Saturday, April 14, 2012

IRS Delegation of Authority to Enforce Collections and Make Deals

IRS Delegation of Authority to Enforce Collections and Make Deals
You might have a good reason to sue

Attorney Mac MacPherson sends the attached article on Delegation Orders - the basic authority of the IRS employee to sign anything that binds the employer (the IRS and Government).

Take note that the courts don't seem to care that much whether the IRS agent has a Delegation Order transferring authority to the agent from Congress regarding making a deal on a reduction of taxes, interest, and penalties.  The ONLY way to deal with this seems to lie in DEMANDING the PROOF of DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BEFORE agreeing to anything with the IRS, including compliance with a summons or any collection action.

In my opinion, I would have no choice but to complain to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the Assistant Commissioner of the Internal Revenue for an agent's effort to assess or collect tax without proof of a delegation of authority from Congress to the President to the Commissioner to District Director to the agent,  I would demand the firing of the agent.  If that does not resolve it, I would sue the agent for "trespass on case" - a general usurpation of authority and violation of my rights.  Only in a last resort would I sue the Government under 26 USC 7430-7434.  Sometimes only the last resort remains.

  • 7434 deals with fraudulent filing of an information return.  If an IRS agent has no delegation of authority to collect taxes (and I don't know of any that do), the agent commits fraud by inserting a freeze code in the computer and filing a SUBSTITUTE FOR RETURN (Fake 1040), based on false 3rd party reports of the victim earning taxable income, in order to trigger a fake assessment, and justify dunning me for a tax that I don't owe.  That justifies a 7434 lawsuit  in my opinion.  I'd check this with a lawyer, of course, on this and all other legal theories.
  • 7433 deals with unauthorized collection actions such as assessing or giving deficiency notices without delegation of aforesaid authority.
  • 7432 deals with failure to release a federal tax lien (f an agent filed one with the local county clerk against my name without delegation of authority, then I ought to demand its release, and if the agent does not, then that justifies a lawsuit  under 7432.
  • 7431 deals with unauthorized inspection or disclosure of information returns.  CID agents disclose information all the time that injures people's reputations with neighbors, employees, family, friends, and business associates.  They generally get away with it, but I consider it worthwhile to keep tight check on the agents and timely to demand identity and contact info for all people they contact.
  • 7430 deals with costs and fees I can collect if I beat them in litigation.  Everyone should have no trouble guessing how hard it is to beat the Government over IRS abuses. 

I consider it profoundly difficult and expensive to get any such case to trial.  After all, these lawsuits go against the GOVERNMENT for the misbehavior of agents, not merely against an underling agent.  Any lawyer who fights them on such issues will admit it becomes a serious uphill battle.  Why?  Because they fight the biggest law firm in the world, and it has almost unlimited legal talent and money.  It took the Church of Scientology 200 lawsuits (and 2000 by its members) to deplete the DOJ's annual tax litigation budget sufficiently to bring the DOJ to the negotiating table. Scientology won tax exempt status as a result.

I consider it dangerous to sue the IRS in tax court because the judges function like tyrannical, overpaid accountants.  In tax court I become the plaintiff and I have the burden of proof, and the Court assumes I am a taxpayer. But sometimes I might find it strategically expedient to go to tax court.  Even so, I can challenge jurisdiction and refuse to pay the filing fee, and pull other shenanigans to frustrate the IRS's effort to rob me.  Robert Clarkson gained some notoriety before his death by cycling people between Collection Due Process Hearings and Tax Court over and over till expiry of the statute of limitations (10 years from the most recent notice of deficiency for the given year), nailing the IRS for their incessant procedural violations and lack of authority.  Kris Anne has carried on his work at

Of all the methods of dealing with the Government's Income Tax Mafia, I like best the practice of getting off the IRS radar, another difficult task, but ultimately rewarding.  First I should make myself judgment proof and get every possible asset, including the clothes on my back, out of my name and into the name of some person or trust with no traceable connection to me.  And, I'll become an entrepreneur so no "employer" submit W-2 or 1099 forms about me.  This will diminish the ability of the IRS to steal my money.  I will sell my services for gold and silver US minted coin  so that if a court forces me to file a return in order to stay out of jail, I'll list the face value of those coins I earned, which will probably leave me with a very low tax obligation if any.  I will FOIA request my IMF (Individual Master File) and demand of the agents to create reversal documents for any they entered which cause me to appear as a resident of the federal zone (like Puerto Rico), or as engaged in any "trade or business" or as a "filer," for I have no such status.  And I shall hound them to the gates of hell till they change my status in that IMF.  And I'll keep my eye on that IMF for years to come to ensure I stay off their radar.  If you don't have a clue how to force the IRS to remove the errors from your IMF, Email me and ask (subject line: "I need help with my IMF"),

And, finally, I'll alert my employers, if any, that they must provide me with proof that any money I earn constitutes taxable income, and if they fail, but submit a w-2 or 1099 showing other than ZERO income, I'll sue them for the damages to compel them to correct the false record.  In my opinion THAT is where America breaks down - the negligent cowardice of employers, all afraid to fight the IRS on behalf of employees.

