Sub Chap. S
R R
securty and medicare taxes altogether... Is this true? What can I expect
to pay to form an S corp if I do? And do they charge more to file an S
return..?
THanks..
Phil Marti
> My current CPA says if I form a sub chap S corp I can avoid Social
> securty and medicare taxes altogether... Is this true?
What would be the source of the corporation's income?
--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD
Taylor
"R R" <cli...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10648-481...@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
A subchapter S corp is a pass-through tax entity, which means you report the
tax as an individual. It is not a payroll, so you do not pay SS and Med
tax, but you do pay Self employment tax, which is basically the same thing.
Phil Marti
>> My current CPA says if I form a sub chap S corp I can avoid Social
>> securty and medicare taxes altogether... Is this true?
> A subchapter S corp is a pass-through tax entity, which means you report
> the tax as an individual. It is not a payroll, so you do not pay SS and
> Med tax, but you do pay Self employment tax, which is basically the same
> thing.
No, there is no self-employment tax on the pass-through of net income from
the S-Corp to the stockholder's 1040. See, for starters, the instructions
for Schedule SE. However, an S-Corp must pay its employees reasonable
wages, which are subject to FICA/Medicare and Unemployment tax.
OP doesn't provide enough information to assess what the CPA told him, but
in short, if something would otherwise be Schedule C income from
self-employment you can't magically exempt yourself from FICA/Medicare by
forming an S-Corp.
R R
do get a good amount of renewals-sort of passive income)... The CPA told
me he has clients who claim 0 $ of income from their S corps and they
make 100-200k per year.
I've also read that's not a good idea as you must pay yourself a
'reasonable' salary as an advisor to the business.
Which is right?
CPA says not reporting wages from the S is not , in itself, a reason for
an IRS audit. He said if you are audited for another reason, they may
hit you with that..
TIA
John
it may not be a sole reason but reporting s-corp income on the 1040
without any employee wages is a red flag. I would claim at least a
minimum amount of wages.
Phil Marti
> I'm a self employed insurance broker and work out of my home office (I
> do get a good amount of renewals-sort of passive income)... The CPA told
> me he has clients who claim 0 $ of income from their S corps and they
> make 100-200k per year.
>
> I've also read that's not a good idea as you must pay yourself a
> 'reasonable' salary as an advisor to the business.
>
> Which is right?
>
> CPA says not reporting wages from the S is not , in itself, a reason for
> an IRS audit.
Your CPA is at best extremely agressive. If you follow his advice make sure
you have his written agreement to pay any penalties imposed in an audit, and
make sure he has E&O insurance. He's flat-out wrong that you won't get
audited solely because of this issue. Perhaps he hasn't heard that IRS is
getting more interested in this area as people get more absurdly agressive.
That said, my father was an insurance agent, and I can see a case to be made
for the corporation paying you much less on renewals than on new business.
My father more or less lived off renewals for about the last 10 years he was
actively in the business, and "going to work" amounted more or less getting
to the office in time for morning coffee and getting home in time for lunch
and a nap.
I wouldn't take the position that renewals yield zero payment to the
employee generating them without some case law to back it up.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"R R" <cli...@webtv.net> wrote
> I'm a self employed insurance broker and work out of my home office
> (I do get a good amount of renewals-sort of passive income)...
Well, that's not quite true now. If you remain a SE insurance agent,
renewals get listed as n on-employee compensation on the 1099 along with all
other commission payments.
> CPA says not reporting wages from the S is not , in itself,
> a reason for an IRS audit.
But it is a reason for an audit. One of the things they look at is the type
of business, and how much the distributions are in relation to other
payments, like wages, to the owner(s).
You can't distribute out $100k and $0 in wages for a business without any
other employees and you're doing all the work to generate that $100k.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Taylor
"Phil Marti" <prm2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:udmQj.1094$zw6.976@trnddc06...
I think you are confused between wages and shareholder distribution. You
are correct that you must withhold FICA and other taxes on wages. However,
on shareholder distributions, it is not a wage, so there is no FICA and
other taxes. However, you should list this income on Schedule SE and pay
self-employment tax on it in the situtaiton described on the original post.
Now, you can take compensation in both forms from the corporaton: wages and
shareholder distribution. If you are the sole owner and are taking regular
distributions, the IRS can impute a reasonable wage (since taxes are
generally higher on wages). For that reason, you should take a "reasonable"
wage with the remainder as a shareholder distribution.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Taylor" <tay...@nospam2me.com> wrote
> "Phil Marti" <prm2...@verizon.net> wrote
Distributions from an "S" corporation are not subject to SE tax, and
therefore would not flow to the SE.
Wages however, are subject to payroll tax (FICA and Medicare) withholding
and company matching, as well as FUTA and SUTA tax.
> Now, you can take compensation in both forms from
> the corporaton: wages and shareholder distribution.
Distributions from an "S" are not considered to be "compensation", but just
what they are - distributions of profit from an "S" corporation.
Taylor
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vdlRj.24140$3v1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Yes, I researched it and S-corp distributions are reported by the S-corp on
a K-1 form, and are not considered self-employment income. It appears the
S-Corp income should go on form 1040 line 17, using Schedule E. Is this
correct?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Taylor" <tay...@nospam2me.com> wrote
> Yes, I researched it and S-corp distributions are reported
> by the S-corp on a K-1 form, and are not considered
> self-employment income. It appears the S-Corp income
> should go on form 1040 line 17, using Schedule E. Is this correct?
The bulk of the profits go there, yes. There are however, specific items of
income and/or expense that are reported elsewhere on the shareholders
return.
Interest, dividends, capital gains / losses and charitable contributions are
the ones that come to mind as specific items that wouldn't get reported
through Schedule E, but their respective schedules (A, B, D). Credits are
another source of separately stated items that don't flow through the E, but
would be reported accordingly on a separate form or schedule.
R R
sure you have his written agreement to pay any penalties imposed in an
audit, and make sure he has E&O insurance. He's flat-out wrong that you
won't get audited solely because of this issue. Perhaps he hasn't heard
that IRS is getting more interested in this area as people get more
absurdly agressive.
That said, my father was an insurance agent, and I can see a case to be
made for the corporation paying you much less on renewals than on new
business. My father more or less lived off renewals for about the last
10 years he was actively in the business, and "going to work" amounted
more or less getting to the office in time for morning coffee and
getting home in time for lunch and a nap.
I wouldn't take the position that renewals yield zero payment to the
employee generating them without some case law to back it up.
--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD
I like your father already..! especially the nap part..
Thank you guys for all the input...
I don't want to get into quarterly reporting and having to contract with
a pay checks type of company to pay unemployment tax and the other nit
picking stuff.. I like to KISS it ....
But I understand I can save quite a bit of of SS and medicare taxes.. It
all seems to be a PITA...
I'm going to get a dif. CPA.
And as of now I'm still a sole prop..I might just keep it that way...
Taylor
Does the S-corp also have to file its own return?
Phil Marti
> Does the S-corp also have to file its own return?
Yes, the 1120-S. It has a Schedule K-1 that shows the items passed through
to the shareholders' 1040's.
TaxDefier
>
> Wages however, are subject to payroll tax (FICA and Medicare) withholding
> and company matching, as well as FUTA and SUTA tax.
>
Assuming arguendo that the above statement is correct, then one must be
paid "WAGES" in order to be subject to the cited 'payroll' taxes.
If one is not paid "WAGES", one is NOT SUBJECT to the cited 'payroll' taxes.
To determine if one is subject to the cited 'payroll' taxes, one must
determine if they are paid statutory "WAGES".
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
ON WAGES
-HEAD-
Sec. 3401. Definitions
-STATUTE-
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages"
means all remuneration (other than fees paid to
a public official) for services performed by an
employee for his employer...
"WAGES" are statutorily defined as what an "EMPLOYEE" is paid by their
"EMPLOYER" for services performed.
If you are not paid by an "EMPLOYER" then you are not paid statutory
"WAGES".
If you are not an "EMPLOYEE" then you are not paid statutory "WAGES".
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
ON WAGES
-HEAD-
Sec. 3401. Definitions
-STATUTE-
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer"
means the person for whom an individual performs
or performed any service, of whatever nature,
as the employee of such person...
"EMPLOYER" is statutorily defined as a person who has "EMPLOYEES"
performing service for them.
Unless you are an "EMPLOYEE", you do NOT have a statutory "EMPLOYER".
If you do not have a statutory "EMPLOYER", you are not paid statutory
"WAGES".
Whether you are paid statutory "WAGES" and thus are subject to the
'payroll' taxes cited, is determined by whether you are an "EMPLOYEE".
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
ON WAGES
-HEAD-
Sec. 3401. Definitions
-STATUTE-
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee"
includes an officer, employee, or elected official
of the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia,
or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more
of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes
an officer of a corporation.
Subsection 3401(c) tells us who the persons are that chapter 24 will act
upon.
Subsection 3401(c) tells us that chapter 24 will act upon a statutory
class of persons called "EMPLOYEE". Subsection 3401(c) designates who
the persons are that are within the statutory class of persons called
"EMPLOYEE".
Subsection 3401(c) specifically designates a government (public)
officer, a government employee, or an elected government official as
being within the statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE".
Does chapter 24 act upon a private worker who works for a private
company? Does chapter 24 act upon a private worker who works for a
private individual?
The "tax professionals" and "financial experts" who post in this
newsgroup believe the answer to both questions are yes. This post shall
examine that belief.
In order for chapter 24 to act upon a private worker who works for a
private company or a private individual, such private worker MUST be
in the statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE".
The tax professionals and financial experts who post in this
newsgroup believe that subsection 3401(c) does tell us that such a
private worker is within the statutory class of persons referred as
"EMPLOYEE". They believe that such a private worker is within the
statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE" because of what they
believe "INCLUDES" brings to the subsection 3401(c) statute. They will
cite subsection 7701(c) as support for their (erroneous) belief that a
private worker is within the statutory class of persons called
"EMPLOYEE".
In due course I will examine what subsection 7701(c) says. Prior to
examining subsection 7701(c), "INCLUDES" itself will be examined.
"Includes" does not mean "and". "Includes" does not mean "also".
"Includes" does not mean "also includes". X includes Y is NOT to be
read as if is says X also includes Y. As will be shown, these common
misperceptions and misreadings are wrong.
"INCLUDES" is a transitive verb. As a verb, "INCLUDES" expresses an
action. As a transitive verb, "INCLUDES" expresses an action that is
carried from the subject (the term "EMPLOYEE") to the object(s) (the
officer, employee, or elected official).
The action expressed by the word "INCLUDES" can be found in its Latin
root word, "includere", which means "to enclose".
When something is enclosed, it is contained within a surrounding
enclosure. An envelope encloses its letter, a set encloses its
elements, a statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE" encloses the
specific persons who are meant to be acted upon by chapter 24.
A thesaurus contains synonyms and related words. Since "INCLUDES" is a
transitive verb, the action expressed by "INCLUDES" will also be seen in
all the synonyms.
The action expressed by "INCLUDES" can be shown by substituting its
synonyms into the statute. By doing so, it can be seen that the sole
purpose of "INCLUDES" is to bring specific persons into the statutory
class of persons called "EMPLOYEE". I belabor that point to make sure
this enclosing action is understood.
the term "employee":
comprises an officer, employee, or elected official;
consists of an officer, employee, or elected official;
contains an officer, employee, or elected official;
embodies an officer, employee, or elected official;
embraces an officer, employee, or elected official;
encompasses an officer, employee, or elected official;
incorporates an officer, employee, or elected official;
takes in an officer, employee, or elected official.
My dictionary says "INCLUDES" means "To consider with or place into a
group, class, or total".
Subsection 3401(c) certainly places the aforementioned officer,
employee, or elected official of the government into "a group, class, or
total" of the statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE".
My dictionary also says "INCLUDES" means "To take in as a part, an
element, or a member."
Subsection 3401(c) certainly takes in the aforementioned officer,
employee, or elected official of the government "as a part, an element,
or a member" of the statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE".
The term "EMPLOYEE" encloses a statutory class of persons. The obvious
must be stated lest it be ignored: If a specific person is not enclosed
within the statutory class of persons designated by subsection 3401(c),
then such a specific person is NOT meant to be acted upon by chapter 24.
There is no argument that the words of subsection 3401(c) specifically
enclose the aforementioned officer, employee, or elected official of the
government within the statutory class of persons designated by
subsection 3401(c).
Missing from the text of subsection 3401(c) are the words specifically
enclosing a private worker within the statutory class of persons
designated by subsection 3401(c).
Subsection 3401(c) is a simple statement of the persons who are enclosed
in the class of persons called "EMPLOYEE" that chapter 24 is meant to
act upon.
The rule of statutory construction "expressio unius est exclusio
alterius" states:
The expression of one (specific) thing
is the exclusion of another.
What is expressed is that the aforementioned officer, employee, or
elected official of the government is enclosed within the statutory
class of persons designated by subsection 3401(c).
What is NOT expressed is that the aforementioned private worker is
enclosed within the statutory class of persons designated by subsection
3401(c).
Another version of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" states:
"A principle in statutory construction:
when one or more things of a class are
expressly mentioned others of the same
class are excluded."
Even if one assumes that private workers are within the same class as
the aforementioned government public workers, they are NOT expressly
mentioned.
If the rule of statutory construction, "expressio unius est exclusio
alterius", applies to subsection 3401(c), then a private worker does not
have to pay the originally cited 'payroll' taxes.
The tax professionals and financial experts will attempt to
prove that this rule of statutory construction does not apply by citing
subsection 7701(c).
"Ejusdem generis" (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same
kind".
The rule of statutory construction "ejusdem generis" states:
Where a law lists specific classes of
persons or things and then refers to
them in general, the general statements
only apply to the same kind of persons
or things specifically listed. Example:
if a law refers to automobiles, trucks,
tractors, motorcycles and other motor-
powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not
include airplanes, since the list was
of land-based transportation.
Subsection 3401(c) lists a specific class of persons. Subsection
3401(c) specifically lists an officer, employee, or elected official of
the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the
District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or
more of the foregoing.
The specific persons listed are all government (public) workers. Not a
single person specifically listed is a private worker.
Paraphrasing "ejusdem generis":
General statements, {the term "employee"},
would only apply to the same kind of
persons listed. If the law refers to
government workers, "EMPLOYEE" would
not include private workers, since the
list was of government workers. Example:
if a law refers to officers, employees,
and elected officials of the government,
"EMPLOYEE" would not include private
workers, since the list was of government
(public) workers.
If the rule of statutory construction, "ejusdem generis", applies to
subsection 3401(c), then a private worker does not have to pay the
originally cited 'payroll' taxes.
The tax professionals and financial experts will attempt to
prove that this rule of statutory construction does not apply by citing
subsection 7701(c).
Here is the text of subsection 7701(c), used by our "tax professionals"
and financial experts in their attempt to prove that "ejusdem
generis" does not apply to subsection 3401(c).
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 7701. Definitions
-STATUTE-
(c) Includes and including
The terms "includes" and "including" when used in
a definition contained in this title shall not be
deemed to exclude other things otherwise within
the meaning of the term defined.
Subsection 7701(c) does indeed apply to subsection 3401(c).
Therefore, the term "includes" used in the definition of "EMPLOYEE"
"shall not be deemed to exclude other [persons] otherwise within the
meaning of the term defined".
If a person is "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", then
such a person can NOT be excluded. Conversely, If a person is NOT
"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", then such a person
IS excluded.
Therefore, "the meaning of the term defined" is what determines if a
certain person is included or excluded. In order to know if particular
person is included or excluded we must know "the meaning of the term
defined".
My dictionary says a "definition" is "a statement of the meaning of a
word, phrase, or term".
Subsection 3401(c) is *_THE_* "definition" of the term "EMPLOYEE" used
in chapter 24.
Subsection 3401(c) is *_THE_* "statement of the meaning" of the term
"EMPLOYEE" used in chapter 24.
The subsection 3401(c) statement defining the meaning of the term
"EMPLOYEE" says the term "EMPLOYEE" includes (encloses) an officer,
employee, or elected official of the government.
Clearly, according to subsection 3401(c), an officer, employee, or
elected official of the government is (enclosed) "within the meaning of
the term defined". (As well as other persons who are "otherwise within
the meaning of the term defined".)
Therefore, as used in chapter 24, "EMPLOYEE" means a person who is an
officer, employee, or elected official of the government. (As well as
other persons who are "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined".)
Therefore, according to subsection 7701(c): the term "includes" used in
the definition of "EMPLOYEE" "shall not be deemed to exclude other
[persons] otherwise within the meaning of officer, employee, or elected
official of the government.
IF a person is other than the aforementioned officer, employee, or
elected official of the government and IF such person is "otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined", THEN such other person MUST be
"of the same kind" of person as an officer, employee, or elected
official of the government who is clearly and expressly "within the
meaning of the term defined".
The tax professionals and financial experts who post in this
newsgroup will attack this MEANING of the term "EMPLOYEE" because if
correct, it proves a private worker does not have to pay the originally
cited 'payroll' taxes.
Attempting to use subsection 7701(c) to prove the rule of statutory
construction, "ejusdem generis", does not apply is disingenuous since
subsection 7701(c) is a codification of "ejusdem generis".
If the text of "ejusdem generis" is placed next to the text of
subsection 7701(c) for comparison, certain truths become clear.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 7701. Definitions
-STATUTE-
(c) Includes and including
The terms "includes" and "including" when used in
a definition contained in this title shall not be
deemed to exclude other things otherwise within
the meaning of the term defined.
Ejusdem generis:
Where a law lists specific classes of
persons or things and then refers to
them in general, the general statements
only apply to the same kind of persons
or things specifically listed.
"Ejusdem generis" says where the law lists a specific class of person,
(the statutory class of persons called "EMPLOYEE"), then refers to them
in general, (chapter 24's commands upon persons called "EMPLOYEE"), the
general statements (commands) only apply to the same kind of persons
specifically listed, (government workers).
Subsection 7701(c) says that "includes" (the transitive verb that
encloses a class of persons called "EMPLOYEE") shall not exclude (shall
include) persons within the meaning of the term defined. As proven
above, "EMPLOYEE" is defined in subsection 3401(c) to mean government
workers.
Paraphrasing subsection 7701(c):
The terms "includes" and "including" ... shall not be
deemed to exclude other persons otherwise within
the meaning of government workers.
The tax professionals and financial experts who post in this
newsgroup will attack this MEANING of the term "EMPLOYEE" because if
correct, it proves a private worker does not have to pay the originally
cited 'payroll' taxes.
Another approach to prove that subsection 7701(c) codifies "ejusdem
generis" follows.
Subsection 3401(c) will be transformed by substituting the objects
addressed in the "ejusdem generis" example for the persons addressed in
subsection 3401(c), then by showing the application of subsection
7701(c) to the transformed subsection 3401(c).
The "ejusdem generis" example:
Example: if a law refers to automobiles,
trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other
motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would
not include airplanes, since the list was
of land-based transportation.
The subsection 3401(c) substitution:
For purposes of this chapter, the term "vehicle"
includes an automobile, truck, tractor, motorcycle
and other motor-powered vehicles manufactured in
the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia.
The subsection 7701(c) application:
The terms "includes" and "including" ... shall not be
deemed to exclude other things otherwise within
the meaning of land based transportation.
"Ejusdem generis" v adj. Latin for "of the same kind".
As I stated above, The tax professionals and financial experts
who post in this newsgroup will attack the "government (public) worker"
MEANING of the term "EMPLOYEE" because if correct, it proves a private
worker does not have to pay the originally cited 'payroll' taxes.
How do the tax professionals and financial experts attack the
"government (public) worker" MEANING of the term "EMPLOYEE"? By making
assertions.
My dictionary says "assertion" means "Something declared or stated
positively, often with no support or attempt at proof."
To differentiate between "employee" as defined by the dictionary, and
"EMPLOYEE" as defined by statute, I use UPPERCASE and lowercase as
shown. A statutory "EMPLOYEE" and a dictionary "employee" are two very
different things.
On December 24th, 2007, in regard to subsection 3401(c), a financial
expert posted the following assertion:
Employee means the exact dictionary definition
and IN ADDITION, "... includes an officer,
employee, or elected official of the United
States, a State, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, or agency
or instrumentality of any one or more of the
foregoing.
Our financial expert has asserted that the statutory definition
of "EMPLOYEE" includes (ENCLOSES) a dictionary definition "employee" as
well as including (ENCLOSING) the listed officer, employee, or elected
official of the government.
There are NO words in the text of subsection 3401(c) that act to make a
dictionary "employee" into a statutory "EMPLOYEE".
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee"
includes an officer, employee, or elected official
of the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia,
or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more
of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes
an officer of a corporation.
The only words that serve to make a dictionary "employee" into a
statutory "EMPLOYEE" are the words of our financial expert's unfounded,
unsupported assertion.
A statutory "EMPLOYEE" and a dictionary "employee" are two very
different things and they remain so until a statute makes a dictionary
"employee" into a statutory "EMPLOYEE" by including (enclosing) the
dictionary "employee" within the statutory meaning and definition.
Our financial expert's assertion contains a critical logical flaw. This
flaw can best be shown by applying it to another statutory definition.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture
Provisions
-HEAD-
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Paraphrasing our financial expert's assertion (proposition) to fit this
definition statute:
[Person] means the exact dictionary definition
and IN ADDITION, "... includes [an officer or
employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership, who as such officer, employee,
or member is under a duty to perform the act in
respect of which the violation occurs.]
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
Is an officer of a corporation a person?
Is an employee of a corporation a person?
Is a member of a partnership a person?
Is an employee of a partnership a person?
The officer, member, and employees included (enclosed) are already
within the dictionary definition of "person".
Reductio ad absurdum is "the disproof of a proposition by showing the
absurdity of its inevitable conclusion."
The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is
that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section 7343,
then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.
With the critical logical flaw exposed, using the dictionary definition
as the starting point is proven wrong.
The same critical logical flaw exists in regard to subsection 3401(c).
Again citing our financial expert's naked assertion.
Employee means the exact dictionary definition
and IN ADDITION, "... includes an officer,
employee, or elected official of the United
States, a State, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, or agency
or instrumentality of any one or more of the
foregoing.
My dictionary defines "employee" as "A person who works for another in
return for financial or other compensation." Therefore, according to my
dictionary, if you work for another person, and you are paid financial
or other compensation for such work, you are a dictionary "employee".
Does an "officer of the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing" work for another in
return for financial or other compensation?
Does an "employee of the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing" work for another in
return for financial or other compensation?
Does an "elected official of the United States, a State, or any
political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any
agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing" work for
another in return for financial or other compensation?
The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is
that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of subsection
3401(c), then there is no need subsection 3401(c).
In order to support the dictionary definition as the starting point of
reading the statutory definition of a subsection 3401(c) "EMPLOYEE", the
tax professionals and financial experts must prove that an officer,
employee, or elected official of the government are not already within
the dictionary definition of "employee".
Likewise, In order to support the dictionary definition as the starting
point of reading the statutory definition of a section 7343 "PERSON",
the tax professionals and financial experts must prove that an officer,
employee, or member are not already within the dictionary definition of
"person".
While the tax professionals and financial experts might have a shot at
removing government persons from within the dictionary definition of
"employee", they can NOT remove officers, employees, or members from
within the dictionary definition of "person".
Therefore, the critical logical flaw remains, and when reading a
definition statute that uses the term "includes", one does NOT start
with the dictionary definition and then add to it.
The actual purpose of these statute are to include (enclose) ONLY THE
PERSONS LISTED, and those within the same meaning as those listed.
On August 14th, 2007, in regard to subsection 7701(c), a tax
professional posted the following assertion:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. This tax
professional is wrong. And I do have proof, shown previously.
One naked assertion vs. the actual meaning of "includes", the actual
meaning of includes via eight different synonyms, two rules of statutory
construction, and logic.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
>> Wages however, are subject to payroll tax (FICA and Medicare) withholding
>> and company matching, as well as FUTA and SUTA tax.
>>
>
> Assuming arguendo that the above statement is correct, then one must be
> paid "WAGES" in order to be subject to the cited 'payroll' taxes.
>
> If one is not paid "WAGES", one is NOT SUBJECT to the cited 'payroll'
> taxes.
Well, seeing as how you put wages in quotes, and all caps at that, you
probably don't have a frickin' clue as to what the courts have ruled what
wages are.
> TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
> CHAPTER 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
> ON WAGES
>
> -HEAD-
> Sec. 3401. Definitions
>
> -STATUTE-
> (a) Wages
> For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages"
> means all remuneration......for services
> performed by an employee for his employer...
And that's about as far as the courts go before determining that what you
got for what you gave is wages.
Meaning that if they paid you in merchandise, it's wages. If they paid you
with gold, it's wages. If they paid you with cash, it's wages. If they
paid you by paying your personal bills, it's wages.
The only remaining question is, are you in an employer - employee
relationship, or are you self-employed.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
TaxDefier
Your reply does not erase the rest of the post you ignored. It's still
there for others to read.
P. Maffia
they receive, no matter what its source.
The convoluted, moronic interpretations you boobs indulge in are hilarious
to behold.
This is the typical boobery that morons like Dale Eastman, Barkin Larkin,
Wesley Snipes and all the rest of the moron crowd indulge in. In fact, the
erudition displayed in your silly post is the exact same tripe and argument
method that Dale uses.
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
news:x6ydnbp9Tq6qTrzV...@earthlink.com...
TaxDefier
> Moron, nothing you cited excludes any person from being taxed on any
> income they receive, no matter what its source.
>
> The convoluted, moronic interpretations you boobs indulge in are
> hilarious to behold.
>
> This is the typical boobery that morons like Dale Eastman, Barkin
> Larkin, Wesley Snipes and all the rest of the moron crowd indulge in. In
> fact, the erudition displayed in your silly post is the exact same tripe
> and argument method that Dale uses.
>
Your name calling does not erase the post you are ignoring. It's still
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> Your reply does not erase the rest of the post
> you ignored. It's still there for others to read.
And you can post your crap a billion times and not change the facts of the
law as it is consistently applied in each and every court case on the
subject.
TaxDefier
I only need to post it once. Your assertions to the contrary do not
change the truth. I won't be responding to anything else you post
unless it has merit. Bye.
John Kulp
Let him try them himself. He can be Snipe's cellmate.
TaxDefier
Your snide comment doesn't erase the post you haven't bothered to read.
Paul Thomas, CPA
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> I only need to post it once.
Jast as farting once stinks up the whole room.
> I won't be responding to anything else you post
Wanna bet?
nat
TaxDefier wrote:
Hidden within the mountain of gibberish posted by this new pseudonym,
TaxDefier, we find:
> Sec. 7701. Definitions
>
> -STATUTE-
> (c) Includes and including
> The terms "includes" and "including" when used in
> a definition contained in this title shall not be
> deemed to exclude other things otherwise within
> the meaning of the term defined.
>
Try as he might, the gibberhead insists that 'includes' = 'means', to wit:
> One naked assertion vs. the actual meaning of "includes", the actual
> meaning of includes via eight different synonyms, two rules of statutory
> construction, and logic.
>
>
>
All you need is 7701, gibberhead. By its clear language, "OTHER THINGS
OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED" ARE NOT TO BE
EXCLUDED! That means there exists a meaning to the term independent
from the things included. Therefore, 'includes' does NOT = 'means'.
TaxDefier
Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, with no support or
attempt at proof.
You can make all the assertions you want, they don't erase my post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
It's still there for others to read... And compare with your unsupported
assertions.
P. Maffia
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
news:wb6dnX17YKUOQ7zV...@earthlink.com...
P. Maffia
moronic tactic. State a bunch of gibberish and even when it is refuted claim
it has not been and then insist he will not respond unless, in his moronic
mind, your response "has merit".
Dale is back!
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nqnUj.397$7a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
TaxDefier
It seems the best you have to offer is name calling. I won't be
nat
TaxDefier wrote:
> nat wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> TaxDefier wrote:
>>
>> Hidden within the mountain of gibberish posted by this new pseudonym,
>> TaxDefier, we find:
>>
>>> Sec. 7701. Definitions
>>>
>>> -STATUTE-
>>> (c) Includes and including
>>> The terms "includes" and "including" when used in
>>> a definition contained in this title shall not be
>>> deemed to exclude other things otherwise within
>>> the meaning of the term defined.
>>>
>>
>> Try as he might, the gibberhead insists that 'includes' = 'means', to
>> wit:
>>
>>
>>> One naked assertion vs. the actual meaning of "includes", the actual
>>> meaning of includes via eight different synonyms, two rules of statutory
>>> construction, and logic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All you need is 7701, gibberhead. By its clear language, "OTHER
>> THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED" ARE NOT TO BE
>> EXCLUDED! That means there exists a meaning to the term independent
>> from the things included. Therefore, 'includes' does NOT = 'means'.
>>
>
> Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, with no support or
> attempt at proof.
Here is the proof again:
Given Term A includes B, and the rule that other things otherwise within
the meaning of A are not to be excluded, then Term A = A + B.
That's logic, gibberhead.
>
> You can make all the assertions you want, they don't erase my post.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
>
> It's still there for others to read... And compare with your unsupported
> assertions.
Your conclusion-(Term A = B)- is contrary to logic, gibberhead, because
Term A most definitely does NOT = B.
Your post "for others to read" only proves that you're a gibberhead.
TaxDefier
> Here is the proof again:
>
> Given Term A includes B, and the rule that other things otherwise within
> the meaning of A are not to be excluded, then Term A = A + B.
>
> That's logic, gibberhead.
Starting with the dictionary definition is invalid when a term has been
statutorily defined. Your logic is stillborn, DOA, as it has been
preemptively nuked in my original post.
I suggest you re-read my original post, specifically where I address the
critical logical failure that attends starting with the dictionary
definition.
Start reading at: On December 24th, 2007, in regard to subsection 3401(c)...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
And remember, my original post is still exists, so others can compare
your naked assertions and alleged logic against my logic.
P. Maffia
moron like you might understand) that the term "includes" does not exclude
anything which falls within its normal definition. IN OTHER WORDS when used
in the law "includes" EXPANDS the normal definition and does not limit the
definition to the listed items.
Which of the words in the above don't you understand, Dale.
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
news:18OdnTF5w5CsH77V...@earthlink.com...
TaxDefier
> Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that even a
> moron like you might understand) that the term "includes" does not
> exclude anything which falls within its normal definition. IN OTHER
> WORDS when used in the law "includes" EXPANDS the normal definition and
> does not limit the definition to the listed items.
The "normal definition" you are asserting is the dictionary definition.
You are asserting that one starts with the dictionary definition.
I have already preemptively proven this wrong. I have done so by
applying that incorrect assertion on section 7343 and taking it to its
logical end. The logic don't lie.
For the readers who wish to read where I have preemptively proven this
unsupported assertion wrong, start reading my original post from the
words: "On December 24th, 2007, in regard to subsection 3401(c)..." to
the end.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
nat
TaxDefier wrote:
> nat wrote:
>
>> Here is the proof again:
>>
>> Given Term A includes B, and the rule that other things otherwise
>> within the meaning of A are not to be excluded, then Term A = A + B.
>>
>> That's logic, gibberhead.
>
>
> Starting with the dictionary definition is invalid when a term has been
> statutorily defined. Your logic is stillborn, DOA, as it has been
> preemptively nuked in my original post.
If Term A includes B, and other things otherwise within the meaning of A
are not to be excluded
question- What is the meaning of A?
>
> I suggest you re-read my original post, specifically where I address the
> critical logical failure that attends starting with the dictionary
> definition.
The gibberish in your original post assumes the conclusion that A does
not mean A.
Logic says A means A.
TaxDefier
>>> Given Term A includes B, and the rule that other things otherwise
>>> within the meaning of A are not to be excluded, then Term A = A + B.
SA is the Statutory definition of the term.
DA is the Dictionary definition of the term.
B is the stuff included (enclosed) by the term.
The rule is that things otherwise within the meaning of SA are not to be
excluded.
>> Starting with the dictionary definition is invalid when a term has
>> been statutorily defined. Your logic is stillborn, DOA, as it has
>> been preemptively nuked in my original post.
>
> If Term A includes B, and other things otherwise within the meaning of A
> are not to be excluded
>
> question- What is the meaning of A?
Not what you assert without proof.
You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed) items.'
You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
This assertion has been preemptively refuted in my original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
A text search to "CHAPTER 75" will put the reader at the correct place
to read this refutation.
>> I suggest you re-read my original post, specifically where I address
>> the critical logical failure that attends starting with the dictionary
>> definition.
>
> The gibberish in your original post assumes the conclusion that A does
> not mean A.
> Logic says A means A.
You attribute to me, something I have not said. It is your failure to
understand SA and DA are NOT the same things that leads you to this error.
It does not matter if you refuse to understand.
None of your posts can erase my original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
So, unless you have something other than your baseless (and proven
wrong) assertion, I think I'm done with you. Bye.
Dave Johnson
> nat wrote:
> >>> Given Term A includes B, and the rule that other things otherwise
> >>> within the meaning of A are not to be excluded, then Term A = A + B.
>
> SA is the Statutory definition of the term.
> DA is the Dictionary definition of the term.
> B is the stuff included (enclosed) by the term.
>
> The rule is that things otherwise within the meaning of SA are not to be
> excluded.
>
> >> Starting with the dictionary definition is invalid when a term has
> >> been statutorily defined. Your logic is stillborn, DOA, as it has
> >> been preemptively nuked in my original post.
>
> > If Term A includes B, and other things otherwise within the meaning of A
> > are not to be excluded
>
> > question- What is the meaning of A?
>
> Not what you assert without proof.
>
> You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
> the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
> dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed) items.'
>
> You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
>
>
> A text search to "CHAPTER 75" will put the reader at the correct place
> to read this refutation.
>
> >> I suggest you re-read my original post, specifically where I address
> >> the critical logical failure that attends starting with the dictionary
> >> definition.
>
> > The gibberish in your original post assumes the conclusion that A does
> > not mean A.
> > Logic says A means A.
>
> You attribute to me, something I have not said. It is your failure to
> understand SA and DA are NOT the same things that leads you to this error.
>
> It does not matter if you refuse to understand.
>
> So, unless you have something other than your baseless (and proven
> wrong) assertion, I think I'm done with you. Bye.
the old tax scam wacko Dale Eastman is back!
Dale, why didn't you try to get your CDL back and get a job? gas
prices too high?
Why, after Larken Rose, et al, were convicted and sent to jail you
are still pushing stupid internet tax scams?
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
TaxDefier
> the old tax scam wacko Dale Eastman is back!
> Dale, why didn't you try to get your CDL back and get a job? gas
> prices too high?
> Why, after Larken Rose, et al, were convicted and sent to jail you
> are still pushing stupid internet tax scams?
>
> www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
> www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
What the hell is this guy babbling about?
It has nothing to do with what has been presented in my original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> SA is the Statutory definition of the term.
> DA is the Dictionary definition of the term.
> B is the stuff included (enclosed) by the term.
> The rule is that things otherwise within the
> meaning of SA are not to be excluded.
Where does it say that?
Where does it narrowly limit and define the term to only include those
things defined in the statutes.
The courts have never - ever - in a million years - held to your claim.
They've held on a regular and continous basis that the dictionary
definition - as well as common usage - and common sense - are inclusive of
the definitions.
Dave Johnson
> Dave Johnson wrote:
> > the old tax scam wacko Dale Eastman is back!
> > Dale, why didn't you try to get your CDL back and get a job? gas
> > prices too high?
> > Why, after Larken Rose, et al, were convicted and sent to jail you
> > are still pushing stupid internet tax scams?
>
> >www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
> >www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
>
> What the hell is this guy babbling about?
the new "Dale Eastman" but still trying to "prove" his convoluted
"logic" !
Dale, just go out and get a job, we know you are "snowed" in Wisconsin
but hang in there big guy
TaxDefier
As I asked, what the hell is this guy babbling about?
It sure isn't about the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
He appears to be a troll. Bye troll.
TaxDefier
> "TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
>> SA is the Statutory definition of the term.
>> DA is the Dictionary definition of the term.
>> B is the stuff included (enclosed) by the term.
>
>
>
>> The rule is that things otherwise within the
>> meaning of SA are not to be excluded.
>
>
>
> Where does it say that?
>
> Where does it narrowly limit and define the term to only include those
> things defined in the statutes.
>
> The courts have never - ever - in a million years - held to your claim.
>
> They've held on a regular and continous basis that the dictionary
> definition - as well as common usage - and common sense - are inclusive of
> the definitions.
>
You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> You are asserting that
I'm stating as a fact that you are a dumbass Eastman.
Your ranting have precious little influence on the laws, the courts, the
IRS, me or reality.
Your self-created bullshit isn't the law. It isn't interpreted your way,
never has and never will.
Paul Thomas, CPA
Dale, you need to try harder if you want to hide who you are.
TaxDefier
Returning to the unsupported assertion that is as important as it is wrong:
You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
dictionary definition (DA) and then add the included (enclosed) items (B).'
You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
This assertion has been preemptively refuted in my original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
A text search to "CHAPTER 75" will put the reader at the correct place
to read this refutation.
Sorry, if you actually do accidentally post something with merit, I
won't be able to address it until Tuesday.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> Returning to the unsupported assertion that is as important as it is
> wrong:
Yes Dale, your unimportant assertions are as unsupported as they are wrong.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
P. Maffia
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
news:d5CdnXLKevvuTb7V...@earthlink.com...
> P. Maffia wrote:
>> Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that even a
>> moron like you might understand) that the term "includes" does not
>> exclude anything which falls within its normal definition. IN OTHER WORDS
>> when used in the law "includes" EXPANDS the normal definition and does
>> not limit the definition to the listed items.
>
> The "normal definition" you are asserting is the dictionary definition.
>
> You are asserting that one starts with the dictionary definition.
That is not what I assert, IT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS! Learn to read.
> I have already preemptively proven this wrong. I have done so by applying
> that incorrect assertion on section 7343 and taking it to its logical end.
> The logic don't lie.
Youm have proven only that you are a moron!
> For the readers who wish to read where I have preemptively proven this
> unsupported assertion wrong, start reading my original post from the
> words: "On December 24th, 2007, in regard to subsection 3401(c)..." to the
> end.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
Any one is free to read your gibberish. But unless that are idiots like you,
all they will do is laugh at your stupidity. GIVE IT UP, DALE!
nat
TaxDefier wrote:
> nat wrote:
>
>>>> Given Term A includes B, and the rule that other things otherwise
>>>> within the meaning of A are not to be excluded, then Term A = A + B.
>>>
>
> SA is the Statutory definition of the term.
> DA is the Dictionary definition of the term.
> B is the stuff included (enclosed) by the term.
>
> The rule is that things otherwise within the meaning of SA are not to be
> excluded.
>
Your reasoning is the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine- a
fantasy. You are saying that the statutory definition is the statutory
definition. Well, duh?
The statutory definition is TERM A INCLUDES B. No meaning is given to A
to change the fact that A = A.
>>> Starting with the dictionary definition is invalid when a term has
>>> been statutorily defined. Your logic is stillborn, DOA, as it has
>>> been preemptively nuked in my original post.
>>
>>
>> If Term A includes B, and other things otherwise within the meaning of
>> A are not to be excluded
>>
>> question- What is the meaning of A?
>
>
> Not what you assert without proof.
>
> You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
> the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
> dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed) items.'
>
> You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
>
> This assertion has been preemptively refuted in my original post.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
You have refuted SQUAT!
If no other meaning is given to A, then A = A which can be found in any
dictionary, and per 7701, IS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED.
>
> A text search to "CHAPTER 75" will put the reader at the correct place
> to read this refutation.
>
>
>>> I suggest you re-read my original post, specifically where I address
>>> the critical logical failure that attends starting with the
>>> dictionary definition.
>>
>>
>> The gibberish in your original post assumes the conclusion that A does
>> not mean A.
>> Logic says A means A.
>
>
> You attribute to me, something I have not said. It is your failure to
> understand SA and DA are NOT the same things that leads you to this error.
That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying A does not = A.
You are saying A = B. You are saying if the term dog includes wolves,
then a dog is a wolf.
>
> It does not matter if you refuse to understand.
> None of your posts can erase my original post.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
>
> So, unless you have something other than your baseless (and proven
> wrong) assertion, I think I'm done with you. Bye.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that even a
> moron like you might understand) that the term "includes" does not exclude
> anything which falls within its normal definition. IN OTHER WORDS when used
> in the law "includes" EXPANDS the normal definition and does not limit the
> definition to the listed items.
There is an old principle of law, expressed in Latin as “inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius,” which dictates that where the law
specifically lists matters to which it applies, an “irrefutable
inference” must be drawn that what was not listed was intended to be
omitted. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to
express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of
the alternative." ~Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed. 1999)
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
"Dave Johnson" is a troll. Disregard anything it posts.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
You are correct (though you probably don't know it).
If Term A includes B, you can't add things like C, D, or F.
7701 says, if Term A includes B, then you don't exclude things otherwise
within the meaning of A. In other words, Term A = A + B.
Hale Westman
wrote:
> On May 9, 7:49 am, TaxDefier <TaxDef...@no.info> wrote:
>
> > Dave Johnson wrote:
> > > the old tax scam wacko Dale Eastman is back!
> > > Dale, why didn't you try to get your CDL back and get a job? gas
> > > prices too high?
> > > Why, after Larken Rose, et al, were convicted and sent to jail you
> > > are still pushing stupid internet tax scams?
>
> > >www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
>
> > What the hell is this guy babbling about?
>
> > It has nothing to do with what has been presented in my original post.http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
>
> "Dave Johnson" is a troll. Disregard anything it posts.
-- Jackney Sneeb
and just who is a troll "Jackney Sneeb" ? aka Onry cobrajock William
Malloy ?
at least "Dave Johnson" gives honest answers and references e.g.
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html or www.quatloos.com not like
your tax scammer cyber nut "Dale Eastman" or your "nogov4me"
ridiculous "vanity book" !
Jackne...@gmail.com
> at least "Dave Johnson" gives honest answers and references e.g.www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.htmlorwww.quatloos.com not like
> your tax scammer cyber nut "Dale Eastman" or your "nogov4me"
> ridiculous "vanity book" !
"Hale Westman" and "Dave Johnson" are the same troll. Disregard
Captain America II
wrote:
> On May 11, 6:10 am, Hale Westman <wes00...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 2:57 pm, "JackneySn...@gmail.com" <JackneySn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Dave Johnson" is a troll. Disregard anything it posts.
>
> > -- Jackney Sneeb
>
> > and just who is a troll "Jackney Sneeb" ? aka Onry cobrajock William
> > Malloy ?
> > at least "Dave Johnson" gives honest answers and references e.g.www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.htmlorwww.quatloos.com not like
> > your tax scammer cyber nut "Dale Eastman" or your "nogov4me"
> > ridiculous "vanity book" !
>
> anything it posts.
> -- Jackney Sneeb
disregard Jackney Sneeb or alias nom de plumes or anything it posts.
I am the true authority on internet tax scams.
TaxDefier
>>> Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that
>>> even a moron like you might understand) that the term "includes" does
>>> not exclude anything which falls within its normal definition. IN
>>> OTHER WORDS when used in the law "includes" EXPANDS the normal
>>> definition and does not limit the definition to the listed items.
>>
>> The "normal definition" you are asserting is the dictionary definition.
>>
>> You are asserting that one starts with the dictionary definition.
>
> That is not what I assert, IT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS! Learn to read.
I have asserted: You are asserting that "one starts with the dictionary
definition".
You have confirmed that you are asserting "one starts with the
dictionary definition". You have done this by asserting that the law
says that "one starts with the dictionary definition".
Copying and re-posting the portion of the text of my original post that
you refuse to read:
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture
Provisions
-HEAD-
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Paraphrasing our financial expert's assertion (proposition) to fit this
definition statute:
[Person] means the exact dictionary definition
and IN ADDITION, "... includes [an officer or
employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership, who as such officer, employee,
or member is under a duty to perform the act in
respect of which the violation occurs.]
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
Is an officer of a corporation a person?
Is an employee of a corporation a person?
Is a member of a partnership a person?
Is an employee of a partnership a person?
The officer, member, and employees included (enclosed) are already
within the dictionary definition of "person".
Reductio ad absurdum is "the disproof of a proposition by showing the
absurdity of its inevitable conclusion."
The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is
that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section 7343,
then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.
With the critical logical flaw exposed, using the dictionary definition
as the starting point is proven wrong.
The same critical logical flaw exists in regard to subsection 3401(c).
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
TaxDefier
> I am the true authority on internet tax scams.
That would be the IRS' mis-application of the tax laws.
Your post has nothing to do with my original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
TaxDefier
> "TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
>> Returning to the unsupported assertion that is as important as it is
>> wrong:
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Dale, your unimportant assertions are as unsupported as they are wrong.
>
Four days to refute this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
And the best you can come up with is another pair of assertions.
P. Maffia
It words even a dope like you might understand, although it is doubtful: I
assert nothing. The law itself specifies that when the word "includes" is
used in the law, it does not exclude anything normally found in the
definition of the word.
Nat has cited the text word for word. I have merely tried to bring the
language down to your very low level of understanding. obviously not
successful. I just don't know how to write down to your level of stupidity.
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
news:4IydneCkI-8wPrTV...@earthlink.com...
nat
It isn't absurd at all.
Chapter 75, of which this definition applies, imposes penalties. Well,
does the penalty apply to the corporation-a person-, or does it apply to
the officers of the corporation as well?
7343 clarifies the possible confusion.
The only thing absurd is your reasoning ability as usual, numbnut.
TaxDefier
>>> If Term A includes B, and other things otherwise within the meaning
>>> of A are not to be excluded
>>>
>>> question- What is the meaning of A?
>>
>>
>> Not what you assert without proof.
>>
>> You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
>> the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
>> dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed) items.'
>>
>> You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
>>
>> This assertion has been preemptively refuted in my original post.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
>
> You have refuted SQUAT!
I stated:
You are asserting:
'Start with the dictionary definition and then add the included
(enclosed) items.'
You have not corrected me on this, and from reading other posts by you,
I know this is what you believe.
With the critical logical flaw exposed, using the dictionary definition
Paul Thomas, CPA
Dale, I don't have to refute your bullshit.
That you utter it is refutation enough.
TaxDefier
> It words even a dope like you might understand, although it is doubtful:
> I assert nothing. The law itself specifies that when the word "includes"
> is used in the law, it does not exclude anything normally found in the
> definition of the word.
Nice legerdemain switch there. It can only be on purpose that you refer
to "the definition of the word" when 7701(c) says "the meaning of the
term defined."
You fail to address the difference between a statutory TERM and a
dictionary WORD.
> Nat has cited the text word for word. I have merely tried to bring the
> language down to your very low level of understanding. obviously not
> successful. I just don't know how to write down to your level of stupidity.
I'll leave your name calling here for the other readers to use in
assessing how well you have addressed what I posted in my original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
You have not bothered to read the refutation of your incorrect belief
shown below. Perhaps you will now.
TaxDefier
>>
>> With the critical logical flaw exposed, using the dictionary
>> definition as the starting point is proven wrong.
>>
>> The same critical logical flaw exists in regard to subsection
>> 3401(c).
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
>>
>
>
> It isn't absurd at all. Chapter 75, of which this definition applies,
> imposes penalties. Well, does the penalty apply to the corporation-a
> person-, or does it apply to the officers of the corporation as well?
>
>
> 7343 clarifies the possible confusion.
>
> The only thing absurd is your reasoning ability as usual, numbnut.
IF the starting point is the dictionary definition of "person" and IF
the four entities included (enclosed) are already within the dictionary
definition of "person", THEN there is NO purpose for 7343.
The four entities included (enclosed) are already within the dictionary
definition of "person".
Therefore, starting with the dictionary definition causes the statute to
be redundant.
Therefore, the dictionary definition is NOT the starting point.
And this logic is true for 3401(c) as well.
nat
Context means everything, numbnut.
Whom do the penalties in Ch. 75 apply?- the corporation or the officers
of the corporation? They are both persons.
>
> The four entities included (enclosed) are already within the dictionary
> definition of "person".
>
> Therefore, starting with the dictionary definition causes the statute to
> be redundant.
But your argument was that the inclusion was "absurd". Redundancy does
not equate to absurd. Therefore, your reliance on "logic" defeats your
argument. Your argument is absurd, therefore you are not logical.
(argumento absurdum)
>
> Therefore, the dictionary definition is NOT the starting point.
>
> And this logic is true for 3401(c) as well.
>
What you believe to be redundancy in the statute is mere clarification
to any trained legal mind.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> Is a member of a partnership a person?
Not always. Partners of a partnership can be corporations, other
partnerships, trusts, estates, governments, etc and so on.
So where the term "individual" is used in a generic sense in relation to a
partner of a partnership, it is not intended to omit the other possibilities
of what can be a partner - such as corporations, trusts, estates, other
partnerships, governments, etc, unless the Code specifically does so.
If only you had a brain.
Dave Johnson
<paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Dale, I don't have to refute your bullshit.
>
> That you utter it is refutation enough.
poor Dale Eastman, he has become the definition of "stupid bullshit"
look it up yourself in Wikipedia
Richard Macdonald
news:4829ABA4...@tx.rr.com...
To further expand, since the previous section in the chapter is:
Section 7342 Penalty for refusal to permit entry or examination
Any owner of any building or place, or person having the agency or
superintendence of the same, who refuses to admit any officer or employee of
the Treasury Department acting under the authority of section 7606 (relating
to
entry of premises for examination of taxable articles) or refuses to permit
him
to examine such article or articles, shall, for every such refusal, forfeit
$500.
So in the case of a building owned by a Corporation or partnership,
who do you go after as a responsible person? Without clarifying that
Officers of the Corporation are "persons" for this chapter, can you
fine the individuals for the Corporations refusal to allow entry?
Richard Macdonald
> nat wrote:
>
>>>> If Term A includes B, and other things otherwise within the meaning of
>>>> A are not to be excluded
>>>>
>>>> question- What is the meaning of A?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not what you assert without proof.
>>>
>>> You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning is the starting point of
>>> the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
>>> dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed) items.'
>>>
>>> You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
>>>
>>> This assertion has been preemptively refuted in my original post.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
>>
>> You have refuted SQUAT!
>
> I stated:
> You are asserting:
> 'Start with the dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed)
> items.'
We do not assert, we repeat what is clearly stated in 26 USC 7701(c)
26 USC 7701(c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING
The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition
contained in this title [the ENTIRE IRC] shall not be deemed to
exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
[for otherwise, see the dictionary]
Richard Macdonald
> P. Maffia wrote:
>
>> It words even a dope like you might understand, although it is doubtful:
>> I assert nothing. The law itself specifies that when the word "includes"
>> is used in the law, it does not exclude anything normally found in the
>> definition of the word.
>
> Nice legerdemain switch there. It can only be on purpose that you refer
> to "the definition of the word" when 7701(c) says "the meaning of the term
> defined."
>
> You fail to address the difference between a statutory TERM and a
> dictionary WORD.
Is Nebraska a State per 26 USC 7701?
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
TaxDefier
> "TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
> news:ka-dnQAFA9HtMrTV...@earthlink.com...
>> P. Maffia wrote:
>>
>>> It words even a dope like you might understand, although it is doubtful:
>>> I assert nothing. The law itself specifies that when the word "includes"
>>> is used in the law, it does not exclude anything normally found in the
>>> definition of the word.
>> Nice legerdemain switch there. It can only be on purpose that you refer
>> to "the definition of the word" when 7701(c) says "the meaning of the term
>> defined."
>>
>> You fail to address the difference between a statutory TERM and a
>> dictionary WORD.
>
> Is Nebraska a State per 26 USC 7701?
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
TaxDefier
>>> It isn't absurd at all.
This is an assertion. Proof is assumed to follow, because an assertion
without proof may be refuted without proof.
>>> Chapter 75, of which this definition applies,
>>> imposes penalties.
So what. Section 7343 explains who the "PERSON" is to which chapter 75
applies. This is not proof of your assertion just above.
>>> Well, does the penalty apply to the corporation-a
>>> person-, or does it apply to the officers of the corporation as well?
You appear to be attempting to say that officers of a corporation are
not already within the dictionary definition of the word.
You assert that "one starts with the dictionary definition" [of person]
then adds entities [officers of the corporation] not already within the
dictionary definition. Here's that dictionary definition again:
"Person" is "A human being or an organization with legal rights and duties."
If you start with the dictionary definition, then the officers of the
corporation are already included.
If the officers of the corporation are already included, then the
statute does NOT add them to the dictionary definition that you and
others claim is the starting point.
If the statute does NOT add the officers of the corporation to the
dictionary definition, Then you have not disproved my statement
previously posted:
The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is
that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section 7343,
then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.
>>> 7343 clarifies the possible confusion.
Your post attempts to increase confusion and hide the logic.
>>> The only thing absurd is your reasoning ability as usual, numbnut.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
>> IF the starting point is the dictionary definition of "person" and IF
>> the four entities included (enclosed) are already within the
>> dictionary definition of "person", THEN there is NO purpose for 7343.
>
> Context means everything, numbnut.
> Whom do the penalties in Ch. 75 apply?- the corporation or the officers
> of the corporation? They are both persons.
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or
employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who
as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act
in respect of which the violation occurs.
Looks like it applies to an officer of a corporation.
Looks like it applies to an employee of a corporation.
Looks like it applies to a member of a partnership.
Looks like it applies to an employee of a partnership.
Looks like it applies to the four entities listed that are already
within the dictionary definition of "person".
Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts
with the dictionary definition and then "includes" (encloses) entities
not within the dictionary definition.
It is very simple.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.
>> The four entities included (enclosed) are already within the
>> dictionary definition of "person".
>>
>> Therefore, starting with the dictionary definition causes the statute
>> to be redundant.
>
> But your argument was that the inclusion was "absurd". Redundancy does
> not equate to absurd. Therefore, your reliance on "logic" defeats your
> argument. Your argument is absurd, therefore you are not logical.
> (argumento absurdum)
It is very simple.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.
>> Therefore, the dictionary definition is NOT the starting point.
>>
>> And this logic is true for 3401(c) as well.
>>
>
>
> What you believe to be redundancy in the statute is mere clarification
> to any trained legal mind.
Assertion without proof... Again.
TaxDefier
Quote:
Partners of a partnership can be
corporations,
other partnerships,
trusts,
estates,
governments, etc and so on.
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
with legal rights and duties." Let's look at the entities on that list
again:
corporations,
"an organization with legal rights and duties"
other partnerships,
"an organization with legal rights and duties"
trusts,
"an organization with legal rights and duties"
estates,
"an organization with legal rights and duties"
governments,
"an organization with legal rights and duties"
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or
employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who
as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act
in respect of which the violation occurs.
Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
TaxDefier
I address your first question:
So in the case of a building owned by a
Corporation or partnership, who do you
go after as a responsible person?
By paraphrasing the statute you supplied:
Any [...] person having the agency or
superintendence of [any building or
place], who refuses to admit any
officer or employee of the Treasury
Department acting under the authority
of section 7606 [...]
And concluding that the person who is standing in the doorway barring
entry is the responsible person.
(That is, assuming the Treasury person has legitimate authority to
demand such entry, a point to be discussed at another time).
Moving on to your second question:
Without clarifying that Officers of the
Corporation are "persons" for this chapter,
can you fine the individuals for the
Corporations refusal to allow entry?
I am forced to assume that by "individuals" you mean "Officers of the
Corporation".
Clarifying your second question with the assumption I am forced to make:
Without clarifying that Officers of the
Corporation are "persons" for this chapter,
can you fine the [Officers of the Corporation]
for the Corporations refusal to allow entry?
You have already argued that Officers of the Corporation are "persons":
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
with legal rights and duties."
Like all the others, you are asserting:
[Person] means the exact dictionary definition and IN ADDITION,
"... includes [an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member
or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or
member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the
violation occurs.]
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND
FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and
Forfeiture Provisions
-HEAD-
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership, who
as such officer, employee, or member is under
a duty to perform the act in respect of which
the violation occurs.
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
with legal rights and duties."
Since the four entities listed (and specifically the officers of the
corporation) are already within the dictionary definition of "person",
there is no need for this statute if one starts with the dictionary
definition and then "includes" (encloses) entities not within the
dictionary definition.
It is very simple.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.
The logic that applies to section 7343 also applies to subsection 3401(c).
TaxDefier
>> 'Start with the dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed)
>> items.'
>
> We do not assert, we repeat what is clearly stated in 26 USC 7701(c)
>
> 26 USC 7701(c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING
> The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition
> contained in this title [the ENTIRE IRC] shall not be deemed to
> exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
> [for otherwise, see the dictionary]
>
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
You are asserting:
Statutory PERSON = Dictionary person + non-Dictionary person.
You are asserting that the Dictionary meaning (DA) is the starting point
of the Statutory meaning (SA). You are asserting 'Start with the
dictionary definition and then add the included (enclosed) items.'
You are asserting: Term SA = DA + B.
Where:
SA is the items enclosed by the Statutory definition of the TERM;
DA is the items enclosed by the the Dictionary definition of the WORD;
B is the items not enclosed by the Dictionary definition of the WORD
that are enclosed (included) by the action of the Statutory definition
of the TERM.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership, who
as such officer, employee, or member is under
a duty to perform the act in respect of which
the violation occurs.
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
with legal rights and duties."
Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts
with the dictionary definition.
nat
No, numbnut, I am explaining why the definition is not absurd.
> You assert that "one starts with the dictionary definition" [of person]
> then adds entities [officers of the corporation] not already within the
> dictionary definition. Here's that dictionary definition again:
>
No, numbnut, 7701 does not say anything about "starts with". 7701 says
not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term.
> "Person" is "A human being or an organization with legal rights and
> duties."
>
> If you start with the dictionary definition, then the officers of the
> corporation are already included.
>
No, numbnut, "officers of the corporation" are certainly within the
meaning of "person", but a good lawyer might argue that the corporation
is solely liable for the penalty since a corporation is a "person", so
congress nixed this loophole with the definition.
> If the officers of the corporation are already included, then the
> statute does NOT add them to the dictionary definition that you and
> others claim is the starting point.
>
So you would exclude the corporation? That totally ignores 7701.
> If the statute does NOT add the officers of the corporation to the
> dictionary definition, Then you have not disproved my statement
> previously posted:
>
> The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is
> that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section 7343,
> then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.
>
>>>> 7343 clarifies the possible confusion.
>>>
>
> Your post attempts to increase confusion and hide the logic.
>
Are you going to penalize the corporation, its officers, or both?
>
>>>> The only thing absurd is your reasoning ability as usual, numbnut.
>>>
>
>
> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
>
I proved that your assertion of absurdity was absurd on its face.
>
>>> IF the starting point is the dictionary definition of "person" and IF
>>> the four entities included (enclosed) are already within the
>>> dictionary definition of "person", THEN there is NO purpose for 7343.
>>
>>
>> Context means everything, numbnut.
>> Whom do the penalties in Ch. 75 apply?- the corporation or the
>> officers of the corporation? They are both persons.
>
>
> The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or
> employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who
> as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act
> in respect of which the violation occurs.
>
> Looks like it applies to an officer of a corporation.
> Looks like it applies to an employee of a corporation.
> Looks like it applies to a member of a partnership.
> Looks like it applies to an employee of a partnership.
>
> Looks like it applies to the four entities listed that are already
> within the dictionary definition of "person".
Does it apply to the corporation since it ain't listed? A corporation
is a person and is not to be excluded according to 7701.
>
> Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
> definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts
> with the dictionary definition and then "includes" (encloses) entities
> not within the dictionary definition.
>
> It is very simple.
>
> Either:
> One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
> the statute.
>
> Or:
> One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
> another function.
>
How about NOT EXCLUDING THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM
which is the whole point of using 'includes/ing'?
>
>
>>> The four entities included (enclosed) are already within the
>>> dictionary definition of "person".
>>>
>>> Therefore, starting with the dictionary definition causes the statute
>>> to be redundant.
>>
>>
>> But your argument was that the inclusion was "absurd". Redundancy
>> does not equate to absurd. Therefore, your reliance on "logic"
>> defeats your argument. Your argument is absurd, therefore you are not
>> logical. (argumento absurdum)
>
>
> It is very simple.
>
> Either:
> One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
> the statute.
>
> Or:
> One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
> another function.
>
No, numbnut, your attempt to change the meaning of 7701 is just lame.
>
>>> Therefore, the dictionary definition is NOT the starting point.
>>>
>>> And this logic is true for 3401(c) as well.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you believe to be redundancy in the statute is mere clarification
>> to any trained legal mind.
>
>
> Assertion without proof... Again.
>
In your dreams, numbnut.
nat
In all of this gobbledygook, I didn't see an answer to his question:
TaxDefier
> I didn't see an answer to his question:
>
> "Without clarifying that Officers of the Corporation are "persons" for
> this chapter, can you fine the individuals for the Corporations refusal
> to allow entry?"
>
Nope. *_I_* can't fine anybody... I'm not a Treasury Agent.
Richard Macdonald
Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
to answer without destroying previous assertions.
BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
TaxDefier
replying to has forgotten the issue he is trying to refute.
At issue is whether a Statutorily defined "PERSON" encloses a Dictionary
defined "person". Please note the upper and lower case I use to denote
the difference.
At issue is whether the following statutory definition encloses ONLY the
four entities listed per the rule of statutory construction "expressio
unius est exclusio alterius", per the rule of statutory construction
"ejusdem generis", and per the logic being presented in the instant post.
OR,
Whether the following statutory definition encloses the four entities
listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary definition.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership, who
as such officer, employee, or member is under
a duty to perform the act in respect of which
the violation occurs.
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
with legal rights and duties."
Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts
with the dictionary definition.
The poster whose post I am answering actually agrees with me.
A statutory definition would not need
to specifically "include" objects that
are already within the dictionary
definition (ie., MEANING) of the term.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b52b0b65d48a3bb3
It is very simple.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.
The logic that applies to section 7343 also applies to subsection 3401(c).
nat wrote:
>
>
> TaxDefier wrote:
>> nat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Chapter 75, of which this definition applies,
>>>>> imposes penalties.
>>>>> Well, does the penalty apply to the corporation-a
>>>>> person-, or does it apply to the officers of the corporation as well?
>>>>
>>
>>
>> You appear to be attempting to say that officers of a corporation are
>> not already within the dictionary definition of the word.
>>
>> You assert that "one starts with the dictionary definition" [of
>> person] then adds entities [officers of the corporation] not already
>> within the dictionary definition. Here's that dictionary definition
>> again:
>>
>
> No, numbnut, 7701 does not say anything about "starts with". 7701 says
> not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term.
7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING
of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.
'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default, you
can consult a dictionary for the term's meaning.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/7fc50d9daf1719fa
According to your words:
"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."
If you "consult a dictionary for the term's meaning", then you are
"STARTING WITH" the dictionary definition and then adding that which is
not within the dictionary definition.
So much for making an issue out of "starts with".
>> "Person" is "A human being or an organization with legal rights and
>> duties."
>>
>> If you start with the dictionary definition, then the officers of the
>> corporation are already included.
>>
>
> No, numbnut, "officers of the corporation" are certainly within the
> meaning of "person", but a good lawyer might argue that the corporation
> is solely liable for the penalty since a corporation is a "person", so
> congress nixed this loophole with the definition.
Your words:
A statutory definition would not need
to specifically "include" objects that
are already within the dictionary
definition (ie., MEANING) of the term.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b52b0b65d48a3bb3
>> If the officers of the corporation are already included, then the
>> statute does NOT add them to the dictionary definition that you and
>> others claim is the starting point.
>>
>
> So you would exclude the corporation? That totally ignores 7701.
The issue is: If you start with the dictionary definition, then there is
no purpose for section 7343.
>> If the statute does NOT add the officers of the corporation to the
>> dictionary definition, Then you have not disproved my statement
>> previously posted:
>>
>> The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is
>> that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section
>> 7343, then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.
>>
>>>>> 7343 clarifies the possible confusion.
>>>>
>>
>> Your post attempts to increase confusion and hide the logic.
>>
>
> Are you going to penalize the corporation, its officers, or both?
It depends on whether you start with the dictionary definition or not.
>>>> IF the starting point is the dictionary definition of "person" and
>>>> IF the four entities included (enclosed) are already within the
>>>> dictionary definition of "person", THEN there is NO purpose for 7343.
>>>
>>>
>>> Context means everything, numbnut.
>>> Whom do the penalties in Ch. 75 apply?- the corporation or the
>>> officers of the corporation? They are both persons.
>>
>>
>> The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or
>> employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership,
>> who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform
>> the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
>>
>> Looks like it applies to an officer of a corporation.
>> Looks like it applies to an employee of a corporation.
>> Looks like it applies to a member of a partnership.
>> Looks like it applies to an employee of a partnership.
>>
>> Looks like it applies to the four entities listed that are already
>> within the dictionary definition of "person".
>
> Does it apply to the corporation since it ain't listed? A corporation
> is a person and is not to be excluded according to 7701.
It depends on whether you start with the dictionary definition or not.
>> Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
>> definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one
>> starts with the dictionary definition and then "includes" (encloses)
>> entities not within the dictionary definition.
>>
>> It is very simple.
>>
>> Either:
>> One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
>> the statute.
>>
>> Or:
>> One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
>> another function.
>>
>
> How about NOT EXCLUDING THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM
> which is the whole point of using 'includes/ing'?
And what is the meaning of the term?
Your words:
7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING
of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.
'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default, you
can consult a dictionary for the term's meaning.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/7fc50d9daf1719fa
According to your words:
"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."
If you "consult a dictionary for the term's meaning", then you are
"STARTING WITH" the dictionary definition and then adding that which is
not within the dictionary definition.
It is very simple.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.
The logic that applies to section 7343 also applies to subsection 3401(c).
Paul Thomas, CPA
> If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5,
Judges don't decree that.
If anyone did they'd be overturned on appeal.
Now find one - just one - case where your lame-assed theories were upheld in
any court in this country.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Paul Thomas, CPA
> At issue is whether a Statutorily defined "PERSON"
> encloses a Dictionary defined "person".
Yes.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
TaxDefier
> Dale the moron Eastman wrote
>> At issue is whether a Statutorily defined "PERSON"
>> encloses a Dictionary defined "person".
>
>
>
>
> Yes.
>
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.
You are wrong.
TaxDefier
> Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
> to answer without destroying previous assertions.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
> BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/70d1af18738360f2
TaxDefier
> Dale the dumbassed Eastman wrote
>> If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5,
>
>
>
> Judges don't decree that.
>
> If anyone did they'd be overturned on appeal.
Not if the reviewing judge(s) also decree 2 + 2 = 5.
Paul Thomas, CPA
Dale the moron Eastman wrote
> You are wrong.
As if anyone cares what you say.
nat
TaxDefier wrote:
> It seems a review is in order. It seems the poster who's post I am
> replying to has forgotten the issue he is trying to refute.
>
> At issue is whether a Statutorily defined "PERSON" encloses a Dictionary
> defined "person". Please note the upper and lower case I use to denote
> the difference.
>
> At issue is whether the following statutory definition encloses ONLY the
> four entities listed per the rule of statutory construction "expressio
> unius est exclusio alterius", per the rule of statutory construction
> "ejusdem generis", and per the logic being presented in the instant post.
>
IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = B and A is not A.
-ILLOGICAL
> OR,
>
> Whether the following statutory definition encloses the four entities
> listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary definition.
>
IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = A + B. -LOGICAL
>
> Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
>
> -STATUTE-
> The term "person" as used in this chapter
> includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
> or a member or employee of a partnership, who
> as such officer, employee, or member is under
> a duty to perform the act in respect of which
> the violation occurs.
>
> My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
> with legal rights and duties."
>
> Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
> definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts
> with the dictionary definition.
>
> The poster whose post I am answering actually agrees with me.
>
> A statutory definition would not need
> to specifically "include" objects that
> are already within the dictionary
> definition (ie., MEANING) of the term.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b52b0b65d48a3bb3
>
Correct. Things within the meaning of the term defined would not NEED
to be included; however, the superfluous inclusion of certain things
still does not deem to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning
of the term defined per 7701. IOW, A still = A.
>
> It is very simple.
>
> Either:
> One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
> the statute.
>
> Or:
> One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
> another function.
>
False choice, numbnut.
The correct choice is to start with the statute and consult a dictionary
if necessary.
No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute, and consult a dictionary if
necessary.
> So much for making an issue out of "starts with".
>
>>> "Person" is "A human being or an organization with legal rights and
>>> duties."
>>>
>>> If you start with the dictionary definition, then the officers of the
>>> corporation are already included.
>>>
>>
>> No, numbnut, "officers of the corporation" are certainly within the
>> meaning of "person", but a good lawyer might argue that the
>> corporation is solely liable for the penalty since a corporation is a
>> "person", so congress nixed this loophole with the definition.
>
>
> Your words:
>
> A statutory definition would not need
> to specifically "include" objects that
> are already within the dictionary
> definition (ie., MEANING) of the term.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b52b0b65d48a3bb3
>
>
>
>>> If the officers of the corporation are already included, then the
>>> statute does NOT add them to the dictionary definition that you and
>>> others claim is the starting point.
>>>
>>
>> So you would exclude the corporation? That totally ignores 7701.
>
>
> The issue is: If you start with the dictionary definition, then there is
> no purpose for section 7343.
>
What if the corporation has a policy to interfer with IRS
investigations? Does the penalty apply to the corporation or the
individuals?
No, numbnut, 7343 has a very real purpose to those who do not assume
their conclusions as you have.
>
>>> If the statute does NOT add the officers of the corporation to the
>>> dictionary definition, Then you have not disproved my statement
>>> previously posted:
>>>
>>> The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion)
>>> is that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section
>>> 7343, then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.
>>>
>>>>>> 7343 clarifies the possible confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Your post attempts to increase confusion and hide the logic.
>>>
>>
>> Are you going to penalize the corporation, its officers, or both?
>
>
> It depends on whether you start with the dictionary definition or not.
>
Well then, follow the law so you start with the statute and consult a
dictionary if necessary.
>>>>> IF the starting point is the dictionary definition of "person" and
>>>>> IF the four entities included (enclosed) are already within the
>>>>> dictionary definition of "person", THEN there is NO purpose for 7343.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Context means everything, numbnut.
>>>> Whom do the penalties in Ch. 75 apply?- the corporation or the
>>>> officers of the corporation? They are both persons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or
>>> employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership,
>>> who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform
>>> the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
>>>
>>> Looks like it applies to an officer of a corporation.
>>> Looks like it applies to an employee of a corporation.
>>> Looks like it applies to a member of a partnership.
>>> Looks like it applies to an employee of a partnership.
>>>
>>> Looks like it applies to the four entities listed that are already
>>> within the dictionary definition of "person".
>>
>>
>> Does it apply to the corporation since it ain't listed? A corporation
>> is a person and is not to be excluded according to 7701.
>
>
> It depends on whether you start with the dictionary definition or not.
>
Start with the statute and quit making up law.
Yeah' it is very simple. You start with the statute which says not to
exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined, then
consult a dictionary IF NECESSARY.
> Either:
> One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
> the statute.
>
> Or:
> One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
> another function.
>
> The logic that applies to section 7343 also applies to subsection 3401(c).
>
If only you could understand logic, numbnut.
Richard Macdonald
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
>> to answer without destroying previous assertions.
>
> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
>
>> BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
>
> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
Then you believe that Nebraska in NOT a State?
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dale the moron Eastman wrote
>
> > You are wrong.
>
> As if anyone cares what you say.
Hey - YOU do!
--Jackney Sneeb
Dave Johnson
wrote:
they only "care" about ridiculing Dale Eastman's stupid tax scam
Malloy.
Richard Macdonald
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
>> to answer without destroying previous assertions.
>
> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
>
>> BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
>
> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
Then you assert totally without proof that the State of Nebraska (see
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA of 1875) is
not a State.
TaxDefier
they keep you from learning, knowing, and THINKING about the points I am
posting.
It is critical because IF my logic is correct, THEN they're out of jobs.
IF my logic is correct, THEN they are wrong. IF my logic is correct,
THEN allegations of 'government' and IRS misapplication of the law, and
supportive fraud of the same, are true.
IF my logic is actually indeed correct, THEN it becomes even MORE
critical to the tax professionals and financial experts that I be made
to APPEAR wrong in your eyes.
The expert who's post I am replying to is intent upon confusing you.
The post I am replying to will follow below, untouched, for you to
compare his words and logic against mine.
At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
The 7343 statutory definition of the term "PERSON" is written in the
form of:
Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4. Thus, Statutory "P" (encloses,
comprises, consists of, contains, embodies, embraces, encompasses,
incorporates, or takes in) I1, I2, I3 or I4. (See the original post
regarding the etymology and synonyms for the word includes.)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
Please NOTE the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.
For clarity and examination, the 7343 definition of "PERSON" will be
shown as "P"; the dictionary definition will be shown as "D", and a
third definition to appear below will be shown as "L".
Statutory "P" does not equal "D". The two items are NOT the same until
made so by a law (statute).
At issue, is that:
IF items I1, I2, I3 and I4 are already within the dictionary definition
of "person" ("D") and one starts with the dictionary definition of
"person" (by assuming Statutory "P" = "D") THEN there is no purpose for
the statute.
When items I1, I2, I3 and I4 are already within the dictionary
definition "D", and when then attempting to find the meaning of
Statutory "P":
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") and there is
no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") and
the statute does another function.
In order for the experts to not be wrong, and in order for starting with
the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") to be a correct starting
point, THEN the experts MUST PROVE that items I1, I2, I3 and I4 are NOT
already within the dictionary definition of "person" ("D"). Here is the
best shot posted in that attempt:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/6d6d353d7b678633
Several of the experts have posted their belief that: One starts with
the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") and then adds other
non-dictionary persons. In algebraic formula, Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 +
I2 + I3 + I4.
One expert stated this belief very succinctly:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
In the instant case, referring to statute 7343 shown above, the issue is
whether an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of "person".
As succinctly stated by our other expert:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.
My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
Clearly, an officer, member, or employee qualify under that dictionary
definition. In other words, 'They are one.'
The result is that section 7343 has no purpose. The experts are wrong.
The post I am replying to is an attempt to undo the simple logic shown
above.
I have extracted the following from the post I am replying to, shown in
its entirety below:
>> Either:
>> One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
>> the statute.
>>
>> Or:
>> One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute
>> does another function.
>>
>
> False choice, numbnut.
> The correct choice is to start with the statute and consult a
> dictionary if necessary.
It is imperative for this expert to NOT state that one starts with
the dictionary definition. Since no one can prove that an officer,
member, or employee is not within the dictionary definition of "person",
no one can realistically refute the logic that starting with the
dictionary definition makes statute 7343 have no purpose.
IF there is no purpose for statute 7343, THEN the experts are wrong.
The sole purpose of the expert's statement cited above is to attempt
(via gobbledegook) to undo the damage caused by the logic that follows
when one starts with the dictionary definition of "person".
On the same issue, I have also extracted the following from the post
shown below:
>> According to your words:
>>
>> "If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
>> in law, then, by default, you can consult
>> a dictionary for the term's meaning."
>>
>> If you "consult a dictionary for the term's meaning", then you are
>> "STARTING WITH" the dictionary definition and then adding that which
>> is not within the dictionary definition.
>>
>
> No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute, and consult a dictionary if
> necessary.
Please notice that by stating:
"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."
Our expert has set up an EITHER / OR situation:
EITHER:
You use the meaning alleged to be stated elsewhere in law.
OR:
You consult a dictionary when there is no meaning stated elsewhere in law.
I addressed the OR situation, I addressed when the meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law.
His response:
No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute,
and consult a dictionary if necessary.
By his own words, consulting a dictionary is necessary when "that
meaning [of "PERSON" aka Statutory "P"] is not stated elsewhere in law".
Again, it should be clear to the reader that it is imperative for this
expert to NOT state that one starts with the dictionary definition
because what logically follows is to make the statute have no purpose.
Now if I "START WITH the statute" as this expert asserts, the following
happens:
I start by reading the statute and I find that Statutory "P" includes
I1, I2, I3 and I4.
The rule of statutory construction, "Expressio unius est exclusio
alterius", states:
"A principle in statutory construction:
when one or more things of a class are
expressly mentioned others of the same
class are excluded."
Or:
The expression of one (specific) thing
is the exclusion of another.
The list of items included by the statutory definition contained in
section 7343 does NOT expressly mention the dictionary definition of
"person" ("D").
The list of items included (enclosed, comprised, consisting of,
contained, embodied, embraced, encompassed, incorporated, or taken in)
does NOT expressly mention the dictionary definition of "person" ("D").
Therefore, Statutory "P" means ONLY I1, I2, I3 or I4. Therefore, the
section 7343 Statutory "PERSON" means ONLY:
an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
At this point, the person who's post I am replying to will typically
invoke section 7701(c). As will be shown, he can't invoke 7701(c)
without invoking the dictionary definition as the starting point.
So moving on to section 7701(c), I have again extracted from the post
shown below:
>>> No, numbnut, 7701 does not say anything about "starts with". 7701
>>> says not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term.
>>
>>
>> 7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING
>> of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
>> When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
>> Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
>> defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.
>>
>> 'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
>> of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
>> elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
>> elsewhere in law, then, by default, you
>> can consult a dictionary for the term's meaning.
My dictionary says a "definition" is "A statement of the meaning of a
word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry."
Section 7343 provides a STATUTORY DEFINITION for the purposes of chapter
75. Section 7343 provides "A statutory statement of the meaning of a
term, as in a dictionary entry."
Our expert stated:
"When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined."
So according to our expert, when Congress provides the statutory
DEFINITION of Statutory "P", Congress really hasn't provided the
statutory meaning of Statutory "P". Ignoring this problem with the
logic of his assertion and moving on:
As our expert stated:
No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute,
and consult a dictionary if necessary.
So according to our expert's assertion, I will start with the statute
written in the form of: Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4.
Our expert stated:
'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere.
Since we do not yet know the meaning stated elsewhere, let us call that
UNKNOWN meaning "U". According to our expert, the meaning of Statutory
"P" is UNKNOWN ("U") until we look elsewhere and find this meaning. In
other words, our expert has just asserted without proof, that:
Statutory "P" = "U".
Also according to our expert, statute 7343, written in the form of
'Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4', "merely EXPANDS the meaning
of" Statutory "P" by adding I1, I2, I3 and I4 to some alleged
pre-existing meaning to be found elsewhere. In other words, our expert
has just asserted that:
Statutory "P" = "U" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.
Our expert stated:
If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default,
you can consult a dictionary for
the term's meaning.
Our expert has just implied, without directly stating, that there is a
meaning given in some law (the meaning stated elsewhere) and that is the
meaning that is being expanded by the use of 'includes'. Let us call
this meaning, alleged to exist elsewhere in law, "L". In other words,
our expert has just asserted without proof, that:
Statutory "P" = "L". (You are to ignore that Statutory "P" IS a
statutory meaning stated in the law, according to our expert.)
So according to our expert, the STATUTORY DEFINITION written in the form
of 'Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4', "merely EXPANDS the
meaning of" Statutory "P" by adding I1, I2, I3 and I4 to some
pre-existing, meaning to be found elsewhere in the law. In other words,
our expert has just asserted that:
Statutory "P" = "L" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.
Repeating what our expert stated:
If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default,
you can consult a dictionary for
the term's meaning.
Let us call this dictionary meaning "D".
So according to our expert, when meaning "L" is not stated elsewhere in
law, then meaning "D" is to be used instead. So our expert has asserted
without proof, that when Statutory "P" does not = "L":
Then Statutory "P" = "D".
So according to our expert, the STATUTORY DEFINITION written in the form
of 'Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4', "merely EXPANDS the
meaning of" Statutory "P" by adding I1, I2, I3 and I4 to some
pre-existing, meaning to be found in the dictionary when it can not be
found elsewhere in law. In other words, our expert has just asserted that:
Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.
Our expert has set an EITHER / OR situation:
EITHER:
Statutory "P" = "L" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.
OR:
Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.
Our expert MUST make the OR situation go away, because as proven, when
you start with Statutory "P" = "D" and then add I1, I2, I3 or I4 which
have been proven to already be within the dictionary definition "D",
then the statute has no purpose.
Our expert has made a mistake in asserting you "can" consult a
dictionary for the meaning Statutory of "P'" when it's not stated
elsewhere in law. The use of "can" makes the stated assertion one that
"allows" you to look at a dictionary. The implication is that you are
not "required" to look at a dictionary so he can get away from the
logical results of starting with a dictionary.
IF there is no meaning "L" found elsewhere in law, and IF consulting the
dictionary is not required, THEN the only meaning that remains is where
we started, The statutory DEFINITION (meaning) of Statutory "P" given in
7343:
Statutory "P" = + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4
Statutory "P" = + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 because the ONLY meaning presently
known to be given in law is the meaning given in statute 7343:
Statutory "P" includes I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.
As the previous citations of our expert show, he is trying to stay away
from Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 because such a position
makes statute 7343 have no purpose.
This following extraction from the post below is the one where our
expert contradicts everything he says in the previous citations.
>> At issue is whether the following statutory definition encloses ONLY
>> the four entities listed per the rule of statutory construction "
>> expressio unius est exclusio alterius", per the rule of statutory
>> construction "ejusdem generis", and per the logic being presented in
>> the instant post.
>
> IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = B and A is not A.
> -ILLOGICAL
>
>
>> OR,
>>
>> Whether the following statutory definition encloses the four entities
>> listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary
>> definition.
>
> IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = A + B. -LOGICAL
Please notice the sleight of hand with the terms used. The "A" to the
left of the equal sign is the Statutory "P" that I have used above. The
"A" to the right of the equal sign is the Dictionary "D" that I have
used above.
With my paragraph stated just above, our expert will claim the A to the
right of the equal sign is the meaning stated elsewhere in law, or the
"L" that I have used above.
It just so happens that there is another meaning of "PERSON" in the law:
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 7701. Definitions
-STATUTE-
(a) When used in this title, where not
otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof -
(1) Person
The term "person" shall be construed to mean
and include an individual, a trust, estate,
partnership, association, company or corporation.
(2) Partnership and partner
The term "partnership" includes a syndicate,
group, pool, joint venture, or other
unincorporated organization, through or by means
of which any business, financial operation, or
venture is carried on, and which is not, within
the meaning of this title, a trust or estate or
a corporation; and the term "partner" includes
a member in such a syndicate, group, pool,
joint venture, or organization.
(3) Corporation
The term "corporation" includes associations,
joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
According to our expert, the above is what section 7343 adds to. Here
is section 7343 again:
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture
Provisions
-HEAD-
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an
officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or
employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee,
or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Is an officer of a corporation a person?
Is an employee of a corporation a person?
Is a member of a partnership a person?
Is an employee of a partnership a person?
If our expert is right, then section 7343 HAS NO PURPOSE because the
four entities listed in section 7343 ARE ALREADY WITHIN the meaning
stated elsewhere in the law.
Either:
One starts with the meaning of "person" stated elsewhere in law and
there is no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the the meaning of "person" stated elsewhere in
law and the statute does another function.
Clearly, whether starting with the dictionary meaning, or the meaning
stated elsewhere in law, section 7343 HAS NO PURPOSE because the
entities listed: "an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member
or employee of a partnership" ARE ALREADY WITHIN BOTH MEANINGS.
Therefore, the OR situation is the only one that is logical.
IF there is no purpose for the statute, THEN the experts are wrong. IF
the experts are wrong, THEN allegations of 'government' and IRS
misapplication of the law, and supportive fraud of the same, are true.
IF the IRS is misapplying the law, THEN some people are being tricked
into paying a tax they do not owe. As I said, it is even MORE important
that I be made to look wrong if I am indeed right.
(As Galileo found out, it's heresy to challenge authority. And the
"experts" of the church refused to look at the proof Galileo provided...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=galileo+church+telescope&btnG=Google+Search
http://littlurl.com/juxsn
Does this action seem familiar?)
TaxDefier
> On May 20, 4:45 am, "JackneySn...@gmail.com" <JackneySn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On May 19, 6:51 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dale the moron Eastman wrote
>>>> You are wrong.
>>> As if anyone cares what you say.
>> Hey - YOU do!
>> --Jackney Sneeb
>
> they only "care" about ridiculing
<SNIP!>
Richard Macdonald
Yes or No?
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
news:p8adnYpsmNLmvqHV...@earthlink.com...
Paul Thomas, CPA
> It is very critical to the tax professionals and financial experts
Yes, indeed. It's critical to keep as many people from falling for your
scam advice as possible.
> about the points I am posting.
Glad that you pointed out that they are just "points" and not facts of law.
> It is critical because IF my logic is correct,
It's critical because your points are not correct.
> IF my logic is correct,
It's not.
> IF my logic is correct,
It's not.
> IF my logic is actually indeed correct,
It's still not.
You see Dale, we tax professionals trying to keep you straight and to keep
others out of trouble, don't have to use the word "if", because we are
correct.
TaxDefier
>
>
> Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 8, 5:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that
>>> even a moron like you might understand) that the term "includes"
>>> does not exclude anything which falls within its normal
>>> definition. IN OTHER WORDS when used in the law "includes"
>>> EXPANDS the normal definition and does not limit the definition
>>> to the listed items.
>>
>>
>> There is an old principle of law, expressed in Latin as “inclusio
>> unius est exclusio alterius,” which dictates that where the law
>> specifically lists matters to which it applies, an “irrefutable
>> inference” must be drawn that what was not listed was intended to
>> be omitted. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to
>> express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or
>> of the alternative." ~Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed. 1999)
>> --Jackney Sneeb
>
> You are correct (though you probably don't know it).
>
> If Term A includes B, you can't add things like C, D, or F.
>
> 7701 says, if Term A includes B, then you don't exclude things
> otherwise within the meaning of A. In other words, Term A = A + B.
This statement contains errors of omission:
"In other words, Term A = A + B."
The "A" to the left of the equal sign is *_THE_* STATUTORY DEFINITION of
"A". I will address that "A" as "Statutory A".
The "A" to the right of the equal sign is the "meaning of A". This
"meaning of A" IS the determining factor as to which things are not to
be excluded because they are "otherwise within the meaning of A". I
will call this "Meaning of A" just that.
Correcting our expert's errors of omission:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A" + B.
Notice:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A"
Without knowledge of the "Meaning of A", you can NOT know what is
"otherwise within the meaning" of A.
Our experts want you to assume that the meaning of Statutory A is the
dictionary definition. As one expert stated very succinctly:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
This assertion is provably wrong, and the proof is presented in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/60723dcffd05160f
This assertion from above:
IN OTHER WORDS when used in the law
"includes" EXPANDS the normal definition
and does not limit the definition to
the listed items.
Is just as wrong IF the "normal definition" means the dictionary definition.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/60723dcffd05160f
TaxDefier
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/60723dcffd05160f
and read it in it's entirety,
Then return to the post I am replying to:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a0721204c60934d2
and read it in its entirety...
Paul Thomas, CPA
"TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote
> This statement contains errors of omission:
Indeed. All your statements should carry such disclosures.
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
Paul Thomas, CPA
> If the reader will please return to the previous post:
Why should they re-read your incorrect, misleading, and fraudulent post?
Even you have doubts as to what you post.
Dale said:
> IF my logic is correct,
> IF my logic is correct,
> IF my logic is correct,
> IF my logic is actually indeed correct,
You see Dale, we tax professionals trying to keep you
straight and to keep others out of trouble, don't have
to use the word "IF", because we are correct.
TaxDefier
> "TaxDefier" <TaxD...@no.info> wrote in message
> news:i4mdncUUJ_NwHqzV...@earthlink.com...
>> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
>>> to answer without destroying previous assertions.
>> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
>>
>>> BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
>> An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
>
> Then you believe that Nebraska in NOT a State?
I already told you:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you
are adding a $222 deposit to the $222
already in the account, are you going
to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where
the judge decrees $222 + $222 = $555 and
ignores the rules of statutory construction
and the logic as presented in my original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada