Need 26 U.S. Code § 7851 Clarity

[tonyallen007]

I am sure this subject has been discussed but can't seem to find it.. Please help me to understand what this means..

26 U.S. Code § 7851.Applicability of revenue laws
U.S. Code
Notes
(a)General rulesExcept as otherwise provided in any section of this title—
(1)Subtitle A
(A)Chapters 1, 2, and 6 of this title shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title, and with respect to such taxable years, chapters 1 (except sections 143 and 144) and 2, and section 3801, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 are hereby repealed.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

INAL but I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it means what it says on the page. That is usually how laws work.

[notorial dissent]

Eh, nothing you need to worry about or concern yourself with.

[NYGman]

Oh no, you found it, the section of the code that invalidates all other tax laws. This was hidden so we'll, we didn't think anyone would find it buried in 7851. I guess we didn't count on you finding it...

Perhaps if he read on, all would be clear... When you take anything out of context, it can look to mean something entirely different. Maybe the notes will help.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7851

You can't look at a section on the law, without context, and that is your issue. Without going in to it, this doesn't impact your obligation to pay tax. Go ahead, try to quote this to a tax examiner or in court. You will be laughed at. I am sure there are other examples of people taking parts of a code section out of context to try to show no taxes are due, it never works. One thing I learned in law school, if you think you found your answer, read on, as it may not be the case.

I suggest you read on, and if you want to be a lawyer, go to law school and learn how it actually works.

[Pottapaug1938]

The answer, if not readily apparent by the text of this provision, involves looking at Chapters 1, 2 and 6, to see which provisions were affected; and then looking at the words in this provision which state that "ending after the enactment of this titie." In other words, taxable years after the enactment of this provision are unaffected. Enactment took place on August 16, 1954; so unless you are quite elderly, it is extremely unlikely that this provision can affect you in any way.

[wserra]

Tony - You're sure as hell not going to find any answers hanging out at SEDM.

My favorite thing there has gotta be the interrogation you're supposed to give to a federal judge in front of whom you find yourself. Why don't you try that out yourself, then let the maimed and the lame and the blind over there know how it went?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I am sure this subject has been discussed but can't seem to find it..

They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

- Matthew 22: 16-22

Pretty sure it means:

Jesus said: Pay your f***ing taxes. Now piss off and don't bother me again.

...but please help me to understand what this means,

[NYGman]

I am sure this subject has been discussed but can't seem to find it..

They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

- Matthew 22: 16-22

Pretty sure it means:

Jesus said: Pay your f***ing taxes. Now piss off and don't bother me again.

...but please help me to understand what this means,

You didn't read on did you...

Then he said to them, “Ha, ha, just kidding no person has to pay taxes so keep it all. Caesar can magic up money at the banks whenever he wants. Oh and don't let me forget, here is the UCC it is God's law, use it anywhere for anything, it applies universally, that is what the U stands for”

-Mathew 22: 22.5

[wserra]

Those damn Herodians. Always causing trouble.

[Famspear]

I am sure this subject has been discussed but can't seem to find it.. Please help me to understand what this means..

26 U.S. Code § 7851.Applicability of revenue laws
U.S. Code
Notes
(a)General rulesExcept as otherwise provided in any section of this title—
(1)Subtitle A
(A)Chapters 1, 2, and 6 of this title shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title, and with respect to such taxable years, chapters 1 (except sections 143 and 144) and 2, and section 3801, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 are hereby repealed.

Let me walk you through this slowly.

Section 7851 was enacted as part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the morning of August 16, 1954.

Essentially, what you need help in "understanding" is that chapters 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and section 3801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, were not completely repealed by the 1954 Code. This means that those provisions of the 1939 Code are still the law for taxable years that begin before January 1, 1954.

This is a pretty basic concept in American statutory law: If a particular provision of a particular statute has not been completely repealed, that provision remains in effect to the extent not repealed.

For example, in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended (now known as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, by the way), there are many, many provisions that have been repealed by subsequent Acts of Congress where the repeal was not made retroactively back to August 16, 1954.

What this means is that in order to know which legal rule applies to a given situation, sometimes either you need to be able to perform detailed statutory analysis, or you need to obtain expert advice from someone who knows how to perform that analysis.

With the expanded availability of the internet beginning in the mid 1990s, a small group of people located legal materials that they are not competent to analyze and began looking for absurd, frivolous "rationales" for claiming that the Federal income tax does not apply to someone (often, to them). Of course, a few people were doing this even before the expanded availability of the internet. All these people are called tax protesters or tax deniers. Some of these people are called convicted criminals. The vast majority of these people do not know how to perform detailed statutory analysis.

The Internal Revenue Code and the related uncodified U.S. Federal statutes -- that's right, some of the Federal internal revenue statutes are not found in the Code itself -- contain literally millions of words. The Treasury regulations issued under the Code account for even more material. Then, there is the related case law -- with many, many millions of more words. And this is only scratching the surface of all the materials used by lawyers and the courts.

For all intents and purposes, the knowledge needed to be able to analyze the internal revenue laws of the United States of America correctly cannot be obtained by the average person browsing the internet. Virtually none of these legal materials were written with the intent that they be understood by the average person, just as certain medical texts are written to be understood by physicians and other health care specialists and not by the average person, just as certain engineering texts are written to be understood only by engineers and not the average person, and just as certain texts on elementary particle physics are written to be understood only by persons with advanced knowledge of physics and not by the average person.

Sorry, but that's life.

[Famspear]

The same concept applies to amendments to a statute.

Very often, Congress will amend a provision of the Internal Revenue Code by making the amendment effective for tax years "that begin after [date]". What this means is that the amendment is NOT effective for tax years that do NOT begin after that date. And, what that means is that for tax years that do not begin after that date, the language of the provision remains the same as it was immediately before the provision was amended.

In the United States, the federal and state statutory laws -- and especially the U.S. internal revenue laws -- are in some sense "layered." This is why, in my office, I keep materials which show the wording of the Internal Revenue Code in "layers". A tax practitioner cannot work effectively merely by keeping only a copy of "the latest" version of the Code. To determine the proper legal treatment of a particular transaction on a particular date in the past, you may need to dig down through the layers of the statutes.

The same is true of all statutes that are amended frequently.

A while back I was involved in a bankruptcy case that had been commenced around the year 1983 and closed around 1994. The case was re-opened around the year 2010 when someone discovered an asset (worth over a million dollars) that had not been disclosed to the bankruptcy trustee and the Court. One of the things I had to do was to determine what the trustee fee would be when the case work was completed and the case was "re-closed". I had to go back to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provision as it was worded for cases commenced in 1983.

[NYGman]

There you go again Fam, providing a clear, logical, well researched, sound answer to the question asked, which will ultimately be proven completed wrong by the OP's next post, that or the goalposts will move. Either way, you will be absolutely wrong because, they had found something on the internet, no one else has found, that proves they are right.

[notorial dissent]

tonyallen007 let me hurt your brain just a bit more. The Tax Code of 1939 replaced whatever the tax code had been prior to that, and no I 'm not going to look it up. The Tax Code of 1954 replaced most but not all of the Tax Code of 1939. The big kicker, for your purposes, is that the Tax Code of 1954 doesn't really exist any more either, having been rewritten, modified, edited, parts changed, repealed, etc. for the following 65 years, but they still call it the Tax Code of 1954. Does that make you feel better? If you want to find out what the current tax code is, go look through a current version Title 26. § 7851 is just telling you what laws are applicable from what date.

[Dr. Caligari]

Chapters 1, 2, and 6 of this title shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title

Tax year 2020 began after December 31, 1953, and will end after the enactment of the IRC of 1954 (which was sometime in 1954). So the Internal Revenue Code applies this year. Any other questions?

[Famspear]

I believe "Tony" is associated with a group of wackadoosters in Georgia that "studies" (and I'm using that word very loosely) Christopher M. Hansen's scam web site, the old "Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry", at sedm dot org.

[notorial dissent]

If they are indeed sedmites that would certainly explain their inability to parse simple English and "asking" the questions they do.

[wserra]

He is. Scroll down to the list of names.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

He is. Scroll down to the list of names.

Mmm. Truth_Seeker, erstwhile of this parish, also appears to be listed. I wonder if, perchance, they could somehow be related

[Dr. Caligari]

He is. Scroll down to the list of names.

Interesting that he hasn't come back to this thread.

[notorial dissent]

He is. Scroll down to the list of names.

Interesting that he hasn't come back to this thread.

Somehow I don't think he liked the answers he got.