Responsa for Bava Kamma 232:12

Q. A refused to contribute to the community charity fund or to pay his taxes together with the community. He insisted on paying his taxes directly to the authorities and on distributing his charity funds as he saw fit.
A. If there is an established custom in the community, of which A is a member, that every member pays his taxes directly to the authorities and distributes his charity as he sees fit, the community can not force A to abandon this practice unless A agrees to the change. But if the custom was that all the members were to pay their taxes and distribute their charities collectively, A must abide by this custom. Where the community is new and no custom exists, talmudic law prevails which provides that the majority may force the minority to pay their taxes collectively and to establish a community charity fund to which every member must contribute.
SOURCES: Cr. 10; Pr. 918; Tesh. Maim. to Kinyan. 29; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 297, d. Cf. Agudah B. B. 15; Menahem of Merseburg, Nimmukim (23); Israel Bruno, Responsa 163; Isserlein, Pesakim 144.

Q. Some members of the community made statements before the bishop [probably regarding their financial status] and swore to the truth of these statements. Subsequently they denied having made such statements. The bishop became enraged and threw some of them into prison. A and his mother-in-law, who had no part in this affair, asked the community to ransom the prisoners and offered to pay their part of the ransom money. The community tried to rescue the unfortunates, but the bishop would not free them. Finally they were freed by the grace of God. The bishop then became reconciled by receiving a certain amount of money, as a fine from the community. The community demanded that A and his mother-in-law contribute their share of the fine. A and his mother-in-law complained to the bishop, who, in his anger, increased the fine. The community now demands that A pay his share of the original fine plus the entire increase of which he was the cause. A claims that the community committed the first wrong by asking the bishop to put the tax on the entire community, after the bishop explicitly imposed the fine only on those members who were guilty of the perjury.
A. If the bishop originally imposed the fine only on those members who took the false oath, those who did not take such an oath are not obliged to pay any part of the fine. As to the increased fine, if A's claim is true, he is not to be held responsible for it. If, however, his claim is false, the community may collect from him any losses it has suffered on his account. The amount of the loss must be established by witnesses. If, however, the community cannot produce any witnesses, and A claims that he caused it no losses, he may take an oath and be free from obligation. But if he admits having caused it some loss, the community may take an oath as to the amount of the loss, and collect that amount from A. A, however, is free only from contributing to the additional tax which was imposed as a fine, but he has to pay his share of the sixty marks which is the yearly tax of the community to the bishop.
This Resp. is addressed to R. Isaac.
SOURCES: Cr. 53; Pr. 992; Rashba I, 1099. Cf. Hayyim Or Zarua, Responsa 253.

Q. For many years the Jews of the entire kingdom paid their taxes to the king collectively. Then the king gave part of his kingdom to his son, and stated that henceforth the taxes of the Jews in that territory should be paid to his son. But the communities of the rest of the kingdom still demand the regular taxes from the Jews of the territory presented to the king's son.
A. The Jews of the entire kingdom became partners in the collective payment of their taxes for the reason that they were all the king's subjects and under obligation to pay their taxes to him. But, as soon as the Jews of the ceded territory ceased to be under the obligation of paying taxes to the king, the condition for the forming of the partnership no longer existed for them, and they could withdraw from the partnership (without the consent of the Jews of the rest of the kingdom). Therefore, if the king has given the entire income of the territory to his son, the Jews of that territory are under no obligation to their former associates. If, however, the king gave the territory itself to his son, but reserved the income to himself for a certain period of time, those Jews should continue to pay the taxes together with the Jews of the rest of the kingdom for that period of time.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Abraham.
SOURCES: Pr. 131; Mord. B. K. 183. Cf. Weil, Responsa 81; Moses Minz, Responsa 1; ibid. 22.