War Tax Resistance - Meaningful and Necessary?

And a brief look at tax in terms of political uprising

“Taxation is a form of conscription since we are not given a choice as to whether to pay taxes to the state or not. Therefore, it is a logical extension of the existing right of conscientious objection that those who have a strong moral or religious objection to war and killing should by right be allowed to have their taxes used for non-military purposes” - Conscience: Taxes for Peace Not War

Throughout history taxes have served as a catalyst for revolution and/or uprisings, stirring discontent and mobilising populations against perceived injustices. When levies are seen as excessive, unfair, or disconnected from the needs of the populace, taxation can provoke widespread outrage and, ultimately, revolt. This phenomenon is illustrated by several key historical examples and of course, of the most prominent is the American Revolution. The slogan "no taxation without representation" encapsulated the grievances of American colonists against British rule. The imposition of taxes, such as the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts, were seen as a direct affront to colonists who believed they should not be taxed by a Parliament in which they had no representation, and this sentiment fuelled protests, boycotts, and, eventually, armed rebellion, culminating in the establishment of the United States.

There have been similar occurrences around the world. In France, the financial strain on the populace due to heavy taxation played a significant role in igniting the French Revolution. Burdensome taxes placed on the Third Estate, which included peasants and the working class, exacerbated social inequalities. As food prices soared and economic hardship increased, discontent grew, and the call for reform and a demand for a fairer tax system became central to revolutionary discourse. The storming of the Bastille in 1789 symbolised the uprising against an oppressive regime, ultimately leading to the fall of the monarchy and the rise of republican ideals.  

In the early 20th century, the Russian Revolution was influenced by economic distress exacerbated by taxation. The heavy tax burdens imposed by the Tsarist regime, coupled with the impact of World War I on the Russian economy, led to widespread dissatisfaction. The Bolsheviks capitalised on this unrest, promising peace, land, and bread. The 1917 revolutions—both February and October—were fuelled by the desire to overthrow a system that imposed hardship on the working class and peasants, with taxation being a symbol of the state's oppressive power. However, the Russian Revolution led to significant challenges and hardships for many people in Russia, despite its initial promise of change and reform.

The Indian independence movement also illustrates the relationship between taxation and revolution. British colonial taxes, particularly the salt tax, became focal points for resistance. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 was a direct challenge to British authority, symbolising the broader struggle against colonial oppression and exploitation, and the movement against unjust taxes galvanised large segments of the population, leading to a nationwide call for independence.

In each of the above cases, taxation emerged not just as a financial burden, but as a wide symbol of broader grievances against inequality, oppression, and lack of representation. Heavy handed tax policy exposed underlying tensions within societies, igniting movements that sought to redefine not only political power, but social justice. What we can learn from these historical examples is that taxes – more particularly the withholding of them - create a powerful mechanism for demanding change, reflecting the profound connection between fiscal policy, the social contract, and the quest for representative governance. When individuals perceive taxes as unjust or exploitative, they are moved to act, leading to significant societal transformations. This dynamic continues to resonate in contemporary discussions about taxation, governance, civil rights, and military action and support for and by states, underscoring the enduring power of fiscal issues to shape the course of history.

War tax resistance

War tax resistance - a subcategory of tax resistance -  is a form of civil disobedience where individuals refuse to pay taxes that they believe are funding military actions or wars, and/or that they believe may break domestic and/or international legislation covering the conduct of war, if paid.

War tax resistance has a long and rich history, reflecting broader social movements against militarism, imperialism, and injustice. In the context of the 20^th century, the concept of war tax resistance can be traced to various philosophical and political movements that gained significant traction in the 20th century amid the anti-war sentiments surrounding major conflicts such as World War I and World War II. Early examples include the Quakers, who historically refused to pay taxes that supported wars due to their pacifist beliefs. Their principled stance laid the groundwork for future activists.

In the US, the 1960s and 1970s were a pivotal moment for war tax resistance. As public opposition to the Vietnam war grew, many individuals began to see tax resistance as a way to express dissent. The Tax Resistance Movement emerged, with notable figures such as David Dellinger and the Catholic Worker Movement's Dorothy Day advocating for the refusal to pay taxes that funded military operations. Other activists associated with the “Stop the Draft Week” in 1967 and the “People’s Peace Treaty” in 1970 exemplified the willingness of individuals to sacrifice their own financial resources in protest against military action, and many Americans, disillusioned by the government's policies and the war's human toll, engaged in various forms of tax resistance where they could. Some chose to refuse a portion of their taxes, while others engaged in more direct actions, such as sending their tax payments to anti-war organisations. Later, in the 1980s, as tensions rose with the Soviet Union and military spending increased, the US war tax resistance movement saw a resurgence. The tradition of refusing to pay certain taxes continues in the US today, with groups like the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee supporting individuals who choose this path.

The UK also has a rich history of war tax resistance, notably during conflicts such as World War I and World War II, and latterly the illegal Iraq war. Various groups, including pacifists and members of the religious community, voiced their dissent by refusing to pay taxes earmarked for military expenditure. Notably, The Peace Tax Seven specifically protested the Iraq War and the UK's involvement in it. They emerged in the early 2000s as a group of activists who refused to pay portions of their taxes that they believed would fund military operations, including the war in Iraq.  The Peace Tax Seven sought to highlight the moral implications of military taxation and advocate for the right to redirect their taxes toward peace-building initiatives. Their actions included public protests and legal challenges, aiming to bring attention to the ethical concerns surrounding military funding and to inspire others to consider the implications of their tax contributions.

In April 2004 the Peace Tax Seven engaged a team of lawyers to act on their behalf in seeking a Judicial Review of laws which make conscientious objectors pay for military activity under the guise of ‘their civic duty of paying their taxes’. There argument centred around the premise that we are all really conscripted by being obligated to pay tax that is spent on military endeavours – I agree - and they sought court orders forcing the Treasury to establish a hypothecated account, (a special fund or account) so that their tax money could only be spent on peaceful purposes. More broadly, the group believed that their rights of conscientious objection were not being recognised and as such their legal case sought to enshrine their right to seek an alternative method to pay tax that did not fund state violence.

The Peace Tax Seven case reached the European Court of Human Rights, but the court ultimately ruled against them – you can read more about the case here – and the Peace Tax Seven are now regarded as disbanded. However, their case brought to the fore that the right to conscientious objection, whether by withholding war tax or by other means, is an important extension of fundamental freedoms related to thought, conscience, and religion.  These principles are enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which whilst not a legally binding treaty serves as an important international standard for human rights and has inspired numerous international treaties and national laws aimed at protecting human rights globally – (laughably the UK played a significant role in drafting the UDHR) -  and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UK is a signatory to the ICCPR and ratified it in 1976, committing to ‘uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in the covenant, which include the right to life, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to a fair trial’, among others. The UK is also obligated to report periodically to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on its implementation of the covenant's provisions.

In 1993, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that while the ICCPR does not explicitly mention the right to conscientious objection, this right can be inferred from Article 18, noting that “the obligation to use lethal force severely conflicts with an individual’s freedom of conscience and the right to express their beliefs”. This interpretation has been supported by subsequent statements from the UN Human Rights Commission and various international court rulings in several cases involving South Korea, and notably the case of Westerman v. The Netherlands, in which the ECHR ruled in favour of Westerman, emphasizing the importance of the right to conscientious objection as an extension of the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The court acknowledged that individuals should have the right to refuse military service based on their beliefs and that states have a duty to provide alternatives for those who object on conscientious grounds. (those wishing to explore this area further, may well be interested in A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System ). The Westerman ruling clearly reinforces the principle that conscientious objectors should be protected under human rights law, highlighting the need for states to respect individual beliefs and provide viable alternatives to military service. This may well cross transfer to rights to withhold tax for military activity, although this is yet untested. Nevertheless the case remains significant in legal precedent regarding the treatment of conscientious objectors within Europe and affirms the broader right to freedom of conscience.

