2005 Income Tax Article

Why in the world would a group of anti-tax activists who believe the federal income tax to be a government ruse choose for their mascot Toto, the little dog owned by Dorothy Gale from the children's classic, "The Wizard of Oz?"

Because while the rest of Dorothy's entourage in Oz were terrified of the all-powerful "Wizard," in the end, it was Toto who pulled back the curtain, revealing the wizard's true nature, explained Robert Schulz, chairman of the We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education.

Schulz's group is one of several preparing for tomorrow's informational and planning meeting to discuss details of "Project TOTO." The project is a public information campaign aimed at making known "the true nature of the income tax laws, to expose operations of the IRS that are unauthorized by law, and to put an end to their illegal collection of taxes from people who do not owe them -- the vast majority of U.S. citizens," wrote Schulz to Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rossotti, who was invited to the meeting.

Anti-tax activists are commonly known as "tax protesters," although many reject the characterization as they say they do not disagree with paying taxes that are legally authorized. The key is their belief that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which authorized a federal income tax, was never properly ratified. It follows then that government compelling citizens to pay income taxes under threat of personal incarceration and loss of property is illegal and constitutes tyranny.

The 16th Amendment states in its entirety, "The Congress shall have 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 legitimacy of the amendment's ratification has been debated since government began operating under it in 1913, the anti-tax movement has been gathering steam in recent years. Indeed, USA Today is again running a full-page ad by We the People in today's edition that explains the group's position. The ad is available for viewing at the group's website.

"Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states," the ad claims.

The ad lists examples of various states that did not properly ratify the amendment. Kentucky's legislature rejected the amendment, but Secretary of State Philander Knox counted Kentucky as having approved it, the ad asserts. Additionally, Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so that it meant "just the opposite" of the original draft, according to the group's research. Minnesota did not submit any results or copy of its legislative vote to Knox, the group says, yet the nation's record keeper counted the state as one that approved the amendment.

"Legal scholars have agreed that if any state violated provisions of its own state constitution in the ratification process, its approval would be null and void," the ad continues. "At least 20 states were guilty of serious violations of their constitutions."

In fact, Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, began in 1984 to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment, state by state. After a massive search of state archives and other repositories of the relevant documents, he determined that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. His work is contained in a two-volume book set called "The Law That Never Was."

Nevertheless, the argument regarding the 16th Amendment's controversial ratification -- or lack thereof -- has been debated. After all, the original 13 states of the Union violated provisions of their own state constitutions by ratifying the U.S. Constitution and joining the union. In 1788, people argued the U.S. Constitution was illegal on that very point. But the Constitution is universally accepted today as having been legally ratified.

Anti-tax activists have tried for years to get government officials to cite legal authority authorizing collection of taxes from U.S. citizens. From their own readings of tax law, activists claim income taxes are due the government only from citizens working in foreign countries and resident aliens working in the United States. Refusal by officials to cite such authority is regarded as acknowledgment by government that no such authority exists.