Idaho Rep. Phil Hart is under attack. Angry slings and arrows are zinging at him from every direction. And he’s earned every one of them the old-fashioned way, by dodging taxes and rustling timber.
Hart doesn’t believe in paying either federal or state income taxes. He even wrote a book defending the argument that the Constitution doesn’t permit a graduated income tax. I trust his ideological reasons are sincere. Running up a tax bill with the IRS in hot pursuit is certainly not a cheap alternative.
At this point, Hart owes more than $500,000 in back federal and state taxes, penalties and interest, according to the Spokesman-Review’s Betsy Russell.
Hart’s conservative 3rd District includes the cities of Hayden, Hayden Lake and Rathdrum, and traditionally elects Republicans. I can’t remember the last time a Democrat even filed for a legislative seat there.
Hart’s revolutionary spirit obviously appeals to many of his constituents, who admire his pluck and would probably love not to pay taxes themselves. Despite a protest write-in candidate, Hart received 75 percent of the vote in his recent re-election to a fourth term.
Russell has been sleuthing Hart’s antics for some time. She has reminded us that, in addition to dodging taxes, in 1996 he went over the river and through the woods — state endowment land woods — and helped himself to a goodly stand of trees, enough to build himself a log house. Hart lifted 8,000 board feet of lumber from public lands.
At that point, he was just an ordinary thief, not an elected official.
The Idaho Department of Lands was understandably unhappy when it learned of this caper. It demanded that Hart pay triple damages. When Hart refused to pay, IDL sued and won both triple damages and attorney fees.
Hart appealed all the way up to the Idaho Court of Appeals. That court’s opinion totally devastated Hart’s arguments.
Judge Karen Lansing wrote, “It is important to recognize that the cutting of timber on state land is a crime.” And, in affirming the ruling of the lower courts against Hart, Judge Lansing wrote, “Hart’s interpretation of the law, however sincerely held, is utterly unreasonable and frivolous.”
That ruling came down in 2001. The judgment called for the payment of triple damages and attorney fees. I am told such a judgment is valid for five years. Hart did not pay up.
Customarily, when payment has not been made, such a judgment is renewed for another five years, until it is collected or closed.
Unfortunately, due to either negligence or politics, the judgment was not renewed, so the time has sadly run out to collect the $7,789.83 — plus interest and attorney fees — owed by Hart. My lawyer husband says the failure to renew Hart’s judgment was probably simple negligence on some clerk’s part. I say it is politically suspicious. What’s your guess — negligence or politics? Or both?
At any rate, the recent publicity about Hart’s 1996 log-lifting has infuriated quite a few people. Norm Gissel, the quintessential man of reason, brought the issue up in a pre-election forum. He posed this question to a panel of North Idaho College trustee candidates:
“If you were growing trees on your land, saving them to defray the cost of your child’s education, and woke up one day to find them stolen by a neighbor, would you consider that neighbor’s act morally evil?”
A hush fell over the crowd, and the flustered facilitator (me) ruled the question irrelevant to the trustee election.
I have since apologized to Gissel. Stealing from the State Endowment Fund, which is dedicated to the public schools, is wronger than wrong. And ethical behavior is never irrelevant.
Why does Hart think he’s above paying his way like everyone else? Why can’t he buck up and pay for the consequences of his own acts? Why does he think he’s always right? Particularly galling to me are Hart’s repeated attempts to use his status as a legislator to get special treatment. (Although, clearly, he is a special case.)
His colleagues on the House Ethics Committee recommended kicking Hart off the House Revenue and Taxation Committee while he continues his fight with the Idaho Tax Commission. Whether he went willingly or not, the Speaker of the House chose not to reappoint him to the tax committee.
Republican Rep. Eric Anderson from Priest Lake deserves our Thanksgiving-week thanks for courageously filing a new ethics complaint claiming that Hart has violated his oath of office.
Hart’s attorney, Starr Kelso, in an Oct. 15 special to the Coeur d’Alene Press, compared Hart to fellow lawbreakers Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela. That’s a stretch, no matter how you look at it.
Let´s begin with "... he doesn´t believe in paying taxes". Instead of regurgitating Vladimir Russell´s stimulus funded and biased rhetoric, the likes of which Lenin would be proud of, let´s visit some facts.
While you claim he "evaded" paying taxes, Phil Hart has paid over $160,000 in state and federal income tax. And yes, Mr. Hart wrote a book. An indepth, detailed and very well researched work that explored the consitutionality of the income tax. Now, as any rational adult can reasonably imagine, the IRS wasn´t very happy about Mr. Hart´s book exposing many misunderstood, misinterpretted and misused laws regarding the income tax. In retaliation (oh yes this happens every day when you challenge the status quo), the IRS invoked an 8 year audit of Mr. Hart. In doing so, they demanded Mr. Hart give them the names, address and phone number of every single person who had purchased his book. Mr. Hart, defending his and his customers´ first amendment rights, did the courageously honorable thing. He refused to give up those names. The IRS responded by stripping Hart of every single one of his business deductions for that entire 8 year period. They told Hart, "that is what happens when you don´t give us what we want!" If you are slow at math, what that means is that Hart was suddenly not allowed to deduct so much as a postage stamp as expenses for his business. If you still don´t understand what that means, it means that every single dime he took in from his business was considered profit, regardless of overhead expenses incurred to operate his business. He couldn´t deduct employee expenses, rent, utilities, phone, advertising, business products, office products, NOTHING! Even though he had a receipt and cancelled check for every single expense. Now, you tell me what this would do to yours or anyone´s business? The egregious amount of taxes that Russell claims that Hart owes is not the legitimate income tax from the profits of his business (which he PAID), it is the amount they demanded after illegally stripping him of his business deductions. Hart did not receive this money as income, it was paid out in legitimate business expenses. Mr. Hart, doing what any American with a backbone would do, appealled the IRS ruling. In the meantime, Mr. Hart took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the privacy of his customers. The IRS backed down at that point and Mr. Hart never gave up his customers´ names. However the IRS still refuses to allow Hart his legal business deductions.
NOW YOU TELL ME HOW YOU CAN IN GOOD CONSCIENCE CONDEMN A MAN BECAUSE HE STOOD UP FOR HIS AND HIS CUSTOMERS RIGHTS? Anyone who would have rolled over and not stood up to fight the corruption is a coward by most people´s standards. Idaho should be da*mn glad they have at least 1 representative who will stand in the gap for the people. Mr. Hart could have turned over his customers´ names and saved himself and walked away from all the anguish this has caused him but he didn´t and to this day he stands in the gap for the people of his district, his state and his country in the most perilous times in our nation´s history.
Our country is facing the most dangerous and frightening time in it´s history all because we didn´t have people like Phil Hart standing up for what is right. All because the people believed every word the biased press (with an agenda) reported. The only chance we have at saving our state and our country is to stand behind the people that stand behind us. I know of very few people that fit this bill, but make no mistake, Phil Hart is one of them.
And you, with your mighty propaganda pen, how dare you label 75% of the voters in District 3 as wannabe tax evaders because they voted for Phil Hart in the last election! Perhaps it´s more a case of 75% of the voting public getting sick and tired of the liberal biased media making the news instead of reporting it. Maybe it´s because 75% of the voting public wants a representative with some backbone, who will defend his rights and theirs.
In case you can´t figure out what the state constitution says, it states that legislators are immune from legal proceedings during the legislative session and 10 days before, as they are suppose to be doing the people´s work during that time and cannot be distracted. This was important to prevent special interest groups and individuals from purposely targeting legislators to keep them from voting on important bills or to pressure them into voting for or against a bill. It does not provide immunity forever, only during those few short months. Invoking this right is not "taking advantage" of anything. The people expect Hart to attend to the state´s business during the session and not be distracted. It is the media and Hart´s detractors who have now proven just how wise it was for our founders to include that clause in our constitution. They could foresee detractors doing exactly what they did to Hart.
Let´s continue with more facts.... It was Hart´s decision to resign from the Revenue & Taxation Committee so as to not be a distraction. It was not a case that the Speaker didn´t reappoint Hart, Hart did not seek re-appointment to the committee. So why can´t you simply report the facts instead of making up your own stories?
Now let´s visit the Eric Anderson issue. Only the liberal left who are hell bent on making Hart an example to all those who dare to stand up for what is right would drool over such a corrupt coward as Anderson. In your worshipping of Anderson, do you also worship the fact that he directly and personally profitted enormously from his position in the legislature over the Milfoil deal? Anderson wasn´t defending anyone´s rights when he struck special deals that paid himself handsome profits. As far as Anderson filing complaints against Hart for violating his oath of office, what a joke. It is Anderson who used his office to get rich and pass legislation that he personally profitted from. Hart is probably one of the very few legislators who actually does uphold his oath of office. So much so that he has become the favorite target of the establishment because he won´t back down from defending his oath of office.
This may be a foreign concept to the liberal media, but there are still people out there that love this country and this state and understand exactly what is going on and are ready to stand behind those who stand on principle. All the liberal media attacks on Hart are sending a clear message that they are scared to death of Hart. And if the liberals and the media hate Hart, then that´s all the more reason to support the man! Aug 03, 2011 | Reply to this comment