Tax Protestor Doesn’t Lose Criminal Trial
Recently, one of my neighbors was acquitted in a federal criminal trial. The jury considered four charges: one count of conspiracy to defraud the government by impairing the calculation or collection of tax, and three counts of wilfully aiding the filing of amended income tax returns which were false with respect to a material matter.
My neighbor - Joe Banister, a former special agent for the IRS, is also licensed as a CPA. (”Special Agents” at IRS are considered federal law enforcement officers, who carry firearms, have the power to make arrests, and investigate criminal tax law violations; as opposed to “Revenue Agents” who conduct examinations (”audits”) or “Revenue Officers” who collect tax debts.
Apparently, at some point during Mr. Banister’s employment with IRS, he got sucked into one of the “tax protestor” movements, leading to his resignation from IRS. He has since published materials describing his there-is-no-income-tax theory, and apparently talked the owner of a Sacramento-area business into filing “zero returns”, which show that no tax is due, and hence all amounts withheld should be returned to the taxpayer (though that doesn’t seem like the right term for a zero return filer.)
It’s unfortunate that tax protestors are trying to use the acquittal to prove more than it does - it’s the jury’s decision that, in this case, the prosecutors didn’t prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Joe Banister committed the crimes he was charged with. Acquitting Joe Banister for conspiracy and filing a false return doesn’t prove that it’s legal to file a zero return any more than Michael Jackson’s acquittal proves that child molestation is legal - nor did the acquittals of Robert Blake and OJ Simpson prove that murder is legal.
I did find these notes sent by Banister’s jury to be interesting, though it’s tough to figure out exactly what the jury was thinking -
- Note requesting tapes, VCR, copy of 2000 version of 26 CFR (the IRS’ administrative regulations)
- Note requesting more tapes
- Note asking about relationship between CFR and Internal Revenue Code
- Note requesting flip chart
- Note announcing jury has reached unanimous verdict
So while it’s obviously a good result for Joe Banister, it’s not a good foundation for any sort of argument about whether or not it’s a good idea - or legally required - that US citizens and residents pay income tax.
In particular, it’s worth remembering that while Joe Banister managed to escape conviction, his client - the person who actually filed the zero returns at issue - is currently sitting in a federal prison after being convicted for tax fraud, as a result of filing the returns.
I haven’t read the trial transcripts, but my understanding is that Joe Banister’s argument was that, essentially, his role was that of a CPA preparing tax returns based on the legal and factual arguments of his client, and that it wasn’t reasonable to hold him - as a paid preparer - liable for the position that his client chose to take on the tax return.
Banister has also been disbarred from practice before the IRS, and disciplinary charges are apparently pending before the California Board of Accountancy.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Dear Jack Ass,
Why is Joe Bannister being disbarred from practicing before the IRS even an issue? Of course he was disbarred. He exposed the IRS for what they are; a large group of lying, manipulating thugs who can’t answer one simple question… Namely, “what law gives them the right to tax income?” We’re STILL waiting for the answer.
You probalby work for them.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 am
And you probably swindle people into paying you money for “tax advice” that will ultimately put them in jail.
If you’re waiting for an answer to that question, you’re an idiot. There are plenty of straightforward answers to that question, leading from the 16th Amendment through 26 USC 61 and forward.
Now, I realize you may not like the answer you get - or you may find it convenient to deny that the answer is real - but that makes just as much sense as the NAMBLA idiots who complaint that they don’t understand why child molestation is a crime.
The legal system does not depend on each individual arriving at their own idiosyncratic interpretation of the law - that would be pointless. You may have decided that your life works better if you’re exempt from income tax. That’s really nice for you, but the rest of society isn’t going to come grinding to a halt while you engage in pointless arguments about well-settled legal questions, or grant you some sort of special dispensation from obeying laws because you’d rather keep 100% of your income while the rest of us pay for government.
Tax protestors commit the basic mistake of confusing opinions (or wishes) with facts. The fact is, if you don’t follow the rules of the various tax systems, the various governments will take away your money and property, and potentially put you in jail. You don’t have to like that, or agree with that, or think it’s good policy, or even think it’s legal - but that doesn’t make the tax system disappear like magic.
What’s really sick is that there are people who are cynical enough to peddle this tax protestor crap while paying their own taxes and letting others face giant interest/penalty bills and even jail time. I can respect tax protestors or tax evaders who have enough integrity to stand behind their own nutty schemes - I think they’re making stupid choices, and I think they’re wasting their lives, but at least they’ve got the balls to follow their own advice.