In any case, the obligation to pay is mandatory. If the primary method of fulfilling this obligation (so-called «voluntary compliance») fails for a particular person, the government highlights the secondary method of enforcement: a tax prosecution. It can sue the non-payer in a civil suit, seize the non-payer`s assets or initiate criminal proceedings that can put the non-payer in jail. Similarly, some argue that they are not required to pay federal taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of this position argue that our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment. They often claim that there is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code or any other federal law that requires them to pay income taxes or hold them accountable, and they demand that the IRS show them the law that levies taxes on their income. They argue that until the IRS can prove the existence and applicability of income tax laws to the satisfaction of these taxpayers, it will not report or pay income tax. These individuals or groups reflexively reject any attempt by the IRS to identify the laws and thus continue the cycle. The IRS discussed this frivolous stance at length and warned taxpayers of the consequences of being in Reverend Rul. 2007-20, 2007-1 B.C. 863 and in Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

As we show here, income tax laws clearly require the payment of income tax. There is nothing voluntary about it. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 204–05 (1991) – The Supreme Court overturned Cheek`s conviction for intentionally failing to file federal tax returns and intentionally attempting to evade income tax based on erroneous jury instructions. However, the Court noted that Cheek`s argument that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional is «unhealthy, not because Cheek`s constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they certainly are, but because the [Criminal Intent Act] does not support such a position.» Id. In pre-trial detention, Cheek was convicted of all charges and sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Cheek v. United States, 3 F.3d 1057, 1059 (7th Cir.

1993). Between the complexity of tax legislation and human nature in general, the IRS believes that U.S. taxpayers as a whole are not paying their fair share of taxes. In 2006, the IRS estimated that the tax gap between what taxpayers paid and what they owed was $450 billion. This is one of the reasons why the IRS conducts audits. Because 100% compliance would be nearly impossible to achieve or enforce, the IRS has a 90% compliance target. As mentioned earlier, taxation is mandatory and not voluntary. Some people claim that compulsory taxation is a form of slavery and therefore illegal. You cite the 13th Amendment, which prohibited slavery in the United States. United States v.

Ship, 379 F.3d 621, 631 (9th Cir. 2004) – The Ninth District upheld a federal district court injunction that prevented Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N. Cohen from selling a tax system that fraudulently claimed that the payment of federal income tax was voluntary. In subsequent criminal trials, Schiff, Neun and Cohen were found guilty of violating several criminal laws regarding their scheme. See 2005 TNT 206-18. Schiff was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for tax evasion and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million to the IRS; Nine was sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison and ordered to pay $1.1 million to the IRS; and Cohen received a prison sentence of nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 to the IRS. See Professional Tax Remembran, who was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for tax fraud. Balice v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2015-46, 109 T.C.M. (CCH) 1220 (2015) – The taxpayer provided interrogations asking the IRS to admit that he is not a «person» who owes taxes, among other frivolous claims. The court issued a protection order to the IRS, which exempted him from responding to these frivolous interrogations and imposed a $25,000 penalty on the taxpayer. Sisemore v. United States, 797 F.2d 268, 270 (6th Cir. 1986) – The Sixth District upheld the imposition of a frivolous reporting penalty on taxpayers because «their amended tax return [which showed no income] made it clear prima facie that their assessment of their taxes was essentially wrong and that their position on this issue [that their salary was zero because they were received in the same exchange for their work] was frivolous.» A particular aspect of misleading marketing, often used by «non-tax» groups, is that income tax is «voluntary.» Officials` statements that the tax system depends on voluntary compliance do NOT mean that citizens can choose to ignore the law. In our system of representative government, ALL laws depend fundamentally on «voluntary observance» or the willingness of most people to respect and obey the law.

Why, for example, do stores refrain from parking armed police in each aisle to follow each customer to make sure they don`t steal from vendors? Why do they instead use security cameras and random guards at entrances for occasional problems? That`s because employees trust 99% of buyers to go about their business. The same goes for our tax system. The law: The word «voluntary,» as used in Flora and IRS publications, refers to our system that allows taxpayers to first determine the correct amount of tax and file the appropriate returns, rather than letting the government determine the tax for them from the beginning. The requirement to file a tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set out in sections 6011(a), 6012(a) et seq. and 6072(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.