A tax protestor's criminal conviction was quickly, and hilariously, upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit when it ended his "multi-year, obstreperous campaign to impede IRS collection efforts."¹ Leading up to and during the course of Scott Bodley's case and appeal, he undertook the following:

• Sent the IRS fake money orders totaling over $70 million;
• Filed 58 fraudulent tax returns in a single year;
• Claimed that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was his fiduciary;
• Submitted $2.8 million in fake bonded promissory notes as "tax payments" for other delinquent taxpayers (whom he charges for his "services");
• Filed false IRS forms purporting to document $70 million in unreported income received by IRS employees;
• Threatened a federal judge, federal prosecutor, and IRS employees;
• Represented himself in a three-day trial after firing two attorneys appointed to represent him after they refused to answer his 52-question "Voir Dire for Attorney";
• Argued that the appellate court was required to overturn his 26 convictions because the trial court transcripts were lost, even though the court's official record contained the full transcripts;
• Alleged federal judges and prosecutors collude to obtain convictions in tax prosecutions because they receive a $40,000 bounty for each person convicted;
• Claimed that the district court judge erred by refusing his request for the personal financial records from each government employee involved in his prosecution in order to prove the collusion; and
• Argued that the attorney that was appointed as his standby counsel provided ineffective assistance, requiring him "to do battle alone and unarmed," to which the court noted that when a defendant exercises his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself, he does not have the right to standby counsel, let alone effective standby counsel.

And, the tax protestor of the year award goes to ...

This question was at the heart of a recent Board hearing involving the assessment of over $50,000 against a taxpayer for failing to collect and pay sales tax on sales of its hot pot pies.¹ The taxpayer claimed she did her best to comply, including going to the BOE office twice to apply for a sales tax permit but was told by BOE staff that she didn't need one because the sale of the pot pies wasn't taxable.

At the hearing, the Board asked questions about the taxation of the pies — and here's where the absurdity of the law is obvious. BOE staff presented the following information on the taxability of pot pies. The italicized items are paraphrased questions the Board members raised.

• Food items sold to go are not taxable unless they are hot items or there is seating in the establishment (There was no seating in the Pastry Shop, but customers were told that there was seating in the Yogurt Shop, owned by the same company next door .... Does this count?)
• Bakery items are nontaxable even if hot when sold (Was the pot pie a bakery item?)
• Whether an item is a nontaxable bakery item or a taxable hot meal depends on the taxpayer's intent, so that if meat and vegetables are added to the pot pie it can be presumed that the taxpayer presumed to sell a taxable hot meal rather than a nontaxable bakery item. (But what if just spinach is added? Or bacon bits with cheese?)

At this point, the majority of the Board members essentially said that they believed that the taxpayer made every effort to comply. In addition to her trips to the BOE office, she had faxed a written request to the BOE and received a written response (based on her sworn testimony) that she should be relieved from paying the tax and related interest.