26 USC 6065 – to whom does it apply, and why?

Regarding the question about 27 USC 6065 “”

On 2014-10-23 21:09, The Furniture Store wrote:

Doesn’t it apply to all returns? And if that is the case why do none of the Substitute For Return forms that I have received have a Jurat attached to them, signed by the preparer? Please go forward with this subject. Thanks, David

IRC 6065 “Verification of Returns”says this:

Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

IRC 7806 “Construction of title”says this:

(a) Cross references The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

I don’t know about you, but 6065 and 7806 make perfect sense to me. However I promise the IRS, DOJ, and Courts don’t agree that they mean precisely what they say.

You could argue that 6065 applies to “any …document required to be made under any provision of the IR laws or regulations” unless the Secretary stipulates otherwise. That would include of course an assessment by an assessment officer. I have never seen an assessment, and I have never seen a 4340 computer printout offered in lieu of an assessment signed under PoP by a person I knew was a duly constituted assessment officer.

You could argue that the IRC requires in numerous provisions that the “Secretary shall” make some list or document, and so 6065 must apply to all those.

Well, maybe so, but the SD New York USDC in Morelli v Alexander opined otherwise, as shown in red in the opinion below. Furthermore, the regulation 6065-1 goes on and on about how it applies to tax returns.

Section 6065 was enacted to permit the taxpayer to submit a verified return rather than a notarized return, see, e.g., Cohen v. United States, 201 F.2d 386, 393 (9th Cir.) (construing § 6065’s predecessor provision), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 951, 73 S.Ct. 864, 97 L.Ed. 1374 (1953), and does not apply to notices issued by IRS agents.[3] See Pursell v. United States, 1995 WL 273175 at *6 (E.D.Cal.1995); Mueller v. Esselstrom, 1995 WL 462219 at *2-3 (C.D.Cal.1995); In re White, 168 B.R. 825, 833 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1994)

That opinion also addresses the fact that the IRS does not have to file a Substitute Return.

The above-cited Mickey Cohen opinion provided this elucidation about the predecessor to 6065:

We think the congressional intent in enacting § 3809 was merely to simplify the task of both taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue by permitting a verified return to be substituted for a notarized return in certain situations.12 Section 3809(a) was apparently intended to take the place of 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(c),13 which was repealed. The statutes in question describe different offenses. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 prohibits knowing and wilful oral or written false statements made in a matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3809 is concerned with the verification of a written return, statement or other document which is not believed to be true and correct as to every material matter.

12.
The pertinent committee report states as follows:
“Section 4. Verification of Returns.
“This section gives the Commissioner authority to eliminate the oath in the case of corporate, fiduciary, partnership, estate, and gift-tax returns, and other returns or statements. The present law eliminates the oath in the case of individual income-tax returns and employment-tax returns. These changes will not only relieve the taxpayers of the burden of notarizing their returns but will expedite the processing by the Bureau of returns which might otherwise have to be sent back for compliance with the oath requirement.” Sen.Rep.No.685, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., Part II, § 4 (1949).

So, I guess if you don’t like the IRS and Courts ignoring the obvious, technical letter of the law by letting IRS operatives sign little or NOTHING under penalties of perjury, you’ll just have to take it up with the Supreme Court or Congress. But HEY, if you want to argue it in your case, be my guest. And please let me know how it turns out for you.

I just feel sorry for any poor bastard who reads the IRC and thinks it means exactly what it seems to say. One of my buddies says we should read it with common sense (meaning the income tax applies to everyone earning income over a certain amount, and everyone receiving revenue over a certain amount must file a tax return), and that the intent of Congress in 6065 is obvious. He did not want to admit that technically if the Secretary didn’t prescribe otherwise, government employees must sign under PoP every document the IRC requires them to make.

And he must have remembered reading this opinion from nearly 40 years ago:

  • “When general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. That rule is one of limitation, restricting general terms, such as “any other” and “and the like,” which follow specific terms, to matters similar to those specified.” See, e.g., United States v. La Brecque, 419 F.Supp. 430, 434 (D.N.J.1976).

In light of this opinion, and the location of 6065 among similar provisions, the student should probably conclude that 6065 only applies to tax returns and similar reports from the taxpayer to the IRS.

You might ask yourself whether your tax mess would turn out any different if the IRS agents signed all their documents under Penalties of Perjury, and whether that would just become a big waste of time.  You’ll probably conclude that no, it would not do any good, and yes, it would be a waste of time.

Maybe instead of worrying about these technical distractions it would make more sense to figure out how to maximize your wealth and minimize your tax burden, focusing first on the wealth, and second on how LAWFULLY to keep the IRS, the mafia, your local cops, the FBI, burglars, robbers, thugs, and runaway lovers and spouses from getting it.

Advertisements

Author: bobhurt

See http://bobhurt.com

2 thoughts on “26 USC 6065 – to whom does it apply, and why?”

  1. Well, Congressman Dennis A Ross of the 15th district of Florida says, that the current Code (Title 26) does not specifically state individual American’s liability for payment of federal taxes. This congressman knows that you and I don’t owe federal income tax or even the employment tax (social security). But don’t rely on that in court as it is nothing less than hearsay.

  2. Hey Bob, do you know what is so beautiful about Title 26? My answer: It does not apply to anyone that is non-federally employed with the United States. Subtitle C, sections 3401, 3403 , and 3404 tells all!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s