▁so ver eign ▁imm unity ▁and ▁cannot ▁be ▁su ed ▁absent ▁Cong r essional ▁authorization , ▁which ▁has ▁not ▁occurred . ▁According ly , ▁the ▁I RS ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁proper ▁party ▁to ▁this ▁suit . ▁Similarly , ▁def endant ▁Black ard ▁is ▁protected ▁by ▁so ver eign ▁imm unity ▁and ▁is ▁not ▁a ▁proper ▁party ▁to ▁this ▁suit . ▁The ▁Court ▁therefore ▁dismiss es ▁without ▁pre jud ice ▁pla int iff ' s ▁claims ▁against ▁the ▁I RS ▁and ▁P . ▁Black ard . ▁Moreover , ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁is ▁the ▁only ▁proper ▁party ▁to ▁this ▁action . ▁Therefore , ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁is ▁subst it uted ▁as ▁the ▁def endant . ▁ ▁In ▁Haw ks ▁v . ▁Commission er , ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Tax ▁Court ▁ruled ▁the ▁arguments ▁( 1 ) ▁that ▁" there ▁is ▁no ▁organization ▁in ▁the ▁Department ▁of ▁the ▁Tre as ury ▁known ▁as ▁the ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Service ", ▁( 2 ) ▁that ▁the ▁I RS ▁" is ▁not ▁an ▁ag ency ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ", ▁and ▁( 3 ) ▁that ▁the ▁I RS ▁is ▁" an ▁un law ful ▁organization ", ▁to ▁be ▁f riv ol ous . ▁In ▁United ▁States ▁v . ▁Bell , ▁the ▁argument ▁that ▁" the ▁In ternal ▁Re venue ▁Service ▁is ▁an ▁un register ed ▁agent ▁of ▁Puerto ▁Rico ▁and ▁not ▁properly ▁registered ▁under ▁the ▁Foreign ▁Agent ▁Reg istration ▁Act " ▁was ▁ruled ▁to ▁be ▁f riv ol ous . ▁ ▁Arg uments ▁that ▁the ▁In ternal