76-10-A4

- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977

<< Previous Broadcast

Next Broadcast >>

Taxes III

Transcript In the last two days, we followed the course of an income taxpayer who has been told by auditors of Internal Revenue Service that deductions he took in his tax return are being disallowed. Yesterday we had him up to the United States Supreme Court -- the highest tribunal in our land. Well, first of all the Supreme Court accepts only those cases it chooses to hear so it isn't a sure thing that you'll have your day in court. At least in that particular court. But, let's cut through all the "ifs" and say the eminent justices found in your favor. You don't owe the added tax, the interest or the penalty. Let's not even talk about whether the cost of all you've done is several times greater than the disputed amount of tax. You've struck a blow for freedom. A Supreme Court ruling will stand as a precedent for years to come, sparing all citizens with similar problems from ever having to endure what you've gone through. Sorry. The ruling you've won applies only to you. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has the right -- a unique right -- to non-acquiesce. He has to give you back your money, but he reserves the right to go after the next fellow as if the court had never ruled in your favor. I know most of us believe the Supreme Court has the final word in any court case and they do as far as criminals are concerned. But, in a sad way, where a tax case is concerned, it would seem the Commissioner is more powerful than the United States Supreme Court. But what about the Bill of Rights -- our Constitutional guarantees. Well, in a case filed November 15, 1976 the authors of the article I've been quoting from for these three broadcasts, Mr. Green and Mr. Carden, tell of a citizen versus I.R.S. who based his case on the Bill of Rights. He refused to answer questions put to him by the revenue agents by invoking the Fifth Amendment. The judge overruled him. The judge's justification is frightening. He said - QUOTE -- "We believe the need for requiring voluntary disclosures of income transcends any personal right to thwart national objectives by allowing an undisclosed self-determination of possible self incrimination to excuse non-compliance with the income tax laws." - UNQUOTE- In other words, the objectives of the state are more important than the rights of its citizens! Do you know, that is one of the basic precepts of Karl Marx. Defenses allowed a common criminal are denied a citizen with a tax problem. How far we've come in our income tax that in 1927 was only 1½% to a top of 5%, and now begins at 14% and goes to 70%. Mr. Green and Mr. Carden suggest the answer might lie in a Constitutional convention which can be called by the legislatures of 38 states to adopt an amendment limiting the percent of earning subject to tax. There is no limit now. Under the 16th Amendment the government could take 100% of every dollar earned. They also suggest an amendment to limit the size of the national debt and to provide for paying it off in forty years at 2½% per year. To start with that would be a $15 billion payment. Well, that makes more sense than adding $50 billion a year to the debt. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.		Details Batch Number 76-10-A4 Production Date 02/22/1977 Book/Page RihoH-281 Audio Youtube? No
		Added Notes