John DoePOBox 111

Eugene, Oregon [97402]

:Certified Mail _______________________________ Date mailed ___________________All Agents of the IRS Commissioner at the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue ServiceOgden, UT 84201-0030

Now comes the Affiant’ John Doe©, foreign sovereign to the United States and the State of Oregon over the age of 21 years, and declares as follows, under penalty of perjury:

NOTICE: WHY NOT REQUIRED TO FILE

RE: Generally: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service (IRS) writings about anIRS account titled JOHN DOE fabricated by agents of the IRS Commissioner;Specifically: unsigned IRS Notice(s) CP-515 and CP 515M, dated 07-25-2005; copies attached.

Dear Agents of the IRS Commissioner,

This will serve as timely NOTICE that studies have convinced me that the internalrevenue laws codified into the Internal Revenue Code (IRC or 26 U.S.C.) are special laws whichdo not apply to me or my property. Some of the laws, regulations, and Supreme Court rulingsthat I rely upon for making this conclusion are presented in the affidavit I filed into Pima County, Oregon, public records (copy enclosed). If the evidence presented therein is incorrect in law then I believe the Commissioner and lawyers within the United States (U.S.) Government have a moral and legal obligation to prove precisely how and why the IRC subtitle A statutes have general applicability to all income. Where they refuse, fail, or neglect to do so they make a record that the IRS Commissioner is intentionally misleading his agents into committing acts which are outside the authority of the IRS Commissioner.1 Further, under the doctrine of silence, where the Commissioner and U.S. Government lawyers refuse, fail, or neglect to contradict the evidence in my affidavit on an item by item basis, and in like form (by affidavit), then they make

1. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. During oral argument counsel for the government stated that these procedures were "routine." If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately."

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977)

Page 1 of 3

a record of admitting and stipulating for all legal purposes that the evidence in my affidavit iscorrect in law and thus the IRS CP-515 notices have no legal affect and any further IRS communications sent via the USPS will constitute harassment.

As agents of the IRS Commissioner, necessary diligence 2 requires that you immediately send my affidavit to the IRS Commissioner with a request that he and a U.S. Government lawyer (either IRS or DOJ) provide to you and to me, within twenty (20) days of delivery to him, evidence that proves my evidence is incorrect in law. Additional time will be provided upon written request for good cause. Please provide to me a copy of your request to Commissioner Everson.

Further, if the IRS Commissioner and a government lawyer refuses, fails or neglects totimely contradict the evidence in my affidavit then necessary diligence requires that you takewhatever measures are necessary to see that the IRS system of records reflects my status is"nontaxpayer" with regard to IRC statutes and cancel in their entirety all IRS accounts titledSABRA V ALBRITTON showing the Social Security Administration's number 600-18-7455. Keep in mind that revenue agents can be held accountable when they fail to investigate matters brought to their attention and an injury occurs; see Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., 713 F.2d 1405 (1983), 9th Cir.

Declaration that my name is my property and restrictions to its use

I hereby DECLARE that the name John Doe is my property. I do not provide anyoneauthority to use my name in any form (i.e., all upper case letters, all lower case letters, or upperand lower case letters, abbreviations, etc.) without my express permission. This prohibitionapplies, but is not limited, to the IRS and all State agencies, their officers, and their agents usingmy name to manufacture an account with a title that resembles my name.

Revocation of signature on IRS forms

Based upon the evidence in the affidavit I filed into Pima County, Oregon, public records I, nunc pro tunc, revoke my signature on any and all IRS forms and any form directly or indirectly related thereto ever signed by me; e.g., applications for ID numbers, IRS forms 1040 and W-4 forms, and contract forms with banks, investment entities, and the like, who insist upon using the number assigned by the Social Security Administration that identifies my property in the possession of that U.S. Government agency as a "taxpayer I.D. #527-61-4474" and send forms 1099 or W-2 to the IRS. Such act was done due to misrepresentation that the IRC statutes apply to all income and hence was an act done by mistake on my part and on the part of all persons who ever participated as payors of income to me.

Page 2 of 3

Attached: Copy of IRS Letter dated September 7, 2005 Copy of IRS form CG-4549and attached pages.

To follow: Copy of my 15 page affidavit filed into Pima County, Oregon public records..

________________________________ John DoeState of Oregon) ACKNOWLEDGMENTCounty of Lane)On this _____ day of _____________ 2005 before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared John Doe known to me to be the individual who executed the forgoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed.

My Commission Expires: ______________________

_______________________________ Notary Public

2. necessary diligence. The diligence that a person is required to exercise to be legally protected.Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999), under the word "diligence"

Page 3 of 3

____________________________________________________________________________FORMAL PUBLIC LEGAL RECORD affidavit to be filed into Lane County, Oregon, public records under matters dealing with propertyWHEN RECORDED RETURN TO John Doe POBox 111, Eugene, Oregon [97402]

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF STATUS & PROPERTY RIGHTS

Oregon State )) ss

Lane County )

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I, John Doe, a man over the age of majority and of sound mind who has first hand knowledge of the facts, hereby say under penalties of perjury that what is stated herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, that it is materially complete, not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The purpose and intent for filing this affidavit into the Lane County public records is to declare my personal status and property rights and give constructive notice to everyone thereof. Anyone wishing to contradict or object to what is stated herein may do so by presenting their writing to me at the address above.

I believe, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902, affidavits filed into public records are self-authenticated and must be recognized as evidence when used in any legal matter, judicial or administrative

I hereby exercise my right to publish this as public notice intending to protect the interest in my property which is subject to deprivation only under a Seventh Amendment common law trial as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38 (a), based upon a filed due process of law cause of action by any plaintiff. Only upon result of such action may my property be subject to any encumbrance.

A copy of this affidavit will be sent to anyone making claims affecting me personally, or any of my property. It is also my intent that this Notice serve as a means to protect my good credit rating and to provide Notice to anyone applying my name in any identity theft scheme.

EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THIS

DECLARATION OF PERSONAL STATUS & PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. Courts have made it clear that the Constitutions control the subjects over which the Legislative Departments of government can enact laws and that government administrative entities have an obligation to operate honestly and stay within the limits to the enforcement of laws enacted by the Legislature. Yet, it seems the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court has put the onus upon people, like me, to ascertain whether or not agents of governments are properly exercising the authority of their office when it ruled:

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."

Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947)Though it appears from this that government agents have a built in defense that they are only doing their job as long as they follow the process and procedures given to them by their supervisors, the U.S. Supreme Court also made clear that:

"Official powers cannot be extended beyond the terms and necessary implications of the grant. If broader powers be desirable, they must be conferred by Congress. They cannot be merely assumed by administrative officers; nor can they be created by the courts in the proper exercise of their judicial functions." [bolding added by me]

Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 649; 51 S.Ct. 587 (1931)Though that case was a battle over advertising of "obesity cure," the concept must apply to all authority given by acts of Congress. Hence, officers of the IRS and State taxing entities cannot merely assume they are acting within the lawful bounds of their office once put on notice otherwise, like by the evidence in this affidavit. If my understanding is incorrect in law then I believe that the IRS Commissioner and lawyers within the U.S. Government or the State Government, as the case may be, have a moral and legal obligation or present contradicting evidence to me and to the government officers and agents,1 and that their silence "constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question" (i.e., that the IRC and State "income tax" statutes do NOT apply to me or any interest I have in my property) and acts as an estoppel to Federal or State revenue agents 2 sending any claims or demands to me.

2. From studies, I have come to firmly believe that the U.S. Government's internal revenue laws, codified into subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC or 26 U.S.C.) and referred to as

[NOTE: bolding in quotes added by me]

1. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. During oral argument counsel

for the government stated that these procedures were "routine." If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately."

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977)

2. On next page.

"income tax," are special laws applicable only to property of the U.S. Government transferred into the possession of people whose conduct is effectively connected with a trade or business within an agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government (hereinafter U.S. person 3 ) under an employment contract that includes a bailment 4 that is required to be returned to the U.S.Treasury; and that State "income tax" statutes are based solely thereon. Income from sourcesother than the U.S. Government fall under the term "foreign estate or trust" as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(31). 5 In support of this belief I offer the following evidence.

2. "It has been very justly and forcibly observed that there is a negative fraud in imposing a false apprehension on another by silence where silence is treacherously oppressive. In equity, therefore, "where a man has been silent when in conscience he ought to have spoken, he shall be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him to be silent." Harris v. Am. Bldg., etc., Ass'n, 122 Ala. 545, 25 South. 200. Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question, and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. 16 Cyc. 681, note 10. When the silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel. 16 Cyc. 756. Where a person with actual or constructive knowledge of the facts induces another by his words or conduct to believe that he acquiesces in or ratifies a transaction, or that he will offer no opposition thereto, and that other, in reliance on such relief, alters his position, such person is estopped from repudiating the transaction to the other's prejudice. Id. 791, and cases in note 87. Even when the statute of frauds has been relied on, the equitable doctrine of estoppel has been enforced to prevent fraud. Goldman v. Brinton, 90 Md. 259, 44. Atl. 1029."

Carmine v. Bowen, 104 Md. 198, 64 Atl.Rep. 932, 934 (1906)

3. 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30) United States person. The term "United States person" means _

(A) a citizen or resident of the United States, (B) a domestic partnership, (C) a domestic corporation, (D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of section 7701(a)(31)), and

(E) any trust if -- (i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and (ii) One or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

[That which is controlling in this definition is the term "ejusdem generis"; meaning the "U.S. person" in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(30) (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) are all in the same kind or class; (A) being human beings; (B) and (C) being entities created under U.S. Government laws; and (D) and (E) being estates or trusts created by and for U.S. person (A), (B), or (C).]

4. bailment. 1. A delivery of personal property by one person (the bailor) to another (the bailee) who holds the property for a certain purpose under an express or implied-in-fact contract. l Unlike a sale or gift of personal property, a bailment involves a change in possession but not in title. . . .

A bailment relationship can be implied by law whenever the personal property of one person is acquired by another and held under circumstances in which principles of justice require the recipient to keep the property safely and return it to the owner." 8A Am. Jur. 2d Bailment Sec. 1 (1997).

Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999)

5. On next page.

3. The Constitution for the United States of America authorizes direct taxation so long as itis apportioned, and indirect taxation so long as it is uniform throughout the states. Thedifference between indirect and direct taxes was ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

"Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes."

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895)Later, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized what is called "income tax" as an excise under certainconditions in the ruling:

"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it."

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1915)As seen by this Brushaber Court ruling, it is the enforcement of IRC statutes that controlswhether or not a duty would arise for courts to consider it direct taxation and require the court todisregard form and consider substance alone; form being IRS process and procedures andsubstance being where the enforcement results in taxation of one's income from labor oraccretions thereto (see the Pollock ruling above). This can only mean Congress did NOT imposea tax upon one's income when it enacted these internal revenue laws. If one's income is not being taxed then the question becomes, what is the subject matter of the "Federal income tax" return? A clue is the fact that the word "return" means to give back, re-deliver, re-transfer to its source. One can only return that which was once received. Thus "Federal income tax" must be acompound noun that means a thing, and it is this thing that must be returned to its source; thesource being the U.S. Government. Hence, this thing ("Federal income tax") must be property ofthe U.S. Government. Regulation 26 CFR § 1.6012-1(a)(6) 6 prescribes the IRS Form 1040for general use in making this "return required" under IRC Sec. 6012 in respect to incometaxes under subtitle A.

5. 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(31) Foreign estate or trust.(A) Foreign estate

The term "foreign estate" means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.(B) Foreign trust The term "foreign trust" means any trust other than a trust described in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (30).

6. 26 CFR § 1.6012-1. Individuals required to make returns of income. (a) Individual citizen or resident --

(6) Form of return. Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this

paragraph. . . .

4. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling 7 clues us in on the fact that what is to be returned is a partof the compensation received from the U.S. Government as an item of "gross income," and theRevenue Act of 1918 8 clues us in on the fact that such "gross income" to the U.S. person is composed of two parts, a "gain" and "income" derived from "wages." 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a) 9

and duly published regulation 26 CFR 404.6334(d)-1(a) 10 informs that the "income" portion isexempt from seizure / levy action. The only thing left to be subject to seizure / levy is theparticular part of "gross income" transferred to the U.S. person that is required to be returned. By laws and regulations, the U.S. person is permitted to make a claim on the Form 1040, underpenalties of perjury, for part of the item of "gross income" that is transferred to them that is theU.S. Government's property given the invented name "Federal income tax." What they are ableto retain is a "gain" to them over and above the "income" portion of such "gross income," butthey are required to return the balance (a debt expressed on the Form 1040 as "amount you owe")to the U.S. Treasury via the IRS. However, only the "gross income" they receive from sourceswithin the U.S. Government is includible in gross income under IRC subtitle A. All grossincome from sources other than the U.S. Government falls under the term "foreign estate or trust" in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(31) [see footnote 5].

7. "... No judge is required to pay a definite percentage of his salary, but all are commanded to return, as a part of "gross income", "the compensation received as such" from the United States. From the "gross income" various deductions and credits are allowed, as for interest paid, contributions or gifts made, personal exemptions varying with family relations, etc., and upon the net result assessment is made. The plain purpose was to require all judges to return their compensation as an item of "gross income," and to tax this as other salaries. This is forbidden by the Constitution.

Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501, 509 (1924)

8. Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057.Sec. 213. That for the purposes of this title...the term "gross income" -

(a) includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service (including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as such), of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, ..

9. 26 U.S.C. § 6331 (a) Authority of the Secretary. - If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (. . . ) upon all property and rights to property (except such property exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d) of such officer, employee, or elected official. . . .

10. 26 CFR § 404.6334(d)-1 Minimum exemption from levy for wages, salary, or other income.(a) In general. Under section 6331(a), if an individual liable for any tax neglects or refuses to pay such

tax within 10 days after notice and demand, the tax may be collected by levy upon property or rights to property belonging to such individual, including amounts payable to or received by him as wages, salary, or other income. . . . Under section 6334(a)(9), however, certain amounts payable to or received by an individual as wages or salary for personal services, or as income from other sources are exempt from levy. . . .

5. The enforcement of IRC subtitle F statutes as to IRC subtitle A statutes being limited togross income derived from within an agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government isconfirmed by IRC statutes and regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that statutescannot stand alone as authority for the conduct of government persons when it ruled:

"we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone"

California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26 (1974)Regulations having general applicability are required to be published in the Federal Register (see44 U.S.C. § 1501 et. seq.). Pursuant to § 1510, a list of the location of such regulations isto be published, and has been in the Table of Authorities of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Index and Finding Aids. 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a) states the exception being "those nothaving general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or personsin their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof" (which are published pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 301; Title 5 being Government Organization and Employees). The CFR list showsthe following as to the location of regulations applicable to pertinent IRC enforcement statutespublished in the Federal Register pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 1501 et. seq. and those with noregulation so published.Title 26 Description Enforcement Regulation In6020 Returns Prepared by the Secretary 27 CFR Parts 53, 706201 Assessment Authority 27 CFR Part 706203 Method of Assessment 27 CFR Part 706212 Notice of deficiency NO REGULATION6213 Restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court NO REGULATION6214 Determinations by Tax Court NO REGULATION6215 Assessment of deficiency found by Tax Court NO REGULATION6301 Collection Authority 27 CFR Parts 70,24,25,250,270,2756303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR Part 706321 Liens for Taxes 27 CFR Part 706331-43 Levy and Distraint 27 CFR Part 706601-02 Interest on Underpayments 27 CFR Parts 70,1706651 Failure to File Tax Return or Pay Tax 27 CFR Parts 70,24,25,1946671 Penalty Assessed as Tax, Person Defined 27 CFR Part 706672 Failure to Collect and Pay Over Tax 27 CFR Part 706682 False Information with Respect to Withholding NO REGULATION6701 Penalties for Understatement of Tax 27 CFR Part 706702 Frivolous income tax return NO REGULATION6902 Provisions of Special Application to Transferees NO REGULATION7201 Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax NO REGULATION7203 Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information or Pay Tax NO REGULATION7207 Fraudulent Returns 27 CFR Parts 707212 Interference with Adm. of I.R. Laws 27 CFR Parts170,270,275,285,290, 295, 2967401 Judicial Proceedings Authorization 27 CFR Part 707402 Court's Jurisdiction to Enforce Summons NO REGULATION7403 Judicial Action to Enforce Lien 27 CFR Part 707454 Burden of Proof in Fraud, Foundation Manager,

and Transferee Cases NO REGULATION7601 Canvass of District for Taxable Persons 27 CFR Part 707602 Examination of Books and Witnesses 27 CFR Parts 70,170,2967603 Service of Summons 27 CFR Part 707604 Enforcement of Summons 27 CFR Part 707605 Time and Place for Examination 27 CFR Part 70

7608 Authority of Internal Revenue Enforcement Officers 27 CFR Parts 70, 170, 296From this it can be seen that regulations published pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq. for"authority of internal revenue enforcement officers" (IRC § 7608) to"canvass of district for taxable persons" (IRC § 7601) and conduct "examination of books and witnesses" (IRC § 7602) by issuing and enforcing administrative summons (IRC §§ 7603, 7604, 7605) and then have "returns prepared by the Secretary" (IRC § 6020) and make an assessment (IRC §§ 6201, 6203) and then use "collection authority" (IRC § 6301) by giving "notice and demand for tax" (IRC § 6303) and make "liens for taxes" (IRC § 6321) and then collect through "levy and distraint" (IRC §§ 6331-6343) the tax along with interest and penalties added (IRC §§ 6601, 6602, 6651, 6671, 6672, 6701) and institute actions in district courts of the U.S. Government per "judicial proceedings authorization" (IRC § 7401) and "judicial action to enforce lien" (IRC § 7403), or for certain criminal sanctions [i.e., "fraudulent returns (IRC § 7207) and "interference with administration of internal revenue laws" (IRC § 7212)] are ALL IN Title 27 CFR, which is only for taxable alcohol, tobacco, and firearm (ATF) activities. Those with NO SUCH PUBLISHEDREGULATIONS shown are the Notice of deficiency (IRC § 6212) and Tax Court functions(IRC §§ 6213, 6214, 6215, 6902, and 7454), False Information with Respect to Withholding(IRC § 6682), Frivolous income tax return (IRC § 6702), Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax (IRC § 7201), Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information or Pay Tax (IRC § 7203), and Court's Jurisdiction to Enforce Summons (IRC §7402); which means these are applicable only to gross income derived from U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities by the U.S. individual(the 26 U.S.C. IRC § 7701(a)(30)(A) U.S. person, see footnote 3) and replevin by the U.S.Government of the part of the "Federal income tax" in the possession of Federal employeesthat is required to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, employment contractswith the U.S. Government are two fold, a labor contract exchanging consideration forconsideration ($ for time) and a contract one of bailment (see footnote 4). While the U.S.Government has a tangible right to reclaim its property in the possession of the 26 U.S.C. IRC § 7701(a)(30) U.S. person, it has no intangible right 11 to take anyone's foreign estate or trust (26U.S.C. IRC § 7701(a)(31), see footnote 5).

6. As seen by the above, a Notice of Deficiency cannot be applicable to anyone who is notemployed within an agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government. Not being so employedmeans any Notice of Deficiency claim sent to me is a false document to which no liability existsunder law.

7. IRS process and procedures call for a Notice of Federal Tax Lien to be filed into countypublic records after the time for the IRC "person liable" to file a petition to Tax Court has

11. "Before McNally, numerous cases construing the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes recognized two distinct types of fraud. One category included schemes which intended the deprivation of tangible economic interests, i.e., money or property. [cites omitted] The other category concerned schemes to deprive an individual or entity of intangible rights or interests, otherwise known as "fiduciary fraud" or "intangible rights fraud." [cites omitted] Strictly speaking, "intangible rights fraud" required a fiduciary relationship between the "schemer" and the party or entity defrauded; without a fiduciary obligation, there was no fraud in depriving another of an intangible benefit. After McNally, the "intangible rights" line of cases are of dubious precedential value unless there was a direct deprivation of money or property."

U.S. v. Herron, 828 F.2d 50, 54-55 (5th Cir. 1987)McNally v. U.S., 483 US 350, 97 L.Ed 2d 292, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (1987)

expired. As can be seen from the foregoing, the ONLY legitimate purpose for such filing is togive notice of the statutory lien that exists in favor of the U.S. Government (26 U.S.C. § 6321) against the 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30) U.S. person because of the "security interest" (26 U.S.C.§ 6323(h)) the U.S. Government has in its own property in the possession of such U.S. person. 26 U.S.C. § 6331 provides authority to "levy upon all property and rights to property (exceptsuch property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person" [see footnotes 9 and 10] and 28 U.S.C. § 2463 12 informs that such property taken or detained is deemed to be inthe custody of the law and is not repleviable by the U.S. person. However, when a Notice ofFederal Tax lien is filed into county public records against anyone who is a "nontaxpayer" underIRC statutes, like myself, it is against their "income" to which the U.S. Government has no"security interest"; meaning it is subject to replevy action as indirectly stated in 28 U.S.C. § 2463. This fact makes any Notice of Federal Tax Lien filed into county public records under thename of a "nontaxpayer" and any resulting Credit Reporting agency records to be libelous perse.13 Necessary diligence 14 requires this information be basic to the job training of agents ofthe IRS Commissioner, otherwise the intent of withholding information from revenue agents is tohave them conspire to commit fraud 15 upon anyone with a "nontaxpayer" status as to IRC

12. 28 U.S.C. § 2463. Property taken under revenue law not repleviable.All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but

shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.

13. Libelous per se. A publication is libelous per se when the words are of such a character that an action may be brought upon them without the necessity of showing any special damage, the imputation being such that the law will presume that any one so slandered must have suffered damage. Robinson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 273 N.C. 391, 159 S.E.2d 896, 898. To render words "libelous per se," the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will arise therefrom that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation, or business or in his domestic or social relations. When a publication is "libelous per se," that is, defamatory on its face, it is actionable per se; i.e., one need not prove that he received any injury as a result of the publication in order to recover damages, and in such a case general damages for loss of personal or business reputation are recoverable and no averments or proof of special damages are necessary. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., D.C. Pa., 289 F.Sup. 737. See Actionable per se.

Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1979)

14. necessary diligence. The diligence that a person is required to exercise to be legally protected.Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999), under the word "diligence"

15. Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another. Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. 160 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2d 150. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1990)

statutes, as well as obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503 16). Where agents of the IRS

Commissioner are put on notice of such possibility, by writings like this affidavit, and they fail toinvestigate through the proper channels of authority, then I believe violation of statutes like 26U.S.C. § 7214 17 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 18 come into play and they can be stripped of immunity

16. 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally (a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors

to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petite juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or . . . , or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). . . .

17. 26 U.S.C. § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States. (a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents

Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States -- (1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or

(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or

(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or (4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or (5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or

(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or

(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or

(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or

(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do;shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine, so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.

18. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Statements or entries generally [IRC, 2000 Edition](a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the

executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

under rulings like that in Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., 713 F.2d 1405 (1983), 9th Cir. However, proper job training is an obligation of the IRS Commissioner and the Secretary of the Treasury. Hence, where revenue agents are not informed of the exact limitation to the lawful and legal enforcement of the IRC statutes then the violations must fall squarely upon the Commissioner and the Secretary when the IRC statutes are used with the result to collect sums not authorized by law. Such conduct constitutes intent to defraud by obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses and representations and violates 18 U.S.C. § 1341 19 because the mails are used in the process.

8. State "income tax" statutes are based upon a U.S. Government revenue sharing programprovided for in 4 U.S.C. § 111 20 whereby a portion of the "return required" of "Federalincome tax" is redirected to duly authorized State taxing authorities. No prejudice to the "U.S.person" occurs because they get credit on their Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,with regard thereto. When the "U.S. person" fails or neglects to make such redirection of U.S.Government property, the State taxing authority may legitimately file a "lien" based thereon intocounty public records to give notice of the "security interest" the State has in property of the U.S.Government in the possession of the "U.S. person." However, the "U.S. person" is discriminatedagainst (prejudiced) when the "Amount you owe" shown on the IRS Form 1040 or Stateequivalent contains gross income that is foreign to the U.S. Government [see footnote 5].

9. When anyone creates a debt against themselves by stating, under penalties of perjury, an"amount you owe" on an IRS Form 1040 that does not represent a "required return" of the U.S. Government's property ("Federal income tax") they place themselves into a condition of peonage(compelling themselves to labor for others). Only when such act is performed without any

19. 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Frauds and swindles [IRC 2000 Edition] Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining

money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

20. 4 U.S.C. § 111. Same: taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax.The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or

employee of the United States, a territory or possession or political subdivision thereof, the government of the District of Columbia, or an agency or instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a duly constituted taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.

improper influences can it be said to be voluntary. 21 Under no circumstances can enforcedcollection of any sum manufactured by an agent of the IRS Commissioner be said to be

voluntary. Any such collection has the result to compel the targeted person to specificperformance to labor for others against their will. In Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, the U.S.Supreme Court struck down the Alabama law that made the mere evidence of refusal to continuein a contract or pay back an advance a prima facie case of fraud against the employer; ruling thatinjury and fraud must be charged and proven, and that "no person can be compelled to specificperformance to labor for others" (such a condition being a form of involuntary servitude calledpeonage, see "what is peonage" in the Bailey Court ruling at pages 242-243 and 42 U.S.C. §1984 and 18 U.S.C. § 1581). At page 241, the Bailey Court ruled:

The plain intention [of the Thirteenth Amendment] was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude.

Under "what is peonage" in the Bailey Court ruling, where the U.S. Government is injured by my conduct of not filing a Form 1040 then remedy in the form of damages can be claimed based upon a verified complaint of injury and proof of injury to the government in a State court of justice under common law; just as I would have a cause of action for damages personally against any person whose conduct results in injury to me.

10. The fact that Congress can only establish the terms of employment within the U.S.Government is fundamental. Article 1, § 10, Cl. 1, of the Constitution for the United States ofAmerica forbids States from passing any "law impairing the obligations of contracts." Equalprotection under the law requires this same restriction upon the U.S. Government. Not beingemployed within any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. Government means any Notice ofFederal Tax Lien or State equivalent filed into county public records against me (a"nontaxpayer") is against my income to which the U.S. and State governments have no lawful orlegal interest. Therefore such instrument is in the nature of a libel that reads like indebitatusassumes at common law and no statutory enforcement jurisdiction exists to IRS or any Statetaxing entity. Seizure of my income requires a State garnishment action based upon a debtinstrument signed by me without any undue influence. This is confirmed by court rulings as to"nontaxpayers" : ". . . persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtainno benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, ... No procedure is prescribedfor nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due courseof law. . . . Neither did the mere filing of claims for refunds make plaintiffs taxpayers when none of the requisites of the status of taxpayers were present. . ." (see, Long v. Rasmussen, 281F. 236 (D.Mont. 1922) and Economy Plumbing & Hearing Co. Inc. v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, 589-590 (1972)). Hence, where my "nontaxpayer" status is not proven to be incorrect in law then

21. "... The rule is not that ... the proof must be adequate to establish that the particular communications contained in a statement were voluntarily made, but it must be sufficient to establish that the making of the statement was voluntary; ... the accused was not involuntarily impelled to make a statement, when but for the improper influences he would have remained silent."

Miranda v Oregon, 384 U.S. 436, 462 (1965) -- quoting from Bram v. U.S., 168 U.S. 532 at 540.

IRS records loose all value as prima facie evidence 22 and remedy via the IRC statutes is notapplicable. . 11. Fraud, conspiracy, and identity theft could be made manifest when the IRS seeks and

receives information from any source about a "nontaxpayer" to manufacture an IRS account witha title that resembles the name of a "nontaxpayer" and shares such information with State taxingauthorities under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6103 knowing the intent is for the State taxing authority to use itto manufacture a similar bogus State account. Not being authorized by IRC statutes, suchaccounts are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1601 et seq.;and any IRS communications based upon such accounts (like the IRS CP-515 and CP-518notices recently sent to me) become evidence of "asking a bribe." 23 When the conduct ofrevenue agents results in conversion of property to the U.S. Government that is not due andowing under IRC statutes then conditions of fraudulent conversion 24 are made manifest. Ibelieve it also has the result to compel the "nontaxpayer" to specific performance to labor forothers, the form of involuntary servitude called "peonage."

12. FACT is, the application of IRC subtitle A statutes upon the fruits of one's labor, oraccretions thereto, would result in direct taxation that can only conform with constitutionalmandates if it is apportioned. The long standing false belief that the "income tax" statutes(Federal and State) apply to all income cannot alter this fact, as seen by the following rulings.

It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.."

Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)

"A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience." U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338 (9th Cir. 1984)

"An unlawful or unauthorized exercise of power does not become legitimated or authorized by reason of habitude." In re Benny, 29 B.R. 754, 762 (N.D. Cal., 1983)

22. prima facie evidence. Evidence that will establish a fact or sustain a judgment unless contradictory evidence is produced. "The legislative branch may create an evidential presumption, or a rule of 'prima facie' evidence, i.e., a rule which does not shut out evidence, but merely declares that certain conduct shall suffice as evidence until the opponent produces contrary evidence." John H. Wigmore, A Students' Textbook of the Law of Evidence 237 (1935).

Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999), under the word "evidence"

23. ASKING A BRIBE. To constitute the crime of "asking a bribe," it is not necessary that the party solicited shall consent to give the bribe, or that there shall be a meeting of the minds, or mutual understanding or agreement between him and the party asking the bribe; it being sufficient if the latter is ready and willing to enter into the corrupt agreement. People v. Powell, 50 Cal.App. 436, 195 P. 456-458.

Black's Law Dictionary, Third Edition (not in Black's 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th)

24. Fraudulent conversion. Receiving into possession money or property of another and fraudulently withholding, converting, or applying the same to or for one's own use and benefit, or to use and benefit of any person other than the one to whom the money or property belongs. See Conversion.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (1990)

13. The long standing false belief that the "income tax" statutes (Federal and State) apply toall income could have been eliminated if Congress has simply inserted the word "government"after the term "United States" whenever the term "United States" is not meant to be geographical;e.g., in the definition of the term "foreign estate or trust" in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(31).

26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(31) Foreign estate or trust.

(A) Foreign estate The term "foreign estate" means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United

States [government] which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States [government], is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

rather than just provide a definition where the term "United States" is meant to be geographical;for example:

26 U.S.C. § 4612. Definitions and special rules (a) Definitions. For purposes of this subchapter - [Chapter 38-Environmental Taxes;Subchapter A - Tax on Petroleum]

(4) United States (A) In general

The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

The exclusion of the word "government" from behind United States appears to be an intentionaldeception on the part of Congress to lure people into acting to their prejudice. Courts haveconsistently ruled to set aside vague laws, reasoning that:

"Vague laws give public servants opportunities to apply the law arbitrarily, with favoritism, and withinvidious discrimination, as they please."

Oregon Box & Mfg. Co. v, Jones Lumber Co., 117 OR. 441, 224 P. 313 (1926)And the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled:

Substantive due process is the right to be protected from arbitrary and wrongful government actionregardless of the fairness of the procedures government uses to undertake the arbitrary action.

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990)"it is an established principle that the attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under thepretext of the exertion of powers which are granted."

U.S. v. Butler, 197 U.S. 1,9 (1936)"... in whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural andreasonable effect."

Henderson et al v. Mayor of N.Y. et al., 92 U.S. 259, 268The U.S. Supreme Court also firmly established that:

"It is clear, however, that the Legislature and the people may not choose to deny a fundamentalconstitutional right as a means of collecting revenue."

United States vs. State of Texas, 252 F.Supp. 234, 254; relying on Texas vs. U.S., 384 U.S. 1383 (1966).

and that:. "The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated assuch under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence."

Allgeyer vs. State of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832 (1897)Hotel, et al. vs. Longley, et al., 160 S.W.2d 124, 127 (1942).

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property -- partaking of the nature of each-- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of

personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915).

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation for all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."

Butchers Union Co. vs. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 764.

"We also think the right to work is one of the most precious liberties that man possesses. Man has as much right to work as he has to live, to be free, to own property, or to join a church of his own choice for

without freedom to work the others would soon disappear. It is a fundamental human right which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment protects from improper infringement by the federal government. To work for a living in the occupations available in a community is the very essence of personal freedom and opportunity that it was one of the purposes of these amendments to make secure. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude. The constitutional guarantees are our assurance that the citizen will be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling."

Referenced from Smith vs. State of Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (1913) inHanson vs. U.P.RR. Co., 71 N.W. 526, 546 (1955).

"Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied" Smith vs. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664. ". . . or 'manipulated out of existence' " Gomillion vs. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345.

14. Can it be argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has not established the right to work andenjoy the fruits of one's labor as an absolute right not to be impaired by governments or voters?

"... the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is, in truth, a 'personal' right, whether the 'property' in question be a welfare check, a home or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized. J. Locke, of Civil Government 82-85 (1924); J. Adams, A defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America, in F. Coker, Democracy, Liberty, and Property 121-132 (1942); 1 W. Blackstone Commentaries" 138-140. Congress recognized these rights in 1871 when it enacted the predecessor of Sections 1983 and 1343 (3). We do no more than reaffirm the judgment of Congress today."

Lynch et al. v. Household finance Corp. et al., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972)

15. Infringement of constitutional rights by statutory presumptions has been condemned asseen in:

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be. Nor may a constitutional prohibition be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption anymore than it can be violated by direct enactment; the power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions."

California Jurisprudence 3d, Volume 13, section 229, p. 412and

"It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escaping from constitutional restrictions. And the State may not in this way interfere with matters withdrawn from its authority by the Federal Constitution or subject an accused to conviction for conduct which it is powerless to proscribe."

Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 239 (1910)

16. I believe that the evidence presented above establishes as fact that my status as to IRCstatutes is that of "nontaxpayer." Under such status, the IRS Commissioner is without jurisdiction (authority) to instruct his agents 25 to manufacture a debt in the name of "Federal income tax" based upon private transactions that I enter into with any person (natural or artificial). BE IT KNOWN, my "nontaxpayer" status as to IRC statutes is admitted and acknowledged as fact, for all legal purposes, by the IRS Commissioner and lawyers of the U.S. Government unless and until contradictory evidence to what is presented herein is provided by them.

17. I will submit this affidavit to government taxing agencies with the best of intentions, and

will alter my position in this matter as soon as it is proven to be incorrect in law. However, ifcontradictory evidence is not presented by competent people within the Federal and/or StateGovernments then, under the doctrine of silence, what is presented herein must be considered tobe prima facie evidence that the IRC and State "income tax" statutes have no force or effect uponme or any interest I have in my property.

The foregoing is said to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,materially complete, not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Date: ______________________ ______________________________John Doe

On this ______ day of August, 2005, the foregoing affidavit titled CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF STATUS & PROPERTY RIGHTS was subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public of the State of Oregon, by John Doe, proven to me to be this man by satisfactory evidence.

________________________________Notary Public, my commission expires:

25 Sec. 4000. Appointment. [1939 IRC] The Commissioner may, whenever in his judgment the necessities of the service so require, employ competent agents, who shall be known and designated as internal revenue agents, and, except as provided for in this title, no general or special agent or inspector of the Treasury Department in connection with internal revenue, by whatever designation he may be known, shall be appointed, commissioned, or employed.

[I believe that this says the Commissioner can hire whomever he needs to help him do his job, but his agents are not considered appointed, commissioned or employed by the U.S. Government.]