War tax resistance in the UK, while a powerful expression of dissent, is sadly met with a formidable legal framework designed to ensure compliance with tax laws. However, despite legal risks, many resisters in the UK view their actions as a crucial part of their political and moral identity, and often participate in public campaigns, workshops, and educational outreach to galvanise support for the cause. This activism creates a sense of community amongst those who share similar beliefs, fostering solidarity and collective action, serving as a catalyst for broader discussions about the ethics of military funding.

In the UK tax resistance is currently treated as a legal issue purely because the UK government views tax obligations as compulsory. Therefore, refusal to pay taxes can result in serious repercussions and lead to enforcement actions. UK law provides the UK government and HMRC with several tools to collect unpaid taxes, including fines, interest on overdue amounts, court proceedings and criminal charges which can result in imprisonment and HMRC actively pursues individuals who refuse to comply with tax ‘obligations’. Notwithstanding this, it is important to remember that in the context of UK law, individuals who are financially complicit in a crime are regarded as equally guilty as those who directly commit the act. This cannot be stressed enough, and I ask you to remember this as you read on.

Reviewing tax payments when considering current issues in the Middle East

As you likely well know the International Court of Justice, (ICJ), delivered an interim judgment in January 2024 in South Africa’s case seeking an emergency halt to Israel’s offensive in Rafah. South Africa accused Israel of committing acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines and prohibits genocide. South Africa brought the case by invoking its "obligation to prevent genocide" as a signatory to the United Nations Genocide Convention.

In the January interim judgment, the ICJ stated: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling has since said that the purpose of the ruling was to declare that “South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide”.

The Court in its interim ruling ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent any acts contrary to the 1948 Genocide Convention, (the ICJ considers the prohibition of genocide as a peremptory norm of international law), but did not order Israel to suspend its military campaign. In late February 2024, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International asserted that Israel was defying the ICJ's provisional measures in continuing to obstruct the entry and distribution of aid, which amounted to war crimes.  Amnesty has subsequently reported on further actions by Israel which they deem may amount to war crimes.

On 28 March 2024, following a second request for additional measures, the ICJ ordered new emergency measures, ordering Israel to ensure basic food supplies, without delay, as Gazans faced famine and starvation. Then, on 24 May 2024, by 13 votes to two, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah. There was a consensus among legal experts that this order required Israel to halt its offensive immediately. Nevertheless, Israel rejected the position and said it would continue with its offensive operations, without fear of any punishment - whilst the ICJ ruling is legally binding, the ICJ has no powers to enforce it, (unless shame is one such mechanism).

Importantly, four days before the Rafah ruling, Karim Kahn, the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court (the ICC) - a separate court based in The Hague - said he was seeking arrest warrants for senior Hamas and Israeli officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant. The arrest warrants issue remains unresolved, and in fact since the application for the same in May, two of the Hamas leaders named have been assassinated by Israel. No one knows when the judges of the pre-trial chamber of the ICC will decide whether to issue the arrest warrants or not, and no one can understand what is taking so long to arrive at the decision. As this article contends, “The ICC’s credibility is hanging by a thread - If the court does not issue arrest warrants for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, it will lose what little legitimacy it has left” 

So, notwithstanding the above, Israel has continued its military campaign, backed by the US and the UK, and has displayed contempt for all ICJ rulings, the ICC arrest warrants application, an overall disregard for international law, and disdain for the sanctity of human life. Some of the worst atrocities have been perpetrated by Israeli forces since the initial ICJ ruling, prompting accusations of grave war crimes, a wide range of human rights violations, and breaches of international law. Yet still the world can only watch on as international law has revealed itself as powerless to stop what is happening, and many countries support Isarel either by direct funding for their war effort, or through other means such as arms sales and assistance with spy missions over Gaza.

