By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Chicago attorney Rachel Cohen has publicly stated her intention to withhold over $8,000 in federal income taxes as a protest against immigration detention and U.S. strikes on Iran. While expressing dissatisfaction with government policies is legal, refusing to pay owed taxes can result in significant penalties, including interest, wage garnishment, property liens, and potentially jail time. Cohen is aware of these risks and emphasizes her protest is against spending priorities, not taxation itself. This act aligns with a tradition of “war tax resistance,” which sees an increase in participation during periods of controversial U.S. military action.
Read the original article here
There’s a growing sentiment, amplified by current events, that whispers about tax resistance. With recent political actions, like federal funds being withheld from certain cities and states, and ongoing geopolitical tensions leading to costly wars, some individuals are questioning the fundamental obligation to pay federal taxes. This feeling of taxation without adequate representation, or worse, taxation funding actions they vehemently oppose, is resonating with a portion of the population. It’s a sentiment that harks back to historical acts of defiance, like the Boston Tea Party, where the act of protest itself, even at a cost, was seen as a valid response to perceived governmental overreach.
The core of this emerging unease centers on the idea that laws, at their most basic, are essentially threats of violence enforced by a ruling class. When people feel that their tax dollars are being used in ways that contradict their deeply held beliefs, or that the government is acting in ways they deem tyrannical or profoundly inexpedient, the temptation to withhold those funds becomes more pronounced. This isn’t a new concept; historical figures and movements have grappled with the ethics of supporting a government whose actions one cannot condone, leading to various forms of civil disobedience.
For some, the decision to resist paying taxes, particularly a portion allocated to military spending, is a deeply personal and ideological one. During periods like the Vietnam War, individuals would deliberately withhold specific amounts, aiming to make the government work harder for those funds and to send a clear political message. While this often resulted in penalties, wage garnishment, and in some extreme cases, the loss of property, the act itself was seen as a form of resistance, a way to embody principles of civil disobedience and to express opposition to policies they found unconscionable.
However, a crucial point often overlooked in these discussions is how tax systems actually work for the average person. Many individuals, through automatic withholdings from their paychecks, are effectively overpaying throughout the year, leading to a refund come tax season. This means that for a significant number of people, simply not paying taxes in a given year might not result in immediate financial penalties if they are expecting a refund. The IRS would, in essence, be holding onto their overpaid money. The idea is to make the government acknowledge the overpayment and the resistance, even if it means a delay in receiving their expected refund, or facing a penalty that some deem less significant than the perceived misallocation of their funds.
For those who do owe taxes and are contemplating resistance, filing an extension can offer a temporary reprieve. This allows individuals to defer payment, often until October, and while penalties and fees do apply for late payment, they can be relatively low, especially for smaller amounts owed. Some argue that these penalties are significantly less impactful than the potential consequences of direct tax evasion, and that the fear of the IRS is often overblown, particularly if an individual has legitimate reasons for an extension. This perspective suggests that claiming exempt, while not always permissible if taxes were owed the previous year, is another tactic people consider to bring attention to their grievances.
The debate also touches on the effectiveness of such resistance. Some believe that the IRS, especially if perceived as “gutted” by budget cuts, may not have the resources to pursue every instance of tax resistance, particularly when it’s framed as a political statement against perceived tyranny or “domestic terrorism” by the current administration. The argument is that if millions of people engage in this, the system could become overwhelmed. The idea is to make the government work harder, to create a backlog, and to demonstrate a widespread lack of compliance that the authorities might struggle to manage effectively.
Conversely, there are strong counterarguments emphasizing the significant risks involved. Tax evasion is a crime, and while penalties for underpayment might seem manageable for small amounts, willful failure to file or pay can lead to severe consequences, including imprisonment. Some accountants and legal professionals caution that while the IRS might overlook minor acts of political tax resistance in some instances, relying on this is a gamble. They highlight historical precedents where individuals faced severe repercussions, and note that in challenging economic times, the IRS might actually increase enforcement at lower income levels, targeting those least able to afford legal battles.
Furthermore, the notion that political parties might be sympathetic to tax resistors is viewed as naive by some. The expectation is that regardless of political affiliation, the government apparatus will enforce tax laws. The argument is that withholding taxes is a risky personal act that could lead to severe personal consequences, and that political change is more effectively achieved through established channels like voting or organizing collective action, such as a general strike. The sentiment is that focusing on political engagement, rather than individual acts of financial defiance, is a more sustainable and less perilous path to achieving desired societal changes.
The practicalities of tax withholding also present a challenge for many. With income taxes often automatically deducted from paychecks before individuals even receive their earnings, the ability to “withhold” taxes becomes significantly more difficult for those who aren’t self-employed or whose employers don’t operate on a system where taxes are paid at a later date. This inherent structural barrier means that for a large segment of the population, the ability to directly resist by withholding funds is already limited.
Ultimately, the discussion around tax resistance is multifaceted, touching on historical precedents, ethical considerations, political frustrations, and practical realities. While the idea of withholding taxes as a protest gains traction amid current political and global events, the potential consequences from the IRS remain a significant deterrent, creating a complex calculus for individuals grappling with their civic duties and their conscience.