Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed


By Al Thompson

December 11th, 2003




When Congress passes laws, there is a very specific procedure that they follow. Laws are enacted by either a Bill or a Resolution that may originate in the House or the Senate. “A bill that has been agreed to in an identical form by both bodies becomes the law of the land only after: 1. Presidential approval; or 2. failure by the President to return it with objections to the House in which it originated within 10 days, (Sundays excepted) while Congress is in session; or 3. the overriding of a presidential veto by two-thirds vote in each House.”


For a full explanation see


Once a bill or resolution is enacted it must be published. “One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are bound by it.”  This makes sense, since the people must have a place to refer to, in order to find out what their obligations are, if any, to the Government.


When the bills and resolutions are enacted, they are first published as a “slip law”, which means they are published in an “unbound pamphlet.”


These slip laws become “competent evidence” in all federal and state courts, tribunals, and public offices.


They then become published in the United States Statutes at Large, and these are “legal evidence” of the laws, and are accepted as proof of the laws in any court in the United States.


For a full explanation see:


The statutes are then codified by the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.  The codes become “prima facie” evidence of the law, and they stand as law, unless rebutted or challenged.  However, the codes are not law, but simply prima facie (on its face) evidence of the law.  This kind of evidence should be rebutted or challenged, especially when dealing with any alleged internal revenue code.


However, when communicating with the Internal Revenue Service, literally thousands upon thousands of people have been asking the simple question, “Show me the law”, and have been stonewalled by that agency without any apparent recourse.  People have been thrown in prison for violating a “law” that hasn’t been disclosed when



Why does this happen?  It would seem to be obvious, that the Government would  put forth the law when requested.  Why don’t they do it?  I submit that the reason is these laws simply do not exist because they were repealed in 1939.  Yes, that is correct, the internal revenue laws were repealed in that year. 


It Happened February 10th, 1939.


Look at Exhibit A, it is a copy of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE February 10th, 1939 [H. R. 2762] [Public, No 1] Chapter 2  At Sec 4. it says the following: “…all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided in Sec. 5.” 


Section 5. “Continuance of  Existing Law.- Any provision of law in force on the 2nd day of January 1939 corresponding to a provision contained in the Internal Revenue Title shall remain in force until the corresponding provision under such Title takes effect.”


What just happened?  It appears that indeed, the internal revenue laws were repealed and saved in the Internal Revenue Title for use to preserve the rights and liabilities that occurred when these internal revenue laws were in effect.  But since they were repealed, they no longer applied, after the date of enactment, to anyone unless the liability occurred before the enactment of this statute.  In other words, they were moved to the Internal Revenue Title for savings or archive purposes, and that they only applied to those who incurred a liability before the date of enactment. The Internal Revenue Title thus contained repealed law.


Now look at Exhibit B, which is Public Law 591-Chapter 736, approved August 16th, 1954, H.R. 8300 which is called Internal Revenue Code of 1954.  On the eleventh line down it states, “To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.”  What laws?  The laws in the Internal Revenue Title were repealed laws.  So what did they revise?  They revised nothing.  They did indeed give the perception that these laws were being enacted, however, it would be a legislative impossibility given the normal procedures Congress uses to enact laws.  Remember, Congress enacts laws, they do not enact Codes.  Codes are written by codifiers, and they are an index to make it easier and more orderly to find the law.


As I understand this, Congress can only revise codes, but they amend statutes and statutes are the publication of the laws.  So it appears to be what some call a “legislative orphan.”  It didn’t follow the normal process Congress uses to enact laws.  We can only surmise, that Congress pulled a fast one and made it appear that the internal revenue laws were “revised”, when the truth of the matter is that they attempted to “enact” a statute based upon repealed law.  The lawmaking process does not work that way.  Congress cannot amend repealed laws, they would have to enact new ones.


If the internal revenue laws were repealed, and that appears to be the fact, what does this mean?  Did Congress do this on purpose?  Or did it happen over a period of time between 1939 and 1954.  What did they know, and when did they know it?  We may never be able to answer that question, but we do know that they did it, and the law still stands today.


Many in the “tax honesty” movement, have been saying over and over again, “Show me the law…” and the government remains silent.  The more complete question is: Show me the law that makes me liable for the tax.  And again, the government remains silent.  It is because there is no law, and the government knows it.  If they actually pointed to a purported liability, it would be a gross error, or worse, a complete lie. 


I’ve had two occasions myself and I asked the question to IRS officials, “Please tell me what statute, code, or regulation that makes me liable for the tax, and I got nothing but silence.  One IRS appeals officer told me, “I don’t have to answer that, that’s compelled testimony.”


Therefore, since the internal revenue laws were repealed, what is the purpose in studying the codes?  Nothing. Why study codes that are not supported by law?  It doesn’t make any sense.  It appears that the process of studying codes occurs because people think that they are law, but the reality is that they may or may not be an accurate representation of law.  One should always demand the underlying statute before answering any complaint or charge.  Remember, the “slip laws” are competent evidence, the statutes are legal evidence, and the codes are prima facie evidence of the law.  If someone is dealing with an IRS issue, I would most certainly demand to see the slip laws along with the statutes.


In fact, the Department of Justice states the following: “The text of all statutes alleged to have been violated, including the penalty provision, and the pertinent statute of limitations should be typed out in full either in the body of the prosecutor's affidavit or as exhibits to the prosecutor's affidavit. If attached as an exhibit, each statute should be typed on a separate page. If the text of the pertinent statute is unusually long or convoluted, contact the Office of International Affairs regarding the possibility of reduction. It is usually not necessary to also include the applicable provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines.”


In almost every instance I have seen in income or employment tax cases, there is no lawful affidavit sworn by a competent witness and there is no statute included in any charge/claim.  Many people have been put in jail, based upon unsworn charges with no statutes.


Therefore, it is essential that the statutes be included in any kind of charge, and this is something that  overlooked in the cases I’ve seen.  Why?  In the case of the internal revenue laws, it appears they were repealed in 1939 and no new internal revenue laws were enacted.  The government attorneys simply move their process forward because we don’t challenge their presentments,


Any charges from the federal government that does not include lawfully enacted statutes are nothing more than meritless, frivolous, charges that are meant to embarrass, oppress, harass, and intimidate the people.


How was this fact pasted over by so many researchers?  The power of breaking a belief that one has held most of their life is quite difficult to break. 


About two years ago, at a research meeting in Oklahoma, Jack Cohen, from Washington state, pointed out this fact of the 1939 internal revenue laws were repealed.  Yes, we’ve been sitting on this for two years, but we just didn’t realize the implications.  Jack held up the book to all the researchers.  They all looked at it, but then they completely forgot about it and carried on with little discussion.  I was there, and since the other researchers didn’t have much of an interest, I thought maybe there was not much merit to Jack’s statement.  But I kept thinking that if what Jack said was true, then we don’t have to go through all this other material, if the internal revenue laws were repealed.  Why are we studying codes if there is no law?  Even now, with the evidence in my hands, it is still hard to believe, but the statutes speak for themselves.  It is our knowledge and understanding that seems to be subject to our old ways of thinking.


Therefore, unless we’re missing something, it appears that indeed the internal revenue laws were repealed and that may be one of the reasons that the government refuses to “show me the law”.  There isn’t one.


Copyright by Al Thompson

Under the Common Law

December 11th, 2003

This article may be freely distributed in its entirety.


The last action arising under the laws codified in the Code of 1939 was finalized some time after 1960 and before 1966. West's Code Annotated included the 1939 Code in its 1955 edition, and provided Pocket Parts until 1960. The 1939 Code was not included in the 1966 edition. Congress has never enacted any new internal revenue laws since 1939. So the alleged Code of 1954 is not a "code of laws". Its provisions have no statutory foundation. It is, at best, a code of municipal ordinances.

Also note:

Treasury Order (TO) 150-01 created 33 Districts and 4 Regional offices under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. TO 150-02, which cancelled 150-01, legally closed all 37 offices created by TO 150-01

Therefore, The Commissioner is not authorized to collect taxes, but if he were, it would only be in the District of Columbia.

4 USC 72 says that all offices attached to the seat of the government are to be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as expressly provided by law. The Secretary's office is attached to the seat of the government, and so is the Commissioner's. No law provides authority for the Commissioner to operate outside the District, so his activities and functions are limited to that area. No Delegation Order authorizes him to collect taxes, so anyone under his supervision is likewise limited.

The Secretary has not delegated the "authority to levy" to the Commissioner, or the "authority to file lien claims." The Secretary has delegated all authority to "enforce" the "internal revenue laws" to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Also, keep in mind that the word "Internal" is used for a purpose. The word having the opposite meaning is "external." We know the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE and the Internal Revenue Laws were not created for those who are external, or outside government. Therefore, We can conclude that it was created for "internal" purposes, to collect from those who receive a benefit from within the government structure. It is a tax to be collected from those who are employed by it, who are now re-"venued". Their venue has changed from state to federal. Working within government is a benefit and or privilege that can be or is taxable. Something like a kickback.