What law does this?

[26USCisafraud]

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.

So Genius, where's the new structure?

[Famspear]

Very good prof! You win the cupie doll!

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

No, that's not the answer to the question you asked. That's the answer to the question you thought you were asking.

Read the statute.



And, regarding the "structure," I can save you some time.

First, answer a question: Why do you care about the "structure"?

[26USCisafraud]

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.

[Cpt Banjo]

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".

[Famspear]

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.

What a surprise! Guess what, sport. Everyone here has already seen that argument. And it's nonsense.

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.

[Cpt Banjo]

If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?

[ProfHenryHiggins]

If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?

He did.

He ended up as a casserole, for all practical purposes. A spoiled one in the trash, not fit to eat.

[26USCisafraud]

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".

So would care to make the claim that the court does not have jurisdiction in personam over people who sign a 1040 form?

[26USCisafraud]

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!

[26USCisafraud]

If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?

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)

[The Operative]

If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?

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)

Nonsense. SCOTUS denied cert. on Lindsey because his arguments are frivolous.

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...

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.

That act entirely negates your whole argument.

[Famspear]

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):

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......

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.

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.

[26USCisafraud]

If memory serves, didn't Lindsey Springer argue this bilge? And how well did it work for him?

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)

Nonsense. SCOTUS denied cert. on Lindsey because his arguments are frivolous.

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...

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.

That act entirely negates your whole argument.

Wronng again, Batman!

[Famspear]

Wronng again, Batman!

Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?

[The Operative]

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)

Nonsense. SCOTUS denied cert. on Lindsey because his arguments are frivolous.

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...

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.

That act entirely negates your whole argument.

Wronng again, Batman!

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.

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.

[26USCisafraud]

Wronng again, Batman!

Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?

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!

[ProfHenryHiggins]

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.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

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!

You fail English forever.

What does the word "or" mean, 26USCisafraud?

[Nikki]

Perhaps troll-du-jour could consider looking at delegation orders?

[Famspear]

Wronng again, Batman!

Oh, what's the matter "26"? Not as easy as it looked, is it?

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!

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.

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):

....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.....

--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).