Charles P. Dewitt - Page 6

                                        -  -6                                           
                    In the case at bar, Mr. Gaumer testified that his                 
               study of Defendant's Exhibit A--a book that purports to                
               tell the reader "[w]hy you are not legally required to                 
               file tax returns"--led him to do further research to                   
               verify the author's claims that people like himself had                
               no such obligation.  This research led him to Exhibits                 
               B through E, consisting of photocopies of Brushaber v.                 
               Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60                   
               L.Ed. 493 (1916), Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107,                  
               31 S.Ct. 342, 55 L.Ed. 389 (1911), Stanton v. Baltic                   
               Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546                   
               (1916), and pages 2578-81 of the Congressional Record                  
               of March 27, 1943.  Gaumer testified that he learned                   
               from Brushaber and the Congressional Record excerpt                    
               that income taxes are excise taxes. * * *                              
                    As a legal matter, the exhibits do not validate                   
               Mr. Gaumer's views.  As a factual matter, however, we                  
               think a jury might have discerned a nexus between these                
               materials and Mr. Gaumer's stated belief that he was                   
               not required to file income tax returns. Brushaber and                 
               the Congressional Record excerpt do indeed state that                  
               for constitutional purposes, the income tax is an                      
               excise tax.  This statement is reiterated in Stanton,                  
               and Flint discusses the scope of the term "excise tax"                 
               in a way that could conceivably be thought to provide                  
               some comfort to a person in defendant Gaumer's station.                
               Mr. Gaumer should therefore have been allowed to                       
               present the contents of the exhibits to the jury to the                
               extent that the material was relevant.                                 

               Clearly, the case of United States v. Gaumer, supra, does              
          not support petitioner's position in the present case, since it             
          is stated therein that the cases of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,           
          supra, and Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., supra, on which                    
          petitioner relies in the instant case, as a legal matter, do not            
          validate the views that a taxpayer is not required to file income           
          tax returns because an income tax is an excise tax.  The Court's            
          holding merely was that the evidence should have been permitted             
          to be introduced in connection with the issue of whether the                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011