By: A.J. Cook


Lyle Snider claimed three billion dependents on his tax withholding form. In a letter attached, he explained who they were.

Snider worked as a teacher at Carolina Friends School in Chapel Hill, N.C. He and his wife, Sue, devoted Quakers, lived in quiet discipline and peaceful pursuits. In their farmhouse they had no running water, ate only vegetables and closely followed the Quaker faith -- particularly the provision opposing war. To that end, Lyle claimed the excess dependents on the form he filed with the school. His attached letter explained the couple's duty to their three billion fellow human beings and expressed their willingness to pay the part of their taxes used for "life-affirming, positive programs."

Perplexed, the school's business manager contacted the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS, somewhat suspicious, launched an investigation. It determined Lyle was entitled to four exemptions -- himself, his wife and two children.

Lyle was arrested and indicted for supplying false or fraudulent tax information.

At the trial the Sniders demonstrated that their government challenge ran deeper than only taxes. As court was convened the clerk-crier commanded, "All rise." Everyone stood except Lyle and his wife. The judge patiently explained why people are required to stand when the judge enters and asked the Sniders to rise. They refused. They said they could not in good conscience honor his honor's request.

During the trial, Lyle explained he listed excessive dependents to send a message. He thought the Constitutional provision allowing free expression of religion protected this communication.

But he was convicted anyway and sentenced to eight months in jail. In addition, he received a 30-day jail sentence for contempt. Sue received a 10-day suspended sentence for the same reason.

The couple appealed.

The IRS said there was no basis for appeal. Snider filed an incorrect withholding report so he is guilty.

The higher court, obviously moving away from a literal interpretation of the law, said it was more complicated than that. First, Snider didn't intend to deceive, with five or ten dependents, yes but not three billion. Second, there must be deception that reasonably would be expected to deprive the government of money. That was not the case here. The agency couldn't have believed he had that many dependents. Because he didn't violate either of these two requirements, the court overturned the guilty verdict.

As to the contempt charge, the appeals court explained when this ruling is appropriate. That sanction applies only if a person's misbehavior interrupts the operation of the court. That didn't happen here. The Sniders were both quiet and respectful. They never tried to make the court a forum for political or religious beliefs. For this reason, the higher court threw out the contempt citation. The appeals court then admonished the lower court. Respect of the judiciary is earned not commanded. Judges should be people of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate and continually guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.

Copyright © 1987-2001 A.J. Cook All Rights Reserved
This information is not intended for use without professional advise.
Disclaimer