Still looking for honest answers about 7701(c) from the players in this group
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
your beLIEfs about 7701(c), your semantic games, and your
sophistry.
se搶an暗ic adj. 1. Of or relating to meaning, especially
meaning in language. 2. Of, relating to, or according to the
science of semantics
soph搏s暗ry n., 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
As my tag says, InquiringMindsWantToKnow, and I want to know
the truth.
1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items; objects; or
persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon "T"?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsWantChocolate" wrote
> I'm starting this over again now that
Dale, give up the sinking ship. You can "start" your silly arguments a
million times and you'd be wrong a million more times.
Your income from the 7-11 is taxable. The law says so, the courts say so.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMynd" wrote
> 1. Is a TERM,
§ 7701 Definitions.
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person.
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual,
(14) Taxpayer.
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
(30) United States person.
The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(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.
This is what the court will lay out, and all your silly arguments will only
piss off the judge.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> Well nat, I'm starting this over again now that I understand
> your beLIEfs about 7701(c), your semantic games, and your
> sophistry.
>
Just what are my "beliefs" about 7701(c), mindless inquirer?
This is the formula for 7701(c):
If Term X includes object B, and X means A, then pursuant to 7701(c),
the definition of Term X = A + B.
For some reason, mindless inquirer believes this is the formula for 7701(c):
If Term X includes object B, and X means A, and object C is like B, then
the definition of Term X = B + C.
As plainly shown, the mindless inquirer completely ignores the meaning
of X which was A, then arbitrarily introduces object C which could be
anything similar to object B.
The mindless inquirer's position is totally contrary to 7701(c) because
things otherwise within the meaning of term X, ie., A, is not to be
excluded. And, the introduction of objects such as C finds no support
in 7701(c).
IOW, the mindless inquirer just makes it up as he goes.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46E756B1...@tx.rr.com...
> Just what are my "beliefs" about 7701(c), [insult
deleted]?
First things first.
1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindKnowsNothing" wrote
> 1. Is a TERM,
Dale, it's here in plain English.
§ 7701 Definitions.
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person.
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual,
(14) Taxpayer.
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
(30) United States person.
The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(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.
You have to look at the bigger picture of the Code, and not a few words, in
determining what is taxable and who is liable for the tax.
If you are a citizen or resident of the United States then you are subject
to the internal revenue laws.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindsDon'tWantToKnow" wrote
> 1. Is a TERM,
Dale, it's exactly what the courts say it is.
You can twist it all you like, and you'll still be wrong.
Archmedes
> "IneptMindKnowsNothing" wrote
>> 1. Is a TERM,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dale, it's here in plain English.
>
>
>
> § 7701 Definitions.
> (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
> expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
>
> (1) Person.
> The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an
> individual,
> (14) Taxpayer.
> The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue
> tax.
> (30) United States person.
> The term “United States person” means—
> (A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
>
>
> (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.
>
>
>
>
> You have to look at the bigger picture of the Code, and not a few
> words, in determining what is taxable and who is liable for the tax.
<chuckle>
Had a client once who wanted me to include some crazy adjustment in his
tax return. To justify it, he brought in a copy of a tax return
instruction page with everything blacked out except one sentence which,
when read in a vacuum, permitted a sizeable deduction. When I brought
out MY copy of the instruction page, he became quite hostile. I believe
be I sent him to H & R Block.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13eg05g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
> STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
> a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
> actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
> "T"?
Let's take this to a real world example:
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.
Is Nebraska included in this definition of "State"?
cpt banjo
wrote:
> "InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org>
> wrote in messagenews:13eg05g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > 1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
> > STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
> > a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
> > actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
> > "T"?
>
> Let's take this to a real world example:
>
> 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.
>
> Is Nebraska included in this definition of "State"?
Whoever the cretinous nimrod is who posts under Knews' name, he's too
much of an intellectual coward to get to the bottom line of how his
reading of 7701(c) affects federal income taxation, so he'll continue
to insist on everyone else's playing his silly game, the first rule of
which is to figure out how to decipher his incoherent sentences.
Paul Thomas
"ImpotentMinds" wrote
> .....so that when Congress writes
> a law that acts upon "T".....
