Losthead Thillum Unhappium - Robert Souza

[Thillum]

I'm done listening to you all. If your conviction is so apparent why not show me the Certificate of Fact/Status/Existence to disprove the notion that the IRS is not a federal agency? Tell you what, I am requesting one and will find out for myself =)

Really, if the IRS was in fact affiliated with the U.S. Department of Treasury, why don't they show it on every letter they send?

Instead they only show "Department of Treasury."

Convenient.

Enjoy the ride Gentlemen, you reap what you sow.

[Nikki]

Translation: "Na na na na na na na, I can't hear you!"

[Judge Roy Bean]

I'm done listening to you all. ...

You haven't listened to anything.

[Famspear]

Adapted from something I (and others) wrote in another forum:

As explained below, the "Internal Revenue Service" is referred to in statutes and regulations as both an "agency" and a "bureau" of the government.

Although the IRS, as a bureau within the Treasury Department, was not created by statute (and no law requires that the IRS, as a bureau within an executive department, be "created" by statute), the United States Supreme Court, in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), specifically referred to the Revenue Act of 1862, the "Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced". (The 1862 Act created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue.)

Due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the IRS itself (along with many other Federal agencies) does not, as a general rule, have the capacity to "sue and be sued" -- a concept separate from that of whether the IRS is a U.S. "government agency." See, for example, Thompson v. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, 2006-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,392 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (hereinafter ''Thompson''), where the court stated that the "Department of the Treasury" and "Internal Revenue Service" are "federal agencies within the United States Government. Federal agencies may not be sued in their own name except to the extent Congress may specifically allow such suits". Also, "Congress has made no provisions for suits against either the IRS or the Treasury Department, so these agencies are not proper entities for suit. Where taxpayers are authorized to sue on matters arising out of IRS actions, the United States is the proper party defendant" (from Devries v. Internal Revenue Service, 359 F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D. Calif. 2005), as quoted in Thompson.)

Similarly in Collins v. Internal Revenue Serv., the court stated:

The United States argues that the two named defendants, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and Revenue Officer P. Blackard are not proper parties to this action. The United States contends and has provided authority to show that the IRS, as a division of the Treasury Department, is an agency of the United States. Although plaintiff denies that the IRS is an agency of the United States, applicable authority does not support his argument. The IRS is therefore protected by sovereign immunity and cannot be sued absent Congressional authorization, which has not occurred. Accordingly, the IRS is not a proper party to this suit. Similarly, defendant Blackard is protected by sovereign immunity and is not a proper party to this suit. The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice plaintiff's claims against the IRS and P. Blackard. Moreover, the United States is the only proper party to this action. Therefore, the United States is substituted as the defendant.

--from Collins v. United States, 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,493 (W.D. Wash 2007) (paragraph break omitted).

Some tax protesters claim that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in the statutes. Imprisoned tax protester Irwin Schiff falsely contended that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in "Subtitle A" (the subtitle dealing specifically with income tax) of the Internal Revenue Code. See Schiff's Amended Response Opposing the United States' Motion in Limine, page 9, United States v. Schiff, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, case no. CR-S-04-0119-KJD-LRL. The "Internal Revenue Service" is, however, mentioned in Subtitle A (see, e.g., IRC section 42(m); section 51(g); section 170(f)(11)(E)(iii)(II); section 355(b)(3)(C)(ii); and section 501(p)(7)). Overall, the Internal Revenue Code contains at least 200 specific references to "Internal Revenue Service" (including references in headings of sections, subsections, etc.). Many Internal Revenue Code sections contain multiple references to "Internal Revenue Service" (for example, thirteen mentions in section 6103, ten mentions in section 6110, eighteen mentions in section 7430, and thirty-three separate mentions in section 7803). At least nineteen references to "Internal Revenue Service" are found in titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 31, and 42 of the United States Code. For example, 5 USC section 500(c) refers to the "Internal Revenue Service" as an "agency" of the Treasury Department. According to the official web site of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service is a bureau located within the Department.

