So Genius, where's the new structure?Cpt Banjo wrote: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.
What law does this?
Re: What law does this?
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: What law does this?
No, that's not the answer to the question you asked. That's the answer to the question you thought you were asking.26USCisafraud wrote:Very good prof! You win the cupie doll!
Leave it to a non-lawyer to speak the truth!
Read the statute.
And, regarding the "structure," I can save you some time.
First, answer a question: Why do you care about the "structure"?
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Re: What law does this?
Moreover, since there is no longer any internal revenue districts (as required by law for the administration of the internal revenue laws, ALL OF THEM!) the IRS is operating outside the law, a.k.a. OUTLAWS!
They used to hang outlaws in the good ol' days. Now they pay them a government salary.
They used to hang outlaws in the good ol' days. Now they pay them a government salary.
-
- Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets
Re: What law does this?
Not so fast, sport. First, you explain how in the world Section 7621 "establishes the jurisdiction for the lawful administration of the internal revenue laws". Before you answer, you might look up the legal definition of "jurisdiction".
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: What law does this?
What a surprise! Guess what, sport. Everyone here has already seen that argument. And it's nonsense.26USCisafraud wrote:Moreover, since there is no longer any internal revenue districts (as required by law for the administration of the internal revenue laws, ALL OF THEM!) the IRS is operating outside the law, a.k.a. OUTLAWS!
They used to hang outlaws in the good ol' days. Now they pay them a government salary.
And yes, you definitely don't understand this thing called "jurisdiction." The wording of your original question showed that.
Now, go look for a statute or a court decision that says that section 7621 (or any other statute) requires that absence of internal revenue districts mentioned in section 7621 would mean that the IRS is operating outside the law.
Don't take too long.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets
Re: What law does this?
If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
-
- Distinguished Don of Ponzi Philology
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:04 pm
Re: What law does this?
He did.Cpt Banjo wrote:If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?
He ended up as a casserole, for all practical purposes. A spoiled one in the trash, not fit to eat.
Re: What law does this?
So would care to make the claim that the court does not have jurisdiction in personam over people who sign a 1040 form?Cpt Banjo wrote:Not so fast, sport. First, you explain how in the world Section 7621 "establishes the jurisdiction for the lawful administration of the internal revenue laws". Before you answer, you might look up the legal definition of "jurisdiction".
Re: What law does this?
CaptainKickback wrote:And then there are these, which name and show the 33 IRS districts:
http://trac.syr.edu/data/irs/help/irsstatelist.html
http://tracfed.syr.edu/help/geo/irsmap.html
BZZZZZZT!!!! Wrong answer!
Re: What law does this?
Don't think so. The SCOTUS chickened out on this question by denying him his writ.Cpt Banjo wrote:If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?
Lindsey's thrust was PRA and OMB numbers. But, in any event how can you get true justice and what do you expect when the Judiciary are slaves to the tax system? (4USC section 111)
-
- Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
- Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.
Re: What law does this?
Nonsense. SCOTUS denied cert. on Lindsey because his arguments are frivolous.26USCisafraud wrote:Don't think so. The SCOTUS chickened out on this question by denying him his writ.Cpt Banjo wrote:If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?
Lindsey's thrust was PRA and OMB numbers. But, in any event how can you get true justice and what do you expect when the Judiciary are slaves to the tax system? (4USC section 111)
BTW, you need to read the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. You should especially read Title 1, Subtitle A of that act. To save you a little time, it is quoted below...
That act entirely negates your whole argument.The Act directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the "Commissioner") to develop and to implement a plan to reorganize the IRS. Subject to various savings provisions, the plan shall:
* supersede any organization or reorganization under a currently applicable statute or reorganization plan,
* eliminate or substantially modify the existing national, regional and district structure,
* establish organizational units serving particular groups of taxpayers with similar needs and
* ensure an independent appeals function within the IRS, including the prohibition of ex parte communication between appeals officers and other IRS employees where those communications appear to compromise appeals officers' independence. Act § 1001.
