.© 1998 Marcel and Fifi DeBunque (© 2002 — revised & updated)

"No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, 'to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.'" - MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978, Em Ct App) 573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 us 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.,

What if nothing you thought you knew about the agency known as "Internal Revenue Service" was actually the truth?

We are researchers on federal and state taxing statutes and regulations, and on the federal judiciary.

A recent letter to IRS Commissioner Margaret Millner Richardson, written in conjunction with noted attorney and researcher Lowell H. (Larry) Becraft, reveals that no such agency as the alleged "Internal Revenue Service" was ever statutorily created.

IRS is - in statute, at least - essentially an extremely convincing hologram. A hologram that seizes property, ruins lives and imprisons people... but a statutory hologram, nonetheless.When we hear legislators going on about "dismantling the IRS" and "pulling the IRS out by its roots," we laugh, because we have not yet been actually able to find such an agency within the statutes; other researchers have searched through the historical documents available through the National Archives, and have determined from research therein that the "Internal Revenue Service" was merely a renaming of an abolished agency which itself never really existed in the first place.

We, along with Larry Becraft and others, have looked harder and deeper for an actual agency called "Internal Revenue Service" than anyone we know. And we would bet that, if these self-important, posturing Congressmen were to go looking for the actual documents which created the "IRS", instead of simply blowing hot air around their Congressional chambers, they couldn't find either the documents or the agency in statute either.

If you want to play mind games with your elected representative (and perhaps yourself and your pet tax "expert"), go look in 31 United States Code (USC) Chapter 3, in the list of "Organizations" of the Department of the Treasury (DOT). Curiously absent from this list is an agency called "Internal Revenue Service." Yet, "IRS's" letterhead proclaims: "Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service."

So exactly where in Treasury is the IRS?

We have filed numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to Treasury, trying to locate the documents that would help us find "IRS" within the DOT.

So far - nothing.

So... is there another Department of the Treasury? Yes, there is - see the definition of "Revenue Agent" below. Is "IRS" in that DOT? Who knows?

(Caveat, dear reader: Rest assured that, although you and your beloved representative and/or tax "expert" may not be able to find "IRS", "IRS" can find you. So don't be taking this information and putting yourself in harm's way by doing foolish or reckless things.)

So if no agency called "IRS" was actually ever statutorily created, nor does any such agency exist within the Department of the Treasury, or, indeed, exist at all, then what authority does this hologramic "agency" actually lawfully possess, and over whom?

We have some of the answers to that question, and are busy trying to ferret out others. One entity called "Internal Revenue Service" we have uncovered is simply the renaming of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) official: In the Federal Register of September 15th, 1976, (VOL. 41, NO. 180) is found the following statement: "The term "Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division" has been replaced by the term "Internal Revenue Service"." Isn't that a great way to hide something... just rename a person a thing, and then bury the renaming in the zillions of words in the Federal Register?

Speaking of renaming...in a memorandum dated June 18th, 1953, from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the "Honorable George W. Humphrey", Secretary of the Treasury, is found the following: "The accompanying proposed Treasury Department Order, which is submitted for your signature, has been prepared for the purpose of changing the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Service. It seems to me that there is some real practical psychological value to be derived from the substitution of the word "Service" for "Bureau." ("Practical psychological value" ... George Orwell would have loved this Commissioner fellow.)

The memo then goes on: "The name 'Bureau of Internal Revenue' is not a name created by statute, but has been adopted by usage..."

So here we have a clear admission by the Commissioner admission that the BIR, which he wants to rename "Internal Revenue Service" purely for "practical psychological value," was never actually created by statute.

So, knowing full well that the BIR was never a real agency, he nevertheless presses on to urge the renaming of this non-agency as "Internal Revenue Service."

One would think that perhaps the Secretary of the Treasury would object to this attempt at deliberate obfuscation on the part of the Commissioner. But no. The "Honorable" Secretary, Mr. Humphrey, obviously agreed with the Commissioner that renaming an entity which had never actually been created by statute, but which entity the era of Prohibition had clearly made immensely unpopular, to a more "pyschologically valuable" name was a perfectly valid move, because a couple of weeks later, on July 9th, 1953, he issued a Department of the Treasury Order Number 150-29, entitled "Designation as Internal Revenue Service", which states: "The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall hereafter be known as the Internal Revenue Service."

This TO was then confirmed by Treasury Decision (TD) #6038, which states: "reference to the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be deemed to refer to the Internal Revenue Service."

So according to this series of events the present IRS is just a renaming of an entity (BIR) — an entity that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue admitted in 1953 was never actually created by statute.

We have recently been informed by the Libertarian Party that Senator Trent Lott is presently pushing for yet another renaming of Internal Revenue Service. His suggestion for the "new, improved" name for "IRS": the "Taxpayer's Protection Agency."

Obviously Senator Lott must think that such a name will have more "practical psychological value" than "Internal Revenue Service." Just as the word "Service" appeared more benevolent back in the 1950's, so the word "Protection" (which word, interestingly enough, we often see associated in today's culture with the concepts of sexually-transmitted disease and condoms) probably makes the good Senator feel positively warm and fuzzy all over.

Perhaps someone can inform Senator Lott and his fellow Congresscritters that this kind of Orwellian double-speak renaming which he is proposing has already been done in 1953, and that it was done for purely "psychologically valuable" reasons. And that the "agency" called the "Bureau of Internal Revenue", which was then renamed "Internal Revenue Service", and which Senator Lott wants to now rename "Taxpayer's Protection Agency" (TPA) was never actually created by statute.

And that they can rename this thing anything they want as many times as they want, but until they actually deal with the reality of its creation, its authority and its behavior, all the renaming in the world won't make it have anymore "practical psychological value" than it has today.

Our fondest wish is that some Congressman would truly look at this research, and attempt to discredit it with factual documents, instead of the usual "Oh well, everyone knows there's an IRS..." Any help that anyone can provide in rubbing their noses in the actual, factual mire is much appreciated.

Our latest experience (July and August of 1997) with a Congressional aide was a recent, surreal phone dialogue with a "gentleman" who claimed to be "researching" IRS computer codes, procedures and records. (For the record, this "gentleman" claimed to be an aide of Senator William Roth of Delaware, who chaired the U.S. Senate "investigation" of the "IRS" in 1997.)

We faxed and sent this aide several documents from our research.

When asked to substantiate his allegations concerning Non-Master file, Substitutes for Returns and other technical subjects - many of which allegations we knew, from our perusal of Internal Revenue Manuals and other IRS documents to be completely false - this aide of Senator Roth informed us that everything he had told us was gleaned from talking to people "high up" in IRS (he refused to name them) and that he had been privy to a "confidential brief," that, he informed us, we could not see.

Obviously we mere mortals were unworthy to gain access to such precious pearls of truth to which this Senatorial aide was privy. We had to content ourselves with statutes, regulations, actual government documents and Internal Revenue Manuals, instead of relying solely on unsubstantiated hearsay recountings of secret conversations with unknown "high-ups" at IRS, and "confidential briefs."

We wrote to Senator Roth concerning the false and unfounded allegations concerning "IRS" made to us by his alleged aide, and urged the Senator to contact us concerning his aide's behavior and our research. We have never heard back from him.

That is why our reaction to Congressional hearings "investigating" the "IRS" is a resounding yawn.

Want still more excitement? You can go to the Department of the Treasury Order 221 of July 1, 1972, which established BATF, and supposedly transferred to it "the alcohol and functions of the Internal Revenue Service" ... yup - you read it right... "...the... functions of the Internal Revenue Service", which means all of the functions of "IRS" were transferred to BATF in 1972, according to 27 USC § 201, where we found this nugget.

What "functions" were left to "IRS" by this transfer appear, therefore, to be none. More "IRS" hologramic hocus-pocus. In Treasury Order 221 - renumbered now TO 120-01 - you will find the term "Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division", which term, the TO states is interchangeable with the term "Commissioner of Internal Revenue", which office was established in 1862, and which lackeys from "IRS" have repeated tried to tell us was the agency itself.

(If you feel confused and/or nauseated now, we understand. Such information can keep one in a permanent state of wanting to hurl.) However, the head of the "IRS" is known officially as the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service", not the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue." Different words. Different title. And, one could therefore reasonably allege, different delegated authority.

Do you crave still more confusion in your life? Try this on: the only definition of the term "Revenue Agent" which can be found anywhere in Title 26 or Title 27 is the following: "Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." (See 27 CFR §250.11).

So... does that mean that the Revenue Agent who visits you concerning your "income tax" is actually working for the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico? The law would indicate so. Is your Congressman going to abolish the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico along with the alleged "IRS"?

Does that mean that your Congressman is going to "abolish" the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, alias "Internal Revenue Service"? Or does it mean that he's going to abolish the "IRS" which is a renaming of a previously abolished "informal" entity that the Commissioner, in 1953, admitted had never actually been created by statute?

Does the renaming of "IRS" (which used to be "BIR") to "TPA" count as abolishing it? Does that mean that your Congressman is going to restrain Revenue Agents from the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico from harassing you?

Rest assured, gentle reader, that your Congressman is probably too busy engaging in his version of the old medieval argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or in preening to his constituents about how he's going to "pull IRS out by the roots" to be able to know where to find "IRS" or its roots - or, sadly, to care about any of these other pesky statutory details. Such research as ours does not provide a good photo-op for a media-whore, and, sadly, most members of Congress seem to fall into that category. If yours is an exception, perhaps you can turn him, or her, on to this research.

Within the letter written concerning "IRS" and sent to Commissioner Margaret Millner Richardson asking her for the documents which created the "agency," is a cite from Title 48 of the United States Code which appears to state that the entire Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is made up "generally" of "internal revenue laws" which are relevant to the enforcement of something known as "Title III of the National Prohibition Act."

Much of our research has revealed strange and tangled statutory ties and cross-overs between the BATF and the alleged "IRS", as was revealed in the above cite from the Federal Register, and many others too numerous to cite here. In fact, the seizure statutes upon which "IRS" relies to seize property -- 26 USC §7321 and 26 CFR §301.7321-1 -- state clearly that all property seized under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code is then handed over to an official with the title of "assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes)", who then, the statute, goes on to state, "will take charge of the property and arrange for its disposal or retention under the provisions of law and regulations applicable thereto."

Check out 26 USC §7321 and 26 CFR §301.7321-1. If you're feeling reckless, take these sections to your Congressman and ask him why someone in charge of alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes is "taking charge" and "arranging for the disposal or retention" of all the stuff "IRS" seizes from people who have allegedly violated "income tax" laws.

When we raised this issue with Senator Roth's aide - the one privy to secret conversations and confidential briefs - he brushed off the statute and regulation, and simply said, "Oh, that's not what happens."

He then told us his version of where the seized property goes, but could not substantiate it with any statutes, regulations or other documentary evidence, except that his precious, unnamed "high-ups" in IRS had told him so. And he refused to deal with what the §7321 statute and regulation say. So we can only conclude that, according to him, IRS is operating under secret law, ignoring present law, or that maybe the "high-ups" at IRS fed him a line of bull that he bought.

Or maybe they threatened him with a swift kick in his "confidential briefs" if he pursued the kind of research we have been doing. All we know is this: anyone who is talking with a Senatorial or Congressional aide, or with their actual Congressional representative about this kind of research is more than likely to realize that these guys aren't interested in the truth, or even in a properly skeptical investigation of "IRS".

So don't get your hopes up if you decide to put this information before them.

Another juicy nugget which research has revealed: When someone files a Form 1040, "IRS" posts a computer code (called a Transaction Code, or TC) to a file known as the Individual Master File (IMF).

The TC 150 which "IRS" posts to the IMF apparently designates that a Virgin Islands return has been filed and a liability assessed, at least according to the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), which states: "TC 150 (VIRGIN IS)"

"IRS" has confirmed in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that TC 150 does not designate anything other than and/or in addition to "Virgin Islands." What this simply means is this: "IRS" was unable to produce any documents from its files indicating that TC 150 designated other than "Virgin Islands" in a geographic sense.

What this apparently means is that, every time someone files a Form 1040, they have unwittingly filed a Virgin Islands return.

We know this stuff is beyond weird. We can't help that. As researchers, we simply research the laws, regulations and related documents - we don't write them. Congress and their bureaucratic minions do that, which is probably why we are discovering some truly bizarre stuff hidden within the statutes, regulations and the Internal Revenue Manual. We try to remain as neutral and objective as possible.

We are also willing to be proven wrong by anyone who can provide hard evidence that we are mistaken in any way. Please feel free to do so, if you can. As researchers, however, we cannot accept the wholly unsubstantiated "everyone knows" evidence that we hear from tax "professionals". Nor can we accept much of the idiocy found in the so-called "patriot" and "tax protest" movements, which, although well-meaning in many ways, have fallen into recycling erroneous "IRS" gossip as gospel. There are far too many do-it-yourself, get-out-of-paying-income-tax books on the market today which contain dangerous mis- and dis-information. We liken those books to books that teach you how to do do-it-yourself brain surgery with a chain saw... and find that they appear to produce the same type of messy and tragic results.

However, one basic fact remains: "IRS" really isn't who or what or where most people think it is - at all.Remember the tale of Galileo Galilei, who claimed that he could prove that the earth was round, and that it revolved around the sun? Remember how the church tortured him, insisting that the earth was flat, and that it, not the sun, was the center of the universe? And remember how you laughed at those ignorant church prelates and the populace of Galileo's time for their superstition and their lack of willingness to examine hard evidence? If you believe that such misconceptions and blind insistence that the earth is flat could not happen today in this oh-so-rational-and-scientific society, then you, too, have been snookered by the "expert" tax prelates of modern times.

Please keep in mind that none of the information contained in this piece, nor in our articles, is anything more than information for your entertainment and enjoyment (!) We cannot be responsible if you like torturing yourself with this kind of pretzel research, since we tend to be driven to do likewise. The information in this piece is not to be construed as legal advice (we're not lawyers, after all, just lowly research gnomes) - or as advice of any sort.

We recommend that you visit attorney Larry Becraft's home page, since he is a truly diligent and careful researcher, as well as being a gentleman and a scholar. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Larry Becraft. http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/

Appendix

After he told us on the phone a number of "facts" about IRS, some of which we knew from our research simply weren't true, we sent him a letter memorializing the conversation, listing and describing the specific points — there were thirteen in all - that we could recall that he had told us, and asking him politely to please respond within 10 days correcting us on any or all of them if we had heard him incorrectly.

These thirteen points are listed below.

Not all of them are incorrect — we just wanted to memorialize all that we had heard him say on the phone.

From our July 25th, 1997, letter to Senator Roth's aide:

"In order that we may fully understand the information you supplied to us, we wanted to note down as much as possible of our memory of our conversation with you, and to be sure that our reception of your communication was, and is, accurate.

"The following will serve to memorialize our conversation with you today concerning the Non-Master file. If the list below contains any errors, please supply us with the necessary corrections, and supporting documentation, or where we can go to confirm your corrections. Your help in this matter is, and has been, greatly appreciated. The following is our joint recollection of our conversation:

You have access to, and have supplied us with, information concerning the Non-Master file, which information you have indicated is not available to the general public, and which we cannot obtain. Your information concerning the Non-Master file was obtained from conversations with IRS personnel, including those at a very high level, and from a brief which is not available to the general public, and which we cannot obtain. The information which you supplied us concerning the Non-Master file was not obtained from the Internal Revenue Manual. Non-Master file is a portion of the master file which is exported from the master file for modification, (much as paragraphs in a computer document can be exported into a different file, subsequently modified, then imported back into the original document after the modifications or corrections are completed.) At the point of re-importation of the information back to the master file, the Non-Master file no longer exists, and there is no remaining evidence that it ever existed. In other words, the NMF is kind of like a rough work-sheet, with the master file being the final work product. There is no hard and fast rule for information to be constructed in the Non-Master file; one IRS employee may choose to use the option of the Non-Master file, and another IRS employee, when confronted with essentially the same criteria and information, may choose not to do so, and both of these employees are free to make these decisions according to their own inner dictates, and not according to the practices, policies and procedures prescribed in their manuals. IRS personnel are at liberty not to follow guidelines which are published in the Internal Revenue Manuals. IRS personnel are not required to follow the dictates of the Internal Revenue Manual, since the IRM is directive, not mandatory. Non-Master file numbering charts, and document locator numbers (DLNs) concerning Non-Master file are essentially meaningless, and no conclusions should be drawn form them. Tax classes associated with Non-Master file are essentially meaningless, and no conclusions should be drawn from them. Tax class 2 and tax class 6 are essentially interchangeable, and it does not matter which tax class is posted to the master file or the Non-Master file. There is always a liability posted to the master file when a transaction code for a substitute for return (SFR) is posted to the master file. When the IRS penalties handbook says "AIMS controls should be established on non-master file (NMF) only", relevant to a fraud investigation, such instruction is directory in nature, and is to be followed at the discretion of CID (Criminal Investigation Division), but is not mandatory and if such controls were established on NMF, there would be no evidence of such controls once the investigation is closed and the NMF no longer exists, since the information on it has been returned to the master file. SFRs are filled out by the Service, just like a standard return, including the amount of deductions, the amount of income, earned income credits, and display the amount owed. "If the preceding is incorrect in any way, please correct the portions which we have misunderstood within 10 days. If we have understood you correctly, no response is necessary.

"We realize there is much confusion surrounding IRS and computer codes. You have been very helpful in our attempts to understand the way IRS posts information in its computer systems. We appreciate your knowledge concerning IRS computer codes, and we look forward to further dialogue with you concerning these and other IRS issues at your convenience.

"Again, thank you for your help in this matter."

The aide responded to us on August 5th, 1997, on stationary with no letterhead with a short letter, the text of which is as follows:

"I am in receipt of your letter of July 25th, 1997. In that letter you state that you are giving me 10 days to respond to your lengthy list of discussion points of a conversation we had in July... Let me make a few points perfectly clear. I am under no obligation to validate your claims of what was contained in our discussion in ten days or any other time limit. The list you have provided of discussion points are [sic] incorrect, and many of your conclusions I believe to be incorrect. Some of the points you offer I do not believe were ever discussed, others you made comments about and I offered no response. That is because I have no knowledge one way or the other of some of the subjects you brought up.

"You appear to be trying to use my genuine effort to help your understanding of one specific issue to further your cause, in one way or another, on many unrelated, and I believe unmentioned topics. That is unfortunate and will certainly cause me to be more careful about trying to assist others in the future."

Although he claimed that our "lengthy list of discussion points" and "many of (our) conclusions" were "incorrect," he declined to further elaborate or explain.

This is, in our experience, an example of the typical bureaucrat's "genuine effort to help (our) understanding."

And as far as "further(ing) our cause" is concerned — our only cause is - and always has been - to try to understand the law as written.

We had made that abundantly clear to him on the telephone, and did so again in a written response, dated August 11th, 1997, in which we wrote,

We have no "cause" as you suggested, other than to attempt to obtain truthful and documented information from government agencies, and to expose irresponsible government functionaries who expect to make unsupported pronouncements to citizens seeking information...

"Since you were unwilling and/or unable to correct any misconceptions concerning our conversation, we shall proceed as if you have concurred, and shall accept your statement that "[you] have no knowledge one way or the other of some of the subjects [we] brought up" including anything whatsoever about IRS computer systems and master files, despite your precious "secret sources and briefs." We shall be sure to inform as many people as possible that government officials purportedly working for Senator Roth, such as yourself, who are paid with taxpayer dollars, are privy to "secret sources and briefs" which they are unwilling to share with citizens."

We never heard back from him, nor from Senator Roth, to whom we sent copies of all correspondence from and with his aide.

Marcel and Fifi DeBunque are research gnomes who spend their days filing endless Freedom of Information Act requests and poring over government documents. They have no other life.

========================================================

The above-referenced letter to IRS Commissioner Margaret Millner Richardson is printed below:

To:
Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20224

March 29th, 1997

Dear Commissioner of IRS Margaret Milner Richardson,

This letter is a request for information pursuant to Revenue Procedures 88-1 and 89-1. If this request for information letter is being addressed to the wrong place or party, please forward this request for information letter to the appropriate party or place.

Please inform us in writing of any such forwarding, and please also cite the specific authority of the person or office to whom you have forwarded our letter to respond to the questions contained in it.

We also have read your letter in the 1995 1040 Instruction booklet, in which you state: "Providing information about our tax laws or your account status when you want it is another of our priorities." We trust, therefore, that providing direct and specific answers to the enclosed questions concerning the tax laws will be a high priority for your office.

Please note: We are not attempting, by writing this letter, citing the findings contained herein, or by asking the questions enclosed, to express or reflect personal opinion or frustration with the tax system. Nor does this letter in any way reflect our advocating the violation of or noncompliance with any internal revenue laws. We are not attempting, by writing this letter, to enter into a debate regarding the legality of 26 USC, the tax laws, the Constitution or any of its Amendments. We are not protesting any tax. We are simply requesting information via this letter pursuant to the above-referenced Revenue Procedures, and pursuant to your stated priority to provide information to us concerning the tax laws.

Please do not respond to us with a letter stating that we have written some unspecified "type of letter" reflecting personal opinions or frustration with the tax system, unless you specifically cite which of our questions specifically reflect personal opinions or frustrations with the tax system. Please also do not state that "it would be unfortunate if you were to rely on opinions of those who deliberately promote violation of the laws passed by Congress," since we do not rely on opinions, only on statutes, regulations and other government documents, and we most certainly do not rely on, nor do we wish to rely on, the opinions of anyone who deliberately promotes the violation of the laws passed by Congress. This letter contains technical questions concerning statutes, regulations and other government documents.

In addition, we are requesting that you not respond to this request by merely citing 26 USC § 7802 and § 7803, as we deal with those sections in this letter, and why they do not constitute a proper response to this request for information.

Recently, we were directed to your Internet Web Page, and were shown that within it was the following statement relevant to you: "She is the second woman to head the tax collection agency since its creation in 1862." The "tax collection agency" is, of course, the "Internal Revenue Service."

We have been studying, reading and searching for several years to find, within Title 26 of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code, the section or sections which created your agency, the so-called "Internal Revenue Service"; but we have been unable to find any such specific statutes or sections. We decided to research and locate whatever other sources of information we could find regarding how the entity which calls itself "Internal Revenue Service" was established; what our research has uncovered is strange and confusing. Here are some of the things which we have found:

In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and the Cumulative Bulletin; see 37 Fed Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836. On the very first page of this statement published in the bulletin, the following admission was made. (We have emphasized the significant sections):

"(3) By common parlance 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 may be 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 appears again 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 "it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had" (see IRM 1111.2 - Organic Act) (Emphasis added) - is an admission that even the government itself cannot find anything whatsoever which actually created either agency. The only office created by the act of July 1, 1862, was the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (not the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service); neither the Bureau of Internal Revenue, nor the or an "Internal Revenue Service" was created by any of these acts.

We have no doubt that, when the employees of the "Internal Revenue Service", and, perhaps others, were researching the origins of the so-called agency so that this statement could be included in the IRM 1100, that these employees and other people must have performed a very thorough and exhaustive investigation. We are sure that the position of the "Internal Revenue Service" regarding how the alleged "Internal Revenue Service" came into being is the best that could be written under these circumstances.

However, besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the "Bureau of Internal Revenue" or the "Internal Revenue Service", there exists the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that your "agency" has never actually been created by any act of Congress. This is obviously a serious flaw, and creates some valid and serious legal problems.

Furthermore, we have discovered the following: There was an entity known as the "Bureau of Internal Revenue" which was renamed "Internal Revenue Service", as revealed by Department of Treasury Order 150-06, dated July 9, 1953, (see below) and further, by Treasury Decision 6038, entitled "Change of Nomenclature".. However, an examination of the General Records of the Department of the Treasury (Record Group 56) 1789-1990, 56.1, Administrative History, from the National Archives and Record Administration reveals that no agency/entity called "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is listed in the "Former administrative units of the Treasury Department". In addition, the National Archives and Record Administration states:

"The Tax Act of 1862 authorized a permanent internal revenue establishment, the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which supervised a network of district collectors and assessors and other field agents, and which was informally known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue. It was formally redesignated the IRS, 1953." (Emphasis added.)

"Informally known" means that no such agency was ever statutorily created, and that an "informally known" nickname was renamed ("redesignated") "IRS" in 1953.

In addition, the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), contains the following in footnote 23:

"There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced."

So apparently the court in the Chrysler Corp. case also could not find any evidence of any "bureaucracy" known as the Internal Revenue Service which had been created by the 1862 statute.

We have also found the following statement in the Federal Register, Volume 41, September 15th, 1976:

"The term 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' has been replaced by the term 'Internal Revenue Service.'"

What the above makes clear is that "Internal Revenue Service" is, at least in this case, simply another name - an alias, or, as the Federal Register clearly states, a "term" - for the term "Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division", which is itself (as stated) a term, and not an agency which Congress has ever created.

We have also located the following documents: 27 CFR § 201, which is entitled "Short title", is cited as the "Federal Alcohol Administration Act." In § 201, under HISTORY: ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES, is found the following:

"Transfer of functions:

Federal Alcohol Administration and offices of members and Administrator thereof were abolished and their functions directed to be administered under direction and supervision of Secretary of Treasury through Bureau of Internal Revenue [now Internal Revenue Service] in Department of Treasury, by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1940 which appears as 5 USCS § 903 note... The Department of the Treasury Order 221 of July 1, 1972, established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and transferred to it the alcohol and functions of the Internal Revenue Service." (Emphasis added.)

The last sentence of the above section clearly states that "the functions" of the Internal Revenue Service were "transferred" to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms when the BATF was established. The term used in this cite is "the functions", not "some of the functions", or "certain functions", or any other term which would imply a limited transfer of specific, limited functions. The use of the all-inclusive term "the functions" thus implies that all functions of "IRS" were transferred to BATF upon BATF's establishment. If all of the functions" of "IRS" were transferred to BATF upon BATF's establishment, then which specific "functions" does "IRS" handle at present, if any?

We have located the actual document which established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Treasury Order 120-01, (a renumbering of DOT Order 221) which is entitled "Establishment of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms". TO 120-01 cites various functions and provisions of law which have been delegated to the BATF. In paragraph #2, section b, TO 120-01 states that Chapters 61 through 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code are delegated to BATF "insofar as they relate to the activities administered and enforced with respect to Chapters 51, 52 and 53;"...

Chapters 61 through 80, also known as Subtitle F, of the Code, contain all of the "Procedures and Administration" statutes for filing returns, assessment, collection, interest, penalties, crimes, other offenses and forfeitures, and liability and enforcement of tax. Some of the sections found in Chapters 61 through 80 of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, sections which many people would recognize, are the following:

§ 6001 ("Notice or regulations requiring records, statements and special returns"; § 6011 ("General requirement of return, statement or list" § 6012 ("Persons required to make returns of income" (a, b and c are all cited in the "IRS" Form 1040 Instruction booklet as the government's authority to ask for information.) § 6321 ("Lien for taxes") § 6331 ("Levy and distraint") § 7201 ("Attempt to evade or defeat tax") § 7203 ("Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax") § 7321 ("Authority to seize property subject to forfeiture") (For more on this section, and how it appears only relevant to BATF, see below.) It is true that Chapters 51, 52 and 53 are entitled respectively "Distilled Spirits, Wines, and Beer", "Cigars, Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco, Pipe Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes", and "Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms" - ie., Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - which would seem to limit the authority of BATF relevant to Subtitle F to alcohol, tobacco and firearms related "Procedures and Administration". However, we cannot find anywhere a statute or regulation or any other document which delegates Chapters 61 through 80 of the Code to "Internal Revenue Service". And since "the functions" of "IRS" were transferred to BATF by DOT Order 221 upon BATF's creation in 1972, then it seems clear that all of the above-cited Procedures and Administration "functions" are under the jurisdiction of BATF alone.

Furthermore, we have found that the only Privacy Act Systems of Records ("SOR") which claims Chapters 61 through 80 of the Code as its authority to maintain records on anyone is Treasury/ATF .003, entitled "Criminal Investigation Report System - Treasury/ATF", which is maintained by BATF, not "IRS". SOR Treasury/ATF .003 covers such categories of individuals as:

"(1) Criminal offenders or alleged criminal offenders acting alone or in concert with other individuals and suspects who have been or are under investigation for a violation or suspected violation of laws enforced by the Bureau." (2) Criminal offenders or alleged criminal offenders acting alone or in concert with individuals who have been referred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms by other law enforcement agencies, governmental units and the general public. (3) Informants. (4) Persons who come to the attention of the Bureau in the conduct of criminal investigations..."

"IRS" maintains no SOR whatsoever which specifically claims Chapters 61 through 80 of the Code as its authority for maintaining records, and which maintains such specific records on suspected, alleged or actual criminals. What seems to us to be true is that all crimes which are committed relevant to Chapters 61 through 80 of the Code appear to actually be a violation of BATF laws, and not "IRS" laws.

In addition, 27 CFR § 70.11 also states that Subtitle F is delegated to be enforced and administered by BATF, "as it relates to any of the foregoing."

The words "the foregoing" in 27 CFR § 70.11, which is a section entitled "Meaning of terms", refer to the following terms: Person; lien; levy; enforced collection; electronic fund transfer; Director (BATF); Commercial Bank; Chief, Tax Processing Center; Code of Federal Regulations; Bureau; ATF Officer. So 27 CFR § 70.11 is stating that BATF has been delegated the authority of Subtitle F as it relates to liens, levies, enforced collection (ie, seizure and forfeiture) - activities which one generally associates with "IRS". Again, we can find no such delegation of authority to "IRS" which relates to such activities. This regulation further appears to make it clear that it is really BATF which is liening, levying and seizing property, even when it appears that "IRS" is doing these things.

Most significant of all in this conclusion that we have reached that it appears that it is always BATF which is masquerading as "IRS" when "IRS" is liening, levying and seizing property, is the following: 26 USC § 7321 is the section of the Internal Revenue Code entitled: "Authority to Seize Property Subject to Forfeiture". It states:

"Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under any provision of this title may be seized by the Secretary."

Then, in the implementing regulation, 26 CFR § 301.7321 - 1, entitled "Seizure of Property", is stated the following:

Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under any provision of the Code may be seized by the district director or assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms). Upon seizure of property by the district director he shall notify the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) for the region wherein the district is located who will take charge of the property and arrange for its disposal or retention under the provisions of law and regulations applicable thereto." (Emphasis added.)

The above statute and regulation plainly reveal that all property which is seized under any provision of Title 26, whether it be by the district director or the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) - all property which is seized by IRS is then then handed over to the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms), who "arrang(es) for its disposal and retention..."

Why is all property seized by "IRS" - "under any provision of Title 26", which would, of course, include Subtitle A, "Income Taxes" - much of it having to with alleged violations of "income tax" laws, and ostensibly having nothing whatsoever to do with alcohol, tobacco or firearms taxes - seized by the district director, and then handed over to this mysterious assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms), who clearly appears to be either an official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or perhaps an official relevant only to Chapters 51, 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code? It could only be because somehow all of the laws in Chapters 61 through 80, including the seizure and forfeiture laws of the IRC, are relevant only to BATF taxes.

Also in TO 120-01 (dated 6/6/72) is a reference to the term "Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division" - the same term which was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" according to the Federal Register of 9/15/76. (See above.) TO 120-01 states:

"The terms "Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division" and "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean the Director..."

"The terms "internal revenue officer" and "officer, employee or agent of the internal revenue" wherever used in such regulations, rules, instructions and forms, in any law specified in paragraph 2 above, and in 18 U.S.C. 1114, shall include all officers and employees of the United Stated engaged in the administration and enforcement of the laws administered by the Bureau, who are appointed or employed by, or pursuant to the authority of, or who are subject to the directions, instructions or orders of, the Secretary."

The above statements - aside from being extremely circular and difficult to follow - appear to be revealing that the official known as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is actually the same person and office as the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division (who was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" according to the Federal Register, Volume 41, Wednesday, September 15th, 1976) and that the officials known as "internal revenue officer" and "officer, employee or agent of the internal revenue" are actually enforcing BATF laws. For further exploration of this, see the definition of "Revenue Agent" below.

TO 120-01 goes on to state:
"There shall be transferred to the Bureau all positions, personnel, records, property, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service, including those of the Assistant Regional Commissioners (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), Internal Revenue Service."

Commissioner Richardson - the Assistant Regional Commissioner (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) is apparently the same official named in 26 CFR § 301.7321-1, who "takes charge" of all property seized by "IRS" and "arranges for its disposal."

What is even more bizarre is this: after all the property seized by "IRS" is handed over by the district director to this mysterious assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms), the remission or mitigation of forfeitures relevant to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) and its regulations (26 CFR) is governed by the customs laws which are applicable to remission or mitigation of penalties as contained in Title 19 USC - Customs - Sections 1613 and 1618. Sections 1613 and 1618 of Title 19 fall under Chapter 4, which is relevant to the enforcement of the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. Why are sections of the customs laws which govern the enforcement of the Tariff Act of 1930 the only laws which are cited to be used to remit or mitigate forfeitures of property which has been seized by "IRS" and then handed over to a BATF official? More simply: If our property were seized by "IRS", why would we be forced to use Customs laws to attempt to get it back?

Returning to the above cite from 27 CFR § 201, concerning the Federal Alcohol Administration, it is obvious that some entity with the present name "Internal Revenue Service" used to be known as the "Bureau of Internal Revenue." And we find that renaming confirmed in Treasury Order 150-06, dated July 9th, 1953, entitled "Designation as Internal Revenue Service," which states in paragraph #1:

"The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall hereafter be known as the Internal Revenue Service."

So where did this "Bureau of Internal Revenue" which was then renamed "Internal Revenue Service" originate? The only place we can find any reference whatsoever to the creation of a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is in Article I of the Philippine Commission Act, Act No. 1189, dated 1904, which states in Section 2:

"There shall be established a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the chief officer of which shall be known as the Collector of Internal Revenue. He shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, with advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, and shall receive a salary at the rate of eight thousand pesos per annum.

"The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall belong to the Department of Finance and Justice."

Does this mean that the Bureau of Internal Revenue established in the Philippines in 1904 the same Bureau of Internal Revenue which was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" in Treasury Order 150-06? And, if not, what is the statutory origin of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which is cited in TO 150-06? And since the Bureau of Internal Revenue established in the Philippines in 1904 belonged at that time to the Department of Finance and Justice, if it is the Bureau of Internal Revenue which was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" and is now found in the Department of the Treasury, how was it transferred from the former department to the latter, and when?

In addition, we have looked in 31 USC, Chapter 3, at the list of Organizations of the Department of the Treasury, only to find that there is no "Internal Revenue Service" listed there as an organization of the Department of the Treasury. Further research reveals that there is no "Internal Revenue Service" listed as an agency, or even a term, within any of the organizations listed in Chapter 3.

Also in 31 USC, in Section 1321, the list of Trust Funds maintained by the Treasury, we have found the following: Section 1321(2) and 1321(62) are named respectively as follows:
"(2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue).
(62) Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue)."

Again, we find a reference to the Philippines (and Puerto Rico - see below, 27 CFR § 250.11), with the words "internal revenue" (and "Internal Revenue") used to define the Philippines and Puerto Rico respectively. And the spelling and capitalization of the two terms is the only thing which indicates which is the Philippine and which the Puerto Rico special fund.

In reference to Puerto Rico, and further questions concerning this issue, we have found in 27 CFR § 250.11 that the definition of "Revenue Agent" is given as:

"Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."
and that the definition of "Secretary is given as:
"The Secretary of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico."

And that the definition of "Secretary or his delegate" is given as:
"The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part."

So there apparently exists another "Department of the Treasury" - in Puerto Rico Its official name is "The Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico", and it has a Secretary, delegates of its Secretary, and Revenue Agents.

Does this mean that the "Internal Revenue Service" is found somewhere in the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, since it isn't found in the list of organizations in the Department of the Treasury in Title 31, United States Code, or within any of those listed organizations? Not only that, but since the only definition of "Revenue Agent" which we can find is that in 27 CFR § 250.11, does this mean that all "IRS" Revenue Agents actually work for the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico?

We have found other statutes and regulations which are confusing to us: at 48 USC § 1402 we find the following:

"Title III of the National Prohibition Act, as amended and all provisions of the internal revenue laws relating to the enforcement thereof, are hereby extended to and made applicable to [Puerto Rico and] the Virgin Islands..."

We find still further, in the same section, under HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES:

"Title III of the National Prohibition Act", referred to in this section, is Act Oct. 28, 1919, ch 85, Title III, 41 Stat. 319, which was generally classified to 27 USC §§ 71 et seq. prior to supersedure by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and subsequently by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954."

The previous statement says to us that Title III of the National Prohibition Act was classified through several stages to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Codes). That conclusion is supported and confirmed by the following, found in the same section:

"The internal revenue laws", referred to in this section, are located generally at 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq."

The Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing version (1995) words the preceding section slightly differently:

"The internal revenue laws", referred to in this section, appear generally as 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq." (Emphasis added.)

Commissioner Richardson, as you know, 26 USCS is the Internal Revenue Code, and "§§ 1 et seq." means: "Section 1 and all which follows it" - ie., the entire Code from start to finish.

In other words, this cite from Title 48 (§ 1402) plainly states that the entire Internal Revenue Code, from start to finish, is "generally" made up of "internal revenue laws" which are relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act, which is presently located in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In fact, the Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing version of 48 USC § 1402 literally says that 26 USCS - the entire Code - is only the "internal revenue laws" relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act, since it makes the statement: "The "internal revenue laws" referred to in this section appear generally as 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq."

This is truly strange. Obviously, when we read the above statute, we must ask this question:

Which internal revenue laws "generally located at (or "which appear generally as") 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq." - the Internal Revenue Code - are relevant to anything other than or in addition to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act?

In addition, Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 30(55)4.2 at (29) - dated 1-1-90 - reveals the following: "VIRGIN IS (TC 150)". "TC" stands for "Transaction Code", and "VIRGIN IS" stands for "Virgin Islands." As you know, a Transaction Code (TC) 150 transcript (Individual Master File, abbreviated IMF) is the computer transcript to which data is input either when someone files a Form 1040, or a Substitute For Return (SFR) is filed by "IRS." Thus Form 1040 data is input on a Virgin Islands transcript, indicating a liability, payment, or other action relevant to a Virgin Islands liability. 48 USC § 1402 states that Title III of the National Prohibition Act, and all provisions of the internal revenue laws relating to the enforcement thereof, have been extended to and made applicable to [Puerto Rico and] the Virgin Islands. The same section then goes on, as you recall, to state that Title III of the National Prohibition Act was reclassified to 27 USC §§ 71 et seq., and then to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and subsequently the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The section further states that the "internal revenue laws" relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act "are located generally at 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq."

What we surmise from the above is that Title III of the National Prohibition Act was moved to [Puerto Rico and] the Virgin Islands, and that the "internal revenue laws" relevant to its enforcement are "located generally" throughout the Internal Revenue Code, which means that they are internal revenue laws relevant, it appears, to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We believe this is why the TC 150, which indicates a Virgin Islands transcript, is posted to the IMF whenever a Form 1040 or SFR is filed. We believe this indicates that the Form 1040 is actually a Virgin Islands return, and that we would be committing perjury if we were to file Form 1040, since we are not liable for filing a Virgin Islands return.

In fact, in Mills v. United States, CIV-94-114-TUC-JMR, Fred D. Mills had caused to be filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Cheyenne District Office of Internal Revenue Service requesting a copy of all documents maintained that indicated that "TC 150 means other than and/or in addition to the Virgin Islands." The Internal Revenue Service could produce no documents which demonstrated that TC 150 is connected in the geographical sense to other than the Virgin Islands. IRM 30(55)(4.2) at (29), [now 30(55)(4.2) at (30)] which states: "VIRGIN IS(TC 150)" was held by the Internal Revenue Service to be the only document relevant to venue for TC 150. Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, stated in a letter dated January 9, 1995: "...no...responsive documents exist" which would provide otherwise.

Perhaps this connection between the Virgin Islands and Title III of the National Prohibition Act is why the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) ends up with all the property seized by "IRS" under any provision of Title 26 - which itself appears to be the collection of "internal revenue laws" relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act, an Act which it seems to us that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not "IRS", would be responsible for enforcing.

In addition, we have uncovered the following: Form 1040 is entitled "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return", which would indicate that it is a form to filed by a "U.S. Individual." 26 CFR § 1.6017-1(a)(1), dealing with "Self-Employment tax returns", states the following: "an individual who is a resident of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or (for any taxable year beginning after 1960) Guam or American Samoa is not to be considered a nonresident alien individual." 26 CFR § 1.6017-1(a)(2) states: "Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the return required by this section shall be made on Form 1040. The form to be used by residents of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa is Form 1040SS..."

Internal Revenue Publication 676 states that Form 1040 SS is a "Self-Employment Tax Return." But the above section states that the return required "under this section shall be made on Form 1040." It would appear, therefore, that an "individual" is actually a resident of the Virgin Islands (or Puerto Rico, or, before 1960, Guam or American Samoa). Perhaps that is why the TC 150, indicating that a Virgin Islands return has been filed, is posted to the Virgin Islands transcript IMF when a Form 1040 or SFR are filed.

So far our research has brought us to the following conclusions:

The only "Internal Revenue Service" we can find so far is not an agency at all, but simply an alias (term replacement) for the term "Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division," or else the renaming of an entity called "Bureau of Internal Revenue", which appears to have its origins in the Philippines in 1904. There was never any "Bureau of Internal Revenue" statutorily created by Congress. The term "Bureau of Internal Revenue" was an "informal" nickname, not the name of a statutory agency or entity. Therefore, the renaming of "Bureau of Internal Revenue" as "Internal Revenue Service" is essentially the renaming of a non-statutory nickname. "Internal Revenue Service" isn't listed as an organization of the Department of the Treasury in Title 31, but that there does exist in statute another "Department of the Treasury" - the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico - which has a "Secretary", and the Secretary's "delegate(s)" and "Revenue Agent(s)", and perhaps an "Internal Revenue Service" although we have yet to locate such "agency" or "term" therein.
"Internal Revenue" refers to the Puerto Rico special fund, and "internal revenue" refers to the Philippine special fund. Both of these appear to be trust funds maintained by the Department of the Treasury of the United States - not the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico - and it is only their respective spellings which make them completely different from each other.
The internal revenue laws relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act are "generally located at 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq." or "appear generally as 26 USCS §§ 1 et seq.", in other words, throughout (or as) the entire Internal Revenue Code, and we have no way of knowing which internal revenue laws in the Code are relevant to anything other than and/or in addition to Title III of the National Prohibition Act. Just the fact that many, or perhaps all, of the "internal revenue laws" in Title 26 are clearly laws relevant to the enforcing of Title III of the National Prohibition Act makes us wonder what relevance the internal revenue laws contained in the Internal Revenue Code have to us. And how are we to tell which of those laws are relevant to us - if any?
All of the laws contained in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, Chapters 61 through 80, are relevant only to BATF, and not "IRS".
All property seized by IRS "under any provision of the Code" (Title 26) is then handed over to an official whose job title clearly defines him as dealing with alcohol and tobacco taxes. Why is property allegedly related to "income tax" violations first seized by "IRS", and then handed over to the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms)?
The laws governing the remission and mitigation of all of the property seized and forfeited under the provisions of Title 26 are customs laws relevant to the enforcement of the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. Why does one have to use customs laws to get back property seized by "IRS"? When one files a Form 1040, a Transaction Code 150, indicating a Virgin Islands return, is posted to the IMF, which IRS has confirmed is a TC 150 transcript, and which the IRM indicates is a Virgin Islands transcript.
Relevant to the creation of and existence of an agency of office, at the state level, it is a well-acknowledged and accepted rule that a duly constituted office of the state government must be created either by the state constitution itself, or else by some specific legislative act; see the following: (All emphasis added).

Patton v. Bd. Of Health, 127 Cal. 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 ex 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.W. 390, 234 P.2d 336, 338 (1951); Schaeffer v. Superior Court in & for Santa Barbara County, 248 P.2d 450, 453 (Cal.App. 1952); 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 Tp. of West Milford v. Tp. Council of Tp. 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 Cal.App. 3d 553, 111 Cal. 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 Television, 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).

This 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. Mouat, 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 Louisville, 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); Sully 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, and, when Congress does so establish an inferior office"; 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).

In addition to the above cited cases, we are including a copy of letter from Congressman Pat Danner, 6th District, Missouri, to Bill Petterson, Route 2, Box 37, Trenton, Missouri, 64683-9610. It is apparent from Congressman Danner's letter that Mr. Petterson has contacted him about this question of the establishment of an agency known as "Internal Revenue Service". The letter from Congressman Danner is enclosed herein and states, in unnumbered paragraph #2:

"You are quite correct when you state that an organization with the actual name "Internal Revenue Service" was not established by law."

That statement appears to us to be fairly clear and conclusive. Congressman Danner then goes on, in the same paragraph, to state:

"Instead, in 1862, Congress approved 26 U.S.C. 7802. This statute established the office of "Commissioner of Internal Revenue." As the act states, "The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In modern times, these duties and powers flow to the Commissioner who implements appropriate policy through the IRS.

"In addition to Section 7802, Section 7803 authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to employ such number of persons deemed proper for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. It is these employees who comprise the IRS."

There are several problems with Congressman Danner's previous statement. These are as follows:

Congress did not "approve" 26 USC § 7802 in 1862. Attorney Lowell H. ("Larry") Becraft has written the following concerning this issue:

"[The Act of June 30, 1926, 44 Stat. 777, Ch. 712], which created the 50 titles of the United States Code is still in effect and is the foundation for the current design of the United States Code. The act did not repeal any prior laws or attempt to replace them. The titles and code sections contained therein were only made prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States. Their use was suitable in court, but they could be impeached by showing what the underlying statutes were and that the code sections were different from the statutes; in such event, the statutes controlled. This condition prevails today for those titles which are not positive law, and the same titles, or any particular section thereof, can be impeached by showing a difference between the title or code section and the underlying or supporting statutes; see Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359, 1367 (9th Cir. 1983); and Rasquin v. Muccini, 72 F.2d 688 (2nd Cir. 1934)."

The "approval" to which Congressman Danner is referring is the 1862 Act referenced in IRM 1111.2, in which Congress "thought it had" established a Bureau of Internal Revenue, and which clearly states that: "by common parlance and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau", and, further, "that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3, 1862..." (Emphasis added). Furthermore, in the same IRM 1111.2 is stated the opinion: "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." Obviously the word "organic", which the dictionary defines variously as: "of, or pertaining to, or affecting, an organ of the body," and (law): "designating or pertaining to the fundamental or constitutional laws and precepts of a government or organization", in this context represents a description by whoever wrote this passage for IRM 1111.2 (entitled "Organic Act") of the alleged informal process by which the term "Internal Revenue Service" has grown - organically - into today's common parlance. However, neither informal organic growth, nor an "Organic Act" is enough to establish the statutory foundation of a federal government agency. IRM 1111.2 does not, however, state either that 26 USC § 7802 was approved by Congress in 1862, or that there was an official establishment of either a bureau or an agency. And again, the only Bureau of Internal Revenue which we can find that was established by Congress is the Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue, described above. And the National Archives lists no "Bureau of Internal Revenue" in its list of "Former administrative units of the Treasury Department", and further states that the "Bureau of Internal Revenue" was an "informal" name which was "formally redesignated the IRS, 1953."

26 USC § 7803 authorizes the employment of persons, who, Congressman Danner states, "comprise the IRS". Such authorization of employment of persons still does not constitute the statutory establishment of an agency known as "Internal Revenue Service". In fact, in 26 USC § 7802(b)(1), entitled "Establishment of office" is referenced an "Office of Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations", which is "within the Internal Revenue Service" - but the establishment of the "Internal Revenue Service" itself is never cited ... the term "Internal Revenue Service" just sort of pops out of nowhere, as if it already existed as an entity. If the statute authorizing the "Establishment of [an] Office of Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations" can be found - "within the Internal Revenue Service" - then why cannot someone produce the statute which created the establishment of the "Internal Revenue Service" itself? Since your Appointment Affidavit (see #4 below) states that you're the "Commissioner of IRS" - ie., Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service - one would naturally believe that you are the primary person who should be able to lead us to this (so-far) elusive statute. Which "IRS" are you the Commissioner of? § 7803 and Congressman Danner's letter both reference the "internal revenue laws." But 48 USC § 1402 states that the "internal revenue laws" generally found at (or "as") 26 USC §§ 1 et seq., the Internal Revenue Code, are relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act. If it is these same laws that "IRS" employees are administering, then we don't see how those laws are relevant to us, or, if some of them are - which ones? Both Treasury Order 150-25 (March 8th, 1951), and Internal Revenue Manual Delegation Order No. 4 clearly reveal the existence of two Commissioners, each with different delegated authority: a Commissioner of Internal Revenue (as cited in 26 USC § 7802, and the 1862 Act) and a Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service. As we stated above, your Appointment Affidavit clearly shows that you are the "Commissioner of IRS" - ie., the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service." It is apparent that these two Commissioners each have different delegated authority, and that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, referred to in IRM 1111.2 and in Congressman Danner's letter, is not you, nor your office.
Since we have reached the conclusion that an agency known as "Internal Revenue Service" has never been actually created by Congress, we are hereby requesting that you provide to us the citation of any statute(s) which really did create the/an "Internal Revenue Service" (other than the "Internal Revenue Service" referenced in the Federal Register, which is admittedly only a term replacing another term, and clearly not an agency) and the "Internal Revenue Service" which is the name replacing the "Bureau of Internal Revenue", which bureau appears to have been established in the Philippines in 1904. If the Bureau of Internal Revenue from the Philippine Commission of 1904 is the same Bureau of Internal Revenue which was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" in 1953, then please provide documents clarifying that fact, and please then explain to us how a Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue, alias (renamed) "Internal Revenue Service", is relevant to a Citizen of the United States of America.

Since your Web page makes the public pronouncement that the "tax collection agency" of which you are the head was "created" in 1862, certainly you, as the head of this alleged agency, which posted this public pronouncement to your Web page, should be easily and immediately able to produce the documents which support your pronouncement. If you cannot, then you are disseminating incorrect and misleading information through your Web site. Relevant to our needing documentation to support pronouncements by the government: please be advised of the following:

"No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, 'to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.'" MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978, Em Ct App)573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 us 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.

Please do not respond to the above request by citing 26 USC §7802 or 26 USC §7803. As we have stated, 26 USC §7802 merely authorizes the establishment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (not the Commissioner of IRS) and does not reveal the establishment of either a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" or of an agency known as "Internal Revenue Service." 26 USC §7803 authorizes the employment of "such persons as the Secretary [of the Treasury] deems proper for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws..." but certainly does not reveal the establishment of an agency called "Internal Revenue Service." 26 USC §7802 and §7803 also raise these questions:

Is the "Secretary" referred to in 26 USC §7803 the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America, or the Secretary of the Treasury of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, and what statutes or other documents clarify this?
Are the "internal revenue laws" referred to in 26 USC §7803 the same "internal revenue laws" which are relevant to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act? If they are not, then what statutes or other documents clarify this?
We are also requesting that you inform us where in the Department of the Treasury (of the United States, not of Puerto Rico) "Internal Revenue Service" is located and listed as an agency, and provide us with the statutes to verify its establishment and location therein.

Finally, we are also asking you to provide us with a clear and statutorily supported statement which clarifies exactly which internal revenue laws "generally located" in the entire Internal Revenue Code are relevant to anything other than and/or in addition to the enforcement of Title III of the National Prohibition Act (which was moved to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) and an explanation of why all seized property is handed over to the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms). We also need to know why the Transaction Code 150, designating Virgin Islands, is posted to the IMF whenever a Form 1040 is filed, or a SFR is filed by IRS.