We generally wait on clarifying laws, regulations, court cases......
That is, if you're a complete moron and don't understand the clear meaning
of the words.
§ 7701 Definitions.
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-
(1) Person.
The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual,
(14) Taxpayer.
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
(30) United States person.
The term "United States person" means-
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(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.
Yes Dale, income from your truck driving job is taxable.
--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
nat
Gee, mindless inquirer, Congress is under no compulsion to "statutorily
define" anything; however, Congress will define some terms in order to
clarify their intent.
So, if Congress does define a term, a reasonable person of average
intelligence should be able to construe what Congress means by their use
of the term in legislation.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
group are honest enough to answer a simple question.
1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
C.banjo fails to answer my simple question, but then after
spewing insult, states: {the first rule of which is to
figure out how to decipher his incoherent sentences}. Okay
C.banjo, I'll pretend you are as stupid as you are
pretending to be...
Is a TERM STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when a law
acts upon that TERM, we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law is intended to act upon?
Let me process the above into pap (n. 1. Soft or semiliquid
food, as for infants) so that even you won't have any
trouble digesting the question:
Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to inform the
masses as to the items/objects/things; actions; or persons
the law acts upon?
Dear reader, understand that if the players answer "NO",
they assert by implication that the DEFINED TERM is NOT to
inform the masses as to what the law acts upon. It is
self-evident that this answer is false. Also, if they
answer no, that begs the question, if the purpose of a
STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is NOT to inform the masses, then
what is a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM'S purpose? An assertion
that the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is to inform
the elect and not the masses is just as self-evidently
false. Remember that mantra, "ignorance of the law is no
excuse"? At this time I am not examining the
"VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE" nor the "SECRET LAW IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL" topic. I'll trust you to understand what
it's about by its label.
Since the players like to play stupid, I find myself having
to state the obvious. A STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is (duh) a
TERM DEFINED BY STATUTE.
term n. 4.a. A word or group of words having a particular
meaning: had to explain the term gridlock. [Middle English
terme, from Old French, from Latin terminus, boundary. N.,
senses 4-8, from Middle English, from Medieval Latin
terminus, from Late Latin, mathematical or logical term,
from Latin, boundary, limit.]
A STATUTORILY DEFINED [word or group of words having a
particular meaning] is (duh) a [word or group of words
having a particular meaning] DEFINED BY STATUTE.
de·fine v. de·fined, de·fin·ing, de·fines. --tr. 1.a. To
state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for
example). --intr. To make or write a definition. [Middle
English definen, diffinen, from Old French definir,
diffiner, from Latin definire, to limit, determine : de-,
intensive pref.; see DE- + finis, boundary, limit.]
To DEFINE is {To state the precise meaning of a word or
sense of a word}. To STATUTORILY DEFINE is to STATUTORILY
{state the precise meaning of a word or sense of a word}.
To DEFINE is {To make or write a definition}. To
STATUTORILY DEFINE is to STATUTORILY {make or write a
definition}.
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: a
definition of one's intentions. b. The state of being
closely outlined or determined: "With the drizzle, the trees
in the little clearing had lost definition" (Anthony Hyde).
c. A determination of outline, extent, or limits: the
definition of a President's authority. [Middle English
diffinicioun, from Old French definition, from Latin
definitio-, definition-, from definitus, past participle of
definire, to define. See DEFINE.]
To DEFINE is {The act of making clear and distinct}. To
STATUTORILY DEFINE is {The act of}STATUTORILY {making clear
and distinct}.
To DEFINE is {To make or write a definition}. To
STATUTORILY DEFINE is to STATUTORILY {make or write a
definition}.
To DEFINE is {To make or write a [statement conveying
fundamental character]}. To STATUTORILY DEFINE is to
STATUTORILY {make or write a [statement conveying
fundamental character]}.
To DEFINE is {To make or write a [statement of the meaning
of a word, phrase, or term]}. To STATUTORILY DEFINE is to
STATUTORILY {make or write a [statement of the meaning of a
word, phrase, or term]}.
Dear Reader, it should be self-evident that the only
available answer to the question is YES.
Yes, the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to inform the
masses as to the items/objects/things; actions; or persons
the law acts upon.