The official U.S. Treasury regulations provide (in part):

The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. 26 C.F.R. section 601.101(a). By statute, the Secretary of the Treasury, as the "head of an Executive department [ . . . ] may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, [and] the distribution and performance of its business [ . . . . ]"

The "Internal Revenue Service" is also listed as a "component" and "agency" of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the official government regulations for "Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of the Treasury". 5 C.F.R. section 3101.102(f). The House Committee Report accompanying the 'Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998), specifically refers to the IRS as being one of the "agencies within the Treasury." H.R. Rep. No. 105-364, pt. 1.

The argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government, the argument that the IRS is a private-sector corporation, the argument that the IRS is an agency of some state or territory without authority to administer the internal revenue laws, and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

[The Operative]

Thillum is standing by himself in the control room of a nuclear power plant. He can talk to two people on the radio, a nuclear reactor operator and a first grader.

Nuclear reactor operator tells Thillum, "Don't release all of the coolant from the reactor core while it is active."

First grader tells Thillum, "Don't listen to him. Go ahead and drain the reactor core."

Thillum chooses to do what the first grader tells him.

A short time later the explosion and subsequent radiation kills Thillum proving he's a dumbass.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Sometimes, you have to play with fire to learn one's own limitations or presumption of limitation...

Let us know how that's working out for you.

you can call me cocky, patronizing or what have you.

We can? Thanks!

I do not covet my strengths or weaknesses, I am that I am. I can't say I have much of an ego to protect and from what I read, I did find some of the comments humorous. Thanks for the laughs.

Thanks for providing a few of your own.

[Nikki]

One of TPs favorite court opinions goes something like "The IRS is not an agency of the federal government."

Although I can't be bothered to waste the time to track the precise citation, the quotation above is correct in substance.

Unfortunately, the TPs carefully excise the statement from its original context. The case involved a suit against the IRS where the plaintiffs attempted to characterize the IRS as one of the government's quasi-independant agencies (such as the TVA), thereby legitimizing the suit on the basis of some other provision of the USC.

The court corrected them. However, the TPs and snake oil salesmen carefully ignore the context where the court specified the difference between the IRS and an agency as defined in that portion of the USC.

[Famspear]

One of TPs favorite court opinions goes something like "The IRS is not an agency of the federal government."

Although I can't be bothered to waste the time to track the precise citation, the quotation above is correct in substance.

I understand the context of that, but technically the IRS is specifically designated as an "agency" of the United States government, using that very term. As Nikki notes, however, the IRS is not an "independent" agency (it's denominated as both an "agency" and a "bureau" -- located within the U.S. Department of the Treasury).

EDIT: Example:

An individual who is duly qualified to practice as a certified public accountant in a State may represent a person before the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department on filing with that agency a written declaration that he is currently qualified as provided by this subsection and is authorized to represent the particular person in whose behalf he acts.

--from 5 USC sec. 500(c) (bolding added).

[LPC]

One of TPs favorite court opinions goes something like "The IRS is not an agency of the federal government."

Although I can't be bothered to waste the time to track the precise citation, the quotation above is correct in substance.

I understand the context of that, but technically the IRS is specifically designated as an "agency" of the United States government, using that very term. As Nikki notes, however, the IRS is not an "independent" agency (it's denominated as both an "agency" and a "bureau" -- located within the U.S. Department of the Treasury).

There are several regulations (and court opinions) that describe the IRS as an "agency" of the federal government. For example, Treas. Reg. Section 601.101(a) states that:

"The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed."

What tax protesters are usually citing (when they cite anything at all in support of their claim that the IRS is not part of the federal government) is not a court opinion but a pleading that the government once filed in *one* case. But that pleading has to be read in context. Someone had sued the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice filed an answer which denied “that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government” but admitted “that the United States of America would be a proper party to this action.” The court's opinion was clearer:

“The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. [Citation omitted] Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action.”

Diversified Metal Prods., Inc. v. T-Bow Co. Trust, 78 AFTR 2d 5830, 5832, n. 3, 96-2 USTC ¶50,437 at 85,462, n. 3 (D. Idaho 1996).

The IRS is therefore not an "agency" that can sue or be sued, but is an "agency" that is part of the government and carries out some of the functions of the government.

[Parvati]

Really, if the IRS was in fact affiliated with the U.S. Department of Treasury, why don't they show it on every letter they send?

Instead they only show "Department of Treasury."

Three different ways of describing one entity. By way of example, Ford Motor Company is also known as Ford, Ford Motors, and FMC. It is still the same company, just different, common, customary ways of identifying it.

Sadly, that line of logic might not be enough to sway someone who believes that a name in ALL CAPS is not the same as the same name in title case.

[LPC]

"After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union."

Why would an act of Congress (or executive order) be needed to give the IRS the power to operate within the 50 states of the Union?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, and provides that the acts of Congress enacted in accordance with the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land." So if Congress enacts a tax that is imposed on citizens and residents of the United States, and if Congress gave the IRS the power to assess and collect that tax, then Congress necessarily gave the IRS the power to act within the states of the United States to collect and enforce that tax.

Nothing more is needed.

[Thillum]

Clearly if we can't agree on the basics we will always disagree.

How bout a little refresher as to the purpose of law? Read Federick Bastiat's, The Law

You can find the full publication originally written on June, 1850 here:
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/documents/ ... he-law.pdf

This document is over 160 years old.

[Paul]

This document is over 160 years old.

Which makes it a lot younger than the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to tax, with only a few limitations, NONE of which are violated by the income tax (especially if you take the 16th Amendment into account, even though it is a relative newbie). So what is your problem?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Clearly if we can't agree on the basics we will always disagree.

How bout a little refresher as to the purpose of law? Read Federick Bastiat's, The Law

You can find the full publication originally written on June, 1850 here:
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/documents/ ... he-law.pdf

This document is over 160 years old.

Frederick Bastiat - a guy nobody really remembers and nobody of any importance takes seriously.

[The Operative]

Clearly if we can't agree on the basics we will always disagree.

True. The basics are that we are right and you are wrong and every silly theory about the IRS and income taxes that you have posted is wrong. As soon as you realize that, you might have a chance with straightening out your tax problems.

How bout a little refresher as to the purpose of law? Read Federick Bastiat's, The Law

You can find the full publication originally written on June, 1850 here:
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/documents/ ... he-law.pdf

This document is over 160 years old.

We do not need a refresher. The lawyers that post here know full well what the purpose of the law is. They also know how to read the law and what the courts have ruled the law to be. Also, a pamphlet written 160 years ago by a Frenchman about situations in France has little or no impact on the laws enacted by the legislature and how the courts rule on those laws.

Thillum, I am going to put this as simply as possible...YOU NEED TO STOP GRASPING AT EVERY CONSPIRACY THEORY NONSENSE ABOUT TAXES POSTED ON THE INTERNET. Income taxes are constitutional. Money that you receive from the person or business for which you work in exchange for the work you perform for that person or business IS INCOME and IS TAXABLE.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Clearly if we can't agree on the basics we will always disagree.
...

Gibberish.

[jg]

The basic concept is that the income tax is legal.
It could very well be classified as legal plunder.
But Hendrickson, Rose, et al imagine reasons why it is not legal.

If you object to the income tax as legal plunder your recourse is not to ignore your legal duty to file and pay income tax. Your recourse is to get the law changed.

If you object to the income tax because it is legal plunder then it is a fool's errand to try to show that it is not legal. That is contrary to the basic premise. That will not get the law changed.

Basically, you are a fool to follow those trying to show that the income tax is illegal.

[Imalawman]

Clearly if we can't agree on the basics we will always disagree.

How bout a little refresher as to the purpose of law? Read Federick Bastiat's, The Law

You can find the full publication originally written on June, 1850 here:
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/documents/ ... he-law.pdf

This document is over 160 years old.

uh...so? What's your point? Some French guy was a little confused about things 160 years ago?

[LPC]

Thillum, I am going to put this as simply as possible...YOU NEED TO STOP GRASPING AT EVERY CONSPIRACY THEORY NONSENSE ABOUT TAXES POSTED ON THE INTERNET. Income taxes are constitutional. Money that you receive from the person or business for which you work in exchange for the work you perform for that person or business IS INCOME and IS TAXABLE.

That's too complicated.

[silversopp]

Frederick Bastiat - a guy nobody really remembers and nobody of any importance takes seriously.

That's not quite true. This is the same Bastiat who wrote the Broken Window fallacy - pretty much a must-read in Econ courses. The Law is also pretty popular, even if you don't agree with it's points.