[weishaupt1776]

This premise is a sure loser in court.

People want it to say something which it does not.

• 6331. Levy and distraint
  
  
  -STATUTE-
  
  
  (a) Authority of Secretary
  
  
  If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay
  
  
  the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful
  
  
  for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as
  
  
  shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon
  
  
  all property and rights to property (except such property as is
  
  
  exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which
  
  
  there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such
  
  
  tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any
  
  
  officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the
  
  
  District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the
  
  
  United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of
  
  
  levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such
  
  
  officer, employee, or elected official.

It starts out w/ "any person"
then it it says "may be made" on (fed) employees

There is no language or grammatical device which confines "any person liable" to the realm of "Fed employees"
You would have to show through statutory construction/legislative intent that only Fed employees are liable for a Subtitle A tax to support this proposition.
What if there was some code that forced a presumption that you are a federal Employee( as far as they are concerned), even though you didn't know about it?
What if the judge took silent judicial notice of this, but declined to tell you?

I could say
"Any person liable" shall buy Weis some Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream.
Sandra Bullock may bring Weis some Ice Cream.