United States v. White

583 F. Supp. 1118, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1348, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17073
CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedMay 1, 1984
DocketCiv. 6-84-405
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 583 F. Supp. 1118 (United States v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. White, 583 F. Supp. 1118, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1348, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17073 (mnd 1984).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

DEVITT, District Judge.

Upon hearing and considering the evidence and the arguments of counsel on plaintiffs motion for an injunction, now combined with trial on the merits, the court makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant David White is the founder and “executive director of the Minnesota Society for Educated Citizens,” (hereafter, MSEC).

2. Operating under the MSEC name, White has engaged in the business of promoting and selling materials to the public containing detailed instructions for the use of false or fraudulent means to evade federal income taxation, particularly as it applies to wages, salaries or other compensation for labor or services.

3. White also offers materials for sale and provides oral instructions for other techniques calculated to harass the personnel of the United States Internal Revenue Service and to impair and impede the performance of the duties of the Internal Revenue Service.

4. The basic material employed by defendant is a set of cassette tapes and written materials, including sample federal income tax forms created by one George Arlen of 122 Spanish Village # 637, Dallas, Texas 75248 who is the head of an organization called the “American Patriots Associations” (APA). Defendant, doing business as MSEC, operates as a local affiliate of the APA.

5. The court finds that the information contained in these written materials and cassette tapes is false and fraudulent on its face. The materials consist of frivolous arguments against the constitutionality and legality of the federal income tax system, arguments which have been repeatedly and uniformly rejected by the courts.

6. Defendant has engaged in the following specific acts:

(a) he has organized an entity (MSEC) and
(b) he has sold a plan or arrangement (the Patriots Pursuit of Happiness)

for the principal purpose of securing material federal tax benefits to his customers through the MSEC/Patriot’s Pursuit of Happiness Plan which defendant knows, or has reason to know, is false or fraudulent in nearly all respects.

7. Defendant has been selling this package in Minnesota for a fee of $50.00. He also collects fees from “members” of MSEC in exchange for further instruction and advice on ways to evade federal income taxes or to interfere with and impede Internal Revenue Service functions.

8. In particular, the MSEC/Patriot’s Pursuit of Happiness package falsely and fraudulently represents:

(a) that the federal income tax is unconstitutional as a direct tax not apportioned among the states.

(b) that the federal income tax does not apply to wages or salaries because these are the result of an exchange of property (labor) for property (wages) of equal value.

(c) that only those individuals who are corporate officers are subject to income tax withholding on their wages or salaries.

*1120 (d) that the duty to pay income taxes is dependent upon receiving privileges from the government.

(e) that by listing the total of all of his paychecks received during a taxable year as “wages, salaries, or other compensation” on a federal income tax return, an individual is drawing an incorrect conclusion of law.

9. Defendant also offers for sale and sells additional materials containing:

(a) Detailed instructions on methods calculated to evade the withholding of income taxes and FICA (social security) taxes on wages.

(b) Detailed instructions on ways to obtain federal income tax refunds using a fraudulent schedule “C” which characterizes wages or salary as gross receipts from the business of contracting and takes an artificially created offsetting deduction for “costs of goods sold.”

(c) Detailed instructions for the preparation of complaints or other pleadings and memoranda to be filed in court to advance one or more of the frivolous positions espoused by defendant and those associated with him.

(d) Detailed instructions on methods calculated to delay, hinder or impede audits, investigation and other lawful actions necessary and appropriate for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws.

REASONS FOR INJUNCTION AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF RELIEF

10. The scheme promoted by defendant is so clearly illegal that the United States will succeed on the merits against anyone seeking to derive federal income tax benefits through this plan.

11. Defendant's promotion of this false and fraudulent scheme constitutes a threat to the revenues which the government is entitled by law to collect and also threatens irreparable harm to the proper administration and enforcement of those laws.

12. Defendant and those associated with him seek to frustrate the administration and enforcement of the tax laws. Such conduct is contrary to the public interest.

13. Defendant will suffer no harm to any protected legal interest if enjoined from continuing to sell his fraudulent schemes. The United States, individual members of the public who buy defendant’s scheme and the public interest in the proper administration and enforcement of the law will continue to suffer if defendant is not enjoined.

14. Unless enjoined, defendant and others associated with him will continue to engage in these illegal activities and to promote imminent unlawful actions on the part of his customers.

15. The activities of defendant have led to a significant number of patently frivolous lawsuits filed in this and other, courts. These suits, for refund of withholding taxes and for refunds of frivolous return penalties have been uniformly dismissed or decided against the taxpayer plaintiffs, usually with an award of attorney fees to the government. These cases, nevertheless, have required considerable paper work on the part of court personnel, required the preparation of government motions to dismiss, and deprived other litigants of the attention of the court to meritorious claims and defenses in bona fide disputes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408.

2. Injunctive relief is appropriate under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and the court’s inherent equity powers.

3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

ncba/nce v. United States
843 F. Supp. 655 (D. Colorado, 1993)
United States v. Gorman
661 F. Supp. 1087 (D. Minnesota, 1987)
United States v. Petrelli
704 F. Supp. 122 (N.D. Ohio, 1986)
National Commodity and Barter Ass'n v. United States
625 F. Supp. 920 (D. Colorado, 1986)
United States v. Gordon S. Buttorff
761 F.2d 1056 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Turner
601 F. Supp. 757 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
583 F. Supp. 1118, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1348, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-white-mnd-1984.