enacted irs code vs not enacted title 26

[cdsea10]

in the quest to read all that i can, i found....
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law at the paragraph... "The Internal Revenue Code is not law".

basically he says in the last sentence: "So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code has not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant. "

the irc has the enacting clause and title 26 does not have the enacting clause... why does title 26 need to have enacting clause?

he made some assumptions i didn't find... title 26 "has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code". i have never found the statement "is evidence of" in the copy i read... so he is wrong in this statement.

another assumption - he says: "a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant law, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code." again, title 26 hasn't been enacted so there is no statue at large to go... so he is off base here.

my question is: irc enacted vs not enacted title 26 and is irc enacted a statute now only referencing irc and title 26 has to have its own enacting clause creating a statue hence reference?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by cdsea10

in the quest to read all that i can, i found....
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law at the paragraph... "The Internal Revenue Code is not law".

basically he says in the last sentence: "So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code has not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant. "

the irc has the enacting clause and title 26 does not have the enacting clause... why does title 26 need to have enacting clause?

he made some assumptions i didn't find... title 26 "has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code". i have never found the statement "is evidence of" in the copy i read... so he is wrong in this statement.

another assumption - he says: "a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant law, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code." again, title 26 hasn't been enacted so there is no statue at large to go... so he is off base here.

my question is: irc enacted vs not enacted title 26 and is irc enacted a statute now only referencing irc and title 26 has to have its own enacting clause creating a statue hence reference?

If you've ever looked at the Statutes at Large you would get confused. Why? Because the Statutes at Large are a chronological compilation of the laws that have been enacted by Congress. The laws (and amendments to the laws) are scattered chronologically throughout the various volumes.

So that there can be some order to the madness, the Code is compiled. They take the statutes in the Statutes at Large, arrange them by title, and put the laws relating to various subjects in order in the Code.

Thus, the Code is, at least, a representation of the laws that have been passed. Each section of the Code is based on a statute that was passed and can be found in the Statutes at Large.

The Code is more for convenience than anything else.

You could go look up the laws in the Statutes at Large ... but then you have to trace down the amendments, figure out what the current statute would say, etc. In other words, it would be very difficult to track all that down. Hence, they made it easy by codifying the Statutes at Large into the Code.

That is why the Code is "prima facie" evidence of the law (it is supposed to be an accurate reflection of the Statutes at Large). See 1 USC 204.

The Statutes at Large are themselves "evidence" of the law (they were the actual statutes which were passed). See 1 USC 112.

Now, say that the person writing up the Code makes a mistake in the transferring of the text from the Statutes at Large to the Code. If there's a conflict, the Statutes control because the statutes are "evidence" of the law. The Code is "prima facie" evidence of the law - meaning that if you can show that the Code has a mistake, the Statutes will control.

A further wrinkle is that sometimes Congress enacts the title of the Code as "positive law". This is usually done for those titles of the Code which don't undergo a lot of change. The only effect this has is that instead of being "prima facie" evidence of the law, that title of the Code is now "evidence" of the law. See 1 USC 204.

That DOES NOT mean that those titles of the Code which weren't enacted as "positive law" are not law ... it merely means that those titles are "prima facie" evidence of the law. What's the practical difference? Nothing really. Those titles of the code which weren't enacted into "positive law" are still backed by statutes in the Statutes at Large which ARE evidence of the law. The "positive law" titles of the Code are evidence of the law. The other titles of the Code are backed by the Statutes at Large which are also evidence of the law.

[cdsea10]

to try and clarify my question in the opening post and the remarks from the web page listed in the original post... the internat revenue code [irc] has the enacting code... does that enacting code elevate it to statute or relates the irc to a statute? what is significance of irc having the enacting clause?

the united states code has 50 titles which is the organization of the various laws and amendments dealing with the 50 titles brought together in one volume. some of those titles have enacting codes [and therefore relate to a specific statute] and are positive law. some do not have enacting clauses and no reference statute and hence prima facia.

as per the original quote in 1st post. since the irc has enacting code does the title 26 needs enacting code? is he saying since irc is enacted therefore title 25 relates to irc? the quoted web site states that the irc having enacting code matters and elevates it. if so ~~ how ? if not, why?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by cdsea10

to try and clarify my question in the opening post and the remarks from the web page listed in the original post... the internat revenue code [irc] has the enacting code... does that enacting code elevate it to statute or relates the irc to a statute? what is significance of irc having the enacting clause?

the united states code has 50 titles which is the organization of the various laws and amendments dealing with the 50 titles brought together in one volume. some of those titles have enacting codes [and therefore relate to a specific statute] and are positive law. some do not have enacting clauses and no reference statute and hence prima facia.

as per the original quote in 1st post. since the irc has enacting code does the title 26 needs enacting code? is he saying since irc is enacted therefore title 25 relates to irc? the quoted web site states that the irc having enacting code matters and elevates it. if so ~~ how ? if not, why?

The underlying statutes upon which Title 26 is based do have an enacting clause. The enacting language is reproduced in the notes to Title 26.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1_26notes.html

[idknow]

I've read in the code, both in print and the bits, that when Congress's work is "codifed" from what the President signed, the codifying-team takes liberties with the text that are beyond fixing spelink, syntax and punctuation errors. They leave out parts of the original that they alone think can or should be left out and it always leaves me wondering if they're removing something significant.

Btw, if you ever found the url to the zipfiles of the titles of code, A-Z, know that the contents of those files change without <geek-mode> any notice of diff-patches or Changelog entries</geek-mode> so that once one realises that, one must grab them regularly.

http://uscode.house.gov/download

my last download of them all was 2005 Oct. 7
your anointed brother idknow.
--

Originally Posted by cdsea10

in the quest to read all that i can, i found....
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law at the paragraph... "The Internal Revenue Code is not law".

basically he says in the last sentence: "So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code has not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant. "

the irc has the enacting clause and title 26 does not have the enacting clause... why does title 26 need to have enacting clause?

he made some assumptions i didn't find... title 26 "has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code". i have never found the statement "is evidence of" in the copy i read... so he is wrong in this statement.

another assumption - he says: "a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant law, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code." again, title 26 hasn't been enacted so there is no statue at large to go... so he is off base here.

my question is: irc enacted vs not enacted title 26 and is irc enacted a statute now only referencing irc and title 26 has to have its own enacting clause creating a statue hence reference?

[cdsea10]

thanks B Rookard... so title 26 is the codification of the irc code which is the statute for title 26 because the irc was enacted by congress.

1st- so if congress decides to make changes the irc, then would they do a major overhaul of the 1986 as they did in 1986 of the 1954 and pass the new version of the irc with a current date?

2nd - then the ststutized irc can't not be modified by congress or the irs because it is the statutized law.

3dr - title 26 of the ucs could be altered because it is the prima facia of the statutized irc.n and if one looked up something in title 26 - one would go to the irc becaused it is the statutized law?

this stuff is convoluted...

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by cdsea10

thanks B Rookard... so title 26 is the codification of the irc code which is the statute for title 26 because the irc was enacted by congress.

1st- so if congress decides to make changes the irc, then would they do a major overhaul of the 1986 as they did in 1986 of the 1954 and pass the new version of the irc with a current date?

Well, they might do that if there were a large number of changes. Actually, the 1986 Act were amendments to the 1954 code, not a wholesale rewrite.

For small changes, they just pass the statute (which can be found in the Statutes at Large), and the Code is updated to reflect the changes.

2nd - then the ststutized irc can't not be modified by congress or the irs because it is the statutized law.

Well, I don't know why you would think that. New laws are passed all the time. Congress can always change the law. And of course, the IRS cannot change the law. The best that the Secretary or Commissioner might do is to change the regulations to reflect the changes in the laws.

The old laws which have been repealed are still in the Statutes at Large. The Statutes at Large are the ongoing publication of the enacted laws. One doesn't "change" the Statutes at Large ... Congress just passes the latest law, and its published in the Statutes at Large.

It is the Code which is updated and modified.

3dr - title 26 of the ucs could be altered because it is the prima facia of the statutized irc.n and if one looked up something in title 26 - one would go to the irc becaused it is the statutized law?

It is not "because" the Code is prima facie evidence of the law that it can be changed. It is modified when new statutes are passed.

Furthermore, one can generally rely on Title 26 to be an accurate representation of the statutes in the Statutes at Large. If you happen to find a difference between the two, then it is the Statutes at Large which control.

this stuff is convoluted...

Nah ... some tax protestors like to make it harder than it actually is.

[cdsea10]

for a fleeing moment B Rookard's explaination had me in the light....
but your last post through me back into the abiss.

i am trying to understand the line of progression...
the statutes at large are top and unfortunately are published where we can't reading them easily... where does the the enacted irc stand in relation to title 26 with has a footnote relating to the irc.
will the irc and title 26 be a mirror of each other?
i know when i look up a section in title 26 on the right side it has a link to the parallel authority in the code of federal regulations if there is one.
thnak you for your patience...

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by cdsea10

for a fleeing moment B Rookard's explaination had me in the light....
but your last post through me back into the abiss.

i am trying to understand the line of progression...
the statutes at large are top and unfortunately are published where we can't reading them easily... where does the the enacted irc stand in relation to title 26 with has a footnote relating to the irc.
will the irc and title 26 be a mirror of each other?
i know when i look up a section in title 26 on the right side it has a link to the parallel authority in the code of federal regulations if there is one.
thnak you for your patience...

The enacted "Internal Revenue Code" is in the Statutes at Large itself.

The "Internal Revenue Code of 1954" was the name of the act in the Statutes at Large. Kinda like the "Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1996" (making one up) is merely the name that Congress gave to that statute. Don't be confused merely because they called it the "Internal Revenue Code". It was legislation which was enacted and published in the Statutes at Large.

For example, the IRC of 1954 was enacted and published in Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large.

That code was then codified and replaced the entire Title 26 of the USC.

As new legislation was passed to amend the IRC of 1954, that legislation was published in the Statutes at Large ... and then they update Title 26 of the USC to reflect the changes.

Think of Title 26 as the constantly updated document, and all the individual statutes in the Statutes at Large as directing what changes get made and are reflected in Title 26.

In other words ...

(Original IRC in Statutes at Large) + (amending legislation in Statutes at Large) ---> (compiled into Title 26 of USC).

[cdsea10]

thanks - that helped. charlie