What law does this?

[26USCisafraud]

Question: What § or §§ of code establishes the jurisdiction for the lawful administration of the internal revenue laws?

Can anybody answer this simple question?

[Famspear]

Question: What § or §§ of code establishes the jurisdiction for the lawful administration of the internal revenue laws?

Can anybody answer this simple question?

Welcome to Quatloos!

I believe we need to start by clarifying a terminology problem.

There is no such thing as the "jurisdiction for the lawful administration of the internal revenue laws." But I think I know what you are asking.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws -- including laws concerning internal revenue and the imposition of taxes. The President is granted power by the Constitution to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Congress has, by law, created the office of Secretary of the Treasury, such that the Secretary answers to the President, and has enacted statutes charging the Secretary "or his delegate" with the power to administer the Internal Revenue laws.

Specific citations provided upon request.

EDIT: Here you go:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the administration and enforcement of this title shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.

--from Internal Revenue Code section 7801(a)(1).

[Cpt Banjo]

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to levy taxes. It also says that imposts, duties, and excises must be uniform "throughout the United States". As the Supreme Court concluded long ago,

The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, "but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States." It will not be contended, that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories." Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317, 318 (1820)

[Famspear]

Dear newcomer: By the way, your user name here seems to indicate that you believe "26USC" is somehow a "fraud."

I take it that you might not know the difference between the term "Internal Revenue Code of 1954/1986" and the term "26 USC" (title 26 of the United States Code).

I also take it that you might also be confused about the meaning of the term "positive law."

If so, you've come to the right place.

EDIT: The current Internal Revenue Code was enacted by Congress in 1954, and was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 16, 1954. It was called the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954." That actual, physical document that was presented by Congress to President Eisenhower and signed by the President on August 16, 1954 is kept in a safe place by the National Archives and Records Administration.

In addition to publishing a statute in official pamphlet form called a "slip law," the Government Printing Office publishes the statutes as positive law in a set of official books called the "United States Statutes at Large." The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was published by the United States Government Printing Office as Volume 68A of the "United States Statutes at Large. You can go to a large public law library and ask the librarian to show it to you.

The 1954 Code was amended many, many times and, in 1986, Congress officially changed the name of the Code to "Internal Revenue Code of 1986." The Code has been amended many, many more times since 1986.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, with all its amendments since August 16, 1954, as published in the many volumes of the Statutes at Large from 1954 to the current day, is known as positive law.

The U.S. Government Printing Office also publishes the statute in another official set of law books known as the "United States Code."

Title 26 of the United States Code is ALSO called the "Internal Revenue Code" (or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). This actual, physical printing of title 26 is known as "non-positive law," even though it is an official publication of the law. By law, whatever is in title 26 of the United States Code is, "prima facie," the law. That means that unless you can show the court that the wording in title 26 of the United States Code does not conform to the wording in the Internal Revenue Code in the various volumes of the Statutes at Large, the wording of title 26 of the United States Code is the law.

The actual, physical wording of the Internal Revenue Code as printed in Volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large and the actual, physical wording of the Internal Revenue Code as published as title 26 of the United States Code are IDENTICAL.

Further, many lawyers and judges do not use either the "Statutes at Large" or "title 26" -- meaning the actual, physical books published by the Government Printing Office.

Instead, many lawyers and judges use on-line (internet) versions, which ALSO are NOT "positive law." But these versions are also THE LAW.

The actual, physical documents signed by the President also are not used -- they are kept in a safe place by the National Archives and Records Administration, as noted above.

As long as the re-print is of a statute is a verbatim reprint of the actual "positive law," that re-print is THE LAW -- it's not "positive law," but it's a re-print of positive law, and it is therefore the law.

When someone prints an exact verbatim quote from a statute right here in Quatloos (or on the back of a restaurant menu, or anywhere else), that quote is not positive law, but it IS THE LAW.

[26USCisafraud]

Nope. None of those.

Hint: Answer can be found in 26 U.S.C. You guys know what that means, right?... U.S.C.?

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Oh lookie, a freshly minted troll.


yawn.........

[bmielke]

Nope. None of those.

Hint: Answer can be found in 26 U.S.C. You guys know what that means, right?... U.S.C.?

I think Famspear answered your question, but if you know somethinghe doesn't enlighten us all please.

[Pottapaug1938]

Nope. None of those.

Hint: Answer can be found in 26 U.S.C. You guys know what that means, right?... U.S.C.?

Wrong. We already gave you the answer. It may not be the politically comforting answer that you are looking for, but it's the answer; and anyone who doesn't waste their time playing tax-denier word games and spend their time mining court decisions and our various laws for out-of-context quotes can see that for themselves.

And yes,we know what "U.S.C." means. It's the University of Southern California....

[Famspear]

Nope. None of those.

Hint: Answer can be found in 26 U.S.C. You guys know what that means, right?... U.S.C.?

Again, the wording of your original question indicates that you are confused about legal concepts and terminology.

No, I've already given you the correct answer.

[The Operative]

Nope. None of those.

Hint: Answer can be found in 26 U.S.C. You guys know what that means, right?... U.S.C.?

You asked a question and were provided an answer. If the answer doesn't answer your question, then clarify your question. Your second post indicates that you have already reached a conclusion about what you asked and were not being honest in the asking of the question.

Yes, we know what U.S.C. means. You are asking questions on a board inhabited by lawyers, accountants, and other financial professionals. I guarantee you that many here have forgotten more about the U.S. Code and tax law than you have ever learned.

Now, do you want to learn something or are you just another person trying to tell professionals that the law doesn't say what it really says?

[Famspear]

And yes,we know what "U.S.C." means. It's the University of Southern California....

Darn! Cat's out of the bag now!

[VinnyZ]

And yes,we know what "U.S.C." means. It's the University of Southern California....

Darn! Cat's out of the bag now!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC

...and a few other things.

[Pottapaug1938]

And yes,we know what "U.S.C." means. It's the University of Southern California....

Darn! Cat's out of the bag now!

... and we can't forget the UnitedStates Code of Law Annotated.

[LPC]

Nope. None of those.

Now the question I'm asking myself is: Were you being dishonest when you asked us the question, or are you being dishonest about the answer you're now giving us?

I guess the answer to the question isn't important, because you're dishonest either way.

[26USCisafraud]

O.K. all you "professionals" out there who don't know the answer.

Sorry, but you're just going to have to endure one more hint.

The president may from time to time alter them. That is also right out of the law.

What section is it?

[26USCisafraud]

Nope. None of those.

Now the question I'm asking myself is: Were you being dishonest when you asked us the question, or are you being dishonest about the answer you're now giving us?

I guess the answer to the question isn't important, because you're dishonest either way.

I'm disappointed in you. That's not very "professional" of you. You don't even know the answer yet. I believe you'll find that I'm spot on. "Just the facts, Ma'am"

[Famspear]

Nope. None of those.

Now the question I'm asking myself is: Were you being dishonest when you asked us the question, or are you being dishonest about the answer you're now giving us?

I guess the answer to the question isn't important, because you're dishonest either way.

I'm disappointed in you. That's not very "professional" of you. You don't even know the answer yet. I believe you'll find that I'm spot on. "Just the facts, Ma'am"

I believe you'll find that we conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

O.K. all you "professionals" out there who don't know the answer.

Sorry, but you're just going to have to endure one more hint.

The president may from time to time alter them. That is also right out of the law.

What section is it?

Are you talking about this, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/us ... -000-.html , man most mortal?

Or are you getting the president of a human nation confused with this kind of president, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de ... Ars_Goetia ?


And no, I am not a professional lawyer of any sort.

[Cpt Banjo]

The troll is probably referring to the old Internal Revenue Districts under Section 7621, which have nothing to do with the power to levy taxes.

[26USCisafraud]

Very good prof! You win the cupie doll!

Leave it to a non-lawyer to speak the truth!