“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

Thomas Paine

In the ongoing debate over whether to reign in the powers of the Internal Revenue Service and, if so, by what magnitude, the battle lines have being drawn.  At stake is whether the American public will continue to see constitutionally guarantied rights ceded to the federal government or demand an end to two centuries of usurpation of power at the expense of the people.

Congressman Bill Archer has correctly reasoned that under our Constitution an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the nature of the charge against a person should not diminish the guaranty of such protections.  Unfortunately, where tax revenues are concerned, and by extension the ultimate source of power for the federal bureaucracy, this fundamental right has been emasculated by all three branches of our government through their collective agreement that, “the IRS’s position is presumed to be correct and taxpayers bear the burden of proving themselves innocent.”

With shouts of “extremist”, the Clinton Administration, which yet to encounter a civil right its was not willing to trample, has found itself allied with the nation’s tax lawyers, a clique whose very livelihood depends on the status quo, in defending the current system and challenging Archer’s troublesome proposal.  They argue that to implement such a change would “undermine the ability [of the IRS] to collect taxes that are legitimately owed.”  In other words, it’s all right to dissolve a constitutional right in the name of governmental efficiency.

These law school graduates seem to have forgotten our founding fathers designed a cumbersome and relatively inefficient system which intentionally limited the powers of the federal government and, through the Bill of Rights, conveyed “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States … or to the people.”  Regretfully, the ensuing two centuries, have witnessed a steady but inexorable onslaught by the federal government to intrude into and take some degree of control of nearly every aspect of our public and personal lives. 

The opponents of returning the burden of proof in tax matters to the government argue, tax issues are civil, not criminal, in nature.  However, with substantial monetary and “criminal” penalties facing would-be tax cheats, that contention holds little water. 

Their next tact is to suggest that the present system of assuming the taxpayer is guilty until he or she establishes their innocence “comports with the age old principal that the burden should generally rest with the party who has control of the facts and records.”  By that logic, individuals charged with murder, rape, robbery or even slander should be compelled to prove their innocence as they are obviously in possession of the “facts”.

  • Finally, these self-serving statists suggest, by encumbering the IRS with the requirement to prove the guilt of an alleged tax evader, they would be less efficient, catch fewer cheats and ultimately the honest taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for those who didn’t pay and weren’t convicted.  While all of the foregoing might be true

The most “efficient” governments are frequently those least inclined to respect individual liberties;

  • A smaller, less intrusive and less expensive government, combined with a fair and simplified tax system, would be far easier to administer and might produce fewer cheats; and
  • Yes, the honest taxpayer might pay more than his or her fair share, but that is happening today.

Actually, shifting the burden of proof to the IRS is not a tricky problem at all.  It can be done with relative ease by men and women who believe that their primary role as elected representatives of the American people is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.   They can tell the Internal Revenue Service and all other branches of government that there can be no exceptions where the fundamental rights of our citizens are concerned.  And, if the result is a somewhat less efficient bureaucracy, then that is an extremely small price to pay for a reclaimed liberty.