Quatloos! > Tax
Scams > Tax
Protestors > EXHIBIT:
Tax Protestor Dummies > US
("Damn, We Lost Again! And why is
it that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")
United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272 (2nd Cir. 05/17/1989)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
decided: May 17, 1989.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
IRWIN A. SCHIFF, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Irwin A. Schiff appeals pro se from a decision of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, Dorsey, J., denying his motion for reduction
or correction of sentence made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. Appellant Schiff
was convicted in 1985 of one count of failure to file a corporate income tax
return and three counts of attempted evasion of personal income taxes. Schiff
claims, inter alia, that various conditions of his probation violate his constitutional
rights to free speech and freedom of association and his constitutional right
not to be a witness against himself. Affirmed.
IRWIN A. SCHIFF, Forest Hills, New York, Appellant Pro Se.
PETER S. JONGBLOED, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Connecticut,
New Haven, Connecticut (Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., United States Attorney for
the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut, of counsel), for Appellee.
Meskill, Miner and Mahoney, Circuit Judges.
MESKILL, Circuit Judge
This is a pro se appeal by Irwin A. Schiff from a ruling on his Rule 35 motion
to correct and reduce his sentence filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Dorsey, J. Appellant Schiff's motion alleges,
inter alia, that the conditions of probation imposed by the district court
violate his constitutional right not to be a witness against himself and his
constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association. The district
court denied Schiff's motion, finding that the conditions imposed were reasonably
related to the goal of preventing Schiff from engaging in future acts similar
to those for which he had been convicted and to the protection of the public.
We affirm the decision of the district court.
We have previously set out the facts of this case in detail, see United States
v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945, 94 L. Ed.
2d 789, 107 S. Ct. 1603 (1987), and we therefore mention them only briefly
here. Schiff was convicted in 1985 of three counts of attempted tax evasion
in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (1982) and one count of willful failure
to file a corporate tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1982).
As we noted in our prior opinion, in which we affirmed the convictions underlying
the sentence challenged here, Schiff is a "professional tax resister." Schiff,
801 F.2d at 109.
Following his conviction, the district court imposed a sentence on Schiff
that was comprised of both incarceration and probation. Schiff's Rule 35 challenge
is to three of the five special conditions attached to his probation. These
(3) defendant shall remain current insofar as all legally required tax payments
with reasonable and good faith compliance [sic] and shall file all returns
required by tax laws; (4) defendant shall not associate or maintain any relationship
with any group that advocates non-compliance with or violation of tax laws;
(5) defendant shall not participate in or promote any meeting sponsored or
promoted by groups or individuals formed or brought together, such as seminars,
media events or any other forum for the purpose of promoting or advocating
non-compliance with or violation of tax laws.
Schiff contends that the third special probation condition (i.e., the first
of these three conditions) forces him to testify against himself by filing
tax returns, that the phrase "all legally required tax payments" is
vague and that the court cannot order payment of a tax that has not yet been
assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As to the fourth and fifth
special conditions, Schiff argues that they are vague and overbroad, that they
violate the First Amendment and that they are unrelated to his convictions.
Schiff also makes various arguments that address the legality of the convictions
underlying his sentence.
The district court did not consider Schiff's argument that his convictions
should be overturned, but it did consider, and reject, his other contentions
in a thoughtful opinion. We agree with the reasoning of the district court.
In 1981-1983, the time period during which Schiff committed the acts charged
in the indictment, probation was authorized for defendants such as Schiff under
the federal Probation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3651 (1982). Under section 3651,
the decisions whether a defendant would be granted probation and under what
conditions probation would be granted were left to the discretion of the trial
judge. Any conditions of probation, however, had to be "'reasonably related
to the simultaneous goals of rehabilitating the defendant and protecting the
public.'" United States v. Sterber, 846 F.2d 842, 843 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting
United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29, 32-33 (2d Cir. 1986)). If a condition
was "unnecessarily harsh or excessive" in light of these goals, it
was invalid. Id.
Under the rule applicable to offenses committed before November 1, 1987, a
district court could "correct an illegal sentence at any time and . .
. correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided." Fed.R.Crim.P.
35(a). It also, within certain time limits, could reduce a sentence upon a
motion or sua sponte. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). Schiff cites both sections of Rule
35 in asking that the conditions of his probation be corrected.
We review the district court's decision not to alter the conditions of Schiff's
probation for abuse of discretion. See Sterber, 846 F.2d at 843 (probation
conditions within discretion of trial judge); Tolla, 781 F.2d at 32 (reviewing
probation conditions following district court's denial of portion of Rule 35
motion); Fiore v. United States, 696 F.2d 205, 207 (2d Cir. 1982).
It is well established that a motion under Rule 35 can only be used to correct
an illegal sentence, and not to correct trial errors or errors in other pre-sentencing
proceedings. See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417,
82 S. Ct. 468 (1962); United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476, 477-78 (7th
Cir. 1988); United States v. Smith, 839 F.2d 175, 181-82 (3d Cir. 1988); United
States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161, 164 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Willis,
804 F.2d 961, 964 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. DeFillipo, 590 F.2d 1228,
1233 n. 4 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 920, 99 S. Ct. 2844, 61 L. Ed.
2d 288 (1979). The district court therefore properly did not consider the arguments
Schiff raised below concerning the validity of his conviction. The time for
raising those points was on his direct appeal to this Court, see Schiff, 801
F.2d 108, or in a habeas corpus proceeding.*fn1 We therefore do not address
these arguments here. Although the district court stated in its decision below
that Rule 35 cannot be used to address the convictions underlying Schiff's
sentence, Schiff has persisted in raising arguments on this appeal that go
to the legitimacy of his convictions. Despite repeated prompting by the panel
during oral argument, Schiff never adequately addressed the only question that
we have jurisdiction to hear: the legality of the conditions of his probation.
We now turn to that question.
We begin by noting that in setting conditions of probation the discretion
given to the district court is broad and many conditions that may infringe
on a person's constitutional rights have been approved. The permissible scope
of such conditions is great. See Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 154,
23 L. Ed. 2d 162, 89 S. Ct. 1503 (1969) (Warren, C.J., dissenting) (describing "the
high degree of control that courts, together with their probation officers,
can maintain over those brought before them"). With this in mind, we address
in turn each of the challenged probation conditions.
A. Special Condition Three: Filing All Required Tax Returns
We have held before that someone convicted of failure to file income tax returns
may, as a condition of probation, be required to file those delinquent returns.
See United States v. Kraeger, 711 F.2d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Similarly,
we see no reason why requiring Schiff to make a good faith effort to keep current
in his taxes is an abuse of discretion. He had been convicted of attempted
evasion of income tax. We believe the condition in question to be entirely
reasonable and appropriate.
Schiff's argument that the condition is vague amounts to a rehash of his basic
thesis: he does not have to pay taxes. He asserts that no income tax is "legally
required." Rather, he claims to believe that income taxes are voluntary
in the sense that one does not have to pay them unless one wants to. To the
extent that income taxes are said to be "voluntary," however, they
are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without
the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment
of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, see,
e.g., Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988); Newman v.
Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985), and the average citizen knows that
the payment of income taxes is legally required. The third special probation
condition, mandating that Schiff pay all "legally required" taxes,
is neither overbroad nor vague.
Schiff also contends that he cannot be ordered to pay taxes when the IRS has
not determined the amount of any tax liability on his part. In other words,
Schiff wants the IRS to tell him how much he owes, and have the judicial system
confirm that amount, before he commits to paying taxes. Schiff, however, misinterprets
the law. If he earns sufficient income, he is required to file an income tax
return and pay the taxes for which he is responsible. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6001,
6151 (1982); 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986) (as amended by
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub.L.No. 100-647, § 1001(b)(2),
102 Stat. 3342, 3349); 26 C.F.R. § 1.6012-1 (1988). This condition of
probation mandates no more than the law requires.
Finally, Schiff argues that the third special probation condition forces him
to be a witness against himself, a constitutional right that he distinguishes
from the right against self-incrimination. Not only is Schiff incorrect in
his view of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause, but he should
know from our earlier decision that
the Fifth Amendment does not give a person the right to withhold . . . required
information on [an income tax] return concerning items the disclosure of which
would not incriminate him or tend to incriminate him, and that even as to items
which might incriminate him, he is required to state the amount of his income
even if he does not reveal its illegal source.
United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1979). Schiff does not explain
why filing a tax return itself would incriminate him. His claim of a blanket
right not to file a return is not sufficient to invoke the protection of the
Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Wolters, 656 F.2d 523, 525 (9th Cir.
1981). Therefore, the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit this condition of Schiff's
For these reasons, we agree with the district court that this condition of
probation is not illegal. Furthermore, it was not an abuse of the court's discretion
to impose it. See id. at 524-25 (upholding probation condition requiring defendant
to file tax returns); United States v. Campbell, 619 F.2d 765, 767 (8th Cir.
1980) (same); United States v. Stout, 601 F.2d 325, 329 (7th Cir.) (same),
cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979, 62 L. Ed. 2d 406, 100 S. Ct. 481 (1979).
B. Special Condition Four: Freedom of Association
Schiff contends that the condition that he not associate with any group that
advocates non-compliance with the tax laws is vague and overbroad. We find
this condition to be no more vague than the third condition, see supra. Its
meaning is discernible by the average person, and "no person 'of common
intelligence'" who interpreted the words of the condition in accordance
with their common meaning could fail to understand with whom Schiff should
not be associating. See United States v. Albanese, 554 F.2d 543, 547 (2d Cir.
Nor will we strike down this condition on First Amendment grounds. It is not
an abuse of discretion for a district court to require that a person convicted
of attempted tax evasion not associate with people who encourage tax evasion.
We have upheld probation conditions that restrict a person's liberty before,
when, as here, those conditions bear a reasonable relation to the crime of
which the defendant stands convicted. See United States v. Gracia, 755 F.2d
984, 991 (2d Cir. 1985) (defendant convicted of refusing to testify before
grand jury investigating terrorist group prohibited from associating with suspected
terrorists and terrorist groups); Albanese, 554 F.2d at 546-47 (person convicted
of conspiracy and hijacking a truck in interstate commerce could associate
only with "law-abiding persons"). Such conditions are not illegal
or inappropriate, even if they force a probationer "to choose his acquaintances
at his peril." Frank, 395 U.S. at 154 (Warren, C.J., dissenting).
Nor is the condition imposed on Schiff here inconsistent with other circuits'
interpretation of the law. Other courts have upheld restrictions on a person's
freedom of association as a condition of probation. See United States v. Lawson,
670 F.2d 923, 929-30 (10th Cir. 1982) (approving condition of probation requiring
person convicted of failing to file income tax return not to associate with
organizations advocating violation of tax laws); United States v. Patterson,
627 F.2d 760, 760-61 (5th Cir. 1980) (approving condition of probation requiring
person convicted of violation of federal tax statutes "to divorce himself
from organizations advocating willful disobedience of" the Internal Revenue
Code) (per curiam), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 925, 67 L. Ed. 2d 354, 101 S. Ct.
1378 (1981); United States v. Smith, 618 F.2d 280, 282 (5th Cir.) (same), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 868, 101 S. Ct. 203, 66 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1980).
Finally, Schiff argues that the condition imposed does not bear a reasonable
relation to his crime. We reject this contention as well. We agree with the
district court that requiring Schiff to refrain from associating with groups
that advocate non-compliance with the tax laws bears a reasonable relation
to Schiff's crime: attempted tax evasion. For all of these reasons, we hold
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this condition
on Schiff's probation.
C. Special Condition Five: Non-Participation in Groups Advocating Non-Compliance
With Tax Laws
Schiff makes the same objections to the fifth special condition of probation
that he made to the fourth. We disagree for the same reasons set forth above.
Similarly, we reject the notion that prohibiting Schiff from advocating non-compliance
with the tax laws is both an impermissible violation of his freedom of association
and unrelated to Schiff's crime. Instead, we recognize, as did the district
court, that, as a condition of probation, it is entirely reasonable to prohibit
a person convicted of attempted tax evasion from participating in meetings
designed to advocate just such unlawful activity. As the Tenth Circuit has
said, "the defendant cannot be allowed to continue all of his old ways
while on release from custody on probation; to allow him to do so undermines
the probation system itself and makes a mockery of the law." Porth v.
Templar, 453 F.2d 330, 334 (10th Cir. 1971) (approving, in part, condition
of probation designed to "prohibit extensive campaigning on the part of
the defendant against the laws in question"). Although Schiff was not
convicted of advocating non-compliance with the tax laws, he was convicted
of non-compliance with them. To allow him to continue to advocate, through
seminars and other meetings, that others do what he is being punished for,
runs counter to the goal of rehabilitation and endangers the public.
The fifth special condition of probation is not unconstitutional, is reasonably
related to the crimes of which Schiff was convicted, and it was not an abuse
of discretion for the district court to impose it.
We have considered all of Schiff's contentions and find them to be without
merit. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
*fn1 We note that Schiff has filed such a proceeding in the district court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1982), and that this proceeding is currently
pending before Judge Dorsey.
to Tax Protestor Exhibit