Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.

Hey Funguy, wanna get your hands on an Allison V-12? Probably not. How about a Packard-built Merlin? What's the boost supposed to be during the run up cycle?

Ever tried to start one of those? No, probably not. Know what a Curtiss electric prop is? What are the takeoff settings for the R-4360?

[snip]

On the topic of Merlin engines and automobiles: take 5 minutes to sit back, relax, enjoy, and admire the following: Merlin V12 Powered 55 Chevy

[ASITStands]

And, it's been roughly two days since 'funwithsafety' posted on the forum.

[SteveSy]

Yaawwwwnnnnnn....... Ho hum...............

From the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in James v. United States:

I'm not arguing that only federal workers can have their wages, salary or whatever levied. I'm simply saying the nonsense you guys are spewing is ridiculous.

All you've done is avoid explaining why federal employees are listed with any sensical explanation. Apparently none of you can provide a reasonable answer without tripping over your own feet using a justification that validates what some TP's claim. That is, "any person" may not mean every single person imaginable.

The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" langugage in section 6331(a) is a case -- decided ninety years ago -- that had nothing to do with taxation.

Blah, blah, blah....

So we're right back to square one, you guys making fun of people for not including themselves in "any person" and then trying to explain why federal employees aren't included in "any person" so that they had to specifically list them....whatever, you guys are truly amusing.

If "any person" truly means everyone then its moronic to specifically list people right after. Everyone would be included, including federal employees. How can you portray someone as an idiot for not accepting they're in the category of "any person" and then in the next breath try act like I'm stupid for asking why the writers of the code found it necessary to specifically list people, who by default, are included in any person also if that's what it really means?

Now, in the absence of the "federal worker" language in 6331, maybe some court or another might view a tax levy as being covered by Smith v. Jackson, or maybe that court might not view it that way. Either way, the Congress simply wanted to avoid the problem and to make clear that federal administrative tax levies are not impaired by the Smith v. Jackson doctrine. Hence, the arguably redundant (i.e., partially redundant) language of what is now section 6331(a).

Yes some court might find that "any person" doesn't really mean "any person"....but then, they would be idiots right? Because only an idiot would assume "any person" doesn't really mean every single person imaginable. Bahahahaha.....talk about drinking the kool-aid, you guys have box seats at the factory!

[Paul]

Everybody sing along with Stevesy!

"I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

Even dogs learn when you rub their noses in it, but not our resident maroon.

[Famspear]

Yaawwwwnnnnnn....... Ho hum...............

From the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in James v. United States:

I'm not arguing that only federal workers can have their wages, salary or whatever levied. I'm simply saying the nonsense you guys are spewing is ridiculous.

All you've done is avoid explaining why federal employees are listed with any sensical explanation. Apparently none of you can provide a reasonable answer without tripping over your own feet using a justification that validates what some TP's claim. That is, "any person" may not mean every single person imaginable.

The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" langugage in section 6331(a) is a case -- decided ninety years ago -- that had nothing to do with taxation.

Blah, blah, blah....

So we're right back to square one, you guys making fun of people for not including themselves in "any person" and then trying to explain why federal employees aren't included in "any person" so that they had to specifically list them....whatever, you guys are truly amusing.

If "any person" truly means everyone then its moronic to specifically list people right after. Everyone would be included, including federal employees. How can you portray someone as an idiot for not accepting they're in the category of "any person" and then in the next breath try act like I'm stupid for asking why the writers of the code found it necessary to specifically list people, who by default, are included in any person also if that's what it really means?

Now, in the absence of the "federal worker" language in 6331, maybe some court or another might view a tax levy as being covered by Smith v. Jackson, or maybe that court might not view it that way. Either way, the Congress simply wanted to avoid the problem and to make clear that federal administrative tax levies are not impaired by the Smith v. Jackson doctrine. Hence, the arguably redundant (i.e., partially redundant) language of what is now section 6331(a).

Yes some court might find that "any person" doesn't really mean "any person"....but then, they would be idiots right? Because only an idiot would assume "any person" doesn't really mean every single person imaginable. Bahahahaha.....talk about drinking the kool-aid, you guys have box seats at the factory!

I'm partly on your side on this one, Steve. We regulars at Quatloos should not be trying to act like you are stupid for merely asking why the writers of the code found it necessary to specifically list people, who by default, are included in the meaning of the phase "any person." I agree that your question was a reasonable question.

Refusal to accept the answer, however, would not be reasonable. I hope you will accept the answer and move on. But if you don't, it's your problem, not mine.

Many tax protesters do read tax code provisions like section 6331(a) and -- instead of making an honest effort to find out why the provisions are worded the way they are -- immediately begin huffing and puffing, waving their arms up and down, hyperventilating, and getting sweaty and red in the face to the point of straining to posit the existence of some nonsensical theory about what they "believe" the statute ought to mean. And the result of all that straining is, predictably, virtually, and sadly always the same. The protesters profess to have concluded with some variation on the theme that the law "does not really make me liable for the federal income tax." I hope you will not do that.

As far as the reason for the wording of section 6331(a), you have now been provided with the answer. You might not like the answer, and you might not accept the answer. If you accept the answer and "move on" mentally, your acceptance will show maturity on your part. If you do not accept the answer, something else will be in evidence.

If perchance you feel inordinately and obstinately uncomfortable with the current wording of section 6331(a), you may consider taking it up with your Congressional representative or Senators to change the statute to get it worded the way you would like it.

I would respectfully suggest that you move on. You don't want to make it appear that you are having problems understanding this statute or how it got this way, especially after having had this explained to you. Federal income tax law is mind-numbingly complex. Believe me, understanding section 6331(a) is the easy part of tax law.

[ASITStands]

I think 'SteveSy' caught us!

"federal employees" are not "any person," because they're "shape-shifting lizards."

That's it! Mystery solved. Like 'Famspear,' I'll admit it's a quandary when you first read it, but once you read the relevant case law explaining "why" it was done, it becomes more clear.

It's really not all that difficult, 'SteveSy.'

[SteveSy]

I think 'SteveSy' caught us!

"federal employees" are not "any person," because they're "shape-shifting lizards."

I KNEW IT! Finally someone admits the truth.

btw, the case law only shows that even a federal judge is capable of thinking that "any person" might not include every single person imaginable, whether it be due to constitutional restraints or whatever.

It's really not all that difficult, 'SteveSy.'

I'm sorry but it is difficult for people other than yourselves to accept that on the one hand "any person" means every single person imaginable, any you're stupid for thinking otherwise, and then on the hand listen to one of you explain why certain employees might not be included in "any person" so they had to specifically list them.

Excuse my run-along sentence....

I want to make it clear I'm not challenging the fact that people will lose using the "federal employee" argument. It's very clear they will lose, doesn't matter what the code says, or someone might think it says. I'm simply pointing out how inconsistent and unreasonable the law is. It's not "obvious" or even remotely clear. It appears that only a federal judge with their secret decoder ring is capable of deciphering it and then we are provided with their documented opinion which we all must accept as the true meaning.

[Dezcad]

There's also another explanation that may help clear it up.

The first sentence of 6331(a) grants the power to levy "any person".

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 or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax

The second sentence designates the manner in which the levy is accomplished upon a subset (officer, employee, or elected official) of "any person".

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 the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official

The first sentence says who the government can levy ("any person") and the second sentence states how the government does it to a certain class of "any person". The second sentence is not a modification or explanation of "who" but merely a statement of "how".

[SteveSy]

The first sentence says who the government can levy ("any person") and the second sentence states how the government does it to a certain class of "any person". The second sentence is not a modification or explanation of "who" but merely a statement of "how".

That's all fine and good except one little problem....that's exactly "how" they do it for every employer, regardless of who that employer might be.

[The Observer]

I want to make it clear I'm not challenging the fact that people will lose using the "federal employee" argument. It's very clear they will lose, doesn't matter what the code says, or someone might think it says. I'm simply pointing out how inconsistent and unreasonable the law is. It's not "obvious" or even remotely clear. It appears that only a federal judge with their secret decoder ring is capable of deciphering it and then we are provided with their documented opinion which we all must accept as the true meaning.

And that is exactly why we have judges and an appeal system that will result in an ultimate and consistent definition of what the law actually means. And in our system, if Congress does not like how the justice(s) have ruled, they have the power to change the wording/effect of the law to render the effect they desire. In this particular case, the court system has interpreted this IRC section to mean that everyone can be levied and that the language does not limit the effect to only federal employees. Every single court ruling after that has given the same consistent ruling. And Congress has not disagreed with that ruling.

The courts have no hesitation in holding Congress accountable for bad laws. There are a number of times where poor construction and editing of a statute, right down to a misplaced comma, resulted in a different interpretation of what the legislators' intent was - and the courts enforced that different interpretation.

So the position that because a TP sees the law as bad and/or confusing doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is going to win. TPs want to somehow think that the law is engraved in stone and that only their interpretation can be correct. But that ain't how the system works.

If the TP theory on how they should be allowed to make their own determination on the laws was applied to NFL games, it would be utter chaos. TPs would be invalidating touchdowns from the sidelines based on their understanding and interpretation of the rules laid down by the NFL, regardless of what the referees ruled on the field. If that were to be allowed as a valid practice, TPs could certainly arrange for a season of ensuring that every bet they placed would be on the winning teams by making virtual "rulings" of which team actually scored the more points.

[Duke2Earl]

In truth, Steve does have a point. But even conceding that point does not get to where the tax protesters would like to go. The fact is that the Tax Code is often poorly worded, ambiguous, confusing and difficult to understand and interpret. And many other laws are poorly written as well. And in fact the parts of the Code that the tax protesters argue about aren't even the worst parts. If you think 6331 is bad, take a look at 263A or 199 or the one I have been fighting with recently... 168(k)(4). These sections, and too many others are not only incomprehensible to read but virtually impossible to apply in the "real" world.

Why is this? It's hard to explain in any rational manner. Part of it is because it is an elephant designed by a committee. Part of it is because it has been amended so many times by so many different folks for so many different purposes that it is impossible to make it all work together. Heck, there is even tons of deadwood (repealed and useless sections that still appear in the text) still lying around. Part of it is that lots of "law" isn't in the text of the Code at all but rather has to be imported or implied from case law. And indeed parts of it are flat out contradictory... especially parts of the case law where there are often "outliers"... odd cases that one can't fit into any coherent explanation of the law.

But all this really means at the end of the day is why the courts are so important. The courts must try to bring all this contradictory and badly written stuff together in some fashion. And by in large the way they do this is to try to interpret the badly written stuff in a manner consistent with the intent of the Congress. Now some may argue that the courts shouldn't be doing this... that they should hold to the written law, period. Well. if they did that (and not just in tax law) the entire system would become totally unworkable in short order. And if the courts interpret laws in ways not intended by Congress, well, Congress can fix it in a heartbeat.

So how does this all come back to tax law interpretation with regard to tax protesters? The courts have ruled unanimously for generations that there is no magic bullet to get people out of income tax. Congress is certainly aware of this... hell, they pay taxes too. It is clearly the intent of Congress that everyone who is a citizen or resident in the US who makes enough income must pay taxes. The courts have interpreted the law to accord with this result. And this will not change. So unless or until Congress see fit to change their intent, the courts will continue to send tax protesters to jail and ruin their lives no matter how many anomolies or funny wordings they find. And that's the way it is. Is it perfect? No. Does it work pretty well the vast majority of the time? Yes. We don't live in a perfect world. But wasting one's life trying to play tax protest games like Hendrickson and others is only a surefire route to misery and jail. If that's what turns you on, I guess that's fine. But I can't help but thinking that if tax protesters spent even a small percentage of the time they spent in trying to get out of income tax in meaningful and worthwhile pursuits they would be miles ahead.