Time: Fri Mar 28 16:52:46 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03177; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:31:37 -0700 (MST) id PAA19836; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:26:48 -0500 (EST) id PAA19798; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) id AA05273; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:26:43 -0500 by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA16447; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:08:08 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:06:19 -0800 To: conchr-l@xc.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SNET: SLS: IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) Cc: daeubank@naa.bna.boeing.com -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List At 11:21 AM 3/28/97 PST, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchel wrote: >> See, in particular, IRC 7851(a)(6)(A): General rule. >> >> "The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on >> the day after the date of enactment of this title ...." >> >> The title has never been enacted, however, and subtitle F >> contains ALL the enforcement provisions, including > >Paul, I'm going to take your post and go over it carefully. I'm not >conversant in legalese, so it's a little hard for me to understand (see >below). Dave, Ron, et al., Here it is, in plain English. Please tell me what parts of the following you do not understand, and I will attempt to elaborate, in more plain English (plaint to Me, at least :): Congress enacts laws in chronological order. They get published in this order in the Statutes at Large, one after another, in chronological sequence. Later, the codifiers assign these statutes to subject categories, which are numbered 1 thru 50. These are the United States Codes, and they are referred to as "Title 1," "Title 2," ... "Title 50." A "Title" may have more than one volume, or book, to cover all the statutes which it contains. See your law librarian for a quick tour; it takes all of 1 minute to see the set of volumes. In the move from Statutes at Large to the United States Codes ("USC"), there are always changes, to make the statutes conform to the chapter-and-verse scheme utilized in the USC. Until Congress gives its blessing to the correctness of the United States Codes, they are not really the last word on the law(s) in question; the Statutes at Large are the last word on the law(s) in question. ONLY when Congress "enacts" a United States Code, does it then become the last word, or "conclusive evidence of the law," as we say in the biz. This means that you don't need to look anywhere else, as in the case of Title 31, which is a Title in the United States Codes which has been "enacted" by Congress. It IS conclusive evidence of the law (which is very important, because the IRS is not in there; but, that's another story!) Now, here's the rub: until such time as Title 26 is enacted into conclusive evidence of the law by Congress, it is only prima facie evidence of the law(s) in question, and there may be (and probably is) a difference between the text of Title 26, and the text of the Statutes at Large which comprise the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). In our legal work, we always cite the Internal Revenue Code as "IRC 7851(a)(6)(A)", for example, and not as "26 U.S.C. 7861(a)(6)(A)", because the latter form is obviously rebuttable, because the Title (26) has never been enacted! Right! Those of you who are in the know, will realize that I have selected this particular statute -- 7851(a)(6)(A) -- for a very important reason. It reads in part: "General rule. The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of the title ...." The term "title" here refers to Titles 1 thru 50. Subtitle F refers to an alphabetical subdivision of statutes in the Internal Revenue Code; those statutes within subtitle F happen to comprise all the enforcement provisions, such as filing requirements, penalties for failing to file, court jurisdictional authorities, and so on. Now, unless 7851(a)(6)(A) is ambiguous or vague, what it says to me is that all of the enforcement provisions in the IRC will go into effect on the day after Title 26 is enacted into conclusive evidence of the law. BUT (and this is a VERY B-I-G B-U-T (not a "butt") Title 26 has never been enacted! Honestly, though, the IRC has become the butt of some very B-I-G jokes in recent years, for good reasons (like this!) Draw your own conclusions. I know what conclusions I have drawn. Among them is the well documented evidence that the federal income tax is voluntary. All these codes in subtitle F are private law, and they are enforced in equity: when you sign a W-4, you are opting into an equity arrangement with the United States, whereby you agree to allow your pay master to withhold part of your pay, and thereby the pay master makes himself (herself) liable for the monies withheld, until such time as they are paid. See the provisions affecting "withholding agents" who, by the way, and the ONLY ones made liable by any statutes in the IRC for the federal income taxes imposed by Subtitle A. We are converging very rapidly into the widespread understanding that you should be invoicing your "employer" for excess monies withheld; this approach is actually justified by statutes in the IRC. Thus, the employer will just do an accounting adjustment, and send less money to the Treasury Department in their next payroll deposit. Contact Dan Meador in about 30-45 days for the whole story. Dan is one of the most thorough researchers I know, and he will finally crack this thing right down the middle, and expose it to the American People, hopefully here on the Internet. Dan really deserves our financial support, People, because he is doing a massive amount of research on a shoe-string budget. How about sending him one of your hard-earned dollars? I get nothing for telling you this, except more good research from Dan Meador (we trade a lot :) /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Ron Harper wrote: >> Have you looked into it or are you just dismissing it without >> research? > >Ron, I haven't done a lot of research into this subject, but what I have seen >so far is so full of legalese, that it is difficult for me to understand. If >you, Paul, or anyone has or can recommend something on this subject that is >in *plain English* , then I'd like to see it. > >Dave Eubanks >--------------------------- >David A. Eubanks >daeubank@naa.bna.boeing.com ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com -> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail