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
Jan 28, 2026 11:46 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
Video: Michael Matheson Miller on PovertyCure
Michael Matheson Miller, Acton’s Director of Media, recently made an appearance on NPO Showcase, munity access show here in the Grand Rapids area, to discuss the PovertyCure initiative. The full 15 minute interview is available for viewing below: ...
How Using Party Balloons Today Could Affect Healthcare Costs Tomorrow
Because you had party balloons at your 7-year-old’s birthday party, you many not be able to get a MRI scan by the time your 70. At least that is the conclusion of some scientists who say the world supply of helium, which is essential in research and medicine, is being squandered because we are using the gas for party balloons: “It costs £30,000 ($47,568) a day to operate our neutron beams, but for three days we had no helium to...
What Methodism Teaches us about Poverty
We all know the promises government has made over the years about how certain programs and initiatives would eradicate poverty. But perhaps nothing rivals the Methodist movement in terms of effectively stamping out poverty in England. Charles Edward White and Bobby Butler’s essay “John Wesley’s Church Planting Movement: Discipleship that Transformed a Nation and Changed the World” is a splendid overview of Methodism’s impact on English society, especially as it relates to the middle class explosion. People of faith understand...
The Mission of Business
Over the past decade the model of Business as Mission (BAM) has grown into a globally influential movement. As Christianity Today wrote in 2007, the phenomenon has many labels: “kingdom business,” panies,” “for-profit missions,” “marketplace missions,” and “Great panies,” to name a few. But as Swedish business consultant Mats Tunehag notes, Business as Mission is not a new discovery—it is a rediscovery of Biblical truths and practices. Many Evangelicals often put an emphasis on the Great Commission, but sometimes make...
An Indian Perspective on Business as Mission
As I mentioned in my previous post, the Business as Mission (BAM) model has e a global phenomenon. As more Christians embrace BAM it is not only changing the lives of individual Christians but is helping to change, as Daniel Devadatta explains, the culture of business in India: When Christian business persons begin to sense their calling, when they embrace this and begin to envision their enterprise from this perspective, they will begin to see the significant role they play...
Celebrate Spring with AU Online!
Spring is almost here! In celebration of my favorite season, I invite you to visit the new and improved AU Online website. There, you’ll find information about the spring 2012 course offerings and enjoy free access to Acton’s core curriculum, our four part foundational series. Our first live session, Private Charity: A Practitioner’s View, will take place March 27 and feature the highly rated Acton lecturer Rudy Carrasco speaking from his years of experience on the front lines of urban...
It is Unconstitutional for Laws to be Based on Religiously Influenced Moral Reasons?
Is it unconstitutional for laws to be based on their supporters’ religiously founded moral beliefs? While most of us—at least most readers of this blog—would consider such a question to be absurd, some people apparently think it should be answered in the affirmative. Fortunately, legal scholar Eugene Volokh has provided a brilliant rebuttal which explains why “it would be an outrageous discrimination against religious believers to have such a constitutional rule”: My most recent brush with the argument happened with...
On Call in Culture on a Normal Day
I love the scene in the movie, A Beautiful Mind, where it portrays John Nash finding his truly original idea. He isn’t in a library, classroom or lab. No, he is out with his friends in a bar, trying to figure out how to get a group of women to pay attention to him and his buddies. Out of that problem, he discovered a principle that could be applied to situations of much more significance and went on to continue...
Audio: Miller on Kony 2012 & HHS Mandates
Acton’s Director of Media Michael Matheson Miller joined host Dave Jaconette this morning on WJRW Radio in Grand Rapids, Michigan for an interview touching on a number of subjects including 3rd world poverty, Kony 2012, entrepreneurship in the developing world, and even a discussion of the HHS mandate issue. The interview lasts about 20 minutes; Listen via the audio player below: [audio: ...
There’s No Size or Space in Subsidiarity
When thinking and talking about principle of subsidiarity I’ve tended to resort to using metaphors of size and space (i.e.,nothing should be done by a higher orlargerorganization which can be done as well by a smalleror lower organization). But philosopher Brandon Watson explains why that is not really what subsidiarity is all about: The subsidiarity principle is often paired with the principle of solidarity, and there is a real connection between the two. Solidarity is the active sense of responsibility...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved