A growing number of taxpayers are signaling that they may refuse to file or pay federal taxes as a political act. Now elected government officials are also hinting at their support of a tax protest strategy. Historically, every period of social or economic tension has generated waves of “tax protest” behavior, and courts have been unequivocal that political disagreement does not create any lawful basis for noncompliance. A study of tax evasion and enforcement throughout history outside of the U.S. reveals a disturbing pattern of brutality and violence. U.S. law makes willful failure to file or pay a criminal offense under 26 U.S.C. §7203, and willful attempts to evade or defeat tax under 26 U.S.C. §7201 remain felonies punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both. Courts have consistently rejected political motives as a defense, including in United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991) and United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990), both affirming that disagreement with government policy does not negate willfulness.
The Department of Justice Tax Division reiterates this position regularly; for example, an April 18, 2023 DOJ release stated that “personal or political beliefs do not excuse failing to comply with federal tax obligations” (DOJ Tax Division, Press Release, Apr. 18, 2023).
Tax evasion enforcement resources are constrained. IRS annual reports for 2023 and 2024 describe staffing constraints and a shift toward automation (IRS Publication 55-B, 2024). The agency’s modern analytics tools have increased its ability to detect noncompliance without proportional staffing increases. The IRS’s use of return-matching algorithms, third-party information reports (increasingly automated under 26 U.S.C. §§6041–6050W), and bank reporting rules including 31 C.F.R. §1010.306 (Currency Transaction Reports) means that individuals with electronically documented income, accounts, or titled assets are readily identifiable for both civil collection and criminal referral.
Where no collectible assets, payroll reports, brokerage accounts, or bank deposits exist, the historical pattern has been that prosecution is rare. This is not because conduct is lawful, but because cases lacking clear proof of income or assets are harder to pursue and yield lower recovery. IRS Criminal Investigation’s 2024 annual report (published Nov. 2024) again reflects this asymmetry: the vast majority of criminal tax cases targeted individuals with traceable income streams, structured asset ownership, or digital financial footprints.
The practical implication is that actors contemplating nonfiling as a form of protest face predictable legal consequences. The penalties for willful failure to file, failure to pay, or evasion apply regardless of the protest motivation, and the presence of attachable assets or documentable income dramatically increases the likelihood of detection, assessment, levy, or prosecution. Those without traceable assets may historically have been less frequently prosecuted, but they are not outside the statutory framework, and the legal exposure remains unchanged under federal law.
The battle ahead seems likely to focus on two fronts: 1) the familiar struggle between the efforts to hide income and assets vs government’s ability to detect them, and 2) the evolving legal argument as a growing portion of taxpayers and courts find that government is acting unlawfully.