Informer now shows by this very little section of 27 CFR taken off the government Internet site, that the Code book Title 26 is a catch all book for ALL agencies to use as their authority to collect taxes.

    What that means is that if an agency does not write a regulation and publish it in the federal register and the Code of Federal Regulations, it cannot use any code section in Title 26. When it does write a regulation it must cite the section of Title 26 as its authority. Remember the Title 26 USC is compared to a Motor Manual wherein many cars are listed and the procedures to fix them. So a mechanic can go to that section in the Motor Manual and say, yea, all I have to do is follow instructions laid out by General Motors, Buick Division to fix your car.

    Ok, the IRC/26 USC is the same. The IRS agent is the same as the mechanic. He has the book, same as a Motor Manual, and all he needs is the authority of the agency, that would be the Alcohol, tobacco, and Fire Arms division, same as Buick division of GM, to collect that agency's tax. OR, if he is the collection for Social Security then he would follow the regulations in 42 CFR, and the IRC authority would also be listed. Please note where I comment below at the authority.

    People only look at the 26 USC/IRC book and from it you cannot discern which agency the IRS agent is working for. You must look to the regulation. It gets real interesting when you look at 26 USC 61 where there are two regulations. They are 7 CFR part 3 and 26 CFR Part 1. We all know that 26 CFR Part 1 only deals with the amounts that you have to pay. It is not the income tax law requiring you to pay these amounts. These amounts come from 7 CFR Part 3, titled debt collection. Why Title 7? Because it deals in Agriculture. Is Tobacco, Cotton, & Alcohol material grown in the ground? Isn't steel, sulphur, lead and copper mined from the ground to make firearms? Remember the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933? There is a correlation here and don't forget it as you will need it later in your studies.

    So the farmer who grows tobacco is a bona fide taxpayer, no question about it. If he did not grow it there would be no tobacco products. That is why Title 27 CFR Part 70 states "special [bracketed] (occupational) taxes." The farmer is a special occupation as he produces the raw product for a taxable activity and it goes all the way up the chain to the distributor of the product. Same as the farmer growing corn, hops, barley and the like for those purposes of alcohol products. If he grows corn to eat he is NOT in a special OCCUPATIONAL tax scheme.

    For those of you that have a IRC book just look at the authoritative code sections and tell anyone what activity is being taxed. You can't, so everyone ASSUMES you are a taxpayer. Not so. So let's look closely below AS MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS that are[BRACKETED]
 

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 199]
[Revised as of April 1, 1998]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 27CFR70]

[Page 773-860]

CHAPTER I--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY

PART 70--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION--Table of Contents

Subpart D--Collection of Excise and Special (Occupational) Tax [THE
FARMERS TAX]

Sec. 70.51 Collection authority.

    The taxes imposed by provisions of 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau shall be collected by regional directors (compliance), the Chief, Tax Processing Center, and other ATF officials designated by the Director of the Bureau.

(26 U.S.C. 6301) [HERE IS THE AUTHORITY FOR 70.51]

[T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47611, Nov. 14, 1990]

Sec. 70.52 Signature presumed authentic.

    An individual's name signed to a return, statement, or other document shall be prima facie evidence for all purposes that the return, statement or other document was actually signed by that individual.

(26 U.S.C. 6064) [HERE IS THE AUTHORITY FOR 70.52] [NOW READ 6064 AND TELL ME IT IS STRICTLY FOR ATF PRODUCTS] [YOU CAN'T AND THEY GOT YOU SUCKER, WHEN THEY SAY TOU MUST FILE THE RETURN AND YOU HAVE NO WAY TO ARGUE AGAINST IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW][ LOOK AT THE T.D UNDER THIS AS IT EXPLAINS IT ALL]

[T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47611, Nov. 14, 1990]

 Sec. 70.61 Payment by check or money order.

(a) Authority to Receive--(1) General. (I) Regional director(s) (compliance) or the Chief, Tax Processing Center, may accept checks drawn on any bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of the United States or under the laws of any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or money orders in payment for internal revenue taxes, provided such checks or money orders are collectible in U.S. currency

[[Page 774]]

at par, and subject to the further provisions contained in this section.

    That's it and is very simple once you grasp the method of how they subvert the truth to make us all look like taxpayers. Another part of Part 70 includes Government workers, law enforcement and law enforcement officers. When going to the front of 27 CFR it says LIST OF SUBJECTS. That means subjects of the taxes. Those law enforcement officers are only those that work for the government, i.e. FBI, BATF officers, secret service and the like and the Capitol Police in the District of Columbia. It does not mean the police of your city, county or state.

    This is the only section of Title 27 that they could fit in US government workers and law enforcement so they could be taxed without letting the people know otherwise. Be honest, how many of you knew that is where they put government employees so they can be taxed? Now go and read 27 CFR part 70.161 in the federal register Vol. 55, No. 220, November 1990 and read it very carefully especially on page 47623 at (4) (I) (A) and (B). Pay close attention that they define EMPLOYER. Does this read like 26 USC 3401 (d)? Not on your life it doesn't. Now you know why there must be a regulation for an otherwise vague code statute. Merskey, Shultz, and US v 200,000 dollars states this very well. Now, doesn't this square with the wording in 26 USC 6331 (a) that never appears on your lien and levy? They call that FRAUD BY OMISSION, because if everyone knew this there would be no liens or Levy except upon the proper people who were in the "LIST OF SUBJECTS" as found in 27 CFR Part 70.

    People, you must throw away all the CODE SECTIONS and go to the ENACTING STATUTE, the Statutes at Large and use them, because they leave out tons of material when they codify the Statute at Large. You must also use the Regulations because without them the CODE has no force of law.

    I, have stated this over the years in various ways but people just don't seem to comprehend. I can't take a 16 to 22 year grade level wording of government lawyers, that means you need 16 to 22 years of education to understand the meaning of the statute, and break it down to the 5th grade level that people understand today. You read this correctly. Ask any major newspaper at what level do they write their papers at. They will tell you between 5th and 7th grade. Then ask them why. They will tell you that they will lose readers because they would not comprehend what was said. I already did this back in 1990. I'll bet in 10 years it has dropped to a 4th grade level because of the
educational system. I graduated in the early 50,s and was writing at a 22 year grade level, by to days standard, and so was all my fellow classmates. That is how far we, as a nation, have sunk in understanding. And the government wants it that way because they designed it that way. A dumb man cannot question that which he does not understand and when he does he can be bamboozled to believe what the government wants him to believe. This is written at an 8.69 year grade level when checked with a Grammitk program.

    You will be able to read this but if you cannot UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE then you are reading below an eighth grade level in COMPREHENSION. Write to this web page and say why you don't understand. No legal arguments as to if it is right or wrong will be accepted. They will be immediately deleted. The question is how much simpler can it be made to understand?

Sincerely,

The Informer.