Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

This line is attributed to Judge Learned Hand in a federal tax case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit during the interwar period, when courts were repeatedly asked to distinguish lawful “tax avoidance” (arranging transactions to minimize tax within the law) from unlawful “tax evasion” (fraud or concealment). Hand, a leading jurist on statutory interpretation, framed the taxpayer’s right to structure affairs to reduce liability as a consequence of the tax code’s own terms: the government may tax only what Congress has clearly imposed. The remark is often cited in later tax opinions and commentary as a canonical statement of the legitimacy of tax planning.

Hand’s point is not that taxes are undesirable, but that legal obligation is defined by statute, not by moral exhortation. A taxpayer may choose the least-taxed lawful route, and courts should not rewrite legislation to punish that choice. The “patriotic duty” phrase underscores a boundary between civic virtue and enforceable law: patriotism cannot supply missing statutory language. The quote has become emblematic of the rule-of-law approach to taxation—emphasizing clarity, predictability, and legislative responsibility—while also provoking debate about whether aggressive avoidance, though legal, can undermine the tax system’s fairness and public trust.

“Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.”