Memorandum in Support of Administrative Appeal
& Criminal Complaint
In accordance with rules governing the administrative
appeals process, set out in 26 CFR § 601, et seq., the Internal
Revenue Service district office is incompetent to make rulings
concerning the law of any given case. The district office is
responsible primarily for establishing fact, with the national
office responsible for making determinations concerning law.
However, in the present context it will be useful to possibly
shorten the administrative appeals process and subsequent
initiatives in civil and/or criminal forums.
This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely
to provide all parties with sufficient information to constitute
notice, and thereby compel due diligence necessity for
determining law which governs the conduct of the various parties.
Each matter at issue will be treated with as much brevity as
possible. Should it be necessary to independently pursue
appropriate remedies, matters set out below, anchored in
published law, court cases and other government publications,
will be deemed accurate and sufficient cause for action should
Internal Revenue Service officers or agents fail to rebut,
supporting contentions with legal authorities adequate to
overcome assertions herein.
1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest
In 1954, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the
stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the
name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, there was no
congressional or presidential authorization for making this
change, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere.
Research unearthed in the last several months suggests that the
Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico Trust
#62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 U.S.C. § 1321).
The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in
the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research
by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In October,
a criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew
Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based
revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have
failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the
Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico. In November, criminal
complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the
United States district court for the District of Northern
Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmondson,
and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS
principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance.
By consulting the index for title Chapter 3, Title 31 of the
United States Code, one finds that IRS, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, and Secret Service are not listed as
agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 1 of 9
The fact that Congress never created a "Bureau of Internal
Revenue" is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at
36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 -
2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100
at 1111.2.
Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties
who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate
authority resides in or emanates from an office which was not
legitimately created and/or ordained either by state or national
constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United
States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v.
Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943); where the
state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was
State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR § 1,
which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that
Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the
United States Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional.
Administration of the Act was subsequently moved off-shore to
Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration
Authority, and operation eventually merged with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, Philippines, created by the
provisional government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal
revenue), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue
collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines).
Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority
in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index
volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that
there are no regulations supportive of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7621, 7801,
7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table).
In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal
Register, extending authority to the several States and the
population at large, (1) to establish revenue districts within
the several States, (2) extending authority of the Department of
the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3) giving
authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants
within the several States, or (4) extending authority of any
other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.
To date only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as currently amended, have been located that specifically
reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States
(District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
etc.): 26 U.S.C. §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two
provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements
relating to imported distilled spirits for governments of the
several States and their respective political subdivisions, and
the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax
Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the
United States and the several States. None of the three statutes
extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within
the several States.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 2 of 9
IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the
Agency for International Development, and case law demonstrates
that the true principals of interest are the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank of the United States v.
Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242; see 22 USCA § 286, et seq.). In other words, IRS
seemingly provides collection services for undisclosed foreign
principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the
benefit of constitutional United States government operation.
The Internal Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect
to the several States, is not registered to do business in the
several States.
2. Preservation of Due Process Rights
The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by
statutory courts both of the United States and the several
States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted
uniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the several
States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress' Article
IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate
private international law under exclusively United States
treaties on private international law, and both operate in the
framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both
majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan,
U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is
repugnant to both state and national constitutions. However, this
house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism, known
as Corporatism well into the 1930's, has been thoroughly
documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United
States appellate courts.
In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process
rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:
[Sec. 7804(b)]
(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. -- Nothing
in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization
Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any
right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any
internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to
have been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to
have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected
under the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any
action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all
statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector
of internal revenue, the principal officer for the internal
revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to refer
to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the
preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The venue of
any such action shall be the same as under existing law.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 3 of 9
The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which is presently codified as
title 26 of the United States Code. The statute set out above is
easier to comprehend when the references are consolidated.
Further, the dependent clause "including trial by jury" relates
to a constitutionally-assured right, not a remedy, so it should
be moved to the proper location in the sentence. Finally, the
matter of venue is important as "existing law" is constitutional
and common law indigenous to the several States. In the absence
of legitimate federal law which extends to the several States,
those who operate under color of law, engage in oppression,
extortion, etc., are subject to the foundation law of the states.
Venue is determined by the law of legislative jurisdiction.
Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of
due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States
of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the
several States. The example represents the class.
Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus
assessments as well as collections, and (2) § 7804(b), unlike §
7433, does not presume that the complaining party is a
"taxpayer". Finally, there is 26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support
for § 7804 where there are no regulations published in the
Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules, cited earlier). Therefore, § 7804(b)
preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for
remedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable
portions of § 7804(b) read as follows:
Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered
to impair any right, [including trial by jury], or remedy,
[***], to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have
been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ... The
venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing
law.
The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28
U.S.C. § 2463, which stipulates that any seizure under United
States revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and
subject solely to disposition of courts of the United States with
proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate
authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity
have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment,
seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty
or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment
citizen-subject of the United States or a Citizen principal of
one of the several States. Due process assurances in the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate -- administrative
seizures without due process can be equated only to tyranny and
barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct
acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at
26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1). And finally, even officers, agents and
employees of United States agencies are assured due process where
garnishment is concerned (5 U.S.C. § 5520a), so the notion that
IRS has authority to execute garnishment and other seizures via
the private sector without due process is clearly and simply
absurd.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 4 of 9
In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives
through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly
antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except
where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether
by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative
seizure and sale of real or personal property, or any other
initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.
3. Current Internal Revenue Code
& Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same
Consult 26 U.S.C. §§ 7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since, simply
reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read § 7852(b) &
(c), then read the balance of §§ 7851 & 7852 for best
comprehension.
The importance of making this connection rests on the fact
that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely codification of
the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. There was no general income
tax levied against the population at large in 1939 or since. The
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal Revenue Code
of 1939 incorporated the Social Security tax activated after
1936, was premised on the notion that working for federal
government is a privilege. Income and related taxes prescribed in
Subtitles A & C of the current Internal Revenue Code have never
been mandatory for anyone other than officers, agents and
employees of the United States, as identified at 26 U.S.C. §
3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified at §
3401(d), particularized at 5 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 105.
The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the
Sixteenth Amendment, fraudulently promulgated in 1913, did not
alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require all
direct taxes to be apportioned among the several States
(Constitution, Article I §§ 2.3 & 9.4). In Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, and numerous decisions
since, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed
that for purposes of income tax, wages and other returns from
enterprise of common right are property, not income. In fact,
returns from enterprise of common right are fundamental to all
property, and the sanctity is preserved as a fundamental common
law principle dating to signing of the Magna Charta in 1215.
The nature of Subtitle A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR §
31.3101-1: "The employee tax is measured by the amount of wages
received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936 ...."
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 5 of 9
In other words, the wage is not the object, but merely the
measure of the tax. This is obviously so much legalese in an
effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes
collected by the Internal Revenue Service fall into the excise
category was confirmed by the Comptroller General's report
following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). It
is further suggested at 26 CFR § 106.401(a)(2), where the
regulation concedes that, "The descriptive terms used in this
section to designate the various classes of taxes are intended
only to indicate their general character ...."
Finally, by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities
and Rules, cited above, it is found that the definition of "gross
income" is still preserved in Section 22 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1939, thus cementing the link between the Code of 1939
and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and
since. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 merely codified the
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in
Senate Committee On Finance and House Committee On Ways and Means
reports on H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which § 22
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked. Both
reports stipulate that the definitions of "gross income" are
intended to be constitutional.
This intent is articulated at 26 CFR § 1.61-1(a): "Gross
income means all income from whatever source derived, unless
excluded by law."
An "Act of Congress" is policy, not law, and per definition
located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has only
local application in the District of Columbia and other United
States territories and insular possessions unless general
application is manifestly expressed. As demonstrated above, wages
and other returns from enterprise of common right are exempt from
direct tax by fundamental law, and the regulation for the current
Internal Revenue Code definition for "gross income" clearly
articulates the fundamental law exemption.
The exemption as it pertains to the several States is
clearly demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules (Index volume to the CFR, p. 751 of the
1995 edition): There are 26 CFR, Part 1 regulations listed for 26
U.S.C. §§ 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted
gross income, but there is no 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 regulation for
26 U.S.C. § 63, the definition for taxable income.
While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are
clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they are
moot if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross income
which is not taxable within the several States is of no
consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.
Further, on examination of 26 CFR § 1.62-1, it is found that
subsections (a) & (b) are reserved so the published regulation is
incomplete, with "temporary" regulation § 1.62-1T serving as the
current regulation defining "adjusted gross income." Temporary
regulations have no legal effect.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 6 of 9
4. Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax
Here again, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is
useful as it demonstrates that Subtitle A & C taxes do not have
general application within the several States and to the
population at large. The regulation for 26 U.S.C. § 1 refers to
26 CFR § 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is no
regulation under 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the
several States and the population at large. Further, there are no
supportive regulations at all for 26 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 3, and of
considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate
income tax, 26 U.S.C. § 11, as applicable to the several States.
Where the instant matter is concerned, regulations
supporting 26 U.S.C. § 6321, liens for taxes, and § 6331, levy
and distraint, are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is
that Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations is exclusively
under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration for
Subtitle E and related taxes. There are no corresponding
regulations for the Internal Revenue Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1
or 31, which extend comparable authority to the several States
and the population at large.
The necessity of regulations being published in the Federal
Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures
Act, at 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at
44 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq. Of particular note, it is specifically
set out at 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a), that when regulations are not
published in the Federal Register, application of any given
statute is exclusively to agencies of the United States and
officers, agents and employees of the United States, thus once
again confirming application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated
above. Further, the need for regulations is detailed in 1 CFR,
Chapter 1, and where the Internal Revenue Service is concerned,
26 CFR § 601.702.
The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the
Supreme Court of the United States, as stated in California
Bankers Ass'n. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500,
39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974): "Because it has a bearing on our treatment
of some of the issues raised by the parties, we 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."
Because there is a citation supporting these statutes
applicable under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it
is important to point out that, "Each agency shall publish its
own regulations in full text," (1 CFR § 21.21(c)), with further
verification that one agency cannot use regulations promulgated
by another at 1 CFR § 21.40. To date, no corresponding regulation
has been found for 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, so until proven
otherwise, IRS does not have authority to perfect liens or
prosecute seizures in the several States as pertaining to the
population at large.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 7 of 9
5. Misapplication of Authority
Regulations pertaining to seized property are found at 26
CFR § 601.326:
Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to
the personal property seized by officers of the Internal
Revenue Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended
to be used, to violate certain Federal Laws; the remission
or mitigation of such forfeiture; and the administrative
sale or other disposition, pursuant to forfeiture, of such
seized property other than firearms seized under the
National Firearms Act and firearms and ammunition seized
under title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968. For disposal
of firearms and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control
Act of 1968, see 18 U.S.C. 924(d). For disposal of
explosives under Title XI of Organized Crime Control Act of
1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c).
The only other comparable authority thus far found pertains
to windfall profits tax on petroleum (26 CFR § 601.405), but once
again, application is not supported by regulations applicable to
the several States and the population at large.
Where the mandate for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the
only regulatory reference presently known is at 26 CFR §
601.401(d)(4), and this application appears related to
"employees" who work for two or more "employers", receiving
foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States.
The mandate is mentioned in instructions applicable to United
States citizens and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date
has not been located elsewhere. Reference OMB numbers for §
601.401, listed on page 170, 26 CFR, Part 600-End, cross
referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the
Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign application.
The "notice of levy" instrument forwarded to various third
parties is not a "levy" which warrants surrender of property. The
Internal Revenue Code, at § 6335(a), defines the "notice"
instrument by use -- notice is to be served to whomever seizure
has been executed against after the seizure is effected. In
short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for
action. The term "notice" is clarified by definition in Black's
Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, and other law dictionaries. Use of
the "notice of levy" instrument to effect seizure is fraud by
design.
Proper use of the "notice" process, administrative
garnishment, et al., is specifically set out in 5 U.S.C. § 5514,
as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees
of agencies of the United States (26 U.S.C. § 3401(c)). Even
then, however, the process must comply with provisions of 31
U.S.C. § 3530(d), and standards set forth in §§ 3711 & 3716-17.
In accordance with provisions of 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the
employer, meaning the United States agency the employee is
employed by, is responsible for promulgating regulations and
carrying out garnishment.
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 8 of 9
6. The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election
In order for there to be an opportunity for a nonresident
alien of the United States to elect to be taxed or treated as a
citizen or resident of the United States, one or the other of a
married couple, or the single "individual" making the election,
must be a citizen or resident of the United States (26 U.S.C. §
6013(g)(3)). Some party must in some way be connected with a
"United States trade or business" (performance of the functions
of a public office (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26)). A nonresident alien
never has self-employment income (26 CFR § 1.1402(b)-1(d). In the
event that a nonresident alien is an "employee" (26 U.S.C. §
3401(c)), the "employer" (26 U.S.C. § 3401(d)) is liable for
collection and payment of income tax (26 CFR § 1.1441-1). And in
order for real property to be treated as effectively connected
with a United States trade or business by way of election, it
must be located within the geographical United States (26 U.S.C.
§ 871(d)).
Summary & Conclusion
Again, this memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but
merely sufficient to support causes set out separately. The most
conspicuous conclusions of law are that Congress never created a
Bureau of Internal Revenue, the predecessor of the Internal
Revenue Service; Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code
prescribe excise taxes, mandatory only for employees of United
States Government agencies; the Internal Revenue Service, within
the geographical United States where the agency appears to have
colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to
or encumbering assets; and the law demonstrates that the people
of the several States, defined as nonresident aliens in the
Internal Revenue Code, cannot legitimately elect to be taxed or
treated as citizens or residents of the United States. If a
Citizen of one of the several States works for an agency of the
United States or otherwise receives income from a United States
"trade or business" or otherwise effectively connected with the
United States, the employer or other third party responsible for
payment is made liable for withholding taxes at the rate of 30%
or 14%, depending on classification.
To the best of my knowledge and understanding, matters of
fact and law set out above are accurate and true.
Dan Meador
Memo in Support of Administrative Appeal/Criminal Complaint:
Page 9 of 9
# # #
Return to Table of Contents