Code of Silence: Time for the IRS to Answer The Question!

I dont' understand your question...What is the Code Section that allows the Secretary or his delegate to estimate taxes omitted on the basis of an individual or married individual income tax return absent any liability for taxes paid by stamp?

SECTION 6201. ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

(a) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries,
determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest,
additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed
by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which
have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by
law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) TAXES SHOWN ON RETURN

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by
the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

(2) UNPAID TAXES PAYABLE BY STAMP

(A) OMITTED STAMPS

Whenever any article upon which a tax is required to be paid by
means of a stamp is sold or removed for sale or use by the
manufacturer thereof or whenever any transaction or act upon
which a tax is required to be paid by means of a stamp occurs
without the use of the proper stamp, it shall be the duty of the
Secretary, upon such information as he can obtain, to estimate
the amount of tax which has been omitted to be paid and to make
assessment therefor upon the person or persons the Secretary
determines to be liable for such tax.

(B) CHECK OR MONEY ORDER NOT DULY PAID

In any case in which a check or money order received under
authority of section 6311 as payment for stamps is not duly paid,
the unpaid amount may be immediately assessed as if it were a tax
imposed by this title, due at the time of such receipt, from the
person who tendered such check or money order.

(3) ERRONEOUS INCOME TAX PREPAYMENT CREDITS

If on any return or claim for refund of income taxes under subtitle A
there is an overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the
source, or of the amount paid as estimated income tax, the amount so
overstated which is allowed against the tax shown on the return or
which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the
Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or
clerical error appearing upon the return, except that the provisions
of section 6213(b)(2) (relating to abatement of mathematical or
clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard to any
assessment under this paragraph.

(b) AMOUNT NOT TO BE ASSESSED

(1) ESTIMATED INCOME TAX

No unpaid amount of estimated income tax required to be paid under
section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed.

(2) FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

No unpaid amount of Federal unemployment tax for any calendar quarter
or other period of a calendar year, computed as provided in section
6157, shall be assessed.

(c) COMPENSATION OF CHILD

Any income tax under chapter 1 assessed against a child, to the extent
attributable to amounts includible in the gross income of the child, and
not of the parent, solely by reason of section 73(a), shall, if not paid by
the child, for all purposes be considered as having also been properly
assessed against the parent.

(d) REQUIRED REASONABLE VERIFICATION OF INFORMATION RETURNS.

In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with
respect to any item of income reported on an information return filed with
the Secretary under subpart B or C of part III of subchapter A of chapter
61 by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the
Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access
to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the
control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary), the
Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative
information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information
return.

(e) DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS

FOR SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO DEFICIENCIES OF INCOME, ESTATE, GIFT,
AND CERTAIN EXCISE TAXES, SEE SUBCHAPTER B.

There you go again I'm talking about income and you still won't answer the question.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

So the income tax is a "stamp tax"?
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

There you go again I'm talking about income and you still won't answer the question.

Go play 20 questions with someone else. If you have a theory, state it.

How much money did you give Shiff ?

Freedom Package

Includes the Federal Mafia, The Hoax, The Con, The Swindle, Economy, Moltz, How Anyone, Best of Schiff, Secrets Video, Cassette Seminar, Schiff Reports 3,4,5, and 6, Lien and Levy Pkt., Audit Pkt, W-4 Pkt., Letters and Lawsuits CD, Code Book. Also includes the Due Process Toolkit, Series 7, The Power to Destroy and Back Yard Role Play

Savings on the Freedom package are approximately 20% compared with items purchased separately.

$1060

Quantity:

Shipping is $7 for UPS ground on all orders. Call for Expedited Prices

[ Books ] [ Packages ] [ Media ] [ Advanced Materials ]

So the income tax is a "stamp tax"?

Where do you read that ?

If you want to read the law so that its understandable you must start with English as well as read the full sentence. (This is sort of like how TPer's skip over the phrase "from every source" when reading what is included in income. )

The text says preceding the list says and include the following:

Still ducking the question.

