Yours are very good questions.

Yes, this is correct.  It is "official" because I am authorized by the
Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court legally to represent the
"United States" (federal government) in cases in which it was
proper and timely for the United States to intervene.

I will try to be brief when explaining what this means for the People of the USA,

and I will also provide you with links to further explanatory details:

(1)  even if the IRS were a de jure service, bureau, office or other subdivision
of the U.S. Department of the Treasury -- which they decidedly are NOT --
the IRS would STILL have no authority to create a tax liability solely by means
of Regulations published in the Federal Register:  Commissioner v. Acker:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm ; <--- excellent abstract
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

... [T]therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be
to hold that it may be imposed by regulation,
which, of course, the law does not permit.
United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359 ;
Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447;
Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 .


(2)  the issue of whether or not there ever was a bona fide liability STATUTE
for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, was first
approached with several FOIA Requests, then with a proper SUBPOENA
served upon former Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O'Neill:  he fell silent
and his Department's silence activated legal estoppel:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/eddings/subpoena.liability.htm


(3) the meaning and implications of "estoppel" or legal prohibition
were explained in much more detail here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm


(4)  later, an even more serious DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
was duly filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Washington State;  in that DECLARATION, not only was the
missing liability STATUTE documented and verified; 

the invocation of U.S. bankruptcy laws had the result of activating

the AUTOMATIC STAY authorized expressly by 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/interpleader.htm

Therefore, there are now two (2) very important legal and factual reasons
why the IRS is technically barred from enforcing collection of any more Federal income taxes:

(1)  there is no Statute at Large creating any specific liability(s) for those taxes;

(2)  the AUTOMATIC STAY now in effect prohibits such collections, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362.

The following "31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service"
have been filed in several State and Federal Courts without any rebuttal(s)
by any opposing party(s):

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm ; <--- numerous hyperlinks to supporting evidence!
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31Q&A.in.evidence.htm

Certified and embossed copies of same can be obtained from my office
for a nominal service and handling charge.

The rest of the story is documented in voluminous detail in "The Federal Zone"
also available here in the Supreme Law Library:

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Thank you for contacting the Supreme Law Firm.

--

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice