"...when the opposite party must, from the nature of the case, himself be
in possession of full and plenary proof to disprove the negative averment, and the other party is not in possession of such proof, then it is manifestly just and reasonable that the party which is in possession of the proof should be required to adduce it; or, upon his failure to do so, we must presume it does not exist, which of itself establishes a negative. Great Western R. Co. v. Bacon, 30 Ill. 347, 83 Am. Dec. 199; King v. Turner, 5 Maule & S. 206." U S v. DENVER & R G R CO, 191 U.S. 84, 92 (1903).
Do your negative averment correctly and you don’t have to concern your self with below.
"District Court has no jurisdiction under 28 USCS § 1340 of
action by taxpayers seeking injunctive and mandamus relief against Internal Revenue Service on basis of taxpayers' interpretation of IRS regulation since § 1340 provides that District Court shall have jurisdiction of action arising under any Act of Congress and not actions arising under agency regulations which are without force of law.” Einhorn v De Witt (1980, CA5 Fla), 618 F2d 347, 80-2 USTC P 9486, 46 AFTR 2d
5093. (Underline emphasis)
