Candidate's position on taxes misconstrued

By Mark Gailey

Posted on Mon, Sep. 02, 2002

I appreciated the opportunity that the Herald-Leader gave me to share my candidacy, but the misrepresentations in the article put the public at potential risk and infer a false presentation of my legal position.

The intern who interviewed me did a respectful job, striving for accuracy, but the issue he focused on is tricky to address in a short news piece.

The most egregious statement came not in the article, but in the headline, "Berea native says he doesn't pay U.S. taxes." This is patently false. My statement to the reporter was that citizens are neither obligated nor liable for federal income taxes. And in fact, I pay all U.S. taxes for which a legal liability can be proven.

Every time I buy gas or tires, alcohol or tobacco, or pay a phone bill, I pay U.S. excise taxes, the same as anybody else does. Technically, the headline was untrue. The sensationalism of the statement could have benefited both the Herald-Leader and myself. But the false statement implies that I am a scofflaw, also patently untrue.

More important, however, is the leap in logic that I don't pay income taxes because the Constitution disallows them. In fact, it is not that I don't pay them, but rather that I don't owe them. And the reason is that there is no law making me liable for them, except under treaty with certain countries as foreign-earned income. My position is based entirely on the law, Title 26 code, Treasury regulations and the IRS manual.

If someone tried to duplicate or emulate my position on the misstated basis of unconstitutionality, he or she could end up in jail as an illegal tax protester. The government treats people as if they were too stupid to read and understand a simple, straightforward document like the Constitution.

The IRS goes even further and classifies an illegal protest category for those who obey the law as it is written. From my lifetime of study, I can guarantee that the law doesn't require citizens to pay income taxes.

However, I can make no claims on the assurance that IRS personnel or federal judges will operate within the law. So I must insist that any actions taken by others should be based on their understanding of the law and not of the Constitution. After all, giving advice is a taxably licensed privilege.

Also, I did not revoke my Social Security number on grounds that not paying the income tax would cause ineligibility for federal welfare benefits. The grounds for revocation are based on fraudulent presentation of the Social Security program, its rules and entering a minor into a contract without legal standing.

What was revoked was the application for the number, not the number itself. It wasn't my number anyway. Enumerated identifiers belong to the issuing agency.

The article's balancing source, IRS spokesman Dan Boone, admitted to a lack of awareness on this topic. His strongest statement used a qualifier: "if ... residents have taxable income."

While I certainly invite a public forum on this issue, I regret that Boone had to be included because I fear for his career. IRS trainees and the legal industry are generally not taught these foundational points of tax law. Instead, their studies focus on facilitation of socialist participation. If Boone becomes too curious, he will likely be asked to resign or be fired, like otherwise successful IRS employees.

I am not the scofflaw here. In fact, my opponents would seem to be the scofflaws, unless they can show me the law that actually makes me liable. They are breaking their oaths of office by culpable support and complicity of grand constructive tax fraud.

They do this by not informing their constituents and clients of the inapplicability of income taxes on citizens. One of them spends those misbegotten funds, and the other is a privileged officer of the courts.