- *Hey, Bill, you are right that I didn t rebut that statement. I merely pointed out that being prima facie evidence of the law is ENOUGH. The law of theMessage 1 of 16 , Mar 28 10:35 PMView SourceHey, Bill, you are right that I didn't rebut that statement. I merely pointed out that being prima facie evidence of the law is ENOUGH. The law of the United States says so, and all the crappy arguments about "not positive law" cannot change that.
I'm afraid it is you, Bill, who does not bother to look at things. I not only wrote about 7806 in my post, but I quoted it in full.
Here it is again, together with an interpretation from a web site so you don't think I am the only one who reads it that way.
Title 26 USC Sec 7806, Construction of title
(b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.
Among other things, this means...
- Sections or portions of law don't have to be written together, but in fact, required sections can be located hundreds of sections apart from each other. (i.e. Sec. 1 "upon taxable income" might require Sec. 861 "how to determine taxable income")
- Tables, outlines, analysis, descriptions of contents, have no "legal effect," i.e. only the words within are law.
Your point about 7806 is just plain wrong. And, again I point out, the entire discussion of Title 26 was useless because the question asked was about the Internal Revenue Manual.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:03 PM, William Moral Greene <wm@...> wrote:
Nothing you said actually rebuts the fact that "The IRS' actions7806(b))." But then maybe you didn't bother to look at 7806(b).
under Title 26 are merely prima facie (which is NOT Law, see 26 U.S.C.
--- In email@example.com, BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@...> wrote:
> *I think Bear is slipping if he let this last post through.
> First, the question relates to the Internal Revenue Manual and not
> 26. Here is part of the answer I provided to that question: