7 Retarded Tax Evasion Schemes (People Are Actually Trying)
Since the time of Benjamin Franklin, Americans have done their best to disprove his famous statement, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." While we here at Cracked have been at the forefront of disproving the former, we've been a little less helpful about the latter.
We're not talking about free-riding fatcats, but rather those true heroes who valiantly argue that the vast majority of Americans should be paying no income tax at all. And while their success rate has so far been zero (unless we're counting those not paying taxes because they're in prison), we'd like to salute the visionaries and the bat-shit insane legal arguments which they truly believe will make a judge say, "You know what? You got us! Shut it all down!"

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are Lea Viglione, and you've logically determined that the attractive shouldn't have to pay taxes. After a few years of non-filing you receive an envelope with a return address of IRS, Department of You Are So Fucked, Washington, D.C., addressed to ATTN: LEA VIGLIONE. Now, if your first reaction is "Uh oh, game over!" well, just get out your checkbook, quitter. If, however, your reaction is, "Hmm... I wonder who this LEA VIGLIONE is, as my name is clearly Lea Viglione," then you're on your way to an insanely awesome legal argument!

"You can't tax someone who isn't wearing a shirt....Right?"
Amazingly enough, numerous people have argued that JOHN DOE is an entirely different entity from John Doe. In case you're wondering why the same rule-of-thumb that helps you ignore retarded message board posters would also help them avoid taxes, their delusion seems to be that there is no right to collect taxes from individuals, so the government creates "straw men," indicated by capitalized "fraudulent legalistic names" on tax forms and court documents, that it can tax as businesses or other taxable entities; shockingly, most of us brainwashed fools pay these straw men's tax bills.

When the IRS presses this button, you get a 100% tax refund!
Similarly, people have ignored correspondence without their preferred, unorthodox punctuation as being addressed to the wrong person, as Walter Edward, Kostich, Jr. did with any correspondence omitting that extra comma. And when all of that fails, just do what Michigan resident Lynn Ealy did: he "notified the IRS that his name had been copyrighted and that if the IRS used his name for any purpose, the IRS would be subject to a $500,000 fee."

Even simpler, you can admit that the IRS Code gives them the right to collect taxes from "persons," but you just so happen to not be a person. The Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry--highly recommended for those who want a dash of Jesus with their tax evasion--quotes a sample U.S. legal statute that states "The word 'person' includes individuals, children, firms, associations..." and concludes "NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES!!!" [Page 67]

"The form doesn't specifically mention temps. It's the perfect crime."
Of course, we can probably ignore this as it's in capital letters, but perhaps the multiple exclamation points cancel that out. This line of argument has had the exact same success rate (zero) as similarly limiting definitions of the terms "individual" and "taxpayer."

U.S. citizens are liable for income taxes. Pretty straightforward, right? So let's just move on to the next argument...
You didn't think it was really going to be that easy, did you? In fact, the first three words of that statement have triggered dozens of legal arguments. Like most people, you would probably assume that a person (sorry: "person") born in the U.S., who has lived in the U.S. their whole life and who has never been outside the U.S., even for a Tijuana donkey show, could safely be considered a U.S. citizen. How wrong you would be.

So wrong.
First, you could simply renounce your U.S. citizenship... without ever leaving home! How? Simply declare yourself a "sovereign citizen" of your individual state, like current prison inmate Richard Simkanin did when he repatriated himself to the "Republic of Texas." You can't be a citizen of two places at the same time, can you? (Answer: yes.) OK, we expect this sort of thing from Texans, but others have declared themselves "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota" and "citizens of the Maryland Republic petitioners [who] are exempt from the Federal income tax law."

"We're sovereign! But, uh, yes, can we still have use of America's army and other benefits?"
Or, you can do what Dr. Louis Genard did: declare yourself an "Ambassador and Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven under its King Jesus the Christ" and apply for diplomatic immunity. You'll still have to pay taxes, but maybe as an Ambassador they'll let you park right outside the prison.

Or you can agree that United States citizens have to pay income taxes, but Texas (or Minnesota or Maryland) isn't actually a state. Yep. You see, the tax code declares: "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa." While this is obviously there to get that... Guammian? Guammite? tax revenue, a whole bunch of people have argued that the "United States" does not include the 50 states, only the specifically named locations. This has worked about as well as you'd imagine, since the IRS "uses a more conventional definition of the United States." Well, they would, the bastards.

Count the states. WARNING: Trick question.
Like the "Missing Persons" argument above (and a whole bunch of others), this one relies on a definition of "includes" that differs from dictionaries, the Internal Revenue Code itself (which says "includes" doesn't "exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined") and the Supreme Court. This has not been a successful strategy so far.








As I understand it, there are a lot of, less bizarre, schemes that don't work either. Like offshore accounts, or offshore corporations. Lucky for me, I'm too poor to consider such alternatives.
ReplyFor fuck's sake, taxes in the US are among the lowest in the world (20% of your income, for instance).
ReplyNorway has the highest, at 60%, and they don't throw such a big tantrum every time!
Then again, it's also about how the money is used afterwards. I suppose. Or it's just about not giving up 20 dollars out of every 100.
I once asked my accountant if I could write off my previous year's taxes as a bad investment...
ReplyHow about "I don't get what I paid for" argument?
ReplyThe only thing that confuses me more than taxes is how this article about taxes could pass for comedy...
ReplyThe only thing that confuses me more than taxes is how this humourless idiot could pass for a human
What just kills me about human nature is no matter HOW many times someone has tried a scam that failed, someone else will ALWAYS try the EXACT SAME THING, then are actually surprised it didn't work for THEM.
ReplyEveryone is special!
The "sovereign citizen" thing is about as sane as declaring yourself to be your own country. "I am the President of the Republic of Me!" You can't impose a tax on a foreign nation, so there!
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesAnd then you go to jail.
Imperialist aggression!
Here's a better argument. Since all law is based on contracts, show me the contract I signed in which I agreed to pay taxes. What's that? You don't have one? Oh, well then, motion to dismiss.
@MarushiaDark
A good argument to increase INS powers.
MarushiaDark: "Since all law is based on contracts..." Wrong. In fact I'd say no laws are based on contracts. There are laws to enforce contracts though. Laws are mostly statutory (enacted by the gov't) or common (based on previous legal decisions).
Everybody knows what it's like when reality sets in and you realize somethings are just too damn smoking hot to be real. Take for instance the photo of the boob chick up there. Either those tits formed a double chin or that's a painfully obvious boob job scar under her only (partially) visible breast.
ReplyIt's a boob. Shuttup and come out of the closet if it doesn't turn you on. Tearing it apart and pointing out "an obvious boob job" which I cannot even see BECAUSE IT'S A f*****g BOOB is beyond retarded.
As for #2, it is absolutely impossible, unless those people wanted to pay with Portugal's currency from the 20th century (the "escudo" which was represented by an "dollar sign with the two vertical lines")
ReplyYou pay taxes upon taxes. If you buy an item at Wal Mart, you pay taxes on it. Yet if you cannot deduct this item From your taxes, you are taxed on that money you spent because it's part of your income. So basically, taxes are compound. Taxes in general??? Property tax, vehicle tax, income tax, sales tax, taxes on you utility bills, taxes included in the gas you buy, it just keeps going and going and going.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesy u mad tho
I don't know if it's official yet but the Australian government introduced a carbon tax. The bastards finally found a way to tax the air we breathe
@therealist: I've heard that's why Americans end up paying a greater percentage of our income on taxes than do many of the so-called "socialist" countries of Western Europe. I believe the comparison is ~ 40% for said Western European countries and ~ 60% for Americans. Granted, we're not as screwed as the French (which is why they tend to protest over things such as having to work 35 hours a week -- hell, I love working but if I had to give up 75% of my income to taxes, I'd be lazy too), but we do pay a lot more in taxes than some people are willing to acknowledge.
And what does our fair country do with this embarrassment of riches? Why, $300 toilet seats and $50 hammers, my good fellow. The fact that our federal government wastes an unbelievable sum of money on crap, does not know how to handle our money or make anything even resembling a budget, spends like there's no tomorrow (or like a 13-year-old with their hands on Mommy's/Daddy's credit card), and manages to create so much red tape that it takes almost literally forever to do anything, is why I'm very much pro-limiting the powers of the federal government as much as possible. If we're going to give governmental entities any real power, the only right thing to do is to give it to local/county governments, where there is more accountability for tax monies raised and how they're spent and less of a chance for corruption or waste.
Honestly I get why paying taxes is important and the government really does need money (which it could have had they not made stupid decisions), but when you get down to it. The system we have doesn't actually reqiure ANYONE to legally pay taxes. It just strongly suggests it with threat of imprisonment...that the government just pretends is legal. It's not legal but taxes aren't that bad when you have well funded government programs. But...we don't. Why not? That damn 1% again. I don't dislike the "super-wealthy" I just think if they want the big piece of the cake they should share the part they don't and can't possibly ever eat.
ReplyUmm... what? If the government says, "Pay your taxes or you go to jail and we take the money," that is the definition of making it illegal to not pay your taxes.
But by all means, b***h about your taxes all you want. That's your right, and we all do it.
@Ani451: I agree. We are made to pay, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they will beat us if we don't. In law, that's called coercion, which is illegal (U.C.C. §1-308). If we had good government programs that took care of people's needs and there was no wasteful spending, either there'd be no need to pay taxes because the expenses side of the balance sheet would be so low, or people would have no qualms about paying taxes because they're getting their money's worth.
What the people who do this don't grasp is that, it does not matter how much they feign ignorance or look for loop holes... they might work in criminal cases, but the government is going to get their blood money...one way or another...
Replythe picture in #7 disarmed by brain. f*****g Cracked articles
ReplyIt disheartens me that not just one, but two, of these arguments revolve around being too stupid to know what "include" means (or too dishonest to admit you do know).
Reply@Revic: Actually, Black's Law Dictionary (the dictionary of choice for lawyers) clearly states under the definition of "includes" that "The inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others." In other words, in a legal context, the use of the word "includes" means "These things and only these things," unless there is a separate clause stating otherwise. To hold the plain English meaning, it would have to say something like, "Including, but not limited to." And that's precisely WHY you see that phrase in contracts. Because the law is a precise endeavor.
If it actually says includes it doesnt exclude but if it doesnt say includes and then gives a list it does exclude.
The taxes are slavery thing is a little bit more complicated than it sounds here. What they say is that because it takes time and work to make money, and that they are taking the money from you, that they are taking you time and work. If they are forcibly taking your work and time, then it is slavery.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI guess logically it makes... some sense. But I think the fact that without taxes, we wouldn't have a government (ya know, common sense) ,it doesn't really make much...
It's serfdom, at worst. And probably not really.
I think what they fail to note is the fact that we receive goods and services for that time and work. The education, the military protection, the police that keep people from murdering us in our sleep, the student loans, the farming grants, etc. are all paid for by our taxes. It's not slavery, it's forced consumerism. That being said, I pay my taxes on time. Who has the time and money to contest this in court?
@CMHValex: Roads are paid for by gasoline taxes. Defense is paid for by corporate taxes. Some would argue that what we receive is grossly inferior to what we paid for. For instance, you pay into Social Security all your life to receive a measly $200 a month check, when you probably could have gotten more from investing in an IRA instead. Medicare and Medicaid are huge expenses, which only exist because the government won't tell insurance companies and doctors that they can't charge $500 for a toothbrush. And where does the rest of the money go? Paying interest on the national debt and bailouts, which only exist because we gave private banks the keys to our country. So yeah, if you can refuse to pay for a crappy meal or a crappy repair job, you should be able to refuse to pay for a crappy government.
Moot...That is all.
ReplyI am constantly amused at the lengths of Americans' aversion to taxation. I am fully convinced that a large part of this country would pay $100 to get out of $50 in taxes.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesPeople in america have always been afraid of taxes. Some rich men didn't want to pay some taxes? They started a revolution from Britain to avoid it!
I hate it when people say, "They didn't want to pay ANY taxes!" when it comes to the founders. If you paid attention in history class, you would realize it was, "No taxation without representation." They were just pissed that they were being taxed without given any choice as to the way they were being ruled. We, however, are given an entire house to represent us.
"If you paid attention in history class, you would realize it was, "No taxation without representation."
The colonies had representation. Ben Franklin was the representative. Also the colonies were mostly untaxed. The taxes that were there were due to the colonists starting a war with France that caused England a huge tax debt and rightly the people in England were pissed at the colonials. The Boston Tea Party was about opposing a tax cut on high quality tea that would have put tea smugglers out of business.
A person from Guam is Chamorro (this is the English spelling...the Chamorro spelling is "Chamoru"). For those who probably won't know what Chamorro is, the semi-accepted term non-Chamorro people will use is Guamanian, which Chamorros will quickly correct as "Chamorro."
ReplyYou failed to show why #7 is retarded. Since ya know, I've done it the last 3 years.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesCracked may fail to show, why, but you did flawlessly ;)
#1: Because the capitalization of your name is part of the rules of grammar, not of your name. #2: Because the purpose of your name on the document is identification, which it is only one form of and which are collectively unambiguous. #3: There are multiple versions of your name across multiple identifying documents associate with you regardless. And most importantly on the level of "retarded" rather than "logically/legally misguided": Because if someone sent you a letter with your name misspelled offering to GIVE you money, you'd sure as hell take it up, you hypocritical gloryhole goblin.
@Revic: There is no source in the rules of English grammar for having an ALL CAPS name. The reason for the all caps name is to differentiate two different legal entities. It'd be like if some guy named Charles Schwab was mistaken for the corporation Charles Schwab. If that was your name, you'd have to say, "Well, are you looking for the man or the legal person?" In that particular case, we use Inc. or LLC to refer to the latter, but I don't think there's any equivalent for trusts. And that's what that name is, it's a trust set up between you and the government. If you call up the government and ask, they will say that your Birth Certificate can't be used as identification. Why? Well, the same reason a stock certificate can't be used as identification. But it's the basis for all other documents, like your game token in Monopoly. Without a token, you can't play. When you fill out tax forms, it's the trust, not you, that is getting taxed. So if a tax is owed, you should send it to the trustee of the trust (government) and say, "Fine, pay it." They have accounts set aside for this sort of thing. In fact, your SSN is the account number for that account. Government can't do anything without your say-so. Why do they arrest you for this? Because you agreed that you were the one they were looking for. You identified yourself with the trust, when really you're just the grantor-beneficiary of the trust.
Ha! My dad and brother tried every one of these arguments! Lost big every time! Utterly hilarious! A few you left out: "There's gold fringe on the American flag, so that means America isn't really America." And "I'm white, so I'm special." And (This one from David-Wynne: Miller) "The punctuation I put in my name makes me a prepositional phrase and not a noun."
ReplyThe fact you're here joking about it reassures me the apple has probably fallen far from the tree.
@RKae: I've heard some of Miller's stuff. He's like Ozymandias, in that he's on a whole other level of intelligence from most people. The reason his followers fail is because they can't articulate their cases the same way he can. And the courts won't let him speak for them because he's not a member of the BAR. Miller was actually approached by the government and they started calling him a tax protester. His answer to that was, "You're offering us fraudulent forms. I'm saying that you should pay your taxes with the correctly syntaxed forms. So how does that make me a protester?"