Prima Facie Evidence vs. Positive Law

Prima Facie Evidence vs. Positive Law: IRC Isn’t Actually Law

Most Devastating Fact: Internal Revenue Code isn’t actually law—it’s “prima facie evidence” of law, a rebuttable presumption only becoming binding through your consent to franchise.​

What Makes Something “Law”

Not everything in U.S. Code is law—Congress publishes two types: positive law and prima facie evidence. Only positive law is legally binding without your consent.​

Under 1 U.S.C. § 204, U.S. Code “shall establish prima facie the laws of United States, general and permanent in their nature”—except when titles enacted into positive law.​

“Prima facie evidence” means “presumed to be law until rebutted with substantive evidence”. Prima facie is Latin for “at first sight” or “on face of it”. Legal presumption something appears true unless proven otherwise.​

Key: Presumption is not evidence, nor substitute for evidence.​

The Critical Distinction

Positive law is law enacted by explicit consent of governed. Applies to everyone within jurisdiction, whether they consent or not.​

Prima facie evidence is simply presumption something is law. Only applies to those who consent to be bound by it. More like contract or compact than actual law.​

Legal definition: “Municipal law properly defined to be rule of civil conduct prescribed by supreme power in state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong. Called rule to distinguish it from compact or agreement; for compact is promise proceeding from us, law is command directed to us”.​

1 U.S.C. § 204: The Smoking Gun

What it actually says: “Matter set forth in edition of Code of Laws of United States current at any time shall, together with then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of United States”.​

Notice what it doesn’t say: Doesn’t say IRC is law—says it “establishes prima facie,” meaning creates rebuttable presumption of law. IRC is presumed to be law unless you challenge that presumption with evidence.​

Statute continues: “Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of laws therein contained”.​

This proves some titles are positive law (legal evidence) while others are merely prima facie evidence (presumed law). Title 26—Internal Revenue Code—never enacted into positive law.​

Supreme Court’s Recognition of “Nontaxpayers”

Long v. Rasmussen: “Revenue laws are code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. Latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law”.​

Devastating to government position: If IRC were positive law applying to everyone, there could be no “nontaxpayers”. Fact that Supreme Court recognizes this category proves IRC is limited to those who voluntarily subject themselves to it.​

How Prima Facie Evidence Becomes Binding

Here’s trick: Prima facie evidence acquires force of law when you quote or use its provisions. This implies you’re accepting what courts call “benefits and protections of law”.​

California Civil Code Section 1589: “Voluntary acceptance of benefit of transaction is equivalent to consent to all obligations arising from it, so far as facts are known, or ought to be known, to person accepting”.​

When you sign W-4, file tax return, claim tax deductions, use Social Security Number, apply for federal benefits—you’re voluntarily accepting benefits of IRC and thereby consenting to be bound by its provisions.​

The Presumption Trap

All presumption is violation of due process when it prejudices constitutional rights. Supreme Court held repeatedly “power to create presumptions is not means of escape from constitutional restrictions”.​

Bailey v. State of Alabama: “Apparent that constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by creation of statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment”.​

Yet that’s exactly what happens: Courts presume IRC is law without requiring government to prove it applies to you. They presume you’re “taxpayer” without evidence. They presume you consented to federal jurisdiction without proof.​

The Due Process Violation

Due process requires right to challenge every material fact. Black’s Law Dictionary explains: “Due process of law implies right of person affected thereby to be present before tribunal which pronounces judgment…and to have right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on question of right. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed rather than proven against him, this is not due process of law”.​

When courts treat IRC as positive law without requiring proof it applies to you specifically, that you consented to jurisdiction, that you fit statutory definitions—they’re violating due process by presuming facts that must be proven.​

The Enforcement Limitation

Under 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a) and 5 U.S.C. § 553(a), statutes not positive law can only be enforced against federal employees, agencies, military, benefit recipients—and only when implementing regulations published in Federal Register.​

Since IRC lacks implementing regulations published in Federal Register, cannot be enforced against private Americans in states. Can only apply to those who voluntarily consent to be bound by it.​

Government’s Response

When you challenge presumptions, government typically responds with intimidation rather than evidence. Call arguments “frivolous” without addressing legal substance. Threaten penalties without proving you’re subject to them.​

This is how you know you’re over target. If IRC were positive law applying to everyone, they’d simply cite statute. Instead, resort to presumption, intimidation, procedural tricks avoiding substantive legal issues.​

Bottom Line

Internal Revenue Code is not positive law—it’s prima facie evidence, a rebuttable presumption only becoming binding through voluntary consent to federal franchise system.​

Without your consent, IRC has no more legal authority over you than contract you never signed. Entire system depends on voluntary participation through presumption and failure to challenge their claims.