Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. (b) No other provision of law, enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section, may be construed to limit, supersede, or otherwise modify the provisions of this section except to the extent that it does so by express reference to this section. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit withholding taxes from any benefit under this title, if such withholding is done pursuant to a request made in accordance with section 3402(p)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by the person entitled to such benefit or such person’s representative payee. 26 CFR Sec. 301.6334-1 Property exempt from levy (Regulation) (c) Other property. No other property or rights to property are exempt from levy except the property specifically exempted by section 6334(a). No provision of a State law may exempt property or rights to property from levy for the collection of any Federal tax. Thus, property exempt from execution under State personal or homestead exemption laws is, nevertheless, subject to levy by the United States for collection of its taxes. “ The language of the statute uses the clause “notwithstanding” while the regulation does not. Secondly, the statute references section 207 of the Social Security Act (a compilation of the statute itself. Section 207 is not the statute, but only cites the statute section 407), while, again, the regulation fails to reference either section 207 or section 407. Note: The fact that the statute is not complete without its implementing regulation as the United States Supreme Court has outlined that “… neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.” United States v. Mersky, 361 US 431, 438 (1960). It can be argued that congress in passing 26 U.S.C. § 6334(c) and failing to expressly reference the statute (§407), together with the regulation, also failing to reference section 407, that the requirement of 42 U.S.C. Section 407 have not been properly addressed. Also, in referencing section 207 of the Compilation of the Social Security Laws, they have referenced only a “convenient reference” which “is not prima facie evidence of the provisions of the Social Security Act” itself. The inclusion of section 407 in brackets ([ ]) are only citations; “Citations have been included to enable the reader to locate the SSAct provisions in the United States Code (U.S.C.). These U.S.C. citations are shown within brackets after the SSAct section. For example: Social Security Act – Sec. 201. [42 U.S.C. 401]” (See Compilation of the Social Security Laws; www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact.htm) When the laws have this ambiguity, which has priority, the statute or the regulation? P.S. I should make a comment on previous essays and letters when I indicated that there were no titles IV and XVI in Title 42. It is correct as the division of the Act into titles occurs only in the Compilation of the Social Security Laws. My next step is to go to the law library and research the United States Code Annotated and Public laws to see the notes and language. Possibly some one out there can see a way around this. Notes to 26 U.S.C. §6334: Section 207 of the Social Security Act is classified to section 407 of Title 42. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42 and Tables. We have our work cut out for us.