Blog

To The People Of These United States

To The People of These United States Regarding The 2020 Presidential Election  

With all the confusion going on today regarding the election of the President of the United States of America, I thought it good to bring to remembrance the workings of our Founding Fathers in setting up a more productive form of government than that which was afforded by the Continental Congress of the united Colonies.

The new government, The United States of America, was and is separate and distinct from the governments of the member States in the Union that are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America.

There were two teams represented and united within that government.  We, The People and the State governments that were set up by the people of each separate state.                                                                                                                                                                                                  We see in 118 U.S. 356 – Yick Wo v. Hopkins that the Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness that was given by God to the People of these united States is safeguarded by the fact that sovereignty remains in the people under God.

As a means of protecting those rights that were given by God, the People of each state established governments, (the States of whatever state they were domiciled in) elected by the citizens of each state to protect their lives and property within the exterior limits of each state and endowed them with the power to accomplish that which they were established for to do.  Within the exterior limits of each state, the protection of the People’s life, property and wellbeing was and is the sole responsibility of the State government of wherever state they were citizens of.  

Regarding the protection of life and property, the National government’s authority is limited to within the territorial Jurisdiction of the United States government which includes Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and any other lands or possessions under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.   

Within the outer limits of a state, the National government does not exist for any reason other than to exercise any of its specific delegated powers as listed in the Constitution for the United States of America.     

In McCulloch v. State of Maryland et al, we see that the people of all the states have created the general government and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation. The people of all the states, and the States themselves, are represented in congress and by their representatives, exercise this power.

Understanding that taxation is not the focal point herein, please notice that the “people of all the states” and “States themselves”, the two teams involved in the setting up of the new government, are represented in Congress.

The questions that I now ask are:

  1. Who represents the People in Congress?
  2. Who represents the State governments in Congress?
  3. How are their representatives chosen?
  4. Does it not make sense that each team would be responsible for choosing its own representatives? 

The answers to these questions are clearly laid out in the Constitution itself as it was originally written.  Keep in mind that Governments are created for the protection of the people who created them.  State governments protect the people and their property within each State.  The job of protecting the people is a function of State governments and therefore the protection of the people from foreign powers is indirectly the responsibility of the State governments and therefore the choosing of the Senate and the President is under their direction.  The Senate gives advice and consent to the President who is Commander in Chief of the armed forces used in the protection of the people from foreign enemies who want our form of government to be eliminated.   

As you will see below in George Washington’s farewell address, the only way that our God given Constitution and form of National Government could be conquered was and is to systematically alter the provisions of that Constitution thereby weakening it and eventually changing it altogether.  Welcome to the cause of our present dilemma!!! 

I now offer a short history leading up to the formation of our new government.

The Sovereign States

1776, September 09

Congress renames the nation “United States of America”

On September 9, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declares the name of the new nation to be the “United States” of America. This replaced the term “United Colonies,” which had been in general use.  In the Congressional declaration dated September 9, 1776, the delegates wrote, “That in all continental commissions, and other instruments, where, heretofore, the words ‘United Colonies’ have been used, the stile be altered for the future to the “United States.”

A resolution by Richard Henry Lee, which had been presented to Congress on June 7 and approved on July 2, 1776, issued the resolve, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….” As a result, John Adams thought July 2 would be celebrated as “the most memorable epoch in the history of America.” Instead, the day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4, when Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence was adopted. That document also states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” However, Lee began with the line, while Jefferson saved it for the middle of his closing paragraph.

By September, the Declaration of Independence had been drafted, signed, printed and sent to Great Britain. What Congress had declared to be true on paper in July was clearly the case in practice, as Patriot blood was spilled against the British on the battlefields of Boston, Montreal, Quebec and New York. Congress had created a country from a cluster of colonies and the nation’s new name reflected that reality.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that all mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.  ……………. .  “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.”

Now we come to the main topic of this discussion.  Take a read and notice the two teams that are to form our National Government and what part each is supposed to be responsible for establishing.

The Constitution for the United States of America 

“Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The People ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America.  The People were and still are the main characters in our National Government but most do not realize that fact.

“Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Who establishes the Senate by choosing the Senators and who establishes the House of Representatives by choosing the Representatives?  Does it not make sense that our Founding Fathers thought long and hard before they determined who was to establish the two arms of Congress.  I believe they spelled it out very clearly.  

“Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

The House of Representatives represents the People and are their voice in interacting with the other departments of the government.  All revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives which eliminates “taxation without representation”.

Another function of theirs is that in the event the State legislatures are unable to perform the duty of choosing the Electors for the election of the President, the task of choosing the President is passed back to the House of Representatives to elect the President on behalf of the People.  Remember, the People are in charge!!!

“Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Could the Founding Fathers be any more clear than that?  The Senators represent the State Governments and are chosen by their legislatures.

The method of choosing the Senators was changed because the Republican and the Democratic Parties in some States could not come together to choose their two Senators therefore they had no representation in the Senate.  There is no logical reason to switch the choosing of two people to serve as Senators to being elected by the People’s popular vote. 

It was the second step towards turning our Republic into a Democracy.  The first step was to allow political parties to gain control of our political processes.

Doesn’t that sound kinda like the way things are happening now days with the Presidential election?   Well guess what is taking place as we are witnessing the third phase of the destruction of our Republic. Have you ever heard of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?  States are coming together and forming a compact to finalize the side stepping of the provisions of the Constitution that says that the State legislatures are to choose the Electors to vote for the President.  The first step in changing the way the President is elected was to change the method of choosing the electors to a popular vote for the candidates that are running instead of the legislatures choosing the electors.  The political parties choose a set of Electors and if their candidate wins the popular vote it gets all of the Electors for that State.   

Check out that Compact that is in the making as we sleep for more details.

“Article II

Section 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:”

The State governments are supposed to appoint the Electors and not the Political parties.

I mentioned George Washington’s Farewell Address above.  Below please find an excerpt from that Farewell Address that lets us know what is going on and what is not being allowed now and it has been going on for a long, long time.   

George Washington’s Farewell Address

Excerpts to Review

“Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?”

The Presidential Electors

How Electoral College Electors Are Chosen Today

https://www.history.com/news/electors-chosen-electoral-college

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that electors can’t be a member of Congress, or hold federal office, but left it up to individual states to figure out everything else. According to the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, electors also can’t be anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to its enemies.”

The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of representatives and senators who represent that state in the U.S. Congress. State legislatures are responsible for choosing electors, but how they do this varies from state to state. Until the mid-1800s, it was common for many state legislatures to simply appoint electors, while other states let their citizens decide on electors.

Today, the most common method of choosing electors is by state party convention. Each political party’s state convention nominates a slate of electors, and a vote is held at the convention. In a smaller number of states, electors are chosen by a vote of the state party’s central committee.

Either way, political parties usually choose people whom they want to reward for their service to and support of the party. Electors can be elected officials or party leaders in the state, or people who have some kind of personal or professional connection with the party’s candidate.

In closing, I believe you can see how our processes of electing government representatives to the numerous positions in our National government have been overridden and commandeered by the political parties that George Washington warned us about. 

Let us come together and stand as We The People instead of we these people and we those other people who are led around by powers from across the waters.

Share this with your State government representatives and encourage everyone you know to do the same.  The way to change our national government is by changing the understandings of our State governments. This is OUR House and it is time to clean it up!

Be Blessed.

Invitation to Our State Governors and Legislators

This is your invitation to visit our website.  https://sovereignstateslibertywatchgroup.com We have posted information gathered from sources that can’t be refuted regarding the Sixteenth Amendment and the Income Tax.  You will find that the Sixteenth Amendment only authorized an excise tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form with the amount of the tax being based on the amount of income received from that corporate activity.

You will see that State citizens not doing business in corporate form are not required to pay income taxes on their earnings.  You will also see why it is the responsibility of the State governments to alter the misconceptions regarding the Sixteenth Amendment by calling for an amendment to the Sixteenth Amendment to specifically denote “corporate incomes”.

When the States put an end to the income taxation of their constituents they will no longer have to reach out to Washington for funds to pay their expenses of operating their government functions.

We expect our representatives in government to take note of the information provided on our site.  We expect to see positive responses from each of you so that We, The People of the Sovereign States in the Union don’t have to take any further action in regards to this issue.

Please leave you questions or concerns in the comment section of each presentment of information.  We want to hear your proposed actions to facilitate an amendment to the Sixteenth Amendment so that it reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on CORPORATE incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Be blessed in all of your endeavors.

Sovereign States Liberty Watch Group

Presentment I – Historical Events Leading Up To The Passage Of The Sixteenth Amendment As The Powers That Be Would Have Us To Believe

Please see below an overview of the Income Tax  leading up to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment as the powers that be would have us understand it.  Pay close attention to the followimg facts:

  1. Sixteenth Amendment was passed by Congress on July 2, 1909 and ratified February 3, 1913.
  2. In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill that became law if the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.
  3. and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect.
  4. They forgot to tell us that the Income Tax Act of 1909 was the Corporation Tax Act of 1909.

“16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)” “Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax.

