What is the IRS?

[the inquirer]

Always, a researcher, someone asked me this question; so, I decided to see if I could find out more about this government agency; or, is it? Now, I know that someone(s) will be flipping out over this but read it through before the knives come out.

In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bullet; see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836. On the very first page of this statement which was published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:

"(3) By common parlace [sic] and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that 'The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of the last session ...' Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3, 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue 'who shall be charged with such duties in the bureau of internal revenue as maybe prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be required by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the absence of that officer, and exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue.' In other words, 'the office of internal revenue' was 'the bureau of internal revenue,' and the act of July 1, 1862, is the organic act of today's Internal Revenue Service."

This statement, which again appears in a similar publication appearing at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974 - 1 Cum. Bul. 440, as well as the current IRM 1100, essentially admits that Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. To conclude that "Congress thought it had created this agency" is an admission that even the government itself cannot even find anything which created either agency. The only office created by the act of July 1, 1862, was the Office of Commissioner; neither the Bureau nor the Service was actually created by any of these acts.

I have no doubt that when employees of the IRS were researching its origins so that this statement could be included within IRM 1100, those employees must have performed a very thorough investigation. This obviously is the best position that the agency can develop regarding precisely how the IRS came into being. But, besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that the agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw.

An act of legislative body is essential to create a public office. At the state level, it is a well acknowledged rule that a duly constituted office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or by some legislative act; see Patton v. Bd. Of Health, 127 Ca. 388, 393, 59 P. 702, 704 (1899) ("One of the requisites is that the office must be created by the constitution of the state or it must be authorized by some statute."); First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. State, 80 Neb. 597, 114 N.W. 772, 773 (1908); State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497, 498 (1909); State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn. 398, 74 A. 759, 761 (1909); State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W.Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279 (1923) ("a position is a public office when it is created by law."); Coyne v. State, 22 Ohio App. 462, 153 N.E. 876, 877 (1926) ("Unless the office existed there could be no officer either de facto or de jure. A de facto officer is one invested with an office; but if there is no office with which to invest one, there can be no officer. An office may exist only by duly constituted law."); State v. Quinn, 35 N.M. 62, 290 P. 786, 787 (1930); Turner v. State, 226 Ala. 269, 146 So. 601, 602 (1933); Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co., 178 Okl. 212, 62 P.2d 94, 97 (1936); State ex rel. Nagle v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P.2d 685, 689 (1936); Stapleton v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 11, 85 P.2d 49, 51 (1938); Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 13 A.2d 348, 350 (1940); Krawiec v. Industrial Comm, 372 Ill. 560, 25 N.E.2d, 27, 29 (1940); People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636, 107 P.2d 388, 391 (1940); Industrial Comm v. Arizona State Highway Comm, 61 Ariz. 59, 145 P.2d 846, 849 (1943); State ex rel. Brown v. Blew, 20 Wash.2d 47, 145 P.2d 554, 556 (1944); Martin v. Smith, 239 Wis. 314, 1 N.W.2d 163, 172 (1941); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky 75, 202 S.W.2d 992, 994 (1947); State el rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, 29 Wash.2d 68, 185 P.2d 723, 728 (1947); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1948); Weaver v. North Bergen Tp., 10 N.J.Super. 96, 76 A.2d 701 (1950); Tomaris v. State, 71 Ariz. 147, 224 P.2d 209, 211 (1950); Pollack v. Montoya, 55 N.M. 390, 234 P.2d 336, 338 (1951); Schaefer v. Superior Court in and & for Santa Barbara County, 248 P.2d 450, 453 (Cal.App. 1951); Brusnigham v. State, 86 Ga.App. 340, 71 S.E.2d 698, 703 (1952); State ex rel. Mathews v. Murray, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (Nev. 1953); Dosker v. Andrus, 342 Mich. 548, 70 N.W.2d 765, 767 (1955); Hetrich v. County Comm. Of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 159 A.2d 642, 643 (1960); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N.W.2d 336, 341 (1960); Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616, 118 S.E.2d 484, 485 (1961); State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1965); Planning Bd. Of T.p. Of West Milford v. T.p. Council of T.p.. Of West Milford, 123 N.J.Super. 135, 301 A.2d 781, 784 (1973); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1973); Kirk v. Flournoy, 36 Cap.App.3d 553, 111 Cap.Rptr. 674, 675 (1974); Wargo v. Industrial Comm, 58 Ill.2d 234, 317 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1974); State v. Bailey, 220 S.E.2d 432, 435 (W.Va. 1975); Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P.2d 304, 323 (1975); Midwest Televsion, Inc. v. Champaign-Urbana Communications, Inc., 37 Ill.App.3d 926, 347 N.E.2d 34, 38 (1976); and State v. Pickney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
　
The same rule applies at the federal level; see United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) ("there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill."); United States v. Mount, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901) ("The law creates the office, prescribes its duties."); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919) ("Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function ... And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication."); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louiseville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956) ("Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement."); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.Nev. 1910) ("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress:); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).

It would appear that the IRS has never been created by Congress, I would be greatly interested and appreciative if any one on this forum can provide the citation of any statute which really did create the IRS.

There is more, in this case:

Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, v. T-Bow Company Trust,
Internal Revenue Service, and Steve Morgan.
Case No. CV 93-4117, Complaint for Impleader.

In the District court of the Seventh Judicial District of The State of Idaho,
In And For The County Of Bonneville Magistrates Court.

In the Complaint for Impleader, prepared by the attorneys for plaintiff, page one, item #4:

Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States government which has presented to Plaintiff a lien against monies to which Defendant Steve Morgan, or presumably Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him, may be entitled.

Now let us look at the response of the Attorneys for the United States of America, prepared by Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States' Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, item #4:

Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government but admits that the United States of America would be a proper party to this action. Admits that the IRS has served a Notice of Levy on plaintiff for funds owed to defendant Steve Morgan.

Here the U.S. Attorney in her response denies that the IRS is an agency of the United States government. This is a document submitted under penalty of perjury and under the auspices of the Department of Justice.

Also, I happen to be on http://www.dnb.com (Dun & Bradstreet), used for checking commercial companies/corporations (not government agencies) and, in the District of Columbia, if you search Internal Revenue Service, you'll find it listed (headquarters or HQ). On the same page, if you scroll down, you'll see "Treasury, Dept of" as a subsidiary of the Internal Revenue Service. In MD, for example, you'll find the internal revenue service listed as branch offices (BR, I think).

If the IRS is not a government agency, which apparently it isn't, according to the U.S. govt. in their response (and, why would they lie?), is it a private corporation, like a Blackwater, contracted to collect money for the Federal Reserve (Congressional Research Service, 2006; Grace Commission, 1984)? Do the IDs of IRS employees actually say that they are employees of the United States government like, for example, my father's DOJ ID, or do they just say Internal Revenue Service or Department of the Treasury or similar?

I am kind of curious about what anyone else actually knows (not just what they believe to be true); so, if you have any actual facts one way or another, I'd like to read them. Thanks!

[Nikki]

Inquirer:

You really should do a little work to justify your use of the term 'research'.

First, IRM 1100 is no longer relevant. It was superseded by 1.1.2.1 as of 2/26/99. So your source material is over 10 years out of date.

Next, if you were to take the time to look at 1.1.1.2, you would find the following specific references to sections within the Internal Revenue Code (26USC). These references are to laws, duly enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. Thus, there is legal basis for the existence of the IRS.

The IRS is organized to carry out the responsibilities of the secretary of the Treasury under IRC § 7801. The Secretary has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce these laws. The IRS was created based on this legislative grant. IRC §
7803 provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Internal Revenue to administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.

As to the IRS not being 'an agency of the United States Government', that perticular case involves a challenge to the IRS attempting to treat the IRS as a quasi-governmental agency such as the TVA.

However, I'm sure the facts will mean absolutely nothing to you as you pursue your research.

[jg]

From http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,i ... c224375600

1. Contention: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States.
Some argue that the IRS is not an agency of the United States but rather a private corporation, because it was not created by positive law (i.e., an act of Congress) and that, therefore, the IRS does not have the authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code.

The Law: There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the IRS is an agency of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971), “[w]e bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under § 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.”

Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the IRS was created. Thus, the IRS is a body established by “positive law” because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.

In April 2006, a federal district court in Louisiana permanently barred Eddie Ferrand, Glenda F. Elliott, and William N. Kennedy, from preparing tax returns, because they had understated income on their customers’ federal income tax returns based on the frivolous premise, among others, that the IRS is an illegal organization. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_226.html; see also 2006 TNT 75-36.

Relevant Case Law:
Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F.Supp. 471 (D. Nev. 1995) – the court described Salman’s contention that the IRS is not a government agency of the United States as wholly frivolous and dismissed his claim with prejudice.

Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984) – the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting Young’s claim that the IRS is a private corporation, rather than a government agency.

See also item 39 at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

The Service is not an agency of the United States government but rather a
private-sector corporation or an agency of a State or Territory without authority
to administer the internal revenue laws.

Positions that are the same as or similar to the positions listed in this Notice are
identified as frivolous for purposes of the penalty for a “frivolous tax return” under
section 6702(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the penalty for a “specified frivolous
submission” under section 6702(b). Persons who file a purported return of tax,
including an original or amended return, based on one or more of these positions are
subject to a penalty of $5,000 if the purported return of tax does not contain information
on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessed determination of tax may be
judged or contains information that on its face indicates the self-assessed determination
of tax is substantially incorrect.

[Thule]

Always, a researcher, someone asked me this question; so, I decided to see if I could find out more about this government agency; or, is it? Now, I know that someone(s) will be flipping out over this but read it through before the knives come out.

In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bullet; see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836. On the very first page of this statement which was published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:[...]

Devey Kidd, I presume? If not, your "research" consists of copying Deveys letter from 2000. Either way, it's shoddy work.

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue ... 20irs.html

[Famspear]

This silly stuff about "the IRS is not a government agency", etc., etc., is really old stuff that's been discredited over and over and over and over and over again. The subject material was copied or adapted from tax protester web sites.

In addition to being formally classified as both a bureau within the Department of the Treasury and a government agency, the Internal Revenue Service is specifically mentioned over 200 times in the Internal Revenue Code, including references in headings of sections, subsections, etc. As I have written before in "another place," many sections of the IRC contain multiple references to "Internal Revenue Service" -- for example, thirteen mentions in section 6103, ten mentions in section 6110, eighteen mentions in 7430, and thirty-three separate mentions in section 7803.

At least nineteen references to "Internal Revenue Service" are found in titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 31, and 42 of the United States Code. For example, 5 USC section 500(c) refers to the Internal Revenue Service as an agency of the Treasury Department. According to the official web site of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service is also classified as a bureau located within the Department.

The official U.S. Treasury regulations provide (in part) that the Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. 26 C.F.R. section 601.101(a). By statute, the Secretary of the Treasury, as the "head of an Executive department [ . . . ] may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, [and] the distribution and performance of its business [ . . . . ]" 5 USC sec. 301.

Also, the "Internal Revenue Service" is also listed as a "component" and "agency" of the U.S. Department of the Treasury in the official government regulations for "Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of the Treasury". 5 C.F.R. section 3101.102(f). The House Committee Report accompanying the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998), specifically refers to the IRS as being one of the "agencies within the Treasury." H.R. Rep. No. 105-364, pt. 1.

Reminder: The argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government, the argument that the IRS is a private-sector corporation, the argument that the IRS is an agency of some state or territory without authority to administer the internal revenue laws, and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

[Cathulhu]

I was certainly an employee of IRS when I went traveling to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tokyo. As such, I had a red passport for Hong Kong and Tokyo, and a blue one for Taiwan. (No official relations, no embassy, was told to be certain to use the blue one in Taiwan or provoke Very Bad Karma.) I was doing live radio in Taipei at 6am local time the day after I arrived, and I've never been so much in demand--funny, the expatriate community isn't worried about jurisdiction, they're just really happy to find help!

I swear I saw Elvis in Taipei.

[Famspear]

At the expense of appearing to beat a dead horse, let's look at some other comments by "inquirer."

Therefore, it would appear that the agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw.

There is no legal requirement that a bureau within the Department of the Treasury be created by an act of Congress.

An act of legislative body is essential to create a public office.

No, not exactly. Not in the sense that you mean. There is no law that requires that a bureau within the Department of the Treasury be created by the act of a legislative body.

It would appear that the IRS has never been created by Congress....

That is actually correct. However......

The Defense Intelligence Agency is an agency of the United States government, and it was not created by an act of Congress. The National Reconaissance Office was a United States government agency (it may or may not still exist, I don't remember), and it was not created by an act of Congress. Contrary to the urban legend passed around among tax protesters for years and years, there is no requirement that all government agencies or bureaus be "created" by an act of Congress.

People have raised the silly argument that the IRS is not a government agency in court, and the courts have rejected the argument every time.

In the Diversified Metal Products case, it is actually correct to say that the government lawyers stated in a pleading that the IRS not an "agency" of the government.

From legal commentary Daniel B. Evans:

Tax protesters also like to cite a pleading (not a court opinion) that the government once filed in which the government denied that the IRS was an “agency” of the United States. That pleading has to be read in context. Someone had sued the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice filed an answer which denied “that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government” but admitted “that the United States of America would be a proper party to this action.” The government therefore admitted that the actions of the IRS were the actions of the United States and that the United States is responsible for the actions of the IRS, but that the lawsuit should be against the United States and not the IRS. This was confirmed by a footnote in the court’s opinion:

“The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. [Citation omitted] Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action.”

from:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Technically, the government attorney's were incorrect in stating that the IRS was not an "agency" of the government. Indeed, the whole point is that because the IRS is a government agency, a lawsuit cannot be maintained against the "Internal Revenue Service" in the face of a government objection on that point. (I should emphasize that in the past, the government on some occasions has not even bothered to object). The correct defendant is normally "United States" or "United States of America" or, in Tax Court, the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue."

Further, as noted above, although Congress did not expressly and specifically "create" the IRS in a specific statute, Congress authorized the creation of the IRS when Congress enacted the law creating the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Further, Congress has specifically referred to the IRS as a government agency in at least one other statute (in title 5 of the United States Code, cited above). And neither the court in the Diversified Metals case nor the court in any other case has ever ruled that the IRS is not an agency of the United States government.

[Famspear]

For more cruel and unusual treatment of a dead horse, see Collins v. Internal Revenue Serv., where the court stated:

The United States argues that the two named defendants, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and Revenue Officer P. Blackard are not proper parties to this action. The United States contends and has provided authority to show that the IRS, as a division of the Treasury Department, is an agency of the United States. Although plaintiff denies that the IRS is an agency of the United States, applicable authority does not support his argument. The IRS is therefore protected by sovereign immunity and cannot be sued absent Congressional authorization, which has not occurred. Accordingly, the IRS is not a proper party to this suit. Similarly, defendant Blackard is protected by sovereign immunity and is not a proper party to this suit. The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice plaintiff's claims against the IRS and P. Blackard. Moreover, the United States is the only proper party to this action. Therefore, the United States is substituted as the defendant.

--from Collins v. Internal Revenue Serv., 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,493 (W.D. Wash 2007) (paragraph break omitted) (bolding added).

EDIT: I made a correction on the style of the case.

[.]

defendant [Revenue Officer] Blackard is protected by sovereign immunity

Well, there ya go. All them sovruns need to do to get that there imaginary immunity and all them other real special secret sovrun rights is go to work for the IRS.

[fortinbras]

First and foremost, the Tax Code puts the burden for its facilitation and enforcement upon the Secretary of the Treasury; the Tax Code did not, itself, create or designate a specific subdivision of the Dept of Treasury for this work, it left that responsibility up to the Secretary.
This sort of responsibility on the Secretary of a cabinet dept is fairly common in all sorts of legislation.

Since the end of the 19th century, the Treasury's tax collection operation was handled by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the Bureau was mentioned by name in the annual Congressional appropriation bills for the operation of the Dept of Treasury. In 1949, Congress enacted the Reorganization Act, under which the President could restructure the various cabinet departments, including merging or dividing or creating subdivisions for the greater efficiency, security, etc. Section 4 of the 1949 law also permitted subdivisions to be renamed. Pursuant to that 1949 law, Truman proposed the Reorganization Plan #1 of 1952 (66 Stat. 823, 5 USC[A] appendix), which reorganized the Treasury Dept. As part of that reorganization, the B.I.R. was thoroughly rearranged, its name was changed to "the Internal Revenue Service" and the old Board of Tax Appeals became the US Tax Court. Starting with the first annual Treasury appropriation after the reoganization and renaming, Congress used the name "Internal Revenue Service" in making the appropriation previously made to the B.I.R. (68 Stat 86, May 11, 1954).

However, one reason for the confusion is that Congress did not empower either the IRS or the Dept of Treasury to bring or defend lawsuits in its own name. So a lawsuit brought by or against the IRS is done in the name of the United States, not of the IRS itself nor even the Dept of Treasury.

[Nikki]

With the unique exception of actions brought against the Commissioner in the Tax Court.

By specific statutory rules, taxpayers can bring suit against the IRS (in the name of the Commissioner) in US Tax Court, and those cases are defended by attorneys from the Office of Chief Counsel.

Outside the Tax Court, the actions are all styled as against the United States and are defended or prosecuted by members of the Department of Justice.

[Famspear]

defendant [Revenue Officer] Blackard is protected by sovereign immunity

Well, there ya go. All them sovruns need to do to get that there imaginary immunity and all them other real special secret sovrun rights is go to work for the IRS.

Good one!

[Pottapaug1938]

I just obtained a copy of a small autobiography of my paternal grandfather, who for most of his working life was a conciliation attorney for the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which later became the IRS. Among the cases which he dealt with was the one in which Al Capone came to a compromise, with the Federal government, about his federal tax liability.

I'm not going to repeat everything that Granddad wrote; but a few things stand out which bear mentioning here. Granddad wrote that "the most important work I did was to effect settlement of long standing accounts, where the Bureau agreed, with the taxpayer, that he could not pay his account in full." The Commissioner, or his delegate, had the authority to determine how much of that tax liability could be collected forcibly, or with the cooperation of the taxpayer, and go on from there.

Granddad wrote of people complaining that Al Capone compromised his Federal tax case, when honest taxpayers paid their tax liability in full. His response was that "when special agents are going to charge an underworld character with fraud and 'throw the book at him', all ascertainable receipts are included in gross income; but to determine net income, only deductions which can be proved will be allowed, and very few can be proved. As we know that one must have incurred deductible expenses, none of which have been allowed, we can be certain that the net income correctly determined would be less than that computed by the agent. After reviewing the Capone case, Granddad said, he felt that the amount he paid fairly represented what he owed in tax, plus the 50% fraud penalty and interest. "I mention this because too often the lack of knowledge and all essential facts can lead to an erroneous conclusion as to the correct result to reach."

Granddad went on to wonder how many BIR/IRS employees are dishonest. "I have known some who have proved to be dishonest," he wrote, "but they are a minute proportion of the whole. I believe that, as a whole, they are a dedicated group and want to protect the rights of the taxpayer as well as the government. Rarely, you might find one who is over-zealous, to the disadvantage of the taxpayer; but when that situation develops, the taxpayer has the right to appeal his case to higher authority; and it is quite certain that, without animosity, a fair determination will be made."

His younger son, my uncle, has also written that many times, Granddad had to refuse things like expensive cigars or other gifts from people seeking to present a case to him, so as to make sure that there could be no question of impropriety; and there were many more like him.

[Harvester]

knives came out pretty quick eh? Whatever the IRS is we can sure of this . . it don't smell right. That it operates with impunity, often outside the law, speaks of shenanigans.

Primarily it serves to transfer private wealth to foreign banking cartels.

http://www.restoreamericaplan.net/objectives

[Famspear]

knives came out pretty quick eh?

??? What does that mean??

Whatever the IRS is we can sure of this . . it don't smell right.

Why do you mean? What is it that doesn't "smell right" to you?

That it [the IRS] operates with impunity, often outside the law, speaks of shenanigans.

Prove it.

Primarily it serves to transfer private wealth to foreign banking cartels.

Prove it.

[Quixote]

That it operates with impunity, often outside the law, speaks of shenanigans.

That you believe such nonsense speaks of gross ignorance and gullibility.

[Pottapaug1938]

That it operates with impunity, often outside the law, speaks of shenanigans.

That you believe such nonsense speaks of gross ignorance and gullibility.

Either that, or he's just a gutless troll and a devoted smart*ss.

[LOBO]

knives came out pretty quick eh? Whatever the IRS is we can sure of this . . it don't smell right. That it operates with impunity, often outside the law, speaks of shenanigans.

Primarily it serves to transfer private wealth to foreign banking cartels.

http://www.restoreamericaplan.net/objectives

So have you explained to the rest of the lostheads why you aren't filing Petey's way yet?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5949

[Harvester]

Prove it.

Ha! Did you forget what happened last time I got a little too close to the truth?
Deleted post & moderation status.

Besides, I rather enjoy the thought of Quatlosers paying taxes they don't owe.

[The Observer]

Prove it.

Ha! Did you forget what happened last time I got a little too close to the truth?
Deleted post & moderation status.

Liar. You know perfectly well your post was not deleted. You were advised that your thread-hijacking, repetitive and irrelevant post had been move to a more appropriate thread; you acknowledged that your post might have gone beyond the boundaries established for posting here.

Given the above, it appears that it is impossible for you to get anywhere near the truth.