Frustrated with the IRS and incomprehensible tax rules, most taxpayers would disagree.

Garcia, a physician in Austin, Texas, was not your ordinary protestor. He took numerous tax law courses at The University of Texas to prepare for his thirty-year war with the IRS. He believed tax law caused "most of our social ills because it encourages lying, cheating and stealing, particularly from our government."

Garcia constantly irritated the IRS; he took outrageous deductions, then justified them with attached notes. Once he wrote that he was leaving some spaces blank for the auditing agent to fill in. The tax collector examined his returns every year but three beginning with 1960. Missing these years was probably an oversight.

At one point the IRS sold one of the doctor's buildings for $85,000 to pay his back taxes. He challenged the sales price in court explaining the property was worth $850,000. The judge asked how he supported this figure. Garcia said a number of people were willing to pay that amount but he forgot all the names except one. The one he remembered -- was now dead.

Considering this sale by the IRS a rare opportunity, the doctor deducted the amount he considered the building's value exceeded the IRS' s sales price. When asked what tax code section allowed this, he replied the IRS is in the tax business and should be able to figure this out for itself.

When asked if he harbored ill feelings against the IRS, he replied, "Oh, heavenly days, no, I felt the IRS did their job . . . . But I resented that they didn't come after me thirty years ago when I started this foolishness."

In finding him guilty of willfully filing false returns, the judge noted Garcia educated himself to battle the IRS, hid his assets and otherwise continued to defy the government. Most of this, the judge said, stemmed from the doctor's self-proclaimed "hard-headedness."

Now that Garcia has taken up residency at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Worth, Texas, his jousting with the IRS is over. The doctor once theorized that if he won, his plan would be vindicated; otherwise, the government would provide "permanent luxurious retirement."