META AI: Implications of 4 U.S.C. 72 on IRS Enforcement Authority

EDITORIAL:

For more information on this subject, see:

1. Secretary’s Authority in the Several States Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. 72, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/BriefRegardingSecretary-4usc72.pdf
2. Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/OrigAuthIRS.pdf
3. 26 U.S. Code Subchapter A – Application of Internal Revenue Laws
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-F/chapter-80/subchapter-A

The fact that its called INTERNAL Revenue Service implies its INTERNAL to the corporation, which is NONGEOGRAPHICAL. Good luck proving that INTERNAL means INTERNAL to the geographical United States.

I’ve been searching for that kind of info for years. The party with the burden of proof is uncle. Its not my job to prove the NEGATIVE. That’s an insurmountable burden or proof.

Courts sometimes presume legality in a statute. As long as the statute limits itself to the government, its officers with a CIVIL STATUS created and owned by Congress, and to federal property that’s a legitimate presumption. But that’s not the case with a nonresident alien not engaged in the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise. Otherwise, the presumption would be a violation of due process and impair constitutional property rights. Presumptions aren’t allowed to do that unless there is a predicate civil status that involves federal property and preemption.

Its also presumptuous to say the IRS is an agent of the U.S. government. No statute or regulation explicitly created it. The only control the government has over it is the appointment of the commissioner by the President and the supervision of the Secretary.

IRS is NEVER even listed in Title 31. There is NO PROOF of that. See:

Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/OrigAuthIRS.pdf

IRS has no authority to operate OUTSIDE of internal revenue districts per 26 U.S.C. 7804, and the ONLY remaining district is DC.

PROVE that its an agent of the national government. I’ve studied this for years and I can’t find it.

---

QUESTION 1:

If 4 U.S.C. § 72 requires all offices to be exercised at the seat of government and not elsewhere, how is it legally justified that federal offices are exercised throughout the United States?

ANSWER 1:

The requirement stated in 4 U.S.C. § 72 that all offices are to be exercised at the seat of government can be seen as somewhat at odds with the practical reality of federal offices being exercised throughout the United States. However, there are several legal justifications and interpretations that reconcile this apparent discrepancy:

1. Statutory Exceptions and Amendments: Over time, Congress has enacted various statutes that explicitly authorize federal agencies and offices to operate outside of the seat of government. These laws often provide specific exceptions to the general requirement outlined in 4 U.S.C. § 72.
2. Administrative Interpretation: Federal agencies and the executive branch have interpreted the statute in a manner that allows for the decentralized operation of federal offices. This interpretation is based on the necessity of efficient government operations and the practical impossibility of conducting all federal business solely at the seat of government.
3. Delegation of Authority: Many federal statutes delegate authority to federal agencies to perform specific functions. These delegations of authority often implicitly or explicitly permit agencies to operate outside of the District of Columbia.
4. Constitutional Authority: The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7), which has been interpreted broadly to include the establishment of federal offices and facilities throughout the country.
5. Practical Necessity: The expansion of federal responsibilities and the growth of the country have made it practically necessary for federal offices to be located throughout the United States. This necessity has been recognized through various legislative and administrative actions.

In summary, while 4 U.S.C. § 72 establishes a general principle that federal offices should be exercised at the seat of government, subsequent laws, administrative interpretations, and constitutional authority have created exceptions and justifications for the operation of federal offices throughout the United States.

QUESTION 2:

Would this be covered under the implied authority associated with the “agent at place of principal” doctrine?

ANSWER 2:

The authority of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to operate throughout the United States can indeed be implied through the “agent at place of principal” doctrine.

This doctrine, rooted in agency law, holds that an agent’s authority is presumed to extend to the location where the principal (in this case, the federal government) conducts its business or has its place of operation.

Given that the IRS is an agent of the federal government, and the government has a presence throughout the United States, the “agent at place of principal” doctrine supports the implication that the IRS has authority to operate and exercise its powers nationwide.