I have not seen the notes under 26 USC Sec. 6065. I believe this amendment would have effect only for those who come under the purview of the publicly enacted revenue laws. Amendments of the publicly enacted law do not have any effect for those bound contractually by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The code itself IS the law for those bound by it contractually. Regardless of this amendment to 6065 you refer to, the code itself still requires a return to be signed (for those presumed to be contractually bound).
Btw, is signing a return and declaring the contents to be true and correct under penalties of perjury the same as being verified "by an oath"? Isn't it just an affirmation of correctness of the information?
If your position is that no one is required to sign a tax return, this does not jibe with decisions of federal courts declaring an unsigned return to be a legal nullity (understanding that in such cases the taxpayer is probably presumed to be contractually bound).
Re: Brady Doctrine: I invoke Brady based on the right to labor for compensation tax-free per Supreme Court in Butchers Union v. Crescent City and Coppage v. Kansas, which is being presumed to be waived by signing the W-4 or W-9. This right to tax free compensation for labor is included in the constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, secured by the 5th Amendment, and the right against involuntary servitude, secured by the 13th Amendment. I agree with you 100% about disclosure being required to form an intent. As such disclosure is not made with W-4 and W-9, you have impermissible unknowing waivers of those constitutional rights per Brady, as well as failure to form a contract.