|
I think the official notes to Title 26 do not show any sources earlier than the Tax Code of 1954 when the entire title was re-enacted as if positive law (whether it actually was enacted as positive law seems to be a topic of some quibbling, certainly Congress enacted the whole Title 26 with all its sections at that time, and since then has made amendments directly to the Title). The official notes are not intended to trace the entire "philosophical ancestry" of a section - otherwise we'd not only have a reference to the text as of 1874 but also references to much earlier Acts.
The essay linked in the first message also has a line about some sections of the Tax Code not have "enabling regulations". In fact, the sections mentioned are pretty much self-executing and don't require any fine-tuning from regulations. More important, a statute does not require a related regulation to be effective. The regulations are worked up by the executive departments and agencies, and it would be contrary to the Constitution if the executive could sabotage an Act of Congress simply by neglecting to adopt a corresponding regulation. I have explained why the Internal Revenue regulations don't have the brief "authority note" (which mentions an underlying statute) found in the other titles of regulations in the CFR; I should also mention that the authority note, when it appears, is deliberately very brief and usually mentions only one law, even though a single regulatory section may be derived from or relate to several statutes. Sometimes there is no authority note, but the body of the regulation itself contains some reference to the relevant statute. While a regulation must comply with the statutes, there is no requirement that the regulation must also identify all, or even any, of the statutes it relates to. The courts have held that the authority notes in the CFR are a mere convenience provided by the editors and not legally decisive.
|