IRS Pubs warning

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) starkly warns its website visitors that you CANNOT trust or rely on anything they say or publish:

Internal Revenue Manual
Section 4.10.7.2.7 (01-01-2006)
IRS Publications

  1. IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating IRS positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the IRS and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.

[Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.7 (01-01-2006);
SOURCE: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007#idm139859652464096]

In addition to the above, you aren’t allowed to trust or believe ANYTHING an IRS agent says unless its under oath or penalty of perjury. This may sound hard to believe, but our corrupt federal courts refuse to hold the IRS accountable for any of the following:

  1. The content of their publications or even their forms.  See Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.7.
  2. Following its own written procedures found in the Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.) 
  3. Following the procedural regulations developed by the Secretary of the Treasury under 26 C.F.R. Part 601.
  4. The oral agreements or statements that its representatives make, even when their delegation order authorizes them to make such agreements.  Instead, most settlements and agreements must be reduced to writing or they are unenforceable.

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

Table 2:  Things IRS is NOT responsible or accountable for

Not responsible for:Controlling Case(s):
Following revenue rulings, handbooks, etc.CWT Farms Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 755 F.2d. 790 (11th Cir. 03/19/1985) 
Following procedures in the Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.)U.S. v. Will, 671 F.2d. 963 (1982)
Following procedural regulations found in 26 C.F.R. Part 6011.  Einhorn v. Dewitt, 618 F.2d. 347 (5th Cir. 06/04/1980)  2.  Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d. 560 (4th Cir. 05/28/1962)
Oral agreements or statementsBoulez v. C.I.R., 258 U.S.App. D.C. 90, 810 F.2d. 209 (1987)

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

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

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

[CWT Farms Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 755 F.2d. 790 (11th Cir. 03/19/1985) ]