26 USC 7701(c)
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
(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.
1. Are "other things" "included" in a definition in Title 26 if such "other
things" are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the term defined"?
2. If "other things" ARE "included" in a definition in Title 26 because such
"other things" ARE otherwise "within the meaning of the term defined", Then
does it stand to reason that the "meaning of the term defined" defines what
is included in that meaning?
3. If the "meaning of the term defined" is defined by a partial list of
objects with one or more traits in common, Then does it stand to reason that
other objects with the same traits in common would be "included" by reason
of being "within the meaning of the term defined"?
The questions that follow apply to this hypothetical law:
{For the purposes of this example, the term "Ford" includes Fairlanes,
Galaxys, Edsels, and Explorers}
4. Is a common trait of the listed objects the fact that they are all
manufactured by Ford?
5. Is a common trait of the listed objects the fact that they are all
automobiles; passenger cars?
6. Is a common trait of the listed objects the fact that they are all
airplanes?
7. Do Mustangs (automobile) and Thunderbirds (automobile) have the same
common traits of being manufactured by Ford (the same as the listed
objects)?
8. Do Mustangs (automobile) and Thunderbirds (automobile) have the same
common traits of being automobiles (the same as the listed objects)?
9. Do Mustangs (automobile) and Thunderbirds (automobile) have ALL the same
common traits as the listed objects?
10. Would the term "Ford" "include" Mustangs (automobile) or Thunderbirds
(automobile)?
11. Would the term "Ford" "include" the Ford Tri-Motor airplane?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor
12. Do Corvettes and Camaros have the same common traits of being
manufactured by Ford (the same as the listed objects)?
13. Do Corvettes and Camaros have the same common traits of being
automobiles (the same as the listed objects)?
14. Do Corvettes and Camaros have ALL the same common traits as the listed
objects?
15. Would the term "Ford" "include" Corvettes or Camaros?
16. Would Corvettes and Camaros be excluded because they are NOT passenger
cars manufactured by Ford?
The questions that follow apply to this hypothetical law:
{For the purposes of this example, the term "Car" includes Fairlanes,
Galaxys, Edsels, and Explorers}
17. Is a common trait of the listed objects the fact that they are all
manufactured by Ford?
18. Is a common trait of the listed objects the fact that they are all
automobiles; passenger cars?
19. Is a common trait of the listed objects the fact that they are all
airplanes?
20. Do Mustangs (automobile) and Thunderbirds (automobile) have the same
common traits of being manufactured by Ford (the same as the listed
objects)?
21. Do Mustangs (automobile) and Thunderbirds (automobile) have the same
common traits of being automobiles (the same as the listed objects)?
22. Do Mustangs (automobile) and Thunderbirds (automobile) have ALL the same
common traits as the listed objects?
23. Would the term "Car" "include" Mustangs (automobile) or Thunderbirds
(automobile)?
24. Do Corvettes and Camaros have the same common traits of being
manufactured by Ford (the same as the listed objects)?
25. Do Corvettes and Camaros have the same common traits of being
automobiles (the same as the listed objects)?
26. Do Corvettes and Camaros have ALL the same common traits as the listed
objects?
27. Would the term "Car" "include" Corvettes or Camaros?
28. Would Corvettes and Camaros be excluded because they are NOT passenger
cars manufactured by Ford?
29. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does the average dog have?
FOUR! Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
The term "Car" was defined by the list of Ford manufactured automobiles...
EXACTLY THE SAME as when the term "Ford" was defined by the list of Ford
manufactured automobiles.
The criteria and hence the definition of the "term defined" is EXACTLY THE
SAME in both cases.
Ejusdem generis
(eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to
interpret loosely written statutes. 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.
26 USC 7701
(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.
Paul Maffia
know. He thinks his convoluted gibberish logic somehow proves that despite
what the definition clearly says, when used in the law, it is excluding
everything but the named items.
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13borsb...@corp.supernews.com...
And so we see the so-called mental workings of another inhabitant of MORON
TOWN.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(14) Taxpayer
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal
revenue tax.
1. If a person is NOT "liable for" "any internal revenue tax", is such a
person "subject to" such "internal revenue tax"?
2. If a person IS "liable for" "any internal revenue tax", is such a person
"subject to" such "internal revenue tax"?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E - Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 51 - DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER
Subchapter A - Gallonage and Occupational Taxes
PART I - GALLONAGE TAXES
Subpart A - Distilled Spirits
Sec. 5005. Persons liable for tax
-STATUTE-
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable
for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).
(b) Domestic distilled spirits
3. Is a person who is a "distiller" or an "importer" of distilled spirits
"subject to" the tax imposed in section 5001(a)(1)?
4. Is a person BORN as a "distiller" or an "importer" or does such a person
have to commit an act that makes him "liable for" the tax imposed?
Sec. 5002. Definitions
(a) In general
For purposes of this chapter -
(4) Distiller
The term "distiller" includes any person who -
(A) produces distilled spirits from any source or substance,
(B) brews or makes mash, wort, or wash fit for distillation
or for the production of distilled spirits (other than the
making or using of mash, wort, or wash in the authorized
production of wine or beer, or the production of vinegar by
fermentation),
(C) by any process separates alcoholic spirits from any
fermented substance, or
(D) making or keeping mash, wort, or wash, has a still in his
possession or use.
5. Does section 5002 clearly and concisely define the act a person must
commit to become "liable for" and thus "subject to" the tax imposed in
section 5001(a)(1)?
6. Is understanding the statutory definitions required in order to
understand which persons are "liable for" and "subject to" the tax imposed
in section 5001(a)(1)?
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13bu3pd...@corp.supernews.com...
This is because the tax is imposed on the Alcholic Spirits and
not on the actual distiller, importer, distributor, and/or retailer.
§ 5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax
(a) Rate of tax
(1) General
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported
into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon
and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof
gallon.
As no person is identified in the imposition statute, a separate liability
statute is necessary to identify who in the production/distribution chain
is responsible for the tax. This is unlike 26 USC 1 where the person is
clearly identified in the imposition statute making a separate liability
statute
unnecessary and redundant.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:l5qdnYCPHPghCSHb...@centurytel.net...
> The only problem is that this moron, InquiringMinds, doesn't really want
to
> know.
1. Does calling names get TO the subject matter or is it used as a
distraction FROM the subject matter?
2. Is the assertion stated that "InquiringMinds, doesn't really want to
know" based upon the poster's arcane ability to read minds?
3. If the poster can not read the mind of somebody he has never met, then is
his statement of fact about "InquiringMinds" mind nothing but an assertion?
4. Can anybody post proof of anyone having the ability to read the mind of
someone the mind reader has never met?
5. Is it possible that InquiringMinds wants to know how the paid government
disinformation agents are going to attempt to distract the average reader
from focusing on the subject matter presented?
> He thinks his convoluted gibberish logic somehow proves that despite
> what the definition clearly says, when used in the law, it is excluding
> everything but the named items.
6. Does this poster create a straw-man argument and then (attempt) to refute
the straw-man argument because this poster is not capable of reading what is
clearly stated?
7. The first question asked, {Are "other things" "included" in a definition
in Title 26 if such things are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the term
defined"?} Is the reason the poster refuses to address this question
because clearly, if an object is NOT "otherwise within the meaning of the
term defined", then it is NOT within the meaning of the term, PERIOD?
8. The second question asked, {If "other things" ARE "included" in a
definition in Title 26 because such "other things" ARE otherwise "within the
meaning of the term defined", Then does it stand to reason that the "meaning
of the term defined" defines what is included in that meaning?} Is the
reason the poster refused to address this question because clearly, if an
object IS "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", then such an
object is NOT excluded even though it is NOT one of the named items thereby
DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING this poster's Straw-Man assertion?
9. Does "not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning
of the term defined" mean "deemed to include other things NOT otherwise
within the meaning of the termed defined"?
10. If such "other things" are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the term
defined" how can they be both "within the meaning of the term defined" and
NOT "within the meaning of the term defined" at the same time?
11. Why did this poster completely ignore the point made, that items "within
the meaning of the term defined" DOES include items not listed?
12. Why did this poster make a false statement and attribute it to
InquiringMindsWantToKnow?
Paul Maffia
only has to read your gibberish.
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13bvan0...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:l5qdnYCPHPghCSHb...@centurytel.net...
>> The only problem is that this moron, InquiringMinds, doesn't really want
> to
>> know.
>
> 1. Does calling names get TO the subject matter or is it used as a
> distraction FROM the subject matter?
But you have no subject matter!
> 2. Is the assertion stated that "InquiringMinds, doesn't really want to
> know" based upon the poster's arcane ability to read minds?
No, just reading gthe results of what we laughingly call your mind.
> 3. If the poster can not read the mind of somebody he has never met, then
> is
> his statement of fact about "InquiringMinds" mind nothing but an
> assertion?>
No assertions necessary. It is the result of a normally intelligent mind
reading your idiocies.
> 4. Can anybody post proof of anyone having the ability to read the mind of
> someone the mind reader has never met?>
What a moron!
> 5. Is it possible that InquiringMinds wants to know how the paid
> government
> disinformation agents are going to attempt to distract the average reader
> from focusing on the subject matter presented?
See what I mean, only a complete moron would even suggest that I or anyone
else posting in opposition to morons like yourself are, "... paid government
disinformation agents... ."
In fact, th only person who claims he is paid to indulge in supposedly
"arguing" with us is the VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN - Knews4u.
>> He thinks his convoluted gibberish logic somehow proves that despite
>> what the definition clearly says, when used in the law, it is excluding
>> everything but the named items.
>
> 6. Does this poster create a straw-man argument and then (attempt) to
> refute
> the straw-man argument because this poster is not capable of reading what
> is
> clearly stated?
Yes your gibberish is clearly stated.
> 7. The first question asked, {Are "other things" "included" in a
> definition
> in Title 26 if such things are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the
> term
> defined"?} Is the reason the poster refuses to address this question
> because clearly, if an object is NOT "otherwise within the meaning of the
> term defined", then it is NOT within the meaning of the term, PERIOD?
Hey moron, in the definition of USC 26 (to use the proper desigantion which
you obviously don't know) certain things are listed which are IN ADDITION TO
THE NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD MEANING OF THE DEFINED TERM.
> 8. The second question asked, {If "other things" ARE "included" in a
> definition in Title 26 because such "other things" ARE otherwise "within
> the
> meaning of the term defined", Then does it stand to reason that the
> "meaning
> of the term defined" defines what is included in that meaning?} Is the
> reason the poster refused to address this question because clearly, if an
> object IS "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", then such an
> object is NOT excluded even though it is NOT one of the named items
> thereby
> DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING this poster's Straw-Man assertion?
Duh! You just contradicted yourself.
> 9. Does "not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the
> meaning
> of the term defined" mean "deemed to include other things NOT otherwise
> within the meaning of the termed defined"?
>
>
> 10. If such "other things" are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the
> term
> defined" how can they be both "within the meaning of the term defined" and
> NOT "within the meaning of the term defined" at the same time?
A meaningless question of no moment.
> 11. Why did this poster completely ignore the point made, that items
> "within
> the meaning of the term defined" DOES include items not listed?
If it includes items not listed you have no point to your idiot's diatribe.
> 12. Why did this poster make a false statement and attribute it to
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow?>
No false statement made.
You are an exemplery inhabitant of MORON TOWN.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:yWGvi.2343$jy5.767@trnddc07...
This poster's following assertions neither address nor answer the specific
questions asked.
The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and
collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter
are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no
attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of
law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are
neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws".
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)
1. Do revenue laws and regulations relate to nontaxpayers?
2. Are nontaxpayers the subject or object of revenue laws?
Thus, the first order of business is determining who the taxpayer is, hence
the questions:
3. If a person is NOT "liable for" "any internal revenue tax", is such a
person "subject to" such "internal revenue tax"?
4. If a person IS "liable for" "any internal revenue tax", is such a person
"subject to" such "internal revenue tax"?
> This is because the tax is imposed on the Alcholic Spirits and
> not on the actual distiller, importer, distributor, and/or retailer.
5. Is any NON-distiller or any NON-importer of distilled spirits "liable
for" the specific internal revenue tax imposed?
6. Is any NON-distiller or any NON-importer of distilled spirits "subject
to" the specific internal revenue tax imposed?
7. Is any NON-distiller or any NON-importer of distilled spirits a
"taxpayer" as that term is defined in section 7701(a)(14)?
8. Does a person become "liable for" and "subject to" the specific internal
revenue tax imposed by birth, or is it by their choice of doing a privileged
activity, to wit: "importing" or "distilling" distilled spirits?
> § 5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax
> (a) Rate of tax
> (1) General
> There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported
> into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon
> and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a
proof
> gallon.
>
> As no person is identified in the imposition statute, a separate liability
> statute is necessary to identify who in the production/distribution chain
> is responsible for the tax.
> This is unlike 26 USC 1 where the person is
> clearly identified in the imposition statute making a separate liability
> statute
> unnecessary and redundant.
>
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
-HEAD-
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
-STATUTE-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who
makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the
head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a
married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single
return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined
in accordance with the following table:
li·a·ble adj. 1. Legally obligated
9. What word or words in section 1 specifically make any person "legally
obligated" to pay the tax imposed?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
Insult deleted.
> "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
> wrote in message news:13bvan0...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> > news:l5qdnYCPHPghCSHb...@centurytel.net...
> >> The only problem is that this moron, InquiringMinds, doesn't really
want
> > to
> >> know.
> >
> > 1. Does calling names get TO the subject matter or is it used as a
> > distraction FROM the subject matter?
Assertion deleted.
> > 2. Is the assertion stated that "InquiringMinds, doesn't really want to
> > know" based upon the poster's arcane ability to read minds?
Insult deleted.
> > 3. If the poster can not read the mind of somebody he has never met,
then
> > is
> > his statement of fact about "InquiringMinds" mind nothing but an
> > assertion?>
Insult deleted.
> > 4. Can anybody post proof of anyone having the ability to read the mind
of
> > someone the mind reader has never met?>
>
Insult deleted.
> > 5. Is it possible that InquiringMinds wants to know how the paid
> > government
> > disinformation agents are going to attempt to distract the average
reader
> > from focusing on the subject matter presented?
>
Insult deleted.
>
> In fact, th only person who claims he is paid to indulge in supposedly
> "arguing" with us is the VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN - Knews4u.
>
> >> He thinks his convoluted gibberish logic somehow proves that despite
> >> what the definition clearly says, when used in the law, it is excluding
> >> everything but the named items.
> >
> > 6. Does this poster create a straw-man argument and then (attempt) to
> > refute
> > the straw-man argument because this poster is not capable of reading
what
> > is
> > clearly stated?
Insult deleted.
> > 7. The first question asked, {Are "other things" "included" in a
> > definition
> > in Title 26 if such things are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the
> > term
> > defined"?} Is the reason the poster refuses to address this question
> > because clearly, if an object is NOT "otherwise within the meaning of
the
> > term defined", then it is NOT within the meaning of the term, PERIOD?
Insult deleted.
> in the definition of USC 26 (to use the proper desigantion which
> you obviously don't know)
26 USC Sec. 7701
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+2450+1+
+%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2826%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10
%20%287701%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives
prepares and publishes the United States Code pursuant to section 285b of
title 2 of the Code.
...
Certain titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant
to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal
evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code
are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The
following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4,
5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44,
46, and 49.
http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml
Download the United States Code
Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Click a title for a further breakdown.
* Organic Laws
* Title 1, General Provisions
* Title 2, The Congress
* Title 3, The President
* Title 4, Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
* Title 5, Government Organization and Employees; and Appendix
* Title 6, Domestic Security
* Title 7, Agriculture
* Title 8, Aliens and Nationality
* Title 9, Arbitration
* Title 10, Armed Forces; and Appendix
* Title 11, Bankruptcy; and Appendix
* Title 12, Banks and Banking
* Title 13, Census
* Title 14, Coast Guard
* Title 15, Commerce and Trade
* Title 16, Conservation
* Title 17, Copyrights
* Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; and Appendix
* Title 19, Customs Duties
* Title 20, Education
* Title 21, Food and Drugs
* Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse
* Title 23, Highways
* Title 24, Hospitals and Asylums
* Title 25, Indians
* Title 26, Internal Revenue Code; and Appendix
* Title 27, Intoxicating Liquors
* Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure; and Appendix
* Title 29, Labor
* Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining
* Title 31, Money and Finance
* Title 32, National Guard
* Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters
* Title 34, Navy (Repealed)
* Title 35, Patents
* Title 36, Patriotic Societies and Observances
* Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
* Title 38, Veterans' Benefits; and Appendix
* Title 39, Postal Service
* Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works
* Title 41, Public Contracts
* Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare
* Title 43, Public Lands
* Title 44, Public Printing and Documents
* Title 45, Railroads
* Title 46, Shipping; and Appendix
* Title 47, Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs
* Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions
* Title 49, Transportation
* Title 50, War and National Defense; and Appendix
http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml
1. Does the annonomous reader agree or disagree that
InquiringMindsWantToKnow "obviously don't know" "the proper desig>>an<<tion"
(sic) of Title 26 of the United States Code?
2. Is this poster attempting to distract from all the issues he is
deliberately avoiding by attempting to make an argument over an issue that
means nothing?
> certain things are listed which are IN ADDITION TO
> THE NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD MEANING OF THE DEFINED TERM.
Normally understood meaning of the WORD "employee":
em·ploy·ee n. 1. A person who works for another in return for financial or
other compensation.
3. Does an officer of the United States work for another in return for
financial or other compensation?
4. If the answer to question 3 is yes, does an officer of the United States
fit the criteria of the normally understood meaning of the WORD?
5. Does an employee of the United States work for another in return for
financial or other compensation?
6. If the answer to question 5 is yes, does an employee of the United States
fit the criteria of the normally understood meaning of the WORD?
7. Does an elected official of the United States work for another in return
for financial or other compensation?
8. If the answer to question 7 is yes, does an elected official of the
United States fit the criteria of the normally understood meaning of the
WORD?
9. Does an officer of a corporation of the United States work for another in
return for financial or other compensation?
10. If the answer to question 7 is yes, does an officer of a corporation of
the United States fit the criteria of the normally understood meaning of the
WORD?
11. If these government employees already fit the common definition of
"employee" then why would they be specifically addressed in the following
statutory definition of "employee"?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES
-HEAD-
Sec. 3401. Definitions
(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.
12. In other words, the listed CLASS of (government) employees are already
covered under the standard meaning of the WORD "employee", so is it true
that there is no need for the definition shown in section 3402(c)?
13. Does this poster understand the difference between a (statutorily)
defined term and a common dictionary meaning of a word?
14. Does this poster understand that a (statutorily) defined term is a
"custom defined word or phrase" which means ONLY what it is (statutorily)
defined to mean?
15. Does this poster understand that the moment a "word" is changed into a
"term" with a custom defined meaning, the normally understood meaning of the
"word" no longer applies?
> > 8. The second question asked, {If "other things" ARE "included" in a
> > definition in Title 26 because such "other things" ARE otherwise "within
> > the
> > meaning of the term defined", Then does it stand to reason that the
> > "meaning
> > of the term defined" defines what is included in that meaning?} Is the
> > reason the poster refused to address this question because clearly, if
an
> > object IS "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", then such
an
> > object is NOT excluded even though it is NOT one of the named items
> > thereby
> > DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING this poster's Straw-Man assertion?
>
> Duh! You just contradicted yourself.
16. Did you post these words: {He thinks his convoluted gibberish logic
somehow proves that despite what the definition clearly says, when used in
the law, it is excluding everything but the named items.}?
17. Did you assert with the above statement that InquiringMindsWantToKnow is
attempting to "exlud[e] everything but the named items"?
18. Is an object WITHIN the meaning of the TERM defined an object that IS
included in the definition?
19. Did InquiringMindsWantToKnow ask: {Are "other things" "included" in a
definition in Title 26 if such things are NOT otherwise "within the meaning
of the term defined"?}
20 Did InquiringMindsWantToKnow ask about objects that ARE or ARE NOT
"within the meaning of the TERM defined"?
21. Is InquiringMindsWantToKnow's focus on objects NOT "within the meaning
of the TERM defined"?
22. Is your focus on objects WITHIN the meaning of the TERM defined?
23. Did you ignore InquiringMindsWantToKnow's focus substitute your own?
> > 9. Does "not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the
> > meaning
> > of the term defined" mean "deemed to include other things NOT otherwise
> > within the meaning of the termed defined"?
> >
> >
> > 10. If such "other things" are NOT otherwise "within the meaning of the
> > term
> > defined" how can they be both "within the meaning of the term defined"
and
> > NOT "within the meaning of the term defined" at the same time?
>
A meaningless assertion deleted.
> > 11. Why did this poster completely ignore the point made, that items
> > "within
> > the meaning of the term defined" DOES include items not listed?
>
> If it includes items not listed you have no point to your idiot's
diatribe.
Term T includes object A, B, C.
Objects A, B, C are "within the meaning of the term defined".
Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
25. Is the criteria for inclusion of objects W, X, Y, Z the criteria of
whether the objects are "within the meaning of the term defined"?
26. Are objects W, X included or excluded from within the definition of the
term?
27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition of the
term?
28. Do the traits of objects A, B, C define the traits of the CLASS of
objects included in term T?
Paul Maffia
wrote in message news:13bvhoc...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:AbSdnWxpJMt6LyLb...@centurytel.net...
>
> Insult deleted.>
Since you did not delete your asinine comments, you deleted no insults.
You are a prime example of the inhabitants of MORON TOWN!
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
1. Has anybody else noticed this poster has NOT answered a single question?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Dale "the idiot" Eastman wrote
> 1. Has anybody else noticed I have NOT asked a question?
Indeed.
Paul Maffia
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13c0lrt...@corp.supernews.com...
By properly labeling your idiocy for what it is, I did, in fact, answer your
moronic questions. But then you would need a functional mind to understand
that.
You are a prime example of the inhabitant of MORON TOWN!!
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> Term T includes object A, B, C.
> Objects A, B, C are "within the meaning of the term defined".
> Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
> Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
> Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
>
> 25. Is the criteria for inclusion of objects W, X, Y, Z the criteria of
> whether the objects are "within the meaning of the term defined"?
The "criteria" for INCLUSION is whether or not the objects are within
the clause for inclusion. Only A, B, and C are included.
> 26. Are objects W, X included or excluded from within the definition of the
> term?
Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined", they
would be excluded by the definition.
> 27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition of the
> term?
Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
NOT be excluded by the definition.
> 28. Do the traits of objects A, B, C define the traits of the CLASS of
> objects included in term T?
The "traits" of any object has absolutely no significance concerning
7701(c). It doesn't enter the equation.
nat
Answer- "There is hereby IMPOSED..."
to impose- to establish or apply as compulsory
Pursuant to section 1, if you are an individual and have taxable income,
you are therefore LIABLE for the tax. That is simple deductive logic.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46C0D403...@tx.rr.com...
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >
> > Term T includes object A, B, C.
> > Objects A, B, C are "within the meaning of the term defined".
> > Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
> > Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
> > Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
> >
> > 25. Is the criteria for inclusion of objects W, X, Y, Z the criteria of
> > whether the objects are "within the meaning of the term defined"?
>
> The "criteria" for INCLUSION is whether or not the objects are within
> the clause for inclusion. Only A, B, and C are included.
26 USC 7701
(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.
1. Per section 7701(c), Isn't "within the meaning of the term defined" the
clause for inclusion?
> > 26. Are objects W, X included or excluded from within the definition of
the
> > term?
>
> Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined", they
> would be excluded by the definition.
2. To make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying W and X are
NOT within the clause for inclusion?
> > 27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition of
the
> > term?
>
> Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
> NOT be excluded by the definition.
3. Again, to make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying Y
and Z ARE within the clause for inclusion?
> > 28. Do the traits of objects A, B, C define the traits of the CLASS of
> > objects included in term T?
>
> The "traits" of any object has absolutely no significance concerning
> 7701(c). It doesn't enter the equation.
4. If term T "includes" objects A, B, C, then what is the criteria for
selecting (including within the definition) objects Y and Z?
5. Didn't you agree that objects Y and Z are NOT excluded because they ARE
within the meaning of the term defined?
6. How is a term defined when the statutory law states, {For the purposes of
this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}?
7. Isn't the term T defined by objects A, B, and C since there are NO OTHER
DEFINING WORDS in the definition of the term?
8. If there are no other defining words for the definition of the term T,
How then are Y and Z selected as being within the definition of the term
defined?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> >
> > 9. What word or words in section 1 specifically make any person "legally
> > obligated" to pay the tax imposed?
>
>
> Answer- "There is hereby IMPOSED..."
>
> to impose- to establish or apply as compulsory
>
> Pursuant to section 1, if you are an individual and have taxable income,
> you are therefore LIABLE for the tax. That is simple deductive logic.
>
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245
&page=151
1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
logic"?
3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the tax
imposed?
4. Are you implying liability with your "deductive logic"?
5. Please indicate the word or words that specifiy the person "hereby made
liable" for the tax imposed?
6. Since section 1 does NOT specifically make a person "liable" for paying
the tax imposed, then aren't you extending the provision of imposing the tax
into the realm of imposing the liability for the tax by implication?
7. By asserting that the imposition of the tax is the imposition of the
liability when no words say this, aren't you attempting to enlarge the
operations of section 1 so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed
out?
Paul Maffia
mind are unable to understand the concept of clear deductive reasoning. They
have no ability to reason.
Paul Maffia
inhabitants of MORON TOWN.
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13c1pjv...@corp.supernews.com...
> In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
> not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
> the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
> not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
> strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245
> &page=151
>
> 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
Yes!
> 2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
> logic"?
Nope, the meaniung is clear to anyone with the ability to read and
understand English at the most elementary levl.
> 3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the tax
> imposed?
Yes!
> 4. Are you implying liability with your "deductive logic"?
Nope!
> 5. Please indicate the word or words that specifiy the person "hereby made
> liable" for the tax imposed?
When something is imposed on someone they are liable for whatever is
imposed.
> 6. Since section 1 does NOT specifically make a person "liable" for paying
> the tax imposed, then aren't you extending the provision of imposing the
> tax
> into the realm of imposing the liability for the tax by implication?
False assumption by an idiot. A false assumption always leads to a flase
conclusion.
> 7. By asserting that the imposition of the tax is the imposition of the
> liability when no words say this, aren't you attempting to enlarge the
> operations of section 1 so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed
> out?
Only in your moronic dreams!
You are truly a premier inhabitant of MORON TOWN!!!
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46C0D403...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>
>>>Term T includes object A, B, C.
>>>Objects A, B, C are "within the meaning of the term defined".
>>>Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
>>>Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
>>>Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
>>>
>>>25. Is the criteria for inclusion of objects W, X, Y, Z the criteria of
>>>whether the objects are "within the meaning of the term defined"?
>>
>>The "criteria" for INCLUSION is whether or not the objects are within
>>the clause for inclusion. Only A, B, and C are included.
>
>
>
> 26 USC 7701
> (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.
>
> 1. Per section 7701(c), Isn't "within the meaning of the term defined" the
> clause for inclusion?
No. The clause for inclusion is what follows INCLUDES. You said only
A, B, and C are included.
>
>
>>>26. Are objects W, X included or excluded from within the definition of
>>
> the
>
>>>term?
>>
>>Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined", they
>>would be excluded by the definition.
>
>
> 2. To make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying W and X are
> NOT within the clause for inclusion?
No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included. Therefore, where ever the
term T is used, A, B, and C are included. That is the definition of T.
>
>
>>>27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition of
>>
> the
>
>>>term?
>>
>>Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
>>NOT be excluded by the definition.
>
>
> 3. Again, to make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying Y
> and Z ARE within the clause for inclusion?
No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included. YOU also said Y and Z are
"within the meaning of the term defined", therefore Y and Z are not
excluded.
>
>
>>>28. Do the traits of objects A, B, C define the traits of the CLASS of
>>>objects included in term T?
>>
>>The "traits" of any object has absolutely no significance concerning
>>7701(c). It doesn't enter the equation.
>
>
> 4. If term T "includes" objects A, B, C, then what is the criteria for
> selecting (including within the definition) objects Y and Z?
Y and Z are not to be excluded from the definition because they are
"otherwise within the meaning of term defined (T)". In other words,
when "includes" is used, T does not MEAN A, B, and C. "Includes" is not
to be equated with "mean".
>
> 5. Didn't you agree that objects Y and Z are NOT excluded because they ARE
> within the meaning of the term defined?
Yes, because Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T.
>
> 6. How is a term defined when the statutory law states, {For the purposes of
> this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}?
Whatever T means, A, B, and C are to be included. The variable is the
MEANING of T.
>
> 7. Isn't the term T defined by objects A, B, and C since there are NO OTHER
> DEFINING WORDS in the definition of the term?
It seems you are hung up on the meaning of "to define". Sec. 7701(c) is
telling you what to do when "includes" is used.
>
> 8. If there are no other defining words for the definition of the term T,
> How then are Y and Z selected as being within the definition of the term
> defined?
Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term defined (T)" just
like you said. Pursuant to 7701(c), Y and Z are not excluded.
Therefore, wherever you see the term T, Y and Z are within that
definition because they are NOT EXCLUDED.
nat
>>>li·a·ble adj. 1. Legally obligated
>>>
>>>9. What word or words in section 1 specifically make any person "legally
>>>obligated" to pay the tax imposed?
>>
>>
>>Answer- "There is hereby IMPOSED..."
>>
>>to impose- to establish or apply as compulsory
>>
>>Pursuant to section 1, if you are an individual and have taxable income,
>>you are therefore LIABLE for the tax. That is simple deductive logic.
>>
>
>
> Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
> In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
> not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
> the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
> not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
> strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245
> &page=151
>
> 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
To IMPOSE is synonymous with LEVY.
>
> 2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
> logic"?
Yes.
>
> 3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the tax
> imposed?
Section 1 IMPOSES a tax on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL. It
is within the "clear import of the language used"-TO IMPOSE-and within
the "specific operation"-on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL- that
one can deduce that an INDIVIDUAL with TAXABLE INCOME is LIABLE for the tax.
Section 6011 says that individual who is liable shall file a return and
section 6151 says that individual who files shall pay the tax.
>
> 4. Are you implying liability with your "deductive logic"?
No, one can DEDUCE liability and meet the criteria of Gould.
>
> 5. Please indicate the word or words that specifiy the person "hereby made
> liable" for the tax imposed?
Please indicate why the magic words "hereby made liable" must be used.
Individuals can be legally obligated (liable) unlike inanimate objects
like whiskey. It appears the only proof you have is "because the excise
tax on whiskey has a separate "liability" statute, section 1 must also."
Your proof is a red herring fallacy.
>
> 6. Since section 1 does NOT specifically make a person "liable" for paying
> the tax imposed, then aren't you extending the provision of imposing the tax
> into the realm of imposing the liability for the tax by implication?
No.
>
> 7. By asserting that the imposition of the tax is the imposition of the
> liability when no words say this, aren't you attempting to enlarge the
> operations of section 1 so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed
> out?
No.
Paul Thomas, CPA
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>>The "criteria" for INCLUSION is whether or not the objects are within
>>>the clause for inclusion. Only A, B, and C are included.
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote
> No. The clause for inclusion is what follows INCLUDES. You said only A,
> B, and C are included.
> No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included.
> No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included.
Don't you just hate it when they can't even follow their own rules?
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Paul Thomas, CPA
"InquiringMindsDon'tWantToKnow" whined
>> > TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
>> > Subtitle A - Income Taxes
>> > CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
>> > Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
>> > PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
>> >
>> > -HEAD-
>> > Sec. 1. Tax imposed
>> >
>> > -STATUTE-
>> > (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
>> > There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
>> > (1) every married individual
>> > (2) every surviving spouse
>> > (b) Heads of households
>> > There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
>> > household
>> > (c) Unmarried individuals
>> > There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
>> > who is not a married individual
>> > (d) Married individuals filing separate returns
>> > a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
> 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
Yes. It does. So says the courts.
Now, put your big girl panties on and deal with it.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
1. Perhaps its my misunderstanding of what you are saying. Are you saying
that for term T, A, B, and C ARE the clause for inclusion?
> >
> >
> >>>26. Are objects W, X included or excluded from within the definition of
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>term?
> >>
> >>Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined", they
> >>would be excluded by the definition.
> >
> >
> > 2. To make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying W and X
are
> > NOT within the clause for inclusion?
>
> No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included. Therefore, where ever the
> term T is used, A, B, and C are included. That is the definition of T.
You said {Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined",
they would be excluded by the definition.}
2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
Since the question is in regard to exactly WHAT is within the meaning of any
particular term defined in the above manner, I arbitrarily said:
Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
3. Did you agree that Y and Z WOULD be included when something acts upon
term T?
The following shows that you DID agree.
> >
> >
> >>>27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition of
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>term?
> >>
> >>Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
> >>NOT be excluded by the definition.
2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
4. Did you agree that W and X would NOT be included when something acts upon
term T?
The following shows that you DID agree.
> > 3. Again, to make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying
Y
> > and Z ARE within the clause for inclusion?
>
> No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included. YOU also said Y and Z are
> "within the meaning of the term defined", therefore Y and Z are not
> excluded.
>
2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
> >
> >>>28. Do the traits of objects A, B, C define the traits of the CLASS of
> >>>objects included in term T?
> >>
> >>The "traits" of any object has absolutely no significance concerning
> >>7701(c). It doesn't enter the equation.
> >
> >
> > 4. If term T "includes" objects A, B, C, then what is the criteria for
> > selecting (including within the definition) objects Y and Z?
>
> Y and Z are not to be excluded from the definition because they are
> "otherwise within the meaning of term defined (T)". In other words,
> when "includes" is used, T does not MEAN A, B, and C. "Includes" is not
> to be equated with "mean".
>
We agree on that point. That is not the point I am trying to understand.
2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
> >
> > 5. Didn't you agree that objects Y and Z are NOT excluded because they
ARE
> > within the meaning of the term defined?
>
> Yes, because Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T.
>
5. But how do we know Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T when T
has been statutorily defined thus: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>
> >
> > 6. How is a term defined when the statutory law states, {For the
purposes of
> > this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}?
>
> Whatever T means, A, B, and C are to be included. The variable is the
> MEANING of T.
>
6. But that's the question: WHAT DOES term T MEAN?
>
> >
> > 7. Isn't the term T defined by objects A, B, and C since there are NO
OTHER
> > DEFINING WORDS in the definition of the term?
>
> It seems you are hung up on the meaning of "to define". Sec. 7701(c) is
> telling you what to do when "includes" is used.
>
7. If I don't know what is "within the meaning of the term defined", then
how do I know what is included when term T is acted upon?
> >
> > 8. If there are no other defining words for the definition of the term
T,
> > How then are Y and Z selected as being within the definition of the term
> > defined?
>
> Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term defined (T)" just
> like you said.
8. But how do I know Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term
defined"?
9. How do I know what is "otherwise with the meaning of the term defined"
when the law is worded: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> Pursuant to 7701(c), Y and Z are not excluded.
> Therefore, wherever you see the term T, Y and Z are within that
> definition because they are NOT EXCLUDED.
>
10. But how do I know that Y and Z are within that definition so that I know
they are not excluded?
11. How do I know that Y and Z are within that definition when that
definition is worded: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ymhwi.840$t9....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
1. Would you explain how objects Y and Z are known to be included when they
are NOT specifically stated in the hypothetical statutory definition {Term T
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IdioticMindsWantHelp" wrote
>> >>>The "criteria" for INCLUSION is whether or not the objects are within
>> >>>the clause for inclusion. Only A, B, and C are included.
> 1. Would you explain how objects Y and Z are known
> to be included when they are NOT specifically stated
> in the hypothetical statutory definition {Term T
> includes object A, B, C.}
You made every effort to specifically exclude them from inclusion when you
stated "Only A, B, and C are included". You'll have a hard time finding the
limiting word "only" in the Code sections that describe income that can be
taxed or who is subject to being taxed.
From then on it doesn't matter what you know or think you know, you have
limited the inclusion to the three named items.
If you are trying to make a point about apples, you can not use lemons in
your example.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> Another hilarious set of moronic questions from one of the premier
> inhabitants of MORON TOWN.
> "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
> wrote in message news:13c1pjv...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:46C0D5F2...@tx.rr.com...
> > Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
> > In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
rule
> > not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import
of
> > the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace
matters
> > not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
> > strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> >
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245
> > &page=151
> >
> > 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
>
> Yes!
>
> > 2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
> > logic"?
>
> Nope, the meaniung is clear to anyone with the ability to read and
> understand English at the most elementary levl.
1. Why does you answer contradict the poster nat?
> > 3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the tax
> > imposed?
>
> Yes!
2. Please indicate the word or words that SPECIFICALLY make a person
"liable" for paying the tax imposed in section 1.
> > 4. Are you implying liability with your "deductive logic"?
>
> Nope!
>
> > 5. Please indicate the word or words that specifiy the person "hereby
made
> > liable" for the tax imposed?
>
> When something is imposed on someone they are liable for whatever is
> imposed.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust,
taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with
the following table:
3. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the TAXABLE INCOME of"
the various entities?
4. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the married
individual"?
5. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the surviving spouse"?
6. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the head of
household"?
7. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the unmarried
individual"?
8. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the married
individual"?
9. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the estate"?
10. Is the tax imposed in section 1 "hereby imposed on the trust"?
11. Why are you lying and attempting to say the tax is imposed upon an
entity when the statute text clearly and concisely imposes the tax on some
amount of "taxable income"?
> > 6. Since section 1 does NOT specifically make a person "liable" for
paying
> > the tax imposed, then aren't you extending the provision of imposing the
> > tax
> > into the realm of imposing the liability for the tax by implication?
>
Insult deleted. Assertion deleted.
> > 7. By asserting that the imposition of the tax is the imposition of the
> > liability when no words say this, aren't you attempting to enlarge the
> > operations of section 1 so as to embrace matters not specifically
pointed
> > out?
Insult deleted.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IdioticMindsWasted" wrote
> Fact deleted.
> Fact deleted.
> Fact deleted.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> > "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:46C0D5F2...@tx.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> >>> Subtitle A - Income Taxes
> >>> CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
> >>> Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
> >>> PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
> >>>
> >>>-HEAD-
> >>> Sec. 1. Tax imposed
> >>>
> >>>-STATUTE-
> >>> (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
> >>> There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
<snip>
> >>> (b) Heads of households
> >>> There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of
<snip>
> >>> (c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
> >>> of households)
> >>> There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of
<snip>
> >>> (d) Married individuals filing separate returns
> >>> There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of
<snip>
> >>>
> >>>li·a·ble adj. 1. Legally obligated
> >>>
> >>>9. What word or words in section 1 specifically make any person
"legally
> >>>obligated" to pay the tax imposed?
> >>
> >>
> >>Answer- "There is hereby IMPOSED..."
> >>
> >>to impose- to establish or apply as compulsory
> >>
> >>Pursuant to section 1, if you are an individual and have taxable income,
> >>you are therefore LIABLE for the tax. That is simple deductive logic.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
> > In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
rule
> > not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import
of
> > the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace
matters
> > not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
> > strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> >
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245
> > &page=151
> >
> > 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
>
> To IMPOSE is synonymous with LEVY.
>
1. Does that mean your answer is "yes" to the question {Does section 1 levy
a tax?}?
> >
> > 2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
> > logic"?
>
> Yes.
2. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by implication?
im·pli·ca·tion n. 1. The act of implicating or the condition of being
implicated. 2. The act of implying or THE CONDITION OF BEING IMPLIED. 3.
Something that is implied, especially: a. An indirect indication; a
suggestion. b. AN IMPLIED MEANING; implicit significance. c. An inference.
3. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by THE CONDITION OF
BEING IMPLIED?
4. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by AN IMPLIED
MEANING?
im·ply tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or INDICATE
INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
5. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by LOGICAL NECESSITY?
6. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by INDIRECT
INDICATION?
7. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
1 is NOT allowed {to embrace matters not specifically pointed out}?
8. Please indicate which word or words in section 1 specifically points out
and imposes liability? (I only see words that impose the tax and set the
rate).
> >
> > 3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the tax
> > imposed?
>
> Section 1 IMPOSES a tax on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL. It
> is within the "clear import of the language used"-TO IMPOSE-and within
> the "specific operation"-on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL- that
> one can deduce that an INDIVIDUAL with TAXABLE INCOME is LIABLE for the
tax.
de·duce tr.v. de·duced, de·duc·ing, de·duc·es. 1. To reach (a conclusion) by
reasoning. 2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively.
9. Is a "deductive conclusion" the same as a matter "specifically pointed
out"?
10. Is the imposition of liability a matter that is "specifically pointed
out" in section 1?
11. Is a meaning reached by "deductive conclusion" an implied meaning?
im·ply tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or INDICATE
INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
12. What makes your deductive conclusions superior to anyone elses?
> Section 6011 says that individual who is liable shall file a return
13. Since (according to you) an individual who is liable shall file a
return, Then is it true that activation of section 6011 is predicated upon a
pre-existing liability and therefor section 6011 can NOT create the
liability that is required to activate itself?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 61 - INFORMATION AND RETURNS
Subchapter A - Returns and Records
PART II - TAX RETURNS OR STATEMENTS
Subpart A - General Requirement
-HEAD-
Sec. 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list
-STATUTE-
(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any
person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with
respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement
according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
14. Does section 6011 state {any person MADE LIABLE} shall make a return?
'We are not at liberty,' said Mr. Justice Strong, 'to construe any statute
so as to deny effect to any part of its language. It is a cardinal rule of
statutory construction that SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECT SHALL, if possible, BE
ACCORDED TO EVERY WORD. As early as in Bacon's Abridgment, 2, it was said
that 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be
prevented, NO clause, sentence, or WORD, SHALL BE SUPERFLUOUS, VOID, or
INSIGNIFICANT.' This rule has been repeated innumerable times.'
U. S. v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399 (1914)
15. Since significance and effect shall be accorded to every word and since
the word "MADE" shall not be superfluous, void, or insignificant, Is the
word "MADE" to be ignored as if it wasn't in the statute?
16. Is it true that if a person is NOT "MADE LIABLE" then section 6011 does
NOT apply to such person?
17. Is it true that section 6011 only operates upon a person who is "MADE
LIABLE"?
18. Who are those persons "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A Income Taxes?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 3 - WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS
Subchapter B - Application of Withholding Provisions
-HEAD-
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
-STATUTE-
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this
chapter is hereby MADE LIABLE for such tax and is hereby
indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the
amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter.
19. Can you post any other section where a person is specifically and with
"clear import" "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income taxes?
20. Is it true that if no other sections are found where a person is
specifically and with "clear import" "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income
taxes, then section 6011 only operates upon the person who is "MADE LIABLE"
by section 1461 in regard to Subtitle A Income Taxes?
> and section 6151 says that individual who files shall pay the tax.
21. If an individual does not file, who pays the tax?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 62 - TIME AND PLACE FOR PAYING TAX
Subchapter A - Place and Due Date for Payment of Tax
-HEAD-
Sec. 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
-STATUTE-
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of
tax is required under this title or regulations, the person
required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice
and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue
officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at
the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without
regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
22. Is it true that in order for section 6151 to become operative, there
must be a return of tax required?
23. Is it true that in order for section 6151 to become operative, there
must be a person required to make a return?
24. Is it true that if a person is NOT liable for a tax, a return is NOT
required?
25. Therefore, is it true that this section does NOT create NOR impose a
liability because this section is predicated upon such liability already
existing?
26. Is it true that activation of section 6151 is predicated upon a
pre-existing liability and therefore section 6151 can NOT create the
liability that is required to activate itself?
> >
> > 4. Are you implying liability with your "deductive logic"?
>
> No, one can DEDUCE liability and meet the criteria of Gould.
de·duce tr.v. de·duced, de·duc·ing, de·duc·es. 1. To reach (a conclusion) by
reasoning. 2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively.
im·ply tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or INDICATE
INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
27. Is a DEDUCED liability a matter "specifically pointed out"?
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> >
> > 5. Please indicate the word or words that specifiy the person "hereby
made
> > liable" for the tax imposed?
>
> Please indicate why the magic words "hereby made liable" must be used.
28. Is liability "specifically pointed out" if the magic words are not used?
> Individuals can be legally obligated (liable) unlike inanimate objects
> like whiskey.
29. Is "taxable income" an inanimate object?
> It appears the only proof you have is "because the excise
> tax on whiskey has a separate "liability" statute, section 1 must also."
30. The only proof of WHAT?
> Your proof is a red herring fallacy.
red herring n. 1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that
draws attention away from the central issue. [From its use to distract
hunting dogs from the trail.]
31. What is the central issue you think I am attempting to draw attention
away from?
> >
> > 6. Since section 1 does NOT specifically make a person "liable" for
paying
> > the tax imposed, then aren't you extending the provision of imposing the
tax
> > into the realm of imposing the liability for the tax by implication?
>
> No.
32. Is imposed liability a matter "specifically pointed out" in section 1?
33. What word or words "specifically point out" making a person liable?
> >
> > 7. By asserting that the imposition of the tax is the imposition of the
> > liability when no words say this, aren't you attempting to enlarge the
> > operations of section 1 so as to embrace matters not specifically
pointed
> > out?
>
>
> No.
>
32. Is imposed liability a matter "specifically pointed out" in section 1?
33. What word or words "specifically point out" making a person liable?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
> "IdioticMindsWantHelp" wrote
>
> >> >>>The "criteria" for INCLUSION is whether or not the objects are
within
> >> >>>the clause for inclusion. Only A, B, and C are included.
>
>
>
> > 1. Would you explain how objects Y and Z are known
> > to be included when they are NOT specifically stated
> > in the hypothetical statutory definition {Term T
> > includes object A, B, C.}
>
>
>
>
> You made every effort to specifically exclude them from inclusion when you
> stated "Only A, B, and C are included".
1. Why did you attribute that statement to me when they are nat's words?
> You'll have a hard time finding the
> limiting word "only" in the Code sections that describe income that can be
> taxed or who is subject to being taxed.
2. Did you deliberately mis-attribute the statement so you could make a
straw-man out of it?
> From then on it doesn't matter what you know or think you know, you have
> limited the inclusion to the three named items.
3. If the words you are replying to are not mine, then does it matter what
you think or know about what I think or know?
> If you are trying to make a point about apples, you can not use lemons in
> your example.
4. And if the point is about fruit?
Rhetorical:
5. Have you always been this illiterate?
il·lit·er·ate adj. 1.a. Unable to read and write. See Synonyms at
ignorant. b. Having little or no formal education. 2.a. Marked by
inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and
literature. b. Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing. 3.
Ignorant of the fundamentals of a given art or branch of knowledge:
musically illiterate.
Dave Johnson
<InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org> wrote:
Dale Eastman - you are the seriously "il-lit-er-ate" (and stupid)
internet tax scammer!
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
www.quatlosers.com
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsCan'tPost" wrote
>> > 1. Would you explain how objects Y and Z are known
>> > to be included when they are NOT specifically stated
>> > in the hypothetical statutory definition {Term T
>> > includes object A, B, C.}
>>
>>
>> You made every effort to specifically exclude them from inclusion when
>> you
>> stated "Only A, B, and C are included".
>
>
> 1. Why did you attribute that statement to me when they are nat's words?
Bzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong.
Those are clearly your words.
Google them. See who they are attributed to.
Paul Maffia
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13c3fo3...@corp.supernews.com...>
Hey, moron, learn to read. As hard as you look, as hard as you distort and
torture the English language, the law is clear and unambiguous and no court
case at any level, at any time in US History supports your moronic stand.
Every moron who uses these gibberish arguments losses without exception in
the entire history of the US. A remarkable record of futility beyond
statistical chance.
You are one of the premier inhabitants of MORON TOWN, obviously an assistant
to the Village Idiot of that metropolis, Knews4u!!!!!!
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
> "IneptMindsCan'tPost" wrote
>
> >> > 1. Would you explain how objects Y and Z are known
> >> > to be included when they are NOT specifically stated
> >> > in the hypothetical statutory definition {Term T
> >> > includes object A, B, C.}
> >>
> >>
> >> You made every effort to specifically exclude them from inclusion when
> >> you
> >> stated "Only A, B, and C are included".
> >
> >
> > 1. Why did you attribute that statement to me when they are nat's words?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong.
>
> Those are clearly your words.
>
>
> Google them. See who they are attributed to.
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
Find messages with the exact phrase {Only A, B, and C are included}
GroupReturn only messages from the group at this location {misc.taxes}
Result:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/browse_thread/thread/fcbba8fef87c3
ec7/ea33e2a2ec597b4b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#ea33e2a2ec597b4b
Single hit returned:
26 USC 7701(c) Group: misc.taxes Only A, B, and C are included. 26 USC
7701 (c) Includes and including The
terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained
in this title
... You said only A, B, and C are included. 26. Are objects W, X
included or
excluded from within the definition of the term? Since W and X are NOT
"within the ...
Aug 13 by nat - 32 messages - 6 authors
1. Why are you deliberately mis-attributing who stated the phrase {Only A,
B, and C are included}?
2. What are you trying to distract the average reader from focusing on?
3. What are you trying to accomplish by dragging me off on your disengenuous
romp through the woods?
4. If you have nothing to say, then why are you saying it?
nat
It is YOUR hypothetical. YOU listed A, B, and C as the only objects
within the clause for inclusion.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>26. Are objects W, X included or excluded from within the definition of
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>term?
>>>>
>>>>Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined", they
>>>>would be excluded by the definition.
>>>
>>>
>>>2. To make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying W and X
>>
> are
>
>>>NOT within the clause for inclusion?
>>
>>No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included. Therefore, where ever the
>>term T is used, A, B, and C are included. That is the definition of T.
>
>
> You said {Since W and X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined",
> they would be excluded by the definition.}
>
> 2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
> includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
> meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
Pursuant to 7701(c), whatever T means, things otherwise within that
meaning are not excluded.
>
> Since the question is in regard to exactly WHAT is within the meaning of any
> particular term defined in the above manner, I arbitrarily said:
>
> Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
> Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
> Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
>
> 3. Did you agree that Y and Z WOULD be included when something acts upon
> term T?
Y and Z would NOT be EXCLUDED.
>
> The following shows that you DID agree.
Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something 'included' does not mean the
same thing as something 'not excluded' and vice versa.
Your hypothetical INCLUDES A, B, and C.
Y and Z are NOT EXCLUDED because they withing the meaning of the term
defined. That does not mean Y and Z would be "included".
You are trying to use "includes" in two different senses.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition of
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>term?
>>>>
>>>>Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
>>>>NOT be excluded by the definition.
>>>
>
> 2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
> includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
> meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
Asked and answered.
>
> 4. Did you agree that W and X would NOT be included when something acts upon
> term T?
Yes, according to YOUR hypothetical.
>
> The following shows that you DID agree.
>
>
>>>3. Again, to make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying
>>
> Y
>
>>>and Z ARE within the clause for inclusion?
>>
>>No, YOU said only A, B, and C are included. YOU also said Y and Z are
>>"within the meaning of the term defined", therefore Y and Z are not
>>excluded.
>>
>
>
> 2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
> includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
> meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
Asked and answered.
>
>
>
>>>>>28. Do the traits of objects A, B, C define the traits of the CLASS of
>>>>>objects included in term T?
>>>>
>>>>The "traits" of any object has absolutely no significance concerning
>>>>7701(c). It doesn't enter the equation.
>>>
>>>
>>>4. If term T "includes" objects A, B, C, then what is the criteria for
>>>selecting (including within the definition) objects Y and Z?
>>
>>Y and Z are not to be excluded from the definition because they are
>>"otherwise within the meaning of term defined (T)". In other words,
>>when "includes" is used, T does not MEAN A, B, and C. "Includes" is not
>>to be equated with "mean".
>>
>
>
> We agree on that point. That is not the point I am trying to understand.
>
> 2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
> includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
> meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
Asked and answered.
>
>
>>>5. Didn't you agree that objects Y and Z are NOT excluded because they
>>
> ARE
>
>>>within the meaning of the term defined?
>>
>>Yes, because Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T.
>>
>
>
> 5. But how do we know Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T when T
> has been statutorily defined thus: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
YOU stated in YOUR hypothetical that Y and Z are otherwise within the
meaning of T.
>
>
>>>6. How is a term defined when the statutory law states, {For the
>>
> purposes of
>
>>>this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}?
>>
>>Whatever T means, A, B, and C are to be included. The variable is the
>>MEANING of T.
>>
>
>
> 6. But that's the question: WHAT DOES term T MEAN?
If T is not otherwise given a meaning by statute, then consult a
dictionary for the meaning of T.
>
>
>>>7. Isn't the term T defined by objects A, B, and C since there are NO
>>
> OTHER
>
>>>DEFINING WORDS in the definition of the term?
>>
>>It seems you are hung up on the meaning of "to define". Sec. 7701(c) is
>>telling you what to do when "includes" is used.
>>
>
>
> 7. If I don't know what is "within the meaning of the term defined", then
> how do I know what is included when term T is acted upon?
According to YOUR hypothetical, A, B, and C are included. Y and Z are
not excluded. W and X are without the definition of T.
>
>
>
>>>8. If there are no other defining words for the definition of the term
>>
> T,
>
>>>How then are Y and Z selected as being within the definition of the term
>>>defined?
>>
>>Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term defined (T)" just
>>like you said.
>
>
> 8. But how do I know Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term
> defined"?
YOU stated so in YOUR hypothetical.
>
> 9. How do I know what is "otherwise with the meaning of the term defined"
> when the law is worded: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
If T is given no MEANING by statute, then consult a dictionary.
>
>
>
>>Pursuant to 7701(c), Y and Z are not excluded.
>>Therefore, wherever you see the term T, Y and Z are within that
>>definition because they are NOT EXCLUDED.
>>
>
>
> 10. But how do I know that Y and Z are within that definition so that I know
> they are not excluded?
Asked and answered.
>
> 11. How do I know that Y and Z are within that definition when that
> definition is worded: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
Asked and answered.
>
>
>
>
nat
You should have inferred that.
>
>
>>>2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
>>>logic"?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> 2. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
> 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by implication?
No.
>
> im·pli·ca·tion n. 1. The act of implicating or the condition of being
> implicated. 2. The act of implying or THE CONDITION OF BEING IMPLIED. 3.
> Something that is implied, especially: a. An indirect indication; a
> suggestion. b. AN IMPLIED MEANING; implicit significance. c. An inference.
>
> 3. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
> 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by THE CONDITION OF
> BEING IMPLIED?
No, Gould does not bar any implication at all. Otherwise EVERY word
would have to be defined. Gould only bars implications BEYOND THE CLEAR
IMPORT OF THE STATUTORY LANGUANGE.
>
> 4. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
> 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by AN IMPLIED
> MEANING?
No.
>
> im·ply tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
> NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or INDICATE
> INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
>
> 5. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
> 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by LOGICAL NECESSITY?
>
> 6. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
> 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by INDIRECT
> INDICATION?
No.
>
> 7. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of section
> 1 is NOT allowed {to embrace matters not specifically pointed out}?
Yes.
>
> 8. Please indicate which word or words in section 1 specifically points out
> and imposes liability? (I only see words that impose the tax and set the
> rate).
Section 1 also SPECIFICALLY points out WHOSE taxable income is taxed.
>
>
>>>3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the tax
>>>imposed?
>>
>>Section 1 IMPOSES a tax on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL. It
>>is within the "clear import of the language used"-TO IMPOSE-and within
>>the "specific operation"-on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL- that
>>one can deduce that an INDIVIDUAL with TAXABLE INCOME is LIABLE for the
>
> tax.
>
> de·duce tr.v. de·duced, de·duc·ing, de·duc·es. 1. To reach (a conclusion) by
> reasoning. 2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively.
>
> 9. Is a "deductive conclusion" the same as a matter "specifically pointed
> out"?
No.
>
> 10. Is the imposition of liability a matter that is "specifically pointed
> out" in section 1?
No.
>
> 11. Is a meaning reached by "deductive conclusion" an implied meaning?
Sometimes.
>
> im·ply tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
> NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or INDICATE
> INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
>
> 12. What makes your deductive conclusions superior to anyone elses?
Because they are REASONABLE of which most reasonable people would agree.
If a tax is imposed on the taxable income of person A, only a complete
idiot would conclude person A could not be sure he had a tax liability
if person A in fact had taxable income.
Liability is reasonably implied within the clear import of the language
and the specifically pointed out object of taxation and person who has
the object of taxation.
>
>
>>Individuals can be legally obligated (liable) unlike inanimate objects
>>like whiskey.
>
>
> 29. Is "taxable income" an inanimate object?
Yes. Can an inanimate object be "legally obligated"?
Can a person be "legally obligated" and thus liable?
Section 1 specifies a person who is legally obligated and thus liable to
the tax.
>
>
>>It appears the only proof you have is "because the excise
>>tax on whiskey has a separate "liability" statute, section 1 must also."
>
>
> 30. The only proof of WHAT?
That is the question.
>
>
>> Your proof is a red herring fallacy.
>
>
> red herring n. 1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that
> draws attention away from the central issue. [From its use to distract
> hunting dogs from the trail.]
>
> 31. What is the central issue you think I am attempting to draw attention
> away from?
Section 1 clearly imposes a tax liability on individuals with taxable
income.
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13c3e07...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 26 USC 7701
> (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.
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.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
<snip>
> > 1. Perhaps its my misunderstanding of what you are saying. Are you
saying
> > that for term T, A, B, and C ARE the clause for inclusion?
>
> It is YOUR hypothetical. YOU listed A, B, and C as the only objects
> within the clause for inclusion.
1. Did I use the word "ONLY"?
2. Or did I state {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
This is in EXACTLY the same format as certain definitions of terms given in
Title 26. The only thing missing is the actual objects denoted by object
labels A, B, and C.
FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
4. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object E "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
5. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object F "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
term defined is not understood?
7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in this
format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
<snip>
> > 2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
> > includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
> > meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
>
> Pursuant to 7701(c), whatever T means, things otherwise within that
> meaning are not excluded.
8. WHAT DOES T MEAN when it is defined in this format: {[the] Term "T"
includes object A, B, C.}?
This is exactly the format used to define certain terms in Title 26.
> >
> > Since the question is in regard to exactly WHAT is within the meaning of
any
> > particular term defined in the above manner, I arbitrarily said:
> >
> > Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
> > Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
> > Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
> >
> > 3. Did you agree that Y and Z WOULD be included when something acts upon
> > term T?
>
> Y and Z would NOT be EXCLUDED.
>
>
> >
> > The following shows that you DID agree.
>
> Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something 'included' does not mean the
> same thing as something 'not excluded' and vice versa.
9. Is it correct that in making your vice versa caveat, you are stating
'Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something [NOT] 'included' does not mean
the same thing as something '[ ] excluded' and vice versa'?
10. If I state you are NOT included in the invitations to the party at my
home, have I excluded you from the party?
in·clude tr.v. in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing, in·cludes. 1. To take in as a part,
an element, or a member. 2. To contain as a secondary or subordinate
element. 3. To consider with or place into a group, class, or total: thanked
the host for including us.
ex·clude tr.v. ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing, ex·cludes. 1. To prevent from
entering; keep out; bar: a jar sealed to exclude outside air; an immigration
policy that excludes undesirables. 2. To prevent from being included,
considered, or accepted; reject: The court excluded the improperly obtained
evidence. 3. To put out; expel.
11. Is it true that when a term is defined to "include" certain objects,
others are either within the term or they are not?
> Your hypothetical INCLUDES A, B, and C.
Yes. Specifically, the term "T" includes object A, object B, and object C.
This is stated exactly in the format of certain definitions of terms in
Title 26.
> Y and Z are NOT EXCLUDED because they withing the meaning of the term
> defined. That does not mean Y and Z would be "included".
12. Are you saying that Y and Z are not to be included in term T even
though they are within the meaning of the term defined?
> You are trying to use "includes" in two different senses.
13. Would you explain the "two different senses" of the term/word "includes"
that you are referring to?
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition
of
> >>>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>term?
> >>>>
> >>>>Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
> >>>>NOT be excluded by the definition.
> >>>
> >
> > 2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
> > includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
> > meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
>
> Asked and answered.
14. Humor me. Please answer the question again, What EXACTLY is "within the
meaning of the term defined"?
15. What exactly is the meaning of term T?
<snip redundant question and redundant non-answer>
<snip duplicate redundant question and duplicate redundant non-answer>
> >
> >>>5. Didn't you agree that objects Y and Z are NOT excluded because they
> >>
> > ARE
> >
> >>>within the meaning of the term defined?
> >>
> >>Yes, because Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 5. But how do we know Y and Z are otherwise within the meaning of T when
T
> > has been statutorily defined thus: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>
> YOU stated in YOUR hypothetical that Y and Z are otherwise within the
> meaning of T.
Repeat from above:
FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
4. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object E "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
5. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object F "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
term defined is not understood?
7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in this
format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> >
> >
> >>>6. How is a term defined when the statutory law states, {For the
> >>
> > purposes of
> >
> >>>this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}?
> >>
> >>Whatever T means, A, B, and C are to be included. The variable is the
> >>MEANING of T.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 6. But that's the question: WHAT DOES term T MEAN?
>
> If T is not otherwise given a meaning by statute, then consult a
> dictionary for the meaning of T.
T IS given meaning by statute.
To Wit:
{For the purposes of this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}
This is exactly the same format used to define several terms in Title 26.
16. In the specific instance of the statutory term defined within the
{brackets} above, WHAT DOES TERM T MEAN?
> >
> >
> >>>7. Isn't the term T defined by objects A, B, and C since there are NO
> >>
> > OTHER
> >
> >>>DEFINING WORDS in the definition of the term?
> >>
> >>It seems you are hung up on the meaning of "to define". Sec. 7701(c) is
> >>telling you what to do when "includes" is used.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 7. If I don't know what is "within the meaning of the term defined",
then
> > how do I know what is included when term T is acted upon?
>
> According to YOUR hypothetical, A, B, and C are included. Y and Z are
> not excluded. W and X are without the definition of T.
Repeat from above:
FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
4. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object E "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
5. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object F "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
term defined is not understood?
7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in this
format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>8. If there are no other defining words for the definition of the term
> >>
> > T,
> >
> >>>How then are Y and Z selected as being within the definition of the
term
> >>>defined?
> >>
> >>Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term defined (T)" just
> >>like you said.
> >
> >
> > 8. But how do I know Y and Z are "otherwise with the meaning of the term
> > defined"?
>
> YOU stated so in YOUR hypothetical.
Repeat from above:
FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
4. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object E "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
5. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
object F "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
term defined is not understood?
7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in this
format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> >
> > 9. How do I know what is "otherwise with the meaning of the term
defined"
> > when the law is worded: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>
> If T is given no MEANING by statute, then consult a dictionary.
Repeat from above:
T IS given meaning by statute.
To Wit:
{For the purposes of this chapter, the term T includes A, B, and C}
This is exactly the same format used to define several terms in Title 26.
16. In the specific instance of the statutory term defined within the
{brackets} above, WHAT DOES TERM T MEAN?
<snip triplicate redundant question and triplicate redundant non-answer>
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46C20D5D...@tx.rr.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>1. Perhaps its my misunderstanding of what you are saying. Are you
>>
> saying
>
>>>that for term T, A, B, and C ARE the clause for inclusion?
>>
>>It is YOUR hypothetical. YOU listed A, B, and C as the only objects
>>within the clause for inclusion.
>
>
> 1. Did I use the word "ONLY"?
Do you understand that 'includes only' is different than 'only
includes'? The former is limiting and the latter is expansive as when
used in 7701(c).
>
> 2. Or did I state {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> This is in EXACTLY the same format as certain definitions of terms given in
> Title 26. The only thing missing is the actual objects denoted by object
> labels A, B, and C.
Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
>
> FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
>
> I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
>
> 3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
> object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
It depends on the MEANING of T.
> 4. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
> object E "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
It depends on the MEANING of T.
> 5. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.} is
> object F "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
It depends on the MEANING of T.
>
> 6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
> "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
> term defined is not understood?AN
It is not that T is not understood; it just depends on the MEANING of T.
>
> 7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in this
> format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
If Congress has not given the MEANING of T, then use the common ordinary
meaning or a dictionary. You will see many definitions in Title 26
using MEANS. Pursuant to 7701(c), when INCLUDES or INCLUDING is used,
things OTHERWISE WITHIN THAT MEANING are not excluded from the definition.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
>>>includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
>>>meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
>>
>>Pursuant to 7701(c), whatever T means, things otherwise within that
>>meaning are not excluded.
>
>
> 8. WHAT DOES T MEAN when it is defined in this format: {[the] Term "T"
> includes object A, B, C.}?
> This is exactly the format used to define certain terms in Title 26.
You will see many definitions in Title 26 where Congress uses MEANS and
other definitions where a term is defined by INCLUDES or INCLUDING.
Compare the two and you will find that MEANS is limiting and INCLUDES OR
INCLUDING is expansive. In other words, INCLUDES adds to the MEANING
of the term.
>
>
>
>>>Since the question is in regard to exactly WHAT is within the meaning of
>>
> any
>
>>>particular term defined in the above manner, I arbitrarily said:
>>>
>>>Objects W, X, Y, Z need to be included or excluded from Term T.
>>>Objects W, X are NOT "within the meaning of the term defined."
>>>Objects Y, Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined."
>>>
>>>3. Did you agree that Y and Z WOULD be included when something acts upon
>>>term T?
>>
>>Y and Z would NOT be EXCLUDED.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The following shows that you DID agree.
>>
>>Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something 'included' does not mean the
>>same thing as something 'not excluded' and vice versa.
>
>
> 9. Is it correct that in making your vice versa caveat, you are stating
> 'Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something [NOT] 'included' does not mean
> the same thing as something '[ ] excluded' and vice versa'?
No.
>
> 10. If I state you are NOT included in the invitations to the party at my
> home, have I excluded you from the party?
Here you are using "included" in a different sense than 7701(c).
>
> in·clude tr.v. in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing, in·cludes. 1. To take in as a part,
> an element, or a member. 2. To contain as a secondary or subordinate
> element. 3. To consider with or place into a group, class, or total: thanked
> the host for including us.
>
> ex·clude tr.v. ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing, ex·cludes. 1. To prevent from
> entering; keep out; bar: a jar sealed to exclude outside air; an immigration
> policy that excludes undesirables. 2. To prevent from being included,
> considered, or accepted; reject: The court excluded the improperly obtained
> evidence. 3. To put out; expel.
>
> 11. Is it true that when a term is defined to "include" certain objects,
> others are either within the term or they are not?
Again, you are using "include" in a different sense than 7701(c).
>
>
>
>>Your hypothetical INCLUDES A, B, and C.
>
>
> Yes. Specifically, the term "T" includes object A, object B, and object C.
> This is stated exactly in the format of certain definitions of terms in
> Title 26.
>
>
>>Y and Z are NOT EXCLUDED because they withing the meaning of the term
>>defined. That does not mean Y and Z would be "included".
>
>
> 12. Are you saying that Y and Z are not to be included in term T even
> though they are within the meaning of the term defined?
Asked and answered.
>
>
>>You are trying to use "includes" in two different senses.
>
>
> 13. Would you explain the "two different senses" of the term/word "includes"
> that you are referring to?
Ordinarily, if something is included, then everything else is excluded.
But pursuant to 7701(c), the inclusion of something does not necessarily
mean the exclusion of another.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>27. Are objects Y, Z included or excluded from within the definition
>>>>>>
> of
>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>term?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since Y and Z ARE "within the meaning of the term defined", they would
>>>>>>NOT be excluded by the definition.
>>>>>
>>>2. Given the imaginary legal definition of the term presented, {Term T
>>>includes object A, B, C.}, can you please explain what is "within the
>>>meaning of the term defined" as you see it?
>>
>>Asked and answered.
>
>
> 14. Humor me. Please answer the question again, What EXACTLY is "within the
> meaning of the term defined"?
It depends on the MEANING of T.
>
> 15. What exactly is the meaning of term T?
If Congress does not give it a MEANING, then use the common ordinary
meaning or a dictionary.
<snip redundant questioning>
Richard Macdonald
Enough of your tjheoretical hypophesizing, lets try a REAL WORLD Example
26 USC 7701(a)(10) State
The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia,
where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
7701(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.
So, are the 50 states within the meanuing of the term state as the
dictionary definition?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=state*2+0&dict=A
state (PLACE)
noun [C]
one of the political units that some countries, such as the US, are divided
into
New York State
the State of Arizona
A state is also a country or its government: the member states of the United
Nations
Yes they are, ergo the 50 States are states per 7701(a)(10) which for the
porposes
of 26 USC State meand the 50 States, and DC when appropriate.
nat
Richard Macdonald wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46C37A39...@tx.rr.com...
>
> Enough of your tjheoretical hypophesizing, lets try a REAL WORLD Example
>
> 26 USC 7701(a)(10) State
> The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia,
> where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
>
> 7701(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.
>
> So, are the 50 states within the meanuing of the term state as the
> dictionary definition?
Who cares? The District of Columbia is the capital of the United
States. Therefore, the meaning of "State" must come from the class of
the capitals of countries. Yea, that's it.
Richard Macdonald
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:46C37A39...@tx.rr.com...
>>
>> Enough of your tjheoretical hypophesizing, lets try a REAL WORLD Example
>>
>> 26 USC 7701(a)(10) State
>> The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia,
>> where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this
>> title.
>>
>> 7701(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.
>>
>> So, are the 50 states within the meanuing of the term state as the
>> dictionary definition?
>
> Who cares? The District of Columbia is the capital of the United States.
> Therefore, the meaning of "State" must come from the class of the capitals
> of countries. Yea, that's it.
Here you again show your total ignorance of the law and court decisions:
The Schroeders also argue that Nebraska is not a State as that term is
defined by 26 U.S.C. sections 3121(e)(1) and (2), 4612(a)(4)(A), and
7701(a)(9) and (10) (Supp. V 1993). The Schroeders in citing these statutes
in support of their position, fail to note that these sections define the
stated term (for example, "State" and "United States" in section 3121(e)(1)
& (2), "United States" in section 4612(a)(4)(A), and "United States" and
"State" in section 7701(a)(9) & (10)) to be more inclusive than might
otherwise be commonly understood. This result is easily reached by reading
each of these sections in conjunction with the definition of "includes" and
"including" contained in 26 U.S.C. section 7701(c) (Supp. V 1993), which
states that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a
definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to
exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."
Thus, the definition of "State" clearly includes what would be its commonly
understood meaning -- one of the fifty states forming a part of the entire
United States. So, too, with "United States." the Union and sovereign entity
produced through the association of all of the states. The Schroeders
attempt, unsuccessfully, to remove from the language of the statutes its
commonly understood meaning and usage.
Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1996-40 (D.Neb. 1996)
>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=state*2+0&dict=A
>> state (PLACE)
>> noun [C]
>> one of the political units that some countries, such as the US, are
>> divided into
>> New York State
>> the State of Arizona
>> A state is also a country or its government: the member states of the
>> United Nations
>>
>> Yes they are, ergo the 50 States are states per 7701(a)(10) which for the
>> porposes
>> of 26 USC State meand the 50 States, and DC when appropriate.
All definitions in the IRC are expansions of the common use definition.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C2143...@tx.rr.com...
Inferences are like assumptions. Both leave loose ends dangling and allow
for errors and untruths.
Therefore the question still stands:
1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
2. If the answer to the prior question is yes, then does Gould v. Gould
apply to section 1?
3. Is there a reason why you don't want the T's crossed and the I's dotted?
> >
> >
> >>>2. Aren't you "interpreting" the section 1 statute with your "deductive
> >>>logic"?
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> > 2. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of
section
> > 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by implication?
>
> No.
4. Does this mean you are saying that you ARE allowed to extend the
provisions of section 1 by implication?
5. Does Gould v. Gould state: {In the interpretation of statutes levying
taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by
implication...}?
6. Doesn't your implied statement directly contradict Gould v. Gould?
7. Are you going to focus on the words "beyond the clear import of the
language used" to justify your (assumed will be) NO to question 5?
8. Does Gould v. Gould also state: {In the interpretation of statutes
levying taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their
operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
9. Is the imposition of liability {specifically pointed out} in section 1?
> >
> > im搆li搾a暗ion n. 1. The act of implicating or the condition of being
> > implicated. 2. The act of implying or THE CONDITION OF BEING IMPLIED. 3.
> > Something that is implied, especially: a. An indirect indication; a
> > suggestion. b. AN IMPLIED MEANING; implicit significance. c. An
inference.
> >
> > 3. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of
section
> > 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by THE CONDITION
OF
> > BEING IMPLIED?
>
> No, Gould does not bar any implication at all.
10. Does Gould v. Gould also state: {In the interpretation of statutes
levying taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their
operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
11. You answered "NO" to this question: {Then per Gould v. Gould, do you
agree that your interpretation of section 1 is NOT allowed to extend the
provisions of section 1 by implication?} By this answer you suggest that you
ARE allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by implication. Is this
what you are saying?
12. Is an implied allowable action by law an action specifically pointed
out?
> Otherwise EVERY word
> would have to be defined.
13. Doesn't every word need to be defined anyway so that every word has
meaning?
14. Isn't the definition of every word the common understanding of the word
as defined in the current dictionaries (unless a word is converted into a
term with a statutorily defined custom meaning)?
> Gould only bars implications BEYOND THE CLEAR
> IMPORT OF THE STATUTORY LANGUANGE.
im搆ort v. im搆ort搪d, im搆ort搏ng, im搆orts. --tr. 3. To carry or hold the
meaning of; signify: a high inflation rate importing hard times for the
consumer. See Synonyms at mean.
im搆ort n. 3. Meaning; signification. See Synonyms at meaning.
15. Is the following a valid parse, made by substituting the meaning of the
word "IMPORT" into your statement?
> Gould only bars implications BEYOND THE CLEAR
> [MEANING] OF THE STATUTORY LANGUANGE.
16. Is the clear meaning of section 1 that a tax at a specific rate is
imposed?
17. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where imposed liability
is "SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT"?
> >
> > 4. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of
section
> > 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by AN IMPLIED
> > MEANING?
>
> No.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
18. Does Gould v. Gould state: {In the interpretation of statutes levying
taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their operations so as
to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
19. Does this mean the statutes should be interpreted so that the statute's
operations embrace matters not specifically pointed out?
20. Please explain exactly how you can interpret a tax statute to imply
something to enlarge a statute's operation so as to embrace matters not
specifically pointed out when such an action is specifically forbidden by
Gould v. Gould?
> > im搆ly tr.v. im搆lied, im搆ly搏ng, im搆lies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
> > NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or
INDICATE
> > INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
> >
> > 5. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of
section
> > 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by LOGICAL
NECESSITY?
> >
> > 6. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of
section
> > 1 is NOT allowed to extend the provisions of section 1 by INDIRECT
> > INDICATION?
>
> No.
21. Are you again implying that you ARE allowed to extend the provisions of
section 1 by INDIRECT INDICATION?
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
22. Does Gould v. Gould state: {In the interpretation of statutes levying
taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their operations so as
to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
23. Does this mean the statute's provisions should be extended by INDIRECT
INDICATION so that the statute's operations embrace matters not specifically
pointed out?
24. Please explain exactly how you can extend a tax statute provision to
enlarge a statute's operation so as to embrace matters not specifically
pointed out when such an action is specifically forbidden by Gould v. Gould?
> >
> > 7. Then per Gould v. Gould, do you agree that your interpretation of
section
> > 1 is NOT allowed {to embrace matters not specifically pointed out}?
>
> Yes.
25. Please state the magic word or words that "specifically point out" the
imposition of liability in section 1?
> >
> > 8. Please indicate which word or words in section 1 specifically points
out
> > and imposes liability? (I only see words that impose the tax and set the
> > rate).
>
> Section 1 also SPECIFICALLY points out WHOSE taxable income is taxed.
26. If you break a neighbor's window with a baseball, who is liable for the
damages?
27. If your eleven year old breaks the neighbor's window with a baseball,
who is liable for the damages?
28. Please state the word or words where section 1 SPECIFICALLY points out
WHO is "MADE LIABLE" for the tax imposed?
> >
> >
> >>>3. Does section 1 specifically make a person "liable" for paying the
tax
> >>>imposed?
> >>
> >>Section 1 IMPOSES a tax on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL. It
> >>is within the "clear import of the language used"-TO IMPOSE-and within
> >>the "specific operation"-on the TAXABLE INCOME of every INDIVIDUAL- that
> >>one can deduce that an INDIVIDUAL with TAXABLE INCOME is LIABLE for the
> >
> > tax.
> >
> > de搞uce tr.v. de搞uced, de搞uc搏ng, de搞uc搪s. 1. To reach (a
conclusion) by
> > reasoning. 2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively.
> >
> > 9. Is a "deductive conclusion" the same as a matter "specifically
pointed
> > out"?
>
> No.
29. Does Gould v. Gould state: {In the interpretation of statutes levying
taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their operations so as
to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
> >
> > 10. Is the imposition of liability a matter that is "specifically
pointed
> > out" in section 1?
>
> No.
30. Does Gould v. Gould state: {In the interpretation of statutes levying
taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their operations so as
to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
> >
> > 11. Is a meaning reached by "deductive conclusion" an implied meaning?
>
> Sometimes.
31. Per your assertion that section 1 creates a liability for the tax
imposed, Is your "deductive (logic) conclusion" an implied meaning?
> >
> > im搆ly tr.v. im搆lied, im搆ly搏ng, im搆lies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
> > NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or
INDICATE
> > INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
> >
> > 12. What makes your deductive conclusions superior to anyone elses?
>
> Because they are REASONABLE of which most reasonable people would agree.
32. Are they reasonable when they can (and have) been shown to contradict
the clear import of the words used in Gould v. Gould?
> If a tax is imposed on the taxable income of person A, only a complete
> idiot would conclude person A could not be sure he had a tax liability
> if person A in fact had taxable income.
33. Are you calling people idiots now because you have been painted in a
corner?
34. Did you answer "NO" to the question {9. Is a "deductive conclusion" the
same as a matter "specifically
pointed out"?}
35. Does Gould v. Gould state: {In the interpretation of statutes levying
taxes it is the established rule not ... to enlarge their operations so as
to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. }
36. Does Gould v. Gould say that a statute's operations are NOT to be
enlarged by matters not specifically pointed out?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Section 6011 says that individual who is liable shall file a return
> >
> >
> > 13. Since (according to you) an individual who is liable shall file a
> > return, Then is it true that activation of section 6011 is predicated
upon a
> > pre-existing liability and therefor section 6011 can NOT create the
> > liability that is required to activate itself?
37. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Since (according to you) an
individual who is liable shall file a return, Then is it true that
activation of section 6011 is predicated upon a pre-existing liability and
therefore section 6011 can NOT create the liability that is required to
activate itself?}
38. Since (according to you) an individual who is liable shall file a
return, Then is it true that activation of section 6011 is predicated upon a
pre-existing liability and therefore section 6011 can NOT create the
liability that is required to activate itself?
> > TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> > Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
> > CHAPTER 61 - INFORMATION AND RETURNS
> > Subchapter A - Returns and Records
> > PART II - TAX RETURNS OR STATEMENTS
> > Subpart A - General Requirement
> >
> > -HEAD-
> > Sec. 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list
> >
> > -STATUTE-
> > (a) General rule
> > When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any
> > person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with
> > respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement
> > according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
> >
> > 14. Does section 6011 state {any person MADE LIABLE} shall make a
return?
39. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Does section 6011 state {any
person MADE LIABLE} shall make a return?}?
40. Does section 6011 state {any person MADE LIABLE} shall make a return?
> >
> > 'We are not at liberty,' said Mr. Justice Strong, 'to construe any
statute
> > so as to deny effect to any part of its language. It is a cardinal rule
of
> > statutory construction that SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECT SHALL, if possible,
BE
> > ACCORDED TO EVERY WORD. As early as in Bacon's Abridgment, 2, it was
said
> > that 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it
can be
> > prevented, NO clause, sentence, or WORD, SHALL BE SUPERFLUOUS, VOID, or
> > INSIGNIFICANT.' This rule has been repeated innumerable times.'
> > U. S. v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., 232 U.S. 399 (1914)
> >
> > 15. Since significance and effect shall be accorded to every word and
since
> > the word "MADE" shall not be superfluous, void, or insignificant, Is the
> > word "MADE" to be ignored as if it wasn't in the statute?
41. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Since significance and
effect shall be accorded to every word and since the word "MADE" shall not
be superfluous, void, or insignificant, Is the word "MADE" to be ignored as
if it wasn't in the statute?}
42. Since significance and effect shall be accorded to every word and since
the word "MADE" shall not be superfluous, void, or insignificant, Is the
word "MADE" to be ignored as if it wasn't in the statute?
> > 16. Is it true that if a person is NOT "MADE LIABLE" then section 6011
does
> > NOT apply to such person?
43. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that if a person
is NOT "MADE LIABLE" then section 6011 does NOT apply to such person?}
44. Is it true that if a person is NOT "MADE LIABLE" then section 6011 does
NOT apply to such person?
> > 17. Is it true that section 6011 only operates upon a person who is
"MADE
> > LIABLE"?
45. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that section 6011
only operates upon a person who is "MADE LIABLE"?}
46. Is it true that section 6011 only operates upon a person who is "MADE
LIABLE"?
> > 18. Who are those persons "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A Income Taxes?
47. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Who are those persons "MADE
LIABLE" for Subtitle A Income Taxes?}
48. Who are those persons "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A Income Taxes?
> > TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> > Subtitle A - Income Taxes
> > CHAPTER 3 - WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN
> > CORPORATIONS
> > Subchapter B - Application of Withholding Provisions
> >
> > -HEAD-
> > Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
> >
> > -STATUTE-
> > Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this
> > chapter is hereby MADE LIABLE for such tax and is hereby
> > indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the
> > amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of
> > this chapter.
> >
> > 19. Can you post any other section where a person is specifically and
with
> > "clear import" "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income taxes?
49. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Can you post any other
section where a person is specifically and with "clear import" "MADE LIABLE"
for Subtitle A income taxes?}
50. Can you post any other section where a person is specifically and with
"clear import" "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income taxes?
> > 20. Is it true that if no other sections are found where a person is
> > specifically and with "clear import" "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income
> > taxes, then section 6011 only operates upon the person who is "MADE
LIABLE"
> > by section 1461 in regard to Subtitle A Income Taxes?
51. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that if no other
sections are found where a person is specifically and with "clear import"
"MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income taxes, then section 6011 only operates
upon the person who is "MADE LIABLE" by section 1461 in regard to Subtitle A
Income Taxes?}
52. Is it true that if no other sections are found where a person is
specifically and with "clear import" "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A income
taxes, then section 6011 only operates upon the person who is "MADE LIABLE"
by section 1461 in regard to Subtitle A Income Taxes?
> >>and section 6151 says that individual who files shall pay the tax.
> >
> >
> > 21. If an individual does not file, who pays the tax?
53. Why did you ignore this critical question: {If an individual does not
file, who pays the tax?}
54. If an individual does not file, who pays the tax?
> > TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> > Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
> > CHAPTER 62 - TIME AND PLACE FOR PAYING TAX
> > Subchapter A - Place and Due Date for Payment of Tax
> >
> > -HEAD-
> > Sec. 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
> >
> > -STATUTE-
> > (a) General rule
> > Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of
> > tax is required under this title or regulations, the person
> > required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice
> > and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue
> > officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at
> > the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without
> > regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
> >
> > 22. Is it true that in order for section 6151 to become operative, there
> > must be a return of tax required?
55. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that in order for
section 6151 to become operative, there must be a return of tax required?}
56. Is it true that in order for section 6151 to become operative, there
must be a return of tax required?
> > 23. Is it true that in order for section 6151 to become operative, there
> > must be a person required to make a return?
57. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that in order for
section 6151 to become operative, there must be a person required to make a
return?}
58. Is it true that in order for section 6151 to become operative, there
must be a person required to make a return?
> > 24. Is it true that if a person is NOT liable for a tax, a return is NOT
> > required?
59. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that if a person
is NOT liable for a tax, a return is NOT required?}
60. Is it true that if a person is NOT liable for a tax, a return is NOT
required?
> > 25. Therefore, is it true that this section does NOT create NOR impose a
> > liability because this section is predicated upon such liability already
> > existing?
61. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Therefore, is it true that
this section [6151] does NOT create NOR impose a liability because this
section is predicated upon such liability already existing?}
62. Therefore, is it true that this section [6151] does NOT create NOR
impose a liability because this section is predicated upon such liability
already existing?
> > 26. Is it true that activation of section 6151 is predicated upon a
> > pre-existing liability and therefore section 6151 can NOT create the
> > liability that is required to activate itself?
63. Why did you ignore this critical question: {Is it true that activation
of section 6151 is predicated upon a pre-existing liability and therefore
section 6151 can NOT create the liability that is required to activate
itself?}
64. Is it true that activation of section 6151 is predicated upon a
pre-existing liability and therefore section 6151 can NOT create the
liability that is required to activate itself?
> >>>4. Are you implying liability with your "deductive logic"?
> >>
> >>No, one can DEDUCE liability and meet the criteria of Gould.
> >
> >
> > de搞uce tr.v. de搞uced, de搞uc搏ng, de搞uc搪s. 1. To reach (a
conclusion) by
> > reasoning. 2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively.
> >
> > im搆ly tr.v. im搆lied, im搆ly搏ng, im搆lies. 1. To involve by LOGICAL
> > NECESSITY; entail: Life implies growth and death. 2. To express or
INDICATE
> > INDIRECTLY: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest.
> >
> > 27. Is a DEDUCED liability a matter "specifically pointed out"?
> >
> > Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
> > In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
rule
> > not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import
of
> > the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace
matters
> > not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
> > strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>5. Please indicate the word or words that specifiy the person "hereby
> >>
> > made
> >
> >>>liable" for the tax imposed?
> >>
> >>Please indicate why the magic words "hereby made liable" must be used.
> >
> >
> > 28. Is liability "specifically pointed out" if the magic words are not
used?
>
> Liability is reasonably implied within the clear import of the language
> and the specifically pointed out object of taxation and person who has
> the object of taxation.
65. You did NOT answer the question. Is liability "specifically pointed out"
if the magic words are not used?
> >>Individuals can be legally obligated (liable) unlike inanimate objects
> >>like whiskey.
> >
> >
> > 29. Is "taxable income" an inanimate object?
>
> Yes. Can an inanimate object be "legally obligated"?
66. Can inanimate objects be the defendant in court cases?
in rem adv. --in rem adj. Law. Against a thing, such as property, status,
or a right, rather than against a person. Used of an action or a judgment.
> Can a person be "legally obligated" and thus liable?
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
67. Since Gould v. Gould says that the statute is not to embrace matters not
specifically pointed out, please state the word or words in section 1 that
specifically embrace the matter of "hereby making P liable" for the tax
imposed in section 1.
68. Since the clear import of the words in section 1 is to impose a tax at a
certain rate, please state the word or words that are NOT beyond the clear
import of imposing a tax at a certain rate?
> Section 1 specifies a person who is legally obligated and thus liable to
> the tax.
69. Please indicate where the words "hereby made liable" are in section 1.
> >
> >
> >>It appears the only proof you have is "because the excise
> >>tax on whiskey has a separate "liability" statute, section 1 must also."
> >
> >
> > 30. The only proof of WHAT?
>
> That is the question.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> Your proof is a red herring fallacy.
> >
> >
> > red herring n. 1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something
that
> > draws attention away from the central issue. [From its use to distract
> > hunting dogs from the trail.]
> >
> > 31. What is the central issue you think I am attempting to draw
attention
> > away from?
>
> Section 1 clearly imposes a tax liability on individuals with taxable
> income.
Section 1 clearly establishes the tax rate. That is the sole purpose of
section 1.
<snip>
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13cag6g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Therefore the question still stands:
> 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
Yes
> 2. If the answer to the prior question is yes, then does Gould v. Gould
> apply to section 1?
No
> 3. Is there a reason why you don't want the T's crossed and the I's
> dotted?
Because it would be redundant, like your questions. Now to illistrate your
error, from Daan Evans site:
“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen
knows that payment of income taxes is legally required.”
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
“Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along
with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC
establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC,
however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby
IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added).
Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and
creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual
has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA
(U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
“Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision
in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on
‘income.’ Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C.
section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on ‘income.’”
United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, 2000 TNT 186-76,
No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 8/25/2000).
“Plaintiff’s arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.]
First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax ‘liability’. The
plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is ‘imposed’. See 96
[sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax
and creating a ‘liability’ for tax. The Court fails to see a difference.
Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio
1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and
sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App.
LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC
1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous
appeal).
“Appellants’ argument that the Internal Revenue Code does not define income
or impose income tax liability on individuals is also meritless. 26 U.S.C.
section 1 clearly imposes income tax liability on individuals.”
Liddane v. Commissioner, KTC 2000-28, No. 99-5499 (3d Cir. 1/14/2000), aff’ng
T.C. Memo 1999-330 (referring to “the same partially incomprehensible but
thoroughly frivolous arguments that they are not liable for Federal income
taxes,” the Tax Court imposed sanctions of $10,000 for each docketed case
for filing frivolous petitions).
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the
following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in
legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists
for imposing an income tax on individuals....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
“The Plaintiffs further assert, in their Reply Memorandum dated September
12, 2005, that the ‘IRS has repeatedly refused to show [Plaintiffs] where in
the [Internal Revenue] Code it makes [Plaintiffs] “liable for” the tax they
claim is owed.’ Plfs.’ Reply at p. 7. The Plaintiffs allege that it is
‘abundantly unclear’ what the term taxpayer, as used throughout the IRC,
means, and state that ‘when [the United States] can show where [Plaintiffs
are] ‘subject to” or “liable for” a so-called tax, at that point [Plaintiff]
will gladly pay the tax.’ Id. At 4, 10. However, the Government does not
have the burden of showing the Plaintiffs ‘where’ they are ‘subject’ or
‘liable for’ the tax before the tax is paid. The comprehensive
administrative enforcement scheme and judicial review process with which the
Government is required to proceed under the IRS code is well established and
none of it requires the Government to answer the Plaintiffs’ philosophical
questions regarding the tax system. For a clear explanation of ‘where in the
law subjects the Plaintiffs to tax,’ the court directs the Plaintiffs’
attention to Amendment XVI of the Constitution and the Internal Revenue
Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1, which is entitled ‘Tax Imposed.’”
Celauro v. United States, 411 F. Supp. 2D 257, 269, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
3147, 2006-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,168, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 761, No.
05-cv-02245-ADS-WDW (U.S.D.C. E.D. N.Y. 1/28/2006).
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hSowi.683$5Q5.608@trnddc05...
1. Are you saying take "T" as it is defined in Websters and Blacks, and then
add Object A, Object B, and Object C to that definition?
2. When Congress creates a statutorily definition of a Term by "including"
object A, object B, and object C; To wit: {For the purposes of this chapter,
the term T includes, A, B, and C}; does this mean Congress intends that
objects A, B, and C are NOT to be within the boundaries of Term T?
(Yes, I know it's a silly question. Please bear with me.)
3. So does this mean that when Congress creates a statutory definition of a
Term using the format {For the purposes of this chapter, the term T
includes, A, B, and C}, Congress is specifically putting A, B, and C within
the boundaries of Term T for the purposes of the chapter?
4. Does Congress do this because Congress wants to touch Objects A, B, and C
and objects A, B, and C are not within the boundaries of WORD T as defined
in Webster's and Black's?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> > "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:46C20D5D...@tx.rr.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>1. Perhaps its my misunderstanding of what you are saying. Are you
> >>
> > saying
> >
> >>>that for term T, A, B, and C ARE the clause for inclusion?
> >>
> >>It is YOUR hypothetical. YOU listed A, B, and C as the only objects
> >>within the clause for inclusion.
> >
> >
> > 1. Did I use the word "ONLY"?
>
> Do you understand that 'includes only' is different than 'only
> includes'? The former is limiting and the latter is expansive as when
> used in 7701(c).
Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
1. How is set A different from set B?
2. Who are you trying to bullshit?
3. Did I use the word "ONLY"?
4. Or did you assume "ONLY" based upon your incomplete understanding of the
example case I was setting up?
(My bad for not being more clear. I will attempt to rectify that as we
procede. That is why I have said forget W, X, Y, Z.)
5. Do you know that the format, {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
includes A, B, or C} is EXACTLY the format used in several definitions
within Title 26?
6. Do you know that I have deliberately kept the "only" out of the inquiry
of what objects would be within term T?
> >
> > 2. Or did I state {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> > This is in EXACTLY the same format as certain definitions of terms given
in
> > Title 26. The only thing missing is the actual objects denoted by
object
> > labels A, B, and C.
>
> Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
> Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
7. Not even anything else that is {otherwise within the definition of the
term defined}?
(I'm giving you a break so you won't end up with egg on your face.)
8. Do you wish to qualify your statement: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical
ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c),
nothing else is included.}
> >
> > FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
> >
> > I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
> >
> > 3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.}
is
> > object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
>
> It depends on the MEANING of T.
9. What is the meaning of T when it is defined in this format {For the
purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
<snip redundant questions and redundant answers>
> > 6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
> > "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
> > term defined is not understood?
>
> It is not that T is not understood; it just depends on the MEANING of T.
10. The meaning of T is: {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
includes A, B, or C}. You have been given the meaning of T exactly as it is
defined in several definitions section of Title 26. Are D, E, or F
"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
Moving on to the next level: Another made up statute STILL in exactly the
same format:
{For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird}.
11. Now what is the meaning of T?
> >
> > 7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in
this
> > format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>
> If Congress has not given the MEANING of T, then use the common ordinary
> meaning or a dictionary.
Congress has given the meaning of T. Congress has stated {For the purposes
of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}.
Congress has given the meaning of T. Congress has stated {For the purposes
of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}.
> You will see many definitions in Title 26
> using MEANS. Pursuant to 7701(c), when INCLUDES or INCLUDING is used,
> things OTHERWISE WITHIN THAT MEANING are not excluded from the definition.
7701(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.
12. When a definition statute uses this format: {For the purposes of this
chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, what is the
meaning of the term defined?
13. When a definition statute uses this format: {For the purposes of this
chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, what is
{otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
14. Is a Ford Taurus {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
15. Is a Ford Crown Victoria {otherwise within the meaning of the term
defined}?
16. Is a Chevy Camaro {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
17. Is a Dodge Neon {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
> > 8. WHAT DOES T MEAN when it is defined in this format: {[the] Term "T"
> > includes object A, B, C.}?
> > This is exactly the format used to define certain terms in Title 26.
>
> You will see many definitions in Title 26 where Congress uses MEANS and
> other definitions where a term is defined by INCLUDES or INCLUDING.
> Compare the two and you will find that MEANS is limiting and INCLUDES OR
> INCLUDING is expansive. In other words, INCLUDES adds to the MEANING
> of the term.
18. Is it true that in order to add to the meaning of a term, that term
must first be defined?
> >>Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something 'included' does not mean the
> >>same thing as something 'not excluded' and vice versa.
> >
> >
> > 9. Is it correct that in making your vice versa caveat, you are stating
> > 'Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something [NOT] 'included' does not
mean
> > the same thing as something '[ ] excluded' and vice versa'?
>
> No.
Item 5 is included in Set A.
Item 5 is not excluded in Set B.
19. How is set A different from set B?
20. Who are you trying to bullshit?
Item 6 is not included in Set A.
Item 6 is excluded from Set B.
21. How is set A different from set B?
22. Who are you trying to bullshit?
> >
> > 10. If I state you are NOT included in the invitations to the party at
my
> > home, have I excluded you from the party?
>
> Here you are using "included" in a different sense than 7701(c).
I'll take the bait.
23. Please elaborate?
> >
> > in·clude tr.v. in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing, in·cludes. 1. To take in as a
part,
> > an element, or a member. 2. To contain as a secondary or subordinate
> > element. 3. To consider with or place into a group, class, or total:
thanked
> > the host for including us.
> >
> > ex·clude tr.v. ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing, ex·cludes. 1. To prevent from
> > entering; keep out; bar: a jar sealed to exclude outside air; an
immigration
> > policy that excludes undesirables. 2. To prevent from being included,
> > considered, or accepted; reject: The court excluded the improperly
obtained
> > evidence. 3. To put out; expel.
> >
> > 11. Is it true that when a term is defined to "include" certain objects,
> > others are either within the term or they are not?
>
> Again, you are using "include" in a different sense than 7701(c).
>
You did NOT answer the question.
24. Is it true that when a term is defined to "include" certain objects,
other objects are either within the term or they are not?
> >
> >>You are trying to use "includes" in two different senses.
> >
> >
> > 13. Would you explain the "two different senses" of the term/word
"includes"
> > that you are referring to?
>
> Ordinarily, if something is included, then everything else is excluded.
> But pursuant to 7701(c), the inclusion of something does not necessarily
> mean the exclusion of another.
Agreed.
25. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object D, (or
E, or F) when the definition statute uses this format: {For purposes of this
chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
26. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object Ford
Taurus, (or Ford Crown Victoria , or Chevy Camaro ) when the definition
statute uses this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
> > 14. Humor me. Please answer the question again, What EXACTLY is "within
the
> > meaning of the term defined"?
>
> It depends on the MEANING of T.
The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
"T" includes A, B, or C.}
27. What is the meaning of T?
The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
"T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
28. What is the meaning of T?
> >
> > 15. What exactly is the meaning of term T?
>
> If Congress does not give it a MEANING, then use the common ordinary
> meaning or a dictionary.
Exact format of Congress statutorily defining term T:
The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
"T" includes A, B, or C.}
The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
"T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
29. Now WHAT IS THE MEANING OF T?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
2. Does a human learn to walk before such human has learned to crawl?
3. Why are you attempting to get myself and the other readers to run (to
your cadence) before we have all learned to crawl?
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:K%Kwi.10060$Ns6.7932@trnddc01...
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
> wrote in message news:13cag6g...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Therefore the question still stands:
> > 1. Does section 1 levy a tax?
>
> Yes
>
> > 2. If the answer to the prior question is yes, then does Gould v. Gould
> > apply to section 1?
>
> No
1. Does Gould v. Gould state:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import the
language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not
specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly
against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
2. Does Gould v. Gould address {statutes levying taxes}?
3. Is Gould v. Gould a Supreme Court ruling?
4. Which court ruling has a higher "rank", the Supreme Court rulings I have
cited, or the lower court(s) rulings you cited?
Lower Court contradictions of the Supreme Court deleted.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C2143...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>>
>>>31. What is the central issue you think I am attempting to draw
>>
> attention
>
>>>away from?
>>
>>Section 1 clearly imposes a tax liability on individuals with taxable
>>income.
>
>
> Section 1 clearly establishes the tax rate. That is the sole purpose of
> section 1.
>
That's odd. Section 1 does NOT say, "There is hereby imposed a tax
determined in accordance with the following table: ..."
You are clearly wrong; because section 1 does say, "There is hereby
imposed on the TAXABLE INCOME of EVERY INDIVIDUAL...a tax in accordance
with the following table: ..."
Why do you deliberately leave out the specific language that establishes
liability?
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46C37A39...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>
>>>"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:46C20D5D...@tx.rr.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>1. Perhaps its my misunderstanding of what you are saying. Are you
>>>>
>>>saying
>>>
>>>
>>>>>that for term T, A, B, and C ARE the clause for inclusion?
>>>>
>>>>It is YOUR hypothetical. YOU listed A, B, and C as the only objects
>>>>within the clause for inclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Did I use the word "ONLY"?
>>
>>Do you understand that 'includes only' is different than 'only
>>includes'? The former is limiting and the latter is expansive as when
>>used in 7701(c).
>
>
> Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
> Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>
> 1. How is set A different from set B?
Are you asking a philosophical question or is the subject still 7701(c)?
>
> 2. Who are you trying to bullshit?
I guess you would have to be smarter in order to realize it ain't bullshit.
>
> 3. Did I use the word "ONLY"?
Asked and answered.
>
> 4. Or did you assume "ONLY" based upon your incomplete understanding of the
> example case I was setting up?
> (My bad for not being more clear. I will attempt to rectify that as we
> procede. That is why I have said forget W, X, Y, Z.)
>
> 5. Do you know that the format, {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
> includes A, B, or C} is EXACTLY the format used in several definitions
> within Title 26?
Do you know that 7701(c) rules how "includes" is to be construed in
Title 26?
>
> 6. Do you know that I have deliberately kept the "only" out of the inquiry
> of what objects would be within term T?
Is this more philosophy?
>
>
>>>2. Or did I state {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>>>This is in EXACTLY the same format as certain definitions of terms given
>>
> in
>
>>>Title 26. The only thing missing is the actual objects denoted by
>>
> object
>
>>>labels A, B, and C.
>>
>>Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
>>Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
>
>
> 7. Not even anything else that is {otherwise within the definition of the
> term defined}?
Things "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are NOT EXCLUDED.
>
> (I'm giving you a break so you won't end up with egg on your face.)
You already have it plastered all over your face.
>
> 8. Do you wish to qualify your statement: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical
> ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c),
> nothing else is included.}
Asked and answered.
>
>
>
>>>FORGET about objects W, X, Y, and Z.
>>>
>>>I now present to you objects D, E, and F.
>>>
>>>3. According to the definition given {Term T includes object A, B, C.}
>>
> is
>
>>>object D "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
>>
>>It depends on the MEANING of T.
>
>
> 9. What is the meaning of T when it is defined in this format {For the
> purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
Sorry, but you have failed to provide enough information. However, if
"T" is in the dictionary, that would be its meaning.
>
> <snip redundant questions and redundant answers>
>
>>>6. Is it true that one can NOT determine if objects D, E, or F are
>>>"otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" if the meaning of the
>>>term defined is not understood?
>>
>>It is not that T is not understood; it just depends on the MEANING of T.
>
>
> 10. The meaning of T is: {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
> includes A, B, or C}. You have been given the meaning of T exactly as it is
> defined in several definitions section of Title 26. Are D, E, or F
> "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
Do you understand that 7701(c) rules how "includes" is to be construed
in Title 26? Is your question philosophical because it doesn't appear
to be about 7701(c)?
>
> Moving on to the next level: Another made up statute STILL in exactly the
> same format:
> {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or
> Thunderbird}.
>
> 11. Now what is the meaning of T?
You tell me: T means _________________.
>
>
>>>7. What is the meaning of the term defined when the term is defined in
>>
> this
>
>>>format: {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>>
>>If Congress has not given the MEANING of T, then use the common ordinary
>>meaning or a dictionary.
>
>
> Congress has given the meaning of T. Congress has stated {For the purposes
> of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}.
>
> Congress has given the meaning of T. Congress has stated {For the purposes
> of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}.
Nope. If Congress had given MEANING to T, they would have said, "T
means thus and such..."
For example, T = Car. Car means all chevys. For purposes of this
section, the term car includes Mustangs and Thunderbirds.
Now Congress has DEFINED "car" in that particular section as Chevys,
Mustangs, and Thuderbirds.
1. Would that section apply to any other Ford?
2. Would that section apply to an Impala?
>
>
>
>>You will see many definitions in Title 26
>>using MEANS. Pursuant to 7701(c), when INCLUDES or INCLUDING is used,
>>things OTHERWISE WITHIN THAT MEANING are not excluded from the definition.
>
>
> 7701(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.
>
> 12. When a definition statute uses this format: {For the purposes of this
> chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, what is the
> meaning of the term defined?
Asked and answered.
>
> 13. When a definition statute uses this format: {For the purposes of this
> chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, what is
> {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
Asked and answered.
>
> 14. Is a Ford Taurus {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
There's not enough information. (NEI)
>
> 15. Is a Ford Crown Victoria {otherwise within the meaning of the term
> defined}?
NEI
>
> 16. Is a Chevy Camaro {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
NEI
>
> 17. Is a Dodge Neon {otherwise within the meaning of the term defined}?
NEI
>
>
>>>8. WHAT DOES T MEAN when it is defined in this format: {[the] Term "T"
>>>includes object A, B, C.}?
>>>This is exactly the format used to define certain terms in Title 26.
>>
>>You will see many definitions in Title 26 where Congress uses MEANS and
>>other definitions where a term is defined by INCLUDES or INCLUDING.
>>Compare the two and you will find that MEANS is limiting and INCLUDES OR
>> INCLUDING is expansive. In other words, INCLUDES adds to the MEANING
>>of the term.
>
>
> 18. Is it true that in order to add to the meaning of a term, that term
> must first be defined?
Defined how?
>
>
>
>>>>Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something 'included' does not mean the
>>>>same thing as something 'not excluded' and vice versa.
>>>
>>>
>>>9. Is it correct that in making your vice versa caveat, you are stating
>>>'Understand, pursuant to 7701(c), something [NOT] 'included' does not
>>
> mean
>
>>>the same thing as something '[ ] excluded' and vice versa'?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Item 5 is included in Set A.
> Item 5 is not excluded in Set B.
>
> 19. How is set A different from set B?
Is this more philosophy?
>
> 20. Who are you trying to bullshit?
I guess you'd have to be smarter...
>
> Item 6 is not included in Set A.
> Item 6 is excluded from Set B.
>
> 21. How is set A different from set B?
More philosophy?
>
> 22. Who are you trying to bullshit?
Are you getting smarter yet?
>
>
>
>>>10. If I state you are NOT included in the invitations to the party at
>>
> my
>
>>>home, have I excluded you from the party?
>>
>>Here you are using "included" in a different sense than 7701(c).
>
>
> I'll take the bait.
> 23. Please elaborate?
If you don't get it by now, you are just too stupid.
>
>
>
>>>in·clude tr.v. in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing, in·cludes. 1. To take in as a
>>
> part,
>
>>>an element, or a member. 2. To contain as a secondary or subordinate
>>>element. 3. To consider with or place into a group, class, or total:
>>
> thanked
>
>>>the host for including us.
>>>
>>>ex·clude tr.v. ex·clud·ed, ex·clud·ing, ex·cludes. 1. To prevent from
>>>entering; keep out; bar: a jar sealed to exclude outside air; an
>>
> immigration
>
>>>policy that excludes undesirables. 2. To prevent from being included,
>>>considered, or accepted; reject: The court excluded the improperly
>>
> obtained
>
>>>evidence. 3. To put out; expel.
>>>
>>>11. Is it true that when a term is defined to "include" certain objects,
>>>others are either within the term or they are not?
>>
>>Again, you are using "include" in a different sense than 7701(c).
>>
>
>
> You did NOT answer the question.
Is this philosophy or pursuant to 7701(c)?
>
> 24. Is it true that when a term is defined to "include" certain objects,
> other objects are either within the term or they are not?
Pursuant to 7701(c), things otherwise within the meaning of the term
defined are not excluded.
>
>
>
>>>>You are trying to use "includes" in two different senses.
>>>
>>>
>>>13. Would you explain the "two different senses" of the term/word
>>
> "includes"
>
>>>that you are referring to?
>>
>>Ordinarily, if something is included, then everything else is excluded.
>>But pursuant to 7701(c), the inclusion of something does not necessarily
>>mean the exclusion of another.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> 25. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object D, (or
> E, or F) when the definition statute uses this format: {For purposes of this
> chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
Only those things following "includes" is included.
>
> 26. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object Ford
> Taurus, (or Ford Crown Victoria , or Chevy Camaro ) when the definition
> statute uses this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
> includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
Asked and answered.
>
>
>
>>>14. Humor me. Please answer the question again, What EXACTLY is "within
>>
> the
>
>>>meaning of the term defined"?
>>
>>It depends on the MEANING of T.
>
>
> The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
> "T" includes A, B, or C.}
>
> 27. What is the meaning of T?
NEI
>
> The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
> "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
>
> 28. What is the meaning of T?
NEI
>
>
>
>
>>>15. What exactly is the meaning of term T?
>>
>>If Congress does not give it a MEANING, then use the common ordinary
>>meaning or a dictionary.
>
>
> Exact format of Congress statutorily defining term T:
> The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
> "T" includes A, B, or C.}
> The statutory definition of T is: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
> "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
>
> 29. Now WHAT IS THE MEANING OF T?
Asked and answered.
>
>
>
>
>
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> 1. Does Gould v. Gould state:
>
> In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
> not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import the
> language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not
> specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly
> against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every individual...a tax
according to the following tables: ...
Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that every individual with
taxable income is liable for the tax.
Therefore, Govt wins this argument.
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13ccahf...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hSowi.683$5Q5.608@trnddc05...
>> "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
>> wrote in message news:13c3e07...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > 26 USC 7701
>> > (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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 1. Are you saying take "T" as it is defined in Websters and Blacks, and
> then
> add Object A, Object B, and Object C to that definition?
The use of includes(ing) in Title 26 is to EXPAND the common useage
definitions, so if the subject already falls in the common use definition it
is already included. Also remember, it is not what you call something but
what ir really is as substance rules over form and language.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> Why do you deliberately leave out the specific language that establishes
> liability?
1. Why do you deliberately ignore questions that prove you wrong?
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13cedp1...@corp.supernews.com...
Because specific language establishing aliability is only necessary when
a tax is imposed on a thing (alcohol, gasoline, etc.) and not a person
(individual, corporation, trust), or to transfer the liability from the
person
the tax is imposed on to another person who collects or withholds the tax.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C67A...@tx.rr.com...
> Is your question philosophical because it doesn't appear
> to be about 7701(c)?
1. Isn't this a fun game when you know exactly what my questions are about,
and I know exactly why your "beliefs" about 7701(c) are in error?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Do you understand that 'includes only' is different than 'only
> >>includes'? The former is limiting and the latter is expansive as when
> >>used in 7701(c).
> >
> >
> > Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
> > Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
> >
> > 1. How is set A different from set B?
>
> Are you asking a philosophical question or is the subject still 7701(c)?
I'm checking your implied assertion, to wit: {Do you understand that
'includes only' is different than 'only includes'?} for validity.
Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Since you want to play dumb to avoid the issue, I'll simplify it even more.
2. Does set A contain item 1?
3. Does set B contain item 1?
4. Does set A contain item 2?
5. Does set B contain item 2?
6. Does set A contain item 3?
7. Does set B contain item 3?
8. Does set A contain item 4?
9. Does set B contain item 4?
10. Does set A contain any item not contained in set B?
11. Does set B contain any item not contained in set A?
12. Now answer the question, How is set A different from set B?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>2. Or did I state {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
> >>>This is in EXACTLY the same format as certain definitions of terms
given in
> >>>Title 26. The only thing missing is the actual objects denoted by
object
> >>>labels A, B, and C.
> >>
> >>Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
> >>Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
> >
> >
> > 7. Not even anything else that is {otherwise within the definition of
the
> > term defined}?
>
> Things "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are NOT
EXCLUDED.
13. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
included.}?
(Search the post that this is in reply to, or scroll down to where you state
those words.)
14. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A,
B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
included.}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you understand that 7701(c) rules how "includes" is to be construed
> in Title 26?
Yes.
15. Are the {7701(c) rules how "includes" is to be construed in Title 26}
the rules that determine what term T means when term T is defined in this
format: {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or
C}?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Moving on to the next level: Another made up statute STILL in exactly
the
> > same format:
> > {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang,
or
> > Thunderbird}.
> >
> > 11. Now what is the meaning of T?
>
> You tell me: T means _________________.
You have been given the definition EXACTLY as such definitions are given in
Title 26.
16. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A,
B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
included.}
17. Is it true then, By your words, T ONLY (your addition) INCLUDES Edsels,
Mustangs, or Thunderbirds?
> >
> > Congress has given the meaning of T. Congress has stated {For the
purposes
> > of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}.
>
> Nope.
18. Do you understand that I used the EXACT FORMAT as found in several Title
26 DEFINITIONS sections?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle [redacted]
CHAPTER [redacted]
-HEAD-
Sec. [redacted]. Definitions
-STATUTE-
([redacted]) [redacted]
For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes includes Edsel,
Mustang, or Thunderbird.
> If Congress had given MEANING to T, they would have said, "T
> means thus and such..."
19. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION of a term is NOT the
MEANING of a term?
20. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION that Congress put in a
DEFINITION statute is NOT the meaning of the term Congress has defined?
21. Are you now going to argue that when Congress words a DEFINITION statute
in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes
includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird.}, Congress does NOT MEAN that term
"T" touches Edsels, Mustangs, or Thunderbirds?
22. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A,
B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
included.}?
23. When A = Edsel, B = Mustang, and C = Thunderbird, is this a proper
conversion of your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to
7701(c), nothing else is included.}?
> For example, T = Car.
car n. 1. An automobile. 2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on
rails: a railroad car. 3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on
a conveyance: an elevator car. 4. The part of a balloon or airship that
carries people and cargo. 5. Archaic. A chariot, carriage, or cart.
> Car means all chevys.
24. Does car also mean all street cars that run on rails?
25. Does car also mean all elevator cabins?
> For example, T = Car.
> Car means all chevys.
> For purposes of this
> section, the term car includes Mustangs and Thunderbirds.
>
> Now Congress has DEFINED "car" in that particular section as Chevys,
> Mustangs, and Thuderbirds.
28 Are you using the dictionary definition of the meaning of Car when you
state: {T = Car} in your example?
(Yes, I know you are because of what you have said prior, so humor me and
nail it down with a specific answer to this specific question.)
29. Did Congress define car in this format: {For the purposes of this
section, the term car means the common dictionary meaning}?
30. Did Congress define car in this format: {For the purposes of this
section, the term car means any passenger automobile}?
31. Did Congress define car as all Chevys or did Daniel Webster?
The following 8 questions assume you will answered question 28 with a "yes":
32. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Novas?
33. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Camaros?
34. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Corvettes?
35. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Novas, Camaros, and Corvettes because they are within the
dictionary definition of "Car"?
36. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Edsels?
37. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Mustangs?
38. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
section act upon Thunderbirds?
39. WHY WOULD CONGRESS NEED TO INCLUDE MUSTANGS AND THUNDERBIRDS IN A
SECTION IN THE MANNER OF YOUR EXAMPLE SINCE SUCH OBJECTS ARE ALREADY WITHIN
THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 25. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object D,
(or
> > E, or F) when the definition statute uses this format: {For purposes of
this
> > chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
>
> Only those things following "includes" is included.
> >
> > 26. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object Ford
> > Taurus, (or Ford Crown Victoria , or Chevy Camaro ) when the definition
> > statute uses this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
> > includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
>
> Asked and answered.
40. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
included.}?
41. Per your statement, is it true that since Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird
are {only those things following "includes"} then ONLY an Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird, are included?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 9. What is the meaning of T when it is defined in this format {For the
> > purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
>
> Sorry, but you have failed to provide enough information. However, if
> "T" is in the dictionary, that would be its meaning.
I have provided you EXACTLY the same amount of information in the same
format as that provided in several definition sections of Title 26.
42. When a term is defined as a group of objects, wouldn't that grouping be
a statutory grouping?
43. Isn't a statutory grouping of objects a statutorily defined Set or Class
of objects?
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members
regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or
category. 2. A division based on quality, rank, or grade, as: a. A grade of
mail: a package sent third class. b. A quality of accommodation on public
transport: tourist class. 3.a. A social stratum whose members share certain
economic, social, or cultural characteristics: the lower-income classes.
class tr.v. classed, class搏ng, class搪s. To arrange, group, or rate
according to qualities or characteristics; assign to a class; classify.
set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong together and are so
used: a chess set. 8. Mathematics. A collection of distinct elements having
specific common properties: a set of positive integers.
44. When T is defined in this format, {For the purposes of this chapter, the
term "T" includes A, B, or C}, isn't Congress defining a Set or Class of
objects?
45. When T is defined in this format, {For the purposes of this chapter, the
term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, isn't Congress defining a
Set or Class of objects that are all Ford automobiles?
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13cf1qr...@corp.supernews.com...
Now, can inquiring mindless explain why his entire line of questioning
is specious misdieection from 7701(c)'s meaning and relevance?
Paul Maffia
his mind has been cloned.
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13cf1qr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> > 1. Does Gould v. Gould state:
> >
> > In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
rule
> > not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import
the
> > language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not
> > specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly
> > against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
> > Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
>
> Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every individual...a tax
> according to the following tables: ...
1. By your quote; {Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every
individual...a tax according to the following tables: ...}; Does section 1
embrace the matter of imposing the tax on the taxable income?
2. By your quote; {Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every
individual...a tax according to the following tables: ...}; Does section 1
specifically point out that the tax is imposed upon the taxable income?
3. By your quote; {Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every
individual...a tax according to the following tables: ...}; Is the clear
import of section 1 to impose a tax upon the taxable income?
li戢搓le adj. 1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable for military
service. See Synonyms at responsible.
4. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the matter of
imposing liability for the tax imposed in section 1?
5. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically point
out that a liability has been imposed in section 1?
6. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear import of
section 1 is to impose liability.
7. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the matter of
imposing the legal obligation for the tax imposed in section 1?
8. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically point
out that a legal obligation has been imposed in section 1?
9. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear import of
section 1 is to impose the legal obligation.
> Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that every individual with
> taxable income is liable for the tax.
Your assertion carries no weight.
> Therefore, Govt wins this argument.
>
Your assertion carries no weight.
li戢搓le adj. 1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable for military
service. See Synonyms at responsible.
10. Is a homeowner responsible, legally obligated, or liable for a property
tax that has not been assessed?
as新ess搶ent n. 1. The act of assessing; appraisal. 2. An amount assessed,
as for taxation.
11. If no property tax has been assessed, what is the official amount of
property tax due?
12. Can a person be {legally obligated} or {responsible}, that is, "liable"
for a tax imposed if there is no official proof of such liability?
13. If no income tax has been assessed, what is the official amount of
income tax due?
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46C67C10...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>
>>>1. Does Gould v. Gould state:
>>>
>>>In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
>>
> rule
>
>>>not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import
>>
> the
>
>>>language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
>>
> not
>
>>>specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
>>
> strongly
>
>>>against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
>>>Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
>>
>>Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every individual...a tax
>>according to the following tables: ...
>
>
> 1. By your quote; {Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every
> individual...a tax according to the following tables: ...}; Does section 1
> embrace the matter of imposing the tax on the taxable income?
"embrace the matter"? -YES
>
> 2. By your quote; {Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every
> individual...a tax according to the following tables: ...}; Does section 1
> specifically point out that the tax is imposed upon the taxable income?
"specifically point out"? -YES
>
> 3. By your quote; {Section 1 imposes on the taxable income of every
> individual...a tax according to the following tables: ...}; Is the clear
> import of section 1 to impose a tax upon the taxable income?
"clear import"? -YES
>
> li·a·ble adj. 1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable for military
> service. See Synonyms at responsible.
>
> 4. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the matter of
> imposing liability for the tax imposed in section 1?
im·pose –verb
1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new
restrictions> <impose penalties>
Section 1 SPECIFICALLY imposes a tax and sets the rate, thereby
establishing by authority the tax.
Section 1 SPECIFICALLY states an object-TAXABLE INCOME-upon which that
tax is imposed.
Section 1 SPECIFICALLY names a subject-EVERY INDIVIDUAL-upon whom that
tax is imposed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to section 1, any individual who has taxable income
has thereby had a tax imposed MAKING that individual legally obligated,
responsible, and thus liable for the tax.
>
> 5. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically point
> out that a liability has been imposed in section 1?
>
> 6. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear import of
> section 1 is to impose liability.
>
> 7. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the matter of
> imposing the legal obligation for the tax imposed in section 1?
>
> 8. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically point
> out that a legal obligation has been imposed in section 1?
>
> 9. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear import of
> section 1 is to impose the legal obligation.
>
for 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, see answer to question 4.
>
>>Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that every individual with
>>taxable income is liable for the tax.
>
>
> Your assertion carries no weight.
You are CLEARLY in denial.
>
>
>>Therefore, Govt wins this argument.
>>
>
>
> Your assertion carries no weight.
You are CLEARLY in denial.
>
> li·a·ble adj. 1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable for military
> service. See Synonyms at responsible.
>
> 10. Is a homeowner responsible, legally obligated, or liable for a property
> tax that has not been assessed?
Ah, another red herring to avoid the inevitable...
>
> as·sess·ment n. 1. The act of assessing; appraisal. 2. An amount assessed,
> as for taxation.
>
> 11. If no property tax has been assessed, what is the official amount of
> property tax due?
>
> 12. Can a person be {legally obligated} or {responsible}, that is, "liable"
> for a tax imposed if there is no official proof of such liability?
>
> 13. If no income tax has been assessed, what is the official amount of
> income tax due?
...Section 1 CLEARLY makes every individual who has taxable income
LIABLE for the tax. Now you want to bring in assessment. This must
mean that you have conceded your nonsense argument about liability.
Like your assessment question implies, liability can be established
without any assessment. For liability, all that is needed is for an
individual to have taxable income. The act of assessment merely
determines the amount of tax due.
>
>
>
>
nat
That's funny. You have asked no questions that prove me wrong.
>
>
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C67A...@tx.rr.com...
>
>
>
>>Is your question philosophical because it doesn't appear
>>to be about 7701(c)?
>
>
> 1. Isn't this a fun game when you know exactly what my questions are about,
> and I know exactly why your "beliefs" about 7701(c) are in error?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>Do you understand that 'includes only' is different than 'only
>>>>includes'? The former is limiting and the latter is expansive as when
>>>>used in 7701(c).
>>>
>>>
>>>Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>>>Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>>>
>>>1. How is set A different from set B?
>>
>>Are you asking a philosophical question or is the subject still 7701(c)?
>
>
> I'm checking your implied assertion, to wit: {Do you understand that
> 'includes only' is different than 'only includes'?} for validity.
What I implied was that you are not smart enough to know the difference
in my statement. Ok, let's test it.
Supposedly, the subject of this thread is still 7701(c).
>
> Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
> Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>
> Since you want to play dumb to avoid the issue, I'll simplify it even more.
>
> 2. Does set A contain item 1?
> 3. Does set B contain item 1?
> 4. Does set A contain item 2?
> 5. Does set B contain item 2?
> 6. Does set A contain item 3?
> 7. Does set B contain item 3?
> 8. Does set A contain item 4?
> 9. Does set B contain item 4?
Yes, to 2 thru 9.
>
> 10. Does set A contain any item not contained in set B?
No.
> 11. Does set B contain any item not contained in set A?
Yes.
>
> 12. Now answer the question, How is set A different from set B?
Set A is limited to items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Set B includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4, and things otherwise within B are
not excluded.
Therefore, set B is more expansive than set A.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>2. Or did I state {Term T includes object A, B, C.}?
>>>>>This is in EXACTLY the same format as certain definitions of terms
>>>>
> given in
>
>>>>>Title 26. The only thing missing is the actual objects denoted by
>>>>
> object
>
>>>>>labels A, B, and C.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
>>>>Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
>>>
>>>
>>>7. Not even anything else that is {otherwise within the definition of
>>
> the
>
>>>term defined}?
>>
>>Things "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are NOT
>
> EXCLUDED.
>
> 13. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
> included.}?
> (Search the post that this is in reply to, or scroll down to where you state
> those words.)
Yes.
>
> 14. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A,
> B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> included.}
Yes.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>>Do you understand that 7701(c) rules how "includes" is to be construed
>>in Title 26?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> 15. Are the {7701(c) rules how "includes" is to be construed in Title 26}
> the rules that determine what term T means when term T is defined in this
> format: {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or
> C}?
No, 7701(c) rules how 'includes(ing)' is to be construed. 7701(c) has
nothing to do with determining what any other term means.
'Includes(ing)' adds to the meaning of a term. It does not determine or
change the meaning of the term.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>>>Moving on to the next level: Another made up statute STILL in exactly
>>
> the
>
>>>same format:
>>>{For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang,
>>
> or
>
>>>Thunderbird}.
>>>
>>>11. Now what is the meaning of T?
>>
>>You tell me: T means _________________.
>
>
> You have been given the definition EXACTLY as such definitions are given in
> Title 26.
>
> 16. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A,
> B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> included.}
Yes.
>
> 17. Is it true then, By your words, T ONLY (your addition) INCLUDES Edsels,
> Mustangs, or Thunderbirds?
It is your example...
>
>
>
>
>>>Congress has given the meaning of T. Congress has stated {For the
>>
> purposes
>
>>>of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> 18. Do you understand that I used the EXACT FORMAT as found in several Title
> 26 DEFINITIONS sections?
I understand it, but you seem to be having the problem.
>
> TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> Subtitle [redacted]
> CHAPTER [redacted]
>
> -HEAD-
> Sec. [redacted]. Definitions
>
> -STATUTE-
> ([redacted]) [redacted]
> For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes includes Edsel,
> Mustang, or Thunderbird.
>
>
>
>>If Congress had given MEANING to T, they would have said, "T
>>means thus and such..."
>
>
> 19. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION of a term is NOT the
> MEANING of a term?
Ding, ding, that's what I have been arguing all along.
>
> 20. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION that Congress put in a
> DEFINITION statute is NOT the meaning of the term Congress has defined?
Is 7701(c) still the subject of this thread, ding ding?
>
> 21. Are you now going to argue that when Congress words a DEFINITION statute
> in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes
> includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird.}, Congress does NOT MEAN that term
> "T" touches Edsels, Mustangs, or Thunderbirds?
You say, "touches". But you need to get into your head that when
Congress uses "includes(ing)", Congress is not using "means". They are
two different concepts.
>
> 22. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A,
> B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> included.}?
Yes.
>
> 23. When A = Edsel, B = Mustang, and C = Thunderbird, is this a proper
> conversion of your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
> Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to
> 7701(c), nothing else is included.}?
Yes.
>
>
>>For example, T = Car.
>
>
> car n. 1. An automobile. 2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on
> rails: a railroad car. 3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on
> a conveyance: an elevator car. 4. The part of a balloon or airship that
> carries people and cargo. 5. Archaic. A chariot, carriage, or cart.
>
>
>>Car means all chevys.
>
>
> 24. Does car also mean all street cars that run on rails?
No, I said, "Car means all chevys."
I gave 'car' a meaning.
>
> 25. Does car also mean all elevator cabins?
No, I said, "Car means all chevys."
I gave 'car' a meaning.
>
>
>
>>For example, T = Car.
>>Car means all chevys.
>>For purposes of this
>>section, the term car includes Mustangs and Thunderbirds.
>>
>>Now Congress has DEFINED "car" in that particular section as Chevys,
>>Mustangs, and Thuderbirds.
>
>
> 28 Are you using the dictionary definition of the meaning of Car when you
> state: {T = Car} in your example?
> (Yes, I know you are because of what you have said prior, so humor me and
> nail it down with a specific answer to this specific question.)
No, I did not use the dictionary definition because I limited the
meaning of 'car' to "all chevys".
>
> 29. Did Congress define car in this format: {For the purposes of this
> section, the term car means the common dictionary meaning}?
Huh?
>
> 30. Did Congress define car in this format: {For the purposes of this
> section, the term car means any passenger automobile}?
Huh?
>
> 31. Did Congress define car as all Chevys or did Daniel Webster?
Huh?
>
>
> The following 8 questions assume you will answered question 28 with a "yes":
Then you would be wrong because I said NO.
>
> 32. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Novas?
> 33. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Camaros?
> 34. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Corvettes?
>
> 35. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Novas, Camaros, and Corvettes because they are within the
> dictionary definition of "Car"?
>
> 36. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Edsels?
> 37. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Mustangs?
> 38. When Congress acts upon "cars" in that particular section, does that
> section act upon Thunderbirds?
>
> 39. WHY WOULD CONGRESS NEED TO INCLUDE MUSTANGS AND THUNDERBIRDS IN A
> SECTION IN THE MANNER OF YOUR EXAMPLE SINCE SUCH OBJECTS ARE ALREADY WITHIN
> THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION?
Simple. Because I limited the meaning of the term. When things are
included to that term, the meaning does not change. The included items
are merely additions to the previously limited meaning.
If I had not given a meaning to the term, then the common dictionary
meaning would be used. That is why Congress usually "includes" things
to a term that normally would not be considered within the meaning of
the term.
For instance, when Congress includes 'D.C.' to the meaning of 'state',
the inclusion does not change the meaning of the term. 'State' still
means state. And things otherwise within the meaning of 'state' are not
excluded. That is, the 50 states are clearly within the meaning of
'state' and are therefore not excluded. However, 'D.C.' is not a state.
So when Congress includes 'D.C.', 'D.C.' is merely added to the
meaning of 'state'. It does not become or change the meaning of the term.
If T = car, and I do not say what car means, then all automobiles would
be withing the meaning of 'car'.
So it would be ridiculous to say, "the term car includes mustangs,
edsels, and thunderbirds." Those things are already known as cars.
More realistically, a statute would read, "the term car includes
bicycles and golf carts."
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>>>25. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object D,
>>
> (or
>
>>>E, or F) when the definition statute uses this format: {For purposes of
>>
> this
>
>>>chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
>>
>>Only those things following "includes" is included.
>
>
>
>>>26. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object Ford
>>>Taurus, (or Ford Crown Victoria , or Chevy Camaro ) when the definition
>>>statute uses this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
>>>includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
>>
>>Asked and answered.
>
>
> 40. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
> included.}?
duh.
>
> 41. Per your statement, is it true that since Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird
> are {only those things following "includes"} then ONLY an Edsel, Mustang, or
> Thunderbird, are included?
duh.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>9. What is the meaning of T when it is defined in this format {For the
>>>purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
>>
>>Sorry, but you have failed to provide enough information. However, if
>>"T" is in the dictionary, that would be its meaning.
>
>
> I have provided you EXACTLY the same amount of information in the same
> format as that provided in several definition sections of Title 26.
>
> 42. When a term is defined as a group of objects, wouldn't that grouping be
> a statutory grouping?
gawd, another red herring, eh?
>
> 43. Isn't a statutory grouping of objects a statutorily defined Set or Class
> of objects?
More gibberish.
>
> class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members
> regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or
> category. 2. A division based on quality, rank, or grade, as: a. A grade of
> mail: a package sent third class. b. A quality of accommodation on public
> transport: tourist class. 3.a. A social stratum whose members share certain
> economic, social, or cultural characteristics: the lower-income classes.
>
> class tr.v. classed, class搏ng, class搪s. To arrange, group, or rate
> according to qualities or characteristics; assign to a class; classify.
>
> set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong together and are so
> used: a chess set. 8. Mathematics. A collection of distinct elements having
> specific common properties: a set of positive integers.
>
> 44. When T is defined in this format, {For the purposes of this chapter, the
> term "T" includes A, B, or C}, isn't Congress defining a Set or Class of
> objects?
No. Congress is defining a term.
>
> 45. When T is defined in this format, {For the purposes of this chapter, the
> term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, isn't Congress defining a
> Set or Class of objects that are all Ford automobiles?
No. When Congress uses 'includes(ing)", other things otherwise within
the meaning of "T" is not excluded. "T" means whatever it means.
>
>
>
Richard Macdonald
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C67A...@tx.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>includes'? The former is limiting and the latter is expansive as when
>>>>>used in 7701(c).
>>>>
>>>>Set A includes only items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
>>>>Set B only includes items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
As neither example is accurate for the operation of
26 USC 7701(c) which would be worded:
Set C [general definition of term defined] ALSO includes items 1, 2, 3, and
4.
So the definition included in addition to anything in the list
after included/including also incluses anythinf that falls under
the general usage definition of the term.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
1. Are these your [intended] words: {Also remember, it is not what you call
something but what i[t] really is as substance rules over form and
language}?
2. Is it true that: If {it is not what you call something} then you have no
problem with calling the term being defined "T" when discussing the rules
for defining terms since {substance rules over form and language}?
3. Are these your words: {The use of includes(ing) in Title 26 is to EXPAND
the common useage definitions}
4. Do you understand that I use the EXACT FORMAT as found in several Title
26 DEFINITIONS sections?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle [redacted]
CHAPTER [redacted]
-HEAD-
Sec. [redacted]. Definitions
-STATUTE-
([redacted]) [redacted]
For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes includes Edsel,
Mustang, or Thunderbird.
5. If term "T" means the term "Ford", and If {the subject [object] already
falls in the common use definition it is already included} why would
Congress need specifically "include" an object already within the {common
use definition }?
6. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
7. If term "T" means the term "Car", and If {the subject [object] already
falls in the common use definition it is already included} why would
Congress need specifically "include" an object already within the {common
use definition }?
8. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
9. If term "T" means the term "Automobile", and If {the subject [object]
already falls in the common use definition it is already included} why would
Congress need specifically "include" an object already within the {common
use definition }?
10. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
11. Repeating the question you ignored: Are you saying take "T" as it is
defined in Websters and Blacks, and then add Object A, Object B, and Object
C?
12. Rephrasing the question you ignored: Are you saying take "FORD" as it is
defined in Websters and Blacks, and then add Ford A, Ford B, and Ford C?
13. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
14. Rephrasing the question you ignored: Are you saying take "CAR" as it is
defined in Websters and Blacks, and then add Car A, Car B, and Car C?
15. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
16. Rephrasing the question you ignored: Are you saying take "AUTOMOBILE" as
it is defined in Websters and Blacks, and then add Automobile A, Automobile
B, and Automobile C?
17. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
18. Do you really expect anybody to believe Congress is a stupid as you have
just painted them to be?
19. Do you really expect anybody to believe you?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
Your assertion carries no weight.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsWantTo" wrote
> My assertion carries no weight.
Proof that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
> wrote in message news:13cf1qr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Now, can inquiring mindless explain why his entire line of questioning
> is specious misdieection from 7701(c)'s meaning and relevance?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/baf6ec1034bdb020?hl=en
ques·tion n. 1.a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a
reply. b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.
ques·tion v. ques·tioned, ques·tion·ing, ques·tions. --tr. 1. To put a
question to. See Synonyms at ask. 2. To examine (a witness, for example) by
questioning; interrogate. 4. To analyze; examine. --intr. To ask questions.
ask v. asked, ask·ing, asks. --tr. 1. To put a question to. 2. To seek an
answer to: ask a question. 3. To seek information about: asked
directions. --intr. 1. To make inquiry; seek information. 2. To make a
request: asked for help.
SYNONYMS: ask, question, inquire, query, interrogate, examine, quiz. These
verbs mean to seek information from a person. Ask is the most neutral term:
asked her what was wrong; asked the way to the library; ask too many
questions. Question often implies the asking of a series of questions, as in
determining the scope of a problem: The prosecutor questioned the witness in
great detail. Inquire, which often implies a comprehensive search for
knowledge or truth, in this sense refers to a simple request for
information: inquired where the books were kept; will inquire how we can be
of help; inquired about her health. Query usually suggests questioning to
settle a doubt: The proofreader queried the spelling of the word.
Interrogate, a more formal word, applies especially to official questioning:
The suspects were called in and interrogated by detectives. Examine refers
particularly to close and detailed questioning to ascertain the extent of a
person's knowledge or the adequacy of his or her qualifications: At the end
of the semester students are examined in every subject. Only lawyers who
have been examined and certified by the bar association are admitted to
practice. Quiz is used most frequently to denote the informal examination of
students to verify their comprehension of classwork or reading: The teacher
quizzed the pupils on the multiplication tables.
> Now, can inquiring mindless
1. What does calling names do to anwer my line of inquiry?
> Now, can inquiring mindless explain why his entire line of questioning
2. Don't the questions themselves explain the entire line of questioning?
> specious misdieection from 7701(c)'s meaning and relevance?
3. Wouldn't assertions that don't carry any weight be specious misdirection?
4. Wouldn't refusal to answer simple questions that attempt to get to the
truth be specious misdirection?
> > class tr.v. classed, class·ing, class·es. To arrange, group, or rate
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13cj990...@corp.supernews.com...
Then prove it by showing a liabiility section that does not involve
transfering
the liability from one person to another or assigning the liability for a
tax on
a thing such as alcohol or gasoline.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C89D8...@tx.rr.com...
> > service. See Synonyms at responsible.
> >
> > 4. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the
matter of
> > imposing liability for the tax imposed in section 1?
>
> 1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new
> restrictions> <impose penalties>
>
> Section 1 SPECIFICALLY imposes a tax and sets the rate, thereby
> establishing by authority the tax.
>
> Section 1 SPECIFICALLY states an object-TAXABLE INCOME-upon which that
> tax is imposed.
>
> Section 1 SPECIFICALLY names a subject-EVERY INDIVIDUAL-upon whom that
> tax is imposed.
>
>
> THEREFORE, pursuant to section 1, any individual who has taxable income
> has thereby had a tax imposed MAKING that individual legally obligated,
> responsible, and thus liable for the tax.
1. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the
matter of imposing liability for the tax imposed in section 1?
2. Is it because NO WORDS embrace the matter of imposing liability for the
tax imposed in section 1 as specifically required by Gould v. Gould?
> >
> > 5. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically
point
> > out that a liability has been imposed in section 1?
3. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically
point out that a liability has been imposed in section 1?
4. Is it because NO WORDS specifically point out that a liability has been
imposed in section 1 as specifically required by Gould v. Gould?
> > 6. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear import
of
> > section 1 is to impose liability.
5. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear
import of section 1 is to impose liability?
6. Is it because NO WORDS show the clear import of section 1 to impose
liability as specifically required by Gould v. Gould?
> > 7. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the
matter of
> > imposing the legal obligation for the tax imposed in section 1?
7. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the
matter of imposing the legal obligation for the tax imposed in section 1?
8. Is it because NO WORDS embrace the matter of imposing the legal
obligation for the tax imposed in section 1 as specifically required by
Gould v. Gould?
> > 8. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically
point
> > out that a legal obligation has been imposed in section 1?
9. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 that specifically
point out that a legal obligation has been imposed in section 1?
10. Is it because NO WORDS specifically point out that a legal obligation
has been imposed in section 1 as specifically required by Gould v. Gould?
> > 9. Please indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear import
of
> > section 1 is to impose the legal obligation.
> >
11. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 where the clear
import of section 1 is to impose the legal obligation (liability)?
12. Is it because NO WORDS exist to show where the clear import of section 1
is to impose the legal obligation (liability) as specifically required by
Gould v. Gould?
> for 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, see answer to question 4.
13. Why should I look at your NON answer?
<snip assertions that carry no weight>
> >
> > li戢搓le adj. 1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable for military
> > service. See Synonyms at responsible.
> >
> > 10. Is a homeowner responsible, legally obligated, or liable for a
property
> > tax that has not been assessed?
>
> Ah, another red herring to avoid the inevitable...
14. You do understand that even though you refuse to answer the question,
everybody else understands that the homeowner is no responsible, legally
obligated or liable for a property tax that has not been assessed?
> >
> > as新ess搶ent n. 1. The act of assessing; appraisal. 2. An amount
assessed,
> > as for taxation.
> >
> > 11. If no property tax has been assessed, what is the official amount of
> > property tax due?
> >
> > 12. Can a person be {legally obligated} or {responsible}, that is,
"liable"
> > for a tax imposed if there is no official proof of such liability?
> >
> > 13. If no income tax has been assessed, what is the official amount of
> > income tax due?
>
>
> ...Section 1 CLEARLY makes every individual who has taxable income
> LIABLE for the tax.
Prove your assertion by honestly answering questions 1 through 12.
> Now you want to bring in assessment. This must
> mean that you have conceded your nonsense argument about liability.
You may (ignorantly) assume what you wish.
However, your failure to answer specific questions is there for all to read.
> Like your assessment question implies, liability can be established
> without any assessment. For liability, all that is needed is for an
> individual to have taxable income. The act of assessment merely
> determines the amount of tax due.
>
15. Without assessment, what is the amount of tax due?
16. If no amount of tax is due, what is the tax "liability"?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46C8AAE7...@tx.rr.com...
> >>>>Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
> >>>>Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>7. Not even anything else that is {otherwise within the definition of
> >>>the term defined}?
> >>
> >>Things "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are NOT
> >> EXCLUDED.
> >
> > 13. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
> > included.}?
> > (Search the post that this is in reply to, or scroll down to where you
state
> > those words.)
>
> Yes.
1. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, are you going to
admit that {Only those things following "includes" is included}?
> >
> > 14. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
A,
> > B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> > included.}
>
> Yes.
>
2. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, are you going to
admit that {As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
included} in that term?
> > TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
> > Subtitle [redacted]
> > CHAPTER [redacted]
> >
> > -HEAD-
> > Sec. [redacted]. Definitions
> >
> > -STATUTE-
> > ([redacted]) [redacted]
> > For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes includes Edsel,
> > Mustang, or Thunderbird.
> >
> >
> >
> >>If Congress had given MEANING to T, they would have said, "T
> >>means thus and such..."
> >
> >
> > 19. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION of a term is NOT the
> > MEANING of a term?
>
> Ding, ding, that's what I have been arguing all along.
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.a. A statement conveying fundamental character. b. A
statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary
entry. 2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance;
formulation of a meaning. 3.a. The act of making clear and distinct
mean·ing n. 1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or
significance.
3. Would you like to try again?
> >
> > 20. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION that Congress put in
a
> > DEFINITION statute is NOT the meaning of the term Congress has defined?
>
> Is 7701(c) still the subject of this thread, ding ding?
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.a. A statement conveying fundamental character. b. A
statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary
entry. 2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance;
formulation of a meaning. 3.a. The act of making clear and distinct
mean·ing n. 1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or
significance.
4. Would you like to try again?
> >
> > 21. Are you now going to argue that when Congress words a DEFINITION
statute
> > in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes
> > includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird.}, Congress does NOT MEAN that
term
> > "T" touches Edsels, Mustangs, or Thunderbirds?
You did NOT answer the question. My bad, since I wasn't as clear as I could
be. I will re-word it slightly to correct the lack of clarity.
5. Are you now going to argue that when Congress words a DEFINITION statute
in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes
includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird.}, Congress does NOT MEAN to include
Edsels, Mustangs, or Thunderbirds in that term?
>
> [Y]ou need to get into your head that when
> Congress uses "includes(ing)", Congress is not using "means". They are
> two different concepts.
Your assertion carries no weight.
6. Does a statutory definition give statutory meaning to a statutorily
defined term?
7. If you answer "no" to question 6, Does a statutory definition give NO
meaning to a statutorily defined term?
8. How can anybody know what is acted upon by a law that acts upon term "T"
if term "T" has no meaning?
> >
> > 22. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
A,
> > B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> > included.}?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > 23. When A = Edsel, B = Mustang, and C = Thunderbird, is this a proper
> > conversion of your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
> > Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to
> > 7701(c), nothing else is included.}?
>
> Yes.
9. Are you aware that what you call InquiringMindsWantsToKnow's
"hypothetical" is actually an exact duplicate of a Congressionally defined
term with the term's descripter changed to "T" and the included objects
changed to A, B, and C?
10. Are you aware that what you call InquiringMindsWantsToKnow's
"hypothetical" is actually an exact duplicate of a Congressionally defined
term with the term's descripter changed to "T" and the included objects
changed to Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird?
11. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, are you going to
admit that {As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
included} in that term?
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46C8AAE7...@tx.rr.com...
>
>
>
>>>>>>Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in
>>>>>>Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>7. Not even anything else that is {otherwise within the definition of
>>>>>the term defined}?
>>>>
>>>>Things "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are NOT
>>>>EXCLUDED.
>>>
>>>13. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
>>>included.}?
>>>(Search the post that this is in reply to, or scroll down to where you
>>
> state
>
>>>those words.)
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> 1. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, are you going to
> admit that {Only those things following "includes" is included}?
Well, duh.
>
>
>>>14. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
>>
> A,
>
>>>B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
>>>included.}
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>
>
> 2. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, are you going to
> admit that {As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> included} in that term?
Well, duh, again.
>
>
>
>>> TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
>>> Subtitle [redacted]
>>> CHAPTER [redacted]
>>>
>>>-HEAD-
>>> Sec. [redacted]. Definitions
>>>
>>>-STATUTE-
>>> ([redacted]) [redacted]
>>> For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes includes Edsel,
>>>Mustang, or Thunderbird.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If Congress had given MEANING to T, they would have said, "T
>>>>means thus and such..."
>>>
>>>
>>>19. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION of a term is NOT the
>>>MEANING of a term?
>>
>>Ding, ding, that's what I have been arguing all along.
>
>
>
> def·i·ni·tion n. 1.a. A statement conveying fundamental character. b. A
> statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary
> entry. 2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance;
> formulation of a meaning. 3.a. The act of making clear and distinct
>
> mean·ing n. 1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or
> significance.
>
> 3. Would you like to try again?
Let me reiterate for the slow of mind. When Congress uses 'means', they
are conveying a fundamental character to a term that is totally
different than when they use 'includes(ing)'.
>
>
>>>20. Are you now going to argue that the DEFINITION that Congress put in
>>
> a
>
>>>DEFINITION statute is NOT the meaning of the term Congress has defined?
>>
>>Is 7701(c) still the subject of this thread, ding ding?
>
>
> def·i·ni·tion n. 1.a. A statement conveying fundamental character. b. A
> statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary
> entry. 2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance;
> formulation of a meaning. 3.a. The act of making clear and distinct
>
> mean·ing n. 1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or
> significance.
>
> 4. Would you like to try again?
Let me reiterate again for the slow of mind. When Congress uses
'means', they are conveying a fundamental character to a term that is
totally different than when they use 'includes(ing)'.
>
>
>
>>>21. Are you now going to argue that when Congress words a DEFINITION
>>
> statute
>
>>>in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes
>>>includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird.}, Congress does NOT MEAN that
>>
> term
>
>>>"T" touches Edsels, Mustangs, or Thunderbirds?
>>
>
> You did NOT answer the question. My bad, since I wasn't as clear as I could
> be. I will re-word it slightly to correct the lack of clarity.
Oh, I answered. You just didn't like the answer. Just because you
rearrange the words, that doesn't mean you have provided any more insight.
>
> 5. Are you now going to argue that when Congress words a DEFINITION statute
> in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes
> includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird.}, Congress does NOT MEAN to include
> Edsels, Mustangs, or Thunderbirds in that term?
>
>
>>[Y]ou need to get into your head that when
>>Congress uses "includes(ing)", Congress is not using "means". They are
>>two different concepts.
>
>
> Your assertion carries no weight.
Then you must not be talking about 7701(c).
>
> 6. Does a statutory definition give statutory meaning to a statutorily
> defined term?
duh.
>
> 7. If you answer "no" to question 6, Does a statutory definition give NO
> meaning to a statutorily defined term?
duh.
>
> 8. How can anybody know what is acted upon by a law that acts upon term "T"
> if term "T" has no meaning?
The term has meaning. 'Includes(ing)' just does not state that meaning.
'Includes(ing) adds to the meaning. The meaning of the term is
presupposed.
>
>
>
>>>22. Are these your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
>>
> A,
>
>>>B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
>>>included.}?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>23. When A = Edsel, B = Mustang, and C = Thunderbird, is this a proper
>>>conversion of your words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES
>>>Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to
>>>7701(c), nothing else is included.}?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> 9. Are you aware that what you call InquiringMindsWantsToKnow's
> "hypothetical" is actually an exact duplicate of a Congressionally defined
> term with the term's descripter changed to "T" and the included objects
> changed to A, B, and C?
duh.
>
> 10. Are you aware that what you call InquiringMindsWantsToKnow's
> "hypothetical" is actually an exact duplicate of a Congressionally defined
> term with the term's descripter changed to "T" and the included objects
> changed to Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird?
duh.
>
> 11. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, are you going to
> admit that {As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
> included} in that term?
That is what 7701(c) says.
Why would you include other items? That would be changing the intent of
Congress.
>
>
>
>
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C89D8...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>im·pose –verb
>>1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new
>>restrictions> <impose penalties>
>>
>>Section 1 SPECIFICALLY imposes a tax and sets the rate, thereby
>>establishing by authority the tax.
>>
>>Section 1 SPECIFICALLY states an object-TAXABLE INCOME-upon which that
>>tax is imposed.
>>
>>Section 1 SPECIFICALLY names a subject-EVERY INDIVIDUAL-upon whom that
>>tax is imposed.
>>
>>
>>THEREFORE, pursuant to section 1, any individual who has taxable income
>>has thereby had a tax imposed MAKING that individual legally obligated,
>>responsible, and thus liable for the tax.
>
>
> 1. Why didn't you indicate the word or words in section 1 that embrace the
> matter of imposing liability for the tax imposed in section 1?
I did. You are not smart enough to see it.
The word is IMPOSE.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> >
> >
> > car n. 1. An automobile. 2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on
> > rails: a railroad car. 3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight
on
> > a conveyance: an elevator car. 4. The part of a balloon or airship that
> > carries people and cargo. 5. Archaic. A chariot, carriage, or cart.
> >
> >
> >>Car means all chevys.
> >
> >
> > 24. Does car also mean all street cars that run on rails?
>
> No, I said, "Car means all chevys."
> I gave 'car' a meaning.
>
> >
> > 25. Does car also mean all elevator cabins?
>
> No, I said, "Car means all chevys."
> I gave 'car' a meaning.
1. Did you give 'car' a meaning in the format of a Congressional Statutory
Definition?
> >
> >
> >
> >>For example, T = Car.
> >>Car means all chevys.
> >>For purposes of this
> >>section, the term car includes Mustangs and Thunderbirds.
> >>
> >>Now Congress has DEFINED "car" in that particular section as Chevys,
> >>Mustangs, and Thuderbirds.
> >
2. Did you know that when I state {For purposes of this chapter, the term
"T" includes includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, I am using exactly
the same format that Congress has used in several specific statutory
definitions?
3. Did you know that those several specific statutory definitions created by
Congress are the ONLY definitions of the term T.
4. Did you know that when Congress has statutorily defined the specific
terms of interest (to use your example from below) in this format: {For
purposes of this section, the term car includes Mustangs and Thunderbirds},
NOWHERE ELSE IS FOUND A DEFINITION FOR THE TERM?
5. May I remind you that you have stated: {Only those things following
"includes" is included}?
6. May I remind you that you have stated: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical
ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c),
NOTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED.}?
(Emphasis on {NOTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED} is mine)
7. If NOWHERE ELSE IS FOUND A DEFINITION equivilant to your statement {Car
means all chevys} and If {Only those things following "includes" is
included}, then is it true that your example definition can NOT be construed
to include {"car" in that particular section as all Chevys}?
8. So when I show you an actual Term defined by Congress, and you can not
find any prior definition of that term, are you going to admit that {As used
in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is included} in that term?
> >
> > 28 Are you using the dictionary definition of the meaning of Car when
you
> > state: {T = Car} in your example?
> > (Yes, I know you are because of what you have said prior, so humor me
and
> > nail it down with a specific answer to this specific question.)
>
> No, I did not use the dictionary definition because I limited the
> meaning of 'car' to "all chevys".
9. When you state: {No, I did not use the dictionary definition because I
limited the meaning of 'car' to "all chevys"} are you speaking as Congress
wording a statutory definition of the term "car"?
10. Since you have put the WORD "car" into the statute as the TERM being
defined by Congress, Did you know that when I state {For purposes of this
chapter, the term "car" includes includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird},
I am using exactly the same format that Congress has used in several
specific statutory definitions?
11. May I remind you that you have stated: {Only those things following
"includes" is included}?
12. May I remind you that you have stated: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical
ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c),
NOTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED.}?
(Emphasis on {NOTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED} is mine)
13. May I point out that when you add {Car means all chevys} you are adding
that which does not exist for any of the specific statutorily defined terms
that I am basing my defintion on.
14. In other words, May I point out that when Congress has statutorily
defined the equivilent of {For purposes of this chapter, the term "car" incl
udes includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird} there is absolutely NO
equivilent to {Car means all chevys}
> > The following 8 questions assume you will answered question 28 with a
"yes":
>
> Then you would be wrong because I said NO.
Questions deleted until other facts are nailed down and communication error
is fixed.
> > 39. WHY WOULD CONGRESS NEED TO INCLUDE MUSTANGS AND THUNDERBIRDS IN A
> > SECTION IN THE MANNER OF YOUR EXAMPLE SINCE SUCH OBJECTS ARE ALREADY
WITHIN
> > THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION?
>
> Simple. Because I limited the meaning of the term. When things are
> included to that term, the meaning does not change. The included items
> are merely additions to the previously limited meaning.
15. Did you know that in the case of the several statutorily defined terms
of interest, there are NO PREVIOUS MEANINGS, limited or otherwise?
> If I had not given a meaning to the term, then the common dictionary
> meaning would be used. That is why Congress usually "includes" things
> to a term that normally would not be considered within the meaning of
> the term.
16. Did you know that in the statutory definitions of the terms I am
interested in, Congress has ONLY defined the terms in this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "car" includes includes Edsel, Mustang,
or Thunderbird} and Congress has NOT defined any other meanings?
17. Did you know that in the statutory definitions of the terms I am
interested in, Congress has NOT {given a meaning to the term} but has only
defined the term in this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term
"car" includes includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
18. Assuming that you had NOT previously given a meaning to the term, are
you asserting that when presented in this format: {For purposes of this
chapter, the term "T" includes includes A, B, or C}, the term "T" includes
the dictionary meaning of whatever word "T" is plus whatever A, B, or C are?
19. Assuming that you had NOT previously given a meaning to the term, are
you asserting that when presented in this format: {For purposes of this
chapter, the term "car" includes includes A, B, or C}, the term "car"
includes the dictionary meaning of whatever the word "car" is plus whatever
A, B, or C are?
20. Assuming that you had NOT previously given a meaning to the term, are
you asserting that when presented in this format: {For purposes of this
chapter, the term "car" includes includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird},
the term "car" includes the dictionary meaning of whatever the word "car" is
plus Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird?
21. May I remind you that you have stated: {Only those things following
"includes" is included}?
22. May I remind you that you have stated: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical
ONLY INCLUDES A, B, and C. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c),
NOTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED.}?
(Emphasis on {NOTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED} is mine)
23. May I remind you that you answered YES to this question: {When A =
Edsel, B = Mustang, and C = Thunderbird, is this a proper conversion of your
words: {Ok, therefore your hypothetical ONLY INCLUDES Edsel, Mustang, and
Thunderbird. As used in Title 26 and pursuant to 7701(c), nothing else is
included.}}?
<deleted bafflegab>
> If T = car, and I do not say what car means, then all automobiles would
> be withing the meaning of 'car'.
24. Did you know that in the statutory definition of the terms I am
interested in, Congress has ONLY defined the terms in this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "car" includes includes Edsel, Mustang,
or Thunderbird} and Congress has NOT defined any other meanings?
> So it would be ridiculous to say, "the term car includes mustangs,
> edsels, and thunderbirds." Those things are already known as cars.
25. Are these your words {then the common dictionary meaning would be used}
when a {meaning to the term} is NOT given?
26. Did you know that is EXACTLY what Congress has done IF your assertion
regarding the use of the dictionary definition when no meaning is correct?
> >
> >>>25. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object D,
> >>>(or E, or F) when the definition statute uses this format: {For
purposes of this
> >>>chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C}?
> >>
> >>Only those things following "includes" is included.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>26. What is the criteria for inclusion (or non inclusion) of object
Ford
> >>>Taurus, (or Ford Crown Victoria , or Chevy Camaro ) when the definition
> >>>statute uses this format: {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
> >>>includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}?
> >>
> >>Asked and answered.
> >
> >
> > 40. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
> > included.}?
>
> duh.
>
> >
> > 41. Per your statement, is it true that since Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird
> > are {only those things following "includes"} then ONLY an Edsel,
Mustang, or
> > Thunderbird, are included?
>
> duh.
27. Did you know that in the statutory definition of the terms I am
interested in, Congress has ONLY defined the terms in this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes includes Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird}?
28. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
included.}?
29. Did you know that in the statutory definition of the terms I am
interested in, Congress has ONLY defined the terms in this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "car" includes includes Edsel, Mustang,
or Thunderbird}
30. Are these your words: {Only those things following "includes" is
included.}?
31. Are these your words: {If I had not given a meaning to the term, then
the common dictionary meaning would be used.}
32. Is the common dictionary meaning something which follows "includes"?
con·tra·dic·tion n. 1.a. The act of contradicting. b. The state of being
contradicted. 2. A denial. 3. Inconsistency; discrepancy. 4. Something that
contains contradictory elements.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:46C89D8...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>Now you want to bring in assessment. This must
>>mean that you have conceded your nonsense argument about liability.
>>Like your assessment question implies, liability can be established
>>without any assessment. For liability, all that is needed is for an
>>individual to have taxable income. The act of assessment merely
>>determines the amount of tax due.
>>
>
>
> 15. Without assessment, what is the amount of tax due?
>
> 16. If no amount of tax is due, what is the tax "liability"?
>
>
Your questions indicate that you don't understand that "a person made
liable for a tax" is different than "a person has a tax liability".
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> 16. Rephrasing the question you ignored: Are you saying take "AUTOMOBILE" as
> it is defined in Websters and Blacks, and then add Automobile A, Automobile
> B, and Automobile C?
>
> 17. Does this {EXPAND the common useage definitions}?
>
> 18. Do you really expect anybody to believe Congress is a stupid as you have
> just painted them to be?
>
> 19. Do you really expect anybody to believe you?
>
>
>
All you have done is fallaciously argue the absurd.
If you want a formula, it is this:
Pursuant to 7701(c),
If X = A, and A includes B,
Then the definition of term X = A + B.
For some goofy reason, you seem to want:
If X = A, and A includes B,
term X = B + C + D + E + infiniti
That is why everyone can see that you are an idiot.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Richard Macdonald" <ramc...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46c9acf1$0$23516$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You made the assertion. You prove it.
It's not my job to disprove your unsupported assertions.
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule
not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=245
&page=151
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> 18. Assuming that you had NOT previously given a meaning to the term, are
> you asserting that when presented in this format: {For purposes of this
> chapter, the term "T" includes includes A, B, or C}, the term "T" includes
> the dictionary meaning of whatever word "T" is plus whatever A, B, or C are?
No. Things otherwise within the dictionary meaning of "T" would NOT BE
EXCLUDED.
>
> 19. Assuming that you had NOT previously given a meaning to the term, are
> you asserting that when presented in this format: {For purposes of this
> chapter, the term "car" includes includes A, B, or C}, the term "car"
> includes the dictionary meaning of whatever the word "car" is plus whatever
> A, B, or C are?
No. Things otherwise within the dictionary meaning of "car" would NOT
BE EXCLUDED.
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13ckgoh...@corp.supernews.com...
Your non-response is proof enough, if you could disprove, you would.
Richard Macdonald
As long as you understand that:
A = dictionary definition, and
B = additional expansion of definition after "includes"
then X = A + B.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"InquiringMindsDon'tWantTheTruth" wrote
> You made the assertion. You prove it.
LMAO
Some double standard you have.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >
> > 18. Assuming that you had NOT previously given a meaning to the
term, are
> > you asserting that when presented in this format: {For purposes
of this
> > chapter, the term "T" includes includes A, B, or C}, the term
"T" includes
> > the dictionary meaning of whatever word "T" is plus whatever A,
B, or C are?
>
> No. Things otherwise within the dictionary meaning of "T" would
NOT BE
> EXCLUDED.
1. Then are things otherwise within the dictionary meaning of "T"
INCLUDED?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> If you want a formula, it is this:
>
> Pursuant to 7701(c),
> If X = A, and A includes B,
> Then the definition of term X = A + B.
>
> For some goofy reason, you seem to want:
> If X = A, and A includes B,
> term X = B + C + D + E + infiniti
>
> That is why everyone can see that you are an idiot.
>
Then type slower so I can keep up.
AND, If you would quit contradicting yourself, I wouldn't have to
ask so many questions to understand what you are trying to say.
26 USC 7701(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.
{For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or C.}
{Whenever a "T" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin tax
is hereby imposed upon that "T".}
1. When A is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
2. When B is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
3. When C is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
4. When D is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
5. When E is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
6. When F is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
26 USC 7701(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.
{For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel,
Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
{Whenever a "T" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin tax
is hereby imposed upon that "T".}
7. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
8. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
9. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
10. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
11. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
12. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
26 USC 7701(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.
{For purposes of this chapter, the term "Ford" includes Edsel,
Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
{Whenever a "Ford" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin
tax is hereby imposed upon that "Ford".}
13. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
14. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
15. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
16. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
17. When a Fairlane is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
18. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
19. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
26 USC 7701(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.
{For purposes of this chapter, the term "Car" includes Edsel,
Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
{Whenever a "Car" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin tax
is hereby imposed upon that "Car".}
20. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
21. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
22. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
23. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
24. When a Fairlane is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
25. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
26. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> > If you want a formula, it is this:
> >
> > Pursuant to 7701(c),
> > If X = A, and A includes B,
> > Then the definition of term X = A + B.
> >
> > For some goofy reason, you seem to want:
> > If X = A, and A includes B,
> > term X = B + C + D + E + infiniti
> >
> > That is why everyone can see that you are an idiot.
>
> As long as you understand that:
> A = dictionary definition, and
> B = additional expansion of definition after "includes"
> then X = A + B.
>
1. Are you saying that A is the dictionary definition of X?
2. Are you saying that B is the "included" item?
3. Are you saying that when a statutory definition is worded in this
format: {For the purposes of this chapter, the term X includes B}
any other statute that acts upon X acts upon the dictionary
definition of X, to wit: the statute acts upon A, as well as acting
upon B?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsDon'tWantToKnow" wrote
> Then type slower so I can keep up.
That hasn't worked yet.
You should quit making up shit to fit your scheme to prove something or
another.
§ 61 Gross income defined.
(a) General definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income
from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following
items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits,
and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13clv72...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes, for example individuals meeting the dictionary definition of
employees are included in the definition of "Employee", and the
50 states are included in the definition of "State"
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
1. Then why would a statutory definition need to specifically
"include" objects that are ALREADY within the dictionary definition
of term "T"?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsDon'tWantToKnow" wrote
> 1. Then why would a statutory definition need
> to specifically "include" objects that are
> ALREADY within the dictionary definition
> of term "T"?
Your dictionary defines "T"?
What other letters do you need a definition of.
Dave Johnson
yes, everyone can see "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" AKA Dale Eastman,
- - - one the most idiotic nut posters on misc.taxes
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com
internet tax scams
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13cm7ff...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 1. Then why would a statutory definition need to specifically
> "include" objects that are ALREADY within the dictionary definition
> of term "T"?
So let's use a REAL WORLD example, are the States of the
Union included in the DICTIONARY definition of "State"?
Yes or No?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
1. Why would a statutory definition need to specifically "include"
objects that are ALREADY within the dictionary definition of the
term being statutorily defined?
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13cmlp5...@corp.supernews.com...
Evasion noted, again let's use a REAL WORLD example,
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
>
> 1. Why would a statutory definition need to specifically "include"
> objects that are ALREADY within the dictionary definition of the
> term being statutorily defined?
>
>
Answer: A statutory definition would not need to specifically "include"
objects that are already within the dictionary definition (ie., MEANING)
of the term.
nat
You have fallen for eastman's word play.
Pursuant to 7701(c), there are things "included", and then there are
things "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" which are not
excluded. These two groups do not intersect; however, items from either
group are within the definition of the term.
In common parlance, things "included" and things "not excluded" can be
said to be included within the meaning of the term. But that is not how
7701(c) is worded.
nat
Not necessarily.
A = the meaning Congress has already given the term.
For instance, sec. 3121(a):
Wages.--For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all
remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all
remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;...
Here, Congress tells you what "wages" MEANS and no dictionary is necessary.
nat
Not according to 7701(c), wordsmith...
nat
Yes, yes, and yes.
>
> 4. When D is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 5. When E is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 6. When F is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Only if D, E, and F are within the meaning of "T".
>
>
>
>
> 26 USC 7701(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.
>
> {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel,
> Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
> {Whenever a "T" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin tax
> is hereby imposed upon that "T".}
>
> 7. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 8. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 9. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Yes, yes, and yes.
>
> 10. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 11. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 12. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Only if those things are within the meaning of "T".
>
>
>
>
> 26 USC 7701(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.
>
> {For purposes of this chapter, the term "Ford" includes Edsel,
> Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
> {Whenever a "Ford" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin
> tax is hereby imposed upon that "Ford".}
>
> 13. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 14. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 15. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Yes, yes, and yes.
>
> 16. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 17. When a Fairlane is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Yes and yes.
>
> 18. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 19. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
No and no.
>
>
>
>
> 26 USC 7701(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.
>
> {For purposes of this chapter, the term "Car" includes Edsel,
> Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
> {Whenever a "Car" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediatioin tax
> is hereby imposed upon that "Car".}
>
> 20. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 21. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 22. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Yes, yes, and yes.
>
> 23. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 24. When a Fairlane is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Yes and yes.
>
> 25. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> 26. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
Yes and yes.
>
>
>
>
>
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> > 26 USC 7701(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.
> >
> > {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes A, B, or
C.}
> > {Whenever a "T" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediation
tax
> > is hereby imposed upon that "T".}
> >
> > 1. When A is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 2. When B is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 3. When C is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes.
Agreed.
> >
> > 4. When D is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 5. When E is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 6. When F is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Only if D, E, and F are within the meaning of "T".
Agreed, but only because of section 7701(c), otherwise the answer
would be NO for questions 4, 5, and 6 because of this rule of
statutory construction: {Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: The
expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of another.}
1. Is it true that the meaning of "T" is required to answer
questions 4, 5, and 6?
2. When the law states {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
includes A, B, or C}, has the law just listed a GROUP of objects?
group n. 1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located
together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of
buildings near the road. 3. A number of individuals or things
considered together because of similarities: a small group of
supporters across the country. 6. A class or collection of related
objects or entities, as: a. Two or more atoms behaving or regarded
as behaving as a single chemical unit. b. A column in the periodic
table of the elements.
3. In the example, is a dismantling tax of $25 imposed upon objects
within a GROUP of objects?
4. Is there enough information to determine if objects A, B, and C
in the example have any characteristic, property, or trait that is
common to all the other objects on the list?
5. Is there enough information to determine if objects D, E, and F
in the example have any characteristic, property, or trait that is
common to all the objects on the list?
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing
members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a
kind or category.
class tr.v. classed, class搏ng, class搪s. To arrange, group, or rate
according to qualities or characteristics; assign to a class;
classify.
6. When a GROUP of objects are grouped together because of a
characteristic, property, or trait does this grouping constitute a
CLASS of objects?
7. In the example, is a dismantling tax of $25 imposed upon objects
within a CLASS of objects?
> > 26 USC 7701(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.
> >
> > {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel,
> > Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
> > {Whenever a "T" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediation
tax
> > is hereby imposed upon that "T".}
> >
> > 7. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 8. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 9. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes.
Agreed.
> >
> > 10. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 11. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 12. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Only if those things are within the meaning of "T".
Agreed, but only because of section 7701(c), otherwise the answer
would be NO for questions 10, 11, and 12 because of the rule of
statutory construction: {Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: The
expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of another.}
I will address your incorrect assertion that the meaning of "T" is
the dictionary meaning of whatever WORD "T" represents below when I
specifically show the logical error that results from that incorrect
assumption about STATUTORY DEFINITIONS.
8. Is it true that the meaning of "T" is required to answer
questions 10, 11, and 12?
9. When the law states {For purposes of this chapter, the term "T"
includes Edsel, Mustang, or Thunderbird}, has the law just listed a
GROUP of objects?
group n. 1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located
together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of
buildings near the road. 3. A number of individuals or things
considered together because of similarities: a small group of
supporters across the country. 6. A class or collection of related
objects or entities, as: a. Two or more atoms behaving or regarded
as behaving as a single chemical unit. b. A column in the periodic
table of the elements.
10. In the example, is a dismantling tax of $25 imposed upon objects
within a GROUP of objects?
11. Is there enough information to determine if the objects of
Edsel, Mustang, and Thunderbird in the example have any
characteristic, property, or trait that is common to all the other
objects on the list?
12. Is one common set of characteristics the fact that Edsel,
Mustang, and Thunderbird are cars?
13. Is one common set of characteristics the fact that Edsel,
Mustang, and Thunderbird are Ford passenger cars?
14. Is there enough information to determine if the objects of
Pinto, Camaro, and Corvette in the example have any characteristic,
property, or trait that is common to the objects on the list?
15. Is one common set of characteristics the fact that Pinto,
Camaro, and Corvette are cars?
16. Does the list contain any NON- Ford passenger cars?
17. Is one common set of characteristics the fact that Pinto is a
Ford passenger car?
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration containing
members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a
kind or category.
class tr.v. classed, class搏ng, class搪s. To arrange, group, or rate
according to qualities or characteristics; assign to a class;
classify.
18. When a GROUP of objects are grouped together because of a
characteristic, property, or trait does this grouping constitute a
CLASS of objects?
19. Does the GROUP of objects, to wit: Edsel, Mustang, Thunderbird
and Pinto have the common characteristic, property, or trait of
being Ford automobiles.
20. Does the GROUP of objects, to wit: Edsel, Mustang, Thunderbird
and Pinto constitute a CLASS of objects that are Ford passenger
cars?
21. In the example, is a dismantling tax of $25 imposed upon objects
within a CLASS of objects?
22. Is the Pinto within that CLASS of objects?
Ejusdem generis
(eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to
interpret loosely written statutes. 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.
23. When a term is STATUTORILY DEFINED using this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird}, is a Pinto {the same kind of person[] or thing[]
specifically listed}?
7701(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.
24. If {the meaning of the term defined} is the CLASS of objects
listed, would a non-listed object that is within the CLASS
represented by the objects listed be {within the meaning of the term
defined}?
25. When a term is STATUTORILY DEFINED using this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird}, and the STATUTORY DEFINITION means the CLASS of
objects or things that are listed, is a Pinto within the meaning of
the CLASS defined?
26. When a term is STATUTORILY DEFINED using this format: {For
purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes Edsel, Mustang, or
Thunderbird}, and the STATUTORY DEFINITION means the CLASS of
objects or things that are listed, is a Pinto {within the meaning of
the term defined}?
The correct answers to the questions:
> > 10. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
YES.
A Pinto is otherwise within the CLASS of things listed in the
statutory definition.
> > 11. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
NO
A Camaro is NOT otherwise within the CLASS of things listed in the
statutory definition.
> > 12. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
NO.
A Corvette is NOT otherwise within the CLASS of things listed in the
statutory definition.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 26 USC 7701(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.
> >
> >
> > {For purposes of this chapter, the term "Ford" includes Edsel,
> > Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
> > {Whenever a "Ford" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediation
> > tax is hereby imposed upon that "Ford".}
> >
> > 13. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 14. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 15. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes.
Agreed.
> >
> > 16. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 17. When a Fairlane is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes and yes.
Agreed.
> >
> > 18. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 19. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> No and no.
Agreed.
However, my answer is based upon the fact that it does NOT matter if
the STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is "T" or "Ford" or "ID/10-T".
The dictionary defines WORDS. The statutes define TERMS.
When a TERM is STATUTORILY DEFINED, the ONLY definition that applies
is the STATUTORY DEFINITION.
I will address your incorrect assertion that the meaning of "T" is
the dictionary meaning of whatever WORD "T" represents below when I
specifically show the logical error that results from that incorrect
assumption about STATUTORY DEFINITIONS.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 26 USC 7701(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.
> >
> > {For purposes of this chapter, the term "Car" includes Edsel,
> > Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
> > {Whenever a "Car" is dismantled a $25 environmental remediation
tax
> > is hereby imposed upon that "Car".}
> >
> > 20. When an Edsel is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 21. When a Mustang is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 22. When a Thunderbird is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes, yes, and yes.
Agreed
> >
> > 23. When a Pinto is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 24. When a Fairlane is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes and yes.
Agreed.
> >
> > 25. When a Camaro is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
> > 26. When a Corvette is dismantled, is the tax imposed?
>
> Yes and yes.
Actually the answers are NO and NO.
27. May I remind you that you stated: {If T = car, and I do not say
what car means, then all automobiles would be withing the meaning of
'car'. So it would be ridiculous to say, "the term car includes
mustangs, edsels, and thunderbirds." Those things are already known
as cars. }?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b4dfb099f5049fc8?hl=en
{For purposes of this chapter, the term "Car" includes Edsel,
Mustang, or Thunderbird.}
28. Did I say what car means?
29. Then are all automobiles within the meaning of 'car'?
30. Is it ridiculous to say {the term car includes mustangs, edsels,
and thunderbirds}
Now on to the real world.
The dictionary definition of the WORD employee: {em搆loy搪e n. 1. A
person who works for another in return for financial or other
compensation.}
31. Does an employee of the United States work for another in return
for financial compensation?
32. Is an employee of the United States an employee per the
dictionary definition of employee?
33. Does an employee of the District of Columbia work for another in
return for financial compensation?
34. Is an employee of the District of Columbia an employee per the
dictionary definition of employee?
35. May I remind you that you stated: {So it would be ridiculous to
say, "the term car includes mustangs, edsels, and thunderbirds."
Those things are already known as cars. }?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b4dfb099f5049fc8?hl=en
36. Is this a valid transform of your statement {So it would be
ridiculous to say, "the term employee includes an employee of the
United States, an employee of the District of Columbia , and an
employee of any political subdivision thereof." Those things are
already known as employees. } done by exchanging a different Term
and the items it includes for the ones in your statment?
{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.}
37. Did Congress just say something ridiculous?
38. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
The dictionary definition of the WORD person: {per新on 1. A living
human being. 6. Law. A human being or an organization with legal
rights and duties.}
(If you attempt to use the definition of person in 7701(a)(1) you
end up in the same logical conundrum.)
39. Is an officer of a corporation a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
(Is an officer of a corporation a person per the 7701(a)(1)
definition of person?)
40. Is an employee of a corporation a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
(Is an employee of a corporation a person per the 7701(a)(1)
definition of person?)
41. Is a member of a partnership a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
(Is a member of a partnership a person per the 7701(a)(1) definition
of person?)
42. Is an employee of a partnership a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
(Is a employee of a partnership a person per the 7701(a)(1)
definition of person?)
43. May I remind you that you stated: {So it would be ridiculous to
say, "the term car includes mustangs, edsels, and thunderbirds."
Those things are already known as cars. }?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b4dfb099f5049fc8?hl=en
44. Is this a valid transform of your statement {So it would be
ridiculous to say, "the term person includes an officer or employee
of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership" Those
things are already known as persons. } done by exchanging a
different Term and the items it includes for the ones in your
statment?
{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.}
45. Did Congress just say something ridiculous?
46. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
Dictionaries define WORDS. The statutes define TERMS.
When a TERM is STATUTORILY DEFINED, the ONLY definition that applies
is the STATUTORY DEFINITION.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> >> > 1. Then why would a statutory definition need to specifically
> >> > "include" objects that are ALREADY within the dictionary
> >> > definition of term "T"?
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?hl=en
1. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
All definitions in the IRC are expansions of the common use
definition.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/6b1a89ad89e27df1?hl=en
2. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
The use of includes(ing) in Title 26 is to EXPAND the common useage
definitions, so if the subject already falls in the common use
definition it
is already included. Also remember, it is not what you call
something but
what ir really is as substance rules over form and language.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b26bc789b0cc7f14?hl=en
3. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
> >> So let's use a REAL WORLD example,
em搆loy搪e n. 1. A person who works for another in return for
financial or other compensation.
{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.}
4. Does an employee of the United States work for another in return
for financial compensation?
5. Is an employee of the United States an employee per the
dictionary definition of employee?
6. Does an employee of the District of Columbia work for another in
return for financial compensation?
7. Is an employee of the District of Columbia an employee per the
dictionary definition of employee?
8. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
per新on 1. A living human being. 6. Law. A human being or 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.}
9. Is an officer of a corporation a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
10. Is an employee of a corporation a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
11. Is a member of a partnership a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
12. Is an employee of a partnership a person per the dictionary
definition of person?
13. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13ct1rf...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 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?hl=en
>
> 1. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE"
> OBJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE
> TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
That is because the use of include(s)(ing) EXPANDS the standard definition,
for example in the definition of State in 26 USC 7701:
7701(a)(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia,
where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Since 50 States of the Union already fall into the standard definition of
"State"
listing them would be redundant and since the District of Columbia is not a
State in the Standard definition but the Congress wants to treat it as if it
is a
State for the purposes of Title 26, then it is added to the dictionary
definition
of State by the use of the term "include".
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsWantDonuts" wrote
> 1. WHY WOULD A STATUTORY DEFINITION NEED TO
> SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDE" OBJECTS THAT ARE
> ALREADY WITHIN THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION
> OF THE TERM BEING STATUTORILY DEFINED?
Ask Congress. They wrote it that way.
But your beliefs that the few items listed are the only items included when
the word "only" isn't used, but the phrase "including but not limited to" is
present, simply underscores the ineptness of the US educational system.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> 7701(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.
>
>
> 24. If {the meaning of the term defined} is the CLASS of objects
> listed, would a non-listed object that is within the CLASS
> represented by the objects listed be {within the meaning of the term
> defined}?
No, dale, it doesn't. All you are attempting to do is turn 7701(c) into
the opposite of what it plainly says.
According to you, if "State" includes D.C. and since the "50 States" is
not in the same "class of objects" as "D.C.", then "State" does not
include "the 50 States of the Union". In other words, "includes(ing)" =
MEANS.
That is a totally ridiculous interpretation which is contrary to 7701(c)
and is nothing but self-serving nonsense.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
>
> {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.}
>
>
> 37. Did Congress just say something ridiculous?
No. Since when has an "elected official of the United States" been
commonly known as an "employee"?
Answer-NEVER.
Furthermore, Federal employees were not under Social Security until the
1980's. They had there own pension system.
dale once again shows why his out of context gibberish makes him an idiot.