Tax Districts - In answer to a motion to dismiss based on the absence of Internal Revenue Districts the “government” in response alleged that the 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act eliminated Internal Revenue Districts which is not true. In the 1998 RRA, Congress direc

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

In answer to a motion to dismiss based on the absence of Internal Revenue Districts the “government” in response alleged that the 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act eliminated Internal Revenue Districts which is not true.

In the 1998 RRA, Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reorganize the Internal Revenue Service, not to reorganize Internal Revenue Districts.

Had Congress intended to eliminate Internal Revenue Districts, how, precisely would it NOT have amended or repealed every statute relying upon said districts, such as 26 U.S.C. § 6091, US CODE: Title 26,6091. Place for filing returns or other documents which involves the filing of tax returns?

And, how, preciely, would Congress NOT also have had to amend or repeal 26 U.S.C. § 7621, US CODE: Title 26,7621. Internal revenue districts which establishes Internal Revenue Districts?*

By so doing, how, precisely would they NOT have destroyed the ability of the government to exercise authority outside the District of Columbia?

Does not 4 U.S.C. § 72, US CODE: Title 4,72. Public offices; at seat of Government state, "All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law."

How, precisely does 26 U.S.C. § 7621 NOT satisfy "expressly provided by law?"

Without Internal Revenue Districts, how, precisely does the Secretary HAVE and HOLD "office" or authority outside the DC?

How precisely does this NOT answer the territorial questions raised by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17?
How, precisely OTHER THAN through the establishment of "legislative districts," overlaying or encompassing the States of the Union, can Congress exercise territorial (legislative) authority outside the District of Columbia?

How, precisely, could it be OTHER THAN that legislative districts ARE NOT judicial districts?

Did Congress create Internal Revenue Districts?

Did Congress delegate that authority to the President?

Why?

How, precisely, would it NOT be clearly apparent that Congress understood it had a problem legislating in and among the States?

How, precisely, would it be OTHER THAN clearly apparent, if not obvious that they understood that to lay and collect a tax among the several States without territorial jurisdiction would be Constitutionally problematic, if not prohibitive?

How, precisely, has “government” moved from State/Local jurisdiction to federal/national jurisdiction OTHER THAN through the establishment of "legislative districts," overlaying or encompassing the States of the Union?

In Allnut v. Commissioner (2008), how, precisely, was it NOT determined

If no taxpayer can comply with the statutorily-mandated requirements, such as the statutorily-mandated location for the filing of a return or the statutorily-mandated location for payment of a tax, how can the Secretary enforce internal revenue laws?

What are the precise legal mechanics?

And, if the Secretary cannot comply with the statutorily-mandated requirements for the issuing of a notice of deficiency or notice of lien or levy, how can a taxpayer be subject to enforced collections by lien or levy?
How can assessment stand?

How, precisely are those OTHER THAN the very specific and particular questions that arise when there are no internal revenue districts?

Again:

How, precisely, and with very specific particularity, in Allnut v Commisioner, does note 3...

...OTHER THAN clearly distinguish a precisely delineated difference between "internal revenue districts" and "judicial" districts, as well as clearly stating that CONGRESS has MANDATED returns to be filed “only” in “an internal revenue district?”

Further:

In Rush v. United States 256 F2d 862 Rush v. United States | Open Jurist (10th.Cir.1958), did NOT the “court” establish and verify that "Internal revenue districts and judicial districts do not coincide?"