Comments on the New York Times Article
On Sunday, November 19, 2000 the NY Times ran an article by David Cay Johnston under the
heading, "Saying Income Tax Is Illegal, Business Owners Quit Paying."
Click here to read a copy of the article
We
have made it onto the Mainstream Media's radar screen. Their IFF (Identify Friend or Foe)
system has identified us, not unexpectedly, as the latter, and that's the spin they've put
on the story. Although we're not political (our concerns are about governance, not
politics), we'd have been surprised had the leftist NY Times done otherwise, since they're
a pillar of the "Eastern Liberal Establishment Press." Such predictability
is reassuring; it could have thrown us off balance had the story presented an objective or
favorable perspective on the subject of employers who have stopped withholding taxes from
their employees. The NY Times is not about to risk giving an impression they might
be against high taxes or unrestrained government, or have a favorable view of anything
that could be perceived as threatening to New York's enormous financial establishment.
Nonetheless, we are pleased to get publicity on the order of magnitude of the NY
Times circulation, even though it's readership is primarily in the New York metropolitan
area and has vastly different attitudes from the rest of the country.
The author, David Cay Johnston, doesn't use up any ink examining the possibility the
employers might be right or their views worthy of discussion or debate. It's his
foregone conclusion and knee-jerk reflex that these employers are cheating on their taxes,
regardless of how many hours he spent listening to explanations of the law from several
people he interviewed. He seems to be urging or goading the IRS to hurry up and
start cracking down on the tax-cheating employers, and he uses the word
"cheating" rather carelessly, almost libelously, along with other pejorative
words, such as "bragging," "boasting," and "taunting."
He'd like to sic the IRS dogs on us all. But we think the genie is out of the
bottle now, and even if the IRS tries to stuff it back in, we've run off with the cork,
and the genie will just escape again.
We can't but note that the article did not present a single rational argument to oppose
the employers - just innuendo and some statements from IRS commissioners who have been
using fraud and deceit to rip off citizens for decades. We'd also point out that
Commissioner Rossotti was invited to our four conferences held at the National Press Club
in Washington over the past year and a half, as were the White House and leaders of both
houses of Congress, but he didn't respond or acknowledge the invitations, nor did the
others (except for the last conference six months ago, when they all reneged). IRS
headquarters is only a block from the press club.
To whatever extent the article piques the interest of citizens who have heretofore been
unacquainted with the issues, and stimulates rational discussion and debate on those
issues (even if the NY Times doesn't want to participate in it), it can be seen as a net
benefit to our cause. We feel that such exposure portends a new round of publicity
that will serve to further inform citizens of our country (even though most of them don't
read the NY Times). We hope to have more to say on this subject soon.
The author mentions the "861 position" as the argument used by the employers,
and then refers to a 1995 tax court decision as refutation of it. We'd point
out that tax court is not part of the judicial system; it is not a court of law; such
matters are beyond its scope, and any opinion it expresses on such a matter is irrelevant.
It's useless to bring up that kind of argument in tax court - you've already lost if
that's what you're there to argue.
Tax court is an administrative appeals section within the IRS, a fact-finding branch that
basically presumes everyone who comes before it owes income tax - it's just a question of
dickering over how much. Mr. Thompson's remark about it being a "kangaroo
court" is quite apropos in this context.
If David Cay Johnston doesn't like (or understand) the 861 argument, he must absolutely
despise the many other arguments that abound and that are based on plentiful evidence in
the Internal Revenue Code and associated documents that proves the income of the vast
majority of U.S. citizens is not subject to the federal income tax. Once one knows
where to look, the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable, because it's written in the
law, the regulations, and IRS documents such that any ordinary person can read it.
The problem is that those materials are so voluminous, and deliberately written in
such a mixed up way, that one must be directed to the pertinent documentation.
Learning what those references are and disseminating that information widely is what
we're trying to accomplish. The 861 argument is especially applicable for employers
because of their key role in taking tax money out of the paychecks of their employees and
sending it to the IRS. David Cay Johnston would have a lot of explaining to do to get past
all the other evidence that leads to the same conclusion as the 861 argument.
Johnston quotes Commissioner Rossotti's stern warning that "the IRS will take
enforcement action to uphold the law." We would be very pleased indeed if the IRS
would uphold the law, and especially if they would respect and follow it and recognize
that it does not authorize them to tax the income of most citizens.
One aspect of the NY Times article that surprised us was its shallowness and lack of
astuteness; one expects better from the NY Times. A few weeks ago when it became
known that the article was being prepared, we anticipated we might be hit with their best
shot. If this represents the best our adversaries can do, we should feel encouraged
that we'll come out on top in any rational debate. It is, however, the ominous
threat of thuggery implied by the article that should be of greater concern.
Click
here to read a copy of the article
|