Far-reaching in its social as well as its economic impact, the income tax amendment became part of the Constitution by a curious series of events culminating in a bit of political maneuvering that went awry. The financial requirements of the Civil War prompted the first American income tax in 1861. At first, Congress placed a flat 3-percent tax on all incomes over $800 and later modified this principle to include a graduated tax. Congress repealed the income tax in 1872, but the concept did not disappear. After the Civil War, the growing industrial and financial markets of the eastern United States generally prospered. But the farmers of the south and west suffered from low prices for their farm products, while they were forced to pay high prices for manufactured goods. Throughout the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, farmers formed such political organizations as the Grange, the Greenback Party, the National Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s (Populist) Party. All of these groups advocated many reforms (see the Interstate Commerce Act) considered radical for the times, including a graduated income tax.

In 1894, as part of a high tariff bill, Congress enacted a 2-percent tax on income over $4,000. The tax was almost immediately struck down by a five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court, even though the Court had upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War tax as recently as 1881. Although farm organizations denounced the Court’s decision as a prime example of the alliance of government and business against the farmer, a general return of prosperity around the turn of the century softened the demand for reform. Democratic Party Platforms under the leadership of three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, however, consistently included an income tax plank, and the progressive wing of the Republican Party also espoused the concept.

In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect.

Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income. This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.”

Below please find the fruits of many years of research pertaining to the constitutional authority for the U.S. Congress to tax the earnings of State citizens within the States of the Union. We will show you our sources for the information we offer on this site with a brief history of each. This will build a foundation upon which we build our presentment of information for our State Government Representatives and Senators. Our intention is to bring them face to face with the truth about the history and purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment and why it is their responsibility to see that that understanding is corrected ASAP!!!!

What they did not tell us is that the 1909 provision for an income tax was a tax on income received from corporate activity.  Better known as the Corporate Tax Act of 1909.

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT As it reads today. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

As it should read. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on corporate incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Presentment II – Chief Cornerstone and Building Block for Presentment of Information Regarding the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Why do you pay “Income Tax” on your earnings? Most people will respond like this. “Because I have To pay them.” But is that really the truth?

Our State legislatures believe that the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the authority to tax our earnings. This group is established to broadcast far and wide the truth about the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment. You have been invited to this group in hopes that you will see the benefit of our endeavors as they relate to your
financial well being as well as the financial well being of our State governments. If you decide that the fire is too hot or our goals are too risky for your “safe zone”, simply request to leave the group.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Our second presentment of information is a joint resolution issued by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress. This information is good for distribution to State legislatures and to the public at large. Lets take it to them!!

PRESENTMENT II.

AUTHORIZATION
PUBLIC LAW 91–589, 84 STAT. 1585, 2 U.S.C. § 168
JOINT RESOLUTION Authorizing the preparation and printing of a revised
edition of the Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and
Interpretation, of decennial revised editions thereof, and of biennial cumulative
supplements to such revised editions.

“Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America—
Analysis and Interpretation, published in 1964 as Senate Document
Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress, serves a very
useful purpose by supplying essential information, not only
to the Members of Congress but also to the public at large;

Whereas such document contains annotations of cases decided
by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 22, 1964;

Whereas many cases bearing significantly upon the analysis and
interpretation of the Constitution have been decided by the
Supreme Court since June 22, 1964;

Whereas the Congress, in recognition of the usefulness of this
type of document, has in the last half century since 1913,
ordered the preparation and printing of revised editions of
such a document on six occasions at intervals of from ten
to fourteen years; and

Whereas the continuing usefulness and importance of such a document
will be greatly enhanced by revision at shorter intervals
on a regular schedule and thus made more readily available
to Members and Committees by means of pocket-part
supplements:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Librarian
of Congress shall have prepared—
(1) a hardbound revised edition of the Constitution of the United
States of America—Analysis and Interpretation, published
as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress
(referred to hereinafter as the “Constitution Annotated”), which
shall contain annotations of decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States through the end of the October 1971
term of the Supreme Court, construing provisions of the Constitution;
(2) upon the completion of each of the October 1973, October
1975, October 1977, and October 1979 terms of the Su-
preme Court, a cumulative pocket-part supplement to the
hardbound revised edition of the Constitution Annotated prepared
pursuant to clause (1), which shall contain cumulative
annotations of all such decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court after the end of the October 1971 term;
(3) upon the completion of the October 1981 term of the Supreme
Court, and upon the completion of each tenth October
term of the Supreme Court thereafter, a hardbound decennial
revised edition of the Constitution Annotated, which
shall contain annotations of all decisions theretofore rendered
by the Supreme Court construing provisions of the Constitution;”

(Construing provisions of the Constitution – to give meaning to or to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.)

As per this Joint Resolution, we are sharing this essential information revealed in the analysis and interpretation of United States Supreme Court cases giving meaning to and or interpreting the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Be Blessed

Presentment III – History and purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment

Below please find an excerpt from ‘The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation” that shows the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, prepared by the Congressional Research Service at the request of a Joint Resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States in Congress.

A thorough examination will prove that the Income Tax is a tax on Corporate income rather than a tax on the earnings of State Citizens.

Your State Representatives and Senators believe the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress power to tax our earnings.  The United States Supreme Court says otherwise!!

 

Analysis and Interpretation of Cases Construing Sixteenth Amendment

INCOME TAX

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

INCOME TAX

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.1 holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States.2 A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax,” which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population. Scarcely fifteen years earlier the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had used this method of raising revenue.6 During the years between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency that Pollock threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or by emphasizing the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax that involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and that was held by the manufacturer for resale. Under this approach, the Court found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise “measured by income” on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in Pollock. Indeed, in its initial appraisal 11 of the Amendment, it classified income taxes as being inherently “indirect.” “[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.” 12 “[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . . .” 13

Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,14 the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”; 15 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Foot Notes:

1 157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895).  2 Ch. 349, § 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553.        3. The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from “professions, trades, employments, or vocations” levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire “burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations” after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635.  4 Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881). 5 Ch. 173, § 116, 13 Stat. 223, 281 (1864).  6 For an account of the Pollock decision, see “From the Hylton to the Pollock Case,” under Art. I, § 9, cl. 4, supra. 7 173 U.S. 509 (1899).   8 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

9 184 U.S. 608 (1902). 10 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). 11 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 (1916). 12 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1916). 13 Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916). 14 Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918). 15 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926).

Presentment IV – Definition of Income

Collect Taxes On Whose Income!

Below please find excerpts from US Supreme Court Cases analyzed and interpreted by the Congressional Research Service for Senate Document 112 – 9 reflecting the true meaning of the term “Income” as it is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an excise as:

Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of  commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges. ” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”.

The Supreme Court case specifically referenced by Black’s, has provided a clear and definite scope of the excise taxing authority. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)ill, the Supreme Court held that:

“Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable …it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) “It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word “income” has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of “income” which was applied was adopted from Strattons’ Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include “profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,” there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”

So let’s examine the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112).  It states:

“That every corporation, joint stock company or association, organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares … now or hereafter organized under the laws of the United State or of any State … shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to carrying on or doing business by such corporation … equivalent to one per centum on the entire net income over and above five thousand dollars received by it from all sources during such  year….”

The Supreme Court identifies that the constitutional justification for the corporate “income tax”, is as an indirect excise tax “imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form”, just as it has been defined under Flint two years   earlier.

As the court noted in US. v. Ballard 535 F.2d 400 at page 404, the word “income” is not actually defined in the Internal Revenue Code. However, the Supreme Court has consistently defined it in a number of cases. In Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), the court wrote:

“As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, . . .”

“Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the  amount  of  benefit  presumably derived by  such  corporations  from the  current  operations  of the government. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 165 , 55 S. L. ed. 107, 419,  31  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 1312, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise or privilege, was not debarred by the Constitution from measuring the taxation by the total  income,  although  derived  in part from property which, considered by itself, was not  taxable.  It was  reasonable  that  Congress should fix upon gross income, without  distinction  as to  source,  as a convenient and sufficiently accurate index of the importance of the business transacted.” Stratton’s Independence, Ltd.  V  Howbert,  231 U.S. 399, at 416 -417 (1913)

And the Supreme Court tells us again in Eisner vs. Macomber,_252 U.S.  189 (1920), on page   205, that:

“The Sixteenth Amendment  must  be construed  in connection  with the taxing  clauses  of  the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was  adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c.  349, 27),  it was  held  that  taxes  upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns  from  investments  of  personal  property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by  article  1, 2,  cl.  3,  and section 9, cl. 4, of the original  Constitution.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.’  ……..“

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects (citizens of the States), but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might  exist for an apportionment  among the states  of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup.  Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic  Mining  Co., 240  U.S.  103 ,  112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co.  v.  Lowe,  247 U.S.  165,  172 ,  173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Diet.; Webster’s Intemat. Diet.; Century Diet.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.,

247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’ provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied  in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S.  183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469  (62 L.   Ed. 1054).

“Certainly the term “income” has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of  1909 (See Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts. Southern Pacific  v.Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)      619

And before the 1921 Act this Court has indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207), what it later held, that “income, “as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the Sixteenth Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchant’s Loan &Y Trust Co. v. Smientanka, 255 U.S 509, 519; see Southern  Pacific  Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 Burnet  v. Harmel,    287 U.S. 103, (1932)

“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain  or increase ARISING FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITIES. As was said in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”‘ Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, (1918)

In Flint v. Stone Tracy  Co. 220 U.S. 107, 165, 55 S.L. ed. 107, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, 1912 B. 1312, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise or privilege, was not debarred by the Constitution from measuring the taxation by the total income, although derived in part from property which, considered by itself, was not taxable.” Stratton ‘s Independence, Ltd. V. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 417.

 

Be Blessed

Presentment V – Scope of IRS “Income Tax” Collecting Authority

Internal Revenue Service

Please find below proof documents showing the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.  If you have questions or comments please leave them in the “Comment” section for this post.

Exhibit A

Title 26U.S. CodeInternal Revenue Code     https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes.  Jul 18, 2017.

Please note that there are five different kinds of taxes, Subtitle A – E, and only one Procedure and Administration Subtitle, Subtitle F.  How do we know which subsections of Subtitle F apply to each of the five different kinds of taxes?

U.S. Code: Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

 

Exhibit B

Tax Code, Regulations

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance

Internal Revenue Code

Federal tax law begins with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.).

Treasury (Tax) Regulations

Treasury regulations (26 C.F.R.)–commonly referred to as Federal tax regulations–pick up where the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) leaves off by providing the official interpretation of the IRC by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

 

Exhibit C

Internal Revenue Service – Procedural Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/601.101

26 CFR 601.101 – Introduction.

  • 601.101 Introduction.

(a)General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal revenue. The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States. For purposes of these procedural rules any reference to a district director or a district office includes the Director, Foreign Operations District, or the District Office, Foreign Operations District, if appropriate. Generally, the procedural rules of the Service are based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the procedural rules in this part apply to the taxes imposed by both Codes except to the extent specifically stated or where the procedure under one Code is incompatible with the procedure under the other Code. Reference to sections of the Code are references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, unless otherwise expressly indicated.

(b)Scope. This part sets forth the procedural rules of the Internal Revenue Service respecting all taxes administered by the Service, and supersedes the previously published statement (26 CFR (1949 ed., Part 300-End) Parts 600 and 601) with respect to such procedural rules. Subpart A provides a descriptive statement of the general course and method by which the Service’s functions are channeled and determined, insofar as such functions relate generally to the assessment, collection, and enforcement of internal revenue taxes. Certain provisions special to particular taxes are separately described in Subpart D of this part. Conference and practice requirements of the Internal Revenue Service are contained in Subpart E of this part. Specific matters not generally involved in the assessment, collection, and enforcement functions are separately described in Subpart B of this part. A description of the rule making functions of the Department of the Treasury with respect to internal revenue tax matters is contained in Subpart F of this part.Subpart G of this part relates to matters of official record in the Internal Revenue Service and the extent to which records and documents are subject to publication or open to public inspection. This part does not contain a detailed discussion of the substantive provisions pertaining to any particular tax or the procedures relating thereto, and for such information it is necessary that reference be made to the applicable provisions of law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The regulations relating to the taxes administered by the Service are contained in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

38 FR 4955, Feb. 23, 1973 and 41 FR 20880, May 21, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 7251, Feb. 1, 1980; 49 FR 36498, Sept. 18, 1984; T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58008, Nov. 12, 1996]

If you want to determine which parts of the IRC the IRS has authority to administer, you must first determine where the regulations for that section of the IRC are found.  If the regulations are not found in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations then the IRS has no authority to administer that section.

The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules will allow you to determine which Sections of the IRC the IRS has authority to enforce.

Exhibit D

Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode

Please note:

  1. The column at the left is the Subsection of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in question.
  2. The center column shows the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title that interprets the corresponding section of the IRC.
  3. The column to the right shows the part of the CFR Title that relates to the IRC Subsection in question.

Presentment VI – Current Method of Collecting “Income Tax” From State Citizens

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes.  Jul 18, 2017.

Please note that there are five different kinds of taxes listed on the Internal Revenue Code 1st page, found in Presentment VIII, Subtitles A – E, and only one Procedure and Administration Subtitle, Subtitle F.  How do we know which subsections of Subtitle F relate to the taxes that are administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and which subsections apply to each of the five different kinds of taxes?

According to the Internal Revenue Service Federal Tax Law begins with the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code.  They also tell us that the Code of Federal Regulations is the official interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.   If we want to inquire about the meaning or the true intent of a section of the IRC, we must turn to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that gives the true intent of that section.  If we need to know which bureau of the Department of the Treasury has authority to enforce that particular section, we must turn to the CFR.

If we want to know what sections of the IRC the Internal Revenue Service administers, we must also turn to the CFR.  In CFR 26, 601.101 (b) we find these words, “The regulations relating to the taxes administered by the Service (IRS) are contained in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

In other words, if the IRS has authority to administer a code section, its regulation will be found in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  We can say the same thing in another way – If the IRS gives a section of the IRC as their authority to take action and its regulation is not found in Title 26, CFR, it is attempting to take action that it has no authority to take.

Please find below Sections of the IRC that the IRS gives as their authority to take actions in the process of collecting Income Taxes from the citizens of the States in the Union.

I am listing the IRC Section, Description and CFR Title giving the regulations for that Section of the IRC.  Please check the Table of Parallel Authorities in Presentment VIII to verify the following.

IRC, 26, 6151                      Time and Place for Paying                      CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6201                      Assessment Authority                               CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6301                      Collection Authority                                  CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6331                      Levy and Distraint                                      CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6601                      Interest                                                         CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6651                      Failure to File Return or Pay Tax            CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6671                      Penalties                                                       CFR Title 27

As you can see, the sections of the IRC that the IRS gives as its authority to take the collection actions against the citizens of the States in the Union are not found in CFR Title 26.

To understand the true meaning of the IRC sections listed above we must read the Sections of CFR Title 27 that relate to that IRC Section.  You will see that they do not apply to the citizens of the Stats unless they are dealing in Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms.

Everything you need to know to verify this presentment of information is listed on this site in Presentment VIII.

If you have trouble understanding this presentment of information, post your concerns on the “Comment” section.

Be Blessed

Presentment VII – Why should the State Governments Address the Unconstitutional Federal Income Taxation of Their Citizens Earnings?

In order to answer this question we will review the history and purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Internal Revenue Service tells us that the U. S. Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894 but the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional in 1895.  They also make mention that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 and provided for an income tax to be collected.  They did not give any details about the proceedings leading up to its ratification nor did they give us the definition of the Term “Income”.  The true understanding of the meaning of “income” will go a long way in helping us to understand the true meaning the Sixteenth Amendment.

Following a Joint Resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzed and interpreted all of the U. S. Supreme Court cases regarding the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

According to the CRS “the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States. A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a “direct tax,” which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population.”                        The Internal Revenue Code contains no provisions for an apportionment among the States.

After  a series of decisions the Supreme Court found it possible to allow an excise (indirect) tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form with the amount of the tax being based on the amount of corporate income received from that corporate activity, no matter what the source of the income may be.  Congress has always had the power to lay excise taxes from the beginning.

The CRS concludes its interpretation with these words, “The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . . .”

As we can see, the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing power. The Income Tax is a tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.  What it did do was that it prevented Congress from taxing income derived from property because of ownership.  Our earnings are our property and can not be taxed!

Regarding the definition of the term “income”, building upon definitions formulated in cases that gave the meaning of or the interpretation of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets” by corporations.

To address the question of why should the State governments step in and prevent the unconstitutional taxing of their citizens earnings, we must take a look at the U. S. Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland.

In this case the State of Maryland wanted to tax United States chartered banks doing business in Maryland.  The United States objected and it went to the Supreme Court.  In order to settle the dispute the Court had to define the taxing power of both the United States and the States.

In addressing the different aspects of the taxing power of Congress the judge goes on to say that “..an indefinite power of taxation in the Government of the Union might, and probably would, in time, deprive the Governments of the States of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature.”

Has that happened in any of the States in the Union?  Is there any of them that doesn’t rely on the federal government to make ends meet?

The Judge goes on to say “The people of all the States have created the General Government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation.  The people of all the States, and the States themselves are represented in Congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power.  When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents, and these taxes must be uniform.”

In plain simple terms, when the Federal Government taxes the corporations of a State, it taxes its citizens indirectly.

Let us examine these words of the Court.

“..an indefinite power of taxation in the Government of the Union might , and probably would, in time, deprive the Governments of the States of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature.”

How does the unconstitutional taxing of State citizens’ earnings effect the revenue of the States and deprive the States of the means of providing for their own necessities?  If all the money that now goes to Washington in the form of Income Taxes on individuals earnings stayed in the States where it comes from where would it be spent?  No doubt it would be spent in that State.

How mush revenue would that extra money circulating within the States generate for the States in sales taxes and other taxes that would receive a boost from extra money in circulation.  I can answer that for you.  It would generate enough so that the States would not have to go begging for money from the federal government to make ends meet.

That, my friends, is why the State governments must stand up and put an end to the unconstitutional taxing of our earnings.  It would multiply the buying power for the consumers by billions and free the States from the general government’s overreach.

Be Blessed!

Presentment VIII – Proof Documents

Sources of Information
I. Internal Revenue Service

Brief History of IRS

https://www.irs.gov/uac/brief-history-of-irs

Origin

The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created
the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses.
The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the
Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

16th Amendment

In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states
necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 08-0ct-2015

As you can see, according to the IRS, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional in 1895.

They point out that the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. They failed to give the underlying details of what led to the approval by the Supreme Court of an income tax. In 1909 Congress passed the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 and at the same time passed the Sixteenth Amendment and sent it out to all of the States for ratification.  They failed to give the interpretation of the term “Income”.  See Presentment VI for definition of “Income”.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

II. The Congressional Research Service https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.

CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

III. House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017.pdf (Includes analysis of Supreme Court cases decided through August 26, 2017)

JOINT RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZATION PUBLIC LAW 91–589, 84 STAT. 1585, 2 U.S.C. § 168

Authorizing the preparation and printing of a revised edition of the Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation, of decennial revised editions thereof, and of biennial cumulative supplements to such revised editions.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America— Analysis and Interpretation, published in 1964 as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress, serves a very useful purpose by supplying essential information, not only to the Members of Congress but also to the public at large;

Whereas such document contains annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 22, 1964;

Whereas many cases bearing significantly upon the analysis and interpretation of the Constitution have been decided by the Supreme Court since June 22, 1964;

Whereas the Congress, in recognition of the usefulness of this type of document, has in the last half century since 1913, ordered the preparation and printing of revised editions of such a document on six occasions at intervals of from ten to fourteen years; and

Whereas the continuing usefulness and importance of such a document will be greatly enhanced by revision at shorter intervals on a regular schedule and thus made more readily available to Members and Committees by means of pocket-part supplements:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Librarian of Congress shall have prepared—

(1) a hardbound revised edition of the Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation, published as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress (referred to hereinafter as the “Constitution Annotated”), which shall contain annotations of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States through the end of the October 1971 term of the Supreme Court,construing provisions of the Constitution;

(Construing Provisions of the Constitution = To give meaning to or to interpret provisions of the Constitution.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

IV. Analysis and Interpretation of Cases Construing Sixteenth Amendment by the Congressional Research Service

(Construing Provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment = To give meaning to or to interpret provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment.)

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-17.pdf (Includes analysis of Supreme Court cases decided through August 26, 2017)

INCOME TAX

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

INCOME TAX

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.1 holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States.2 A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax,” which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population. Scarcely fifteen years earlier the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had used this method of raising revenue.6 During the years between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency that Pollock threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or by emphasizing the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax that involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and that was held by the manufacturer for resale. Under this approach, the Court found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise “measured by income” on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in Pollock. Indeed, in its initial appraisal 11 of the Amendment, it classified income taxes as being inherently “indirect.” “[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.” 12 “[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . . .” 13

Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,14 the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”; 15 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy. …………………………………………………………………………………….

Foot Notes:

1 157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895). 2 Ch. 349, § 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553. 3 The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from “professions, trades, employments, or vocations” levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire “burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations” after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635. 4 Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881). 5 Ch. 173, § 116, 13 Stat. 223, 281 (1864). 6 For an account of the Pollock decision, see “From the Hylton to the Pollock Case,” under Art. I, § 9, cl. 4, supra. 7 173 U.S. 509 (1899). 8 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

9 184 U.S. 608 (1902). 10 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). 11 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 (1916). 12 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1916). 13 Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916). 14 Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918). 15 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

V. United States Supreme Court Case

McCulloch v. Maryland

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316

Excerpt;

“In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceed their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed. The subject of those numbers (from the Federalist papers) from which passages have been cited is the unlimited power of taxation which is vested in the General Government. The objection to this unlimited power, which the argument seeks to remove, is stated with fullness and clearness. It is that an indefinite power of taxation in the latter (the Government [p434] of the Union) might, and probably would, in time, deprive the former (the Government of the States) of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land; as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be necessary for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it; the National Government might, at any time, abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretense of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity for doing this, in order to give efficacy to the national revenues; and thus, all the resources of taxation might, by degrees, become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State Governments.

It has also been insisted that, as the power of taxation in the General and State Governments is acknowledged to be concurrent, every argument which would sustain the right of the General Government to tax banks chartered by the States, will equally sustain the right of the States to tax banks chartered by the General Government.

But the two cases are not on the same reason. The people of all the States have created the General Government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation. The people of all the States, and the States themselves, are represented in Congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power.When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents, and these taxes must be uniform.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________

VI. Internal Revenue Service – Proof Documents Showing the Method of Collecting Income Taxes on the earnings of the citizens of the member States in the Union.

Exhibit A

Title 26, U.S. Code, Internal Revenue Code https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes. Jul 18, 2017.

Please note that there are five different kinds of taxes, Subtitle A – E, and only one Procedure and Administration Subtitle, Subtitle F. How do we know which subsections of Subtitle F apply to each of the five different kinds of taxes?

U.S. Code: Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

US Code
SUBTITLE A – Income Taxes (§§ 1 to 1564)
SUBTITLE B – Estate and Gift Taxes (§§ 2001 to 2801)
SUBTITLE C – Employment Taxes (§§ 3101 to 3512)
SUBTITLE D – Miscellaneous Excise Taxes (§§ 4001.. to 5000C)
SUBTITLE E – Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes (§§ 5001 to 5891)
SUBTITLE F – Procedure and Administration (§§ 6001 to 7874)
SUBTITLE G – The Joint Committee on Taxation (§§ 8001 to 8023)
SUBTITLE H – Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns (§§ 9001 to 9042)
SUBTITLE I – Trust Fund Code (§§ 9500 to 9602)
SUBTITLE J – Coal Industry Health Benefits (§§ 9701 to 9722)
SUBTITLE K – Group Health Plan Requirements (§§ 9801 to 9834)

Exhibit B

Tax Code, Regulations

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance

Internal Revenue Code

Federal tax law begins with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.).

Treasury (Tax) Regulations

Treasury regulations (26 C.F.R.)–commonly referred to as Federal tax regulations–pick up where the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) leaves off by providing the official interpretation of the IRC by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Exhibit C

Internal Revenue Service – Procedural Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/601.101

26 CFR 601.101 – Introduction.

601.101 Introduction.
(a)General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal revenue. The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States. For purposes of these procedural rules any reference to a district director or a district office includes the Director, Foreign Operations District, or the District Office, Foreign Operations District, if appropriate. Generally, the procedural rules of the Service are based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the procedural rules in this part apply to the taxes imposed by both Codes except to the extent specifically stated or where the procedure under one Code is incompatible with the procedure under the other Code. Reference to sections of the Code are references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, unless otherwise expressly indicated.

(b)Scope. This part sets forth the procedural rules of the Internal Revenue Service respecting all taxes administered by the Service, and supersedes the previously published statement (26 CFR (1949 ed., Part 300-End) Parts 600 and 601) with respect to such procedural rules. Subpart A provides a descriptive statement of the general course and method by which the Service’s functions are channeled and determined, insofar as such functions relate generally to the assessment, collection, and enforcement of internal revenue taxes. Certain provisions special to particular taxes are separately described in Subpart D of this part. Conference and practice requirements of the Internal Revenue Service are contained in Subpart E of this part. Specific matters not generally involved in the assessment, collection, and enforcement functions are separately described in Subpart B of this part. A description of the rule making functions of the Department of the Treasury with respect to internal revenue tax matters is contained in Subpart F of this part.Subpart G of this part relates to matters of official record in the Internal Revenue Service and the extent to which records and documents are subject to publication or open to public inspection. This part does not contain a detailed discussion of the substantive provisions pertaining to any particular tax or the procedures relating thereto, and for such information it is necessary that reference be made to the applicable provisions of law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The regulations relating to the taxes administered by the Service are contained in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

[ 38 FR 4955, Feb. 23, 1973 and 41 FR 20880, May 21, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 7251, Feb. 1, 1980; 49 FR 36498, Sept. 18, 1984; T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58008, Nov. 12, 1996]

Exhibit D

Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode

Please find below Sections of the IRC that the IRS gives as their authority to take actions in the process of collecting Income Taxes from the citizens of the States in the Union.

I am listing the IRC Section, Description and CFR Title giving the regulations for that Section of the IRC. Please check the Parallel Table of Authorities above to verify the following.

IRC, 26, 6151 Time and Place for Paying CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6201 Assessment Authority CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6301 Collection Authority CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6331 Levy and Distraint CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6601 Interest CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6651 Failure to File Return or Pay Tax CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6671 Penalties CFR Title 27

The Parallel Table of Authorities makes it easy for us to know which parts of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has authority to enforce. If a section of the IRC does not have its regulations found in Title 26 of the CFR then the IRS has no authority to enforce that Section of the IRC

Please note the following about the PTOA:

The column at the left is the Subsection of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in question.
The center column shows the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title that interprets the corresponding section of the IRC.
The column to the right shows the part of the CFR Title that relates to the IRC Subsection in question.
To find which CFR Title interprets a section of the IRC, scroll down the list of IRC sections until you find the IRC section in question. There you will find the section of the CFR that interprets that section. If its not CFR 26, the IRS has no authority to enforce that section of the IRC.