- 6 - gibberish without any actual legal basis. Further, petitioners did not file a proper amended petition as directed by the Court in its Order dated February 20, 1998. Petitioners are subject to the Federal income tax system the same as other citizens of the United States. Having made up their minds, petitioners do not seek to understand the law. They merely seek to justify a position that they have already decided to take. Nevertheless, we shall address some of their points. By law, enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code is to be performed "by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury." Sec. 7801. Under section 7802(a): (a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue.--There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Contrary to petitioners' argument, there is, in fact and in law, an IRS. See Salman v. Department of Treasury--Internal Revenue Service, 899 F. Supp. 471, 472 (D. Nev. 1995) (recognizing "a host of Constitutional and statutory provisions that establish the IRS is indeed a federal agency"; argument to the contrary was found to be "wholly frivolous"). Petitioners argue that paying Federal income tax is "voluntary", a misleading concept at best. Our Federal income tax system provides for voluntary or self-assessment. See sec.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011