Oh, what the heck......
Regarding the goofy tax protester argument that section 6331 should allow the IRS to seize only the salary of an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, the argument was rejected over 50 years ago, by the United States Supreme Court in
Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959), as noted earlier in this thread.
Tax protesters have presented variations of this argument, which the courts have always ruled to be without legal merit. See, e.g., the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in
James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, n. 9 (10th Cir. 1992).
See also
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. Wis. 1985).
See
Pawlowske v. Chrysler Corp., 623 F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
See
Craig v. Lowe, 96-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,416 (N.D. Calif. 1996).
See
Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied sub nom. Maisano v. IRS, 504 U.S. 916, 112 S. Ct. 1957 (1992) (Court ruled that no court order is required for a valid IRS seizure under section 6331, and that the power of IRS seizure under section 6331 is not limited to salaries of federal government personnel, etc).
Since at least 1867, the Federal tax collector has also held the power to sell property of a delinquent taxpayer to satisfy a Federal income tax liability,
even before physically ejecting the taxpayer from the property. See the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of
Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881) (date is often listed as "1880"; decision was actually rendered in January 1881).
The Congress has enacted various provisions in the Internal Revenue Code from time to time, to provide a requirement for court approval of certain kinds of levies (such as certain seizures of the taxpayer’s principal residence), as well as certain limitations on the amounts that may be levied, and certain items exempt from levy (such as wearing apparel, school books, furniture, personal effects, tools of trade, judgments for support of minor children, etc.). But those provisions are matters of legislative grace.
EDIT: Example, from
James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, n. 9 (10th Cir. 1992), cited above:
Plaintiffs also assert that the levy was invalid under 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a) because Mr. James was not an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia, or of any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' argument is frivolous. Section 6331(a) empowers the IRS to levy the property of all taxpayers. See Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-13, 79 S.Ct. 641, 644-45, 3 L.Ed.2d 667 (1959)....
Oh, boo-hoo!
