15
Jul

Lindsey Springer Update on Internal Revenue Districts

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

Bob

Lindsey Springer provides an update on:

* the existence of the IRS as a question of fact or a matter of law;

* the abolition of IRS Revenue Districts and District Directors in 1999;

* the legal affect of Treasury Regulations, and more. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

——– Original Message ——–
Subject:     10th holds IRS exists solely under 26 CFR 601.101
Date:     Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:46:19 -0500
From:     Lindsey Springer <[email protected]>

Lindsey Springer here hoping my words help you in some way understand this journey we are on to get rid of the IRS (although most have no problem with America saying “get rid of Obamacare”) and replace it with something that will be strictly governed by whatever laws Congress writes and that we can all understand.  We need a Supreme Court that will protect our liberties and property rights when it comes to the imposition and levy of taxes when the procedure followed is not in accord with the Tax Laws and Treasury Regulations.  We can all agree we need to understand the structure of all agencies acting on behalf of the United States.  In my next thread I will reveal to you what an executive agency is under Federal Law and what is not.  Suffice it to say the Court would never have been able to switch penalty to tax had it addressed the problems with the IRS and its collection procedures or enforcement exercises.

On February 12, 2012, the 10th Circuit was faced with whether the existence of the IRS was a question of fact or matter of law.  Can you imagine the question even being subject to differing views?  (Does the FBI exist or not would be something similar).  We see them.  They are in are fact before every movie we rent (FBI that is).  So what about the IRS?  What current statute of Congress allows them to exist in the first place?  What delegation of authority has authorized the an “agency” named IRS to act or take action on behalf of the Congress of the United States?

Now that America has learned the Supreme Court can be very divisive, it should be no surprise the Federal Courts below the Supreme Court get their inspiration from their 9 bosses devices.  The 10th Circuit in U.S. v. Hoodenpyle, U.S. App. Lexis 2290, ruled on February 12, 2012, that whether the IRS exists is not a question of fact but rather a question of law.

Hoodenpyle had sought a jury instruction on the IRS and the District Court declined his invitation.  The Court directed the Jury the IRS was an “agency” of the United States.  But are they really established by some law?

In my recent 10th Circuit appeals, the same three Circuit Judges Hoodenpyle drew, I drew, suspended my attorney for 1 year for claiming the IRS under 26 CFR 601.101 (2000-2012) did not exist lawfully outside D.C. due to the second sentence of this procedural regulation that said “Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director.”  It is these words appearing in section 601.101 and elsewhere in Title 26 and properly promulgated substantive treasury regulations that are causing all the problems continuing to rely upon “internal revenue district” and “district director” when none have existed for 13 years.

It is no secret that all Internal Revenue Districts were abolished in 1999.  Likewise, all District Directors (officers) offices were also abolished and are now defunct so sayeth the 10th Circuit in its decision in the criminal case brought against me.  USA v. Springer, 444 F. Appx. 256, 261 (10th Cir. 2011).  The Hoodenpyle and Springer three 10th Circuit Judges (in Springer) cited Allnutt v. CIR, 523 F.3d 406, 408 n.1 (4th Cir. 2008) for the fact the district director offices no longer existed.  The 10th Circuit suggested the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 itself called for the President’s Internal Revenue Districts and Secretary’s District Director office delegations under 26 U.S.C. Section 7514 to be abolished.  Of course the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was directed to make a plan and he or she is not above the President (or is he or she?).

Even if you were instructed to reorganize the IRS you would need to know what part of the IRS stayed the same and what part was changed.  To grasp that you would need to know where to start.  Where to start regarding this years IRS is a complete mystery.

The issue about the IRS comes down to two provisions of law and both America needs to grab a hold of and hold on tight.  My attorney relied upon 26 U.S.C. Section 7621 and the 9th Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Hughes, 953 F.2d 531, 536-542 (9th Cir. 1992) where that Circuit Court of Appeals (one filing away from the Supreme Court) held the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to act beyond Title 4, Section 72 limitations, due to the President’s establishing “internal revenue districts” under 26 U.S.C. Section 7621.  No other reason was given and none other is to be found.

In Hoodenpyle, the 10th Circuit relied upon 31 U.S.C. Section 301(a) (creating the Department of Treasury), and 26 CFR Section 601.101 (without citing to any year as they did in their opinion with me about 26 CFR Section 1.6091-2) to say:

“The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau within the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.”

See 601.101 first full sentence.

The Commissioner is not the “Commissioner of THE Internal Revenue Service” or the “Commissioner of THE internal revenue” he is the “Commissioner of Internal Revenue.”   He would be the “Commissioner” over all “internal revenue”. The Second sentence in Section
601.101 reads as follows:

“Within an Internal Revenue District the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director.”

It is this 2nd sentence of Section 601.101 that you should zoom your cites in on.  In the 10th Circuits decision in my criminal appeal of their conviction of me, the same three Hoodenpyle Judges held all “internal revenue districts” were “now defunct.” See U.S. v. Springer, 444 F.Appx. 256, 261 (10th Cir. 2011); citing to Allnutt v. CIR, 523 F.3d 406, 408 n.1 (4th Cir. 2008).

But they never addressed Section 601.101 EVER.  They also switched my indictment from failing to file a “tax return” under 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b) to “any return” under Section 6091(a). Section 6091 is entitled Place for filing return.  Id. at 261.  By doing this the 10th Circuit was avoiding having to address where [you or] I was required to file Form 1040 and pay taxes on the income allegedly owed [by the Grand Jury] in very generic terms.  It would be good for you to take a look at Section 6091(b) and 6091(a) for yourself and see if you notice the difference.  I by no means am suggesting you not file or pay but just to understand for yourself the problem causes under the “rule of law” by the statutes and regulations continuing to direct you take action at a certain time and certain place and then the place does not exist.

The reason why you need to know where you are required to deliver or file your returns cannot be made more clear than recently in the Affordable Health Care decision by the Supreme Court which stated that “the requirement to pay is found in the internal revenue code and enforced by the IRS”.   But where is it found and where did the IRS get mentioned in that Statute?   Now that question raised by that statement shows the problem.  This is why the Majority decision is simply more abra cadabra.  Section 6091 in my opinion does not require you to pay anything but merely to deliver your Tax Return Form according to the plethora of Federal Cases on the subject.  This shows the Court is aware of the problem with the law.

It is when you get to Section 6151 that this statute determines where and when you are required to pay taxes on income and says such payment is due at the “the time and place for filing” your return.  This ties Section 6091’s place to the place to pay under Section 6151.

The Supreme Court could not get any closer to this issue than the sentence quoted above (“the requirement to pay is found in the internal revenue code and enforced by the IRS”) because they knew the “requirement to pay” is directed by Congress to the “district director” and that director no longer exists since 1999.

Now maybe America knows why they will not address tax issues when properly presented because they will be required to say what the law is and whether it is being implemented according to the wording and your due process rights.  Of course, switching a tax to a penalty is as ridiculous as switching a penalty to a tax while leaving it a penalty at the same time.  Does that make any sense?  Of course not.

Now, when the proper questions are not before them, the 10th Circuit decides the coast is clear and they can address Section 601.101 but only the first sentence.  Even that finding in Hoodenpyle directly conflicts with U.S. v. Horne, 714 F.2d 206, 207 (1st Cir. 1983):

“Like the IRS’s statement of procedural rules, 26 CFR Section 601.101, et seq. (1982)

(NOTICE CITATION TO THE SPECIFIC YEAR OF THE REGULATION?)…their purpose is to govern the internal affairs of the Internal Revenue Service.  THEY DO NOT have the force and effect of law.”  Einhorn v. Dewitt, 618 F.2d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Brafman v. U.S. 384 F.2d 863, 865 (5th Cir. 1978) (“invalidating an assessment not signed by the proper official in violation of binding treasury regulations.”)

So, the 10th Circuit says the IRS is a bureau within the Department of Treasury.  Section 601.101 does not make it so and in fact Section 601.101 suggests the IRS already exists by saying it “is” a “bureau.”  Now we know FBI stands for Bureau and that Title 28, Section 531
established that bureau within the Department of Justice.   But what Statute created the IRS within the Department of Treasury?  No Court or Government Bureaucrat is willing to say.

Like anything wouldn’t be easier than just to say the IRS was created by ?????.  I pray this turns into the birth certificate that won’t go away.  In fact, lets say we are looking for the IRS’s current birth certificate that allows them to be in the Country legally.  Everyone else must do it, why not the “IRS”?

Recently, the Tax Division claimed the IRS’ delegation as an “agency” of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue summons under Section 7601 (“canvas internal revenue districts” for things to tax or seize) or Notice of Deficiencies under 6212, was Internal Revenue Manual (“I.R.M.”) 1.2.43.9  This I.R.M. provision specifically refers to 26 CFR 301.6212-1 (of course no year is cited) and that regulation delegates the authority Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury at section 6212, to you guessed it, the district director of each internal revenue district.  26 CFR Section 301.7601-1 also delegates to the district director the Secretary’s authority to canvas internal revenue districts regarding liens, levies, summons, and so forth.

The Government actually asked the 10th Circuit to “presume that proper delegation orders have been issued.”  What is even more disturbing is that the “IRM does not have the force and effect of law.” Curly v. U.S., 791 F. Supp. 52, 54 (E.D. New York, 1992), and its “procedures …are intended [only] to aid internal administration of the IRS.  THEY DO NOT CONFER RIGHTS ON TAXPAYERS.”  In Re Carlson, 126 F.3d 915, 923 (7th Cir. 1997), Cert. Denied, 523 U.S. 1060 (1998).  The I.R.M. has no force of law.  U.S. v. Lockyer, 448 F.2d 417, 421 (10th Cir. 1971)  See also Poindexter v. CIR, 321 F. Appx. 721, 773 (10th Cir. 2009).

The Supreme Court said it best in Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739, 748 (2004):

“neither an unreasonable statement in the manual nor allegedly longstanding agency practice can trump a formal regulation with the procedural history necessary to take on the force of law.”

In LaSalle v. U.S., 437 U.S. 298, 316 (n. 18)(1978) the Supreme court explained:

“the IRS does not enjoy inherent authority [to summons production of private papers of citizens]…it may exercise only that authority granted by Congress.”

I will devote my next email to the decision recently by the Supreme Court to change penalty to tax in the individual mandate regarding health insurance.  I would say that if the tax is an excise tax, as the Majority citing to Article I, Section 8, Cl. 1, suggested, begs the question what is the “activity” the excise is being placed upon?

You may be pondering the difference between the power to tax and the power to penalize.

The power to tax derives from the Constitution and the power to penalize is judicially created out of the Commerce Clause. I would remind you that the 6th Circuit and 10th Circuit have held the Form 1040 is “divorced” from the requirement to file a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. I wonder where the information about whether you own a health insurance contract is to be reported “as required by law”?

I pray God allows you to see through the trickery he has enshrined in the United States Tax Code and those who choose to support its expansion instead of demanding its demise.

God bless you,

Lindsey Springer  7.4.12

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far.  I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:
[email protected]

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):
_________  Springer
5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK  74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):
Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX  79720

Thanks,
Lindsey & Family

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In freedom,

Bob McNeil
All About Bob
Phone: (713) 806-5199

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 15th, 2012 at 5:21 pm and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment