You are welcome. I found it informative also. It answered questions I had about ‘special law’. I have seen the words ‘special law’ bandied about on the forum where posters said they practiced special law and oft wondered what it was. It would appear that the ‘special law’ referred to by Disclosure Officer Cynthia J. Mills is none other than ‘private law’ referred to in the article. Perhaps it is also what is known as administrative law.

Point, 43 - Response from the United States Treasury, Disclosure Officer Cynthia J. Mills that reads: “The internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is SPECIAL LAW. It applies to specific persons in the United States who CHOOSE to make themselves subject to the requirements of the SPECIAL LAWS in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement with the U.S. Government.” (See exhibit “H”)
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...e-andyk-5.html

The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59.

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).

A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS AN EXAMPLE OF PRIVATE LAW WHICH DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.