Talk:Internal Revenue Code

message: Poster used the words "socialism" plus an adjective meaning "of a country" which when put together spells NAZI. John wesley 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted crazed commentary of anon

message: I have added some more headings to the article, with conforming textual changes. I have deliberately placed the '54 code and '86 code material under one heading -- to try to show that the 1986 Code was the result of a name change, not really a new or separate "re-codification" of the '54 Code. Yours, Famspear 19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New headings added

message: I removed the following veribiage added by an anonymous user at IP 68.120.70.14:
::Actually there is no written law that states a person has to file a tax form. Therefore, under the 16th Amendment, the IRS is frauding the American people. One should take a look at the 16th Amendment as it defines what "income" is and defines what party shall ablige by it by Congress.
The user want to consider studying the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research, in more depth.
The user may also want to consider reading the following articles in depth: Tax protester; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments; and Tax protester history.
Ironically, the 16th Amendment itself does not define "income." The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income." The Code does define "gross income," "adjusted gross income," and "taxable income." See also Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
Also, the user may wish to consider studying  (tax imposed on "taxable income" of individuals, estates and trusts),  ("gross income"),  ("taxable income"), , , , , , and  very carefully.
See also , which states that, with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return must be filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc. See 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6). Yours, Famspear 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced, unverified, non-neutral POV removed

message: I think it would be very wise if we could link to a location where someone could buy the entire printed version of Title 26.  I've been doing web searches for the last 30 min, and I have come up with NOTHING.  If anyone knows where you can order a printed version of the Title 26 code please post it on this article.  I think it would be VERY applicable to know where you buy by the thing for yourself, and it would be a great addition to the article.  (Hi Famspear!)  ZandarKoad 03:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purchase of Title 26

message: Dear editors: A user called “Ram2006” has begun inserting material in the article Internal Revenue Code to the effect that the “title 26” version of the Internal Revenue Code (as opposed to the 1954/1986 Internal Revenue Code as amended) is non-positive law. While it is of course technically correct to say that “title 26” itself is “non-positive law,” the effect of the edit appears to me to be the beginnings of another tax protester rant about the Internal Revenue Code itself not being “the law” or not being “positive law” which of course (in the minds of tax protesters) leads to “there’s no law that makes me liable for income tax.” The positive law/non-positive law tax protester argument is already covered at length in Tax protester statutory arguments. I have reverted Ram2006’s material in Internal Revenue Code a couple of times, but he or she has responded with personal attacks, and insists on re-inserting his/her material.
I have now inserted some verbiage in Tax protester statutory arguments that explicitly states what Ram2006 is stating: that “title 26” is indeed “non-positive law” (a true statement, but it doesn’t mean what the tax protesters think it means, of course). I have added this new verbiage right before the verbiage that explains that the “Internal Revenue Code” itself (not the version published as “title 26,” but the actual 1954/1986 Code, as amended, as scattered throughout the many, many volumes of the United States Statutes at Large published since 1954 is “positive law,” and is of course “the law” enacted by actual Acts of Congress.
I have pointed out to Ram2006 that this topic is already covered at Tax protester statutory arguments, to no avail.
I would like to ask fellow editors for clarification on the following points.
1. Are Ram2006’s edits considered to be insertion of tax protester rhetoric for purposes of Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment?
2. If yes, then under the consensus that such edits be “reverted on sight” per Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, at what point -- if any – could his/her repeated attempts to re-insert the edits be considered vandalism, such that his edits can be disposed of without regard to the three-revert rule? In other words, to what extent, if any, does the three-revert rule apply (or not apply) here?
At any rate, I think that if Ram2006’s edits are allowed to stand, then we are going to have to add balance to Internal Revenue Code article by copying much of the same material shown at Tax protester statutory arguments – defeating the purpose for which the tax protester related articles were created. I would argue that all the material on title 26 as “non-positive law” should go with the related material at Tax protester statutory arguments and not at Internal Revenue Code.
Thoughts? Please respond at Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment at [[Talk:Tax protester statutory arguments]]

message: New to the wiki thing so I don't want to mess it up, however there are some links going to Cornell such as Chapter 1, 2, 3 ect, and they are dead. Condor85 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a temporary fix. Formatting needs to be cleaned up, but I'm not sure how that's done. Famspear (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Links

message: I think this article is seriously missing a "Criticism and Controversy" section. Many people criticize the tax code for being too complex and having too many loopholes (it has over 9,000 sections!). Even Mitt Romney called for Congress to "simplify the code." Can we discuss this? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think I might be able to locate some previously published third party sources on critiques of the Internal Revenue Code. I saw an article the other day that I think had some of this. I will see if I can dig it up. Famspear (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Top 10 reasons to scrap the code. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversy 

message: The introduction states, "Its implementing agency is the Internal Revenue Service."  This is true for the vast majority of the IRC and especially the parts most frequently discussed by the public and practitioners.  However, some parts are not administered by the IRS and the certain regulations promulgated under the IRC are not issued by the IRS.  I'm thinking mostly of those issued by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and before that, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  TTB administers most, if not all, of the Subtitle E provisions and some of the Subtitle D provisions, basically those excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  Should there be a separate section within the article on these topics?700jn (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @ 2401:D800:76FB:D3F1:B435:CEFF:FEC8:5F03 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provisions not administered by the IRS