A passage from Section 52 of the 1963 Taxation Accountancy Act:

Section 52, Subsection 3 of the Act sets out allowable definitions of randomness, including where and how it may be applied.

Subsection 3(a) deals with location and confirms that randomness must be confined to its host dimension. While it may break the fourth wall - at up to, but not exceeding, the rate of frequency outlined in Subsection 2 - it may not at any point reside beyond the fourth wall for reasons pertaining to the ongoing continued stability of established physics, as this may cause fractures in reality leading to the eventual disruption of our standardised taxation system. Breaks of the fifth and any subsequent walls, including those of negative, fractal, imaginary and as of yet undiscovered numbers, are likewise entirely forbidden under the Act. Distribution of randomness must also adhere to online technology* as permitted by web administration and available technology of the day. Bringing back future technology via time travel or prophetic vision with the aim of bypassing these technological restrictions is strictly prohibited.

Subsection 3(b) confirms the existence of randomness as an essential antithesis to certainty, both of which must be carefully balanced within the Act and any meta-analysis thereof as a public safety issue of the highest order.

Subsection 3(c) is quite short and simply states that randomness, as applied under jurisdiction of the Act, must relate back to tax.

*The observant may note there have been no amendments to Section 52 of the Act since 1963. Its inclusion of internet references has thus been a subject of some debate as well as the key issue in the ongoing case Universal Tax Accountants v. the State, 1990. Whether or not the internet references are mere coincidence or indicative of illicit use of prophetic aides (and if so, whether an exemption may be allowable for such aides in pursuit of socially beneficial tax accounting stability) remains an ongoing conversation as time paradoxes are notoriously complex and warrant the appropriate amount of court discussion. A record of court proceedings to date may be found online at the Universal Archives on strictly Euclidean browser settings only. Attempting to view recordings using nonlinear time or other illicit methods will result in a criminal charge punishable with a maximum term of 145 years community tax accounting or capital punishment**, whichever is longer.

**A common joke among departments dedicated to the 1963 Taxation Accountancy Act is that these are simply different words to describe the same thing. A more formal version of this assertion, plus a record of the paragraph above and its subsequent nested footnote (defined here as 'The Passage'), can be found inscribed in at least one relevant department's induction handbook. Sociologists will note use of The Passage as an inductee sanity check is frowned upon but has not stopped this restricted text being used as a hazing ritual by less scrupulous senior staff, or those seeking to abuse the ignorance of the uninitiated as an entryway into the forbidden infinite.

Persons currently reading The Passage now are advised to restrict their contemplation of The Passage to surface-level thoughts only and immediately refer to Section 52, Subsection 3(a) of the 1963 Taxation Accountancy Act. In the event The Passage has exceeded its two hundred-thousandth iteration, it has been foretold that a new statute will have since replaced the Act and the 1963 version will no longer be up to date. This will render the extensive substrata of relevant government departments obsolete, eliminating the incentive for employees of the State to commit hazing rituals. The State has seen fit to implement this failsafe within the Act as a critical countermeasure against the otherwise inevitable failure of the legal, political, economic and financial fabric holding society together as a result of deprecation in value over time of the Act, where value is defined directly proportional to the stability of our tax accounting system, as well as percentage of State departments dedicated to maintaining the integrity of the Act.

Attempting to revise or delete The Passage prior to its natural replacement will incur a mandatory penalty of immediate execution, both of the offender and Section 53 of the Act ('Defining Paradoxes'), which must never be executed lest temporal paradox befall existence and plunge the universe into irreversible doom.

DO NOT proceed to Section 53 of the Act under any circumstances. As outlined previously in Section 51, a special exemption has been granted ruling it invalid due to the fact it was never added or approved by the State or indeed any other entity in known space-time, much like Section 52 and its associated grave warnings.