Taxation, Conscience, and Action vs. Inaction

[David Cruz]

Maybe you were thinking of Browne v. U.S., 176 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1999),
although they claimed a right to withhold some taxes and then have the
IRS levy it without interest or penalty.

 

David B. Cruz

Professor of Law

University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071

U.S.A.

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:34 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Taxation, Conscience, and Action vs. Inaction
Importance: Low

 

It would comfort at least some objectors, and I assume it would not
comfort others.  There was a RFRA case a while back where some Quaker
taxpayers offered to leave enough money in a separate bank account to
pay their taxes, and to tell the government where the money was, and let
it seize the money by levy.  It seems to me that they were willing to do
quite a bit to pay their taxes.  But they weren't writing a check, and I
think in their view, they were simply not resisting the government's
collection efforts.  Of course they lost; neither the IRS nor the court
was willing to be flexible.  Congress would have to create this for it
to work.

I haven't looked too hard, but I can't find the case now.  I thought it
was Adams v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1999), but that was a
less cooperative Quaker.  I think the case that illustrates Mark's idea
was a Second Circuit case about the same time.  But I won't swear to
that.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090206/9d0e3f3f/attachment.htm