I.R.S. Kicks a Percentage of the Take Back to Snitches
If you’ve been paying attention, you know that the
IRS
has outsourced some of its delinquent tax collection activities to
quasi-private debt collection agencies.
More insidiously, and more sneakily, they’ve also outsourced some of their
auditing and investigation. They’ve done this by expanding their policy of
encouraging snitches (they call them “whistleblowers”) to rat people out by
kicking back a percentage of what they’re able to recover.
To take advantage of this, a bunch of lawyers have decided to go into the
freelance tax investigation business. Here’s an excerpt from a recent press
release:
Today, The Ferraro Law Firm filed a new record tax whistleblower submission
of more than $4.4 billion to the
IRS
Whistleblower Office. The Ferraro Law Firm has now brought to the
U.S. government’s
attention dozens of taxpayers who have collectively underpaid their taxes by
more than $10 billion. The previous known record submission of $2 billion was
also filed by the firm on . The
IRS
established the Whistleblower Office in to
collect information about tax cheats and must, by law, pay a reward of up to
30 percent of the amount collected to the tax whistleblower.
Who will be the first to denounce me to the feds for a buck?
In , in the middle of the United
States Civil War, the United States Senate met and debated, among other
things, Quaker conscientious objection. They didn’t seem to be particularly
well-informed as to the extent of or the reason for Quaker objection to paying
military fines, but it’s interesting how much attention they gave the subject
at such a time.
The following amendment to the conscription law was being considered:
That ministers of the gospel and members of religious denominations
conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms, and who are prohibited from
doing so by the rules and articles of faith and practice of said religious
denomination, may, when drafted into the military service, be considered
non-combatants, and shall be assigned by the Secretary of War to do duty in
the hospitals, or to the care of freedmen, or shall pay the sum of $300 to
such person as the Secretary of War shall designate to receive it, to be
applied to the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers; and such drafted
persons shall then be exempt from draft during the time for which they shall
have been drafted.
John C. Ten Eyck
“We must not only relieve them from the draft, but from the liability of
paying the commutation money”
Senator John
C. Ten Eyck of New Jersey told his
colleagues that this would not go far enough to satisfy Quaker conscientious
objectors:
One of the objects of the amendment is to relieve the religious Society of
Friends from the burden of this bill, and the Senator from Rhode Island has
stated very truly the difficulties to which members of that society have
been heretofore subjected, and the persecutions, to adopt his language, that
have been heaped upon them in regard to the performance of military service.
If we intend to do them a favor and to relieve them from the consequences of
this act, I respectfully submit that we must go further. We must not only
relieve them from the draft, but from the liability of paying the commutation
money, for I have always understood that Friends, as they call themselves,
not only object to the performance of military service, but to the payment of
any fine or commutation in lieu thereof; and many of them, even who were
possessed of large estates, have lain for months in jail rather than violate
what they understood to be a principle of their faith by paying a miserable
fine of from one to five dollars for not discharging military duty under the
militia system in the several States. I think it will not reach or answer the
purpose that certain gentlemen have in view, to so amend this bill as to
relieve them from the discharge of military service by the payment of the
commutation. In all the petitions and in all the proceedings as published
coming from this very large respectable class of citizens in the United
States, I have seen the objection raised to both features of the bill, and,
to adopt their language, they bear testimony as strongly against the payment
of the money as they do against going into the field.
So, without stating how I shall vote myself upon this amendment, I suggest
that if we design to respect their conscientious scruples and to relieve
them on account of them, we must relieve them also from the payment of the
commutation money. When this matter was before the Senate a year ago, I
voted against relieving them.
James Harlan
“They say, ‘We might as well bear arms as hire a man to bear arms in our
stead’ ”
Senator
James
Harlan of Iowa hoped that the clause allowing conscientious objectors
to do hospital service might be acceptable to Quaker conscientious objectors:
I think the amendment, as modified, meets the case suggested by the Senator
from New Jersey. This amendment relieves the party drafted in the case named
from military duty entirely, and provides that he may serve in the hospitals,
or that in lieu of this hospital service he may pay a sum of money to be
applied for the relief of sick and wounded soldiers. The objection made by
Friends to paying money has been to paying it as an equivalent for military
service. They say, “We might as well bear arms as hire a man to bear arms in
our stead.” This amendment, if I understand it, relieves them from the
performance of military duty entirely, but it provides that they shall
perform duty in the hospitals, and then gives them the alternative of paying
money rather than performing this hospital service.
Henry B. Anthony
“These opinions may seem very absurd; I know they do, by Senators smiling
around me; but they are opinions that have been entertained for two hundred
years by as intelligent men as have ever spoken the English language”
Senator Henry
B. Anthony of Rhode Island thought that
maybe by hypothecating the militia exemption fine to humanitarian purposes
they could evade Quaker scruples:
I would say, in justice to the scruples which the Friends have as to the
payment of money, that I do not think they object to a military fine being
collected from them by warrant of distress, as, I think, the lawyers call
it, or by taxation. They do not pay them voluntarily, but they do not go to
prison rather than have their property levied upon. But under the enrollment
bill a man must either serve or pay $300 for the procuration of a substitute.
They can see a difference, but no great difference in principle, between
serving themselves and hiring somebody else to serve for them. The money
which they pay is “for the procuration of substitutes.” If the money could be
appropriated to any hospital purposes, to any purpose towards which they can
conscientiously contribute, they have no objection. These opinions may seem
very absurd; I know they do, by Senators smiling around me; but they are
opinions that have been entertained for two hundred years by as intelligent
men as have ever spoken the English language, and men have borne every
persecution that the old martyrs ever bore in defense of these principles — educated, intelligent men; and I think we ought to respect them.
James H. Lane
“The attempt to collect money from the Quakers in lieu of military service
will cost the Government ten dollars where they obtain one, if they get it at
all”
Kansas Senator James H. Lane agreed with
Senator Harlan that drafting Quakers to serve in hospitals was the answer:
I have had some dealings with the Quakers, and I desire to say… that it is
perfectly ridiculous to attempt to force a Quaker into the ranks of the Army.
It cannot be done, or if you should succeed in doing it, he would be
worthless as a soldier. Besides, the attempt to collect money from the
Quakers in lieu of military service will cost the Government ten dollars
where they obtain one, if they get it at all. It is a losing business to
attempt to collect money from Quakers in lieu of military service. But if you
adopt the proposition of the Senator from Iowa, giving them the privilege of
serving in hospitals, and permitting them to pay their money in lieu of
hospital service, they will promptly and cheerfully come forward and pay that
money, their conscientious scruples not being violated by such payment.
Lazarus W. Powell
“If a man cannot conscientiously go to war, and cannot conscientiously give
money to carry on war, how can he conscientiously pay the taxes that the
Government imposes for the purpose of carrying on the war?”
Senator Lazarus
W. Powell thought either
his colleagues or the Quakers or both must be crazy. Ironically, perhaps, his
characterization of the Quaker point-of-view was in many ways the most
accurate yet. And his reductio charging that paying taxes to
a government that is conducting a war is no different from paying commutation
fines to pay for a conscription substitute is, instead, a pithy argument for
war tax resistance:
I was in favor of exempting Friends; but I cannot understand the subtle logic
of gentlemen who seem to think that if you compel a Friend to pay $300
commutation money in lieu of hospital service he can do it conscientiously
when he cannot pay the money in lieu of military service. The hospital
service is just as much an attendant upon war as any other service connected
with the Army. You frequently have to detail soldiers to attend to your sick
and wounded. Assigning them to hospital service and to military service is
in effect the same.… How a man can conscientiously pay the taxes that the
Government imposes for the purpose of raising men and paying them and buying
munitions of war, when he cannot conscientiously pay the commutation money,
is a matter that I cannot well comprehend. I cannot see any difference. If a
man cannot conscientiously go to war, and cannot conscientiously give money
to carry on war, how can he conscientiously pay the taxes that the Government
imposes for the purpose of carrying on the war? Why, sir, if a man can
conscientiously pay the taxes, he can just as conscientiously pay commutation
money. As the law now stands, a man can exempt himself from military duty by
paying commutation money. That is but a form of taxation for the purpose of
getting soldiers into your Army. The money goes to hire substitutes or to pay
bounties. So the money that is raised by taxation is taken out of your
Treasury for the purpose of paying bounties to soldiers and paying them their
monthly stipend or wages. Where is the difference? There is none.
Senator Anthony thought the best approach might be to take advantage of the
fact that Quakers typically would put up with distraints of their property
without resistance:
I offer another amendment, to insert the following as new sections:
And be it further enacted, That any person drafted into the military
service of the United States, who is conscientiously unable to perform
military service, or pay commutation therefor, by reason of his religious
scruples against bearing arms, may apply by petition to any judge of any
court of the United States for the circuit or district wherein he resides,
setting forth the facts; whereupon the said judge shall proceed summarily
to hear and determine the case; and if it shall appear that such petition
is true, and that such petitioner shall have maintained a consistent
character in accordance with his well-known religious professions,
incompatible with military service, the judge shall certify the fact to the
board to enrollment for the enrollment district in which such petitioner
shall reside, and upon the receipt of such certificate the board of
enrollment shall take no further proceedings, nor shall any proceeding
whatever be taken to enforce such conscientious person into the military
service of the United States under that draft, or for the period of three
years from the date of such certificate.
And be it further enacted, That at the time of issuing such
certificate by a judge of the district or circuit court, as aforesaid, or
as soon thereafter as practicable, such judge shall issue an order to the
clerk of the district or circuit court of which he is the judge, to issue a
warrant of distress directed to the marshal of the district, or to his
deputy, against such conscientious person for the sum of $400, with all
lawful costs upon the said petition and warrant, and the same shall be
served by levying the same upon the goods, chattels, moneys, lands, and
tenements of such conscientious person, and when recovered, the said penalty
shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, and the costs to the
persons entitled to receive the same.
The effect of this amendment is, that a person conscientiously scrupulous
against bearing arms is relieved from the obligation to pay $400 for the
procuration of some other person to do that which he believes God has
forbidden him to do, and provides that the fine shall be collected by
warrant of distress. He then submits to the law, the law takes his property,
and he makes no complaint or opposition; but he is not required to do it
voluntarily, and that is a great relief to the consciences of a great many
intelligent men.…
James R. Doolittle
“I do not understand any Quaker in the world to object to ministering
to the wants of those who are sick or who are wounded in war”
Mr. Doolittle. The bill as it stands does not
require them to go as combatants at all, but simply gives them their choice,
either to take care of the sick and wounded, or pay over their $400 for the
purpose of providing for the wants of the sick and wounded. I do not
understand any Quaker in the world to object to ministering to the wants of
those who are sick or who are wounded in war. They are willing to do
everything to alleviate the results of war. What they object to is bearing
arms and being instrumental in the killing of men themselves.
Mr. Anthony. A great many of them object to
rendering any service which relieves another man from the obligation of that
service and enables him to go into the Army.
Mr. Johnson. That is going too far.
Mr. Anthony. It is going too far, I know, but it
is no further than very honest and very intelligent men go. They have held
these opinions, and their ancestors before them, for a great many years. As
it is the same thing to the Government, and will be a material relief to
them, I cannot see any objection to the amendment.
Reverdy Johnson
“That is going too far”
Senator Ten Eyck tried to reassert his point:
Mr. President, I think these persons ought either to be exempted altogether
or not exempted at all. I have on my table a memorial placed there this
morning, which comes from the meeting representing the Ohio Yearly Meeting of
Friends, held at Damascus on , in which
these memorialists state—
That the Society of Friends has from its rise been conscientious against
fighting or bearing arms under any circumstances, or paying an equivalent in
lieu thereof.
After stating the grounds of their belief, the memorial winds up by saying:
We therefore respectfully ask for exemption from military service, and from
all penalties for the non-performance thereof.
Congress finally decided to go with the original plan of allowing
conscientious objectors to be drafted into noncombatant roles or to pay a
commutation fine.