In addition, the IRS is to revise its mission statement to provide greater emphasis on serving the public and meeting the needs of taxpayers. Act § 1002.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: What law does this?
For anyone new here reading this thread who hasn't seen this idiocy before, what Wackadoosters often do on this one is get confused about the terms "jurisdiction" and "district."
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides (in part):
The rationale for this troll's argument is not coherently expressed, but he/she might be taking a slightly different tack -- perhaps he or she thinks that the Internal Revenue Service cannot legally administer the internal revenue laws unless there are internal revenue districts as provided for in section 7621. If that's the argument, that also is incorrect.
The structure of this troll's first question and the fact that this troll used the term "jurisdiction" in his question, plus his question about in personam jurisdiction and Form 1040, indicate that he/she has a pronounced drool.
In fairness, the term "jurisdiction" does have more than one meaning - I just don't think this troll has a clue.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides (in part):
What the Wackadoosters (i.e., tax protesters-tax deniers) typically do is read section 7621 and incorrectly conclude that the reference to "district" in the Sixth Amendment is a reference to the "district" mentioned in 7621. They don't realize that the districts mentioned in the Sixth Amendment are the judicial districts established under title 28 of the United States Code, not the internal revenue districts established under the Internal Revenue Code.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law......
The rationale for this troll's argument is not coherently expressed, but he/she might be taking a slightly different tack -- perhaps he or she thinks that the Internal Revenue Service cannot legally administer the internal revenue laws unless there are internal revenue districts as provided for in section 7621. If that's the argument, that also is incorrect.
The structure of this troll's first question and the fact that this troll used the term "jurisdiction" in his question, plus his question about in personam jurisdiction and Form 1040, indicate that he/she has a pronounced drool.
In fairness, the term "jurisdiction" does have more than one meaning - I just don't think this troll has a clue.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Re: What law does this?
Wronng again, Batman!The Operative wrote:Nonsense. SCOTUS denied cert. on Lindsey because his arguments are frivolous.26USCisafraud wrote:Don't think so. The SCOTUS chickened out on this question by denying him his writ.Cpt Banjo wrote:If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?
Lindsey's thrust was PRA and OMB numbers. But, in any event how can you get true justice and what do you expect when the Judiciary are slaves to the tax system? (4USC section 111)
BTW, you need to read the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. You should especially read Title 1, Subtitle A of that act. To save you a little time, it is quoted below...
That act entirely negates your whole argument.The Act directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the "Commissioner") to develop and to implement a plan to reorganize the IRS. Subject to various savings provisions, the plan shall:
* supersede any organization or reorganization under a currently applicable statute or reorganization plan,
* eliminate or substantially modify the existing national, regional and district structure,
* establish organizational units serving particular groups of taxpayers with similar needs and
* ensure an independent appeals function within the IRS, including the prohibition of ex parte communication between appeals officers and other IRS employees where those communications appear to compromise appeals officers' independence. Act § 1001.
In addition, the IRS is to revise its mission statement to provide greater emphasis on serving the public and meeting the needs of taxpayers. Act § 1002.
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: What law does this?
Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?26USCisafraud wrote:Wronng again, Batman!
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
- Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.
Re: What law does this?
I see that you cannot read either. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 gave the power to restructure the IRS to the Commissioner. The act specifically states that the new plan SUPERSEDES ANY ORGANIZATION UNDER ANY CURRENTLY APPLICABLE STATUTE. It also states that the plan will ELIMINATE OR MODIFY the current district structure. Therefore, TOTW, §7621 is simply irrelevant under the new organization of the IRS.26USCisafraud wrote:Wronng again, Batman!The Operative wrote:Nonsense. SCOTUS denied cert. on Lindsey because his arguments are frivolous.26USCisafraud wrote: Don't think so. The SCOTUS chickened out on this question by denying him his writ.
Lindsey's thrust was PRA and OMB numbers. But, in any event how can you get true justice and what do you expect when the Judiciary are slaves to the tax system? (4USC section 111)
BTW, you need to read the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. You should especially read Title 1, Subtitle A of that act. To save you a little time, it is quoted below...
That act entirely negates your whole argument.The Act directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the "Commissioner") to develop and to implement a plan to reorganize the IRS. Subject to various savings provisions, the plan shall:
* supersede any organization or reorganization under a currently applicable statute or reorganization plan,
* eliminate or substantially modify the existing national, regional and district structure,
* establish organizational units serving particular groups of taxpayers with similar needs and
* ensure an independent appeals function within the IRS, including the prohibition of ex parte communication between appeals officers and other IRS employees where those communications appear to compromise appeals officers' independence. Act § 1001.
In addition, the IRS is to revise its mission statement to provide greater emphasis on serving the public and meeting the needs of taxpayers. Act § 1002.
The current structure of the IRS can be seen in the organization chart at http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/irs_org ... 8-4-09.pdf As required by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, the new structure is organized by group of taxpayers served and not by districts.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
Re: What law does this?
All you high-priced liaryers conveniently overlook thing when you need to continue your fraudulent behaviour.Famspear wrote:Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?26USCisafraud wrote:Wronng again, Batman!
Scoll down to section 3445 of that very same P.L. that directs the commissioner to "eliminate or substantially MODIFY" the structure of the IRS. Had he paid attention, he would have realized he needed to modify rather than eliminate the districts. The requirement to do so in in the very same law! A district director's gotta sign levies Idiots!
-
- Distinguished Don of Ponzi Philology
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:04 pm
Re: What law does this?
CaptainKickback wrote: Okay folks, how long before he brings up the "Jews are controlling things" angle? Betting begins to the right......
Considering that, so far, he appears to be spouting pure "Global Sovereign's Handbook" style drivel... probably pretty soon.
-
- Distinguished Don of Ponzi Philology
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:04 pm
Re: What law does this?
You fail English forever.26USCisafraud wrote: All you high-priced liaryers conveniently overlook thing when you need to continue your fraudulent behaviour.
Scoll down to section 3445 of that very same P.L. that directs the commissioner to "eliminate or substantially MODIFY" the structure of the IRS. Had he paid attention, he would have realized he needed to modify rather than eliminate the districts. The requirement to do so in in the very same law! A district director's gotta sign levies Idiots!
What does the word "or" mean, 26USCisafraud?
Re: What law does this?
Perhaps troll-du-jour could consider looking at delegation orders?
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: What law does this?
Oh, sorry Wackadooster, you're wrong again. Nothing in section 3445 states that "levies" must be signed by a "district director." That provision amends Code section 6334. It says that certain assets shall not be exempt from levy if a district director, etc., signs. There is no requirement that the paperwork for levies on non-exempt property be signed by a district director.26USCisafraud wrote:All you high-priced liaryers conveniently overlook thing when you need to continue your fraudulent behaviour.Famspear wrote:Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?26USCisafraud wrote:Wronng again, Batman!
Scoll down to section 3445 of that very same P.L. that directs the commissioner to "eliminate or substantially MODIFY" the structure of the IRS. Had he paid attention, he would have realized he needed to modify rather than eliminate the districts. The requirement to do so in in the very same law! A district director's gotta sign levies Idiots!
Further, there is no requirement under 3445 that there still be a geographical district.
Further, there is no requirement in 3445 that there be a geographical district in order for the IRS to administer the internal revenue laws.
Solly charree!
EDIT: Here's what the statute actually says (in relevant part):
--Internal Revenue Code section 6334(e)(2), as amended by section 3445(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 762-763 (July 22, 1998).....Property (other than a principal residence) described in subsection (a)(13)(B) shall not be exempt from levy if--
(A) a district director or assistant district director of the Internal Revenue Service personally approves (in writing) the levy of such property.....
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet