Mailed this off today:
April 6, 2010
Kurt Henning
(address)
Paul S. Caselton
Deputy General Counsel – Income Tax
Illinois Department of Revenue
101 West Jefferson
Springfield, IL 62794
Dear Mr. Caselton:
I presume this will be the last letter between us unless you would choose to correspond with me further, but as a private citizen, which I would welcome. I, myself, work part-time for the federal government, but do not speak of these matters in that capacity. I pursue this as a private citizen, where I may speak as freely as I desire.
I know you and the entire Department are very busy this time of year, so I wanted to be sure to thank you again for the time you took to write me, and for treating me with due respect. I hope you feel I have treated you in the same way, and apologize for any offense (in case any was taken).
I would like you to know that I do not counsel anyone to stop paying their income taxes; I do not hold you or those who work with you, or anyone at the Department of Revenue, or the Department itself, in any disregard. The Department has a legitimate function in serving the state with or without an income tax, and I am sure that none who work there are filled with bad intentions toward their fellow citizens. If there are some, well, shame on them for pretending to be public servants.
As to your last letter, I again include it here as a convenient reference:
“Dear Mr. Henning:
In response to your March 21, 2010, letter, all I can say is that I have already answered your questions. The income tax is constitutional. The fact that you do not agree with the answers is no reason for me to continue to respond to the same questions.”
You have summed up our entire correspondence by, once again, answering a question I have not asked. You said, “I have already answered your questions. The income tax is constitutional.” This illustrates the confusion – the confusion that led the governor and legislators to regard this solely as an issue of taxation, and therefore to have someone from the Department of Revenue address it in that light.
It is true that the original inquiry began as a letter addressed to the IRS, with your Department and various federal and state officials receiving copies. Shortly thereafter, I addressed my questions directly to the Department of Revenue as well. I am sure I make my position very clear in my letters as to how I regard the income tax, but I must stress that the specific questions I have posed, the questions I wish to have answered, never question the constitutionality of the income tax, except indirectly. A quick review will confirm this.
1. We agree that the 5th Amendment question is moot. Enough said.
2. The first legitimate question was whether or not a tax on our income reduces a fundamental right to a privilege. You answered, “Duh! Of course it does.” (paraphrase)
3. The second legitimate question arises out of the first, but only if the answer to the first question is affirmative. The question was whether or not the reduction of a fundamental right to a privilege (in essence, regardless of the means by which this is accomplished) is constitutional. Only the answer to this question determines whether or not that which is acting positively upon the right is constitutional. And this question remains unanswered.
As of yet, no one has seen past “taxation” and perceived the true nature of my questions. This must be why no legislators or executives have taken it upon themselves to try to answer them (besides the fact that they were only Cc’d), and why you have erroneously answered a question I have not asked. It is a fundamental liberty issue which only happens to involve a particular form of taxation. I am trying to examine, and inviting others to examine with me, the nature of things; to see whether or not basic liberty has been unjustly and unnecessarily compromised by decisions now almost a century old.
I now believe that my questions should have, from the very beginning, been addressed directly to legislators, and I apologize for not seeing this sooner. I will take my questions to them in the near future, hopefully in a way that will interest them as lawmakers.
In the meantime, I am working on a book which explores the relationship between liberty and the income tax as I understand it. Don’t worry – it is not anti-IRS or anti-Department of Revenue. As I said, even without an income tax, there will always be a legitimate role for these institutions to play.
Well, Mr. Caselton, thank you again, and, as they say in La Boheme:
Addio, senza rancor,
Kurt Henning
Comments