Talk:Internal Revenue Service/Archive 2

Correction needed for first line of article
129.2.74.196 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa, forget to add a subject

The first line reads "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a criminal organisation that collects taxes and enforces the internal revenue laws."

Could someone please correct?


 * Thanks. Vandalism removed. Famspear (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Treasury Order 115-01 Partly Contradicts Note 3
At the time of this comment Note 3 reads “1953-2 C.B. 443 (Aug. 21, 1953), filed with Division of the Federal Register on Aug. 26, 1953. Compare Treas. Dep't Order 150-29 (July 9, 1953).” This note is given in support of the statement “In 1953 the name change to the ‘Internal Revenue Service’ was formalized in Treasury Decision 6038.”

Note number 3 appears to contradict Treasury Order 115-01 found at http://www.ustreas.gov/regs/to115-01.htm, Treasury Order 150-29 is dated November 23, 1982 and not July 9, 1953. The order to compare here is possibly Treasury Order 150-06 found at http://www.ustreas.gov/regs/to150-06.htm. which is dated July 9, 1953 and deals with the designation of the new name Internal Revenue Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreQuester (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The section of Treasury Order 115-01 contradicting Note 3 states “7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS … a. Any authority or responsibility currently delegated to the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury in Treasury Order 101-19, dated October 24, 1994; Treasury Order 101-21, dated July 7, 1997; Treasury Order 102-13, dated January 19, 1993; Treasury Order 102-19, dated March 19, 1998; Treasury Order 105-13, dated February 19, 1997; Treasury Order 107-05, dated March 2, 1995; and Treasury Order 150-29, dated November 23, 1982, is also delegated to the TIGTA until the listed Treasury Order is canceled or a successor Treasury Order is issued.”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreQuester (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear editor FreQuester: I'm not sure what you mean by a "contradiction." Treasury Order 115-01 deals with the responsibilities of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), not with the re-naming of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and not with the powers of the Internal Revenue Service in general. Note 3 deals with the re-naming of the IRS, etc. Please clarify what you mean by "contradiction."


 * I do need to double check on the order numbers as you indicated. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FreQuester (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC) The last part of Note 3 tells the reader to compare Treasury Department Order 150-29. Also, it suggests, by enclosing a date in parentheses, that Order 150-29 is dated July 9, 1953. However, on the U.S. Department of the Treasury web site link I provided for Order 115-01, there is also mention of Order 150-29 and there Order 150-29 is dated November 23, 1982. Assuming I am interpreting the meaning of the dates properly and that the same order number may not be used more than once to issue an order, then the two statements highlighted above contradict. FreQuester (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Famspear. Have you had an opportunity to double-check the order numbers since March 2009? This week I have come across an interesting fact concerning Treasury Order 150-06 (Designation as Internal Revenue Service), dated July 9, 1953. As it appears on the Treasury web site www.ustreas.gov, that order was cancelled August 22, 2005, during the administration of George W. Bush. If this order changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the Internal Revenue Service, and that order has now being cancelled, does that mean that the Bureau is no longer named Internal Revenue Service?--FreQuester (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear FreQuester: Sad to say, but no, I haven't yet checked. And order numbers can indeed be used more than once, just as section numbers for statutes can be used more than once. Sometimes this is due to error. For example, it's not unheard of in Texas for the legislature to inadvertently enact two different statutes in the same year with exactly the same section number -- such as "Probate Code section xxxx" (whatever). Not only that, but in the Internal Revenue Code, it's common for a particular statute to INTENTIONALLY have two different wordings simultaneously, with one wording applying to such and such a kind of transaction in tax years ending before such and such date, and with different wording applying to the same kind of transaction for tax years ending on or after such and such a date. That's why you cannot be sure you're doing reliable legal research (especially in federal tax matters) unless you have access to specialized prints or online resources generally available only to lawyers, CPAs, etc. Looking at only the "current" version of a statute is not really enough in tax research. To answer your second question: No, the cancellation of the Treasury order would not mean that the Bureau is no longer named "Internal Revenue Service." Famspear (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No merger of of Circular 230 article, please. Expand & cross reference
In the general IRS section, discussion of Circular 230 would be lost.

The primary materials available online and cited are quite detailed and well-indexed. The pointer to them is valuable and was appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.126 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Circular 230 article could definitely be expanded into a larger article (if I can ever find the time). I would suggest: do not merge into this article on the Internal Revenue Service. Famspear (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

External Link
I removed external link from 119.94.231.73 to irsclub.com. See WP:ELNO 1,2, 4, and 5. Appeared to be unverifiable research, site promotion, and did not offer information that was not included in the article or in other links. Let me know if you object, thanks Opjohnboy24 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Church-State separation
There should probably be a noted on the IRS' involvement in Church-State separation issues. I noticed that anytime some bishop, priest or pastor makes a public statement about Christian opposition to abortion, contraception or gay marriage, the IRS theatens to take away tax exemptions from a diocese, parish or independent ministry. From another perspective though, it could be argued that the IRS is itself in violating Church-State separation when it prohibits religious leaders or other citizens from speaking out publicly. For instance, Martin Luther King was himself a very politicized pastor, but the IRS never tried to stop him. ADM (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: In July 1862, during the Civil War, President Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses (see Revenue Act of 1862).
The section of the article titled,"Bureau of Internal Revenue" states:

"In July 1862, during the Civil War, President Lincoln and Congress created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses (see Revenue Act of 1862)." (Italics added to indicate wording that seems to me in the first ambiguous, and in the second case, literally incorrect.)

The essence of my concern is that (as far as I understand), the Congress, not the President, is given the power to "enact" law. See, for example the Wikipedia article title "United States Constitution," which states "since the legislative power is vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws" because "no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another" and "The "Vesting Clause" grants all of the federal government's legislative authority to Congress" and also states that "The Vesting Clauses thus establish the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others." Several supporting references are cited in that article.

Applying this understanding to the 2 parts of the earlier quoted sentence from the current article that I've italicized:

1) President Lincoln and Congress created ... - this is at least ambiguous, and/or implies some kind of power of creation shared between the Congress and the President wherein the two jointly legislate (which, clearly is in violation of the Constitution on several grounds, per the Wikipedia article on the US Constitution I've quoted) and/or colloquially conflates the two separate constitutional actions of: passing tax legislation by Congress (since "...Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes,..." - Article I, Section 8), and; approval or return of Bills ("which have been passed by Congress"), with objections, by the President (Article I, Section 7).

2) enacted - I think the discussion thus far sufficiently demonstrates the essence of my concern about 2), as well as the reasoning and supporting evidence for concern.

To my eye, leaving the text without change would be a mistake; statements implying, attributing or stating the nature, characteristics, or process of functions performed by branches of government that are precisely defined in the Constitution need to be true to the actual reality of the Constitution, and should never admit of an incorrect or muddied implication in the minds of even a subset of the population that is likely to read the statement (in my opinion). The alternative of not being precise will impart in such reader an incorrect belief and understanding of who really did or caused what, when, why, and how, and will allow or cause factually incorrect implications of such things as responsibility, motivations, and causality in historical or present-day events (and that is danger of fairly large impact).

This is my 1st attempt at making a contribution to the quality of Wikipedia, so please let me know of any deficiencies, omissions or errors in my presentation above.

What happens next? What should I do? A reformulation of the sentence in question could easily be made that could no longer admit of the problem(s), if they be problem(s) I've attempted to articulate. Do I wait a few days, and if there is no dissent, change the sentence appropriately? How long is long enough? I've tried reading relevant Wikipedia guidelines & policies, but I have no feel for their application. Does a good replacement text suggest itself to anyone?

Uakarkh (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Something else I see wrong with this section is, the fact that, the income tax was later revoked after war expenses were paid off. Lincoln's income tax was only temporary to cover those costs, and then revoked. The permanent income tax was established much later. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1864 for information.

Flooding?
This is old and not very important. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.217.40 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * done Lionelt (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Crimes against the IRS
Shouldn't Joseph Stack and other attacks on the IRS be documented in this article? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already a link to Tax protester (United States) in the navbox in the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the murder of an IRS employee by a person flying an airplane into an IRS office building has more importance than flooding in an IRS office building that did not kill or injure anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.217.40 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court? Zylog79 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Zylog79: You're confusing your legal terminology. The term "power of attorney" usually has nothing to do with representing someone -- as an attorney at law -- in court. The U.S. Department of Justice by law represents the government of the United States of America in federal court in federal tax cases (with exceptions). The Internal Revenue Service is designated as a "bureau" of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, a department of the government of the United States of America. So, in a federal tax matter, a lawyer -- a person licensed as an attorney at law (a person licensed to practice law) -- in the Department of Justice represents the Internal Revenue Service. The exception is in U.S. Tax Court, where the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the head of the IRS) is represented by attorneys in the Office of Chief Counsel of the IRS.


 * By contrast, the term "power of attorney" is not used to describe the power of an attorney at law to practice law or represent someone in court. The term "power of attorney" means the power to act on behalf of someone else as an "attorney in fact,". An "attorney in fact" and an "attorney at law" are two different things. An attorney in fact is not a lawyer (unless he or she also happens to be licensed as a lawyer, as an attorney at law). Instead, an attorney in fact is a kind of "agent." For example, you could grant a friend a "power of attorney" to sign contract on your behalf. That person does not have to be a lawyer (an attorney at law) to do that.


 * Generally, you don't give someone a "power of attorney" to represent you in court. You simply retain or hire an attorney at law to represent you in court. Famspear (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

IRS founded in 1862
Congress collected taxes prior to 1862 and did not use the IRS. From the IRS website: The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html I'm going to delete material not pertinent to IRS. Lionelt (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree on Lionelt's point about deleting the non-pertinent material. This is an article specifically about the IRS, not about the history of tax collection in general, etc. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with both of you, but I think that by Lionelt deleting the material, the beginning of the history section has been left very awkward. Starting the Civil War section with "Tensions around the post-colonial tax system led directly ..." is completely out of context. Perhaps the prior history can be summed up in a sentence or two as a lead-in to the discussion of the founding of the IRS, or else a better start to section can be written. -- DS1953 talk  02:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can not state that the IRS was started in 1862, as it did not, it was merely an (unconstitutional) income tax over the Civil War. They can only claim the time back until 1918, when the tax was declared constitutional by the 16th Amendment, and the name was first used. This whole thing smacks of a government PR article than a proper encyclopedia article.Craxd (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, not exactly. The taxes from the Revenue Act 1862 were almost certainly constitutional.  The Pollack case found some taxes from the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional.  Key word is some - basically it said taxes on income from dividends, interest and property (rentals) were direct taxes and unapportioned and hence unconstitutional.  It didn't say anything about income taxes in general being unconstitutional.  The 16th amendment didn't so much as grant a new power as remove a limitation (that direct taxes must be apportioned) on an existing power.  You could argue that the IRS has it's roots in the Office created by the 1862 law but that's about it.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IRS Template?
Is there an IRS template on Wikipedia that points to sections of IRS Code? Something similar to usc? &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 12:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Budget
The article does not mention what the yearly cost/budget of the IRS is. Does anyone have this information, and if so, can they add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added an estimate based on data from the Office of Management and Budget of the Executive Office of the President: Over $12 billion for the IRS for fiscal year 2011. Famspear (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The statistics for what the IRS collects are for fiscal year 2006, while the statistics for what the IRS spends are for 2009 and 2011. Maybe this can be updated later to compare "apples to apples." Nevertheless, the current presentation at least gives a rough estimate: The cost to run the IRS is about a half of one percent of what the IRS collects ($12.6 billion divided by $2.2 trillion would be about 1/2 of one percent). Famspear (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Question???? Are the rules and regulations for the Federal IRS the same in all 50 states ? OR do they vary from state to state? Justme16145 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that the rules and regulations are the same in all states. Generally, U.S. federal agencies don't vary their regulations by state. There might be a few "effective" exceptions to that rule, but I know of none off the top of my head, if you mean something along the lines of "OK, here's the rule we're declaring for Montana, but we're declaring the rule to be different for Georgia."


 * The effect of federal tax laws can vary from state to state in the sense that in some cases, federal law looks to STATE law for the rule. For example, when the answer to a federal tax question depends on who owns a piece of property, state law on property ownership (which can vary from state to state) will often have an impact on the answer to the federal tax question. But that's not a situation where the federal tax regulation itself is "different" from one state to another. It's the state laws that are different.


 * There are a few federal tax statutes or regulations that EFFECTIVELY apply differently in different states because of circumstances. For example, there were special rules after Hurricane Katrina, which rules affected people affected by the storm. Since the vast majority of people affected were in Louisiana, you could say that the effect of the federal tax laws or regulations benefited people more disproportionately in Louisiana than in, say, North Dakota. Famspear (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

CARRY OVER DEDUCTIONS FRO 1 YEAR TO TE NEXT WHAT ARE THEY
1. WHAT TAX DEDUCTIONS ARE AQLLOW TO CARRY OVER TO NEXT YEAR? 2.EMAILS RHAYNES923@ATT.NET 3. HOW DO I FIND OUT TAX INFO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.222.201 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just go to www.IRS.gov and look it up. This forum is not the place for tax advice. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

IRS program to audit wealthy slammed
A small headline of page B1 of the April 11, 2012 USA today hardcopy - can't find it on the web. It talks about an IRS  program to focus auditning  on returns of American with incomes in the tens of millions. Ir says so far only 36 audits have been completed since 2009 out of 8,274. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this related article on the web http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2012-01-06/IRS-audits/52411620/1 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

EXCESS TO PERSONAL TAX INFROMATION FOR PUBLICK
WHO IN THE GOVERMENT HAS EXCESS TO TAX INFORMATION ON ANY TAX PAYER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.75.30 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Lots of personnel at the Internal Revenue Service have access to tax information on taxpayers generally. There are legal restrictions on how personnel may look at personal tax information. The rules on that are voluminous and complex. Famspear (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of history missing
The 16th amendment gets passed, then *nothing happens for sixty years* till Nixon's return gets leaked? There were two World Wars and a police action in that time...how did the IRS support the troops, as one example of interesting history. IRS and ccomputers. IRS and civil rights. There must be more! --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There's more than that missing, especially about the start of Federal Reserve, and the end to the Great Depression around 1939, and through WWII.Craxd (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But we've got paragraphs of Wikiprose about minute adjustments to the IRS budge in one recent year. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Contractors
Braulio Castillo is the president and chief executive officer of Strong Castle, a Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and a Minority Owned Small Business that has been providing information technology solutions to commercial and government clients since 1994. Until 2012, the firm was known as Signet Computers, Incorporated. Within months of the name change, the firm had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of government contracts, mostly with the Internal Revenue Service.

IRS during Prohibition?
Wouldn't IRS' activities during the Prohibition merit a section of its own, or at least a mention? According to the article Prohibition in the United States, one of three federal authorities responsible for enforcing Prohibition was the US Treasury Department IRS Bureau of Prohibition. A section on Prohibition could include a reference to the IRS' famous role in convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Renting from a non-profit company
I have a concession business, and I am trying to make a profit, and I would like to rent a kitchen from a church, that's non-profit. Can this work? I have been trying to get an answer, but information is slow.96.26.160.83 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Try the reference desk, rather than here. Still, the answer is, you can, but the non-profit would have to pay taxes on the unrelated rental income.  Please use the Usenet group misc.taxes or (if you want a serious answer misc.taxes.moderated), or pay service such as Just Answer (ask for me by name).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

New information needs to be added to wikipedia?"
XOttawahitech (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0122/IRS.gov-New-tax-filing-changes-for-2014
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/01/22/should-the-irs-decide-whether-a-woman-has-been-raped-2/


 * First one, probably not. It's just one year.  If anything, it would go into an article on the effects of the government shutdown.  The second one, nope per WP:CRYSTAL.  It's a proposed bill that will quite probably die in committee (like most proposed bills).  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious material removed
The following material has been removed:


 * It was later shown that the 2013 IRS "scandal" was in fact, entirely manufactured by Darrell Issa, the chair of the House Oversight Committee. He requested a report from the IRS Inspector General, but requested that only audits of conservative groups be included on the report. It was later revealed that the IRS also "targeted" liberal groups, and that the only group that was denied tax exempt status, was in fact, a liberal group.  Despite these revelations, Chairman Issa has continued to make the assertion that only conservative groups were targeted.

(footnotes not reproduced.

I largely agree that the scandal is overblown. However, the matter certainly was not "entirely manufactured" by Mr. Issa, and I doubt that the Treasury Inspector General would accede to a request by Mr. Issa that "only audits of conservative groups be included on the report." Wikipedia itself cannot take these kinds of positions. If these are reliable sources making these claims, the text of a Wikipedia article should be clear that it is the SOURCE making the claim, not Wikipedia itself. Further, Wikipedia already has an extensive article on this very topic. Famspear (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

filing tax returns
I was not employed all year and received social security because I;m 72. I own my own home. Can I file and claim the interest I paid to the bank? Thank you  Diane Daniels  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.241.202 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Contact me personally for a simple answer, or contact a professional for a more precise answer. The question is inappropriate for an article talk page. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph changes
I changed the final paragraph (about the hacking incident in May 2015) slightly. The previous version reported that the IRS had "leaked" the private tax information of 100,000 taxpayers, following the language in the Forbes blog headline. This doesn't seem quite right; "leaking" information in this context would suggest that it was provided intentionally to a third party. I tweaked it to better match what the source actually says happened. drseudo (t) — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120510015707/http://www.irs.gov:80/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html to http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100723162831/http://www.irs.gov:80/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html to http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=184235,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Who owns the IRS?
The Internal Revenue Service is not part of the Federal Government (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391). Since the IRS is a foreign private corporation of the International Monetary Fund, should't the article mention its owner? Wilibald oplatek (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Total baloney. We're already been through this -- including the Diversified Metals case -- over and over and over and over again. This is frivolous tax protester rhetoric. And you are very, very late to the game. This is the kind of garbage that was being posted back in 2005 and 2006.

The Internal Revenue Service is not a foreign private corporation of anything, much less the International Monetary Fund. It's a bureau and an agency within the United States Department of the Treasury.

Stop reading garbage web sites. Famspear (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To rehash old news: In the Diversified Metal case, a government lawyer incorrectly stated that the Internal Revenue Service was not an agency of the government. The lawyer should have stated, "The IRS is an agency of the government, and has no capacity to be sued." Government lawyers, like all lawyers, make incorrect statements about the law from time to time. Further, in Diversified Metal, the Court itself stated: "The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514 (1952). Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action." The Court was stating what every tax lawyer already knows (or should know): the proper party defendant in most tax cases against the Federal government is "United States of America" and not "Department of the Treasury" or "Secretary of the Treasury" or "Internal Revenue Service." This is a separate concept from the question of whether the IRS is a bureau or agency within the Department of the Treasury, which it certainly is.


 * Further, none of other materials you cited make the preposterous claim that the IRS is a "foreign private corporation" or that the IRS is affiliated with the International Monetary Fund. You need to read the materials you are citing, rather than copying and pasting from nonsense web sites you have found. Famspear (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

R01k
Does the IRS allow companies to withhold employees personal investment after quitting or being terminated from a job for an extended period of time Adam J Malek (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internal Revenue Service article. This is not an appropriate forum for your tax questions.  Deli nk (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

401k
Does the IRS allow a company to withhold employee RX employees personal investment in their 401K after no longer being employed with the company Adam J Malek (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See question above. Deli nk (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0%2C%2Cid%3D184235%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0%2C%2Cid%3D102886%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723033049/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-19379.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-19379.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819222326/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-19379.htm to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-19379.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.montrosepress.com/articles/2007/12/22/news/doc476c93hd9246d741646059.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814150842/http://www.tax.org/museum/1901-1932.htm to http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Medicare tax refund
Possible to get it refunded if you do not have Medicare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)