current title 26 linked to statutes at large

[cdsea10]

this web link to the awesome letter misapplication of title 26: http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/no...ticeOfLEVY.pdf . the author links current tilte 26 sections back to the original statutes at large which shows the original taxable activity intent of the statute. "thereby refuting and rebutting the section for collection of income taxes and therefor legal presumption of evidence of law is removed.."

does anyone know of a source(s) that go into this depth?

[weishaupt1776]

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...statutes+large

[REDCLOUD]

this web link to the awesome letter misapplication of title 26: http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/no...ticeOfLEVY.pdf . the author links current tilte 26 sections back to the original statutes at large which shows the original taxable activity intent of the statute. "thereby refuting and rebutting the section for collection of income taxes and therefor legal presumption of evidence of law is removed.."

does anyone know of a source(s) that go into this depth?

This is one of the most imaginative pieces of fantasy I have ever read. It cites title 27 part 70, which deals with the prohibition amendment which has mostly been repealed, as its source of the alleged "mistake". The notices, demands, and referrals to congresmen are meaningless. Refuting and rebutting a collection action in this form has no effect, as no valid cite of any case law or other statute or reg was cited. This is simply saying there is no law because I refute and rebute it.
This would never stop a collection proceeding and might get you referred to a treasury agent for a review as a tax protestor or get sent to criminal investigations for review. Not a good result. Anybody that gets to a point of getting these kind of letters has missed the point anyway.

When what isn't becomes more important than what is, everything comes to a stop.

[Shoonra]

Redcloud is right. This "awesome letter" is fanciful but useless.

The author of the letter appears to have picked up the legal rule that the U.S. Code titles, if not enacted into positive law, are mere prima facie evidence of the law. But he clearly doesn't know what tht rule means.

The US Code is an effort to present the law as it exists now, with any amendments, and in logical arrangement. To do that, editors had to do some revision and rearrangement of sections of the original Acts of Congress. It may be that an editor erred in revising a section (e.g., he might have overlooked an amendment or reworded it in some significant way), in which case the text from the original Act of Congress, as amended by any others Acts of Congress, is the positive evidence of the text of the law. The Acts of Congress are published in the Statutes at Large.

The burden of proof is on the party challenging the accuracy of the U.S. Code text; he has to present the evidence, from the Statutes at Large, to show that the US Code text is in error. Otherwise the US Code text is accepted as authoritative.

Enacting a US Code title into positive law means that Congress enacts, as a huge Act of Congress, a bill which sets out the text of all the sections of the Code title. Then the text of the Code title is known to be positively the wording approved by Congress. After that, amendments in subsequent Acts are made directly to the text of the Code rather than to a specific previous Act.

Title 26 of the US Code, which is also known as the Internal Revenue Code, apparently has not been enacted as positive law. I say "apparently" because Title 26 is not explicitly listed in the official notes of the US Code as having been enacted as positive law but, on the other hand, recent amendment to the tax laws have referenced Title 26 sections rather than distinct Acts of Congress. The presumption that the Title 26 sections accurately reflect the applicable Acts of Congress is not negated by the mere chanting that "Legal presumption of lawful authority of sec. 6201 ... is hereby refuted and rebutted"; evidence from Statutes at Large is required to undermine the presumption.

And the author of this letter has no such evidence. He said that "Section 6201 ... is derived from sec. 3182 of [the] Revised Statutes of 1874 ..... The intent of Congress has not changed as there has been no amendment to the Statute[s] at Large to date." Apparently the letter-writer thinks that the a volume of Statutes at Large, issued for the Acts of a particular year, will be recalled and replaced with a newer volume that shows subsequent amendments. He is wrong. The official notes {worked up by the House of Representative Law Revision Counsel) to 26 USC 6201 give the earliest source for this section, the adoption of the Tax Code of 1954 (which completely replaced the Tax Code of 1939, which, in turn, had completely replaced earlier tax codes), amended since 1954 by more than a dozen Acts. No mention of the Revised Statutes of 1874. The Revised Statutes sec. 3182 is a shorter provision which may have been the precursor of the current section 6201 but it is clear from the citations of all the Public Laws in the official note that there have been plenty of amendments.

The same defect is found in the letter-writer's discussion of sec. 6331.

His next big error is when he tries to relate (or, more to the point, disconnect) the corresponding Internal Revenue regulations which are title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations. He uses the tables of statutes set out in the index volume of the CFR. It's an understandable mistake.

Every regulation in the CFR - not just title 26 - must comply with federal law (the Acts of Congress). The CFR provides a little note of the underlying statute (or US Code section) for almost every regulation section -- but that note is a convenience by the CFR editors and not dispositive of the legal situation of the regulation. In the case of the Internal Revenue regulations, until about 1964 the CFR's Title 26 volume (unlike the other titles) contained the whole of the Internal Revenue Code (tite 26 of the US Code), each US Code section followed by its corresponding regulation, so the regulations had numbers that pretty clearly connected them to the underlying 26 US Code section -- and the CFR editors saw no need to provide a referential note. But, around 1964, the CFR dropped reprinting the text of 36 US Code and simply kept the regulations, with their accustomed section numbers but without the statutory sections. That being the situation, the CFR editors didn't bother working up referential notes for the Internal Revenue regulations because their section numbers so clearly indicated the appropriate sections of 26 U.S. Code.

The letter-writer erroneously assumes that this decision by the CFR editors works to invalidate the legality of the regulations in 26 CFR. He is wrong.

In short, the letter-writer reveals the shallowness of his understanding of the bibliographic technicalities of the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. I would say this serves as evidence that he is an amateur without legal training, but unfortunately I frequently see evidence that law schools around the country have changed their legal research courses from required to elective.

[REDCLOUD]

No mention of the Revised Statutes of 1874.

Thanks, nice explantion of how the editing process works.

I assume there is no mention of the 1874 Statutes in the references because it predates the income tax?

[SKYGZR]

http://www.irs.gov/irm/ they have removed Title 25 from their index, imagine that.

Also, check out the attached pdf file to this post.

[cdsea10]

the forums are so important to new people like myself who have read alot but not enough.
i found that pdf file and it looked good to me and it went into areas i had not been able to find the sources. being at a loss but wanting conformation one way or the other, i posted it here.
thanks for all the input.
thanks shoonra for the excellent work.
thanks 'sui-juris' for having a place to come and ask and learn.

[Shoonra]

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.

[weishaupt1776]

Yup, the "implementing regulations" position is a sure loser