Limited Levies

Court Rulings Strike at the Authority to Levy

| From the "Reasonable Action" Newsletter |
|                                         |
| S.A.P. Fellowship                       |
| P.O. Box 91                             |
| Westminster, MD 21158                   |
|                                         |
| 410-857-4441 (Voice)                    |
| 410-857-5249 (Fax)                      |
| (E-mail)        |

NOTE:  This article make reference to illustrations which
       originally accompanied it in Reasonable Action.  These 
       are NOT provided in this text-only file.


The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is the body of law that contains the
legal authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to administer provisions
pertaining to the collection of income taxes. It is, however, not unusual for
the Service to cite the Internal Revenue Manual as their legal authority for
various aspects of a collection procedure. At least six Courts have now ruled
that the manual is only "directory" in nature and that it does not convey any
such legal authority. This article will demonstrate how devastating such
rulings are to the IRS. It will also relate the specific effect that this
will have on agency employees who fail to recognize the limited nature of
their authority and other provisions pertaining to, for example, liens and

The Levy...

It goes without saying that one of the most dreaded forms that any person can
receive from the IRS is the Form 668-W. This form is the "Notice of Levy" that
is sent to third parties for the purpose of collecting taxes that are
allegedly owed. The legal authority for its use is extremely limited, but
since the general public is unaware of the statutory provisions for "levying"
upon the wages, accrued salary, or other property of an individual, the legal
impotence of the IRS is unknown to them.

The reason is: when the form was designed, the cite of authority that would
reveal its limited application was conveniently omitted. A cite that must, by
law, accompany the notice -- but then again, if the IRS actually cited the
authority for the levy on the form, it is doubtful they could coerce people
into honoring the levy.

The individual who actually receives the "Notice of Levy" is of course a third
party. But rarely, if ever, does that third party realize the responsibility
for correctly determining the validity of the levy is theirs. Nor do they
fully realize the importance of making a correct legal determination, since an
incorrect determination can lead to a personal liability.  Even worse, it
could lead to a criminal charge called "conversion of property." The majority
of people have little or no understanding of the law and so they are not
cognizant of the requisite statutory authority or its limitations.

As far as the "Notice of Levy" is concerned, most people assume that the
responsibility for these determinations rests with the IRS. It naturally
follows, in their mind, that the IRS is then legally responsible for that
"determination." What they fail to consider, is that, since they are in
possession of the property, it is they who are ultimately responsible for
any determination having to do with its disposition -- not the IRS.

The agent who sends a levy is merely acting on the "presumption" that the
authority may be valid. If the agent was knowledgable, it might be considered
unethical, but unless the agent had full knowledge of all of the circumstances
and the actual limitation of the authority in question, his or her actions
could be considered to be within the law. It is easy for someone who is
cognizant of the limitations to jump to conclusions and assume that such
action is illegal.

Maybe it is, but did the IRS agent ever suggest that the authority for the
levy was valid or applicable? Probably not! Nor did he or she necessarily
suggest that the property of the individual that was under the control of the
third party was "subject to levy." For that matter, the agent was probably as
ignorant of the law as the third party who received the levy! It was not the
agent's responsibility to tell the third party that the levy was invalid
without the necessary court order, and more than likely, the agent didn't even
know that himself.

Rather, because the third party is in control of the property, it is their
responsibility to know the law and act in accordance with the law, or, if
unfamiliar with the law, to seek competent legal advice (assuming any can be
found). The bottom line is, were it not for the many parties involved and the
various legal aspects that seem to confuse the average attorney, it would be
impossible for the IRS to seize property under the guise of collecting taxes.

The question that most people ask is: who is to blame? Is the agent at fault
because his or her training was incomplete? Was it their instructors fault, or
was the instructor only doing what he or she was told? To a large degree the
"misperceptions" we've discussed result from ignorance that has been
perpetuated as much by natural processes as by any design, and it has gone on
for such a long time that no one is willing to admit that they really can not
explain why certain actions and procedural anomalies (for which they may be
responsible) seem to conflict with the law.

The best that any IRS employee can hope to do, is pretend that they know what
they are doing and hope that they can convince everyone else that what they
have been doing is proper and lawful. Is the third party to blame? Perhaps,
but then, how can anyone expect the average person to understand these
limitations when the agents themselves do not understand? The lawyers that
are called upon to give legal advice concerning levies have virually no
experience in tax law and end up calling the very agents that were just
mentioned because they don't know either. Ironically, everyone seems to have
a sincere desire to obey the law, even many of the agents. They just refuse
to believe that what they've been doing for years is outside the law --
surely there must be some other law that would permit them to continue doing
things the way they were told! Like the childrens' fairy tale about the
emperor who had no clothes, the people involved just can't believe their own

The lower level agents believe their supervisors wouldn't lie to them, and the
supervisors believe that what they have been told is correct and on up the
ladder it goes. In the case of the fairy tale emperor, the people just couldn't
believe that the emperor was really as naked as their eyes would seem to
suggest. After all -- there must be some other explanation, surely he (or in
this case the average IRS agent) wasn't that gullible!

The real problem is that none of the authorities involved are willing to admit
the possibility that they are wrong. That would be dangerously close to
admitting that they had been needlessly destroying the lives of their fellow
countryman, and the more evidence that surfaces to prove or disprove the
various points in contention, the more obsessive the bureaucrats desire to
blindly, and without basis, insist otherwise. The funny thing about a lie, is
that, the more a person repeats it, the greater the tendancy there is to
believe it.

For some, the misapplication of the income tax has been a nightmare, not a
fairy tale, but it has been perpetuated by what it some cases seem to be well
meaning, yes, bureaucrats. Consider former Commissioner Shirley Peterson's
recent speech at SMU. She blasted the income tax and said that it must be done
away with, echoing none other than former president Jimmy Carter's own words
when he said "the income tax is a disgrace to the human race."

It was once difficult for us to believe that officials as high as Ms. Peterson
were capable of such gross ignorance of the law, but in a recent court ordered
interrogatory she stated that "wages" and "salaries" were clearly includable
in section 61(a)" (gross income). We pointed out to the present commissioner
that not only were "wages" and "salaries" not mentioned in the text of section
61, which is subtitle A, but that they were by definition, strictly limited to
subtitle C. Moreover, a person cannot even have what is legally defined as a
"wage" unless he has applied to participate in the entitlement programs. We
added that: knowing she would not deliberately lie to the court, her
statements could only result from gross ignorance of the law. That being the
case, it may be that even the highest level officials within the IRS may be
under the false impression that they are in compliance with the law (as hard
as that may be for some to believe).

In the fairy tale, you may recall, it was the innocent admission of a young boy
who pointed to the emperor and asked where his clothes were. The boy was
unconcerned with any potential fear of reprisal and his candid observation
"exposed" the bear truth for all to see. Of course, everyone already knew that
the royal rascal was buck naked because they could see it with their own eyes.
They were just unwilling to admit it because they were afraid of what the
emperor might do. Everyone was astounded by the youngsters honesty and when
everyone began to admit the truth the emperor had no choice but to realize he
had been rather foolish.

The binding psychological principle that is at work here is not dissimilar to
the authority, the misapplication, and the subsequent "I'm just doing what I
was told" response that is usually received when government employees are
confronted with the facts in question. Pride, fear, and confusion do not allow
the ego-driven authoritarian (i.e. in this case the professional bureaucrat)
to admit that they are wrong. To do so, would be to subject themselves to the
embarrassment and ridicule that would deflate the ego-trip that is the driving
force behind this type of individual, and to admit to such utter negligence or
ignorance is simply unthinkable. But just like in the fairy tale, when everyone
was forced to confront the naked truth, the emperor had no recourse but to
admit that he had been the fool.

So just how naked is the emperor?

The Authority for the Levy...

The authority to levy is restricted to and contained within section 6331(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code [pertinent portions reprinted to the right].

    6331. Levy and distraint

    (a) Authority of Secretary

     If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses
    to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it
    shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and
    such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the
    expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights
    to property (except such property as is exempt under section
    6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien
    provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy
    may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer,
    employee, or elected official, of the United States, the
    District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of
    the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a
    notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section
    3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If
    the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such
    tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment
    of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure
    or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall
    be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in
    this section.

Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IR Code that provides for
the levy of wages and salaries etc., and the "limitation" of that authority
should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain officers,
employees, and elected officials of the government and of course their
employer, the government. We say "certain" officers, employees and elected
officials because in this particular section the applicable definition of
"United States" restricts the list of government agencies to those operating
within the geographical confines of territories such as Guam, American Somoa,
etc. There are at least three definitions of "United States" in the code and
it is important to know which definition is in operation with respect to any
given section.

Editors note: There are those who suggest that the existence of three or more
definitions of "United States" within the various codes suggests that there
is some sort of conspiracy to defraud or oppress the general public. That
contention is wholly without merit. While their may be various cafeteria-
style socialist agendas in conflict with the Constitution, the law is
nevertheless constitutional and appropriate. The distinction must be made
between the authority of the federal government in the various territories
(remember when Sewell made the Louisianna purchase and there was more
territory than states) and the authority of the federal government in the 50
states. The law must make this distinction; it does so by definition; there
are no secret laws; nothing is "hidden"; and no established principles of law
are violated. If anything is out-of-sync, it is the thought processes of
anyone who would suggest such and idea in the first place. It people are
confused by the concept then it is their own fault for lack of education, and
they certainly can't blame that on anyone but themselves.

In this case, the ONLY government "employer" under such an obligation and
legally bound to honor the levy would be a federal agency outside of the 50
states. We make the distinction because there are many federal officers,
employees, and elected officials working for government agencies within the 50
states who might otherwise think that the law provides for a levy from their
own agency. They are concerned because they are employed within the 50 states,
but no other "third party" is identified by this section, and thus, no other
third party may be served with such notice.

The technical aficionado who might question this should note that this
section identifies the subject of a levy by specifying the "employer as
defined in 3401". Section 3401 is in subtitle C (social security) and the
"employer" referred to is of course an entity that is defined for the purpose
of administering subtitle C provisions (see also semantic "Tidbits"
opposite). An "employer" is NOT the "taxpayer" under subtitle A. Rather, he,
she or it is an entity that is defined for the purpose of administering the
provisions of subtitle C only, and who, by the definition contained within
section 3401, employs other participants (defined as employees) within the
geographic confines of the insular island possessions or territories of the
United States. Thus, the "employer" for purpose of this section is a
territorial government agency. Since this geographic area is outside the
borders of the 50 states, the law makers were not, (when they wrote the law)
and still are not, under any constitutional prohibition regarding direct or
indirect taxation, or any restriction pertaining to the rules of
apportionment and uniformity.

As far as the average person is concerned, it is completely inapplicable to
those who have not voluntarily applied to obtain a benefit in the entitlement
programs or who have revoked their application to participate based on the fact
that their signatures were obtained via a constructively fraudulent process
wherein they were lead to believe that participation was required. We continue
to explain to members with social security numbers that an application to
participate in a program that is administered according to a body of law that
need not be restricted by constitutional limitation subjects the applicant to
a wide variety of requirements that would otherwise not apply. Those who
participate are NOT under the protection of the Constitution with regard to
any legal requirements that would pertain to mandatory participants in the

In any case, regardless of whether they applied for benefits or not, the
authority for the levy is still limited to those "employers" who are, as just
explained, government agencies employing participants in the territories. Does
the IRS contain itself within the limitations of this authority? Not very

Moral Responsibility vs. Legal Obligation...

It could be said that the IRS has a moral responsibility to do so, however,
in reality, there is a difference between a moral responsibility, and a legal
obligation. Therefore, such ethical questions may be reduced to the actual
"intent" or the "frame of mind" of any given agent who mistakenly excerises
such authority. Certainly, the IRS agent has a moral responsibility to
refrain from misusing authority, but if he or she is unaware of the
limitations of that authority, then technically, the actual legal obligation
to make a correct determination and accept that authority (if appropriate) or
not accept that authority (if inappropriate) remains that of the third

It is equally important to understand that despite this ethical "loophole"
which would seem to exonerate and provide an escape for an agent errantly
excercising a "presumed" authority, there are other provisions that do hold
him responsible for its administration. Specifically, these provisions deal
with what are called delegation orders because no agent may administer a
provision of law without a proper order delegating such authority.

The Delegation Order...

The authority to "administer" the provisions of section 6331, regardless of
its applicability, is further restricted by national and local delegation
orders designed to ensure agency compliance with the limited application of
the law.

As with all authority under the IR Code, it is the Secretary who must
administer the provisions for the levy or delegate the authority if and when
appropriate. The delegation orders that do exist for liens and levys are
remarkably limited. As an example, the delegation orders (DO) for the
Baltimore and *** offices are reprinted here.

Notice that the cites contained within these orders pertaining to the lien and
levy process do not actually contain the authority to levy (i.e. section 6331
(a)) that we have been examining. Interestingly, the back of the levy form
itself (which is reprinted below) also shows a similar peculiarity. On the
668-W levy form the authority listed includes 6331(b) through 6331(e) but
omits the elusive 6331(a) which is the actual authority for a levy and the
section upon which the others rely and refer too. Why is it not cited on the

In the delegation order, the remainder of the cite references the Internal
Revenue Manual which is of course only "directive" in nature. Since it is not
the law, it cannot possibly convey actual legal authority. It can only
clarify, for the benefit of agents seeking to identify such authority, what
that authority is, or how it is limited, and whether they would be acting
within their authority when administering its provisions. A search of each
delegation order nationwide reveals that section 6331(a) has indeed been
omitted from each and every one, but then again, if the authority for the levy
pertains only to government agencies within the territories (which is what it
actually says), then it should certainly come as no surprise that delegation
orders pertaining to service centers and district offices within the 50 states
cannot authorize such a levy. If an agent is puzzled by this, his only other
source for clarification is the Internal Revenue Manual.

The Internal Revenue Manual...

As long as there is some illusion of authority, it is easy for an IRS agent to
justify (in his or her own mind) that certain actions are within the scope of
their authority, and as mention previously, the delegation orders do list
another "authority," specifically the IR Manual. But now that research has
revealed that at least 6 courts have ruled that the manual does not have the
force of law, these agents are going to have to swallow one more wake-up pill.
The courts have correctly ruled that the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code are only directory in nature and not mandatory. See Lurhing v. Glotzbach,
304 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 11962); Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir.
1980); and United States v. Goldstein, 342 F. Supp. 661 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).
Courts have also held that the provisions of the Internal Revenue Manual are
not mandatory and lack the force of law. Boulez v. C.I.R. 810 F.2d 209 (D.C.
Cir. 1987); United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967, (6th Cir. 1982).

These decisions are of course absolutely correct. The fact is, the manual may
not be relied upon as the legal authority for any part of a collection action.
The only problem is, that leaves section 6331(a), as the sole authority for a
levy, and as we've just seen, this section is rather severely limited. So it
would seem that the awsome non-judicial collection powers of the IRS are not
as awesome as some IRS officials would like the public to believe. Or is it
just another case of the emperor deluding himself. Either way, it doesn't end
there! The Notice and Demand is another nail in the coffin.

The Notice and Demand...

The "nonjudicial" collection authority is wholly dependent upon a statute
(section 6321) which provides for a lien to automatically arise when a
taxpayer fails to make payment of a tax that is demanded via a "Notice and
Demand" under section 6303. If such "demand" is not, or cannot be made, then a
lien cannot automatically arise and subsequent collection activity cannot
occur. All of the available case law confirms this. In Linwood Blackston et
al., v. United States of America, 778 F.Supp 244 (D. Md. 1991) the Court held
that: The general rule is that no tax lien arises until the IRS makes a demand
for payment. Myrick v. United States [62-1 USTC 9112], 296 F 2d 312 (5th Cir.
1961). Without a valid notice and demand, there can be no tax lien; without a
tax lien, the IRS cannot levy against the taxpayer's property. . . . this
Court concludes, consistent with the views expressed in Berman, Marvel, and
Chila that the appropriate "sanction" against the I.R.S. for its failure to
comply with the 6303(a) notice and demand requirement is to take away its
awesome nonjudicial collection powers. (emphasis added)

The Internal Revenue Code section 6303 (reprinted below) is the law that
requires a "Notice and Demand" to be issued, however, the IRS does not issue
such notices for reasons which are beyond the scope of this article.

     IRC 6303. Notice and demand for tax
      (a) General Rule.-- ...the Secretary shall... give notice 
      to each person liable for unpaid tax, stating the amount and 
      demanding payment thereof.

As evident from the Court case just mentioned, it would be, and is, impossible
for the IRS to move forward with the legal action that is required by section
7403 if they have not issued a "Notice and Demand." The "Notice of Levy" that
is given to a third party, in most if not all cases, falsely states that a
"Notice and Demand" has been issued, but if the IRS errs by failing to issue
the required "Notice and Demand" pursuant to IRC 6303, then they can not
possibly obtain the necessary legal sanction through a court of law to enforce
the levy. Why? Because in order to obtain the sanction of the court they would
need to produce a copy of the "Notice and Demand" that was referenced on the
levy form, and they can't do that if it doesn't exist. If the IRS is unable to
send the "Notice and Demand" then it naturally follows that it would be
impossible to obtain the necessary court order.

Throught this explanation it is important to keep in mind that no single IRS
official is necessarily guilty of fraud. It is more accurate to say that the
process itself is constructively fraudulent. In other words it is not
necessarily intentional. Whether it was designed with that in mind is not for
us to say. It is sufficient to explain that there are many IRS employees
involved and that the employee responsible for any given part of the "presumed
correctness" of any given action, rarely, if ever, has any communication with
any of the other employees who then act on those "presumptions." 

Those who have worked in a typical busy office environment, no that the
responsibility for getting things done often falls to a low level employee who
is trying to do the work of 10 people. The shortcuts they teach their fellow
workers are not necessarily in the best interest of their employer but since
they are unfamiliar with the details of their companies inner workings, the
reason that it is a detriment is beyond their understanding. Of course, if
there is no economic detriment to their actions, the likelyhood that their
ingenous "procedure" will be corrected by a superior. When knew employees are
hired, they learn the same defective way of doing things. The government is
more prone to this situation than any business in the private sector because
its employees are generally less productive. In the situation we are examining,
the law is written to protect people from these inadvertent "shortcuts" made
by lower level employees, and that is why a court order is necessary to affect

Court Order Necessary...

Page 57(16) of the Internal Revenue Manual entitled "Legal Reference Guide for
Revenue Officers" confirms (in the upper right hand corner of the page) that a
court order (warrant of distraint) is necessary. We say "confirms" because the
manual is merely referring to established principles of law, it is not in and
off itself the law that requires it. Moreover, the IR Manual shows that the
IRS even agrees with those established principles and encourages their agents
to abide by those principles by citing the authority of United States v. O'
Dell which says that a proper levy against amounts held as due and owing by
employers, banks, stockbrokers, etc., must issue from a warrant of distraint
(court order) and not by mere notice. The O' Dell Court specifically stated
that: "The method of accomplishing a levy ... is the issuing of warrants of
distraint ..." and that the Internal Revenue Service must also serve "...with
the notice of levy, [a] copy of the warrants of distraint and [the] notice of
lien." The court emphasized that the "...Levy is not effected by mere notice."

Agents who bother to read the manual know that the "warrant of distraint"
mentioned above is the Court Order which is required pursuant to IRC 7403.

     IRC 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject
     property to payment of tax
      (c) Adjudication and decree
      The court shall, after the parties have been duly
      notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all
      matters involved therein and finally determine the
      merits of all claims to and liens upon the

In a more recent decision involving the tax indebtedness of Stephens Equipment
Co., Inc., debtor," 54 BR, 626 (D.C. 1985), the court said: The role of the
district court in issuing an order for the seizure of property in satisfaction
of tax indebtedness is substantially similar to the court's role in issuing a
criminal search warrant. In either case, there must be a sufficient showing of
probable cause.  (emphasis added)
More importantly, the court held that in order to substantiate such an order,
the IRS must present the court with certain validation. The court stated that
" effect a levy on the taxpayer's property [an order] must contain
specific facts providing the following information:

 1. An assessment of tax has been made against the taxpayer, including the
date on which the assessment was made, the amount of the assessment, and the
taxable period for which the assessment was made;

 2. Notice and demand have been properly made, including the date of such
notice and demand and the manner in which notice was given and demand made;

 3. The taxpayer has neglected or refused to pay said assessment within ten
days after notice and demand;...

 4. Property, subject to seizure and particularly described presently exists
at the premises sought to be searched and that said property either belongs to
the taxpayer or is property upon which a lien exists for the payment of the
taxes; and

 5. Facts establishing that probable cause exists to believe that the taxpayer
is liable for the tax assessed.... (emphasis added)

Is it any wonder that the IRS cannot seek a court order? Nevertheless, the
"Court Order" is a statutory requirement for the levy procedure because it
establishes the validity of the IRS's claim to the third party to whom the
levy is presented. Proper procedures assure the third party that the lien and
subsequent levy have been executed in a lawful manner. The "Court Order" also
protects the third party from a liability which may arise under C.F.R. 26
(Code of Federal Regulations) 301.6332-1(c) which states in part: ...Any
person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or rights to
property not properly subject to levy is not relieved from liability to a
third party who owns the property... (emphasis added) And, the court order
prevents some agent from taking a "shortcut" as previously discussed.

These details were brought to the attention of a corporation who had received
a notice of levy on one its employees by the Fellowship's National Worker's
Rights Committee (NWRC). The NWRC not only wrote to the employer, but in a
telephone conversation, one of our paralegals explained the limited nature of
the authority of section 6331(a). The president of the corporation was amazed
and wrote to the IRS agent who had issued the levy to inform him that they
were not a federal "employer" as mentioned within that section and that they
could not honor a levy without proper authority. The agent began to harrass
the president of the corporation by paying a visit to each of his neighbors
but the president would not budge. Instead, the president of the corporation
informed the agent that if he did not stop harrassing him, he would sue the
agent, whereupon, the agent backed off. It is amazing what happens when people
insist that the IRS obey the law, but what is more amazing is that more and
more people are doing this each and every day and the political pressure is
now becoming impossible for the IRS to ignore.

According to former Commissioner Shirley Peterson in a speech before the
National Association of Enrolled Agents in Nevada, on August 26, 1993, as of
this year 1 in 5 people have now stopped filing and the situation is out of
control.  We would say just the opposite, it is finally becoming controllable
because the public seems to have developed the will to know the law and
confine the IRS within the law. The letter from the corporation to the IRS
agent and the letter from the member to the N.W.R.C. is reprinted here.


In this article we have reviewed the nature of, confusion surrounding, and
authority for the levy. We have examined it in light of its application, the
pertinent delegation orders, the missing notice and demand that is the
cornerstone of the process leading up to the lien/levy procedure, and we have
shown why the IRS may not obtain the necessary court order without it. And
finally, we have given an example of what happens when a third party becomes
knowlegable enough to insist that the IRS obey the law.

If we have been incorrect by assuming that high ranking IRS officials know
they are in violation of the law then perhaps former Commissioner Shirley
Peterson summed it up best in her speech at Southern Methodist University when
she quoted former President Warren G. Harding who said: "I can't make a damn
thing out of this tax problem. I listen to one side and they seem right, and
then... I listen to the other side and they seem right... I know somewhere
there is a book that will give me the truth, but I couldn't read the book. I
know somewhere there is an economist who knows the truth, but I don't know
where to find him and haven't the sense to know him and trust him when I find
him... What a job!" (Warren G. Harding conversation, 1922; reported in Joeseph
R. Conlin's, The Morrow Book of Quotations in American History and quoted in
David F. Bradford's, Untangling the Income Tax).

Officials like former Commissioner Peterson may feel the same way, however,
regardless of whether Ms. Peterson is correct or incorrect, she is at least
far sighted enough to see what will happen in the next few years if the
government does not do something. If they can't or won't reign in the ropes on
IRS employees who refuse to obey the letter of the law, then perhaps doing
away with the law is the only answer. Public sentiment against the income tax,
those who administer its provisions, and government in general (for not
addressing the problem) has become so overwhelming that even the highest
ranking officials within the IRS are looking for a way to get off the sinking
ship. They know the situation is out of control. Ms. Peterson's speech is just
one of many that will echo the same sentiments. No man's concience would allow
such a thing to continue. The limitation pertaining to the authority to levy
that was examined in this article is just one minor puzzle that they can't
explain per their own errant understanding of the law, and it is one more
chink in the armor of those who would ignorantly or intentionally misapply the
law. The only alternative is for the IRS to bow out gracefully and support
plans for an alternative system of taxation, and in case you haven't heard,
that is exactly what they are doing. A bipartisan plan to scrap the income tax
is to be introduced by Senators Sam Nunn (D GA) and Pete Domenici (R NM) in the
next 90 days. We will be examining this legislation in coming issues. 

Back to Reasonable Action...