The term ''taxpayer''
means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
as a Nontaxpayer-IRS pamphlet (OFFSITE LINK)
"taxpayers" and who needs a "Taxpayer Identification Number"? (OFFSITE LINK)
v. "Nontaxpayer": Which one are you?--excellent article
Your Rights as a Taxpayer-IRS
pamphlet (OFFSITE LINK)
7701(a)(14), the term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to a tax
under the applicable revenue law.
U.S.C. §6651 Notes:
''(a) Prohibition. - The officers and employees of the Internal Revenue
Service - ''(1) shall not designate taxpayers as illegal tax protesters
(or any similar designation); and ''(2) in the case of any such designation
made on or before the date of the enactment of this Act (July 22, 1998)
- ''(A) shall remove such designation from the individual master file;
and ''(B) shall disregard any such designation not located in the individual
master file. ''(b) Designation of Nonfilers Allowed. - An officer or
employee of the Internal Revenue Service may designate any appropriate
taxpayer as a nonfiler, but shall remove such designation once the taxpayer
has filed income tax returns for 2 consecutive taxable years and paid
all taxes shown on such returns. ''(c) Effective Date. - The provisions
of this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act (July 22, 1998), except that the removal of any designation under
subsection (a)(2)(A) shall not be required to begin before January 1,
U.S.C. §6651 Notes]
Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)
"The revenue laws are a code
or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate
to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their
scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt
is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.
With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of
the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]
Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes
does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment
against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable
for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status
before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their
property is seized..."
[Botta v. Scanlon,
288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)
“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, and elected
officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American
Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope.
No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made
to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]
Hoax, section 5.3.1: "Taxpayer" v. "Nontaxpayer"
C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939):
"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person, trust
or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since
the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts
do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose
of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939)]
Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC.
Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory
judgment against the United States of America with respect to "whether
or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26
U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14)." (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks
jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment "with respect to Federal
taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986," a code section that is not at issue in the
instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United
States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming
dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under §2201 where claim
concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant's motion
to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.
v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)]