Back to Fort Fairfield Journal      WFFJ-TV      Contact Us



Supreme Court Chief Justice Reveals

Income Tax is Voluntary


By:  David Deschesne

Fort Fairfield Journal, April 10, 2019


   In a discrete U.S. Supreme Court case from 2002, which has long been relegated to the dust-bin of history, then Chief Justice William Rehnquist coaxed the revelation out of a prosecuting attorney that seems to indicate there is no law requiring the filing a federal income tax form.

    The case number, 00-1831, also known as United States vs. Sandra Craft was a case brought by the U.S. against an attorney who had failed to file federal income tax forms for 10 years and accrued an alleged debt of half a million dollars.

   During the course of the proceedings, it came to pass that Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the prosecutor, Ken L. Jones if there are any criminal procedures for failure to file or continued failure to file federal income tax forms.

   Attorney Jones replied to the Chief Justice, “Of course, if you file a return, then you’re not exposing yourself to any criminal obligations, and if you don’t file a return, it would be -  - I’m not familiar with a statute that makes that a crime by itself.  Now, it may be that it’s a crime in connection with some intent to conceal, but just the fact that you didn’t’s my impression that that would not by itself be a crime.”

   Chief Justice Rehnquist then replied, “We’d better not let the word get out.  I thought it was a crime, but I’ll check...We’ll just keep it among ourselves.” At that point, the courtroom broke out in uneasy laughter.

   The veiled admission by a U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice that no law exists to compel a person to file an income tax form is intriguing.  The way the I.R.S. works around this fact is by covertly tricking people into entering agreements with the U.S. government where they agree to voluntarily file income tax forms and pay said taxes.  These agreements come in the form of W-4 and W-9 forms where the person is tricked into admitting they are a “U.S. Person” (as opposed to U.S. citizen) which is thus obligated to follow the edicts of Congress otherwise not enforceable against people who are simply inhabitants in one of the States of the U.S.

   The transcript of the above cited case can still be found online at the U.S. Supreme Court’s archive:

(if link doesn't open, you made need to put an s on the end of the http:// for example, https://)