Since this letter contains questions of profound personal and national importance, we request that you provide us with the requested answers as soon as possible, or within the amount of time allotted for an information letter pursuant to the instant Revenue Rulings. Failing a response within that time period, we shall conclude that you can find no such statute(s) responsive to our request, nor responses to our other questions, and we shall act accordingly. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, ______________________ __________________________

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

Appendix:

Two final questions that have yet to be answered:

1) When a person doing work for an "employer" as either a private contractor or an "employee" refuses to give that "employer" a Social Security Number, IRS customarily tells the "employer" to execute what is called "back-up withholding," usually at a rate of 31%.

Since no Social Security Number has been provided, and since individual citizens' IRS and Social Security "accounts" are all listed by Social Security Numbers, to what specific account is this "back-up withholding" money credited? Where exactly does the money go, and what happens to it? How long is it held, and by whose authority? What System of Records (SOR) references this "back-up withholding?"

2) In the instruction booklet for filling out and signing a Form 1040 which published by the IRS is the following statement: "We may disclose your tax information to the Department of Justice, to enforce the tax laws, both civil and criminal, and to cities, states, the District of Columbia, U.S. commonwealths or possessions, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax laws. We may disclose your tax information to the Department of Treasury and contractors for tax administrations purposes; and to other persons as necessary to obtain information which we cannot get in any other way in order to determine the amount of or to collect any tax you owe. We may disclose your tax information to the Comptroller General of the United States to permit the Comptroller General to review the Internal Revenue Service. We may also disclose your tax information to Committees of Congress; Federal, state and local child support agencies and to other Federal agencies for the purposes of determining entitlement for benefits or the eligibility for and the repayment of loans."

The above-cited statement appears to us to be tantamount to a "Miranda warning," which essentially tells us that we have the right to remain silent, but that, if we give up that right, anything we say can and will be used against us in a court of law.

The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states: "No person...shall be compelled in criminal case to be a witness against himself..." It is obvious that the "Miranda warning" derives directly from the Fifth Amendment.

Our questions relating to the statement cited above are this:

Can any of the information we provide on a Form 1040 be used as testimony against us in any criminal action against us?
If the information we provide on a Form 1040 can be used against us in a criminal action, how can we fill out and sign a Form 1040 under penalty of perjury without waiving our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? If IRS is compelling us, by compelling us to fill out a statement of testimony against ourselves in the form of a Form 1040, to be witnesses against ourselves in a criminal case, what law gives IRS and its personnel the right to force us to waive our Fifth Amendment right that clearly states that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself?

In U.S. v. Loren C. Troescher No. CV-93-5736 SVW, the court ruled that Troescher — who was already alleged to have failed to file an income tax return, and was under criminal suspicion - had the right to refuse to give information to IRS - information which included, among other things, his Social Security Number, birth date, marital status, and any financial information, because such information could be used against him criminally. The court stated: "If a direct answer would support a conviction or provide a link in the chain of evidence leading to a conviction Defendant cannot be compelled to answer the question." Troescher, 99 F.2d at 934-35 (citing Hoffman V. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).

All in all, Troescher lawfully took the Fifth Amendment on a total of thirty-three questions, some of them multiple, some of which were as follows:

Have you ever used Social Security Number 567-44-3458?
Do you know who is assigned Social Security number 567-44-3458?
What is your date and place or birth? How long have you lived at your current address?
Do you have any plans to move from your current address?
Are you a U.S. Citizen?
What is your date, place and name of court if naturalized?
What is your marital status? Are you single, married, divorced or separated?
What is your wife's maiden name, date and place of marriage?
What are the names, dates of birth and Social Security Numbers of your children?
What is the extent of your education, year of high school graduation, college, trade schools attended, diplomas obtained, professional certifications held, etc.?
The court stated:

"The Court notes that the assertion of the privilege as to questions 5 and 6, which pertain to Defendant's tenure at his current residence and relocation plans (or lack thereof) is questionable. However, Defendant's tenure at his current residence is easily obtainable from other sources, including public records. Therefore, even if Defendant could be compelled to answer this question, the government is not prejudiced by Defendant's refusal to answer... Similarly, the Court fails to see the relevance of Defendant's relocation plans to this investigation. Thus, Defendant will not be compelled to answer either question, despite legitimate arguments as to whether they fall within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

This number is not Defendant's social security number, which he is willing to provide.
Defendant provided his address.
"B - Occupational Questions

"As with the questions pertaining to Defendant's personal life, questions seeking information regarding Defendant's occupation may also lead to incriminating evidence, The answers to each of the following questions could conceivably lead to the discovery of evidence showing that Defendant received income which he has not, to date, reported to the IRS.

"Accordingly, Defendant properly asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege as to the following questions:

What is your occupation?
Have you had any other occupations in previous years?
Did you file tax returns for the years 1986 through 1991? Did you file any federal income tax returns for any Partnership, joint venture, corporation or fiduciary, which was also known as a trust, both foreign or domestic for the 1986 through 1991 tax periods?
Have you ever engaged in a business as a sole proprietor?
Have you ever owned any interest in any Partnership, foreign or domestic, as a general or limited partner?
Have you ever owned any interest in any corporation both foreign or domestic?
Have you engaged in any other business or any joint ventures since the periods mentioned above?
C - Financial Questions

"Finally, Defendant objects to questions pertaining to his assets, banking practices and production of business records, These questions are clearly subject to Fifth Amendment protection:

What banks were business and personal accounts maintained by you and your related businesses for the 1986 through 1991 tax Periods?
What was the largest amount of cash or currency which you had at any time at your home, in a safe deposit or place other than on deposit in a bank?
Do you keep your cash or other assets hidden in a mattress, buried in a backyard or kept in other non conventional places?
Please list all assets purchased during the 1986 through 1991 tax periods. These purchases should include but not be limited to real estate, stocks, bonds, personal property exceeding $1,000?
Have you ever submitted a statement of your assets and liabilities to any bank concern or individual?
Have you ever loaned any money to any person or firm during the 1986 through 1991 tax periods?
Please disclose all sources of income during the 1986 through 1991 tax periods that you received and/or earned, including income from taxable and non-taxable sources.
Have you or your spouse made any investments or acquired any assets in the 1986 through 1991 tax Periods which have not been discussed during this interview?
Have you or your spouse received any income from any source during the 1986 through 1991 tax periods which has not been discussed during this interview?
Has anyone as a favor to you or in any way, held for you any real property, personal property, cash, currency or anything of value?
Will your books and records and the books and records of your related entities be made available for examination by any agent of the IRS?
Will you agree to submit a statement of your assets and liabilities as of the beginning of 1986 through the end of 1991?
Will you agree to submit a statement of estimated personal and family living expenses for the 1986 through 1991 tax periods?
"The Court has considered each of the questions and document requests put to Defendant and concludes that Defendant properly invoked his Fifth-Amendment privilege in each instance. Accordingly, the government's motion to compel Defendant's answer is DENIED."

How is it that the government is permitted to compel persons to give it information under penalty of perjury on a Form 1040 (see - among others - particularly questions #9, 11, 27, 32 and 33 above) - information that can then be used in a criminal action against the person being compelled to provide it on the Form 1040?

As the court stated: "If a direct answer would support a conviction or provide a link in the chain of evidence leading to a conviction Defendant cannot be compelled to answer the question."

Credit: www.CuriousEvidence.com