Person Is Not A Citizen
Person Is Not A Citizen Is Not Subject To Our Federal Income Tax Laws, Right?
Some maintain that they are not a “person” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This argument is based on a tortured misreading of the Code.The Law: The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines “person” and sets forth which persons are subject to federal taxes. Section 7701(a)(14) defines “taxpayer” as any person subject to any internal revenue tax and section 7701(a)(1) defines “person” to include an individual, trust, estate, partnership, or corporation. Arguments that an individual is not a “person” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly rejected. A similar argument with respect to the term “individual” has also been rejected. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-22, 2007-1 C.B. 866, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 907 (1987) – the court affirmed Karlin’s conviction for failure to file income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was “not a ‘person’ within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203” as “frivolous and requir[ing] no discussion.”United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) – the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer’s contention that she was not subject to federal tax laws because she was “an absolute, freeborn, and natural individual” and went on to note that “this argument has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades.”Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir. 1985), reh’g denied, 775 F.2d 304 (11th Cir. 1985) – the court said the claim that Biermann was not “a person liable for taxes” was “patently frivolous” and, given the Tax Court’s warning to Biermann that his positions would neverbe sustained in any court, awarded the government double costs, plus attorney’s fees.McCoy v. Internal Revenue Service, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5909, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15113, at *21, 22 (D. Col. Aug. 7, 2001), dismissed, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8303 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2002) (accepting magistrate judge’s recommendations and granting motions to dismiss) – the court dismissed the taxpayer’s complaint, which asserted that McCoy was a nonresident alien and not subject to tax, describing the taxpayer’s argument as “specious and legally frivolous.”United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996) – the court stated that “[a]n individual is a person under the Internal Revenue Code.”Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89 (2000) – the court described the argument that Smith “is not a ‘person liable’ for tax” as frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and imposed a penalty for maintaining “frivolous and groundless positions.”