Tag Archives: Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews I.R.S.)

Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews I.R.S.) IRS ʟIaRS vs. Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.)


======================================
The Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.) requires that the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.):
_________________________________________________
PUBLIC INFORMATION

Section 3 (a) RULES

Every AGENCY shall SEPARATELY STATE and CURRENTLY PUBLISH in the FEDERAL REGISTER
——————————————————————
(1) DESCRIPTIONS of its Central and Field ORGANIZATION
………………………………………………..
including
………………………………………………..
DELEGATIONS by the AGENCY of FINAL AUTHORITY
——————————————————————
and the
——————————————————————
ESTABLISHED PLACES at which and METHODS whereby the PUBLIC may secure INFORMATION or make SUBMITTALS or REQUESTS
_________________________________________________
(2) STATEMENTS of the GENERAL COURSE and METHOD by which its FUNCTIONS are CHANNELED and DETERMINED
………………………………………………..
including the
………………………………………………..
NATURE and REQUIREMENTS of all FORMAL or INFORMAL PROCEDURES available
——————————————————————
as well as
——————————————————————
FORMS and INSTRUCTIONS as to the SCOPE and CONTENTS of all PAPERS REPORTS or EXAMINATION
_________________________________________________
NO PERSON SHALL in any manner be REQUIRED to resort to ORGANIZATION or PROCEDURE NOT so PUBLISHED
_________________________________________________
Administrative Procedure Act APA Pub.L. 79–404 60 Stat. 237 5 U.S.C. ch. 5 subch. § 500 et seq.‎ Statutes at Large‎: ‎60 Stat. 237‎ June 11 1946 [CHAPTER 324—2D SESSION]. [S. 7]
_________________________________________________
Administrative Procedure Act
………………………………………………..
Lowell (Larry) H. Becraft, Huntsville, Alabama
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/APAbrief.htm
——————————————————————
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/APAbrief.htm
_________________________________________________
1947 Attorney General Manual
………………………………………………..
Florida State University (F.S.U.)
——————————————————————
http://fall.fsulawrc.com/admin/1947ii.html
——————————————————————
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf
_________________________________________________
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II)
——————————————————————
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure
_________________________________________________
5 U.S. Code Chapter 5 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5
_________________________________________________
IRS ʟ I a R S Articles
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/P8Sbod-2
_________________________________________________
Fund Exposing Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S (Internal Revenue Service @IRSNews I.R.S.) https://freestartr.com/profile/irsliars/
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/p8Sbod-ja
_________________________________________________

Advertisements

Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews I.R.S.) Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S Lie about the definition of the term “INCLUDES” in Withholding Section 3401(c) of 26 U.S.C.


_________________________________________________
4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government
——————————————————————
This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability

This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities on employers to withhold tax from “wages”

That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer

Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .”

This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation

Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined”

Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation

It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens

The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument

Rev. Rul. 2006-18
2006-1 C.B. 743
_________________________________________________
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
——————————————————————
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c
_________________________________________________
The IRS ʟIaRS LIE is that at 26 U.S.C. Section 3401(c) in the definition of the word “employee,” that the term “includes” is a word of “ENLARGEMENT,” instead of a word of “LIMITATION”
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
26 U.S. Code § 3401 – Definitions
——————————————————————
(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing

The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401
_________________________________________________
The first questions one should ask, is:

1. If “INCLUDES” is a word of ENLARGEMENT, and private sector citizens are automatically INCLUDED in the definition of the term “EMPLOYEE,” why is it that the term “EMPLOYEE” is INCLUDED after the word “INCLUDES” in the definition❓

2. If a private sector citizen is automatically INCLUDED in the definition of the term “EMPLOYEE” as the Internal Revenue Service claims, why would a public sector citizen NOT also be automatically INCLUDED in the definition❓

3. Why is it that NONE of the inferior United States Federal Court Judges in the cases listed by the I.R.S. as supportive of their position, cite the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States case regarding the term “INCLUDES”

Is it because they are all “SO-CALLED” Judges who do NOT believe in the Rule of Law
_________________________________________________
Words and Phrases

“includes” although sometimes synonymous with “means” is also used as equivalent of “comprehends” or “embraces”— Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc. 55 S.Ct. 60 293 U.S. 121 79 L.Ed. 232 (1934)

Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc.
293 U.S. 121
55 S.Ct. 60
79 L.Ed. 232
(1934)
_________________________________________________
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/121/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/121/case.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/293/121.html
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/293/121
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions
——————————————————————
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(c) Includes and including

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
_________________________________________________