Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → United States → Vietnam War, ~1965–75 → No Tax for War Committee protest, 1967 → Ken & Peggy Champney

Here are a handful of artifacts relating to the American war tax resistance movement circa 1967.

First, some relics that were filed alongside a letter from Herbert Sonthoff to W. Walter Boyd (though I think this filing may be arbitrary and that the letters are not related to each other):

An Open Letter ^*

At this late date it is pointless to muster the evidence which shows that the war we are waging in Vietnam is wrong. By now you have decided for yourself where you stand. In all probability, if you share our feelings about it, you have expressed your objections both privately and publicly. You have witnessed the small effect these protests have had on our government.

By April 15^th, every American citizen must decide whether he will make a voluntary contribution to the continuation of this war. After grave consideration, we have decided that we can no longer do so, and that we will therefore withhold all or part of the taxes due. The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to the fact that a nationwide tax refusal campaign is in progress, as stated in the accompanying announcement, and to urge you to consider refusing to contribute voluntarily to this barbaric war.

Signed:

Prof. Warren Ambrose	Mathematics, M.I.T.
Dr. Donnell Boardman	Physician, Acton, Mass.
Mrs. Elizabeth Boardman	Acton, Mass.
Prof. Noam Chomsky	Linguistics, M.I.T.
Miss Barbara Deming	Writer, Wellfleet, Mass.
Prof. John Dolan	Philosophy, Chicago University
Prof. John Ek	Anthropology, Long Island University
Martha Bentley Hall	Musician, Brookline, Mass.
Dr. Thomas C. Hall	Physician, Brookline, Mass.
Rev. Arthur B. Jellis	First Parish in Concord, Unitarian-Universalist, Concord, Mass.
Prof. Donald Kalish	Philosophy, U.C.L.A.
Prof. Louis Kampf	Humanities, M.I.T.
Prof. Staughton Lynd	History, Yale University
Milton Mayer	Writer, Mass.
Prof. Jonathan Mirsky	Chinese Language and Literature, Dartmouth College
Prof. Sidney Morgenbesser	Philosophy, Columbia University
Prof. Wayne A. O’Neill	Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
Prof. Anatol Rapoport	Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan
Prof. Franz Schurmann	Center for Chinese Studies, University of Calif., Berkeley
Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgy	Institute for Muscle Research, Woods Hole, Mass.
Harold Tovish	Sculptor, Brookline, Mass.
Prof. Howard Zinn	Government, Boston University

^* Institutions listed for informational purposes only

P.S. The No Tax for War Committee intends to make public the names of signers, hence if you wish to add your signature, early return is desirable. Contributions are needed, and checks should be made payable to the Committee.

The following page, dated 11 March 1967, shows a mock-up of the intended public advertisement showing the signers’ names:

The committee will publish the above statement with names of signers at tax deadline — April 15.

Send signed statements to: NO TAX FOR WAR COMMITTEE, c/o Rev. Maurice McCrackin, 932 Dayton St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45214.

For additional copies of this form, put number you will distribute and name and address on the following lines:
No. _____ Name ____________________
Address _________________________

Signers So Far

• Meldon and Amy Acheson
• Michael J. Ames
• Alfred F. Andersen
• Ross Anderson
• Beulah K. Arndt
• Joan Baez
• Richard Baker
• Bruce & Pam Beck
• Ruth T. Best
• Robert & Margaret Blood
• Karel F. Botermans
• Marion & Ernest Bromley
• Edwin Brooks
• A. Dale Brothington
• Mrs. Lydia Bruns
• Wendal Bull
• Mrs. Dorothy Bucknell
• John Burslem
• Lindley J. Burton
• Catharine J. Cadbury
• Maris Cakars
• Robert and Phyllis Calese
• William N. Calloway
• Betty Camp
• Daryle V. Carter
• Jared & Susan Carter
• Horace & Beulah Champney
• Ken & Peggy Champney
• Hank & Henry Chapin
• Holly Chenery
• Richard A. Chinn
• Naom [sic] Chomsky
• John & Judy Christian
• Gordon & Mary Christiansen
• Peter Christiansen
• Donald F. Cole
• John Augustine Cook
• Helen Marr Cook
• Jack Coolidge, Jr.
• Allen Cooper
• Martin J. Corbin
• Tom & Monica Cornell
• Dorothy J. Cunningham
• Jean DaCosta
• Ann & William Davidon
• Stanley F. Davis
• Dorothy Day
• Dave Dellinger
• Barbara Deming
• Robert Dewart
• Ruth Dodd
• John M. Dolan
• Orin Doty
• Allen Duberstein
• Ralph Dull
• Malcolm Dundas
• Margaret E. Dungan
• Henry Dyer
• Susan Eanet
• Bob Eaton
• Marc Paul Edelman
• Johan & Francis Eliot
• Jerry Engelbach
• George J. Etu, Jr.
• Mary C. Eubanks
• Arthur Evans
• Jonathan Evans
• William E. Evans
• Pearl Ewald
• Franklin Farmer
• Bertha Faust
• Dianne M. Feeley
• Rice A. Felder
• Henry A. Felisone
• Mildred Fellin
• Glenn Fisher
• John Forbes
• Don & Ann Fortenberry
• Marion C. Frenyear
• Ruth Gage-Colby
• Lawrence H. Geller
• Richard Ghelli
• Charles Gibadlo
• Bruce Glushakow
• Walter Gormly
• Arthur Goulston
• Thomas Grabell
• Steven Green
• Walter Grengg
• Joseph Gribbins
• Kenneth Gross
• John M. Grzywacz, Jr.
• Catherine Guertin
• David Hartsough
• David Hartsough
• Arthur Harvey
• Janet Hawksley
• James P. Hayes, Jr.
• R.F. Helstern
• Ammon Hennacy
• Norman Henry
• Robert Hickey
• Dick & Heide Hiler
• William Himelhoch
• C.J. Hinke
• Anthony Hinrichs
• William M. Hodsdon
• Irwin R. Hogenauer
• Florence Howe
• Donald & Mary Huck
• Philip Isely
• Michael Itkin
• Charles T. Jackson
• Paul Jacobs
• Martin & Nancy Jezer
• F. Robert Johnson
• Woodbridge O. Johnson
• Ashton & Marie Jones
• Paul Jordan
• Paul Keiser
• Joel C. Kent
• Roy C. Kepler
• Paul & Pauline Kermiet
• Peter Kiger
• Richard King
• H.A. Kreinkamp
• Arthur & Margaret Landes
• Paul Lauter
• Peter and Marolyn Leach
• Gertrud & George A. Lear, Jr.
• Alan and Elin Learnard
• Titus Lehman
• Richard A. Lema
• Florence Levinsohn
• Elliot Linzer
• David C. Lorenz
• Preston B. Luitweiler
• Bradford Lyttle
• Adriann van L. Maas
• Ben & Sue Mann
• Paul and Salome Mann
• Howard E. Marston, Sr.
• Milton and Jane Mayer
• Martin & Helen Mayfield
• Maurice McCrackin
• Lilian McFarland
• Maureen & Felix McGowan
• Maryann McNaughton
• Gelston McNeil
• Guy W. Meyer
• Karl Meyer
• David & Catherine Miller
• James Missey
• Mark Morris
• Janet Murphy
• Thomas P. Murray
• Rosemary Nagy
• Wally & Juanita Nelson
• Marilyn Neuhauser
• Neal D. Newby, Jr.
• Miriam Nicholas
• Robert B. Nichols
• David Nolan
• Raymond S. Olds
• Wayne A. O’Neil
• Michael O’Quin
• Ruth Orcutt
• Eleanor Ostroff
• Doug Palmer
• Malcolm & Margaret Parker
• Jim Peck
• Michael E. Pettie
• John Pettigrew
• Lydia H. Philips
• Dean W. Plagowski
• Jefferson Poland
• A.J. Porth
• Ralph Powell
• Charles F. Purvis
• Jean Putnam
• Harriet Putterman
• Robert Reitz
• Ben & Helen Reyes
• Elsa G. Richmond
• Eroseanna Robinson
• Pat Rusk
• Joe & Helen Ryan
• Paul Salstrom
• Ira J. Sandperl
• Jerry & Rae Schwartz
• Martin Shepard
• Richard T. Sherman
• Louis Silverstein
• T.W. Simer
• Ann B. Sims
• Jane Beverly Smith
• Linda Smith
• Thomas W. Smuda
• Bob Speck
• Elizabeth P. Steiner
• Lee D. Stern
• Beverly Sterner
• Michael Stocker
• Charles H. Straut, Jr.
• Stephen Suffet
• Albert & Joyce Sunderland, Jr.
• Mr. & Mrs. Michael R. Sutter
• Marjorie & Robert Swann
• Oliver & Katherine Tatum
• Gary G. Taylor
• Harold Tovish
• Joe & Cele Tuchinsky
• Lloyd & Phyllis Tyler
• Samuel R. Tyson
• Ingegerd Uppman
• Margaret von Selle
• Mrs. Evelyn Wallace
• Wilbur & Joan Ann Wallis
• William & Mary Webb
• Barbara Webster
• John K. White
• Willson Whitman
• Denny & Ida Wilcher
• Huw Williams
• George & Lillian Willoughby
• Bob Wilson
• Emily T. Wilson
• Jim & Raona Wilson
• W.W. Wittkamper
• Sylvia Woog
• Wilmer & Mildred Young
• Franklin Zahn
• Betty & Louis Zemel
• Vicki Jo Zilinkas

Following this was a page explaining how to go about resisting:

Some Methods of Nonpayment

1. For those owing nothing because of the Withholding Tax.
   
   Such persons write a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, to be filed with the tax return, stating that the writer cannot in good conscience help support the war in Vietnam, voluntarily. The writer therefore requests a return of a percentage of the money collected from his salary.
   
   Note: Of course, the IRS will not return the money. However, the writer has refused to pay for the war voluntarily and has put it in writing. This symbolic action is not to be belittled since anybody who does this allies himself with those who will withhold money due the IRS.
2. For those self-employed or owing money beyond what has been withheld from salary.
   
   Such persons write a letter to be filed with the tax return, stating that the writer does not object to the income tax in principle, but will not, as a matter of conscience, help pay for the war in Vietnam. The writer is therefore withholding some or all of the tax due.

Note: In all cases, we recommend that copies of these letters be sent to the President and to your Senators.

Remarks:

The Internal Revenue Service has the legal power to confiscate money due it. They will get that money, one way or another. However, to obstruct the IRS from collecting money due (by not filing a return at all, for example) seems less important to us than the fact that each is refusing to pay his tax voluntarily. With this in mind, many of us are placing the taxes owed in special accounts and we will so inform the IRS in our letters.

Willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in jail, together with the costs of prosecution. So far, the IRS has prosecuted only those who have obstructed collection (by refusing to file a return, by refusing to answer a summons, etc.). Usually, the IRS has collected the tax due plus 6% interest and possibly an added fine of 5% for “negligence”. The fact that the IRS has rarely, if at all, prosecuted tax-refusers to the full extent of the law does not mean they will not do so in the future.

Finally, an article from the December 1967 edition of The Capitol East Gazette:

Tax Refusal Urged by Group

Two thousand anti-war leaflets on telephone tax refusal were distributed in Capitol East on Saturday, Nov. 18, by members of CHOICE, a group of local residents who are withdrawing their support for the Vietnam war.

The leaflet explains that the 10% phone tax was enacted in April 1966 specifically to raise money for the Vietnam war.

According to CHOICE, the phone company will not remove a person’s telephone if he refuses to pay the tax. The company asks refusers to state why they are withholding the tax and then turns the matter over to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to CHOICE, there are presently 25 known tax refusers in the Capitol Hill area.

Those desiring CHOICE’s leaflet are asked to call LI 6‒9836.

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1969

On 28 June 1968, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson signed a law that added a 7.5% surcharge to most income tax bills that tax year, and 10% for 1969. Johnson sold the tax as a necessary measure for the Vietnam War effort — “to give our fighting men the help they need in this hour of trial.”

Some may hear in this message a call to sacrifice. In truth, it is a call to the sense of obligation felt by all Americans. The inconveniences this demand imposes are small when measured against the contribution of a Marine on patrol in a sweltering jungle, or an airman flying through perilous skies, or a soldier 10 thousand miles from home, waiting to join his outfit on the line.

This surtax was the most explicit war tax the government had yet imposed. When Quakers began filling out their 1968 income tax returns, even some who had been wobbly and skeptical about resisting the “mixed” taxes began to feel that to pay this tax was a step they were not prepared to take.

In the 1 February 1969 issue of Friends Journal, Colin W. Bell explained why this surtax had pushed him over the line:

Line 12B — Tax Surcharge

Every person who fills out an income tax return this year and finds he owes the government some money will face the above line in print, and its implications in his conscience.

The idea of a surcharge was first presented in a 1967 broadcast to the nation by the President. It was set then in the context of Vietnam, and was to be continued “so long as the unusual expenditures associated with our efforts in Vietnam require higher revenues.” As now levied, it remains a tax necessitated by the Vietnam war, whatever justifications may be advanced for it on economic or social grounds, as a curb on inflation and so on. Mr. Johnson reiterated in his 1968 Budget message that “it is not the rise in regular budget outlays which requires a temporary tax increase, but the cost of Vietnam.”

I am miserably aware that a large portion of the regular federal income tax I pay is spent for past, present, or future wars. I have not done a number of things others have felt impelled to do to witness against taxation for war. A few people live calculatedly with incomes below the taxable level; a few refuse voluntary payment of all or part of the required taxes; some identify the non-reduction of the telephone tax with the Vietnam war and do not pay it of their own accord. For me, this line about the tax surcharge is, in a quite literal sense, the point of no return! I shall not fill it in or make voluntary payment.

I claim no logic for having arrived at this position at this time — but I do have a strong sense that this line on our tax form represents a specific and unavoidable challenge to those of us who live in comfort, or even affluence. Each of us will have to reassess the validity of those arguments we have previously used to justify our tax payments. Indeed, the individual answer will have to be found not at the level of argumentation, but at deep levels of inward conviction.

Is it easier, or more difficult, to resist tax conscription than conscription of the person? Is it fair to make an analogy between the son’s moral dilemma concerning his body and the father’s concerning his money? Most of us older Friends are law-abiding persons for whom the idea of practicing any sort of civil disobedience is deeply distressing. We do, however, frequently recognize the purity of motive of some of our contemporaries who practice it; and we unite in finding inspiration in those who down the years have enriched the Quaker witness by obeying higher laws which brought them into conflict with the ordinances of their times.

Most of us accept the principle of taxation to pay for governmental services. We want to bear our right and proper share of the tax obligation, and many would uncomplainingly accept heavier taxation for constructive purposes. Our imaginations are lively enough to envisage possible consequences of tax refusal, and we are not blind to the fact of the government’s power to collect unpaid taxes and impose penalties which would in fact increase the total paid.

What, then, shall we do about “Line 12B — Tax Surcharge”? Our bodies are not conscripted because they are not useful for war service. The young must face that heaviest of all demands. We are, however, contemplating a quite specific induction notice, though at an infinitely lower level of sacrifice — the call-up of our money for war service. This year, in a most pointed way, we who fill out our tax forms cannot escape giving an answer of some sort to this draft of our resources. It is an answer that, I believe, can be made only after those deep quakings of spirit which earned us the nickname we prize and would like to honor in our lives.

In the 1 July issue, Philip Dudley Woodbridge wrote in to explain why he was “refusing to pay part of the income tax due at this time as a symbol of my intention not to support wars — past, present, or future.… I will not support this mass murder and the possible destruction of mankind.”

At that year’s New York Yearly Meeting, according to a report in the Journal,

Realizing that Friends often are called to different witness and that we have a corporate responsibility for each other, we decided that organizations of New York Yearly Meeting should support the witness of individual Friends by refusing to help the government collect (out of salaries due) taxes that these Friends have in conscience refused to pay.

The discussion of the issue of war taxes was long and difficult and required us to grapple with the realization that while breaking the law may seem to violate the consciences of some, refusing to break certain laws may violate those of others.

This situation creates a constant tension that cannot be resolved by each going his own way but only by all of us continuing to labor together in love. In light of this, the Meeting finally agreed that its offices should not pay the telephone excise tax, which is earmarked for the Vietnam war.

Newton Garver later wrote in to give his impressions about the New York Yearly Meeting, and he included these remarks, which seem to partially contradict the above report:

It was urged that Yearly Meeting refuse to pay the federal excise tax on its telephone bills and also that the Yearly Meeting treasurer not withhold or pay to the government federal income taxes of those who are conscientiously opposed to paying them. Eventually the first sort of corporate tax refused was approved [sic] and the second not.

The issue is a powerful one, and I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I am gratified that the Yearly Meeting feels called on to offer resistance to the war machine. On the other hand I was disappointed that there were so few qualms about the appropriateness of tax refusal for this purpose. There were, of course, qualms about doing something illegal, but they seemed the same as the qualms about sending medical aid to all parts of Vietnam, whereas the situations are fundamentally different. Prohibiting humanitarian aid is evil in itself whereas taxation is not — and both the income tax withholding and the telephone excise tax are, although introduced with wartime rhetoric, reasonably equitable and efficient forms of taxation.

Tax refusal inevitably hits at the manner of taxation and the lifeblood of government, as well as at the purposes for which the money is spent. Tax refusal is therefore a desperate measure and also relatively unsatisfactory, the trouble being that it hits broadside and lacks the clear focus of acts like sailing Phoenix to Haiphong or reading the names of the war dead at the Capitol. This does not mean that tax refusal is wrong. Although I stopped refusing some months ago, feeling that I was refusing more and enjoying it less, I refused to pay the telephone excise tax for about two years. Like many others, I was desperate to stand somehow against the all too civilized brutality of our government in Vietnam. What troubled me at Yearly Meeting was that these tax refusal actions were presented as if they were clear and unassailable pacifist measures rather than steps of desperation. Perhaps a confession of our desperation would have been more appropriate, but I do not know how others feel.

The 15 August issue printed some excerpts from the deliberations that had taken place during the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s proceedings. Among these was this paragraph:

Twenty cents of every tax dollar is used in actual killing of our fellow man. Friends recalled the 1776 statement by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting on the use of our bodies and our resources, which has never been rescinded. That Minute, reading as follows, might well be our statement in 1969: “It is the judgment of this Meeting that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colours, or for other warlike uses cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimonies.” What is important is that all Friends search their hearts to decide at what point they must take their stand.

In the 1 November issue, Kenneth H. Champney wrote in to ask for advice on how to deal with a tax-resisting employee. “I believe in government, in laws, and in taxes to support constructive activity. Yet it is evident that the Federal income tax is largely a war tax. Last month, a young conscientious objector told me: ‘If you withhold my tax you will be forcing me to participate in killing.’ I could not withhold his tax, and so notified the Internal Revenue Service. I would be interested in knowing the experience of others who have been in a position similar to mine.”

A report on the Pacific Yearly Meeting in the same issue included the brief note that “La Jolla Meeting leafleted the local draft board and refused to pay the telephone tax.” The Missouri Valley Friends Conference also reported in a later issue that they “approved minutes on [such subjects as] withholding taxes for military purposes, and exploring the possibility of a peace tax beyond the One Percent More program.” And the Green Pastures Quarterly Meeting “approved a minute that the United States’ continuation of the Vietnam war was morally wrong, that it questioned the moral rightness of paying taxes to support it, and that it gave ‘approval and loving support’ to those who conscientiously refused to pay such taxes.”

In one of two “called sessions” of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in October, “Friends considered tax refusal as a possible form of corporate witness against the war in Vietnam.”

Friends suggested several techniques. One was a refund claim, such as the one filed by American Friends Service Committee in the First District Court of Philadelphia against the Internal Revenue Service. It is based on an alleged violation by IRS of the First Amendment in its imposition of an involuntary withholding tax. In the AFSC case, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting will be a “friend of the court.” The Meeting, awaiting the outcome of this suit, at the request of three of its employees, is holding in escrow in a savings account income taxes withheld from their salaries. The Meeting also has refused to pay levies imposed by IRS on the salaries of employees who have not paid the telephone tax.

Young Friends pleaded for sharing and sacrifice instead of trying to find ingenious ways of evading the payment of income taxes. “Americans would rather be dead than poor,” one of them said.

The meeting did not reach consensus, and agreed to meet again.

The caption to a photo from a 28 December “Called Meeting for Worship and Declarations of Freedom from Conscription” noted that “Eight individuals expressed their intentions to refuse the payment of war taxes.”

“Sneaky” resistance

A letter-to-the-editor in the 15 May issue from Lloyd C. Shank advocated “the ‘sneaky’ way” of tax resistance — comparing crafty tax evasion to the necessarily surreptitious illegality of the Underground Railroad. “After all, the punishment for cheating is far less than for murdering. And ‘cheating’ is only an oppressive government’s name for a good man’s refusal to murder.”

I believe… that often we are blinded to practical resistance by our over-conscientious concern with so-called deep ethical implications. Jesus cleansed the temple — not a profound decision or deed (two angry boys might have done the same) — but a practical demonstration against religious hypocrisy and greed.

If Christ had consulted the religious community of hair-splitters, he never would have received a go-ahead. He obeyed the Spirit: Simple, sweet, quick, effective.

Betty Stone did not agree. She wrote in to contrast “the ‘sneaky’ way” with that of “the experts on effective nonviolent action:”

Jesus, who demands thoroughgoing honesty (“purity of spirit”) and Gandhi, who said, “truth is even more important than love.” How far could Dr. King have gone had he lacked character and credibility?

Stone may have overplayed her hand when she then attacked the Underground Railroad analogy by attacking the Underground Railroad itself, saying that perhaps it “represented violent treatment of slaveholders… [that] led to secession and the Civil War.” Instead, she felt, a more non-violent solution would have been one of “love in action” that was designed to transform the slaveholders — for instance “if large numbers of Friends had combined to compensate slave owners for slaves whom they aided to escape? What if Friends had gone to the plantations and offered to do the work of the slaves who had escaped — to take their beatings and lynchings and to train the slaves by example in the use of transforming power in their own behalf? Could Friends have popularized the principle of emancipation with just compensation?”

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 2012

There were a few scattered mentions of war tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 2012.

A obituary notice for Kenneth Hilbert Champney in the February issue noted:

He volunteered printing services for the Peacemakers, a group dedicated to nonviolence, to start a newsletter. Ken believed in resisting the income tax in order to oppose military spending. He withheld what he judged to be the military portion of the taxes on his employees, continuing this practice even under threat from the IRS. He kept his own income low enough and his charitable contributions high enough to stay under the taxable limit year after year. In later life, Ken devised an investment system that enabled him to avoid paying income taxes.

Kyle Chandler-Isacksen promoted war tax resistance in an article in the April that asked the reader to imagine the taxpaying process as if it were more of a personal encounter with the government, or with its embodiment, “General Sam.” The about-the-author note below the article read:

Kyle Chandler-Isacksen and his family have been war tax resistors for the past five years by living below the poverty line. They are the founders of Be The Change Project, an urban homestead devoted to family learning and service in a low-income neighborhood in Reno, Nevada.

David and Jan Hartsough had a letter-to-the-editor in the May issue (which I’ve already covered, in the 14 July 2013 Picket Line). That issue also had brief review of a children’s book based on the tax resistance of American women’s suffrage activists Abby & Julia Smith.

Merry Stanford, in an October article on the conscientious use of money, alluded to her war tax resistance:

By the time I was a young mother and attending Quaker meeting, my life had taken several surprising turns, and my resources were very scarce. Living on a poverty income in order to resist paying war taxes, I didn’t consider myself someone who had much to share with others.

That issue also contained a review of the NWTRCC-produced documentary Death & Taxes. Excerpts:

The film puts a human face on the subject, telling and showing the stories of those whose ultimate protest against war is their refusal to pay for it. The resisters are sincere, some even joyful, and their clarity of conscience is inspiring. They are folks with whom one would want to have more conversation, and the film will have its greatest use as a discussion starter for classes and study groups.

We live in an era when many taxpayers are objecting to the way their tax dollars are spent. Some taxpayers object to paying for publicly funded health care, public universities, public employee pensions, prisons, research, foreign aid, or for social security. How to sort out which public sector activities are moral and which are immoral is not a question the film does much to answer, however, I have no doubt that the people interviewed have given this subject thoughtful attention, but one needs to go beyond the film to probe more deeply. Refusal to pay taxes is a rather blunt instrument, except in the few cases where a tax or surtax has been specifically put in place to pay for a military undertaking. The film barely addresses this social complexity.