Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law and federal witness
c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776
Tucson, Arizona state
zip code exempt
 
Under Protest and by Special Visitation
with explicit reservation of all rights
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 
 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
 
 
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ) Case No. GJ-95-1-6
SERVED ON )
NEW LIFE HEALTH CENTER COMPANY ) NOTICE OF CLERICAL
 ) UPDATE TO MISCELLANEOUS
_______________________________) EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY FILED
 
 
COMES NOW Paul Andrew, Mitchell, Sui Juris, Sovereign Arizona
 
Citizen (hereinafter "Counsel") and Vice President for Legal
 
Affairs of New Life Health Center Company, an Unincorporated
 
Business Trust domiciled in the Arizona Republic (hereinafter the
 
"Company"), to provide notice to all interested parties of the
 
attached update to a matter of material evidence in the
 
MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBITS which were attached to the NOTICE OF OFFER
 
WITHDRAWAL; PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR RECONSIDERATION, FOR
 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; WITH POINTS AND
 
AUTHORITIES previously executed and served on May 14, 1996 and
 
filed in the instant case immediately thereafter. The updated
 
MISCELLANEOUS EXHIBIT follows:
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 1 of 21

 Memorandum in Support of Administrative Appeals,
 Civil Litigation &/or Criminal Complaints
 
 This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely
to provide all interested parties with sufficient information to
constitute notice, and thereby compel due diligence necessary for
determining law which governs the conduct of the various parties.
Each matter at issue is being treated with as much brevity as
possible. Should it be necessary to independently pursue
administrative and/or judicial remedies, matters set out below,
anchored in published law, court cases, and other government
publications, and privately published material to which the
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice, and other
government agencies have acquiesced, will be deemed accurate and
sufficient cause for action, should Internal Revenue Service
officers or agents and/or interested third parties fail to rebut
supporting contentions with legal authorities and other needful
documentation adequate to overcome assertions herein.
 
 This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions
necessary to establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of
Evidence, and attending State rules) should interested parties
fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed
herein. The memorandum is construed as adequate to meet
requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law.
Application of matters established herein will be construed to
have general application.
 
 
 1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest
 
 In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the
stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the
name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (T.O. No. 150-29, G.M.
Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no
congressional or presidential authorization for making this
change has been located, so the source of authority had to
originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials have
acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as
trustee of Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC
Sec. 1321), and as will be demonstrated, the Secretary does, in
fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.
 
 The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in
the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research
by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In
October, a criminal complaint was filed in the office of W.A.
Drew Edmondson, Attorney General for Oklahoma, against an Enid-
based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have
failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the
Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico. In November, criminal
sanctions were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the
United States district court for the District of Northern
Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmondson,
and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS
principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance
(United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore et al., 95 CR-129C).
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 2 of 21

 By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the
United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United
States Department of the Treasury. The fact that Congress never
created a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is confirmed by
publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971
- 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490;
and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.
 
 Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties
who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: no legitimate
authority resides in, or emanates from, an office which was not
legitimately created and/or ordained either by state or national
constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United
States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v.
Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir., 1943); where the
state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was
State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
 
 Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR Sec.
1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that
Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the
United States Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional.
Administration of the Act was subsequently moved off-shore to
Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration, and
operation eventually merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Philippines, created by the Philippines provisional
government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31
USC Sec. 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal
revenue)), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue
collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines). This line
will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning
IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.
 
 Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority
in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules, beginning at page 751 of the 1995 Index
volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that
there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC Secs. 7621, 7801,
7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table).
In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal
Register, extending authority to the several States and the
population at  large: (1) to establish revenue districts within
the several States, (2) extending authority of the Department of
the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3) giving
authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants
within the several States, or (4) extending authority of any
other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.
 
 Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is convoluted in regulations,
but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations
pertaining to the Service and application of the Commissioner's
authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR Sec. 601.101(a)
provide a beginning point:
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 3 of 21

 (a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of
 the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction
 of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner
 has general superintendence of the assessment and collection
 of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue.
 The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these
 functions are performed ....
 
  The fact that there are no regulations extending
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or Department of the Treasury
authority to the several States (26 USC Sec. 7802(a)), has
greater clarity in the light of the general merging of functions
between IRS and other agencies presently attached to the
Department of the Treasury. The link between IRS and the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant because the tie
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury,
Puerto Rico, is through this door. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1940, Section 2, made the following change:
 
 Sec. 2. Federal Alcohol Administration
 The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the
 members thereof, and the office of the Administrator are
 abolished, and their function shall be administered under
 the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the
 Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the
 Department of the Treasury.
 
 Again, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was
declared unconstitutional in 1935, and the operation thereafter
transferred off-shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service in
1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, a division of the Internal Revenue Service, was
seemingly separated from IRS (T.O. 120-01, June 6, 1972). In
relevant part, the order reads as follows:
 
 1. The purpose of this order is to transfer, as specified
 herein, the functions, powers and duties of the
 Internal Revenue Service arising under law relating to
 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the
 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal
 Revenue Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
 Firearms herein after referred to as the Bureau which
 is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by
 the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
 herein referred to as the Director ....
 
 2. The Director shall perform the functions, exercise the
 powers and carry out the duties of the Secretary and
 the administration and the enforcement of the following
 provisions of law:
 
 A. Chapters 51 and 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of
 1954 and Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as
 they relate to the commodity subject to the tax under
 such chapters.
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 4 of 21

 B. Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue
 Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities
 administered and enforced with respect to chapter 51,
 52, 53. [emphasis added]
 
 Transfer of functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to
Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important
where the instant matter is concerned as the only regulations
published in the Federal Register applicable to the several
States are under 27 C.F.R., Part 70, and other parts of this
title relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms
matters. However, the charade doesn't end there. In
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC Sec. 903), the original
Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress in 1895, was
abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury.
 
 In a Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of
December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the Treasury used something
of a slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, "The
term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has been replaced
with the term Internal Revenue Service."
 
 Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing
when it comes to administrative responsibility. However, the
order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely
operating with interchangeable hats. Therefore, definitions and
designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.
 
 In definitions at 27 CFR Sec. 250.11, the following
provisions are fond:
 
 Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal
 Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto
 Rico.
 
 Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
 
 Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or
 employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico
 duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function
 mentioned or described in this part.
 
 In the absence of any other definition describing revenue
officers and agents, the Secretary, or the Department of the
Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to all IRS
an BATF departments, functions and personnel.  In fact, it will
be found that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the
Internal Revenue Code applies only to the United States
territorial jurisdiction exclusive of the several States, and to
imported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to
firearms, munitions, etc., produced outside the several States
and the first sale of imports.
 
 To date, only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as currently amended, have been located that specifically
reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States
(District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
etc.): 26 USC Secs. 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two
provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
  Page 5 of 21

relating to imported distilled spirits for governments of the
several States and their respective political subdivisions, and
the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax
Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the
United States and the several States. None of the three statutes
extends assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF
within the several States.
 
 IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the
Agency for International Development, and case law demonstrates
that the true principals of interest are the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank of the United States v.
Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242; see 22 USCA Sec. 286, et seq.). In other words, IRS
seemingly provides collection services for undisclosed foreign
principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the
benefit of constitutional United States government operations.
To date, IRS principals have failed to dispute the published
Cooper/Bentson allegation that the agency, via these foreign
principals, funded the enormous tank and military truck factory
on the Kama River, Russia.
 
 The Internal Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect
to the several States, is not registered to do business in the
several States.
 
 
 2. Preservation of Due Process Rights
 
 The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by
statutory courts both of the United States and the several
States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted
uniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the several
States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress' Article
IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate
private international law  under exclusively United States
treaties on private international law, and both operate in the
framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both
majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan,
U.S. Supreme Court  No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996), which is
repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority
of Department of Justice as representative of the "Central
Authority" established by U.S. treaties on private international
law at 28 CFR Sec. 0.49; also, "conflict of laws" as a
subcategory to "statutes" in American Jurisprudence). However,
this house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism,
known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly
documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United
States appellate courts and in public forum.
 
 In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process
rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 6 of 21

  [Sec. 7804(b)]
 
 (b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. --
 Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or
 Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered
 to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to
 recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been
 erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any
 penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or
 any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner
 wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For
 the purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty,
 or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to
 the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for
 the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be
 deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to
 in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The
 venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing
 law.
 
 The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at
Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Code.
Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but
generally not understood by the general population or the legal
profession. The statute set out above is easier to comprehend
when references are consolidated. Further, the dependent clause
"including trial by jury" relates to a constitutionally assured
right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location
in the sentence Finally, the matter of venue is important as
"existing law" is constitutional and common law indigenous to the
several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which
extends to the several States, those who operate under color of
law, engage in oppression, extortion, etc., are subject to the
foundation law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of
legislative jurisdiction.
 
 Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of
due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States
of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the
several States. The example represents the class.
 
 Additionally, note that: (1) actions may issue against
bogus assessments as well as collections, and (2) Sec. 7804(b),
unlike Sec. 7433, does not presume that the complaining party is
a "taxpayer". Finally, there is 26 C.F.R., Part 1 regulatory
support for Sec. 7804 where there are no regulations published in
the Federal Register in support of Sec. 7433 (see Parallel Table
of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index
volume to the Code of Federal Regulations). Therefore, Sec.
7804(b) preserves rights and determines the nature of civil
actions for remedies in the several States. When straightened
out, applicable portions of Sec. 7804(b) read as follows:
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 7 of 21

 Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered
 to impair any right, [including trial by jury], or remedy,
 [**], to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have
 been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ....
 The venue of any such action shall be the same as under
 existing law.
 
The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC
2463, which stipulates that any seizure under United States
revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject
solely to disposition of courts of the United States with proper
jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate
authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity
have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment,
seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty
or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment
citizen-subject of the United States, or a Citizen principal of
one of the several States. Due process assurances in the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate -- administrative
seizures without due process can be equated only to tyranny and
barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct
acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at
26 CFR Sec. 601.106(f)(1).
 
 (1) Rule 1. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is
 not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of
 property without due process of law, in violation of the
 Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an
 Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or
 application of the law, shall hew to the law and the
 recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his
 or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with
 strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the
 Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as
 between taxpayers.
 
 Even officers, agents and employees of United States
agencies are assured due process where garnishment is concerned
(5 USC Sec. 5520(a)), so the notion that IRS has authority to
execute garnishment and other seizures via the private sector
without due process is clearly absurd. In the English-American
lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury
under rules of the common law indigenous to the several States;
the de jure people of America are not subject to admiralty or
administrative tribunals.
 
 In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiative
through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly
antecedent to imposition of administratively issued liens, except
where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether
by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative
seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other
initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 8 of 21

 3. Current Internal Revenue Code
 & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same
 
 Consult 26 USC 7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since, simply
reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read Sec. 7852(b)
& (c), then read the balance of Secs. 7851 & 7852 for best
comprehension.
 
 The importance of making this connection rests on the fact
that the  Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely a codification
of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. There was no general
income tax levied against the population at large in 1939 or
since. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal
Revenue Code of 1939 incorporated the Social Security tax
activated after 1936, was premised on the notion that working for
the federal government is a privilege. Income and related taxes
prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the current Internal Revenue
Code have never been mandatory for anyone other than officers,
agents and employees of the United States, as identified at 26
USC Sec. 3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified
at Sec. 3401(d), particularized at 5 USC Secs. 102 & 105.
 
 The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the
Sixteenth Amendment, fraudulently promulgated in 1913, did not
alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require all
direct taxes to be apportioned among the several States
(Constitution, Article I Secs. 2.3 & 9.4). In Eisner v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and
numerous decisions since, the United States Supreme Court has
repeatedly affirmed that, for purposes of income tax, wages and
other returns from enterprises of common right are property, not
income. In fact, returns from enterprises of common right are
fundamental to all property, and the sanctity is preserved as a
fundamental common law principle dating to the signing of the
Magna Charta in 1215.
 
 The nature of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR
Sec. 31.3101-1: "The employee tax is measured by the amount of
wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936
...."
 
 In other words, the wage is not the object, but merely the
measure of the tax. This verbiage constitutes so much legalese
in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes
collected by the Internal Revenue Service fall into the excise
category was confirmed by the Comptroller General's report
following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). It
is further suggested at 26 CFR Sec. 106.401(a)(2), where the
regulation concedes that, "The descriptive terms used in this
section to designate the various classes of taxes are intended
only to indicate their general character ...."
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
  Page 9 of 21

 By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules,
cited above, it is found that the definition of "gross income" is
still preserved in Section 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1939, thus cementing the link between the Code of 1939 and
Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and
since. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 merely codified the
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in
Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and Means
reports on H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which Sec.
22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and Sec. 61 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked.
Both reports stipulate that the current definition of "gross
income" is intended to be constitutional.
 
 This intent is articulated at 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(a): "Gross
income means all income from whatever source derived, unless
excluded by law."
 
 An "Act of Congress" is policy, not law, and per definition
located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has only
local application in the District of Columbia and other United
States territories and insular possessions unless general
application is manifestly expressed: "Rule 54(c) -- Act of
Congress includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and
in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a
territory or in an insular possession."
 
 Where the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol.
68A, Statutes at Large, page 3), the legislation is in fact
styled, "An Act" "To revise the internal revenue laws of the
United States."
 
 As demonstrated above, wages and other returns from
enterprises of common right are exempt from direct tax by
fundamental law, and the regulation for the current Internal
Revenue Code definition of "gross income" clearly articulates the
fundamental law exemption.
 
 The exemption as it pertains to the several States is
demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules (Index volume to the C.F.R., page 751 of the 1995 edition):
There are 26 C.F.R., Part 1 regulations listed for 26 USC Secs.
61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross
income, but there is no 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26
USC Sec. 63, the definition for taxable income.
 
 While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are
clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have
no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross
income which is not taxable within the several States is of no
consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.
 
 Further, on examination of 26 CFR Sec. 1.62-1, pertaining to
"adjusted gross income", it is found that subsections (a) & (b)
are reserved so the published regulations is incomplete, with
"temporary" regulation Sec. 1.62-1T serving as the current
authority defining "adjusted gross income." Temporary
regulations have no legal effect.
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 10 of 21

 Definition at Sec. 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large
(the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), make it clear that, (Sec.
3401(a)(A)), "a resident of a contiguous country who enters and
leaves the United States at frequent intervals ..." is a
nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of
the several States included), and the exclusion from "wages"
extends even to citizens of the United States who provide
services for employers "other than the United States or an agency
thereof" (Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)).
 
 
 4. The Employer or Agent is Liable
 
  Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, makes it perfectly clear who is "liable" for
payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:
 
 Sec. 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS.
 
 In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control,
 receipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays the wages of an
 employee or group of employees, employed by one or more
 employers, the Secretary or his delegate, under regulations
 prescribed by him, is authorized to designate such
 fiduciary, agent, or other person to perform such acts as
 are required by employers under this subtitle and as the
 Secretary or his delegate may specify. Except  as may be
 otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all
 provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in
 respect to any employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary,
 agent, or other person so designated, but, except as so
 provided, the employer for whom such fiduciary, agent, or
 other person acts shall remain subject to the provisions of
 law (including penalties) applicable in respect to
 employers.
 
The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d):
 
 (d) TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation
 of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and
 withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax
 against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so
 required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected
 from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case
 relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or
 additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such
 failure to deduct and withhold.
 
 
 These provisions from Vol. 68A of the Statutes at  Large
comply with and verify liability set out at 26 C.F.R., Part 601,
Subpart D in general. Further, territorial limits of application
are made clearer by the absence of regulations supporting 26 USC
Secs. 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes authorizing
establishment of internal revenue districts and delegations of
authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants.
 
 
 Notice of Clerical Update to Miscellaneous Exhibit:
 Page 11 of 21

The fact that the liability falls to the "employer" (26 USC Sec.
3401(d)) and/or his agent, with no compensation for serving as
"tax collector," narrows the field to federal government entities
as "employers" if for no other reason than the population at
large is not subject to the edict of government officials. As a
matter of course, the government cannot compel performance where
the general population is concerned. The subject class that has
"liability" for Subtitles A & C taxes is the "employer" or his
agent, fiduciary, etc., as specified above.
 
 The matter is further clarified in Sections 3403 & 3404 of
Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:
 
 SEC. 3403. LIABILITY FOR TAX.
 
 The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax
 required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and
 shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such
 payment.
 
 
 SEC. 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER.
 
 If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory,
 or political subdivision thereof, or the District of
 Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or
 more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and
 withheld upon any wages may be made by any officer or
 employee of the United States, or of such State, Territory,
 or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or
 of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be,
 having control of the payment of such wages, or
 appropriately designated for that purpose.
 
 The territorial application, and limitation, is made clear
by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
 
  Sec. 31.3121(3)-1. State, United States, and citizen.
 
 (a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
 "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
 of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of
  Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and
 (when used with respect to services performed after 1960)