New Schiff Appeal Memo


The illegal-tax protestor Irwin Schiff has been in a government cage since 2005, and is not due out until 2017 - if he lives that long. He's 86 this month and is in failing health. Despite that, he's just produced yet another crackerjack legal brief to support his latest appeal.
It proves conclusively to anyone with an open mind that the income tax is being collected in gross and multiple violations of law. It can be read here - or, to set it in context, you can read a trial summary first, then click on the APPEAL button at its top-right and then on "2014 Appeal Memorandum" at the bottom.
In one sense it's all irrelevant, because government would be unacceptable even if it conscienciously observed all its own laws and limits on its power. But it does provide powerful proof that in this important field - the collection of nearly half its revenue (more, if one counts the state income taxes that rely on it) - no shred of such obedience can be seen. The story therefore supports any effort we make to show that limited government is impossible.
One of the Memo's key points is Schiff's tightly reasoned proof that the tax is a tax on property, not "income" (which is not and cannot be legally defined) and therefore must be apportioned, by State; yet it is not and never has been.
I predict the 9th Circuit will find a way to shut its eyes to the Memo, so it's up to us to spread the word as widely as possible so as to put the Feds under the pressure of public opinion. Possibly the kind of outrage that has followed the Snowden revelations will be repeated when 130 million i-tax payers realize they have been swindled as well an impoverished.


Alex R. Knight III's picture

It's good to see that Irwin is still fighting, even in spite of his miserable circumstances.  Of course, we know the government-monopolized courts will simply brush this away, as they have all else -- likely by just refusing to even hear the appeal.
It is nothing short of incredible to me that there are still a preponderance of libertarians who refuse to acknowledge the incontrovertible validity of what Irwin has spent most of a lifetime uncovering.  Further, most of them feel they can blow away his voluminous research in 15 minutes or less of superficial browsing.  Further still, they are disinclined to believe government people (bureau-rats) in virtually every solitary regard...except when it comes to the "income" tax. 
Likely, this is nothing less than evidence of rationalization brought on by cognitive dissonance.
Regardless, it is disgraceful.  And insofar as I'm concerned at this point in time (2014 -- the Tax Honesty movement has been around now since about 1969 or 1970?), it is also inexcusable.

Jim Davies's picture

Irwin has pointed out something I'd never noticed before. If by some means the alleged income tax were scrapped, we can expect the Feds to replace it with a national sales tax or VAT - for, of course, revenue must not be reduced. But Irwin said this will not work.
Why not? - because with the "progressive" i-tax, only about half the population pays it. The other half supposes it's getting something for nothing, courtesy of "the rich."
But the s-tax alternative would necessarily charge everyone an equal, flat rate. So today's tax-feeders would suddenly find themselves paying a large sales tax instead of zip, and would arise in voting indignation and throw it out.
I still think the FedGov would find a way to sustain revenue (for as long as it exists, of course) with other taxes, but Schiff makes a valid point. The i-tax is that important.

Jim Davies's picture

I'm not normally wrong, but may have been yesterday, about this; I said that a sales tax would "necessarily charge everyone an equal, flat rate". That's not quite true.
In many European countries the governments impose a sales tax (actually a VAT, because it's much harder to avoid) unevenly. They apply a zero rate to basics like foodstuffs, and higher rates on goods that are desirable but not essential, then punitive rates like 25% on things that make live really worth living. So while it's much rougher than a finely-tuned tax on earnings, it does punish the rich more than the poor, and so Irwin's argument (that the latter would arise in protest to prevent a sales tax being implemented at rates high enough to yield as much revenue as the i-tax) probably isn't valid.