Time: Fri Mar 28 16:26:11 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA24300;
	Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:14:32 -0700 (MST)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA17026;
	Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:14:01 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:25:06 -0800
To: conchr-l@xc.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) [correction]
Cc: daeubank@naa.bna.boeing.com

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 (plain to Me, at least :):              [was "plaint"]

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 pertinent 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, by Act of Congress.

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
>
<trailer snipped>

========================================================================
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
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail