Jump to content

Talk:Internal Revenue Service/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Unsorted text

Everything you need to know about the Internal Revenue Service can be found here: United States of America Constitution, Petition of Grievences Clause, and this reminder sent to Bush & Kerry.

The criticism section really needs more meat on it's bones. KneeLess 06:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The agency has abused its power several times over the years and examples only need to collected by somebody with the time. james_anatidae, 2004-08-11, 01:58 EST

In 1998, the IRS was taken to task by Congress for many alleged abuses. Laws were written and oversight was increased to the point where these abuses are very rare and those that are reported are now always dealt with very harshly. Perhaps someone who else who works in the tax field (CPA, attorney, etc) might have something more constructive to add, rather than the odd "I hate the IRS and all federal government agencies" Unibomber-to-be's that currently haunt this page. -Sum Yung Guy.

Good news. Web site added that documents these abuses: http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/ Users be alert to the fact that a user User:Rhobite is trying to prevent knowledge of this web site. (RJII)
Like most people, I've never heard of Neo-Tech before. I'm trying to curtail possible self-promotion - that's all. Rhobite 02:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not affiliated with the neo-tech web site. Don't worry about it. (RJII)
Neo-Tech is a self-proclaimed offshoot of Objectivism. Neo-Tech. Kurt Weber 7 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Not that I enjoy paying taxes, but let's face it - Americans make a sport of cheating on their taxes. The IRS is a law enforcement agency and no one likes it when the laws are enforced. No one enjoys getting a speeding ticket, but you know you were speeding. The same thing applies with taxes. If you don't pay your share and you get caught, you know you were cheating. Sorry, I have no sympathy for those who do not pay. Particularly if you live in the first world. The entry at the top of this page gives good advice for stupid people. Follow their logic (ie think that taxes are illegal) and you will be paying a buttload of money for your being a sheep. Think for yourselves, form your own opinions and use common sense. www.givemeabreak.com LOL

Citibank, Wells Fargo, Fleet, BoA, Nomura Securities, Bank of Montreal?

Where are all the checks deposited? And where does FICA go? When Homer Simpson goes to the post office at 11:59 on April 15, or when Ned Flanders sends his check from his money from the Leftorium in on January 2nd, where does the I.R.S. put the money? and what interest do they get? Is it in CD format? Do they get 10.11%, 10.59, 10.99% interest? I really need to know this as I am trying to write about this at a forum. --McDogm 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Does any one who how much money the IRS costs to run its self? User:Jpcorrado

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Internal Revenue Service/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'm not sure if more coverage is needed but the current content looks well done. I'd suggest a peer-review and work toward WP:GA. Morphh (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please cite Tax collection statistics

I want to check the numbers, but you didn't cite where your stats are actually from, I assume it's from some IRS report, this much and type of data must be cited directly, meaning exactly what and where to find the report.UoLMephesto (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave a link to the IRS site that gives numbers based on percentiles. I also referenced a site with an accurate breakdown of the Individual Income Tax category. The numbers and percentages I quote are consistent in each year listed by following the referenced link. I also added a clarification of the Indvidual Income Tax category since it can possibly skew a reader's perception. By referencing the IRS breakdown of incomes, A high percentage of the $1.2 trillion (gross) comes from income other than "the working class".Admiral01 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone has accurate statistics on the net taxes collected, it should be posted.Admiral01 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please correct the assertion

"In 1913, however, the states ratified the 16th Amendment, which removed the requirement that income taxes (whether considered direct or indirect taxes) be apportioned by population."

That runs counter to:

"the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20]" BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (SCotUS) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=240&invol=1


"the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived" STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) (SCotUS) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103

The courts ruled only that the 16th prevented incomes taxation from being direct taxation and kept income taxation as excise - which means it is on a source, not the amount. The source then is some revenue taxable activity. The government must then specify the activity. For instance: 26 USC 3111: "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—"

So the revenue taxable activity is "having individuals in his employ", not the wages. The liabilty is measured by wages, but the wages are not what creates the liabilty. If we then revisit the statement that I take issue with: "16th Amendment ... removed the requirement that income taxes ... be apportioned" we see that it is not the case. We see it being firmly in the excise, and that is the reason it is not subject to aportionment. Not because that it was a direct tax and the 16th removed the apportionment for income taxes.

[Note: The above commentary was inserted by an anonymous user at IP address on 1 March 2006.]

Dear user at You stated:
"The courts ruled only that the 16th prevented incomes taxation from being direct taxation and kept income taxation as excise - which means it is on a source, not the amount. The source then is some revenue taxable activity. The government must then specify the activity."
First, "the courts" (in Pollock, Brushaber and Stanton) never ruled "only that the 16th [Amendment] prevented incomes [sic] taxation from being direct taxation". The Supreme Court stated in Pollock that income taxes on income from property (and not other income taxes) were to be treated as direct taxes. Both before and after Pollock all other income taxes (for example, income taxes on income from labor) were (and still are) "excises" (indirect taxes) and therefore have never been required to be apportioned. At the time Pollock was decided, all direct taxes were required to be apportioned (the 16th Amendment had not yet been ratified).
Neither the Sixteenth Amendment nor the decison in Brushaber redefined income taxes on income from property as an excise. What the Amendment did (as noted in Brushaber) was to prevent us from applying the rule of apportionment to taxes on income from property -- even though such taxes are, according to Pollock, direct taxes.
You quoted some of the key language but you missed the point. Here it is again, with my clarifications:
[ . . . ] the purpose [of the Sixteenth Amendment] was not to change the existing interpretation [that is, the Pollock interpretation regarding how taxes on income from property should be treated -- namely as "direct taxes required to be apportioned"] except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended [by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment]; that is, [to accomplish] the [Amendment's purpose of] prevention of the resort to [that is, the prevention of consideration, by the courts, in determining whether a given income tax law would be constitutional, of] the sources from which a [particular category of] taxed income was derived in order
[1] to cause a direct tax on the income [from property] to be [treated as] a direct tax on the source itself [that is, to be treated as a direct tax on the property itself], and
[2] thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts [that is, to take an income tax on income from property out of the category of taxes treated as excises, duties, and imposts not required to be apportioned], and
[3] [to] place it [to place the tax on income from property] in the class of direct taxes [that is, to place the tax on income from property in the category of taxes that would be required to be apportioned].
The phrase "which means it is on a source, not the amount" is legally meaningless for Federal income tax purposes (see below). This phrase is also an example of what is known as a non sequitur; it does not logically follow from what is stated before it.
In these cases and in the 16th Amendment, the term "source" refers to the source of the income. Generally, the question is: Is the source of the income property or is the source of the income labor? Prior to Pollock the law considered taxes on income from all sources as excises (indirect taxes). Because excises have never been required to be apportioned, there was never any problem until Pollock. What the Court said in Pollock was essentially, wait -- from now on we're treating income from one particular "source" (namely income from property) as a tax on the property by reason of its ownership. Taxes on property by reason of ownership are and always have been direct taxes. At the time of Pollock all direct taxes were required to be apportioned (the 16th Amendment wasn't around yet, you know). So, under Pollock the courts began treating taxes on income from one particular source (namely property) as a direct tax. In other words, after Pollock both taxes on property by reason of its ownership AND taxes on income from property were treated as direct taxes.
As far as taxes on income from labor, personal services, etc., etc., all the court decisions (including but not limited to Pollock, Brushaber and Stanton) treated the tax as an excise (and therefore not required to be apportioned). There was never any constitutional problem with those kinds of taxes, so the 16th Amendment did not "affect" them one way or the other.
What the Court was essentially saying in Brushaber and Stanton and the other decisions rendered after the 16th Amendment was that the 16th Amendment simply removed the requirement that you consider the "source" of the income (property, labor, whatever) in determining whether the tax on that income was constitutional. Because of the Amendment, the source of the income is legally irrelevant. In other words, if it's an income tax of any kind, Congress now has the constitutional power to impose it even if the tax is not apportioned. It doesn't matter whether the particular income tax in question is a direct tax (such as a tax on income from a source like property) or an indirect tax (such as a tax on income from a source like labor).
Your statements: "The source then is some revenue taxable activity. The government must then specify the activity" are also incorrect. Under the case law and the Amendment, the term "source" refers to the source of the income. In other words, is it income from property or is it income from labor, etc., etc. The statement that "the government must then specify the activity" is, unfortunately, legally incorrect. Nothing in the law requires that the government "specify the activity" in order for a given income tax to be constitutionally valid. Also, the income tax is an "event tax" not an "activity tax." Income is an event. A given income event may or may not involve an "activity." Also, income is not the amount itself, it's not the money itself.
You made another mistake when you said:
"The government must then specify the activity. For instance: 26 USC 3111: "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment [ . . . ]"
You seem to be implying that 26 U.S.C. § 3111 is an example of a specification of an "activity" for purposes of the Federal income tax. There's just one small technical problem. You see, the section 3111 tax is NOT AN INCOME TAX. It's an employment tax, and it is imposed under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. INCOME taxes are imposed under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. In fact, the section 3111 tax is - guess what? -- composed of two taxes -- the employer's half of the Social Security tax and the employer's half of the Medicare tax. These are not income taxes, and they're not withholding taxes.
Let's take it home now: section 3111 is part of the FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT (FICA), codified as Chapter 21 of Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. These are employment taxes, not income taxes. All employment taxes, for U.S. Constitutional law purposes, by the way, are EXCISES (indirect taxes), not required to be apportioned.
Part of the source of your misunderstanding may be that you don't know your way around the Internal Revenue Code, and that's perfectly understandable. Another source is that the Pollock, Brushaber, and Stanton cases contain technical legal syntax that has two characteristics representative of legal texts promulgated at the times they were rendered; the terminologies and grammatical structures are both archaic and circumlocutory. This fact makes them very difficult to interpret unless you have already studied the actual, verbatim texts of literally thousands of actual court decisions. This process takes years.
I repeat: The 16th Amendment removed the requirement that income taxes (whether considered direct or indirect taxes) be apportioned by population. Yours, Famspear 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the 16th Amendment, as indicated by the above analysis, was to prevent at least three things:

1. to prevent the law from treating a tax on the income from property as a direct tax on the source (in this case, on the property itself), and
2.to prevent the law from taking income taxes on income from property out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts not required to be apportioned, and
3. to prevent the law from placing taxes on income from property in the class of taxes that would be required to be apportioned.

Hope this makes it even clearer. Famspear 05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: You stated

The purpose of the 16th Amendment, as indicated by the above analysis, was to prevent at least three things: ..snip...

3. to prevent the law from placing taxes on income from property in the class of taxes that would be required to be apportioned.

Your #3 means it is in the catagory of excise. If it is not in the class that requires apportionment, then it falls into excise. Furthermore, if the 16th had altered any part of the consitution, it would have said it did so. It does not say so, therefore it does not conflict and must be construed with the original taxation provsions of the consitition. The 16th was done because of the Pollock ruling where the courts overturned a tax because it was not clear if income was in need of apportionment or uniformity.

Still do not beleive me? The Congressional Research Service agrees with me. (Or rather, I agree with them) From page 2580 from the March 27, 1943, issue of Congressional Record - House: "The Supreme Court held that the [16th] did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or enunpected subjects, but merely removed the nessesity with might otherwise exist for apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income whether derived from one source or another. So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income withing the scope of a general income tax law but did not change the character of the tax. It is still funamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilage of carrying on an activity property which produces income." "The income tax is therefore, not a tax on incomes as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privilages which [are] measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: It is the basis for determining the amount of tax." http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/waltmaken/IncomeTaxExciseTax.html [Note: The above post was made by an anonymous editor at IP on 2 March 2006.]

Dear user at IP Hmmmm. Whether you realize it or not, it looks like you're agreeing with a lot of what I'm saying. Some of your statements are basically correct. Let's see if we can break this down even further.
First, let's look at your statements: "Your #3 means it is in the catagory [sic; category] of excise. If it is not in the class that requires apportionment, then it falls into excise." Well, your statements are basically on the right track. Another way to say it would be "If a tax is not treated as being in the class of taxes required to be apportioned, then that tax is treated as falling into the class of taxes not required to be apportioned." I'm not sure it's worth quibbling over terminology too much, as long as we both understand what the other person means.
However, let's look at this statement: "Furthermore, if the 16th had altered any part of the consitution [sic; should be constitution], it would have said it did so. It does not say so, therefore it does not conflict and must be construed with the original taxation provsions [sic; provisions] of the consitition [sic; constitution]." This statement is partly correct and partly incorrect.
It is incorrect to say that the 16th amendment did not alter the constitution. It is also incorrect to say that if an amendment alters the constitution, the amendment somehow must expressly "say it did." This is an old tired tax protester argument. Unfortunately, it is legally incorrect. Under our legal system, amendments to the constitution do not have to contain any specific "repeal" or similar language. In fact, the only amendment that I can think of off hand that actually does use the word "repeal" is the 21st Amendment.
Your statement that the 16th Amendment "must be construed with the original taxation provsions [sic; provisions] of the consitition [sic; constitution]" is actually correct. In fact, that statement would be pretty much true of any amendment.
Your "quote" from the Congressional Record has several problems. First, it is apparently not an accurate quote and contains many misspelled words such as: enunpected [ ??]; nessesity [necessity]; funamentally [fundamentally]; privilage [privilege]; privilages [privileges] and garbled syntax (for example, what exactly is an "activity property"?). Second, a text from the Congressional record is generally what legal scholars call Secondary authority. Third, the language is circumlocutory, and actually supports my position, not yours. The statement that the "income is not the subject of the tax" but that the income is "the basis for determining the amount of tax" is arguably a sophistry. I'm not sure what you think it means, but suspect that what you think it means is not the same as what the writer intended.
These legal texts (both primary and secondary) may be twisting you up into a ball of sorts. The bottom line is that Congress has always had the power to tax incomes. Until 1895, all income taxes were deemed to be NOT required to be apportioned. From 1895 to 1913, taxes on income from property were required to be apportioned, but all other income taxes were still free of that requirement. Beginning in 1913, all income taxes are free of the apportionment requirement. Yours, Famspear 17:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

POV label removed

On 2 January 2006, someone at attempted to put up a label to the effect that the neutrality of this article is disputed, with an assist from someone at on 6 January 2006. A reference was made to the verbiage above, which is tax protester rhetoric that really seems to be disputing the validity of the income tax laws, not the information in the Internal Revenue Service article. In my view, the POV label is not appropriate on the article page for Internal Revenue Service unless there is a serious dispute about something in this particular article AND the dispute is actually described on the Talk page. Famspear 01:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I second Famspear's removal of the POV tag - there is no real complaint about the POV of this article, but of other related concepts. It's like labelling the First Amendment article as POV and explaining it by complaining about speech impediments. bd2412 T 02:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on the comments above

The verbiage "the court system WILL NOT and CANT allow any argument to set a precedent" and "[s]etting a legal presedent [sic] such as determining that most everyone is not liable for the income tax would result in massive revenue loss, which would cause our fragile debt system to collapse" seems to be implying that all the thousands of Federal judges are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to incorrectly interpret the tax laws. Yes, that's it, a huge conspiracy -- and all the law professors and Congressmen and all the lawyers and CPAs and enrolled agents -- all those thousands of people are in on the conspiracy too (they would have to be).

Also, the statement that "[o]ne CAN NOT file a federal tax return without WAIVING your 5th Ammendment [sic] Rights" is incorrect as a matter of law, as the Garner case shows. See the United States Supreme Court decision in Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976). See also the Wikipedia article on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The statements: "At the bottom of every signature page on a Federal return, the ststement [sic] 'Under penalty of pergury' [sic] is written" and "This is where you sign away your rights" are also incorrect as far as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is concerned -- unless of course the taxpayer actually fails to assert the privilege in the tax return and instead discloses the incriminating information. Famspear 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Information on frivolous tax protester rhetoric

Dear editor at

The following insert has been removed from the article on the Internal Revenue Service, for the reasons stated below. The insert was as follows:

The Internal Revenue Service is not a governmental entity established by an act of Congress. Such a claim that the Internal Revenue Service is a governmental agency stands in contradiction to prior statements by the DOJ in the DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS, v INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al. case. Such claim would also stands in contradiction to CHRYSLER v BROWN, 441 US 281. Additionally, the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code and only gets its authority through delegation orders from the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. There are at least three cases where these delegation orders have been subpoenaed by court order and the Treasury Department could not produce them and was in default. (Note: The IRS does not have a postage privilege that government bodies have.)

First, the article as written before you edited it did not state that the IRS was "established by an act of Congress." The IRS is, as stated, in the article, a "bureau" within the Department of the Treasury. I hope this does not come as too much of a shock, but there is no legal requirement that a bureau within the Department of the Treasury be "established by an act of Congress."

Second, the statement that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code is false. If you would like copies of the actual Code provisions, I can provide them at no charge (see partial list below).

Third, the IRS does receive authority through delegation orders as you said. The delegation orders are readily available on the internet.

Fourth, the statement that there are "at least three cases where these delegation orders have been subpoenaed by court order and the Treasury Department could not produce them and was in default" is not accompanied by any citation to authority, and is therefore not verifiable. You seem to be falsely implying that the delegation orders do not exist.

Fifth, whether the IRS has a postal privilege that "government bodies have" is legally irrelevant to the question of whether the IRS is a bureau within the Treasury empowered to enforce the internal revenue laws of the United States.

Yours, Famspear 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Regarding references to "DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS, v INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE et al." and "CHRYSLER v BROWN, 441 US 281", since you did not cite the cases properly, I will cite them for you: Diversified Metal Products, Inc. v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, 96-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,437 (D. Idaho 1996) and Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979).

In Diversified Metal, the "DOJ" (Department of Justice) never stated that the IRS was not a bureau of the department of the Treasury. Further, in Diversified Metal, the Court stated: "The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514 (1952). Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action." The Court was stating what every tax lawyer already knows (or should know): the proper party defendant in most tax cases against the Federal government is "United States of America" and not "Department of the Treasury" or "Secretary of the Treasury" or "Internal Revenue Service." This is a separate concept from the question of whether the IRS is a bureau within the Department of the Treasury, which it certainly is.

In Chrysler Corp. v. Brown the Court specifically referred to the "Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced" -- to use the Court's own words. Nothing in the Chrysler case "stands in contradiction" to the Wikipedia article on the Internal Revenue Service. By the way, the Chrysler case was not a tax case. No issues regarding the validity of the tax laws or the status of the IRS as a bureau of the Department of the Treasury were decided by the Court.

By inserting these kinds of misleading edits, you are violating at least two Wikipedia policies: Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Please do not edit articles in Wikipedia without reading the actual texts of the court decisions you are citing. Yours, Famspear 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the false statement that the Internal Revenue Service "is not mentioned anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code" -- here are a few things to chew on (see, I've done your work for you):

26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(5)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(6)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(8)(A)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(k)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(6)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(7)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(10)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(12)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(19)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 6104(a)(1)(B)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(c)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 6110(i)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 6213(g)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 6320(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 6334(e)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 6404(d)
26 U.S.C. § 6404(e)
26 U.S.C. § 6404(f)
26 U.S.C. § 6621(c)(2)(A)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(c)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7122(d)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7123(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7123(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7123(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7217(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7217(b)
26 U.S.C. § 7217(c)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7409
26 U.S.C. § 7429
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(5)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(B)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4(C)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(7)(B)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7433(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7433A(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7452
26 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(c)
26 U.S.C. § 7521(d)
26 U.S.C. § 7522(b)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7528
26 U.S.C. § 7602(c)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7608(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7608(c)
26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(E)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(b)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(b)(3)(A)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(b)(3)(C)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(g)
26 U.S.C. § 7611(h)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7612(c)(2)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7624(a)
26 U.S.C. § 7624(b)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(3)(C)(i)(I)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(3)(C)(i)(II)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(1)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(c)(2)(C)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(d)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7802(d)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(2)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(b)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(b)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(b)(2)(C)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(B)(2)(E)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(1)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(1)(B)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(A)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(A)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(A)(iii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(VI)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(VII)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(B)(ii)(IX)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(C)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(2)(D)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(4)(A)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(4)(A)(iii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(c)(4)(A)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(A)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)()1)(A)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(D)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(E)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(1)(F)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(2)(A)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(3)(A)
26 U.S.C. § 7803(d)(3)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 7809(d)(1)
26 U.S.C. § 7811(a)(3)
26 U.S.C. § 8021(e)
26 U.S.C. § 8021(f)(2)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(1)(B)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(i)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(ii)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(iii)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(iv)
26 U.S.C. § 8022(3)(C)(v)
26 U.S.C. § 8023(a)
26 U.S.C. § 8023(b)

And, if you want more, the "Internal Revenue Service" is specifically mentioned in other statutes such as 31 U.S.C. § 301(f)(2) and 31 U.S.C. § 330(c)(1) and 31 U.S.C. § 713(a).

Or, how about:

2 U.S.C. § 438(f)
5 U.S.C. § 500(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9508(a)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(b)(1)(A)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(b)(2)
5 U.S.C. § 9509(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(a)(1)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(b)(1)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(c)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(d)
5 U.S.C. § 9510(e)(2)
12 U.S.C. § 4146(1)(A)
23 U.S.C. § 143(b)(2)
23 U.S.C. § 143(b)(3)
42 U.S.C. § 6381(a)(2)(A)
42 U.S.C. § 10502(2)(D)

As if that's not enough, I think there just might be an Act of Congress called the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (July 22, 1998). Famspear 22:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

More provisions mentioning the IRS: 26 U.S.C. § 7430(b)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 7430(b)(4). Famspear (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And 26 U.S.C. § 7432(a) and 26 U.S.C. § 7432(d)(1). Famspear (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Links at bottom of article

Three of the links at the bottom of the article are to sites that advocate changing the way that taxes are currently collected. I don't really see any reason why these should be posted specifically to the IRS page, especially since they only link to one meretricious side of the tax collection issue. Shouldn't they be moved to the article on tax collection in the United States? Oldkinderhook 00:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Private letter ruling?

Hello. I can't fina anything on Wikipedia about "private letter rulings", the non-precedent-setting, one-off determinations they'll sometimes make. Some of them can get even get a little bizzarre: "On April 15, 2004, I will truthfully report to the IRS that my primary source of income is the sale of imaginary goods [in the online game EverQuest]—and that I earn more from it, on a monthly basis, than I have ever earned as a professional writer." [1]. Ewlyahoocom 10:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

needs trimed down

The detailed info on the US Income Tax is duplicative of that article and doesn't belong here. Joncnunn 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I agree with fellow editor Joncnunn to some extent that the detailed information on the income tax is somewhat duplicative in this article on the IRS. At some time in the future I will try to find time to add some more information on the history and functions of the agency itself. Keep watching, and feel free to remind me from time to time. It may take awhile to get to it! Yours, Famspear 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me thank you for your yeoman-like work with the tax stuff and your steadfastness in not letting the silly tax resister basura folk stop you. Wnat do you think... NYU Tax or Gtown Tax LLM? DC is the seat of the IRS John wesley 18:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On the tax programs, I don't know. Both schools obviously have sterling reputations as far as tax programs are concerned. I'm not sure it would necessarily make a difference whether you're at Georgetown (i.e., just to be physically closer to the IRS, Congress, etc.). But I definitely don't claim any expertise at assessing LL.M. tax programs, so who knows. Of course, I still haven't done any reading on LL.M. programs, like we were discussing in early April. Are you a law student now? Are you thinking about an LL.M. degree in the future? Yours, Famspear 19:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the language referring to tax rates because it was less than the whole truth. The current income tax was implemented in 1913 at a marginal rate of 7%. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. By 1925 the the top marginal tax rate was reduced to 25% and eventually to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased to 94% marginal tax rates on all income over $200,000 in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or anove 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The Top marginal tax rate was again lowered to 50% in 1982 and evnetually to 28% in 1988. The top marginal tax rate was increased to nearly 40% in 1993 and is currently sitting at 35%. The previous language seemed to attribute tax increases to the exigencies of war and response to cataclysmic events like the great depression. I could just as easily draft a paragraph that points to the high tax rates of the 50s and 60s and relate it to the relative economic prosperity of that period. I'm not even sure why tax rates are relevant to a discussion of the IRS. Marginal tax rates have exceeded 50% for 63 out of the 93 years it has existed and has exceeded 70% for over half of its history. Tax rate discussion probably belongs somewhere else.

Tax rates, progressivity and the like is tax policy Bona Fides 13:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discretion to rearrange income recognition Section 446(b)

According to 446(b), Treasury may change the method of accounting of a taxpayer to better reflect income and expenses. That is deny a current expense deduction until cash is actually paid. Bona Fides 18:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

US v Lloyd

Dear fellow editors: I reverted the introduction of a quotation allegedly made by an IRS employee in a case called "US v. Lloyd."

Here is the language I deleted (which apparently -- based on my quick google search -- was copied from tax protester web sites):

Special IRS Agent Gary Makovski states, "If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you", while testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd.

First, the editor offered no complete citation to the case. The verbiage "US v Lloyd" without a citation to the case reporter (volume and page number) or docket number, etc., is unverifiable for purposes of Wikipedia.

Second, a statement by an IRS employee -- a witness in a court proceeding -- is not a ruling by the court. If we're going to start introducing "quotes" from witnesses in court cases in encyclopedia articles we'd better be clear that statements by witnesses are not court rulings.

Third, statements by IRS employees, like statements by other witnesses in tax cases, are not per se authoritative as statements of what the law is. Binding, authoritative statements on what the law is in a court proceeding can be made only if and when actually embodied in a court ruling by the judge - not in statements by the bailiff, not by the court reporter, not by the court clerk, not by the plaintiff's lawyer, not by the defendant's lawyer, and not by witnesses such as an IRS employee called to the stand. Yours, Famspear 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the statement that "If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you" is incorrect as a matter of law, regardless of whether it was made by an IRS special agent under oath or not.
The Internal Revenue Code contains a whole set of rules on when the IRS can and cannot make an assessment of tax. Once certain procedural steps are followed, it is certainly possible for the IRS to formally, legally "assess" a tax even where no return has been filed by the taxpayer, and even where the taxpayer has not provided "information." Please don't get me started on this -- unless you really want the detailed answer, with FULL citations. I can certainly provide the answer if anyone wants it! Yours, Famspear 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary tax system

Dear fellow editors: I have moved the section on the "voluntary" Federal income tax system with the quotation from the IRS web site over to the article on Tax protester statutory arguments, since the Flora rule, etc., included in this text is already discussed at the other article. I would suggest that the article on the Internal Revenue Service focus on the IRS itself, rather than the tax system or a particular aspect of one particular Federal tax (in this case, the income tax). Yours, Famspear 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IRS and Phishers

The following text, while probably true, has no suppporting citation and thus was removed until citation can be provided:

"Taxpayers should be aware that the IRS does not initiate communications, or ask for information, by e-mail. Phishing scammers pretending to be Treasury officials are using this means of communication to steal personal data from individuals."

Dear fellow editors: Maybe there's something in IRS official announcements or publications that backs this up. I'll look and see if there's anything to support this. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the following text at the IRS web site:

The IRS never sends out unsolicited emails, and under no circumstances, requests credit card information and pin numbers through email. Persons receiving emails that claim to be from the IRS should not attempt to visit any site contained within the email and should report suspicious emails to TIGTA or IRS.

Downloaded on 13 September 2006[2]

--Yours, Famspear 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I stuck it back in there with a cite. Shortfuse 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbers Don't Add Up

"In fiscal year 2004, the IRS collected $43.1 billion in enforcement revenue. This is an increase of $5.5 billion (15 percent) from fiscal year 2003."

I don't know what the true numbers are, but that statement has some obvious mathematical deficiencies.

Um, the numbers do too add up! 43.1 - 5.5 = 37.6. 15 % of 37.6 equals 5.5 (or rather 5.6, but saying "14 percent" would be more off.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Language regarding lawsuits

The following material has been moved from the article:

In cases where an individual or organization wished to sue an individual who works under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, then a suit would be filed against the particular individual, while suits against the agency itself would be filed against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The language was moved because it's unclear what the editor is trying to say. The language is not necessarily "incorrect," depending on what it is intended to mean. The language is, however, ambiguous.

In a literal sense, anyone in the United States can "sue" anyone else. That is, anyone can go down to the court house and file a pleading with the clerk of the court, which technically institutes a lawsuit.

However, certain lawsuits may not be maintained (may not be continued) in the face of an adverse motion for dismissal, based on various legal grounds. For example, in a U.S. District Court, normally if you sue the "Internal Revenue Service" or the "Department of the Treasury" or the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" or an IRS employee in his or her capacity as an IRS employee, the government may come in, assert something called Sovereign immunity, and move that your lawsuit be dismissed becaue the court therefore lacks what is known as subject matter jurisdiction. There are exceptions to this rule, but this is the general rule.

Thus, the statement that in "cases where an individual or organization wished to sue an individual who works under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, then a suit would be filed against the particular individual" is somewhat misleading. Yes, you can file the suit, but if the government asserts sovereign immunity, then you may either be thrown out of court or forced to amend your lawsuit to change the defendant to "United States of America." Again, there are exceptions to that rule.

Similarly, the statement that "suits against the agency itself would be filed against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue" is misleading. Suits against the IRS itself normally should be filed not against the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" but instead against the "United States of America."

Now, just because the government has the right to make you change the name of the defendant or get you thrown out of court does not mean that the government always does that. At least one case has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with the party listed as "Internal Revenue Service" rather than "United States of America." And, as stated, there are also exceptions to the rule. For example, if you're fighting taxes in the United States Tax Court, you do sue the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" (as a Respondent, not as a Defendant).

In short, there are so many exceptions and clarifications to the rule that would need to be inserted to clarify the language that I have moved the language to this talk page, as the language raises more questions and issues than it clarifies for the article. Yours, Famspear 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The IRS in popular media

This section seems to be trivia and probably not notable enough to include in this article (see WP:AVTRIV). I think we should remove it. Morphh (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with editor Morphh. Famspear 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the material, per above. Yours, Famspear 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicative tax protester material deleted

I deleted the material on the frivolous tax protester rhetoric about section 6020(b) and the power of the IRS to assert penalties. The deleted material is only indirectly related to this article, and is already covered at Tax protester statutory arguments. This is a chronic problem in tax article on Wikipedia: tax protester material keeps seeping into the main articles when such material is already covered in articles devoted specifically to tax protesters. See Tax protesters; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments; Tax protester history. There is already plenty of coverage of tax protester arguments. Yours, Famspear 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the creepy logo?

Looks like some kind of bird holding a set of scales by a palm tree (and seems to be designed by the same designer as the Coat of arms of Iran). Anyone have an explanation? Lisiate 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Link

Your link http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/ does not work. In addition, even if it was a valid link, it is not verifiable by nature of being nothing more than claims to injury. Goodpaster 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Goodpaster: To whom are you sending the message about the "neo-tech" link? I don't see any such link in the article or here on the talk page (except in your post). Famspear 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Found it and removed. :-) Morphh (talk) 17:18, 09 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I finally just saw where you did that. I guess I need more caffeine or something. Famspear 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Famspear it was probably removed before you read my post. Goodpaster 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Abolish the IRS?

Just read this section and I find it inaccurate on several accounts and like Famspear, I'm not sure it should be included. For one, Ron Paul is not the only one that wishes to get rid of the IRS. Five of the Eight major Republican candidates support the FairTax, which eliminates the IRS. Other minor Republican candidates also support this plan. In addition, the IRS collects more then 1/3 of the Federal revenue. While 1/3 of the Federal revenue comes from the personal income tax, you have the other third coming from payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, estate taxes, excise, etc (which are administered by the IRS). While Ron Paul holds libertarian principles, he is running as a republican and as I've mentioned above, many Republicans want to abolish income taxes. Heck - Mike Gravel (Democrat pres candidate) wants to abolish the IRS and income taxes. So I'm not sure this sentence really has any significance. Morphh (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on comments by editor Morpph, I am moving the verbiage from the article to here, so it can be discussed more (if anyone wants to talk about it). Here's the language:

Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican candidate, is the only Presidential hopeful for the 2008 election in the major parties that has called for the abolition of the IRS. Paul asserts that only a third of federal revenue comes from the income tax, and that the federal government could be scaled back to the size it was seven years ago when it was a third smaller. The Libertarian Party also advocates abolition of income taxes and nominated Ron Paul as their candidate for President in 1988.

Yours, Famspear 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul is an individual, regardless of his political position and doesn't lend any value to the discussion of abolition. Including him gives an implied value to his opinion which is not in any case more or less valuable than the opinion of anyone else.

The other misconception is that other federal taxes are not collected by the IRS. All federal taxes are collected through the treasury department. Payroll deposits are the largest source per the IRS at IRS.gov.Goodpaster 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tax law

Thought this pdf / image might be a nice illistration for something (perhaps administration or tax law). It says "Permission for use granted". http://www.cch.com/wbot2005/022TaxLawsPileUp.pdf Morphh (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty cool! Even this artistic representation of the growth in size of the CCH Standard Federal (Income) Tax Reporter does not begin to show all the U.S. Federal tax law. For example, the full texts of all the Federal court decisions on tax law, and the treaties, and so on are found in separate volumes! Thousands of more pages!
So, is it OK to use this in Wikipedia? Should this go with the article on Income tax in the United States? Where should it go? Famspear 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Permission for use granted" means... if it means it is in the public domain or licensed for free use, then I say we turn it into a image. Or if it would be acceptable, I could make an image out of it and then I would release the image under free use... if that is acceptable. Perhaps we should e-mail them... or we could create our own image based on their numbers or some other numbers. I think it could be applied to several articles if it fit well with the context - IRS, tax law, Income tax in U.S.. Morphh (talk) 2:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IRS logo - symbolism

Does anyone have any info about the symbolism behind the IRS logo? It seems rather peculiar and usually one can find historical and even mythical references hidden in the symbols of government agencies (although I'm aware IRS is not strictly a government agency)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) (10 Oct. 2007)

I don't have any specifics. The logo appears to be an eagle holding the scales of justice. And the Internal Revenue Service is indeed strictly a government agency. (The idea that the IRS is not a government agency is an urban myth that originated with tax protesters.) Famspear 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax protester rhetoric moved from article

The following tax protester rhetoric has been moved from the article to here:

[spam material deleted due to copyright]

[end of tax protester rhetoric moved from article]

Please discuss below. Yours, Famspear 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted tax protester gibberish

An anonymous user at IP66.215.112.253 has been adding tax protester gibberish to this article repeatedly (seven times since October 16, I believe). Wikipedia articles are not the proper place to dump material that has simply been copied and pasted from other web sites in the way you have done.

The material in question appears to come at least in part from losthorizons.com, a notorious tax protester web site. The operator of the web site is an ex-con who is currently in serious legal difficulty with respect to Federal income taxes. Also, in a separate case the web site has been named by a Federal court as being part of a tax evasion scheme. This material is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Yours, Famspear 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some tax history material deleted

I have deleted some tangential material on the history of the U.S. Federal income tax in the middle of the article. First, the material is already covered (in several tax articles, I think). Second, this article is about the government agency that administers U.S. internal revenue laws -- not about the history of the laws themselves. Third, the deleted material in question dealt only with a particular aspect of the history of income tax -- and income tax is only one of the many kinds of tax laws administered by the IRS. Fourth, the Internal Revenue Service administers virtually all Federal internal revenue laws -- not merely the tax laws.

Fifth, I have noticed over the past two years in Wikipedia that "tax-related articles" in general tend to gradually fill up with repetitive material already covered in other tax articles. While some of this is unavoidable (and a little duplication is perhaps beneficial), the duplication of information chronically grows, and eventually gets to a critical mass point where the articles become difficult to manage. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, I think all we can do is make sure there are clear links between related articles, to make people aware of the best places to find and put information, and prune occasionally. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Commissioner section

I can see this section becoming a long list of past commissioners. Should it even be included? It doesn't seem relevant to anything in the article.Goodpaster (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the current short section on the Commissioner is relevant to the article. I agree that it should not be expanded to become a complete list, but I don't recall seeing any indication of that danger here. I've been watching the article for a year or two. There is a list of past commissioners (a partial list, I think) at the separate article on the Commissioner, so I agree there would be no need to repeat such a long list here. Famspear (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Hybrid Tax Credit Summary

Federal Hybrid Tax Credit Summary redirects here, but this is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Federal Hybrid Tax Credit Summary" should not be set up to redirect to this article. Need to check and see whether the subject is discussed in some article on substantive tax law. To do.... Famspear (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to ad a mention to Customer Account Data Engine (Cade) in this article. Once it is done it will revolutionize the IRS tax return processing and have a huge impact on taxation refunds. The new system is part of the IRS Modernization Plan. Heres a IRS story on it. [3] Please consider adding it. :) Cool10191 (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: merge Circular 230 into this article

Circular 230 lacks sufficient content or notability for its own article. However, its content could be easily merged into this article in a section that would let the audience to this article know who may be a taxpayer representative to the IRS.EECavazos (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suggest that we merge Individual Taxpayer Identification Number into this article.EECavazos (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I agree that the notability for these articles is week, but I'm also not sure that this article is the best topic to merge them into. I don't have another suggestion at this point, but looking at the content of this article, I don't know where the merged material would fit best - it would seem out of place and off topic. Let me think about this one. Morphh (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Circular 230 determines who may be a taxpayer's representative to the IRS, it could foreseeably be put under a section on deficiency assessments and appeals process of the IRS. This could be done by transforming the tax lawyers section into a broader section encompassing revenue agents, appeals officers, as well as the tax lawyers. Then some of the ciruclar 230 content could be merged into this article using one or two sentences with a footnote to the document. Alternatively, is there a separate article on revenue agents and appeals officers of the IRS? If so then the this circular article could be merged into that article. Maybe the tax lawyer section (expanded with content on revenue agents and appeals officers) could be merged into the collections section and divided by subsection subheaders like the collections statistic subsection.EECavazos (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

IRS Structure?

I'm surprised by how short the entry is, but then again, I'm sure some of you are working hard to keep the abuse away.
I'd love to see a good section about the structure of the IRS; something based on this, but more detailed. Binba (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tax fraud materials

A new user inserted a link to the "sedm.org" web site, which was then removed by another Wikipedia editor. The web site is not a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.

For future reference: The "sedm.org" web site has been officially identified as being part of a tax-fraud scheme operated by an individual named Christopher M. Hansen. Hansen and his web sites have been the subject of Federal court litigation and a Federal court order. Here is a direct quote from the applicable court order, which states (in part):

Defendant Christopher M. Hansen conducts business and promotes a number of tax-fraud schemes under two names or entities: the Family Guardian and the Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry ("SEDM"). He sells how-to guides filed [sic] with forms, instructions, and tactics to help customers evade paying federal taxes. [ . . . ] Hansen markets his programs through word-of-mouth, live seminars, and his websites www.famguardian.org and www.sedm.org.

--See pages 1 and 2, Order Entering Permanent Injunction (Amended Order), entry 105, Dec. 13, 2006, case no. 05cv0921-L(CAB), United States v. Christopher M. Hansen, United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The "sedm" and "famguardian" materials would not be considered reliable sources for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester rhetoric moved from article

The following material is erroneous original research, is tax protester rhetoric, and is moved to this talk page for discussion if needed:

The 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case known as the The Clearfield Doctrine fn Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371) which is stare decisis, stated in part “The fact that the drawee is the United States and the laches those of its employees are not material. Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 398. The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee. As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534 , 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 'The United States does business on business terms.' It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Id., 270 U.S. at page 535, 46 S.Ct. at page 389 ”. This doctrine indirectly established that governmental agencies in the areas of finance and commerce such as the IRS are in a disabled, non-sovereign status due to their use of commercial paper and may be sued at will.
Since the IRS uses commercial paper it must then strictly adhere to all regulations within the Uniform Commercial Code. Within this Code, there is a provision which allows any person or business financially liable to request the name of the principal in relation to the use of commercial paper in financial transactions. In the 1994 edition of Anderson’s U.C.C. it provided section 3-403.73 “Disclosure of principal. The Code continues the pre-Code concept that all liabilities must be determinable from the commercial paper itself. Consequently, it is essential that the authorized agent in signing commercial paper disclose not only his representative capacity but also name the principal for whom he is acting.” Therefore, upon request the IRS must disclose the name of their principal or drop any legal claims they may have against any person or business. There is no known official statement on record by the IRS specifically naming their principal. The IRS has a public obligation to fully disclose the specific name of this principal to protect the financial security of all Americans.

In short, the IRS does not use "commercial paper" and is not required to adhere to "regulations within the Uniform Commercial Code." This nonsense material might be incorporated into one of the tax protester articles in Wikipedia, but it does not go in this article. Famspear (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The cases cited, Clearfield Trust and National Exchange Bank, are not about the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is not even mentioned in the texts of those cases. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau and agency of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The IRS administers the internal revenue laws (including the tax laws) of the United States. The IRS does not generally issue "commercial paper". The word "tax" is not even found in the texts of the aforementioned cases.

Various provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) have been enacted as statutes by the legislatures of various states. The IRS administers federal statutes -- primarily the Internal Revenue Code.

The verbiage about the IRS having a public obligation to disclose the name of a "principal" is pseudo-legalistic gibberish. It's nonsense.

And federal tax claims that the IRS may have against a person or business have nothing to do with the UCC, or commercial paper. The verbiage stating that "upon request the IRS must disclose the name of their principal or drop any legal claims they may have against any person or business" is meaningless gibberish. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be getting back to you with a complete response Mr. Famspear, but in the mean time let's not forget to mention to the readers out there that you currently assist 'taxpayers' and therefore you have a vested interest (and bias..) in supporting the current tax system.Remembrancenow (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Believing that those with the sort of actual knowledge about the system that comes with experience in assisting "taxpayers" have a vested interest and are biased will likely eliminate anyone with actual knowledge from editing articles on the topic - leaving them to the ignorant. I do not assist "taxpayers", so by your standards I must not have a vested interest or bias, but I have studied the law, and I can assure you that the excised paragraphs are gibberish, and the person attempting to use them to justify non-payment of taxes will at least receive heavy fines in a federal civil action. bd2412 T 03:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed Remembranacenow's comment because it is obvious trolling, and has nothing to do with article improvement, any response to it will by definition be off topic and feeding the troll. I suggest removal of the comment and follow up to keep things focused. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
My assurance that "the excised paragraphs are gibberish" is on topic, and is for the benefit of the community as much as for the poster (who may or may not fit the definition of a "troll"). bd2412 T 03:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't press the point, but the chances that Remembrancenow is here as a constructive editor...well we shall see. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Please, do assume good faith. This is a brand new user, who has turned up here with the stated intent of improving the article. I think it is too harsh to scrub his first post ever on a talk page without a decent response. We welcome new editors, but ask that they keep themselves in line with policy, including 'comment on the content, not the contributor'. A helpful note to this effect is more in line with 'don't bite newcomers' than to accuse of trolling from a single edit. One paragraph from a new user does not give you enough information about them to instantly judge whether they have any useful information to contribute on this topic, let alone chase them off the encyclopaedia entirely. I admit, the edits do not look so constructive at the moment, so of course it was right to remove them from the article to here, but treating Remembrancenow like this is a sure way to prevent improvement and subsequent, better edits. —Kan8eDie (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kan8eDie: Thank you for your suggestions. First, the material from user Remembrancenow was moved by me from the article to the talk page. On this talk page, I explained very specifically why the material is, from a topic standpoint, objectionable.

Remembrancenow responded to my explanation not with a counter-argument about the material, but instead with a personal attack.

Editor Tmtoulouse deleted the personal attack based on an evaluation that the attack was trolling, and has nothing to do with article improvement. Whether the attack was trolling or not, I agree with Tmtoulouse that personal attacks have little to do with article improvement. Personal attacks are, as you noted, a violation of Wikipedia rules.

Editor BD2412 restored the personal attack -- but gave Remembrancenow what I would argue is a "decent response."

You then responded with what I argue is also a constructive critique, and you specifically and helpfully added the link to the rule on personal attacks. I do respectfully disagree with the implication that Remembrancenow's first post on this talk page did not receive a decent response from editors Tmtoulouse and BD2412. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear user Remembrancenow: I would also like to expand on the helpful comments of editors Tmtoulouse, BD2412, and Kan8eDie.

In Wikipedia, there is no requirement that editors have any training or experience in complex, technical topics such as elementary particle physics -- or U.S. federal tax law.

Similarly, there is no requirement that editors who contribute in the area of tax law not have training or experience, any more than there would be a requirement that editors who contribute to articles on nuclear physics not have training or experience in that field. Further, the mere fact that a person makes a living in a particular field does not mean that the person is "biased" when that person makes an edit or removes material that you have added to an article. Your personal attack to the contrary is not tenable, and is pretty close to arguing that having expertise in a particular topic somehow disqualifies the writer from contributing to articles on that topic.

As odd as it may sound at first, in Wikipedia there is no requirement that editors "not be biased." What is required is that we set whatever biases we have aside when editing articles in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to start out by apologizing for including my personal view that Famspear would have a vested interest in the continuance of the IR Code and tax system since he makes a living advising ‘taxpayers’ on how to work within the Code. I certainly did not intend it as a personal attack, but merely as an observation. I suppose that I may have been upset by his derogatory statements such as “This ‘nonsense’ material might be incorporated into one of the tax protester articles in Wikipedia, but it does not go in this article” or “The verbiage about the IRS having a public obligation to disclose the name of a "principal" is pseudo-legalistic gibberish. It's nonsense.” If I caused him any emotional pain or suffering I deeply regret this.

Famspear has stated bluntly that the IRS does not use commercial paper. However, he has not provided any specific references to support this statement. He has also mentioned that “The IRS does not generally issue "commercial paper". This is confusing. Which is it? Perhaps he can provide a reference of a clear statement issued from the IRS that states that it does not use commercial paper as a matter of policy? As I understand it, the U.C.C. identifies four basic kinds of commercial paper which are: promissory notes, drafts, checks, and certificates of deposit. Is Famspear suggesting that the IRS does not use these types of payment on a daily basis?

Famspear goes on to suggest that the cases cited in The Clearfield Doctrine are not about the IRS. That the IRS is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and because the word ’tax’ is not used that somehow The Doctrine does not apply to their agency. As stated above “'The United States does business on business terms.' It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Is Famspear contending that the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS are somehow not part of The United States Government?

Famspear has said that the IRS is an ‘agency’ of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The definition of an agency as defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856 Edition) states "AGENCY, contracts. An agreement, express , or implied, by which one of the parties, called the principal, confides to the other, denominated the agent, the management of some business; to be transacted in his name, or on his account, and by which the agent assumes to do the business and to render an account of it." It is clear that the IRS must legally have a principal. My goal is to have the name that principal placed into the public domain. As a lawyer with a Doctor of Jurisprudence perhaps Famspear will be willing to share with us the name of this IRS principal? Respectfully, (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have an electronic copy of the 1843 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Wonderful book, really more of an encyclopedia than a dictionary, but obviously having some archaic definitions of words that have since radically changed in meaning. For example, by contrast, I also happen to have a 1995 Black's Law Dictionary, which has a definition for "agency of the United States", which it defines as "A department, division, or administration within the federal government". Says nothing about a "principal", so (modernly) there's no need for that concept as applied to a "government agency". Or, else, who would be the principal of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency? Of course the IRS doesn't even have "agency" in its name. It's a "Service". bd2412 T 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the main function of the IRS - administering the internal revenue laws. The Internal Revenue Service, as an agency or bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, does not itself issue "checks", as far as I know. That function is done by a separate part of the Department of the Treasury. Look at the tax refund check you receive, or the tax stimulus check you receive. It is not issued by the "Internal Revenue Service."

And the IRS is designated by statute as both an "agency" and a "bureau" of the government. Either legal term is correct.

One of the rules in Wikipedia is that we comment on the material, not on the editor. When I refer to the aforementioned material as "gibberish," I am referring to the material itself.

On a Wikipedia talk page (and, probably, in an article as well), I do not need to "prove a negative." If I say that the first page of the New York Times of November 30, 2008 does not contain a story stating that green aliens from Mars have landed on the White House lawn, I do not need to provide evidence or support for that. If someone believes I am wrong, all that person has to do is to find the applicable copy of the New York Times and locate a story about green aliens from Mars, etc. Similarly, if I say that the IRS does not generally use commercial paper, all you have to do is prove me wrong.

The reason I use the word "generally" is that there might be exceptions to the rule. I don't know of any -- but there might be some exceptions. Again, the government checks issued with respect to the functions of the IRS are, as far as I know, issued by a separate part of the Treasury Department, not by the IRS itself. But that is beside the main point, which is that the aforementioned material is gibberish from a legal standpoint and, from the standpoint of Wikipedia rules, is unsupported by the sources cited in the material. This material is an example of erroneous original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, the bureau of the Department of the Treasury that issues government checks is the Financial Management Service. If you receive a tax refund "from" the Internal Revenue Service, it is actually from the Financial Management Service, not from the IRS itself. I believe the U.S. Treasury tax refund checks even say "Financial Management Service" on the checks.
Also, if you write a check "to" the IRS, you will notice that most IRS instruction books now say to write the check payable to "United States Treasury." The instructions used to say "Internal Revenue Service" -- and the IRS will still accept a check written that way. But the money is actually run through the Financial Management Service. For more information, see [4], which states:
THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury, provides central payment services to federal agencies, operates the federal government's collections and deposit systems, provides governmentwide accounting and reporting services, and manages the collection of delinquent debt owed to the government. FMS also supports federal agencies' financial management improvement efforts in the areas of education, consulting, and accounting operations.
Again, the verbiage about the IRS having a public "obligation" to disclose the name of a "principal" is legally incorrect and is, bluntly, gibberish. Not only that, but the IRS is a U.S. government agency, and that fact is well-known to the U.S. public at large. There is no legal requirement that the IRS to disclose the "name" of its "principal" for purposes of issuing government checks (which, as noted above, technically is not done by the IRS anyway) or accepting checks from taxpayers, etc., etc.
Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)February 23, 2009

The first line reads "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a criminal organisation that collects taxes and enforces the internal revenue laws."

Could someone please correct?