Felony Tax Prosecution Dismissed in Federal Court

taxforms.jpgI’m not recommending that you try this one at home, but it appears to have worked for Robert Lawrence in federal District Court in Illinois. Here’s the scoop from We the People:

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 ““ 3520, also known as the “Paperwork Reduction Act” (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled “Public Protection,” it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence’s criminal trial).

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence’s sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number.

I’m not going to engage in the debate over the fraudulent nature of the IRS or the ratification of the 16th Amendment, but I do find it really cool that the IRS got zinged on a paperwork reduction procedure. If any agency deserves to be targeted for bureaucratic paperwork requirements, it’s the IRS.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. I checked the ‘Here’s the scoop’ link.

    It says:

    “That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort — that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.”

    This contradicts Amendment XVI:

    “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.”

  2. Have any 1040 form ever comformed to Section 3512?

    If not, are we all home free until they fix it?

  3. I’m not sure I’d say the IRS deserves to be targeted. Look who writes the laws they have to enforce. And look who elects the people who write the laws.

  4. So they fix the OMB requirement and they’re off the hook? This isn’t exactly a recipe for tax victory in the long term.

  5. Stephen,

    One has to ask… is their failure to comply negligence or because they can’t? If it’s just a slip up, then you are correct. If it’s because they have no authority to put behind it and give a proper OMB, then this would be a piece to the fraud puzzle.

  6. I’ve looked into the claims in some depth. What it boils down to is that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the IRS to refrain from collecting information from us if they have another source for it. In other words, if they want to get an OMB number, they have to certify that they have no other source of this information, which is a catch 22 for them: if they can get the information other ways, we don’t have to fill in the form, but if they can’t, then they have no way to check the accuracy of what we write on the form.

    There’s also the deeper hope that the IRS can’t provide statutory justification for their collection of data, which is another requirement for an OMB number.

  7. Get them to sue Michael Badnarik. I bet he’d go for this, and enlarge his audience for his more important arguments against the income tax.

    Of course they restrain themselves from taking him on, which would give him more publicity.

  8. The IRS cannot yesterday, today, or tomorrow conform to the PRA. IMHO. They are now using the same OMB#s for the W-4 that they have for the 1040. Fraud. All the people that went to jail, or had their house taken from them in the last 25 years was done by a criminal act.

    This case is so simple. Go to http://www.penaltyprotestor.org lawsuit on this was submitted back in Feb.

  9. Don’t bet on the OMB argument (see here for why it’s bogus).

    As to the 1040 not having an OMB #, it does and that number is valid through 12/31/2006 (see here for the renewal notice from OMB).

    Yes, this prosecution was dismissed with prejudice. Does this mean it will work for you? Not bloody likely.