▁made ▁no ▁prov isions ▁for ▁su its ▁against ▁either ▁the ▁I RS ▁or ▁the ▁Tre as ury ▁Department , ▁so ▁these ▁ag encies ▁are ▁not ▁proper ▁entities ▁for ▁suit . ▁Where ▁tax pay ers ▁are ▁author ized ▁to ▁sue ▁on ▁matters ▁ar ising ▁out ▁of ▁I RS ▁actions , ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁is ▁the ▁proper ▁party ▁def endant " ▁( from ▁Dev ries ▁v . ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Service .) ▁ ▁The ▁United ▁States ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁for ▁the ▁T enth ▁Circ uit ▁has ▁rejected ▁the ▁argument ▁that ▁the ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Service ▁was ▁not ▁law fully ▁created . ▁The ▁Court ▁also ▁rejected ▁the ▁argument ▁that ▁the ▁I RS ▁is ▁an ▁ag ency ▁of ▁the ▁" Intern ational ▁Mon et ary ▁Fund ". ▁ ▁Similarly ▁in ▁Collins ▁v . ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Serv ., ▁a ▁Federal ▁district ▁court ▁stated : ▁ ▁The ▁United ▁States ▁arg ues ▁that ▁the ▁two ▁named ▁defend ants , ▁the ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Service ▁(" IR S ") ▁and ▁Re venue ▁Officer ▁P . ▁Black ard ▁are ▁not ▁proper ▁parties ▁to ▁this ▁action . ▁The ▁United ▁States ▁cont ends ▁and ▁has ▁provided ▁authority ▁to ▁show ▁that ▁the ▁I RS , ▁as ▁a ▁division ▁of ▁the ▁Tre as ury ▁Department , ▁is ▁an ▁ag ency ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States . ▁Although ▁pla int iff ▁den ies ▁that ▁the ▁I RS ▁is ▁an ▁ag ency ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States , ▁applicable ▁authority ▁does ▁not ▁support ▁his ▁argument . ▁The ▁I RS ▁is ▁therefore ▁protected ▁by