Federal Courts and the IRS' own IRM Say the IRS is NOT RESPONSIBLE for Its Actions or its Words or For Following Its Own Written Procedures!
Related articles:

This may sound hard to believe, but our corrupt federal courts refuse to hold the IRS accountable for any of the following:

  1. The content or accuracy of any of their publications, which includes ALL IRS forms, IRS publications, Treasury Orders, Revenue Rulings, and Determination Letters.

  2. Following its own written procedures found in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM)

  3. Following the procedural regulations developed by the Secretary of the Treasury under 26 CFR Part 601.

  4. The oral agreements or statements that its representatives make, even when their delegation order authorizes them to make such agreements.  Instead, most settlements and agreements must be reduced to writing or they are unenforceable.

For this determination, we rely on the following cases, downloaded form the VersusLaw website (http://www.versuslaw.com) and posted prominently on our website.  Read the authorities for yourself.  We have highlighted the most pertinent parts of these authorities:

# Not responsible for: Controlling Case(s)
1 Following revenue rulings, handbooks, etc CWT Farms Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 755 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 03/19/1985)
2 Following procedures in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) U.S. v. Will, 671 F.2d 963 (1982)
3 Following procedural regulations found in 26 CFR Part 601 1.  Einhorn v. Dewitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 06/04/1980)

2.  Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 05/28/1962)
4 Oral agreements or statements Boulez v. C.I.R., 258 U.S.App. D.C. 90, 810 F.2d 209 (1987)

The most blatant and clear statement was made in the case of CWT Farms, Inc., above, which ruled:

"It is unfortunately all too common for government manuals, handbooks, and in-house publications to contain statements that were not meant or are not wholly reliable. If they go counter to governing statutes and regulations of the highest or higher dignity, e.g. regulations published in the Federal Register, they do not bind the government, and persons relying on them do so at their peril. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. United States, 589 F.2d 1040, 1043, 218 Ct. Cl. 517 (1978) (A Handbook for Exporters, a Treasury publication). Dunphy v. United States [529 F.2d 532, 208 Ct. Cl. 986 (1975)], supra (Navy publication entitled All Hands). In such cases it is necessary to examine any informal publication to see if it was really written to fasten legal consequences on the government. Dunphy, supra. See also Donovan v. United States, 139 U.S. App. D.C. 364, 433 F.2d 522 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 944, 91 S. Ct. 955, 28 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1971). (Employees Performance Improvement Handbook, an FAA publication)(merely advisory and directory publications do not have mandatory consequences).  Bartholomew v. United States, 740 F.2d 526, 532 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1984)(quoting Fiorentino v. United States, 607 F.2d 963, 968, 221 Ct. Cl. 545 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1083, 100
S. Ct. 1039, 62 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1980).

Lecroy 's proposition that the statements in the handbook were binding is inapposite to the accepted law among the circuits that publications are not binding.*fn15 We find that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in promulgating the challenged regulations. First, Farms and International did not justifiably rely on the Handbook. Taxpayers who rely on Treasury publications, which are mere guidelines, do so at their peril. Caterpillar Tractor v. United States, 589 F.2d 1040, 1043, 218 Ct. Cl. 517 (1978). Further, the Treasury's position on the sixty-day rule was made public through proposed section 1.993-2(d)(2) in 1972, before the taxable years at issue. Charbonnet v. United States, 455 F.2d 1195, 1199- 1200 (5th Cir.1972). See also Wendland v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 739 F.2d 580, 581 (11th Cir.1984). Second, whatever harm has been suffered by Farms and International resulted from a lack of prudence. As even the Lecroy 751 F.2d at 127. See also 79 T.C. at 1069. "
[ CWT Farms Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 755 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 03/19/1985) ]

Even the IRS' own Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) warns you that you can't depend on their publications:

"IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." [IRM, 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)]

After reading the above, additional conclusions and inferences can safely and soundly be drawn by implication:

  • IRS forms qualify as publications as well.  Therefore, you can't be required to trust anything on any IRS form.  If you can't trust what is on the form and if the government is going to say that you are required to sign it under penalty of perjury saying it is true, then by implication they give you the authority to electronically modify the form so that by the time you sign it under penalty of perjury, it IS in fact accurate.

  • If the IRS is not responsible for following its own internal regulations found in 26 CFR Part 601, then it couldn't possibly be held liable for what it puts in its publications to the public EITHER.  They could literally lie through their teeth and fool everyone into thinking they were "taxpayers" and not be held liable.

  • In the Boulez case above, an IRS representative who had explicit authority to make an agreement with the "taxpayer" still could not be held accountable for an oral agreement.  This implies that all the phone advice given by IRS agents on their national 800 number cannot be relied upon as a basis for "good faith belief".

  • ONLY the Statutes at Large, as well as the regulations written by the Secretary of the Treasury found in 26 CFR Part 1 and 26 CFR Part 301, may be relied upon as having the "force of law", as the courts above described.  Since 26 U.S.C. (also called the Internal Revenue Code) was never enacted as positive law, it stands only as "prima facie evidence of law" which may be rebutted by citing the sections of the Statutes at Large from which it was compiled.

To put one last nail in the coffin of this issue, below is a quote from a book entitled Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud, Patricia Morgan, 1999, ISBN 0-314-06586-5, West Group:

p. 21:  "As discussed in §2.3.3, the IRS is not bound by its statements or positions in unofficial pamphlets and publications."

p. 34:  "6.  IRS Pamphlets and Booklets.  The IRS is not bound by statements or positions in its unofficial publications, such as handbooks and pamphlets."

p. 34:  "7.  Other Written and Oral Advice.  Most taxpayers' requests for advice from the IRS are made orally.  Unfortunately, the IRS is not bound by answers or positions stated by its employees orally, whether in person or by telephone.  According to the procedural regulations, 'oral advice is advisory only and the Service is not bound to recognize it in the examination of the taxpayer's return.'  26 CFR §601.201(k)(2).  In rare cases, however, the IRS has been held to be equitably estopped to take a position different from that stated orally to, and justifiably relied on by, the taxpayer.  The Omnibus Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act, enacted as part of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, gives taxpayers some comfort, however.  It amended section 6404 to require the Service to abate any penalty or addition to tax that is attributable to advice furnished in writing by any IRS agent or employee acting within the scope of his official capacity.  Section 6404 as amended protects the taxpayer only if the following conditions are satisfied:  the written advice from the IRS was issued in response to a written request from the taxpayer; reliance on the advice was reasonable; and the error in the advice did not result from inaccurate or incomplete information having been furnished by the taxpayer.  Thus, it will still be difficult to bind the IRS even to written statements made by its employees.  As was true before, taxpayers may be penalized for following oral advice from the IRS."

We now have a rhetorical question for our audience:

  1. If you can't trust any IRS publication, and IRS forms are publications, then how can the government require you to complete and sign an IRS tax form that is untrustworthy and has lies on it that no government employee can be held responsible for?  Aren't you in effect being compelled to swear under penalty of perjury that a possible lie is true in that scenario?  Furthermore, doesn't this violate the concept of equal protection of the law, which requires equal liability and accountability for statements and actions on BOTH sides: government and the public? 

  2. Doesn't it seem hypocritical to put a person in jail for refusing to file under 26 U.S.C. §7203 a return that he is certain contains falsehoods? 

  3. Should the government be allowed to jail and punish a person for refusing to commit perjury and to file a form that he knows he is not required to file?

  4. Why aren't IRS agents required to sign their correspondence under penalty of perjury like all of the communication coming from the "taxpayer" so they CAN be held accountable? Doesn't 26 U.S.C. §6065 require this?  Note that in 6065, the title says returns, but 26 U.S.C. §7806(b) says titles mean NOTHING.  The body of that section, in fact, says that  ALL statements, returns, declarations of any kind shall be signed under penalty of perjury, including those produced by IRS employees.  We have FOIA'd extensively for IRS assessment documents and not a single one is signed under penalty of perjury because no one in the IRS wants personal liability for being wrong.  Doesn't this seem very unfair?

If the IRS isn't held accountable in a court of law for what they say or even what they write, then they are, by implication, totally unaccountable to the public that they were put into existence to "serve".  The Internal Revenue SERVICE, therefore, only SERVES the interests of itself and not the public at large.  Furthermore, we believe the same rules should apply to Americans submitting their tax returns as those that apply to the IRS: not liable or responsible for what is written on the return.  For instance, the "I declare under penalty of perjury" should be replaced with "I declare that this return as accurate and trustworthy as the advice and writings of the IRS".  That is equivalent to saying that it is untrue and NOT trustworthy, and that will get you off the hook and also point out the hypocrisy and lawlessness of the IRS!  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Any other approach would be to condone hypocrisy and lawlessness and tyranny on the part of our government.  Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say about this kind of hypocrisy and lawlessness.  You be the judge!:

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious.  If the government becomes a lawbreaker [or a hypocrite with double standards], it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means...would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” [Justice Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485. (1928)]

For further information on what does and does not have "the force and effect of law", click here to read our article from the Legal Reference section of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions area.

Sections 3.19 of our free Great IRS Hoax book talk further about the subject of this article if you would like to learn more.

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship

 Last revision: December 04, 2007 09:22 AM
   Home  About  Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring