OCR Text |
Show OCTOBER 4, 1996 : County Monitor | AEST publi , Revenue Code applies anly to United States territorial jurisdiction ion in the Federal Register, or eVen stanite cite. In other words, there is no actual ar effective delegation the Conimissioner with Significant independent anthority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATF, any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or affectmg the petoleam, BATE has muthority only with respect to fireamns, muniti and the first sale of imports. ‘ates and the population at large. link between IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant as the tie with the ioternal Reveme, Department af the Treasury, Puszg Rico, is through this door. Reorganization Plan 0, Section 2, made the following Alcohol Administration The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the members thereof office af the Administrator are abolished, and their function shall be administered under the direction and an of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of intemal Revere in the Department of the To date only three statutes in the intemal Reverme Cade of located that specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the fed: Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.}: 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 53¢ exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to anported distilied several States and their respective political subdivisions, and the last provide United States Tax Court will constitute evidence of the reports im co aSUry. States. None of the three statutes extend assessment or collections auth ; States. IRS is contracted to provide collection services far the Agency for Internati 1 Again, the Federal Alcolhol Administration Act of 1935 was declared unconstitutional and the operation thereafter transferred off shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of internal ‘was changed to the Intemal Revemie Service m 1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco inns, a division of the Intemal Reverme Service, was scemingly separated from IRS (TO. 120-01, June ), inrelevant part, the order reads as follows: 1. Thre purpose of this order is to . as specified hereim, the functions, powers and duties of the Intemal Revenuie Service arising under law rather than collecting intemal reveme for the benetit ofconstifntidnal United St es « Gate, IRS principals have failed to dispute the published Cooper/Benison all foreign principals, fimded the enorinous tank and military track factory on the Ke Reyenie Service, a foreign extity with respect to the several States, is not registere States. 2, Preservation of Due Process Rights ‘The intemal Revere Service has reyyears been protected by siamutc States and the several States, with the latter operating im the framework: of afederal character to the several States. Both operate under the presummpti within the geographical United States (the District of Columbia, Puerto i io Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms andExplosives ict including the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fireamns division ofthe intemal Revenne Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireams herein after referred to as the Bureau which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireanns herein referred to as the Director... 2. The Director stall perform thefunctions, exercise the powers a any out the duties of the pereny and the ion and the, of the ing p a Chapters 51 and 52 and 53 of the Internal Reverme Code =1954 ead Section 7652 and 1653 of such code as they relate to the commodity subject tto tax under such chapters. apter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Intemal Revere Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52, 53. (emphasis added) EAT ETN ES (b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the tenn “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (mcluding the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii pane their admission as States), the District of Cohumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations inthis subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Sama when the term is used ma ge ical sense. The texm “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective Jammary 1, 1961, a citizenof Guam or American Samoa. Definition of the tenns “includes” and “including” located at 26 USC § 7701(c) provides the limiting authority Which the above definitions, beyond constructive application, are subject to: © INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. — The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shail not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. Two principles of law clarify defmition intent: (1) The example represents the class, and-(2) that which is not named is intended to be omitted. in the defimition of “United States” and “State” set out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive af the several States, with the transition of Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the exchided class proving the poi. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of which extend authority to establish revemue districts in the several States (26 USC § 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury {Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC § 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Pent of the Treasury ee ates Q6 USC § 7802 & 7803). 