Questions, Title 26, Notice of Levy, No Law

[the inquirer]

I have some questions and you guys seem to be the go to guys.

Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code is claimed to be what pertains to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). When exactly was it enacted into positive law by Congress?

The IRS logo appears everywhere on IRS publications, website, etc.; but, it doesn't appear on the Title 26 book. Why not? You would think that would be one of the most prominent items to have the logo on.

Why is there a distinction between Internal Revenue and Internal Revenue Service? For example, in Title 26 section 7802 (b)(1)(c)
7802 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OVERSIGHT BOARD (b)(1)(c) one member shall be the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. (not the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service)
Hence, “The Internal Revenue Code” not “The Internal Revenue Service Code”.

If you look up Internal Revenue Service in the Index of Title 26, you will discover it is only mentioned in a few sections. None of which have anything to do with determining the tax, they only deal with governance, collection and the like.

The following contains a complete reference from Title 26 United States Code detailing the distinctions between INTERNAL REVENUE and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. INTERNAL REVENUE deals with taxes on liquor, tobacco and firearms. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE deals with the collection of assessed taxes for the TREASURY and the INTERNAL REVENUE.
After reading the following listed sections it appears that Title 26 does not apply to controversies dealing with the ability of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect taxes.

§§ 6404, 7214-7217, 7516-7517, 7521, 7608, 7622, 7624, 7802-7808,
7802 especially (b)(1)(c), 7803 especially (1)(A), and 7806 especially (b)

Nowhere in Title 26 is it stated that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has anything to do with assessing taxes, which is done by either the TREASURY or INTERNAL REVENUE. The distinctions between the two are far too numerous to accept as a scribers error. The intent becomes obvious while reading the aforementioned sections.
Any comments?

Also, why is the first page of the Notice of Levy never sent? Is it because it contains the following statement:

Internal Revenue Service Notice of Levy and Distraint
26 U.S.C. §6331
Part A:
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia by serving a Notice of Levy.

There is nothing stating that it applies to ordinary Americans not working for the United States government. Is the omission done deliberately?

There is NO federal STATUTE (law written by Congress of the United States) which REQUIRES ANY AMERICAN TO FILE AND PAY INCOME TAX.

There is a reward, now up to $300,000, I believe, for anyone proving that ordinary Americans are liable for the income tax. Why haven't any of you bright folks claimed it? Crap, I would be posting that on the site and throwing it in the face of anyone who questioned the tax. But, none of you have done so; so, I wonder, are you afraid to seriously look?

Have any of you read attorney Tommy Cryer's "Memorandum" on the income tax filed as a motion in his successful defense against the Internal Revenue Service in United States v Tommy K. Cryer? You can download it here: http://www.truthattack.org/jml/images/s ... RANDUM.pdf

In my next post, I'll take a brief look at former CID agent Joseph Banister, who, as you know graduated #1 from the academy.

[The Observer]

I have some questions and you guys seem to be the go to guys.

Welcome to Quatloos, inquirer. And indeed we are the people that can answer questions. In fact, we have answered these questions and similar ones in the past from people who really aren't interested in getting answers, but think they are going to trap us. Instead they end up with their heads being handed to them and going away angry and bitter.

I'll answer one of your questions:

The IRS logo appears everywhere on IRS publications, website, etc.; but, it doesn't appear on the Title 26 book. Why not? You would think that would be one of the most prominent items to have the logo on.

What is the legal significance of the logo? Can you cite any law that requires that a federal agency has to have its log emblazoned on a particular section of US code or law? Can you show me where any agency has its logo affixed to any of the US title sections as required by law? Do you suppose that maybe your question really has no relevance as to the enforcement of Title 26?

[Thule]

Have any of you read attorney Tommy Cryer's "Memorandum" on the income tax filed as a motion in his successful defense against the Internal Revenue Service in United States v Tommy K. Cryer? You can download it here: http://www.truthattack.org/jml/images/s ... RANDUM.pdf

Filed, sure. Argued in court, never. Cryer dropped all the TP-stuff and instead told the jury that he was confused and did not understand that he should have to pay taxes.

[Pottapaug1938]

Inquirer:

I could answer your questions; but the answers can already be found on Quatloos. I'll confine myself, here, to saying that not one of the positions which you offer us has ever held up in court, especially after appellate review (which sets the precedent for future cases).

[Pottapaug1938]

I might also note that attempts to play "word games" (as in trying to find an important distinction between "Internal Revenue" and "Internal Revenue Service") have never prevailed in court, especially after appellate review. A little research on this board will give you more than enough proof of that.

[The Observer]

Also, why is the first page of the Notice of Levy never sent?

What makes you think that the first page is never sent? I have always seen the first page of the levy sent. Page one is the copy that goes to the source who is holding the asset or monies of the taxpayer who is being levied. It wouldn't make much sense for the IRS to not send page one since they couldn't expect the levy source to respond and forward the monies.

Is it because it contains the following statement:

Internal Revenue Service Notice of Levy and Distraint
26 U.S.C. §6331
Part A:
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia by serving a Notice of Levy.

There is nothing stating that it applies to ordinary Americans not working for the United States government. Is the omission done deliberately?

Ah, you are referring to the back of page one where paragraph (a) of Section 6331 has been omitted. Why is it omitted? Because of dishonest people who try to pretend that the word "may" is to be read as exclusive instead of inclusive, and then proceed in trying to con the levy source into believing that they are exempt from the levy. However, the purpose of 6331(a) was to show that government employees and officials were not exempt from the levy - not that only government employees and officials could be levied. This is an old argument that has been tried in court many times and has gone down in failure. And as to your point that there is nothing stating that it applies to ordinary Americans, it can be equally argued that there is nothing stating that it DOESN'T apply to ordinary Americans.

[wserra]

Internal Revenue Service Notice of Levy and Distraint
26 U.S.C. §6331
Part A:
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia by serving a Notice of Levy.

There is nothing stating that it applies to ordinary Americans not working for the United States government. Is the omission done deliberately?

Sure there is - the part of 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) that you left out:

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person

Do you have a problem understanding the phrase "any person"?

The rest of this stuff is equally dumb or equally dishonest - take your pick - and has been dealt with repeatedly on this board.

[LPC]

Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code is claimed to be what pertains to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). When exactly was it enacted into positive law by Congress?

Title 26 of the United States Code has itself never been enacted as positive law.

What has been enacted by Congress is the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the “Thomas” web site maintained by the Library of Congress.

So you could look it up.

Have any of you read attorney Tommy Cryer's "Memorandum" on the income tax filed as a motion in his successful defense against the Internal Revenue Service in United States v Tommy K. Cryer?

Cryer's motion was denied.

[LPC]

There is a reward, now up to $300,000, I believe, for anyone proving that ordinary Americans are liable for the income tax. Why haven't any of you bright folks claimed it?

You're talking about Peymon Mottahedeh? What makes you think he has $300,000?

Mottahedeh did not file income tax returns for the years 1992-1994, and filed a petition with the Tax Court when the IRS sent him notices of deficiencies for those years. The notices of deficiencies were upheld by the Tax Court and by the 9th Circuit on appeal. Mottahedeh v. Commissioner, 82 AFTR2d Par. 98-5597, 98 TNT 242-6, No. 98-70457 (9th Cir. 11/19/1998), affirming No. 10592-96 (T.C. 1/5/1998). On September 15, 2008, those same tax liabilities were reduced to a judgment in favor of the United States, and against Mottahedeh, in the amount of $90,049.57, representing the income tax for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994, plus penalties and interest through 5/31/2008. United States v. Peymon Mottahedeh, No. CV 08–2740 PA (CWx) (U.S.D.C. C.D.Cal. 9/15/2008), appeal dismissed as untimely, No. 08-56980 (9th Cir. 11/1/2010).

Anyone owing the United States $90,000 in back taxes, interest, and penalties is unlikely to be able to pay a reward of $300,000 to anyone.

There are also legal problems in collecting on those kinds of offers. From the Tax Protester FAQ:

In many states, such a unilateral offer is not legally binding, and can be withdrawn at any time, so if the offeror refuses to pay there is no legal remedy.

Even if the offer is a legally binding contract, there may be legal conditions that will make it difficult (or impossible) to collect. For example, Irwin Schiff once appeared on television and offered to pay $100,000 to anyone who could identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that impose any liability for tax. A man named Richard Newman identified sections 1, 6012, 6151, 6153, 7201, 7202 and 7203 in a telephone call to the television station the following morning and then sued Schiff when he refused to pay the $100,000. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Newman was right about the tax laws and that Schiff’s claim was “ridiculous,” but ruled for Schiff because Newman did not telephone the television station with the correct answer within the time specified in Schiff’s offer (i.e., during the time that Schiff was actually on the air). Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985).

The most important condition that most tax protesters impose with their “offers” is that they themselves are the judge of whether the conditions of the offer have been met. So, for example, William Conklin has offered $50,000 to anyone who can show him how to file an income tax return without waiving his 5th Amendment rights. One person gave him the correct answer (which is to omit any incriminating information from the return) and then sued him for the $50,000, but the court ruled in Conklin’s favor, saying that because Conklin was the one who had to be satisfied, he was the “sole arbitor of the sufficiency of any answer tendered,” it was solely up to him whether or not to award the prize, and he could reject answers he didn’t like even if the answers were legally correct. Walder v. Conklin, Case No. 01-CV-1038-B (U.S.D.C. Wyo. 12/13/2001). (Believe it or not, Conklin brags about this decision on his web site, listing it as a “win” and not realizing that the decision shows him to be a fraud because his “reward offer” is meaningless.)

Some tax protester “offers” include multiple assertions, and the challenge is to prove that they are all incorrect. If the offeror inserts one statement into the list that is arguably true, it becomes impossible to collect the reward. So, for example, the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship offers a $10,000 reward to “to ANYONE who can disprove the following statements of FACT and LAW.” (Their emphasis.) What follows is a list of 28 “facts,” some of which are actually true. Because the reward is to anyone who can disprove “the following statements” (plural), it would be necessary to disprove all of the statements to collect the reward. If any one statement is true then the reward can never be collected, even if the other 27 “facts” are completely false.

crap, I would be posting that on the site and throwing it in the face of anyone who questioned the tax.

What makes you think Mottahedeh will let anyone post the truth on a website he controls?

[Cpt Banjo]

Inquirer, you might want to note that the Tax Court has recently ruled against Cryer's estate, which now owes a boatload of back taxes, penalties, and interest.

Don't bother posting about Mr. Banister. In case you didn't know, his CPA license was revoked because of the bogus tax advice he gave his clients.

[Famspear]

The newbie wrote:

Have any of you read attorney Tommy Cryer's "Memorandum" on the income tax filed as a motion in his successful defense against the Internal Revenue Service in United States v Tommy K. Cryer?

You should know that Cryer's successful defense consisted of his being found not guilty by the jury. He lost the arguments in his "memorandum." The Court ruled against him. The whole point of his filing the memorandum with the Court was to try to get the Court to throw the case out, so that the case would not go to the jury. Again, the Court ruled against him. The case went to the jury.

The jury did not read Cryer's "memorandum." The jury did not "rule" that the hilarious arguments contained in the memorandum were "correct." Juries do not issue rulings on the law. Juries render verdicts.

A jury verdict that a tax protester (who makes silly arguments such as those made by Cryer) is "not guilty" does not constitute a ruling that the silly arguments are legally valid, any more than a jury verdict of "not guilty" in a murder case would constitute a ruling that the defendant's arguments about the law of murder (whatever those arguments might be) are legally valid.

[Famspear]

The newbie wrote:

If you look up Internal Revenue Service in the Index of Title 26, you will discover it is only mentioned in a few sections. None of which have anything to do with determining the tax, they only deal with governance, collection and the like.

And what difference does all this make? Answer: None.

Why would the IRS have to be mentioned in specific provisions having to do with "determining the tax"? Answer: The IRS does not have to be mentioned in any specific provision. The tax is determined according to the law and the facts; the IRS is merely a bureau or agency within the Department of the Treasury that administers the law.

What do you mean by the statement that the IRS is mentioned in "only a few sections"? How many Code sections? Give us a specific number. How many Internal Revenue Code sections contain the words "Internal Revenue Service"? How many other statutes outside the Code contain the words "Internal Revenue Service"?

[Burnaby49]

Internal Revenue Service Notice of Levy and Distraint
26 U.S.C. §6331
Part A:
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia by serving a Notice of Levy.

There is nothing stating that it applies to ordinary Americans not working for the United States government. Is the omission done deliberately?

Sure there is - the part of 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) that you left out:

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person

Do you have a problem understanding the phrase "any person"?

The rest of this stuff is equally dumb or equally dishonest - take your pick - and has been dealt with repeatedly on this board.

We have the same type of moronic arguments in Canada from time to time. The Federal Income Tax Act states that the term "employees" includes members of company boards of directors. For a while these clowns were arguing that, since they were not members of any boards, they were not employees and therefore not subject to tax.

While this example is a different application to the quote it's the same idea. If the Act specifies that the taxing authorities may do something to a specified group these legal geniuses think that anyone not included in the group is excluded from tax. Same as your ongoing argument that since the definition of the states includes DC, Guam, Samoa, and Puerto Rico it, by assumption, excludes everything else.

[Famspear]

The newbie wrote:

There is NO federal STATUTE (law written by Congress of the United States) which REQUIRES ANY AMERICAN TO FILE AND PAY INCOME TAX.

Baloney. You are well aware of the law that requires "any American" to file and pay income tax. The fact that you are posting here is evidence (and could be used as evidence in a court of law) that you are aware of the law.

There is a reward, now up to $300,000, I believe, for anyone proving that ordinary Americans are liable for the income tax.

No, there isn't. We've seen these supposed "offers" before. Anyone who posts an "offer" on the internet supposedly offering a $300,000 reward for anyone proving that ordinary Americans are liable for the income tax is a scammer. And you've fallen for the scam.

The rest of the world is not here to prove to people like you that the law is what the law is. We here in Quatloos are here to explain the law -- not to persuade you.

[.]

I'm shocked that none of the lawyers here have pointed out that if there were any discrepancy whatsoever between anything in 26 USC and the underlying, enacted "positive law," all the complaining party would have to do is point it out to the court.

Funny that no lawyer has successfully done that. Ever.

[Famspear]

The Newbie wrote:

Nowhere in Title 26 is it stated that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has anything to do with assessing taxes, which is done by either the TREASURY or INTERNAL REVENUE. The distinctions between the two are far too numerous to accept as a scribers error. The intent becomes obvious while reading the aforementioned sections.

Duuuhhhhh.... There are no "scribers errors." And there are no "distinctions."

Nowhere in the Texas statute making murder a crime is any police department mentioned. Nowhere in that statute is any court mentioned, or any judge mentioned. Grand juries aren't mentioned in that statute. Trial juries aren't mentioned in that statute. The court bailiff is not mentioned. The court reporter is not mentioned. The court clerk is not mentioned.

Same is true of the statute making theft a crime. No mention of police, or courts, or judges, or grand juries, or trial juries, or bailiffs, or court reporters, or court clerks.

So what?

What is wrong with you?

[fortinbras]

The question about "positive law" is a trick. Usually titles are enacted into positive law, but with Title 26 it was the positive law that was enacted into a title. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by Congress (in 78A Statutes at Large), which, of course, makes it positive law, and then it was adopted as title 26. Some courts have explicitly said that Title 26 is positive law, and the others have challenged litigants to show where/how Title 26 varies from positive law.

The IRC/Title 26 says that the taxes are calculated and collected by the Dept of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Treasury is responsible and authorized to do all that. The Secretary can assign these duties to any group in the Treasury at his discretion, but for this he (or really his predecessors of many decades ago) set up the IRS to do this job. The IRS was originally the Bureau of Internal Revenue but was reorganized and renamed pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949, and specifically the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (66 Stat 86) -- the 1949 Act, sec. 4, allows for changes in names. There is no requirement that the IRS logo, or any other agency's logo, to appear in the Statutes at Large nor in the US Code.

IRC § 6331 says a good deal more than was quoted above. The section says that a tax levy can be made on "any person" whose taxes are delinquint and he has ten days to respond before the IRS intercedes with his payroll deductions. But a bit further on, it says that in the case of a federal or DC civil servant, there is no allowance of ten days and the govt can start garnishing his govt paycheck immediately.

[Famspear]

The newbie wrote:

Nowhere in Title 26 is it stated that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has anything to do with assessing taxes, which is done by either the TREASURY or INTERNAL REVENUE...

No, that's not what it says. It says that the assessments are done by the "Secretary." The term "Secretary" is defined as "Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate."

Outside the statutes, the phrase "his delegate" includes any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service authorized to perform the applicable function -- in this case, making assessments.

All this has been covered over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Why are you copying and pasting the same old nonsense?

[Famspear]

The newbie wrote:

The following contains a complete reference from Title 26 United States Code detailing the distinctions between INTERNAL REVENUE and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE....

Absolute total baloney. The list you provided is not even close to being a complete list of all the Internal Revenue Code provisions that mention "Internal Revenue Service."

INTERNAL REVENUE deals with taxes on liquor, tobacco and firearms. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE deals with the collection of assessed taxes for the TREASURY and the INTERNAL REVENUE.
After reading the following listed sections it appears that Title 26 does not apply to controversies dealing with the ability of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect taxes.

§§ 6404, 7214-7217, 7516-7517, 7521, 7608, 7622, 7624, 7802-7808,
7802 especially (b)(1)(c), 7803 especially (1)(A), and 7806 especially (b)

Absolute total baloney.

As of the last time I checked a few years ago, the "Internal Revenue Service" is mentioned in Subtitle A; see, e.g., 26 USC 42(m)(1)(B)(iii); 26 USC 51(g); 26 USC 170(f)(11)(E)(iii)(II); and 26 USC 501(p)(7). Overall, the Internal Revenue Code contains at least 200 specific references to "Internal Revenue Service". Many Internal Revenue Code sections contain multiple references to "Internal Revenue Service" - for example, thirteen mentions in section 6103 (which you conveniently did not mention), ten mentions in section 6110 (which you did not mention), eighteen mentions in section 7430 (which you did not mention).

Additionally, at least nineteen references to "Internal Revenue Service" are found in titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 31, and 42 of the United States Code.

[Famspear]

I'm shocked that none of the lawyers here have pointed out that if there were any discrepancy whatsoever between anything in 26 USC and the underlying, enacted "positive law," all the complaining party would have to do is point it out to the court.

Funny that no lawyer has successfully done that. Ever.

Actually, I know of one case where a lawyer found a discrepancy. As noted in "another place on the internet":

A discrepancy (albeit an insignificant one) between the wording in the Statutes at Large and the wording in some editions of the U.S. Code with respect to a provision of the Internal Revenue Code (specifically, the words "any papers" in the first sentence of section 6104(a)(1)(A)) is described by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of ''Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Serv.'', 214 F.3d 179 (D.C. Cir. 2000), in footnote 1. There, the Court stated:

All editions of the United States Code since 1970 have actually read "any paper" instead of "any papers" as we set forth above. See 26 U.S.C. § 6104 (1970); see also United States Code editions of 1976, 1982, 1988, and 1994. However, the original language "any papers" was inserted into § 6104 in 1958, see Technical Amendments Act of 1958, Pub.L. No. 85-866, § 75(a), 72 Stat. 1606, 1660-61 (1958), and appeared in the 1958 and 1964 editions of the United States Code. The United States Statutes at Large are "legal evidence" of the law, 1 U.S.C. § 112 (1994), whereas the titles of the United States Code only serve as "prima facie" evidence of the law unless they are enacted as "positive law," in which case they too serve as legal evidence of the laws. 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1994); see also Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943) (per curiam) (Statutes at Large prevail over prima facie portions of U.S.C.). The I.R.C. has been enacted as a separate code and is therefore positive law. See Internal Revenue Code of 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 1 (1954). Though both the Statutes at Large and I.R.C. could be said to be authoritative here, we use the "any papers" language of the original enactment appearing in the Statutes at Large. The difference is irrelevant to the outcome of the case, and we will thus disregard an apparent scrivener's error made by a codifier without congressional direction. Cf. United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 98 n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) (holding that a "change of arrangement" by a codifier to a section not enacted as positive law "should be given no weight").

--(emphasis added).

The "Internal Revenue Code", also known as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986", and formerly known as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", is POSITIVE law. That means that the Code and all its amendments were enacted by Congress, and published in the United States Statutes at Large, beginning with Volume 68A, U.S. Statutes at Large (1954). THIS IS POSITIVE LAW.

By contast "Title 26 of the United States Code" is simply a SEPARATE publication of the same text. Title 26 is also called the "Internal Revenue Code," or the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986," etc., etc. THIS version is "non-positive" law.

The "any paper" versus "any papers" discrepancy in section 6104 is the only known discrepancy between the two that I have located so far.

This is so simple, yet there is something about this and all other simple tax law concepts that tax protesters do not want to admit they understand. They just don't want to accept it.