Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Just Render Unto Caesar Already: The IRS and Frivolous Tax Arguments
Just Render Unto Caesar Already: The IRS and Frivolous Tax Arguments
Apr 27, 2026 2:54 PM

In an attempt to trap Jesus, some Pharisees and Herodians asked him, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” In response, Jesus said,

“Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The Pharisees and Herodians “marveled” at Jesus answer, but had they asked an agent of the Roman IRS they likely would have been given a similar answer.

Governments have always had to contend with citizens who make what are considered “frivolous tax arguments” to plying with tax laws. Such arguments rarely work (it’s usually not effective to try to present a creative interpretation of tax law to the people who interpret tax laws) but people keep trying.

The IRS has an entire list of responses to the mon frivolous tax arguments. In honor of Tax Day*, here are four of my favorites:

1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.

Some taxpayers assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents of this contention point to the fact that the IRS tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, these taxpayers frequently quote Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), for the proposition that “[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax plete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an e tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a)

2. Contention: Federal Reserve Notes are not e.

Proponents of this contention assert that Federal Reserve Notes currently used in the United States are not valid currency and cannot be taxed because Federal Reserve Notes are not gold or silver and may not be exchanged for gold or silver. This argument misinterprets Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The courts have rejected this argument on numerous occasions.

The Law: Congress is empowered “[t]o coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 5. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits the states from declaring as legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress’ power to declare the form of legal tender. See 31 U.S.C. § 5103; 12 U.S.C. § 411. In an opinion affirming a conviction for willfully failing to file a return and rejecting the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not subject to taxation, the court stated that “Congress has declared federal reserve notes legal tender . . . and federal reserve notes are taxable.

3. Contention: Taxpayers can refuse to pay e taxes on religious or moral grounds by invoking the First Amendment.

Some individuals or groups claim that taxpayers may refuse to pay federal e taxes based on their religious or moral beliefs, or an objection to the use of taxes to fund certain government programs. These persons mistakenly invoke the First Amendment in support of this frivolous position.

The Law: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment, however, does not provide a right to refuse to pay e taxes on religious or moral grounds or because taxes are used to fund government programs opposed by the taxpayer. The First Amendment does not mercial speech or speech that aids or incites taxpayers to unlawfully refuse to pay federal e taxes, including speech that promotes abusive tax avoidance schemes.

4. Contention: The “United States” consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves.

Some individuals and groups argue that the United States consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and federal enclaves (e.g., American Indian reservations, military bases, etc.) and does not include the “sovereign” states. According to this argument, if a taxpayer does not live within the “United States,” as so defined, he is not subject to the federal tax laws.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal e tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. The Supreme Court has “recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.” United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)). This frivolous contention has been uniformly rejected by the courts, and the IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743.

“Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protester movement’s illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal e tax. And, like moths, these people sometimes get burned,” said a federal court in the case of United States v. Sloan. Burned, indeed: If you file a frivolous tax return you can be fined up to $100,000 and imprisoned up to five years.

So if you’re ever tempted e up with a creative reason for avoiding paying federal taxes on Wednesday, you’re better off just following Jesus advice and “render unto Caesar” before Caesar renders unto you.

*As you probably know already Tax Day this year got moved from the 15th to today. The reason is becauseEmancipation Day isa public holiday in the District of Columbia and since it’s observance fell on the 15th this year the IRS movedthe filing deadline forward.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
When Being Pro-Market Requires Being Anti-Business
Who is the biggest enemy of the free market system? The late Milton Friedman, one of the 20th century’s most prominent free market champions, had a surprising answer: the munity. Economist Arnold Kling explains whysupport for markets and business are not the same thing: Consider the following matrix: Pro-Business Anti-Business Pro-Market Anti-Market The point is that there really are four separate categories, not just the two pro’s and the two anti’s. On health care reform and bank regulation, I would...
The Economics Of ‘Dallas Buyer’s Club’
Comedian Andrew Heaton uses the move “Dallas Buyer’s Club” to explain economic issues, brought to life on the silver screen. Enjoy! ...
Explainer: What is President Obama’s Budget?
What is the President’s budget? Technically, it’s only a budgetrequest—a proposal telling Congress how much money the President believes should be spent on the various Cabinet-level federal functions, like agriculture, defense, education, etc. Why does the President submit a budget to Congress? The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires that the President of the United States submit to Congress, on or before the first Monday in February of each year, a detailed budget request for ing federal fiscal year, which...
Why Libertarians Shouldn’t Be Atheists
The impression that atheism or materialism is an plished host for libertarian values is mistaken, says Jay Richards. “Libertarians may be surprised to learn that these core values—if not the entire repertoire of libertarian ideas—makes far more sense in a theistic milieu.” Richards examines four areas that are lost by embracing an atheistic, materialistic worldview: No Individual RightsNo Freedom or ResponsibilityNo Reliable ReasonNo Moral Truth Richards makes clear that his argument does not claim that either libertarian values or theism...
Talented but Unemployed? God May Be Calling You to Grubby, Unglamorous Work
“When People Give Up Looking for Work, What Do They Do?” A Wall Street Journal story looks at the “millions of working-age men” sidelined by the economic slump, and warns that “the longer they’re out of work, the more their skills deteriorate and the harder it is to land the next job.” “Those who can’t find work often turn to safety net programs, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and disability — programs that have ballooned since the recession began,”the...
HHS Mandate: Does This Sound Like Freedom?
The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, continue to express their views as to why the HHS mandate violates their faith. This short video highlights Green family members discussing their faith and how it informs all their decisions. ...
Letter from London: The Protestant Work Ethic and Anglosphere Catholicism
I spent last week in London attending a couple of stimulating conferences at theInstitute for Economic Affairs (IEA) and the Transformational Business Network (TBN), and catching up with some friends and acquaintances. All of the discussions were either officially off-the-record or of a personal nature, so I can’t be too specific about who said what but my general impression, obvious to anyone who’s visited, is that London remains an extremely vibrant, forward-looking, prosperous global capital in stark contrast to much...
Mother Superiors of the Boardroom Jump the Gun
As noted previously this week, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan shot down a $9.5 billion (reported in some news accounts as $6 billion) judgment against Chevron for allegedly bespoiling Ecuadorian wilderness in cahoots with PetroEcuador. Judge Kaplan exonerated Chevron, and had some particularly nasty things to say about Steven Donziger, the attorney who sued the pany for $113 billion. I pointed out that Donziger’s since-discredited claims were taken up quickly by religious shareholder activists, many who submitted resolutions requesting that...
Panel Discussion: ‘Ukraine – The Last Frontier of the Cold War’
On March 4, Acton’s Director of International Outreach, Todd Huizinga, participated on a panel discussion hosted by Calvin College on Ukraine and the Cold War. Huizinga focused on the EU during the discussion; he was joined by Prof. Becca McBride who focused on Russia; Prof. Joel Westra, who focused on the Global Security Implications; and Dr. Olena Shkatulo, assistant professor of Spanish at Calvin, who is from Ukraine. The moderator was Prof. Kevin den Dulk. Ukraine – The Last Frontier...
Faith On The Line: Catholic Businessman Battles HHS Mandate
In today’s National Catholic Register, reporter Joan Frawley Desmond talks to John Kennedy, a Grand Rapids-based business owner of Autocam, pany that makes both precision auto parts and medical supplies. Kennedy (who is a board member of the Acton Institute) speaks candidly about his faith, pany’s future and the HHS mandate battle. The Obama administration has sought to dismiss the merits of HHS lawsuits filed by business owners like Kennedy, arguing that free exercise and statutory religious-freedom protections only apply...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved