[This correspondence is arranged in reverse date order, ie the most recent material is first in the file. It concerns ATF's apparent belief that NFA registration documents are only tax returns, and governed by the Internal Revenue Code when it is convenient for them, and not all the time, even if it creates work for them. In particular they seem to think that persons are not entitled to a copy of their tax return (transfer paperwork) despite a pile of court cases indicating that they must provide a copy to the taxpayer upon request (although not necessarily for free).] Date: June 9, 1997 To: Various interested persons From: Eric Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 (301) 270-3450 Subject: ATF difficulties I've attached a set of the latest correspendence with ATF, which is self-explanatory. Over the years, some of you have told me about people who found NFA firearms in estates, who could not initially find registration documents; and when they asked ATF about them, ATF claimed the firearms weren't registered, but backed off when the heirs found the documents. If any people you know who have told you about ATF claiming a firearm isn't registered, moving to confiscate it, and then backing off when confronted with valid paperwork are willing to go public and be identified, please have them contact me or better yet: The Honorable Valerie Lau Inspector General Office of the Inspector General Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 2412 Washington, D.C. 20220 (202) 622-1090 Toll-Free Hot Line: 800-359-3898 The duties of the Inspector General are to provide comprehensive, independent, and objective audit and investigation programs to identify and report program deficiencies and improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of operations. The Inspector General is also responsible for ensuring employee and program integrity through prevention and detection of criminal activity, unethical conduct, and program fraud and abuse. The Inspector General is required to keep the Secretary of the Treasury and the Congress fully informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of Treasury programs and operations. Obviously we need to try and do all that we can to make sure the complaint/case is legitimate, and not an exaggeration or effort to cover up some willful violation of the law. I believe there are legitimate cases out there, and the challenge will be to help overcome the reluctance of people who may have been victimized to step forward. The other important issue here, addressed in my letter, is that ATF is required to provide duplicate registration documents on request! I can't see even debating that one! Inspectors General don't go after the messengers and, in fact, encourage people to report abuses so they can be investigated and corrected. I say, why not go for that? Ms. Nereida W. Levine, Chief National Firearms Act Branch Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 Mr. John W. Magaw, Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman House Committee on Ways and Means 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Valerie Lau Inspector General Office of the Inspector General Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 2412 Washington, D.C. 20220 June 9, 1997 The Honorable Valerie Lau Inspector General Office of the Inspector General Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 2412 Washington, D.C. 20220 Dear General: I'm writing this letter to call to your attention a continuing problem regarding the apparent refusal of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to consider amending a regulation it wrote which potentially unilaterally denies a taxpayer a copy of his or her tax return upon request. This regulation conflicts with the Tax Code, under which any taxpayer must be issued a copy of his or her tax return upon request. In my opinion, allowing ATF or any other federal agency to withhold a copy of a tax return to any taxpayer goes well beyond the law. I believe this regulation must be amended to conform with the law. ATF has rejected a proposed amendment I have suggested, based on just one suggested change and not considered the issue in its entirety. One change I proposed is because of concerns that ATF employees may be falsely declaring that firearms are not registered as a pretext to confiscate them. To protect taxpayers, I have proposed that any such determination be accompanied by a certificate of nonregistration, under penalty of perjury. ATF has stated that it does "not believe" its employees would make false attestations of this type, rejected my suggestion, and has requested me to provide examples of such abuses. I am now endeavoring to do this, as noted in my response to ATF; however, this may be difficult because the people who claim this has happened to them are fearful of ATF and do not wish to be publicly identified. Whether any of these persons are willing to step forward and testify as to their experiences may be a question. I am mindful of the hazards of simply repeating allegations for which there may be no direct evidence, but there is plenty of valid and reliable evidence that the firearms registration data ATF is required by law to maintain has already been seriously compromised, and of criminal maleficence by ATF employees in this area. The reason is that an ATF employee testified in a 1996 federal district court case that some ATF employees have deliberately destroyed firearm registration documents rather than do the work to enter them into the data base. This testimony was sufficient for the presiding judge to dismiss five convictions for nonregistration of firearms.1 Moreover, according to the Court record, none of the ATF employees who threw away or destroyed firearm registration documents were fired, transferred, or even disciplined. ________________________ 1United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, Criminal No. 4:95CR54, Newport New, Virginia, May 21, 1996. Transcript of Proceedings before the Honorable John A. Mackenzie, United States District Judge. United States Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division. The 1996 court decision raises troubling questions about the custom and culture of ATF, and I therefore believe that taxpayers are entitled to the safeguards which the law already provides. I believe that taxpayers are further entitled to some assurance that ATF employees are not falsifying or lying on Government forms that deal with firearms registrations. ATF is in the business of putting people in jail who lie on or falsify Government forms, and it seems only fitting and proper that ATF employees who do so should be subject to identical penalties. Is ATF above the law? But perhaps most seriously, ATF has clearly refused to address the fundamental issue posed by my initial suggestion: namely, that a taxpayer has a right to obtain a copy of his or her tax return upon request, and providing it is not a matter of ATF's discretion. In the 1980 internal ATF memo I cited, ATF itself comes to this conclusion. Responding to a single portion of a proposed change in regulations as a means to close off discussion of the entire issue is, in my judgement, unacceptable. For these reasons, I would like to respectfully ask you to investigate this matter and resolve the conflict between the law and ATF's regulation. I have attached a copy of my letter to Ms. Nereida W. Levine, Chief, National Firearms Branch of ATF, which documents this situation, as well as all of the supporting correspondence. I have also suggested a revision to 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 that can remedy these problems. Very truly yours, (signed---Eric M. Larson) Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 June 9, 1997 Ms. Nereida W. Levine, Chief National Firearms Act Branch Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Ms. Levine: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1997, in which ATF rejects all of my suggested revisions to section 179.142 of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, and fails to address the main reason for the suggested revision: namely, to eliminate the provision in section 179.142 which states that issuance of a duplicate NFA registration document to a lawful owner is a matter of ATF's sole discretion. As my June 5, 1997, letter documents, ATF determined in 1980 that such a document is a "tax return" and consequently that the Secretary of the Treasury has no discretion as such and is required by law to provide a duplicate "tax return" (that is, an NFA registration document) upon request by the taxpayer. ATF's letter completely ignores this vital issue. I do not consider ATF's response to be acceptable. ATF has chosen to focus on a supporting detail (my suggestion that ATF personnel be required to issue a certificate of non- registration, under penalty of perjury) intended to safeguard the rights of taxpayers against false statements by ATF personnel regarding the registration status of firearms. ATF further invites me to provide specific examples of possible abuses in this area for ATF to investigate, yet beforehand concludes by rejecting all of proposals for revising section 179.142, while flagrantly disregarding the serious unresolved legal problems ATF encountered in this area more than a year ago. ATF's letter also completely ignores the central issue of providing a duplicate "tax return" to the owner of an NFA firearm upon request and safeguarding taxpayer rights. I am going to attempt to be responsive to ATF's request for specific examples of certain abuses identified in your letter, and it may take a month or more, but I can't promise success. The reason is that there is a serious problem in identifying people who will agree to be publicly identified. I have received three or four telephone calls during about 10 years of researching in this area by persons who have told me that (1) they found NFA firearms in the estate of a deceased relative; (2) in some instances they said they knew the firearms were registered but could not find the registration documents, while in other instances they didn't know if the firearms were registered; (3) ATF employees told them the firearms were not registered, and thus had to be confiscated; and (4) after then conducting a thorough search of the premises, and/or other property, they located the registration documents, ATF then backed off of the claim of nonregistration, and the firearms' ownership was transferred to the lawful heirs. In just one instance, the person told me his name; however, at his request I did not make any record of it, and I now cannot recall it. In the other instances, the people who called me felt I should know about what happened, but they did not feel comfortable disclosing their identities. All of the people involved told me (and, apparently, others) that they wanted nothing more to do with ATF in any way. Other people over the years, including attorneys and Class III dealers, have told me of similar experiences that people have told them about, and in each case they told me the people involved were (and still are) terrified of ATF. I am going to make a special effort to contact all of these people I can remember, and others who may have first-hand knowledge or experience in this area, and see if it is possible to identify one or more persons who are willing to come forward publicly and be heard. I believe some of these instances may involve lawyer/client privilege. As you may know, I have published my name, mailing address and telephone number for several years in research articles and firearms reference books, such as the Standard Catalog of Firearms. I consequently have heard from numerous people with the usual questions and comments ranging from informational to historical to downright nutty, and I endeavor to be very discerning about unsubstantiated claims of alleged wrongdoing on the part of ATF. If you carefully read and compare my 1996 and 1997 testimonies, you will realize that I covered the vast majority of information about problems with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) data base in 1996. The only really new information in my 1997 testimony was the LeaSure case (decided in May 1996, less than a month after my testimony, which I discuss later in this letter), the 1996 NFRTR data, and some information about NFRTR data base inaccuracies obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests. It was through listing my name, mailing address, and telephone number that I became aware of the fact that ATF has apparently added firearm registration documents to the NFRTR, for which ATF previously had no record. When I asked ATF employee Gary N. Schaible in an April 1996 telephone interview whether this had in fact actually occurred, he told me at least three times that he "assumed" that it had, and there is other independent evidence that firearms have been added to the NFRTR data base under these circumstances. As you know, I testified about this other independent evidence at the April 1996 ATF appropriations hearing; and I did so again, in considerably more detail, at the April 1997 hearing. My source of information was data from the NFRTR data base covering registration activity for the years 1992 to 1996 the most recent available data. Regarding the allegations noted in your June 5, 1997, letter, I believe they probably are true, because: (1) the circumstances under which the information came to me (i.e., disclosed in fear and outrage) did not seem contrived, were utterly disparate, rang true, and nobody gained anything from telling me as far as I could tell; (2) the people involved said they wanted nothing more to do with ATF, and feared reprisals; (3) there is valid and reliable evidence, as I discuss below, that some ATF employees have been criminally negligent in their work with NFRTR records; and (4) it would be virtually impossible for a person who lost a firearm through a forfeiture action (or more likely voluntarily surrendering it to ATF rather than incur the costs of an attorney) to know if ATF was telling the truth, because there is currently no provision for review by a disinterested outside entity. You should also note that in the attachment to my May 5, 1997, letter to Director Magaw, that I stated "it appears that" ATF employees have engaged in the practices of which I complain; I certainly did not conclude that they had, and I am willing to be convinced of their truth or falsity by a criminal investigation by a qualified outside entity. Moreover, the allegations that ATF complains that I made seem to me to be part of a much larger problem with the validity and reliability of NFRTR data. Part of this problem also involves criminal wrongdoing by ATF employees who have unlawfully tampered with these records having apparently gone completely unpunished, as far as I have been able to determine. That ATF personnel would offer to investigate themselves for possible serious criminal violations of law presents a conflict of interest, because ATF is clearly a party at risk, and is disingenous at best. I believe that more appropriate fora for resolution of matters of this type would include a Congressional hearing, or a criminal investigation by a qualified outside entity, that involves testimony under oath. The reason is that there is valid and reliable evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ATF employees regarding firearm registration documents in the NFRTR, and that testimony under oath appears to be the only way to bring it out. Specifically, in United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, Criminal No. 4:95CR54, Newport News, Virginia (May 21, 1996), ATF employee Gary N. Schaible testified that ATF employees have deliberately destroyed firearm registration documents rather than do the work to enter them into the NFA registration data base. Mr. Schaible further testified that these employees were not fired; nor were they disciplined; nor were they transferred. Indeed, he said, these same employees were allowed to continue doing the same work. Based on this testimony, and other evidence, U.S. District Judge John A. MacKenzie dismissed five convictions for nonregistration of firearms on appeal. As you know, ATF has not appealed Judge MacKenzie's decision. Because ATF has previously refused to voluntarily disclose registration data base problems that involve criminal wrongdoing by ATF employees that finally were exposed at trial in the LeaSure case, it is difficult for me to conclude that any unsworn finding ATF made to me regarding other alleged criminal wrongdoing by any of its employees in this area would be worthy of belief. The fact that ATF has apparently not even disciplined any of these employees is highly disturbing, and raises troubling questions about the custom and culture of ATF. It is also my considered opinion that your statement that "[w]e are not aware of the situations you allege" could be much different if all relevant NFA Branch personnel, and field agents, were compelled to give testimony under oath regarding their knowledge of these matters, with an offer of immunity from prosecution being offered to the first person who was willing to tell the truth about something he or she may have seen, or done, or "heard" about. You may recall that your predecessor, Mr. Thomas B. Busey, stated that he had "heard" that records of some lawfully registered NFA firearms could not in fact be found in the NFRTR. Finally, as you know, under the law ATF is prohibited from disclosing any information regarding the "tax return" of any person to anyone other than that person; consequently, there could still be no way for any outsider to know what really happened. It could be very instructive to place Mr. Busey and other NFA Branch employees under oath and ask them to tell what they "heard" or "assumed" and the basis for it. I would now like to return to the central issue I raised and addressed in my May 5, 1997, letter that of ATF issuing a duplicate firearm registration document to the lawful owner (or heir) upon request. As noted, in section 179.142, ATF has stated that it "may issue a duplicate ["tax return"] upon such conditions as the circumstances warrant" (boldface added). I again invite your attention to the central issue, as stated in my letter, and I quote: An internal Memorandum dated August 18, 1980 (bearing symbols CC-28,778 RMT and 22889), to the ATF Director states that a firearm registration or transfer document that has been approved or issued to the owner of the firearm is considered a "tax return." It further states that the Secretary of the Treasury has no discretion to withhold and must disclose to a taxpayer a copy of his or her tax return under Title 26, U.S.C., section 6103(c) and section 6103(e)(6), citing Chamberlain vs. Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827 (1979). Therefore, any lawful owner of an NFA firearm is entitled to a copy of the registration or transfer document upon request. ATF's letter of June 5, 1997, does not in any way address this central issue, and I continue to believe that allowing ATF or any other federal agency to withhold a copy of a tax return to any taxpayer goes well beyond the law. The reason is that ATF itself has stated this (i.e., "the Secretary of the Treasury has no discretion to withhold and must disclose to a taxpayer a copy of his or her tax return," and because that is what the law itself states. Conseqently, in my judgement, section 179.142 must be amended to conform with the law. I also continue to believe that taxpayers cannot simply take ATF's unsworn word at face value because of facts disclosed at trial in the LeaSure case, and reiterate my belief that a certification of nonregistration must be adopted. In my judgement, ATF's obvious refusal to even address a conflict as basic as that of possibly declining to provide a duplicate tax return as the law requires, is an egregious and dangerous example of institutional arrogance and illegality that must not be allowed to continue. For the reasons stated above, I must respectfully decline to accept ATF's position as stated in your letter of June 5, 1997. I continue to believe that any lawful owner of an NFA firearm is entitled to a copy of the registration or transfer document upon request as provided by law, and safeguards against false attestations by ATF personnel. I have suggested a revision to 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 that can remedy these problems. Please advise me in writing when you expect to revise this regulation. Finally, it seems to me that ATF alleging in 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 that issuing a taxpayer a duplicate copy of his or her tax return was a matter of discretion on the part of ATF, is so clearly and fundamentally in conflict with the law that revising the regulation could not possibly be a matter of debate. Because ATF has apparently refused to follow the law in this instance, it seems advisable to me to refer this matter to the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury, as well as to the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Very truly yours, Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 cc: The Honorable Bill Archer Chairman House Committee on Ways and Means The Honorable Valerie Lau Inspector General Department of the Treasury June 9, 1997 The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman House Committee on Ways and Means 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Archer: I'm writing this letter to call to your attention a continuing problem regarding the apparent refusal of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to consider amending a regulation it wrote which potentially unilaterally denies a taxpayer a copy of his or her tax return upon request. This regulation conflicts with the Tax Code, under which any taxpayer must be issued a copy of his or her tax return upon request. In my opinion, allowing ATF or any other federal agency to withhold a copy of a tax return to any taxpayer goes well beyond the law. Consequently, in my judgement, this regulation must be amended to conform with the law. ATF has rejected a proposed amendment, based on just one suggested change rather than considering the issue in its entirety. One of several proposed changes is because of concerns that ATF employees may be falsely declaring that firearms are not registered as a pretext to confiscate them. To help protect taxpayers, I have proposed that any such determination be accompanied by a certificate of nonregistration, under penalty of perjury. ATF has stated that it does "not believe" its employees would make false attestations of this type, rejected my suggestion, and has requested me to provide examples of such abuses. I am now endeavoring to do this, as noted in my response to ATF; however, this may be difficult because the people who claim this has happened to them are fearful of ATF and do not wish to be publicly identified. Whether any of these persons are willing to step forward and testify as to their experiences may be a question. I am mindful of the hazards of simply repeating allegations for which there may be no direct evidence, but there is plenty of valid and reliable evidence that the firearms registration data ATF is required by law to maintain has already been seriously compromised, and of criminal maleficence by ATF employees in this area. The reason is that an ATF employee testified in a 1996 federal district court case that some ATF employees have deliberately destroyed firearm registration documents rather than do the work to enter them into the data base. This testimony was sufficient for the presiding judge to dismiss five convictions for nonregistration of firearms.1 Moreover, according to the Court record, none of the ATF employees who threw away registration documents were fired, transferred, or even disciplined. ________________________ 1United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, Criminal No. 4:95CR54, Newport New, Virginia, May 21, 1996. Transcript of Proceedings before the Honorable John A. Mackenzie, United States District Judge. United States Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division. The 1996 court decision raises troubling questions about the custom and culture of ATF, and I therefore believe that taxpayers are entitled to the safeguards that I have proposed. ATF is in the business of putting people in jail who falsify Government forms, and it seems only fitting and proper that ATF employees be subject to identical penalties. Is ATF above the law? But perhaps most seriously, ATF has clearly refused to address the fundamental issue posed by my initial suggestion: namely, that a taxpayer has a right to obtain a copy of his or her tax return upon request, and providing it is not a matter of discretion. In the 1980 internal ATF memo I cited, ATF itself comes to this conclusion. I have attached a copy of my letter to Ms. Nereida W. Levine, Chief, National Firearms Branch of ATF, which documents this situation, as well as all of the supporting correspondence. I have also suggested a revision to 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 that can remedy these problems. Very truly yours, (signed---Eric M. Larson) Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, DC 20226 E:RE:FN:GS 179.142/97-1092 JUN 5 1997 Mr. Eric M. Larson PO Box 5497 Takoma Park, MD 20913 Dear Mr. Larson: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1997, concerning section 179.142 of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations. You suggest a revision to this regulation to provide for the issuance of a certification of non-registration for a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm when a duplicate registration is requested and the firearm is not registered. You allege this revision is needed because some persons, when inquiring as to the registration status of NFA firearms left to them in an estate, have been advised by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that the firearms are not registered, thus resulting in their forfeiture. You further allege that these persons later found registration documents and, after presentation to ATF, were advised mistakes were made. The ownership of the firearms was then transferred to the heirs. You also allege the advice of non-registration has been given as a pretext to confiscate the firearms. To remedy this, you propose that a certificate of non-registration be issued by ATF in such instances where we advise the firearm is not registered. We are not aware of the situations you allege, nor do we believe our personnel would advise any person that a firearm is not registered, when in fact it is registered, in order to confiscate the firearm. To the extent possible, we accommodate heirs of deceased firearms owners by establishing their entitlement of the firearms and registering the firearms in their - 2 - Mr. Eric Larson names. If you would provide us with specific information on the situations you allege, such as names, descriptions of firearms, dates, etc., we would be glad to address them. In conclusion, we do not accept your proposal to amend the regulations as we believe the existing regulations adequately protect firearms owners who wish to challenge the forfeiture of NFA firearms. Existing regulations in 27 C.F.R. part 72 provide the means by which persons having an interest in seized firearms may challenge forfeiture actions, i.e., the filing of claims and petitions for remissions or mitigation of forfeiture. Should any additional information be needed, please contact us at (202) 927-8330. Sincerely yours, Nereida W. Levine Chief, National Firearms Act Branch May 5, 1997 Mr. John W. Magaw, Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, D.C. 20226 Dear Mr. Magaw: I am writing to advise you that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) must immediately change one of its regulations at 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 to comply with the Tax Code. The reason is that under this regulation, ATF has stated that it "may issue a duplicate ["tax return"] upon such conditions as the circumstances warrant" (boldface added). An internal Memorandum dated August 18, 1980 (bearing symbols CC- 28,778 RMT and 22889), to the ATF Director states that a firearm registration or transfer document that has been approved or issued to the owner of the firearm is considered a "tax return." It further states that the Secretary of the Treasury has no discretion to withhold and must disclose to a taxpayer a copy of his or her tax return under Title 26, U.S.C., section 6103(c) and section 6103(e)(6), citing Chamberlain vs. Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827 (1979). Therefore, any lawful owner of an NFA firearm is entitled to a copy of the registration or transfer document upon request. Some persons who have lawfully inherited registered firearms, after requesting duplicate registration documents from ATF, have been told by ATF that the firearms are not registered. Unregistered firearms are deemed contraband and must be forfeited to ATF. But some heirs who have scoured their premises later found valid registration documents; ATF then has claimed a mistake was made, and the firearms' ownership was then transferred to the heirs. As noted in my April 8, 1997, testimony before the Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, House of Representatives, if persons requesting a duplicate document from ATF (such as an heir or executor of the estate) don't personally know if the registration or transfer document was ever filed, they can't know if ATF can't find the registration, or if the gun was ever registered, or if ATF is flat out lying to them as a pretext to confiscate the firearm. I have suggested a revision to 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 that can remedy these problems. Please advise me in writing when you expect to revise this regulation. Very truly yours, (signed---Eric M. Larson) Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 cc: The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means In my judgement, the law requires ATF to immediately revise 27 C.F.R. section 179.142 as follows: When any forms or document that the Director has issued or approved evidencing possession of a firearm is stolen, lost, or destroyed, the person losing possession (or, if deceased, his lawful heir, personal representative, or the executor of his estate) will immediately upon discovery of the theft, loss, or destruction report the matter to the Director. The report will show in detail the circumstances of the theft, loss, or destruction and will include all known facts which may serve to identify the document and the firearm. Upon receipt of the report, the Director will make such investigation as appears appropriate and shall, within 60 days, issue a duplicate document or form, or a certification, under penalty of perjury, that such firearm is not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, unless it can be conclusively proven that the firearm identified by the form or document has been destroyed . NOTE: In a letter to me dated January 9, 1997, National Firearms Act Branch Chief Nereida W. Levine told me that firearms are registered on forms whose numbers are not specified in the regulations (i.e., in the "OTHER" category of "REGISTRATION ACTIVITY"), but declined to identify the numbers or names of these forms. I have, therefore, amended the regulation to include these other registrations. The perjury aspect is required because it appears that some ATF employees have told some lawful owners of registered firearms that the firearms are not registered, possibly to carry out an informal, unstated or unspoken policy of using a claim of nonregistration as a pretext to confiscate the firearms, and that ATF has backed off that claim after some disgruntled owners located their copies of the registration forms. I further note that under Title 26, U.S.C., section 5861(l), it is illegal for any person (including an ATF agent or employee) "to make, or cause the making of, a false entry on any application, return, or record required by [the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended], knowing such entry to be false." ATF operates under the presumption that citizens must comply with the law. Citizens must operate under the presumption that ATF must comply with the law. May 5, 1997 The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman House Committee on Ways and Means 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Archer: I'm writing this letter to call to your attention a regulation written by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which potentially unilaterally denies a taxpayer a copy of his or her tax return upon request. This regulation conflicts with the Tax Code, under which any taxpayer must be issued a copy of his or her tax return upon request. In my opinion, allowing ATF or any other federal agency to withhold a copy of a tax return to any taxpayer goes well beyond the law. Consequently, in my judgement, this regulation must be amended to conform with the law. I have attached a copy of my letter to to ATF Director John W. Magaw, which documents this situation, as well as all of the supporting correspondence. I have also suggested a revision to 27 C.F.R., section 179.142 that can remedy these problems. Very truly yours, (signed---Eric M. Larson) Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913