How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Thelawman2 Your Own Question
Thelawman2, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 1612
Experience:  Attorney-at-Law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Thelawman2 is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

26 USC, Section 6331(a) refers to the Secretarys authority

This answer was rated:

26 USC, Section 6331(a) refers to the Secretary's authority to levy against "... officer, employee, or elected official of the United States....". My research indicates that the "...officer...." referred to here is the one appointed under the U.S. Constitution Appointment Clause, not the thousands of other officers servicing in assignments that are NOT public offices held by those appointed by the President, Courts of Law, or Department Heads. Also, in Maisano v Welcher et. al., 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991) the Court referred to levies under Section 6331(a) as "... special situations....", which appears to support the idea that "... officer...." of the United States must be appointed IAW the Appoint Clause of the Constitution. Question: How is the "...officer... of the United States...." in Section 6331(a) lawfully defined as used therein??
Hi, I’m a moderator for this topic and I wonder whether you’re still waiting for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will do my best to find a professional to assist you right away. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you. Thank you!
Customer: replied 5 years ago.

Yes, I still need an answer.






Sometimes, finding the right Expert can take a little longer than expected and we thank you greatly for your understanding. We’ll be in touch again shortly.
While the cited provision may be limited to appointed officers via the appointments clause, one must read the rest of the language found within the statute which states: "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." So while it does mention officer of the United States, it also states "employee ... of ... any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia." This part of the statute would encompass all the people that you suggest are not included by "officer . . . of the United States."
Customer: replied 5 years ago.

I agree that is what appears to be the case. That is also what the IRS wants everyone to believe. However, the U.S.C. and regulations actually state otherwise. See these sources,


  • In this context “…employee….”means,

    • “For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes [is limited to] an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.”

26 U.S.C. Sec. 3401(c ) Employee

In addition,


  • "Generally, physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, contractors, subcontractors, public stenographers, auctioneers, and others who follow an independent trade, business, [pilots] or profession in which they offer their services to the public, are not employees." [Insert and emphasis added.]

26 CFR §31.3401(C )-1. Employee

As I understand these sections, that means I am NOT a member of either of the three classes of "taxpayers" referred to in Section 6331.

Do you have any sources to rebut this conclusion????

The problem is that you are citing different chapters for support of your proposition. 26 USC 3401(c) states "for purposes of this chapter" which is referring to chapter 24. 26 USC 6331 is in Chapter 64. As a result, you can not use the definition of one as proof for the definition of another.
What exactly do you do for a living?
Customer: replied 5 years ago.

That appears to be the case. However, it is not my position that is offered here. It is Section 6331(a) that links that chapter to Section 3401(d) for the definition of "employer". In doing that that bring in that chapter's definition of "employee" since that term ["employee"] is used in the section 3401(d) definition of "employer".


You appear to be unwilling to get into the details of the clear language of Section 6331. If you connect all the confusing dots the picture becomes clear. The statutes and regulations don't appear to be in conflict with the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. It is in the intentional and fraudulent misapplication of the statutes and regulations where the crimes take place. [Now THAT is my opinion, based on what I read in all of the sources mentioned.]


There is no need to continue with this discussion. On this issue let's just agree to disagree and let it go at that. I am NOT a ".... "taxpayer", "officer", "employee", or "elected official" of the United States...."





I see what you are saying about 3401(d) cross-reference resulting in 3401(c)'s definition of employee making sense to be applicable. However, one does not need to go to 3401(c) because 26 USC 6331 defines employee in the exact same manner. But the regulation you are citing is key.

The definition of employee that you are citing, found in the regulations, is a common description and would make sense in its application here. My question is, do you even work for the government, if not, clearly the statute would not be applicable. If you do work for the government and are seeking to have the regulation definition of those jobs in which employee would not be applicable, the key question is whether you are independent in your profession. That list provided is meant to provide examples of what MAY not fall within the definition of employee. It seems to be creating a presumption that may be rebutable. So if your job description falls within that list but you are not truly independent, the government may override that definition.
Customer: replied 5 years ago.


I did my research before I asked the question. It appears that you did not do much research before attempting a useful answer. I'm "engaged" in an ongoing challenge with the IRS at this time, so I've had the opportunity to dig deeply into this issue. I'm also a member of Pre Paid Legal so I've checked with other attorneys for input. It appears that most in the legal community tend to give advice related to keeping all [alleged] "taxpayers" paying their "fair share" [whatever that is]. Anyway, I thought I would try your service to see how you would respond. So I did. My opinion is unchanged. I'm not interested in keeping things the was they've always been when I can prove [based on the language of the statutes and regulations] that crimes are being committed against non-taxpayers by our "so called" leaders.


So, as I suggested before, let's just agree to disagree and let it go at that.


Thanks [anyway],



Okay, let me know if you need anything else
Thelawman2, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 1612
Experience: Attorney-at-Law
Thelawman2 and 11 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you