In October 1983, Daniel T.
Arthur and his wife, Theresa L. Arthur, filed amended Arizona
state tax returns for the years 1980 and 1981 requesting refunds
on the ground that they "mistakenly included as income
a source of income, rather than income from that source."
The Department of Revenue approved their request and refunded
$ 1,164.73 for their 1980 personal income taxes and $ 1,349.60
for their 1981 personal income taxes.
In May 1984, the Department of Revenue filed a Complaint
against the Arthur’s alleging that they filed tax returns
containing false information. The Department sought recovery
of the amounts refunded to the Arthurs and a penalty of $
1,000 per tax return containing false information.
Upon motion for summary judgment, the court granted the Department
its requested relief and awarded attorneys' fees. Daniel Arthur
filed an appeal alleging, inter alia, that the Sixteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution was never validly ratified.
The published Opinion in Case No. CA-CIV 8546, Department
Of Revenue, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel T. Arthur, Defendant-Appellant,
reported as 153 Ariz. 1; 734 P.2d 98; 1986 Ariz. App. Lexis
718, is appended to this report as Exhibit. In affirming the
trial court’s Summary Judgment, the Arizona Court of
"Arthur argues that the Internal Revenue Code,
26 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., is invalid because the sixteenth
amendment to the United States Constitution which authorizes
the imposition of personal income taxes was not lawfully
Arthur's argument that the sixteenth amendment was
not lawfully ratified is based upon an alleged fraudulent
scheme between then Secretary of State Philander Knox and
his Solicitor of the Department of State in certifying ratification
of the Sixteenth Amendment on February 25, 1913
As documentation of these fraudulent activities, Arthur
submitted to the court a copy of The Law That Never Was
(1985), written by Bill Bensen and M.J. "Red"
Beckman, and three spiral-bound volumes of supporting documents.
Questions concerning the validity of constitutional
amendments and compliance with the requirements of article
V of the United States Constitution are within the sole
province of Congress, not the courts.
In Leser v. Garnett, the United States Supreme Court
held that the validity of the ratification of the nineteenth
amendment was a nonjusticiable issue. Such issues are considered
"political questions" and are not justiciable.
Wojtas, id.; United States v. Thomas, 611 F.Supp. 881 (N.D.Ill.1985).
The question before us today has been decided in United
States v. Wojtas, supra. In that case, the court held that
the issue of whether the Secretary of State committed fraud
in certifying adoption of the sixteenth amendment raised
a political question within the exclusive power of Congress
to determine. Accordingly, we do not review the validity
of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment on the ground
that it is a political question that is more appropriately
addressed by Congress."
With regard to the Trial Courts award of attorney’s
fees to be taxed against Arthur, the Appellate Court ruled:
" Arthur raises several issues that are not novel,
but are, in our opinion, frivolous -- for example, the claim
that the sixteenth amendment is invalid. The core issues
in this case are frivolous. We affirm the trial court's
award of attorneys' fees.
With regard to the Department of Revenue’s petition
for attorney’s fees related to the appeal, the Appellate
The record is clear and convincing that this appeal is frivolous.
We award the Department attorneys' fees on appeal."
Rather than expect your Clients to accept your
word for it, you can let them read the Decision and Order
for themselves. See Exhibit.
questions and suggestions.