Is the IRS a government agency?

[the inquirer]

This letter was sent to then Commissioner Margaret Richardson in 1997. To date a reply has never been received by the sender (not me). Following the letter is an excerpt from a Federal Court case where in the pleadings, the U.S. Attorney denies that the I.R.S. is an agency of the United States government. Does anyone have any information besides conjecture; such as, the actual code section or the citation of any statute that created the I.R.S.? No conjecture, please, no court rulings that do not provide the actual citation or code section.

Mrs. Margaret M. Richardson
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20224
Dear Mrs. Richardson,
Many years ago, I tried to find within the Internal Revenue Code the section which created your agency, but I was unable to do so. I then decided to locate other sources of information regarding how the Internal Revenue Service was established and what I found was nothing short of amazing.
In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bullet; see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. On the very first page of this statement which was published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:
"(3) By common parlace [sic] and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that 'The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of the last session ...' Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3, 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue 'who shall be charged with such duties in the bureau of internal revenue as maybe prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be required by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the absence of that officer, and exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue.' In other words, 'the office of internal revenue' was 'the bureau of internal revenue,' and the act of July 1, 1862, is the organic act of today's Internal Revenue Service."
This statement, which again appears in a similar publication appearing at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974 - 1 Cum. Bul. 440, as well as the current IRM 1100, essentially admits that Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. To conclude that "Congress thought it had created this agency" is an admission that even the government itself cannot even find anything which created either agency. The only office created by the act of July 1, 1862, was the Office of Commissioner; neither the Bureau nor the Service was actually created by any of these acts.
I have no doubt that when employees of the IRS were researching its origins so that this statement could be included within IRM 1100, those employees must have performed a very thorough investigation. This obviously is the best position that your agency can develop regarding precisely how the IRS came into being. But besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that your agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw.
An act of legislative body is essential to create a public office. At the state level, it is a well acknowledged rule that a duly constituted office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or by some legislative act; see Patton v. Bd. Of Health, 127 Ca. 388, 393, 59 P. 702, 704 (1899) ("One of the requisites is that the office must be created by the constitution of the state or it must be authorized by some statute."); First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. State, 80 Neb. 597, 114 N.W. 772, 773 (1908); State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497, 498 (1909); State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn. 398, 74 A. 759, 761 (1909); State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W.Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279 (1923) ("a position is a public office when it is created by law."); Coyne v. State, 22 Ohio App. 462, 153 N.E. 876, 877 (1926) ("Unless the office existed there could be no officer either de facto or de jure. A de facto officer is one invested with an office; but if there is no office with which to invest one, there can be no officer. An office may exist only by duly constituted law."); State v. Quinn, 35 N.M. 62, 290 P. 786, 787 (1930); Turner v. State, 226 Ala. 269, 146 So. 601, 602 (1933); Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co., 178 Okl. 212, 62 P.2d 94, 97 (1936); State ex rel. Nagle v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P.2d 685, 689 (1936); Stapleton v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 11, 85 P.2d 49, 51 (1938); Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 13 A.2d 348, 350 (1940); Krawiec v. Industrial Comm, 372 Ill. 560, 25 N.E.2d, 27, 29 (1940); People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636, 107 P.2d 388, 391 (1940); Industrial Comm v. Arizona State Highway Comm, 61 Ariz. 59, 145 P.2d 846, 849 (1943); State ex rel. Brown v. Blew, 20 Wash.2d 47, 145 P.2d 554, 556 (1944); Martin v. Smith, 239 Wis. 314, 1 N.W.2d 163, 172 (1941); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky 75, 202 S.W.2d 992, 994 (1947); State el rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, 29 Wash.2d 68, 185 P.2d 723, 728 (1947); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1948); Weaver v. North Bergen Tp., 10 N.J.Super. 96, 76 A.2d 701 (1950); Tomaris v. State, 71 Ariz. 147, 224 P.2d 209, 211 (1950); Pollack v. Montoya, 55 N.M. 390, 234 P.2d 336, 338 (1951); Schaefer v. Superior Court in and & for Santa Barbara County, 248 P.2d 450, 453 (Cal.App. 1951); Brusnigham v. State, 86 Ga.App. 340, 71 S.E.2d 698, 703 (1952); State ex rel. Mathews v. Murray, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (Nev. 1953); Dosker v. Andrus, 342 Mich. 548, 70 N.W.2d 765, 767 (1955); Hetrich v. County Comm. Of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 159 A.2d 642, 643 (1960); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N.W.2d 336, 341 (1960); Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616, 118 S.E.2d 484, 485 (1961); State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1965); Planning Bd. Of T.p. Of West Milford v. T.p. Council of T.p.. Of West Milford, 123 N.J.Super. 135, 301 A.2d 781, 784 (1973); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1973); Kirk v. Flournoy, 36 Cap.App.3d 553, 111 Cap.Rptr. 674, 675 (1974); Wargo v. Industrial Comm, 58 Ill.2d 234, 317 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1974); State v. Bailey, 220 S.E.2d 432, 435 (W.Va. 1975); Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P.2d 304, 323 (1975); Midwest Televsion, Inc. v. Champaign-Urbana Communications, Inc., 37 Ill.App.3d 926, 347 N.E.2d 34, 38 (1976); and State v. Pickney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
　
The same rule applies at the federal level; see United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) ("there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill."); United States v. Mount, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901) ("The law creates the office, prescribes its duties."); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919) ("Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function ... And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication."); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louiseville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956) ("Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement."); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.Nev. 1910) ("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress:); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).
Since I have reached the conclusion that the IRS has never been created by Congress, I am asking you to provide to me the citation of any statute which really did create the IRS. Since this is a question of profound national importance, I request that you provide an answer to me within 20 days. Failing a response within that time period, I shall conclude that you cannot find any such statute and shall act accordingly.

Court case, for full case information, go to http://www.pacer.gov:

Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steve Morgan.
Case No. CV 93-4117, Complaint for Impleader.
In the District court of the Seventh Judicial District of The State of Idaho,
In And For The County Of Bonneville Magistrates Court.
I was floored when I read these documents and will extract only two items from this paperwork which speak volumes:

In the Complaint for Impleader, prepared by the attorneys for plaintiff, page one, item #4:

Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States government which has presented to Plaintiff a lien against monies to which Defendant Steve Morgan, or presumably Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him, may be entitled.

Now let us look at the response of the Attorneys for the United States of America, prepared by Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States' Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, item #4:

Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government but admits that the United States of America would be a proper party to this action. Admits that the IRS has served a Notice of Levy on plaintiff for funds owed to defendant Steve Morgan.

[Famspear]

Sorry, but you don't make the rules. And this has already been covered several times.

The agency called the Internal Revenue Service was not created by "statute." It was not created by an Act of Congress. Indeed, many federal government agencies are not created by statute.

It's all covered here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... of_the_IRS

The Diversified case was a case where the government attorney incorrectly asserted that the IRS was not a government agency -- in response to an assertion by an opposing party.

The point is that BY STATUTE the IRS is both an "agency" of the United States government and and "bureau" within the United States Department of the Treasury.

Read the Wikipedia article.

[Famspear]

Adapted from Wikipedia:

Some tax protesters claim that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in the statutes. Imprisoned tax protester Irwin Schiff has contended that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in Subtitle A (the subtitle dealing specifically with income tax) of the Internal Revenue Code. ....The "Internal Revenue Service" is, however, mentioned in Subtitle A (see, e.g., 42(m)(1)(B)(iii); 51(g); 170(f)(11)(E)(iii)(II); and 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" -- See 5 USC section 551 for the definition of "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 [ . . . . ]" 5 USC sec. 301.

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 specifically refers to the IRS as being one of the "agencies within the Treasury." H.R. Rep. No. 105-364, pt. 1.

[Famspear]

The old "IRS must not be a government agency because it was not created by Congress" nonsense is another example of the tax protesters' use of the device of the "imaginary rule."

The imaginary rule in this case is that "for a federal government agency to be a federal government agency, it must have been created by an Act of Congress."

To a non-lawyer, such a "rule" might sound plausible.

Unfortunately, there is no such rule of law.

[Famspear]

From legal commentator Daniel B. Evans:

Tax protesters also like to cite a pleading (not a court opinion) that the government once filed in which the government denied that the IRS was an “agency” of the United States. 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 government therefore admitted that the actions of the IRS were the actions of the United States and that the United States is responsible for the actions of the IRS, but that the lawsuit should be against the United States and not the IRS. This was confirmed by a footnote in the court’s opinion:

“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 action of the court in substituting the United States government for the IRS actually confirms (and not denies) that the IRS is part of the United States government. Why else would a lawsuit against the IRS be changed to a lawsuit against the United States?

Which means that tax protesters are citing a court case that refutes their argument and does not support them. Which is rather typical of tax protesters.

From Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ, at

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[Famspear]

I find it humorous that "the inquirer" demanded that we not cite any court cases where a "statute" was not cited, yet he or she asked for an explanation for an erroneous pleading by a government attorney in a court case, even though a mere statement in a pleading is not a court ruling at all.

Again, when you're trying to learn about the law, you need to use the actual rules of legal analysis --- not make up your own.

[Famspear]

Also, why are you essentially asking the same question again?

See:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5957&p=96943#p96943

[Pottapaug1938]

Also, why are you essentially asking the same question again?

See:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5957&p=96943#p96943

Why do any of the TP idiots keep on raising the same discredited defenses, as if raising them just one more time will "break the dam" and convince the courts of the righteousness of their contentions?

[wserra]

Also, why are you essentially asking the same question again?

That was two years ago. He's hoping the answer changed.

Hint: it didn't.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Also, why are you essentially asking the same question again?

That was two years ago. He's hoping the answer changed.

Hint: it didn't.

Ain't the 'net just grand!

People get wrapped up in some half-baked old theory over and over and over and over and over ... well you get the idea.

The problem with the Internet is it never purges itself of stupid.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, the internet is a vast repository of ever deepening stupid, and the moment lives on and on and on, despite how short or convenient the memories of the parties involved are.

[fortinbras]

The IRS is a mere division of the Dept of Treasury. The Internal Revenue Code says that the Secretary of Treasury is responsible for facilitating the tax laws, which means that he can assign the duties to any division of his department. In the case of the IRS, it was originally known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949, Truman issued and Congress approved the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (66 Stat. 823) which provided for the reorganization of the Dept of Treasury. The Treasury's reorganization was completed in 1953, and included the renaming of the Bureau as the Internal Revenue Service (the change of a division name was permitted under the 1949 Act, 5 USC §904(1)). Congress essentially ratified and recognized this change in the next appropriation for the Dept of Treasury (May 11, 1954, 68 Stat. 86) when it assigned an appropriation for the operation of the IRS, by name, where in previous years it had assigned that money to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

[Doktor Avalanche]

This letter was sent to then Commissioner Margaret Richardson in 1997.

[notorial dissent]

I guess my response, is a great big SO WHAT!!!! I'm quite sure the Commissioner gets a lot of nonsense mail that is appropriately filed and that is the end of it, since it is not his responsibility to deal with the fantasy life of the truly and intentionally clueless. And that is always assuming, that 1) the letter is real to begin with, and 2) that it was ever received, and 3) that anyone gave a damn. The argument is from beginning to end pointless nonsense attempting to make something out of nothing, and epically failing.

[LPC]

This letter was sent to then Commissioner Margaret Richardson in 1997. To date a reply has never been received by the sender (not me).

Three questions:

1. How do you know those things are true?

2. How can we know those things are true?

3. Even if those things are true, what difference does it make? Unless there is a law that *requires* the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to respond to every letter from every crackpot, the sending of a letter, and the failure to receive a response, would seem to have no implications or consequences whatsoever.

[LPC]

The genealogy of this letter, along with a longer version of it (we have treated to a shorter, edited version), can be found on Christopher Hansen's "Family Guardian" web site (which still doesn't have the notice of the injunction against Hansen).

The genealogy/introduction was purportedly written by Dan Meador, who is dead, and he reports that the letter was written by "researchers" who submitted it to Ms. Richardson under pseudonyms.

So it's not the most verifiable story in the world.

[notorial dissent]

So it's not the most verifiable story in the world.

So are you having a severe attack of tongue in cheek, or are you practicing for the understatement olympics?

Not the most verifiable story he says, in any sense of the word. I still think my comment pretty well sums it up.

[Gregg]

Al Hodges has written letters to The Queen, The President, The Pope, and half a dozen other very important people about when the World Global Settlements and other prosperity programs have not been funded, and despite his demands, NONE HAS EVER BEEN ANSWERED!

Some people just have the good sense to ignore the lunatics.

[notorial dissent]

That's what they make that special round file for.

[fortinbras]

I have no doubt that this letter, with its dense collection of citations about needing a law to make a public office, was sent to the IRS. And that the IRS ignored it. The IRS probably gets as much crank mail as the White House and probably sees no reason to cultivate pen pals unrelated to its primary mission.