Many of the accusations made against Israel since the ICJ interim ruling revolve around the use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians. There are numerous reports documenting instances of live ammunition being used against unarmed protesters leading to fatalities and serious injuries. Additionally, children have been deliberately shot in the head, documented by numerous doctors. Israel has repeatedly bombed civilian hospital infrastructure, schools and refugee camps, with such ‘military operations’ criticised as clear violations of international humanitarian law. Article 8 of the Rome statute (the UK is a signatory thereto – Israel, the US and several other countries are not) which established the ICC, defines a long list of war crimes including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected”. The get out for this is if the targets are ‘military objectives’ used for ‘harmful purposes’, a claim we regularly hear from Israel but often lacking in evidence to support the same. In any event Karim Kahn made the position clear when he said to all parties involved in the conflict, “For those responsible for targeting and firing missiles, I wish to be clear on three points in particular. One: in relation to every dwelling house, in relation to any school, any hospital, any church, any mosque – those places are protected, unless the protective status has been lost because they are being used for military purposes. Two: if there is a doubt that a civilian object has lost its protective status, the attacker must assume that it is protected. Three: the burden of demonstrating that this protective status is lost rests with those who fire the gun, the missile, or the rocket in question”.

The ongoing blockade of Gaza has itself been described as collective punishment, prohibited under international humanitarian law. It has led to a severe humanitarian crisis, including very limited access to medical care, clean water, and essential supplies. Additionally, reports indicate widespread use of arbitrary detention against Palestinians with detainees, including minors, facing harsh interrogation methods and conditions that contravene international standards. The treatment of prisoners in Israeli custody has raised widespread concerns among human rights organisations, and unbelievably, rape by Israeli soldiers has been legitimised by some as an accepted form of punishment for Palestinian detainees.

In addition to all of the above, in July 2024 the ICJ addressed the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements and gave its advisory opinion that the same represented a further violation of international law by Israel. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, occupying powers are prohibited from transferring their own civilian population into the territory they occupy. The expansion of settlements in all occupied territory is therefore illegal per the ICJ’s opinion. Following its advisory opinion, the ICJ stated “all States are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel”. States are also under the obligation to “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Although the advisory opinion is not legally binding, it carries carry significant moral and political weight and should influence international law and diplomatic relations and discussions. In other words, the UK should consider whether the opinion morally obliges them to consider sanctions against Israel to meet with its other international obligations.

On 13^th September 2024 in a 10^th emergency special session, the United National General Assembly (the UNGA) drafted a resolution regarding “Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” The resolution was adopted by the UNGA on 18 September 2024 and concluded with a declaration that the UNGA “strongly deplores the continued and total disregard and breaches by the Government of Israel of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations”, and that “Israel must be held to account for any violations of international law”. Again, such resolutions are not legally binding on member states and serve as expressions of international opinion. However, resolutions as serious as this should influence global norms and diplomatic relations, as they carry political weight and should affect a country's foreign policy or approach to the issue at hand.

After the UNGA resolution, a symposium on rethinking international law after Gaza suggested that Israel should be expelled from the United Nations, stating “despite its strengths, the measures announced by the UNGA are inadequate given the gravity of the situation in Palestine, and in particular the urgency in the midst of a genocide live-streamed since October 2023. The UNGA did call on member states to implement economic sanctions against Israel, including the halt of arms transfers. However, while demanding clearly that Israel end the occupation of the Occupied Palestine Territory (OPT), the UNGA gave Israel twelve months to comply – an unacceptably lengthy period of time given the ongoing violence perpetrated by Israel throughout the OPT.  In the following essay, it is submitted that it is high time for the international community to pursue the expulsion of Israel from the UN. Expulsion is warranted not merely because of Israel’s blatant disregard of the international legal standards the UN exists to uphold but is also an essential act to maintain the integrity of the organisation as a whole”. 

In September 2024, UN experts warned “international order is on a knife’s edge” and urged States to comply with the ICJ Advisory Opinion, further emphasising “Over 50 days have passed since the ICJ issued a landmark Advisory Opinion. The ICJ declared Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, encompassing the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as unlawful under international law and emphasised that Israel’s actions amount to annexation. The Opinion noted that Israel’s actions include forcible transfer, racial discrimination and segregation or apartheid, and a violation of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Particularly alarming is the impact of these violations on generations of Palestinian children, and the disproportionate effects on women, persons with disabilities, and older persons”. “The Court has reaffirmed that the realisation of self-determination cannot be left to bilateral negotiations among two unequal and asymmetrical parties – the occupier and the occupied. It called for Israel to immediately cease its illegal settlement activities and withdraw from these areas as swiftly as possible. More importantly, the Court provided unequivocal directions concerning the responsibilities of states and international organisations, with regard to Israel’s unlawful occupation”.

Against this backdrop, the UK government's ongoing support for what the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion declares as the illegal occupation of Palestinian by Israel, its failure to take meaningful steps to comply with its international obligations, as well as support for Israel's military actions via its various arms exports—comprising military equipment and technology—raises significant moral and ethical concerns, as well as potential legal consequences. These legal ramifications impact all UK taxpayers who continue to fund the UK government's activities related to arms exports and other forms of support to Israel. Below I have set out some of the international and domestic laws likely being breached by the UK government in this regard.

1. The Genocide Convention

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide obliges states to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. The prohibition of genocide is recognised as what is called ‘jus cogens’ - a fundamental, universally recognised principle of international law that is considered peremptory and binding on all states, regardless of their individual consent. These norms are so essential that no derogation from them is permitted, even by treaty. If “at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible”, and Palestinians “have plausible rights to protection from genocide” the provision of military assistance/material to Israel likely renders the UK complicit in genocide and in violation of its obligations under this convention. In addition, ceasing aid to UNRWA for 6 months from Jan to July 2024, and failing to place sanctions on those who have made statements inciting genocide – Israeli cabinet ministers, Knesset members, former top military officials, academics, media figures, social media influencers and celebrities – are likely further violations by the UK of its obligations under this convention

2. The Rome Statute

The UK signed the Rome Statute on September 30, 2000, and ratified it on October 4, 2001. As a state party to the Statute, the UK has committed itself to the principles outlined therein, which includes the prosecution of individuals for serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The UK government is failing in its obligations under the Statute in light of the allegations of war crimes by Israel, which should be thoroughly investigated by the UK, and prosecuted if found true.

3. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Under IHL, particularly the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict must ensure that their actions do not contribute to violations of humanitarian law. This includes the protection of civilians and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. Above it has been outlined how humanitarian law is being consistently violated. If arms licensed for sale to Israel by the UK are being used in ways that violate these principles, the UK is very likely complicit in these violations.

4. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

The ATT, which aims to regulate international trade in conventional arms, requires states to assess the risk that arms transfers could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law or to facilitate genocide or crimes against humanity. The UK engages in sales of arms to Israe, by way of a granting licenses to companies that allows for the export of military-related goods. Over 100 new licences allowing UK companies to sell arms to Israel were issued by the UK government between October 2023 and May 2024. By continuing this practice, the UK government is complicit in the killing of civilians in Gaza and supports actions amounting to genocide and/or other serious human rights violations, contravening the obligations outlined in this treaty. The UK cannot be ‘unaware’ of this, given everything set out above. Note, that since 2015, The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) data browsers show that the UK has licensed at least £489 million worth of military exports to Israel, including components for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition.

5. Customary International Law

Customary international law, which includes fundamental principles such as non-refoulement (not transferring individuals to places where they may face harm) and the duty to protect human rights, also come into play. If arms sales by way of licences contribute to human rights abuses, this is a breach of customary obligations.

6. United Nations Security Council Resolutions

Certain UN Security Council resolutions call for the protection of civilians in conflict zones and condemn actions that contribute to violence against non-combatants. Continuing to licence arms sales that enable violations of these resolutions is contrary to the UK’s obligations as a member of the UN.

7. Domestic legislation

The UK International Criminal Court Act 2001 was enacted to implement the UK's obligations under the Rome Statute. The Act provides the legal framework for the UK to cooperate with the ICC and establishes the necessary domestic legal provisions for prosecuting serious crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, in the UK. The Act allows for the prosecution of British nationals for aiding war crimes committed outside of the UK, establishes that UK courts can prosecute British nationals for serious international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, regardless of where those crimes were committed, and allows for prosecution of individuals who aid, abet, or otherwise contribute to the commission of war crimes, wherever those crimes take place. Hence, the Act covers not only the direct commission of war crimes but also complicity. This means that individuals in the UK can be prosecuted for actions taken within the UK that assist or contribute to the commission of war crimes occurring outside the UK.

Given the above likely breaches of both international and domestic legislation, continuing to fund the UK government via taxation seems to amount to a crime in the context of what is happening in the Middle East. Not only this, but it is also fundamentally reprehensible to pay tax when the money paid is being used, either directly or indirectly, to support the killing of innocent people. It is therefore a matter of conscientious objection to withhold tax due in such circumstances.

Although the Westerman case cited above has not been used as a legal basis for refusing to pay war taxes, and the issue of war tax resistance in the context of conscientious objection remains largely unresolved in legal terms, the case may be persuasive in arguing legal recognition of the right to withhold taxes based purely on conscientious beliefs, by drawing on its principles to bolster arguments.

In addition to this, and given all that said above, there may well be a very strong legal argument that refusal to pay tax to the UK government at the moment is not due to a conscientious objection only, but is also an attempt to prevent a greater crime, and ensure one is not complicit in the same. This is a significant argument in view of the UK’s obligations under both domestic and international law and treaties as set out above.

The UK continues to be involved in the Middle East conflict through the sale of military supplies to Israel via arms licenses. Over the past year, Israel has been repeatedly cited for violations of international law by various international court judgments and analyses from legal scholars and human rights organisations. The UK government has not implemented sanctions against high-ranking Israeli officials who have employed genocidal rhetoric and has failed to effectively halt arms licensing for weapons sales to Israel. The UK government defunded UNRWA for six months. Notably the UK government authorised our military to conduct surveillance missions over Gaza on behalf of Israel, and when Grant Shapps was asked by multiple MPs whether he would share footage from these flights with the ICC should it show evidence of war crimes, he provided evasive answers. Lastly, and most importantly, the UK government has withheld its own legal advice from public scrutiny, which reportedly indicates that Israel has violated humanitarian law, thus obligating the UK to cease all arms sales to Israel.

Through both its actions and inactions, the UK government is indirectly participating in the conflict in the Middle East. As citizens who respect the rule of law, both domestically and internationally, we cannot be complicit in these actions and inactions—especially as they may constitute assistance in alleged war crimes, thereby violating both international and domestic law and funding a government that is allegedly breaking the law, through our taxes, may very well implicate us in the aiding and abetting offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001.  We are not only legally bound to avoid such complicity but also morally obligated to hold our elected representatives to the standards they advocate through the laws they helped create, and the international norms they profess to uphold.

How each individual chooses to address war tax withholding is a personal decision. No one can guarantee that you will not encounter issues; UK tax legislation mandates compliance. One possible approach to withholding could involve informing HMRC that tax payments will continue only if they confirm that the UK government is not in breach of relevant international and domestic laws—something it has yet to substantiate by releasing its own legal opinion.

There is no legal advice regarding tax withholding that individuals can reliably depend on, as no legal precedent exists. Each person considering in engaging in such action should consider their moral and social perspectives, write them down, research the potential ramifications of civil disobedience, and determine how they will respond if HMRC comes calling. However, given that tax resistance has historically catalysed social change, is it not time for us to take the plunge? After all, who wants to actively fund genocide and war crimes?

For those interested in learning more about war tax resistance, I recommend visiting Chris Coverdale’s website, where you can find insights on implementation. You may also want to check out his recent interview with UK Column.