Talk:Internal Revenue Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-priority on the Project's priority scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] 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
-AND-
"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 66.105.148.106 on 1 March 2006.]
- Dear user at 66.105.148.106: 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 66.105.148.106 on 2 March 2006.]
-
- Dear user at IP 66.105.148.106: 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)
[edit] POV label removed
On 2 January 2006, someone at 24.226.10.98 attempted to put up a label to the effect that the neutrality of this article is disputed, with an assist from someone at 68.39.174.238 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Information on frivolous tax protester rhetoric
Dear editor at 71.0.21.150:
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. sec. 7433A(a) - As of July 2006 Cornell Univ. still does not show; CCH shows this provision added by American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-357, sec. 881(b)(1), 118 Stat. 1418 (October 22, 2004) (one reference to "Internal Revenue Service").
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:
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] 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 212.214.130.33 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