5. Lack ofof Regulations General Application of Tax "Bere again. the eae Table of Authorities and Rules is useful as it demonstrates that Subtitles A & c taxes do not have general application within the several States and to the population at Jarge. The regulation for Cae 26 CFR § 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is no regulation under 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the several States and the populstion at large.Further, there are no supportive regulations at all for 26 USC §§ 2 & 3, and of significance, nor upporting carp income tax, 26 USC § 11, as applicable te the several States. Where the instant matter isconcemed, regulations supporting 26 USC § 6321, liens for taxes, and§ 6331, levy and distraint, are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is that Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations is excinsively under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration for Subtitle E and related taxes. ‘There areno carresponding regulations for the Intemal Reverme Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, which extend comparable authority to the several States and the population at large. in the Federal Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms matters. However, the charade’ doesn’t end there. In< ‘Thenecessity of regulations being published Procedures Act, at 5 USC § 552 et seq, and the Federal Register Act, at 44 USC § 1501 et seq. OF particular e ‘organization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC § 903), the original Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress note, it is specifically set out et 44 USC § 1505(a), that when regulations are not published in the Federal 1895, was abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury. iia Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the ‘Treasmty used” _Reeister, application of any given statute is exclusively to agencies of the United States and officers, agents and employces of the United States, tms once again confirming application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated stenething ofa slight offhand to confuse matters more by determining, “The term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and above. Further, the need for regulations is detailed'in 1 CFR, Chapter 1, and where the intemal Revemic Service Firearms has been replaced with the tem Intemmal Reveme Service.” is concemed, 26 CFR § 601.702. jously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing when it comes to administrative responsibility. The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as statedm over, the order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are ane and the same, merely operating with interchangeable Calfomia Bankers Ass’n. v. Schmitz, 416 U.S, 21, 26, 94 S.Ct, 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974): “Because ‘Therefore, definitions and designations applicable to ane are applicable to the other. hss a bearing on our treatment of same of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the mitions at 27 CFR § 250.11, the following provisions are found: Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth intemal Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself wouldiingpose no penalties on anyone.” Reveme Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Because there is a citation supporting these statutes applicable under Title 27 af the Code of Federal ary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. it is mmportant to point out that, “Each agency shall publish its own regulations in fall text,” (1 CFR § 21.21(c)), with fimther verification that ane Cannot use regulations promulgated by another at 1 CFR uly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described im this part. §21,40. To dete, no comesponding regulation kas been found for 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, So until proven otherwise, in the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents, the IRS does not have authority to perfect liens or prosecute seizures in the several States as pertaming to the Secretary, or the Department of the Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to.all IRS and BATF population at large. artiments, fimetions and persomnel. In fact, it will be found that even petroleum tax prescribed i Subtitie D ~ Authority the Intemal Reverme Code applies only to United States territorial jurisdiction exchisive of the several States 6. Misapplicationof a pertaining to seized property are found at 26 CFR § 601.326: 'o muported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to firearms, munitions, ete., produced outside Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to the personal property seized by officers of the eral States and the first sale of‘imports. i Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, To date only three statutes in the Intemal Revemme Code of 1986, as currently amended, have been or intended to be used, to violate certain Federal Laws, the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture, and the iocated that Specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States (District of Columbia, Puerto acemnistrative sale or other disposition, pursuant to forfeiture, of such seized property other than firearms seized Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.); 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two provide: certain under the National Firearms Act and firearms and ammamition seized under title i of the Gun Control Act of exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to imparted distilled spirits for governments of the 1968. For disposal af firearms and armumition under Title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, see 18 U.S.C. States and their respective political subdivisions, and the last provides that reports published by the Transfer of fimctions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to Internal Revemse Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important where the instant matter is concemed as the only regulations published US: Fe aaesnnee in the Federal Register applicable to the several States are under 27 CFR, Part 70 and other parts of this title at 28 CFR § 0.49: also, ©‘cenflict of lay in American Jurispmidence). However, this house of cards will shorlly fall as C as Comporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly cee and is United States appellate courts and in public fonm. inreality, the intemal Revere Code preserves dhe process rights; bat ie stabate in [Sec. 7804(b)} (0) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING Ri in Recaganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Nuniber : to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any iniémal excneously or illegally assessed or collected, or amy penalty claiméd to have be: ofany Sunalleged to have bem excessive Of in any mainer wrongfully collected ui For the purpose of any be deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the préceding < ‘The vere of any such action shall be the same as under existing law. s ‘The recrpanization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the intemal Reven 68A of the Statutes at Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Co: place since the beginning, bat generally nol understood by the peoral Pp common lawcones the several States, In the absence « Several States, those who operate under color of law, engage in op Citing “inchiding trial by jury” Preserves the fall slate of duc proc mih Amendments to the Constitntion for the united Provisions in constitutions of the several States. The example represe: Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus asse: Jnited States Pax Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the United States and the several _Siates. Nong of the three statutes extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within the several Part l regulatary support for § 7804 where there are ao regulations pub’ of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, begitining on pa: of Federal Regulations), Therefore, § 7804(b) preserves rights and detennin: Temedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable portions Nothing in [the Intemal Reverme Code] shall be considered to iropair any remedy, [***], to recover any intemal revemie tox alleged to have been cr collected... The venue af any such action shall be the same as tuwder I contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for Infemational Development, and case law cdemonsrates that the ime principals of interest are the Intemational Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank fhe United States v. Planters Bank of Geargia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242; see 22, USCA 5, et SeS6q.). .q.). In other words,IRS seeming! provides collection services for undi d foreign pri cr than collecting intemal revemie for the benefit of exi United States g To date, IRS principals ‘have failed to dispute the published Cooper/Bentson allegation that theagency, Via these foreign Baeapae) funded the enonnous tank, and military truck factory on the Kama River, Russia. The necessity of cre process is implicitly preserved by 28 US under United States reveme laws will be deemed in the cusiody of the law an courts of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even several States, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil or crime seizure or any other action asversely Adfecting | the life, liberty orp The “notice of levy” instrument forwarded to various third patties is not a “levy” witich warrants ~The Intemal Revere Service has for years been protected by statutary couris both of ihe United States and the several States, with the latter operating in the ork of adopted unitomna laws wich s a federal character to the several States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress’ Article IV ion within th geographical United States (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate icinternational law under exclusively United States treaties on private intemational law, and both opsraic framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both majority & dissenting opinions variously, Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court No, 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is repugnant to both state and astitiitions (see authority of D of Justice as representative of the “Central Authority” d by U.S. treaties. on private intemational law at 28 CFR § 0.49; also, “conflict of law” as a ory to “statutes” im American Jurisprudence), However, this house of cards will shortly full as Cooperative Federalism, known as Comp Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly documented and is idly being exposed via state and United States appellate courts and in public foram. reality, the Internal Reveme Code preserves due process rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently: 4b) (6) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.-- Nothing in Reorganization amberedl 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to inopair any right emedy, including trial by jury, to ecover any intemal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authotity, or any suza alleged to have been excessive or in any mamer wrongfully collected under the internal revemie laws. For the purpose of anty action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes, niles, and regulations referring to the 5 sed at large in 1939 or since. The Public Salary Tax Act af 1939, which in incorporated the Social Security tax activated after 1936, was prem povemmentis a privilege. Income and related taxes prescribed in Subti Code have never been mandatory for anyone other than aificers, ages identified at 26 USC § 3401(¢), and agencies of the United States, ideniitied at USC §§ 102 & 105. ‘The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the Sixteenth 2 in 1913, did not alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require provisions in coustitations ef the several States.. The example represents the class, the several States (Constitution, Article T §§ 2.3 & 9:4). In Eisner v vy. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and ramnerous decisions since, the United Stat Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus assessments as well as collections, and (2) § 7804(b), unlike §.7433, does not presume that the compilaimne party is a “taxpayer”. Finally, there is 26 CFR, Part 1 Tepulatory support for § 7804 where there are nto regulations published in the Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index volume to the Code of Feterai Regulations). Therefore, § 7804(b) preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for remedies in the several States. When straightemed out, applicable partians of § 7804(b) read as follows: Nothing in [the intemal Revere Sod] Shall be considered to impair any right, {inchading trial by fury. or remedy, [**"], to recover any intemal reverie tax alleged to have been erroncously or illegally assessed or collected ... The verme of atty such action shall be the same as under existing law. Thenecessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC § 2463, which stipulates that any seizure of. ineer United States reveame laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject solely to disposi of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate authority in the Sales, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment, ure or any Gther action adversely affectime the life, liberty ‘or propetty of any given person, whether a Fourtetnth Amendment citizen-subject of the Uinited States or Eee eva of one of the several States. Due process assurances in thé Fifth and ive seizures -wilhiout due process can be equated only to tyranny anid barbarian rule. nes era cettes goventire IRS conduct acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at 26 CFR § 601. 106(f){1). (1) Rule I, An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. otherwers Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conchisiors of fact or application of the law, ‘hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the carect amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Govenmient, andwithout favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.Even officers, agents and employees of United States agencies are assured due process where garnishenent is cancemed (5 USC § 5520a), so the notion that IRS has authority to execute garnishment and other seizures via, the private socter without due process is clearly absurd. In the English-American lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury under miles of the common law indigenous to the several States; the de jure people of America ane not subject to admiralty or administrative tribunals. cunt, the moandaie for dae process, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly antecedent to buposition of administratively-issued liens, except where licensing agreements obligate assets, or Seizures, whether by attachment of bank accounts, administrative seizure and sale of reel or private Broperty, or auty other initiative that compromises life, liberty or that for purposes af income tax, wages and other Fetus from enter Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR § 31.3101wages received after 1954 with respect to employment in other words, the wage is not the object, but sommich legalese in an elfort to circunavent the duck test, Sexvice fill into the excise ‘was continned by the Comptroller to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). it is further suggested at 26 CFR concedes that, “The descriptive terms used in this section to designate F only to indicate their character...” By referencing the Parallel Table of Anthorities and Rules, ci “gross income” is still preserved in Section 22 of the intemal between the Code of 1939 and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, a Reveme Code of 1939 merely codified the Public Salary Tax Act af J ‘Senate Comnaitce On Finance and House Committee On Ways and Reveme Code), in which § 22 of the Intemal Revene Code af 1954 (current code) were solidly linked. Both reports stipulaict intended to be constitutional. ‘This mtert is mticulated at 26 CFR§ 1.61- tay: “Gross income means all incorne from what unless exchided by law.” An“Act of Congress” is policy, not law, and per defiition located in Rule 54, taxes | i an Procedure, has only local application in the District of Columbia and offer Uni possessions unless géncral application is manifestly expressed: Rule 54(c) of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Cotambia, insolar possessica.” Where the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is concemed (Vol. 6A, Statite: fact styled, “An Act” “To revise the mtemal revemic laws of the Ui of comm tax by fundamental law, and the regulation for the current Interusl Revemie clearly-articulates the fimdamental law exemption. ‘The exemption as # peitains to the several States is demonstrated by referencing the Paral and Rules (Index vohime to the CFR. p. 751 of the 1995 edition}: There are 26 ol Intemal Reveme Code & intemal Revemme Code of 1939 Are‘Same ‘USS COTE, income, Ee have n0as 6 USC 58 7851 & 7852 to verify hat that the Infernal Reverme Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and ized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read § 7852(b) & (0), then read the balance of §§ 7351 i & 7852 for best comprehension. « effect if there is ne taxing authority — (a) 6655), or Farther, on examination of 26 CFR§ 1.62-1, pertaining to “adjusted gross incom (@) & () are reserved so the published regulation is incaraplete, with “teraporary as the current authority defining “adjusted gross income.” Temporary i Definitions at § 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large (th lear that, (§ 3401(@)(A)), “a resident ‘of a contiguois country who caicrs aud intervals...” is ancaresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents. cf the the exclusion fram “wages” extends even to citizens of the United States who provi “other than the United States or an agency thereof” (§ 3401(ax8)(A)). 4, The Employer or Agent is Liable 3, ddan alter of repeal constibitional provisions which require all direct taxes to be apportioned amone the several States (Constitution, Article 1 §§ 2.3 & 9.4). In Bisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas. 236 US. 1, andrmerots decisions since, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that fee piixposes of income tax, wages and other retums from enterprise of common right are property, not income. infact, returns from enterprise of common right are fundamental to all property, and the sanctity is preserved as a fimdamental common law principle dating to signing of the Magna Charta in 1215. ‘The maure of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR § 31.3101-1: “The employee tax is measured by tht amount of wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936...” nother words, the wage is not the object, but merely the measure of the tax. This yerbiage canstitates so Vohune 68A of the Statutes at Lar acs as are required by employers under this subtitle anid as the Secretary or his del as may be otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all provisions of {2 ‘inrespectto an employer shall be applicable toa fiduciary, ageut, ar other except as SO Bowe the emsployer for whom such fidhiciary, agent, or oftter person act to the provisi BP plicable in respect: to employer tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from { in no case relieve the employer from lability for ary penalties or additio respect to such failure to deduct and withhold. ‘These provisions from Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large comply witti and ver Part 601, Subpart D in general, Further, territorial limits of applic: of {95+ (current code) were solidly linked. Both reports stipulate that the current definition of “gross income” is intended to be constitutional. _ ‘This intent is articulated at 26CER § L.61-1(a): “Gross income i means all income from whatever source derived, unl ss excluded by law.” ct of Congress” is policy, not law, and per definition locatéd in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has only local ee in the District of Columbia and other United States territories and insular wuless general ap xpres ed: Rule 54(c) --“"Act of congress’ includes any act ‘of Congress locally applicable to ud alee in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico,in a territory or in a Ansular possession.” Whee the Tnternal Reverme Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large, p. 3), the legislation is in fact styled, “An Act” “To,revise the intemal revere laws of the United States.” : As demonstrated above, wages and other retums from enterprise of common right are exempt fram direct tax by findamental law, and the regulation for the current Internal Reveme Code definition for “gross income” e as “Tax collector” narrows the field to federal goverment entities as “employe populationat large is not subject'to the edict of govemmment officials. As. compel performance where the general population is concemed. The subject ch A & C taxes is the “employer” ar his agent, fiduciary, etc., as specified abn ‘The matter is further clarified in Sections a & 3404 of Vol. 684 ayIIeTE. BEC. 3404, RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL £2 If the employer is the United States, or a State, Texitory, or poll Columbia, or any agency or insimmertality of arty one or more of the faregoime, the return and ne any wages may be made by any officer orrae of the Us ‘Two painciples of law clarify definition intent: (1) The example repres femedis intended to be omitted. in the definition Voted mus ;an ‘The exemption as it pertains to the several States is demonstrated by referencing iuorities and Rules (index volume to the CFR. p. 751 of the 1995 edition): There sgulations listed for 26 USC §§ 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross 6 26 CFR. Part | or 31 regulation for 26 USC § 63, the definition for taxable mcome. While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are clearly antecedent to the States and to the population at large. The regulation for 26 USC§ t ae oo Sea acee oe Co = Mee _ ae oe PE cae considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate incoine tax, 26 U; several States, ae | ea : i i Where the instant matter is concerned, regulations supporting 26 levy and distraint, are under 27 CPR, Part 70. The importance i ’ Regulations is exchusively under Buream of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firesteas actainstrs relatedtaxes, There are no comespondiag regulations for the intemal Revere which extend comparable authority to the several States and the population gutta Once he ents oe aan Pp 2 note, it is specifically set out at 44 USC § 1505(a), that when regulations ai Register, application of any given statute is oe to agencies of the Unit B Sopa 2s ims CFR, Chapter as isoncdetailed Uniiet Seunloyecsict above. Fusthes,ty the need for Stars. regulations 1, andet wiet is concemed, 26 CFR § 601.702. ‘The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the Sip stated in Califomia Bankers Ass'n. v. Schultz, 416 US.:21, 26, 94'S. “Becanse it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issucs rai note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attack only upon vidlatio: Because there is a citation supporting these statutes app Regulations, it is important to point out that, “Each agency shall publist § 21.21(c)), with further verification that one agency cannot u: § 21.40. To date, no coeresponding regulation has been rune to IRS does uot have authority to p as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees of agencies of the United States (26 USC '§ 3401(c)). Even then, however, the process nust comply with provisions af 31 USC § 3530(d), and standards set forth ia §§ 3711 & 3716-17. In accerdance with provisions af 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the employer, meaning the United States agency the employee is cuployed by, is responsible for pronmilpating regulations and carrying out garmishment. ZL, Liability Buen gna Taxing Statute Gensel demands for filing tax retums, production of records, examination of books, imposition andpayment of tax, eic., are af'no consequence to the point a taxing statute (1) defines what tax is being imposed, six (2) the basis of liability. In other words, even if the Intemal Revenue Service was a legitimate agency af the United States Department of the Treasury and had authority in the several States, the Service would have to be speeific with respect to what tax was at issue and would have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute ‘with the necessary elements to establish that any given persoa was obligated to pay any given tax. ‘This mandate has been clarified by the courts mimerous times, with the matter definitively stated by the Teh Circuit Coust of Appeals m United States u. Commmnity TV, foc., 327 F.2d 797, at p. 800 (1964): Without question, a taxing Statute mmst describe with some certainty the transaction, service, or object to be taxed, and in the typical situation it is construed against the Govemment. Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct, 559, 82 L.-Bd.858. In other words, to the point Service persamel produce the statute which mandates a certain tax and which specifies, “... the transaction, service, or object to be taxed...” the burden of proof lies with the Goverment, with / the consequence being that no obligation or civil or criminal liability can ensue tothe point a taxing statute that meets the above requirements is in evidence. This conclusion is supparted by the statute which provides the underlying requirements for keeping records, making statements, etc. located at 26 USC §.6001: Every person liable for any tex imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such recards, render such statements, make such retuans, and comply with such rules arid regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever inthe judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person, or by regulations, to make such retums, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether ar not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an exployes shall be required to keep under this section in comection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, recards necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements fimished by employees under section 6053(a). ‘The control statute for Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part 1, canceming records, statements, and special retums, clearly refums the matter to the “employee” defined at § 3401 {c), and the “employer” defined ai. §3401(d). In general, however, (1) the Secretary nmst provide direct notice to whomever is required to keep” ‘books, records, etc.,.as being the “person liable,” or (2) specify the person liable by regulation. In the absence notice ‘by the Secretary, based on a taxing statute which makes such a person liable according to provisions in United States y. Combmmity TV, Inc., Hassettv. Welch, and other such cases, or regnlations witich specifically get set esestablishggeneral liability, there sno isno i liability. See. 6001 also exempts “enuployees” fom tenis recards except where tips and the like are cancemed. This rather than “employees” are required fo file is i with Tetum, a opposed to paying deducted amounts ceincome me tax:Tetums, constnactively demonstrated ina previous section of this imembrandan and specifically eteibied in 26 CFR § 601.104. Clarification via 26 USC § 6053(a) is as follows: (a) REPORTS BY EMPLOYEES. -- Every employee wit, in the course of his employment by an employer, receives inany calendar month tips which are wages (as defined in section3121(@) or section 3401(2)) or which are compensation (as defined in section 3231(¢)) shall report all such tips im one or more written statements fimished to his employer on or before the 10th day followmg such month. Such statements stall be firnished by theemployes txier such regulations, at‘such other times before such 10th day, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed by the Secretary. z Unraveling: § 6001 straightens out the meaning of § 6011, ‘which requires filing retums, statements, etc., by the person made liable (§ 3401(c)), as distinguished from the person required to make retums (payments) at § 6012 (§ 340i(c)), Even though a person might be 2 citizen or resident of the United States employed by an agency of the United States, and thereby be required to retum a prescribed amount of United States-source incorte, he is not the person lable under § 6011 and attending regulations. ‘The “tocthod of assessment” prescribed at 26 USC § 6303 is therefare dependent an the taxing statute and must test on autinnity specifically conveyed by a taxing statute which prescribes liability where the Secretary (1) has provided specific notice, including the statute and type of tax being imposed, or (2) Supports assessment by regulatory application. In the absence of ove or the other, an oe as it is not legally obligating. by the Secretary is of no consequence The requirement for the Secretary to provide notice to whomever is responsible for collecting tax, keeping records, etc., is clarified at 26 CFR § 301.7512-1, particularly (a)(1)(), relating to “employee tax imposed by section 3101 of chapter 21 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act),” and (a){1)(ii), relating to “income tax required to be_withheld on wages by section 3402 of chapter 24 (Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages)...” The person liable is the employer or the employers, agent, and of particular significance, it is this “person” who is subject to civil and particularly criminal penalties (26 CFR. § 361.7513-1(6), 26 CFR §§ 301.7207-1 & 301.7214-1, etc.), Officers and employees of the United States are specifically identified as being Hiable at 26 USC § 301.7214-1. ‘The matier of who is required to register, apply for licenses, or otherwise collect and/or pay taxes imposed by the intemal Revemme Code is ultimately and finally put to rest under “Licensing and Registration”, 26 USC $§301.7001-1, et seq. Each of the categories so addressed has liability based on some particular taxing stamte which creates liability. 8. TheNecessity of Administrative Process The Tequirement far a specific taxing statute, with 26 USE § 6001 clearly providing the first Jeg m necessary administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at lensth in Rodrignez v. United States, 629 F.Supp.333 (.D.Il. 1986). Presuming (1) the Secretary bas provided the necessary notice, aor (Da a regulation prescribes general application ‘which makes any given person liable for a tax and requires tax retum statements to be filed, each step in administrative process prescribed by 26 USC §§ 6201, 6212, 6213, 6 supporting provided PREPAYMENT teu a ee ee ee AMOUNT eared cee nucle dae EMPLOYMENT shail the Parallel Table of are 26 CFR, Part 1 income, but there is ree definition of taxable income, they have no legal effect if there is no taxing authority —- adjusted grdss income which is not taxable ithin the several States is of no cohsequence where the federal tax system is concerned. Further, on examtination of 26 CFR § 1.62-1, pertaining to “adjusted gross income”, it is found that subsections ) & (b) are reserved so the published regulation is incomplete, with “temporary” regulation § 1.62-1T serving 1¢ Curent authority defining “adjusted gross income.” Temporary regulations bave no legal effect. Definitions at § 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutesat Large (the Intemal Reveme Code of 1954), make it clear tbat; (§ 5401(@)(A)), “a resident of'a contiguous country who enters and leaves the United States at frequent inte . is a nouresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of the several States inchaded), and ihe excision from “Swages* extends even to citizens of the United States who provide services for employers “other than the United States, or an agency thereof’ (§ 3401(a)(8)(A)). Employer or Agent is Liable Voliime 68A of the Statutes at Large, the Intemal Reverme Code of 1954. makes it perectly clear who is liatie” for payment of Subtitles A & C taxes: SEC. 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS. 5 fo case a fiduciary. agent, or other person Has the control, receipt, custody, ar disposal of, or pays the wages of m incinded to the exchided class proving the point. This conchision i which extend authority to establish reveme districts m cece fee Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 1) for the Coomnissioner of Internal Reverie, assistant commissioners, or personnel (26 USC § 7802 & 7803). Pee dake Regulations General Applicationof Tax Here again, the Ratles is useful as it demonstrates that Subtitles A & C taxes ou oe have gene desi Ones af the “notice” process, administrative gamishment, et al, is specifically set out in 5 USC § 5514, clearly articulates the fundamental law exemption. Regulations, as follows: § 31.3121(3)- State, United States, (2) When used in the regulations im this subpart, the term ” Commonmvealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Ala as States, and (when used with respect to services performed aller (>) When used in the regulations m this subpart, the tom “United © tmeans the several states Guchiding the Territories of Alaska and Haw District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, aud the V inthis subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the t Afnerican Semmea when the term is used im a geographical sense. The tenn acitizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, anid, effective J Guam or American Samoa, Definition of the terms “includes” and “inchiding” located at 26 USC §7701e) prov which the above definitions, beyond consinictive applicetion, are sity (c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. -- ‘The tems “inchud: definition contained in this title shail not’ be deemed to exchide other tt em of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the trans: merely conveys infoamation, it is not cause for action. The team “notice” is clarified by definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6 Edition, and other law dictionaries. Use of the “notice of levy” instrument to effect seizure inare isis fraud mchlegdiese in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes collected by the intemal Reveme. ‘The liability is firther clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3 that the liability falls to the “employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) and/or is isto be served to whomever seizure has been executed against after the seizure is effected. In shart, the notice ‘Service fall into the excise category was confirmed by the Comptroller General’s report following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3), It is further suggested at 26 CFR § 106.401 (a)(2), where the regulation concedes that, “The descriptive terms used in this section to designate the various ae of taxes are intended only to indicate their general character...” By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Riles, cited above, it is found that the definition of “gross income” is still preserved in Section 22 of the intemal Reverme Code of 1939, thns cementing the link between the Code af 1939 and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since. The Internal Reveme Code of 1939 merely codified the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in mite Commiities On Finance and House Commilttee On Ways and Means reports on H.R. $300 (1954, Internal (@ TAX PADD BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation of the provi and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax agaiust wir revenue districts and delegations of authority to the Commissioner ‘The importance of making this commection rests on the fact that the Internal Reveme Code of 1939 was merely codification of the Public Salary Tax Act af 1939. There was no general income tax levied against the population al large in 1939 or since. The Pablic Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal Reyeme Code of 1939 incampotated the Social Security tax activated after 1936, was premised on the notion ‘that working for federal gove nmerd is a privilege. Incoree aud related taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the current Intemal Reveme Codehave never been mandatory for anyone other than officers, agents and employees of the United States, as identificd-at 26 USC § 3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified at § 3401(d), particularized at 5 USC §§ 102 & 105: The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the Sixteenth Amendment, fraudulently promulgated in 1954, makes # pafectly clear who is “liable” for ee of Subtitles A & C PERFORMED BY AGENTS. Incasea fiduciary, agent, or other person has the cated receipt, custody, or disposal an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, theS regulations supporting 26 USC §§ 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes tor of intemal revenue, the principal officer for the intemal reveme district, ar the Secretary, shall be to reftr to the officer whose act or acts teferred to in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The _ Yeuus of any suctraction shall be the same as umder existing law. ‘The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the Internal Reverme Code of 1954, . Volimne 68A of the Statutes at Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Code. Savings statutes have beonin place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the general population or the legal profession. The statute set out above is, easier to comprehend when references are consolidated. Further, the dependent nchiding trial by jury” relates to a consttitutionally- assured right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper locationin the sentence. Finally, the matter of vee is i as “existing law” is constitutional snd ccminion aw indigenous to the several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which extends to the States, those who operate under color af law, engage in oppression, extortion, etc., are subject to the ia law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of legislative jurisdiction. “nichading tial by jury” preserves the fiull slate of due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America and correspanding read the balance af §§ 7851 & 7852 for best comprehension. ‘The importance of making this comiection rests on the fact that the inte within the several States is of no consequence where the federal “for foreign application. surender of property. The Intemal Reverme Code, at § 6335(a), defines the “notice” instrament by use -- notice without dae process can be equated only to tyrauny and barbarian nile. Pi “ condnet acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances (i) Rule 1 Anexaction by the U.S.Govermment, which is not based upon In of property without duc process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amenc Accordingly,-an Appeals representative in his of ber concifisians of fact or the law and the recognized standards of legal constraction. It shail be his or her ¢ amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the tempayer aud the G FOVET ETE og discrimination as between taxpayers. Even officers, agents and employees of United States agericies are assured eancemed (5 USC § 55202), so the notion that IRS has authority to exe: the private sector withoutdue process i is clearly absurd, In the English. / been deemed to mean trial by jury under mules af the common law indicenn people of America are not subject to admiralty or administrative iritns In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives through judicial c: subecedent to imposition of administratively-issned liens, except where As demonstrated above, wages and other retams from. enterprise 92A(@), For disposal of explosives under Title XI af Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c). ‘The aly other comparable authority this fur fonhd pertains to windfall profits tax on petroleum (26 CFR § 601.405), but once again, application is not supported by regulations applicable! 'to the several States and the population at large. Where the mandate for filing 1040 retums is cancemed, the only regulatory reference presently known ig at 26 CFR § 601.401(@)(4), and this application appears related to “employees” who work for two or more “employers”, receiving, foreign-eamed mcome effectively connected to the United States. The mandate is licable to United States citizens and residents of the Virgin Islands, butto date has not been located elsewhere. Reference OMB sumbers for § 601.401, listed on page 170, 26 CFR, Part 600-End, cross referenced to Department of Treasury OMB smumbers pe the Federal Register, November 1995, a 5 : os : ee z teks ta ay ae Ae an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, the Secretary of his delegate, under regulations prescribed by him, is authorized to designate such fiduciary, agent, or other person to perform such = oa ye order : acts as are required by employers under this subtitle and as the Secretary or his delegate may specify. Except § may be otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all provisions of Jaw (including penalties) pplicable in respect to an employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary, agent, or other person so designated, but, ept as So provided, the employer for whom such fiduciary, agent, or other person acts shall remain subject to lie provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to employers. ‘The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d): (d) TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax against witich such tax may be credited is paid, the A&Cof toy 90 required to be deducted and withbeld stall not be collected from the employer, but this subsection shall 10 case relieve the etuployer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise apple in 1 io Such failure to dedact and withhold. ‘These provisions fram Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large comply with and verify liability set out at 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D in general. Further, territorial limits of application are made clear by the absence of regilations shpporting 26 USC §§ 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes authorizing establishment of intemal revemie districts and delegations of authority to the Commissioner of intemal Revere and assistants. The fact . the liability falls to the “employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) and/or his agent, with no compensation for serving “tax collector.” narrows the field to federal government entities as “employers” if forno other reason than the poSle wal large is not subject to the edict of government officials. As a matter of course,2 cannot ee perfomance where the general population is cancemed. ‘The subject class that has “Tiability” for Subtitles & C taxes is the loyer” or his agent, fiduciary, ete.. as specified above. ” cuatter is tiie cede Sections 3403 & 3404: Vel 8A Statutes at Large: * 3403. LIABILITY FOR TAX. The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be de ducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount oaany such P ail 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER. the entoloyer is the United States, or a State, Territary, ar political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, ot ay agency armemumertality of any one or more of the foregoing, the retum of the amount deducted and withheld upon any wages may be made by any afficer ar employee af the United States, or of such State, Testitory, or political subdivision, or of the District: of Columbia. ar of such agency or instrumentality, as the case be, having control of the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated for that purpose. "he territorial application, and limitation, is made clear by definitions im Tide 26 of the Code of Federal ations; as follows: §31.3121(3)-1 State. United States, and citizen. Wher used: in the regulations in this subpart, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the iceling eel Ri . the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission hivspéet te 0s PEGE” ata, 1250) Coam end American Samoa. ‘ Published Beaver County Monitor September and October This 1996 a paid announcement and not to be construed as a reflection of the editorial policy of the Beaver County Monitor — |