Posted by rick on May 14, 1998 at 17:42:23:
In Reply to: More IRS Questions for the Wisconsin Senators posted by Charlie@Sterling Investigations on September 24, 1997 at 16:37:16:
: OK Pals:
: Here is the next chapter in my war of words with the two Wisconsin senators; Feingold and Kohl. I finally got off my butt (actually, sat ON my butt at my computer)and decided to write the next letter after being stonewalled by the IRS and brushed aside by the senators. Here is the letter. Let's hope we can get some answers! Also, I have to call a guy at the IRS in Washington in a few minutes who, months ago, promised me that he would get me the answers to my questions. I never heard from him after I wrote to him. I'll tell you the outcome of this, also.
: See? I'm actually collecting evidence of their NOT answering. Silence
: IS evidence (of SOME sort, anyway).
: Following is the letter I sent today by snail-mail.
: ========================================
: September 24, 1997
:
: U.S. Senator Herbert H. Kohl
: 14 West Mifflin Street
: Suite 312
: Madison, WI 53703
:
: Dear Senator Kohl,
: On May 27, 1997, I sent a letter to you requesting answers to certain
: questions concerning the IRS. You wrote back immediately stating that
: your assistant would be making inquiries with the IRS regarding the
: questions. The same day, I wrote to you saying that if I thought I
: could have gotten an honest answer from the IRS, I would have written to
: them directly.
: On June 24, 1997, I received a letter from you dated 06/23/97 saying you
: were enclosing a letter from Robert Brazzil, Midwest Director of the
: IRS, concerning my questions. The letter from Mr. Brazzil was written
: to you, not to me. In that letter, Mr. Brazzil stated that he would not
: answer the questions on a point by point basis, and also said plainly
: that I held a "philosophy of protesting the tax laws," when I had
: suggested nothing of the sort. I was completely offended by Mr.
: Brazzil's suggestion, and surprised that your cover letter suggested
: that you hoped Mr. Brazzil's letter might have been responsive to the
: concerns I'd brought to your attention. It was not.
: On June 25, 1997, I wrote my previous letter to you which expressed my
: disgust with Mr. Brazzil's disrespectful response, and reiterated my
: original questions.
: Now, after having given the issue much thought, and with the IRS being
: very much in the news, I would like to ask the questions again. But
: first, I will add here some things I have learned.
: Russ Feingold sent me copies of pages from the U.S. Government Manual
: (USGM), of which I am very familiar. The "answers" contained therein
: are not what I seek. On page 447 of the USGM there is a chart which
: shows the alleged structure of the Treasury Department. Along the
: bottom of this chart are what are alleged to be "Treasury Bureaus."
: There are twelve "Treasury Bureaus" listed. They are:
: Legal Division
: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
: Office of Thrift Supervision
: Financial Management Service
: Bureau of the Public Debt
: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
: U.S. Customs Service
: U.S. Secret Service
: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
: Internal Revenue Service
: United States Mint
: Bureau of Engraving and Printing
: Unfortunately, the lists and charts and explanations in the USGM are NOT
: law, and, strangely enough, when one consults the most recent edition of
: the United States Code, Title 31, Chapter 3, where the structure of the
: Treasury Department is given, the Internal Revenue Service is not
: listed.
: Page 452 of the USGM states that the U.S. Customs Service was
: established by an Act of Congress. And Page 450 of the USGM states that
: the BATF was established by "Treasury Department Order No. 221" in 1972,
: which transferred certain functions from the Internal Revenue Service to
: the BATF. Certain other "bureaus" are also stated as being created by
: Act or Order, but on page 456 of the USGM, under the heading "Internal
: Revenue Service," it merely states that "The Office of the Commissioner
: of Internal Revenue was established by act of July 1, 1862 (26 U.S.C.
: 7802)." Nowhere does it speak of the creation of the actual IRS.
: Knowing a bit about the structure of statutes and regulations, I am well
: aware that the "Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue" and the
: "Internal Revenue Service" are not one and the same.
:
: Once again, please send me simple answers to the following simple
: questions:
: 1) Is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in any way structured as any
: type of trust? ____Yes ____No
: Note: If answer to #1 is "yes," please give as many details as
: possible.
: 2) If answer to #1 is "no," is the IRS operated in any way through any
: type of trust? ____Yes ____No
: Note: If answer to #2 is "yes," please give as many details as
: possible.
: 3) Is the Internal Revenue Service an agency, department or bureau of
: the U.S. Government? ____Yes ____No
: 4) If answer to #3 is "yes," please answer the following:
: a) When and how did the IRS itself (not the Office of the Commissioner
: of Internal Revenue) come into existence?
: a) Where in the USC is the IRS listed as an organization of either the
: federal government or the treasury department?
: b) Why is the IRS absent from 31 USC chapter 3, which lists the
: organizations of the Treasury Department?
: I would greatly appreciate these questions being answered by your office
: exclusively, even if you must contact government departments for the
: answers. But please do not contact the IRS "on my behalf." They will
: only stonewall us. Is it possible that if you contact departments on
: your own behalf, that you can get the answers we need?
:
: Sincerely,
: Charles Charpentier
: Owner/Private Investigator
:
: cc: U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin State Journal, Portage
: Daily Register, World Wide Web, Etc...
>Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:39:09 -0600 >>From the National Archives: > >>From the Treasury Home Page FAQ: >
>From: Rick Erickson
>Reply-To: richie@chrysalis.org
>To: hank14@adnc.com
>Subject: Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488) Repealed the Income Tax?
>
>Here's a puzzle for you, Hank. I haven't been able to pursue it
>further. Maybe someone on your mail list knows the answer.
>
>If you go to the National Archives home page you will find the following
>information listed.
>
>*****************************************************************************************
>http://gopher.nara.gov:70/0/inform/guide/10s/rg058.txt
>
>"History: To fund the Civil War, a direct tax on property and an
>income tax were levied by an act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat.
>292), which also provided for a Commissioner of the Revenue and
>district collectors and assessors. These taxes were repealed by
>the Tax Act (12 Stat. 432), July 1, 1862, which created the basis
>of the modern internal revenue system, with an income tax and
>taxes on various commodities, businesses, products, and services.
>Income tax and all other internal revenue measures, except those
>imposed on tobacco and alcohol, and on dealers in those products,
>were repealed by an act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488)."
>
>********************************************************************************************
>Hmm.. The "..Tax Act (12 Stat. 432), July 1, 1862, ... created the basis
>of the modern internal revenue system, with an income tax and
>taxes on various commodities, businesses, products, and services."
>
>But further, the "...act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488)..."
>"...repealed...
>" the "...Income tax and all other internal revenue measures, except
>those
>imposed on tobacco and alcohol, and on dealers in those products..."
>
>So according to this Government provided information, income taxes were
>legal
>from July 1, 1862 until repealed on March 3, 1883, a period of almost 21
>years. The only taxes the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488) didn't
>repeal
>were "...those imposed on tobacco and alcohol, and on dealers in those
>products..." These are not income taxes. And I presume that the
>organization
>to collect these "non-income" taxes remained in effect without major
>changes by
>the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488).
>
>Now, read the following from the Treasury's own home page:
>
>***********************************************************************************
>http://www.treas.gov/opc/opc0032.html#quest10
>
>When was the Internal Revenue Service created and what law established
>it?
>
>The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a division of the Treasury
>Department. On July 1, 1862, Congress passed a law (12 Stat. 432; 26
>U.S.C. 7802) establishing it as the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In 1953
>following a reorganization of its function, its name became the
>Internal Revenue Service. The new name was chosen to stress the service
>aspect of the work it does. The IRS is responsible for
>administering and enforcing the Internal Revenue laws and related
>statutes, except those relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
>explosives.
>
>**************************************************************************
>The IRS quotes the very same law as the basis for its existence, ie
>12 Stat. 432, dated July 1, 1862 indicating that the IRS was established
>as
>the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Treasury doesn't mention the act of
>March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488) that repealed the "...Income tax and all
>other
>internal revenue measures, except those imposed on tobacco and alcohol,
>and
> on dealers in those products..." Notice also that the Treasury states
>that
>"...The IRS is responsible for administering and enforcing the Internal
>Revenue laws and related statutes, except those relating to alcohol,
>tobacco,
>firearms, and explosives..."
>
>This is where it becomes a puzzle. The "..Tax Act (12 Stat. 432), July
>1, 1862,
>... created the basis of the modern internal revenue system, with an
>income tax and
>taxes on various commodities, businesses, products, and services."
>
>Seems clear.
>
>And 21 years later, the "...act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488)..."
>"...repealed...
>" the "...Income tax and all other internal revenue measures, except
>those
>imposed on tobacco and alcohol, and on dealers in those products..."
>
>Still seems clear. With this repealing act, the Commissioner of
>Internal Revenue
>was still in business to collect internal revenue taxes imposed "...on
>tobacco
>and alcohol, and on dealers in those products...", but not income taxes.
>
>The Treasury states that "...In 1953 following a reorganization of its
>[Bureau of
>Internal Revenue] function, its name became the Internal Revenue
>Service...."
>And, "...The IRS is responsible for administering and enforcing the
>Internal Revenue
>laws and related statutes, except those relating to alcohol, tobacco,
>firearms, and explosives..."
>
>HUH? What happened? The Treasury is claiming that the IRS administers
>and enforces
>"...the Internal Revenue laws and related statues, except those relating
>to alcohol,
>tobacco, firearms, and explosives..."
>
>Isn't this just the opposite of what the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat.
>488) defined
>as the responsibility of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?
>
>Under what authority in Law does the Treasury now declare and assume
>their stated
>responsibility for the IRS which is contrary to the act of March 3, 1883
>(22 Stat. 488)?
>
>Are not the Commisioner of Internal Revenue, Bureau of internal Revenue,
>and the Internal
>Revenue service one and the same?
>
>If they are the same, then how did the responsibility of the IRS change
>between act of
>March 3, 1883 (22 Stat. 488) and the reorganization in 1953?
>
>If they are not the same, then just who, or what, is this organization
>the Treasury is
>referring to as the "...Bureau of Internal Revenue...", and what is the
>authority for its existence?
>
>It would apear to be a valid expectation that the existence of any
>intervening Laws
>or statutes, redefining the responsibility of the IRS, would be
>identified by the
>Treasury. Isn't it strange that the Treasury has not done so on their
>home page?
>
>Hank, there maybe someone in your mailing list who has the answer to
>some of these
>questions and would be willing to point me in the right direction.
>
>
>
>
>--
>All Rights Reserved, UCC 1-207
>
>Rick Erickson