This example of tax protester wackzoidery is based on the argument that IRS Form 1040 is an illegal tax form because it doesn’t contain a control number as required by The Paperwork Reduction Act (the “Act”).
Here’s how it goes:
In Section 3512 of [the Act], titled “Public Protection,” it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request, if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act . . . .
[T]he protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process [such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing] or during a judicial proceeding.
There is, in fact, an OMB number in the upper right hand corner of Form 1040 and it has been there for many years.
So whats the fuss about?
Oh, that number isn’t valid.
The absurdists claim that a provision in the Act that states OMB numbers are only good for three years makes this OMB number invalid.
Here’s George Washington University law professor Jon Siegel’s answer to this crazy assertion:
The simple answer to this point, as succinctly stated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, is that “Section 3507 requires periodic review, not a periodic change in control numbers.” U.S. v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1095 (7th Cir. 2007).
In other words, even assuming Form 1040 is the kind of information request to which the Paperwork Reduction Act applies, the act requires only that OMB review Form 1040 at least once every three years and assign it a control number.
There is no requirement that the form receive a new control number every three years. It would be perfectly fine for OMB to reconsider and reapprove the existing control number.
Makes me think of the Queen lyric:
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
5 responses so far ↓
1 urbandaddy // May 11, 2009 at 12:30 pm
He he he. Nice touch adding the song at the end.
We have a bunch of those in Canada too. Guys set up worshops teaching people how to avoid paying taxes, even sell them these “tax exempt” cards for like $250.00. Guy buys it, goes into a store, flashes it, the clerk calls the police, they come and take the card. Bye bye $250.00. He he he.
2 Peter // May 11, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Urbandaddy,
Thanks for the comment.
It’s refreshing to see that our friendly neighbor to the north also experiences tax corruption.
3 Bret // Oct 17, 2010 at 5:09 pm
There is one thing that you forgot to put in your statement,
the GAO has stated in their last report that the 1040 form does not meet the PRA, and the OMB has stated the same thing. They both state that the form does not meet the PRA and cannot meet the PRA requirements. Those are both government offices that oversee corruption in government that have stated that. Furthermore none can or will try to show who is liable for a “return” and is the 1040 form that which is required, please show me the law. I know you can’t becasue it does not exist. The IRS cannot, the DOJ cannot, nor can the Senators and Congress people of my State. In fact Congressman Ron Paul has been quoted of saying that he can find no law that makes a person liable to file? You should llok into the PRA a little further, because even in the Court of Appeals, almost all of them, none have said that the 1040 form meets the requirements of the PRA. You are giving bad info when you state that it is a frivilous agrument.
4 Peter // Oct 18, 2010 at 10:22 am
Bret,
It’s a frivolous argument, but, no doubt, a fun one to make. Enjoy.
5 Frivolous Tax Arguments 2011 Edition March 4th, 2011 · 1 Comment « accounting issues // Mar 4, 2011 at 11:51 pm
[...] Contention: Taxpayers are not required to file a federal income tax return, because the instructions… [...]
Leave a Comment