If you want to brush up on justifications for the above, you might want to read Tommy Cryer's Memorandum and trial brief.  The government tried to convict him of Willful Failure to File, but they failed.  Visit, and look at the resources section.  While there, look for the tax code and regulations and download them and READ THEM so you'll understand what they say.

I have attached some documents including the information about the absence of district directors that the law requires. 

As you might know, Lindsey Springer resides in federal prison for tax crimes.  The day before he reported to prison, he talked with me about the absence of district directors.  In a telephone call 12 April 2010, Lindsey Springer explained to me a chain of legal events. I uploaded a recording of the interview here:

I concluded that the events show the government cannot lawfully force you to pay income tax, although that obviously does not stop them from trying. The law lets the President set up revenue districts. He created executive orders that gave that power to the Secretary of Treasury in the 1950’s. The Secretary of Treasury (not Congress) created the IRS. Congress enacted RRA98 to restructure the abusive IRS in 1998. Government lawyers mistakenly abolished revenue districts in 2000 (some quibble about the date, but not the fact – see the Treasury Orders that follow). The law and regulations require enforcement of revenue laws by delegation of authority from Secretary of Treasury to District Directors. No such directors exist, so government has no enforcement authority for income tax collections.

Additional References:
I have uploaded to a more detailed report that contains the relevant treasury order eliminating IR districts.  You can find it here:

Mac says this about delegation orders:

BOB, this is an eye opener – cases say irs can renege on contracts with impunity if irs person signing did not have delegation order.

Thus, we need order for everything. An old argument, but – see article, case where judge said it is all atty’s fault for not asking for do.

So, I ask for do in cdp re assessment/form 23C etc.

Now, in tax court, irs says frivolous.

My fault if I ask, my fault if I do not.

Stay tuned.



Donald W. (Mac) MacPherson

Attorney and Counselor at Law (Arizona & Oklahoma)


The MacPherson Group, P.C.

3039 W. Peoria Ave. , #102-620 | Phoenix, AZ  85029

T  +1 (623) 209-2003    |    E

F  +1 (623) 209-2008    |    W
C +1 (623) 703-1608     |    T   1 (800) BEAT-IRS



COURTESY COPY (CC) NOTICE: Please be sure to REPLY TO ALL when replying to this e-mail.


ARTHRITIS DISCLOSURE: Please excuse: (a) brevity, (b) improper formatting, and (c) lack of proper grammar.


IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To the extent that this communication (or any attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not written to be (and may not be) relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related penalties, or (ii) promote, market or recommend to another any "tax shelter" transaction.

The document to which he referred came from The Journal of Tax Practice and Procedure, June-July 2009 issue, entitled "Authority? Authority?! Of Course I Have Authority! Thoughts on Closing Agreements, Delegation Orders and Signature Authority."  The article reinforced the fact that the courts will overturn deals taxpayers made with IRS employees who did not have a proper delegation of authority.

Thus, I have adopted the attitude of "SHOW ME PROOF of your the delegation of authority for this action from Congress to you."  And I shall demand every iota of such proof until I feel perfectly satisfied that the person trying to obtain my compliance has CREDENTIALS to prove identity, and has actual, proven, delegation of authority.  If I don't get that proof, government agents don't get my willing compliance, and I complain loudly, often, and hard to everyone in the chain of command to get that person disciplined, fired, sued, or imprisoned for operating under color of law to force my compliance with some purported requirement.

Yes, I realize that I could do jail time, get pepper sprayed, or get killed in the process, so I try to do it with dignity and respect.  But I do it, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.  If all of us do that, the IRS agents and others in government inclined toward criminal behavior will start behaving properly.

And, in the end, one must decide how to spend one's life.  I don't like fighting against government.  So I want to get off their radar, make myself relatively invisible from the standpoint of my obligations to government.  And I want to handle my obligations timely and with as little fuss as possible.

Nevertheless I admit that I have a duty as a responsible citizen from whom sovereignty flows to government.  I have the job of keeping the bastards in government honest.  So do you.  So I encourage you to keep as low a profile as you can while you amass a fortune, keep it growing, hide it the best you can to keep thieves in and out of government from stealing it, and stash away enough to demoralize your tormentors completely.  For most that means hire a competent lawyer. 

I consider it smart to spend your time building a great love and family life, doing civic duty (voting out bad guys and voting in good guys), making lots of money, learning the law and becoming disposed to using it, remaining religiously devout and loyal to truth, supporting your fellows in their adversity, and becoming all you can in this short life.  For most people it makes far more sense to pay whatever taxes you must to keep the IRS off your back, and get on with living life to the fullest.   But, if you must fight, do your best to make your adversary regret it forever.

Now,  if you have already gotten yourself into trouble with the IRS, consider subscribing to my Lawmen group, where I share my reflections and communications regarding law with subscribers, FREE.  To subscribe, send email to:
(or click here).

Only I post to it, it has about 1600 subscribers, you can visit the archives and search for ideas in thousands of messages that I have posted since 1 May 2006) and most people remain subscribed because they consider it valuable, this message constituting an example of value.

And I encourage you to disseminate messages like this, with the attachments intact, so that others can benefit from the content.



 Bob Hurt
Home Page Blog Email -      Donate (Now)
Mobile:   +1 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70  -  Clearwater, FL 33763
Law Studies:  
Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter  Archive
Learn to Litigate:  Buy and Study  


Confidentiality Notice.  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this “Message,” including attachments. The originator intended this Message for the specified recipients only; it may contain the originator’s confidential and proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies unintended recipients that they have received this Message in error, and strictly proscribes their Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based actions. Recipients-in-error shall notify the originator immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Authorized carriers of this message shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon v. Arch.

     Wireless Copyright Notice.  Federal and State laws govern copyrights to this Message.  You must have the originator’s full written consent to alter, copy, or use this Message.  Originator acknowledges others’ copyrighted content in this Message.  Otherwise, Copyright © 2012 by originator Bob Hurt.

     WARNING.  Bob Hurt does NOT practice law, give legal advice, or function as a licensed counselor and attorney at law.  Construe comments as conjecture or education, and NOT as legal advice.  Consult an honest, qualified attorney on all questions of law.





Clem Tucker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clem Tucker said...

The "Internal Revenue District" is how Congress intended for the IRS to operate outside of the District of Columbia as per 4 U.S.C. Section 72. But because of ubiquitous fraudulent information reporting the IRS no longer needed "districts" because the information returns provide the D. C. situs of income receipts. Thus it is said by various sources that IRS did away with the district structure. But the fact of the matter is that in the law and regulations, taxes are assessed and collected by District Directors of Internal Revenue OR THEIR LAWFULLY DELEGATED SUBORDINATES. So.....when confronted with ANY demand by IRS personnel it is appropriate and necessary to invoke your right under Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 US 380 at 384.

Bob Hurt said...

The core point I see in the Federal Crop Ins. Corp v Merrill opinion: even though equitable estoppel might not apply to sovereign functions, it should apply to commercial functions of government. The Supreme Court held that the Corporation, a government enterprise, did not owe Merrill insurance benefit for loss of his crop to drought because he reseeded winter acreage, for which loss the regulation, but not the law, disallowed insurance coverage, and though Merrill apparently did not know it, he should have known it. At least 3 justices dissented, implying that the citizen cannot possibly know the meaning of the convoluted law and regulations with certainty, particularly in light of political climate changes in the courts. Translation: the law simply does not make sense and one should not be expected to know it unless government goes to extremes to make the law and its meaning known.

And that's IF the citizen can know the law at all, which the typical one cannot, especially with respect to the internal revenue code. So, I don't see how a federal court can get away with sanctioning the citizen's attorney for raising equitable estoppel arguments. This seems especially important even in sovereign issues like taxation. The relevant laws exist in the ever-changing Title 26 of BOTH the USC AND the CFR. Most citizens have only a bare clue how the law and regulations get created. Most don't even know regulations exist. It never occurs to them to ask, particularly because public schools don't require students to know the basics before graduating. 30% or more never graduate from high school. And they don't know where to look or what to look for.

Bob Hurt said...

This Baker's Dozen of factors conspire to justify ignorance of the law, and disagreement with government agents on the meaning and application of the law, particularly the tax laws:

Lack of mandatory instruction in law throughout public school education (K-12) (let us not forget that the US Government funds much of the states' public education, and at the very least it should fund instruction in the law, its meaning, and how to find and research it for fuller understanding.
Stupidity of 25% of Americans (too stupid to graduate from high school)
Proliferation and inscrutability of the tax code and related provisions of the US Constitution
Lack of standardized, clear, simple access online to tax code shown with corresponding regulations, an indication of which regulations have the force of law against the citizenry, and all appellate opinions showing the meaning and challengeability of the interpretation of the laws and regulations
Non-unanimous appellate opinions on tax code
Diversity of opinions on the tax code between appellate courts and their subsequent populations
The impact of appellate opinions on the willingness of trial judges to hear new challenges those opinions
Lack of historical continuity between the tax code and its interpretation by government agents
Abusive behavior if Internal Revenue Agents
Incongruity between tax law and Internal Revenue practice (e.g., 4 USC 72, inexplicable lack of district directors)
General immorality of income tax against the citizenry - punishes productivity, discourages saving for future emergencies, pushes the citizenry toward dependence on the state for support in old age and disability
Lack of jury power to determine both the fact and the law
Government power to use the biggest law firm in the world to litigate against the common citizen, thereby forcing the citizen either to lose or to hire an expensive lawyer, an utter waste of resources. Government agents should argue their own cases without government attorneys, before the judge, and contend against a lawyered citizen if the citizen chooses to hire counsel.

As I see it, every tax crime defender should challenge every assertion of the prosecutor or trial judge that hides from the jury relevant information, particularly the laws and regulations and opinions upon which the defendant relied in making tax-related decisions.

Clem Tucker, whoever he is, explained in 4 sentences why the district directors got eliminated and why operation of IRS offices in the several states doesn't violate 4 USC 72. Do you agree with him?