What is the "income tax" choose one.

a) direct tax

b) indirect tax

Now on the anti-tax-protestor site "quatloos" they seem to know what it is and can state it plainly. What is your problem minion? Feeling a little frustrated? Take a sedative or answer the question.

What have you got to hide? It's just a simple question.
____________________________________________________________ ‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

What am I going to trial for? What do you think they will charge me with?

____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

MAC:

Let me try to help you out here.
____________________________________________________________
IT IS ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS NO MATTER WHAT YOU WRITE. Chew on this one for a bit.

Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization
Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.

Regulation Type’s and Meanings
By: Charles White

There are three types or classifications of regulations regarding federal taxes. Legislative, interpretive and procedural regulations. Legislative and interpretive regulations must follow the rulemaking procedures prescribed by the “ Administrative Procedures Act” (APA) 5 U.S.C.§551 and are promulgated by the Treasury Department. Procedural regulations are promulgated by the IRS and are not subject to the “APA” requirements. Section §553 of the APA requires that all legislative regulations must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to their effective Interpretive and procedural regulations are not subject to such notice. This is to give the public notice of the rule or regulation.

Legislative Regulations: These regulations are promulgated by the Secretary or his delegate under specific sections of the code. When regulations are issued pursuant to such specific authorization they are “legislative” and have the force and effect of law, unless they exceed the scope of the legislation or were not issued according to prescribed procedures. The authority will be cited at the end of the regulation by the indication of the legislative law it is implementing by, statute or section and public law.
(See example A below)

Interpretive Regulations: These regulations are promulgated by the Secretary or his delegate under section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 U.S.C.) which directs them to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement” of the code. When regulations are issued under this section they are “interpretive” and are set forth in the IRS “Procedure and administration” which is contained in “26 CFR Part 301”. Regulation interpreting the administrative and procedural sections of the code are preceded by “301”such as regulation § 301.6212 and are treated as interpretive regulations. The authority will be cited at the end of the regulation by the indication of the “Treasury Decision” (TD) it refers to.
(See example B below)

Procedural Regulations: These regulations are promulgated by the IRS themselves for describing their own organizational and internal procedures and are set forth in the IRS “Statement of Procedural Rules” which is contained in “26 CFR part 601”. These regulations are preceded by “601” such as regulation § 601.105 and such.

Additionally: Income tax regulations are all preceded by a “1”. Such as regulation § 1.61 and indicates a regulation under section 61 of the code.

“Example A” Legislative
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Continued)

Procedure and Administration--Table of Contents
Sec. 1.6012-1. Individuals required to make returns of income.

(a) Individual citizen or resident--(1) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning before January 1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of gross income, and for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1972, during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if such individual is:

(i) A citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad,

(ii) A resident of the United States even though not a citizen thereof, or

(iii) An alien bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year.

(2) Special rules. (i) For taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970, an individual who is described in subparagraph (1) of this Page 579]]

[ several pages deleted]

return, is not required to be filed or (ii) the amendment of a return for such a taxable year which, pursuant to such instructions, is required to be filed. For corresponding rules applicable to taxable years beginning before January 1, 1967, see 26 CFR 1.6012-1(b) (Revised as of January 1, 1967).

(c) Cross reference. For returns by fiduciaries for individuals, estates, and trusts, see Sec. 1.6012-3.
(Sec. 1445 (98 Stat. 655; 26 U.S.C. 1445), sec. 6012 (68A
Stat. 732; 26 U.S.C. 6012), and 7805 (68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 7805) of the Internal <<< == SOURCE OF AUTHORITY Revenue Code of 1954) (STATUTES !!! )

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12108, Nov. 26, 1960] <<< === SOURCE OF AUTHORITY ( TDs)

Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting Sec. 1.6012-1, see the List of CFR Sections Affected in the Finding Aids section of this volume

“Example B” Interpretive
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE
(Continued)
In General--Table of Contents

Sec. 301.6212-1 Notice of deficiency.

(a) General rule. If a district director or director of a service center (or regional director of appeals), determines that there is a deficiency in respect of income, estate, or gift tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or excise tax imposed by chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44, of the Code, such official is authorized to notify the taxpayer of the deficiency by either registered or certified mail.

(b) Address for notice of deficiency--(1) Income, gift, and chapter

[MANY PARAGRAPHS WERE DELETED HERE]

relates. This restriction shall not apply in the case of fraud, assertion of deficiencies with respect to any qualified tax (as defined in paragraph (b) of Sec. 301.6361-4) in respect of which no deficiency was asserted for the taxable year in the notice, assertion of deficiencies with respect to the Federal tax when deficiencies with respect to only a qualified tax (and not the Federal tax) were asserted for the taxable year in the notice, assertion of greater deficiencies before the Tax Court as provided in section 6214(a), mathematical errors as provided in section 6213(b)(1), termination assessments in section 6851 or 6852, or jeopardy assessments as provided in section 6861(c). Solely for purposes of applying the restriction of section 6212(c), a notice of deficiency with respect to second tier tax under chapter 43 shall be deemed to be a notice of deficiency for the taxable year in which the taxable event occurs. See Sec. 53.4963-1(e)(7)(iii) or (iv) for the date on which the taxable event occurs.

[32 FR 15241, Nov. 3, 1967, as amended by T.D. 7238, 37 FR 28739, Dec. 29, 1972; T.D. 7579, 43 FR 59360, Dec. 20, l978; T.D. 7838, 47 FR 44249, <<< === Source of Authority Oct. 7, 1982; T.D. 7910, 48 FR 40376, Sept. 7, 1983; T.D. 8084, 51 FR (Only TDs)

16305, May 2, 1986; T.D. 8628, 60 FR 62212, Dec. 5, 1995]

***STATUTES DEPENDENT UPON REGULATIONS***

Many perceive that the requirement to "file" an individual federal income tax return is based upon 26 U.S.C. § 6012; however, this section relates solely to the "making" of a return and not its "filing," which is the issue in a willful failure to file tax returns prosecution. The requirement to "file" an individual federal income tax return is governed entirely by 26 U.S.C. §6091, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

"Section 6091. Place for filing returns or other documents.

"(a) General rule.--- When not otherwise provided by this title, the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe the place for the filing of any return, declaration, statement, or other document, or copies thereof, required by this title or by regulations.

"(b) Tax returns.--- In the case of returns of tax required under authority of part II of this subchapter -

"(i) Persons other than corporations.-

(A) General rule.- Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), a return (other than a corporation return) shall be made to the Secretary-

(i) in the internal revenue district in which is located the legal residence or principal place of business of the person making the return, or

(ii) at the service center serving the internal revenue district referred to in clause
(i),"as the Secretary may by regulations designate."

The plain language of this governing section of the Code clearly discloses that its enforcement depends entirely upon the promulgation of regulations. Section 6091 depends for its validity and enforcement upon the promulgation of tax regulations and thus those regulations control entirely the duties to file returns, not the statute.

It is common for various Congressional acts to be entirely enforceable only through regulations. Any given act may simply authorize a defined federal official to perform certain acts in accordance with regulations he promulgates; until the regulations are implemented, the act in question might compel nothing. An example of such an act is the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") P.L.91-508, 84 Stat. 1114, the amended version of which is codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 5311, et seq. Throughout this particular act, language such as "the Secretary may require," "the Secretary may by regulations require," "as the Secretary may require," repeatedly appears in the Act's sections up through §242. In California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494 (1974), the Court noted that the BSA entirely depended upon regulations:

"[W]e think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone."

See also United States v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506, 508 (9th Cir. 1986) (a person cannot be prosecuted for violating the currency reporting law unless he violates an implementing regulation); and United States v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1987) (the reporting act is not self-executing and can impose no reporting duties until implementing regulations have been promulgated).

In California Bankers, supra, the Supreme Court not only noted that the BSA depended entirely upon regulations, but that also the federal income tax laws were similarly drafted:

"The Internal Revenue Code, for example, contains a general authorization to the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe by regulation records to be kept by both business and individual taxpayers, 26 U.S.C. § 6001, which has been implemented by the Secretary in various regulations," 416 U.S., at 45.

Here, §6091 likewise depends for its enforcement entirely upon the promulgation of regulations for this section. The section itself merely notes that "the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe the place for the filing of any return." An income tax return for an individual is to be filed in either an internal revenue district or a service center, "as the Secretary may by regulations designate." It cannot be denied that §6091 by its plain language depends entirely upon regulations for its implementation. Further, the case law so holds.

One of the earliest cases dealing with a statute dependent upon regulations was United States v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 677, 12 S.Ct. 764 (1892). Here, §5 of the act in question provided that oleomargarine manufacturers "shall keep such books, render such returns ... as the commissioner of internal revenue, with the approval of the secretary of the treasury, may, by regulation, require;" 144 U.S., at 683. In Eaton, the Court held, in essence, that the regulation in question was broader than its statutory authority and was thus invalid; nonetheless, it was obvious to the Court that regulations were essential to enforcement of the act.
Some of the most notorious Congressional acts delegating broad rule making authority were enacted during the Great Depression via the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the resulting litigation brought the same into issue. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241 (1935), at issue were "hot oil" regulations promulgated via §10(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which authorized the President "to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes" of the Act; 293 U.S., at 407. Finding that the President's rule making authority under this act amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President, the regulations at issue were found to be "without constitutional authority;" 293 U.S., at 433. The National Industrial Recovery Act also authorized the President not only to promulgate "rules and regulations," it also authorized him to adopt entire "codes of fair competition." In both Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837 (1935), and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936), such "codes" were found unconstitutional. A reading of the National Industrial Recovery Act reveals that it was primarily enforceable only through such "rules, regulations and codes."

In Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660 (1944), and M. Kraus & Bros. v. United States, 327 U.S. 614, 66 S.Ct. 705 (1946), the price control laws at issue in these cases were dependent upon the promulgation of regulations. In Douglas v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, 322 U.S. 275, 64 S.Ct. 988 (1944), a statute dealing with income tax deductions contained the words "such reasonable allowance in all cases to be made under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary." Douglas was decided solely by interpretation and construction of the regulation at issue. In Comm. of Internal Revenue v. S. Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496, 503, 68 S.Ct. 695 (1948), at issue before the Court was the construction of a statute and regulation. Here, the Court found it essential to construe both the statute and regulation to decide the case:

"That the Commissioner was particularly intended by Congress to have broad rule-making power under the regulation was manifested by the first words in the new ... section which only permitted taxpayers to take advantage of it 'under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary.'"

See also Fratt v. Robinson, 203 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1953), a case involving a statute containing the language, "such rules and regulations as the Commissioner may prescribe."
In United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 437-38, 80 S.Ct. 459 (1960), the Court had before it a statute which contained the words, "The Secretary of the Treasury may by regulations ..." Concerning this language, the Court stated:

"Here the statute is not complete by itself since it merely declares the range of its operation and leaves to its progeny the means to be utilized in the effectuation of its command .... Once promulgated, these regulations, called for by the statute itself, have the force of law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions, just as if all the details had been incorporated into the congressional language. The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other."

See also United States v. Wayte, 549 F.Supp. 1376, 1385 (C.D.Cal. 1982) ("the defendant's argument that the court should view the applicable statute, regulations and proclamation as one statutory scheme is well founded").
Here, §6091 is no different from the statute at issue in Mersky, supra. Twice within this section, Congress has directed the Secretary to define the duty of filing tax returns by means of regulations. Section 6091 "is not complete by itself since it merely declares the range of its operation and leaves to its [regulations] the means to be utilized in the effectuation of its command. The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force." Thus, the duty to file a federal income tax return is not governed by statute; such duty only manifests itself via 26 C.F.R., §1.6091-2.

The conclusion that §6091 is entirely dependent upon regulations promulgated under its authority is buttressed by a review of other sections of the Internal Revenue Code. And, the principles enunciated above are directly relevant to these other sections of the Code which provide meaning to both §§ 6012 and 6091. For example, in California Bankers, supra, the Court noted that §6001 gave broad rule making authority to the Secretary, which is readily evident upon examination:

"Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe."

Remarkably, the language of §6001 is very similar to the statute at issue in United States v. Eaton, supra, in which the Court found it absolutely essential to deal with the corresponding regulation to decide the case. As in Mersky, supra, §6001 is incapable of enforcement without there first being implementing regulations. Finally, as in California Bankers, supra, §6001 is not self-executing, but entirely depends upon the further promulgation of regulations by the Secretary. In short, the plain meaning of §6001 is that the Secretary is given the authority to delineate by regulations the duty to make and file returns, which duty arises only by such regulations. And this authority of the Secretary must be considered when construing the purported duties arising under §§ 6012 and 6091.

Section 6011 of the Code is very similar to §6001:

"When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms and regulations."

Whereas §6001 commands "every person liable for any tax" to make returns via regulations prescribed by the Secretary, §6011 simply states that those who are "liable for any tax" shall make returns upon forms designated by the Secretary "and shall provide the information required by such forms." In reference to the making of returns, §6001 simply authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations in this respect, and, if the Secretary does so promulgate such regulations, then §6011 requires those liable for the tax to make such returns upon forms prescribed by the Secretary and designated in his regulations. It is quite evident from a combination of both §§ 6001 and 6011 that the duty to make returns is thus governed entirely by regulations.

With the authority granted to the Secretary via §§ 6001 and 6011 in mind, the meaning of §6012 of the Code becomes readily apparent. In Panama Refining Company, supra, the Court was confronted with an act of Congress which conveyed extremely broad rule making authority to the President. This Presidential authority was objectionable because it was unqualified and unrestrained; no policies were prescribed under which the exercise of such Presidential power was to be governed, and the act placed absolutely no prohibitions or restraints upon the exercise of such power. These features of the act, among others, were declared to be unlawful delegations of legislative power; see 293 U.S., at 415. It is the rule enunciated in Panama Refining Company which explains the reason for the existence of §6012 of the Code: it limits the otherwise very broad rule making authority of the Secretary under §§ 6001 and 6011.
Congress might have enacted in the Code only §§ 6001 and 6011 and left it at that, which would have meant that the Secretary's rule making power was limitless and unqualified. Under such circumstances, the Secretary could have required not only nonresident aliens and foreign corporations to make and file returns, he could have created classes such as "Alaskans living north of the Mason-Dixon line," as well as dogs, cats, cows, horses, sheep and political prisoners in Iraq. The purpose of §6012 is simply to define and limit the Secretary's otherwise broad rule making authority to the classes to which §6012 addresses itself: individuals, corporations, estates, trusts, estates or trusts with nonresident alien beneficiaries, political organizations, homeowners' associations, fiduciaries and receivers. Incidentally, the forms which the parties named in §6012 are required to "make" are not identified. Those forms as well as the information to be included on the forms are subject to the rule making authority of the Secretary as defined in §6011.

Not only is the Secretary's rule making authority limited by §6012, it is further limited by other following sections of the Code. The making of estate tax returns is governed by §6018, the making of gift tax returns is governed by §6019, the making of partnership tax returns is controlled by §6031; sections following these further prescribe other classes required to make returns. Thus, the power of the Secretary to define who or what classes are obligated to make returns is carefully circumscribed by statute to avoid constitutional issues regarding the Secretary's broad rule making authority.

The broad rule making authority of §§ 6001 and 6011 could encompass the power of the Secretary to issue rules requiring returns to be filed at whatever place he designated. If the Secretary's power in this respect were not limited by statute, he could issue rules which could in essence change the entire structure of government. The Secretary and the President could be members of one political party, and the Secretary could issue a rule that all members of Congress of another party had to file their tax returns with a space station in orbit around the earth. When the members of Congress to which such a rule would apply find it impossible to comply, they could all be indicted for tax evasion on April 16 and the structure of government would be radically changed as a consequence. This kind of broad rule making authority of unconstitutional dimensions is not found in the Code for very apparent reasons.

Pursuant to §7621 of the Code, the President is given the authority to create internal revenue districts, a power he also possessed under the 1939 Internal Revenue Code. As explained in Treasury Department Order 150-01 (51 Fed. Reg. 9571, 1986-1 C.B. 686), the President has delegated this authority to the Treasury Secretary, and T.D.O. 150-01 describes the boundaries of such various districts. Via §6091, Congress further declares that the Secretary's broad rule making authority under §§ 6001 and 6011, particularly that authority which would dictate the act of filing a tax return, is to be limited to either internal revenue districts or service centers, "as the Secretary may by regulations designate."

Based upon the authority of §6091, the Secretary of the Treasury has promulgated eight (8) different tax regulations to implement this statute, which are found at 26 C.F.R., §§ 1.6091-1, 1.6091-2, 1.6091-3, 1.6091-4, 20.6091-1, 25.6091-1, 31.6091-1 and 301.6091-1. Of these, only the regulation at §1.6091-2 relates to the duty of a domestic American citizen to file an individual federal income tax return.

The tax regulation at 26 C.F.R., §1.6091-2, provides in subparagraph (a) that income tax returns are to be filed with "the district director for an internal revenue district." But, this is a rule subject to an exception, and that exception appears within subparagraph (c). This latter provision declares that income tax returns shall be filed "with a service center" if instructions for the form in question so require.

The fact that 26 C.F.R., §1.6091-2, does indeed control the duty to file federal income tax returns is demonstrated by a variety of cases. In United States v. Calhoun, 566 F.2d 969, 973 (5th Cir. 1978), that court held as follows:
"The crime of failure to file an income tax return is committed in the judicial district in which the taxpayer is required to file."

"The general rule is that a taxpayer shall make his return 'to the Secretary or his delegate ... in the internal revenue district' of his 'legal residence' or at the designated service center for that district. 26 U.S.C., §§ 6091(b)(1)(A)(i), (ii)."

Other cases have likewise identified §6091 and its regulations as those governing the duty to file a tax return; see United States v. Griffin, 814 F.2d 806, 810 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Citron, 221 F.Supp. 454, 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1963); United States v. Gilkey, 362 F.Supp. 1069, 1071 (E.D.Pa. 1973); United States v. Ramantanin, 452 F.2d 670, 671 (4th Cir. 1971); United States v. Garman, 748 F.2d 218, 219 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Lawhon, 499 F.2d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Quimby, 636 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 526 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Lefkoff, 113 F.Supp. 551 (D.Tenn. 1953); United States v. Gorman, 393 F.2d 209, 213, 214 (7th Cir. 1968); United States v. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Clinton, 574 F.2d 464, 465 (9th Cir. 1978); and United States v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746, 750 (10th Cir. 1989).

There is thus no question that this tax regulation plainly controls the issue of where a tax return must be filed

What am I going to trial for? What do you think they will charge me with?

Nothing if you don't evade taxes. If they have reason to believe you did, then, after a very lengthy process of delinquency notices, things will move from the administrative phase to the criminal phase, assuming they have evidence of unreported income sufficient to make it worth their efforts. At that time, willful tax evasion would be a fair bet. You will have the opportunity to point out all of these faulty laws to the judge.

If you really believe all of that, then I assume you will push the issue to that point in the process, rather than settle the issues with the IRS.

There is thus no question that this tax regulation plainly controls the issue of where a tax return must be filed

Not sure I follow the point. There is much in the regulations which must be followed, not the least would be the location for filing. As was pointed out at the beginning, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations, which it seems was done. You also now see that a regulation cannot be expanded beyond the scope of the applicable law. That's what I have been trying to tell you. At least we got that little issue out of the way.

But darn....there's that pesky old 16th that just won't go away....

Henrietta!
Freepers (socialists) don't allow me - a Libertarian - to post on this site without getting slammed, yet you don't. This says worlds about the "free"pers dedication to principle & human freedom.

Sickening

I'll answer your question about direct/indirect after you answer how much money you were dumb enough to give to Shiff et al and when you agree that the legal definition used by the SC for the meaning of direct tax is valid. (Hint: Its already posted).

Minion,

Just answer the question.

Your frustration is continuing. Perhaps the next time you use the word "dumb" try using a larger font perhaps size 22 if it makes you feel better. Now after the tingling sensation has left and your breath has returned to normal, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.

First you fabricate my position as an attempt to duck the question and you now continue in this same vein.

I believe the words soph.. and infan... come to mind.

Just answer the question.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

Just answer the question.

Without you clarifying what you believe the legal meaning of direct and indirect tax, I will not, because any discussion on it will be based on both of us differing on the definition of terms which is then pointless.

The only definition relevant is the one the SC has used or will use.

Your frustration is continuing.

I'm hardly frustrated. I'm am very amused that you cannot go and read the cases I posted references to so that you can specify the meaning of direct and indirect. Your reluctance to do so indicates to me that what you really want is a battle of semantics. In court such a battle will only get you held in contempt.

Perhaps the next time you use the word "dumb" try using a larger font perhaps size 22 if it makes you feel better.

I was being kind. Those who believe these ideas of Shiff are more than simply dumb. They are enormously stupid and idiotic and don't have the common sense their mom's hoped they had when they gave them birth.

Now after the tingling sensation has left and your breath has returned to normal, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Define your terms first. Listen, requesting that one define his terms is not only a proper debate request its one that is imperative if you are going to have any success with the courts.

First you fabricate my position as an attempt to duck the question and you now continue in this same vein.

I'm free to fabricate your posistion until you state one. Go ahead and state your posistion on the direct vs. indirect tax.

I believe the words soph.. and infan... come to mind.

Only an infan could believe and buy the crap Shiff sells. How much did he get you to part with ?

Just answer the question.

Define your terms.

Well contrary to your beliefs and those exaggerations contained in those beliefs about "zero-returns" your scenario probably won't happen. It hasn't occurred to anyone who filed a "zero-return" from the very beginning and that is a fact.

Yes, two to four people attempted to use the "zero-return" already in the middle of their tax problems. It certainly didn’t work for them.

One gentleman an artist used a fake SSN when he filed a traditional return. He might have saved himself though if his attorney had done something in court like talk or litigate. There was a plan and a course to go and the attorney dropped out of it and the end. As to why the attorney wouldn't say. If you read the transcript, you'd understand that.

Of course it is much easier for you to say that 3 or 4 so-called "zero filers", who came into it with problems, out of the thousands or millions of "zero-filers" who have never face this, were charged with "willful failure to file" and therefore they are all going to jail. This is more of the typical liberal and gubbermint extreme rhetoric and scare tactics designed to keep the sheeple in line.

I accept that is a tactic used in our world and even by Conservatives. It is accurate, but it is less than truthful.

Here is why I say "probably". It doesn't take much to understand that our courts are more about politics and money then they are about justice. Therefore, if I become a real threat to them they can find any reason they want to put me in court.

I'd say that is pretty much what happened to Jesus being brought before Caesar. Jesus committed the high crime of telling the truth. That will always cause you more problems than most lies. Well let's look at President Billy Bob Clinton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. They both should be in jail.

One of the issues Jesus brought before the leaders of his people was how these leaders used the law to hurt. I think He said this:

"Which came first the law or man? [...] So the law was made after man and to benefit man. Then why do you use the law to hurt man?"

I probably just butchered this quote, but that is essentially what he said.

I have enough documented denials of due process including taped recorded conversations with an IRSS Agent (yes, she knew) to have this agent at the very least fired or sent to jail in a fair world. Just ask former IRS Agent Tommy Henderson what happens when you tell the truth or expose it. You know the tag quote I frequently use at the of my posts.
____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

Just answer the question. Stop trying to deceive everyone. You are not in court defending any criminal action. The terms have been defined.

You are just evading and all this name calling over a simple question is just that.

Just answer the question.

____________________________________________________________
‘IRS management does what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants, how it wants with almost complete immunity,’ retired Internal Revenue Service official Tommy Henderson told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.”

You cannot play your game if you have to define your terms can you ?

You amuse me so in order to put another quarter in, I'll choose direct tax.

I missed this....The terms have been defined.

i take back my prior post. Please link me to the defintion of terms.

So if I understand your point, it is twofold:

Jesus Christ approves of my tax evasion, and
My chance os getting caught are slim, therefore it must be ok

I think every lawbreaker in the country subscribes at least to the second point, so you are in plenty of company.