This may sound
hard to believe, but our corrupt federal courts refuse to hold the IRS
accountable for any of the following:
- The content or accuracy of any of their publications, which
includes ALL IRS forms, IRS publications, Treasury Orders, Revenue
Rulings, and Determination Letters.
- Following its own written procedures found in the
Internal Revenue Manual
- Following the procedural regulations developed by the Secretary
of the Treasury under
26 CFR Part 601.
- The oral agreements or statements that its representatives make,
even when their delegation order authorizes them to make such agreements.
Instead, most settlements and agreements must be reduced to writing
or they are unenforceable.
For this determination, we rely on the following cases, downloaded form
the VersusLaw website (http://www.versuslaw.com)
and posted prominently on our website. Read the authorities for
yourself. We have highlighted the most pertinent parts of these
The most blatant and clear statement was made in
the case of CWT Farms, Inc., above, which ruled:
"It is unfortunately
all too common for government manuals, handbooks, and in-house publications
to contain statements that were not meant or are not wholly reliable.
If they go counter to governing statutes and regulations of the
highest or higher dignity, e.g. regulations published in the Federal
Register, they do not bind the government, and persons relying on
them do so at their peril. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. United
States, 589 F.2d 1040, 1043, 218 Ct. Cl. 517 (1978) (A Handbook
for Exporters, a Treasury publication). Dunphy v. United States
[529 F.2d 532, 208 Ct. Cl. 986 (1975)], supra (Navy publication
entitled All Hands). In such cases it is necessary to examine any
informal publication to see if it was really written to fasten legal
consequences on the government. Dunphy, supra. See also Donovan
v. United States, 139 U.S. App. D.C. 364, 433 F.2d 522 (D.C.Cir.),
cert. denied, 401 U.S. 944, 91 S. Ct. 955, 28 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1971).
(Employees Performance Improvement Handbook, an FAA publication)(merely
advisory and directory publications do not have mandatory consequences).
Bartholomew v. United States, 740 F.2d 526, 532 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1984)(quoting
Fiorentino v. United States, 607 F.2d 963, 968, 221 Ct. Cl. 545
(1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1083, 100
S. Ct. 1039, 62 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1980).
Lecroy 's proposition
that the statements in the handbook were binding is inapposite to
the accepted law among the circuits that publications are not binding.*fn15
We find that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in promulgating
the challenged regulations. First, Farms and International did not
justifiably rely on the Handbook.
Taxpayers who rely on Treasury
publications, which are mere guidelines, do so at their peril.
Caterpillar Tractor v. United States, 589 F.2d 1040, 1043,
218 Ct. Cl. 517 (1978). Further, the Treasury's position on the
sixty-day rule was made public through proposed section 1.993-2(d)(2)
in 1972, before the taxable years at issue. Charbonnet v. United
States, 455 F.2d 1195, 1199- 1200 (5th Cir.1972). See also Wendland
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 739 F.2d 580, 581 (11th Cir.1984).
Second, whatever harm has
been suffered by Farms and International resulted from a lack of
prudence. As even the Lecroy 751 F.2d at 127. See also 79
T.C. at 1069. "
CWT Farms Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 755 F.2d 790
(11th Cir. 03/19/1985) ]
Even the IRS' own
Internal Revenue Manual
(IRM) warns you that you can't depend on their
"IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain
the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While
a good source of general information, publications should not
be cited to sustain a position." [IRM,
After reading the above, additional conclusions
and inferences can safely and soundly be drawn by implication:
- IRS forms qualify as publications as well. Therefore,
you can't be required to trust anything on any IRS form. If
you can't trust what is on the form and if the government is going
to say that you are required to sign it under penalty of perjury
saying it is true, then by implication they give you the authority
to electronically modify the form so that by the time you sign it
under penalty of perjury, it IS in fact accurate.
- If the IRS is not responsible for following its own internal
regulations found in
26 CFR Part 601, then it couldn't possibly be held liable for
what it puts in its publications to the public EITHER. They
could literally lie through their teeth and fool everyone into thinking
they were "taxpayers" and not be held liable.
- In the Boulez case above, an IRS representative who had
explicit authority to make an agreement with the "taxpayer" still
could not be held accountable for an oral agreement. This
implies that all the phone advice given by IRS agents on their national
800 number cannot be relied upon as a basis for "good faith belief".
- ONLY the Statutes at Large, as well as the regulations written
by the Secretary of the Treasury found in
26 CFR Part 1 and
26 CFR Part 301, may be relied upon as having the "force of
law", as the courts above described. Since
26 U.S.C. (also
called the Internal Revenue Code) was never enacted as positive
law, it stands only as "prima facie evidence of law" which may be
rebutted by citing the sections of the Statutes at Large from which
it was compiled.
To put one last nail in the coffin of this issue,
below is a quote from a book entitled Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud,
Patricia Morgan, 1999, ISBN 0-314-06586-5, West Group:
p. 21: "As discussed in §2.3.3, the
IRS is not bound by its
statements or positions in unofficial pamphlets and publications."
p. 34: "6. IRS Pamphlets and Booklets.
The IRS is not bound
by statements or positions in its unofficial publications, such
as handbooks and pamphlets."
p. 34: "7. Other Written and Oral Advice.
Most taxpayers' requests for advice from the IRS are made orally.
Unfortunately, the IRS is
not bound by answers or positions stated by its employees orally,
whether in person or by telephone. According to the procedural
regulations, 'oral advice is advisory only and the Service is not
bound to recognize it in the examination of the taxpayer's return.'
26 CFR §601.201(k)(2). In rare cases, however, the
IRS has been held to be equitably estopped to take a position different
from that stated orally to, and justifiably relied on by, the taxpayer.
The Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act, enacted as part of the
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, gives taxpayers
some comfort, however. It amended section 6404 to require
the Service to abate any penalty or addition to tax that is attributable
to advice furnished in writing by any IRS agent or employee
acting within the scope of his official capacity. Section
6404 as amended protects the taxpayer only if the following conditions
are satisfied: the written advice from the IRS was issued
in response to a written request from the taxpayer; reliance on
the advice was reasonable; and the error in the advice did not result
from inaccurate or incomplete information having been furnished
by the taxpayer. Thus, it will still be difficult to bind
the IRS even to written statements made by its employees.
As was true before, taxpayers
may be penalized for following oral advice from the IRS."
We now have a rhetorical question for our audience:
- If you can't trust any IRS publication, and IRS forms are publications,
then how can the government require you to complete and sign an
IRS tax form that is untrustworthy and has lies on it that no government
employee can be held responsible for? Aren't you in effect
being compelled to swear under penalty of perjury that a possible
lie is true in that scenario? Furthermore, doesn't this violate
the concept of
protection of the law, which requires equal liability and accountability
for statements and actions on BOTH sides: government and the public?
- Doesn't it seem hypocritical to put a person in jail for refusing
to file under
26 U.S.C. §7203 a return that he is certain contains falsehoods?
- Should the government be allowed to jail and punish a person
for refusing to commit perjury and to file a form that he knows
he is not required to file?
- Why aren't IRS agents required to sign their correspondence
under penalty of perjury like all of the communication coming from
the "taxpayer" so they CAN be held accountable? Doesn't
26 U.S.C. §6065 require this? Note that in 6065, the title
says returns, but
26 U.S.C. §7806(b) says titles mean NOTHING. The body
of that section, in fact, says that ALL statements, returns,
declarations of any kind shall be signed under penalty of perjury,
including those produced by IRS employees. We have FOIA'd
extensively for IRS assessment documents and not a single one is
signed under penalty of perjury because no one in the IRS wants
personal liability for being wrong. Doesn't this seem very
If the IRS isn't held accountable in a court of
law for what they say or even what they write, then they are, by implication,
totally unaccountable to the public that they were put into existence
to "serve". The Internal Revenue SERVICE, therefore, only SERVES
the interests of itself and not the public at large. Furthermore,
we believe the same rules should apply to Americans submitting their
tax returns as those that apply to the IRS: not liable or responsible
for what is written on the return. For instance, the "I declare
under penalty of perjury" should be replaced with "I declare that this
return as accurate and trustworthy as the advice and writings of the
IRS". That is equivalent to saying that it is untrue
and NOT trustworthy, and that will get you off the hook and also point
out the hypocrisy and lawlessness of the IRS! What is good for
the goose is good for the gander. Any other approach would be
to condone hypocrisy and lawlessness and tyranny on the part of our
government. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say about
this kind of hypocrisy and lawlessness. You be the judge!:
"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For
good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is
contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker [or a hypocrite
with double standards], it breeds contempt for the law; it invites
every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare
that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies
the means...would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious
doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”
Olmstead v. United States,
277 U.S. 438, 485. (1928)]
For further information on what does and does not
have "the force and effect of law",
to read our article from the Legal Reference section of the
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions
Sections 3.19 of our free
IRS Hoax book talk further about the subject of this article if
you would like to learn more.