose a federal income tax. Article XVI of the amendment states that "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

While the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax, it also provides protections for religious freedom. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law enacted in 1993 to ensure that religious freedom is protected. The RFRA was passed in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that neutral laws of general applicability that burden the free exercise of religion do not violate the First Amendment.

The RFRA requires courts to apply a two-part test to determine if a government regulation or action substantially burdens an individual's religious exercise. First, the claimant must demonstrate a "substantial burden" on their religious beliefs. If they succeed, the burden shifts to the government to show that the regulation or practice furthers a "compelling interest" and that it does so by the least restrictive means.

In the case of Adams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court rejected the argument that the RFRA required the federal income tax to accommodate an individual's religious beliefs. Adams argued that paying taxes to fund the military went against the will of God. However, the court affirmed tax deficiencies and penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay taxes, holding that Adams' religious beliefs did not constitute reasonable cause for purposes of the penalties.

Similarly, in United States v. Ramsey, the Eighth Circuit rejected a taxpayer's argument that filing federal income tax returns and paying federal income taxes violated their pacifist religious beliefs. The court ruled that the taxpayer had no First Amendment right to avoid federal income taxes on religious grounds. These cases illustrate that the RFRA does not require federal income tax accommodations based on religious beliefs.

Explore related products

Arkansas Constitution

$13.5 $13.5

The Federal Income Tax Law: With Summary Of Law And Regulations Relating To Individuals, Fiduciaries, And Partnerships (1918)

$23.95

The Supreme Court, Federal and State Taxation, and the Constitution, Second Edition

$149.24

The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations (Wiley Nonprofit Authority)

$126.43 $330

Constitutional Law (Examples & Explanations)

$58

God and the IRS: Accommodating Religious Practice in United States Tax Law

$106.61 $130

The Fifth Amendment: taxpayers don't have to file returns or provide financial information due to self-incrimination protection

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through their testimony. This is known as "pleading the Fifth". The Fifth Amendment also includes a due process clause, which states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Some people argue that taxpayers may refuse to file federal income tax returns, or may submit tax returns on which they refuse to provide financial information, because they believe that doing so would violate their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. However, this argument has been deemed frivolous by the IRS, which has warned taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.

In the case of Sochia v. Commissioner, the Fifth Circuit affirmed tax assessments and penalties for failure to file returns, failure to pay taxes, and filing a frivolous return. The court imposed sanctions on the taxpayers for pursuing a frivolous case, as they had failed to provide any information on their tax return about income and expenses, instead claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege on each line calling for financial information.

In United States v. Daly, the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment claim because of their "blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses". The court stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying, only those who assert that answering a particular question would tend to incriminate them.

In another case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that while the source of some of a defendant's income may be privileged, the amount of their income was not privileged, and they were required to pay taxes on it. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has also stated that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect them from disclosing the amount of their income.

In summary, while the Fifth Amendment provides protection against self-incrimination, this does not extend to taxpayers refusing to file returns or provide financial information. Taxpayers must provide information on their income and expenses, and can only claim the Fifth Amendment privilege on specific questions where answering would tend to incriminate them.

The Supreme Court has ruled that income tax is not unconstitutional under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose and collect taxes. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, also known as the IRC, is the legislation through which Congress typically enacts federal tax laws.

The IRC is a complex piece of legislation, and its interpretation requires consideration of the entire Code, Treasury Regulations, and relevant court decisions. The IRC is codified in Title 26 of the United States Code (26 USC), which is publicly available.

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, established Congress's explicit right to impose a federal income tax. This amendment resolved the constitutional question of how to tax income and brought about significant changes in the American way of life.

Despite this, some individuals and groups have consistently challenged the applicability of tax laws using various arguments, including claims that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified and that federal income taxes violate constitutional amendments. These arguments have been deemed frivolous by the courts, and promoters have faced penalties for bringing such cases to court.

In summary, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The IRC, as enacted by Congress, provides the legal framework for federal tax laws, including income tax. The 16th Amendment further solidified Congress's power to levy income taxes, and challenges to the constitutionality of income tax have been consistently rejected by the courts.

Frequently asked questions