YES, a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
that term "T"?
Dear reader, I would be remiss if I didn't address the third
answer available. The third option (as observed) is for all
the players to NOT answer the question at all. Oh they will
respond, but they will NOT answer specific questions.
I can only conjecture as to why these players are not
capable of answering a simple questions. I conjecture that
the players all know where my line of inquiry will lead.
The players do NOT want to go where the questions lead,
therefore they will ignore the questions and they will
attempt to distract you with noise, namecalling, semantic
games, and sophistry so that you will NOT follow where the
questions lead either.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"ImpotentMind" wrote
> Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM
> to inform the masses as to the items/objects/things;
> actions; or persons the law acts upon?
The definitions in the Code are there to clarify a matter.
"a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other
things"
> Dear reader, understand that if the players answer "NO",
> they assert by implication that the DEFINED TERM is NOT to
> inform the masses as to what the law acts upon.
It's not - it just clarifies a matter that seems to be confusing people,
much like you are confused.
> answer no, that begs the question, if the purpose of a
> STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is NOT to inform the masses, then
> what is a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM'S purpose?
To CLARIFY a matter, as in when they say "The term “State” shall be
construed to include the District of Columbia"
> To DEFINE is {The act of making clear and distinct}.
Indeed - to CLARIFY a matter for the moronic people like you.
> STATUTORILY DEFINE is {The act of}STATUTORILY {making clear
> and distinct}.
Indeed - to CLARIFY a matter for the moronic people like you.
> I can only conjecture as to why these players are not
> capable of answering a simple questions.
Dale, do you still beat your wife? Yes or No.
I can only conjecture as to why Dale will not answer a simple question.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message news:IbfGi.58767$t9.1...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "ImpotentMind" wrote
> > Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM
> > to inform the masses as to the items/objects/things;
> > actions; or persons the law acts upon?
>
>
>
>
>
> The definitions in the Code are there to clarify a matter.
>
Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to clarify for
the masses as to which items/objects/things; actions; or
persons the law acts upon?
>
>
> > Dear reader, understand that if the players answer "NO",
> > they assert by implication that the DEFINED TERM is NOT
to
> > inform the masses as to what the law acts upon.
>
>
>
> It's not - it just clarifies a matter that seems to be
confusing people,
> much like you are confused.
>
Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to clarify for
the masses as to which items/objects/things; actions; or
persons the law acts upon?
>
> > answer no, that begs the question, if the purpose of a
> > STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is NOT to inform the masses,
then
> > what is a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM'S purpose?
>
>
>
> To CLARIFY a matter, as in when they say "The term "State"
shall be
> construed to include the District of Columbia"
Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to clarify for
the masses as to which items/objects/things; actions; or
persons the law acts upon?
> > To DEFINE is {The act of making clear and distinct}.
>
>
> Indeed - to CLARIFY a matter for the moronic people like
you.
>
Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to clarify for
the masses as to which items/objects/things; actions; or
persons the law acts upon?
>
> > STATUTORILY DEFINE is {The act of}STATUTORILY {making
clear
> > and distinct}.
>
>
>
> Indeed - to CLARIFY a matter for the moronic people like
you.
>
Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to clarify for
the masses as to which items/objects/things; actions; or
persons the law acts upon?
Since you keep calling me dale, whoever the hell he is, you
won't mind if I call you pinocchio, will you, pinocchio?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMinds" wrote
> Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED
> items/objects/things; actions; or persons the
> law acts upon?
Is that not what I wrote?
"The definitions in the Code are there to clarify a matter."
Is there a sudden or maybe lingering comprehension problem you have?
Why do you have this obsessive-compulsive disorder of repeatedly asking the
same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over?
You don't seem to do that over in alt.energy.homepower.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
Paul Maffia
>
> "IneptMinds" wrote
>> Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED
>> TERM to clarify for the masses as to which
>> items/objects/things; actions; or persons the
>> law acts upon?
> Is that not what I wrote?
>
> "The definitions in the Code are there to clarify a matter."
>
> Is there a sudden or maybe lingering comprehension problem you have?>
Is there any doubt in your mind what the answer to that question is?
> Why do you have this obsessive-compulsive disorder of repeatedly asking
> the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over?>
Because like all other morons, Dale beleives that by asking the same
question over an over again, the answer is going to change to the answer he
wants to hear rather than what is.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> I can only conjecture as to why these players are not
> capable of answering a simple questions. I conjecture that
> the players all know where my line of inquiry will lead.
> The players do NOT want to go where the questions lead,
> therefore they will ignore the questions and they will
> attempt to distract you with noise, namecalling, semantic
> games, and sophistry so that you will NOT follow where the
> questions lead either.
>
Asking leading questions is a form of sophistry, mindless inquirer.
But alas, you are not smart enough to engage in the Socratic method of
teaching. We know your game, and we ain't playing.
You ignore the clear meaning of 7701(c) to your peril, dale the mindless
inquirer.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote
> Because like all other morons, Dale beleives that by
> asking the same question over an over again, the
> answer is going to change to the answer he wants to hear rather than what
> is.
Well, most often they just ask in other groups till they get someone who
will agree with them.
I have noticed how quiet it got after I tagged Dale about his other haunt.
Why do they pretend they can hide on the internet? "I'm changing my name,
so they won't know me". "Instead of "Dale" I'll be know as "Not
Dale".....that should trick people"
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
(Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to inform the
masses as to the items/objects/things; actions; or persons
the law acts upon?)
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to
examine why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/fad7c4aedfafb0
4f
Since we know that a TERM is defined by STATUTE to tell us
what items/objects/things; actions; or persons Congress
MEANS for the law to act upon, We know that a STATUTORILY
DEFINED TERM has been imbued by Congress with a STATUTORILY
DEFINED MEANING. Congress has STATUTORILY DEFINED what
Congress MEANS for the law to act upon. The STATUTORY
DEFINITION of a TERM is the STATUTORY MEANING of that TERM.
In other words, when Congress defines TERM "T" Congress is
assigning MEANING to TERM "T". Congress is telling us what
the law is MEANT to act upon when the law acts upon TERM
"T".
Now I know little Tommy Flanagan has a problem with this.
He has said that a term's definition is not that term's
meaning. (Cite available upon request.)
de·fine v. de·fined, de·fin·ing, de·fines. --tr. 1.a. To
state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for
example). --intr. To make or write a definition. [Middle
English definen, diffinen, from Old French definir,
diffiner, from Latin definire, to limit, determine : de-,
intensive pref.; see DE- + finis, boundary, limit.]
A term's definition is not that term's meaning? Yeah, right
Tommy. When Congress DEFINES a TERM, Congress is giving the
TERM the MEANING that is required to be used {For purposes
of this chapter...}, {for purposes of this section}, etc.
Enough review. Moving on to this post's question:
Black's 7th edition contains these words:
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of
the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is
implied."
When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to
prevail over what is not expressed (implied)?
Dave Johnson
<InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org> wrote:
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress a law
> what items/objects/things; actions; or persons Congress
> DEFINED TERM has been imbued by Congress with a STATUTORILY
> DEFINED MEANING. Congress has STATUTORILY DEFINED what
> Black's 7th edition contains these words:
> When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
> statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to
> prevail over what is not expressed (implied)?
Dale, you're an idiot. period. That definition is in the
dictionary.
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
www.quatlosers.com
Not being smart enough to come up with any unique theory of his own,
Larken Rose has simply latched on to the "Income Can't Be Defined"
arguments that end up with the conclusion that only foreigners are
required to pay income tax. Larken's argument has been exploded more
times than a pack of Blackcats at a 4th of July festival (see below)
but this hasn't stopped Larken from marketing his video for $20 on his
other website http://www.theft-by-deception.com or www.larkenrose.com
www.tyrantbook.com http://www.losthorizons.com www.preferredservices.org
www.synapticsparks.info Dale Eastman
cpt banjo
The "Designato unis" maxim is one of many rules of construction that
courts sometimes use to determine the meaning of language in a
contract or a statute where the text is ambiguous or doesn't otherwise
spell out how the language is to be interpreted. In most cases,
however, the contract or statute will contain something along the
lines of "A includes, but is not limited to, B, C, and D." Only a
total idiot would claim that in such a case a court should use the
"designato unis" rule to hold that B, C, and D are the only things
denoted by the use of the word "A".
Section 7701(c) is the Code's equivalent of "includes, but is not
limited to". Accordingly, it would be improper to use the "designato
unis" rule because it would contradict the plain meaning of Section
7701(c). In other words, Section 7701(c) already tells us how to
interpret the word "includes", so that no resort to any other rule of
construction is needed.
In any event, the courts have held that construing the Code's
provision that "the term 'employee' includes [corporate officers,
public employees and officers, and elected officials]" as if the
itemized persons were the ONLY persons encompassed by the definition
is a preposterous reading of the statute and have rejected it out of
hand as a frivolous argument. But Knews is too intellectually
dishonest to mention this fact and too much of a coward to confront
the decisions.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"ImpotentMindless" wrote
> The STATUTORY DEFINITION of a TERM
> is the STATUTORY MEANING of that TERM.
Not entirely:
§ 7701 Definitions.
(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.
All Congress did was to add something to the common meaning of the
word....to clarify it as it were.
> In other words, when Congress defines TERM "T"
> Congress is assigning MEANING to TERM "T".
Not at all, as Congress said:
§ 7701 Definitions.
(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 unless there is definitive wording to EXclude something that is commonly
understood to be part of the definition of the word, nothing is EXcluded and
the often times few things mentioned are added to the commonly understood
meaning.
> Congress is telling us what the law is MEANT
> to act upon when the law acts upon TERM "T".
See above Dale.
> A term's definition is not that term's meaning?
§ 7701 Definitions.
(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.
> When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
> statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to
> prevail over what is not expressed (implied)?
§ 7701 Definitions.
(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.
Where is something EXplicitly EXcluded?
Dale, if you weren't a chickenshit, you'd have acted on your silliness by
now and we'd have read about your conviction in the press.
Paul Maffia
>
> Why do they pretend they can hide on the internet? "I'm changing my
> name, so they won't know me". "Instead of "Dale" I'll be know as "Not
> Dale".....that should trick people">
They do not understand that no matter what they call themselves they cannot
hide their style of writing. Although it is obvious for someone to imitate
someone else's style. But lacking specialized training they cannot do it
over a long period, It soon becomes evident that we are seeing nothing more
than an imitator. To overcome that requires special training. Ineptmind kept
us wondering at first, but Capt. Banjo caught on first (at least he was the
first to address him as Dale in a post) and the rest of us followed rather
quickly.
The phony Socratic style is vintage Dale. The torturing of word meanings and
disregard of reality is another of his Hallmarks.
Conversely, when we try to hide our persona, again lacking very specialized
training which Dale lacks, we cannot sustain the deception very long. Our
inante style will come out and become evident to anyone who has spent any
time reading us and has an IQ above that of gnat.
That simple fact escapes the likes of Dale, because they lack the necessary
minimal IQ level.
I will admit, I used to admire the fact that Dale, in all his ineptitude,
was still willing to put himself on the line by not assuming another
identity. But he appears to now feel it necessary to try to make his useless
points. Or to hide his identity in the event that the Feds are monitoring
these newsgroups to pinpoint someone worthy of investigation.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote
> I will admit, I used to admire the fact that Dale, in all his ineptitude,
> was still willing to put himself on the line by not assuming another
> identity. But he appears to now feel it necessary to try to make his
> useless points. Or to hide his identity in the event that the Feds are
> monitoring these newsgroups to pinpoint someone worthy of investigation.
Dale's probably on welfare or unemployment of one sort or another. If he's
still driving trucks, it's bread delivery in the wee hours of the morning to
grocery stores. Follow not only their posting schedules, Dale and Inept
either have the same work schedule or they finally come around about noon
and post into the night. *both are on central time by the way* Dale and
Inept also drag the same "friends" from the same crossposts in different
groups. His buddy Dan Bloomquist ends up replying to "Dale E" and
"Knews".......coincidence? I think not.
There are other tell-tale signs if you know how things work, or have the
access to the servers or switches.
Dave Johnson
wrote:
> "Paul Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote
>
> > I will admit, I used to admire the fact that Dale, in all his ineptitude,
> > was still willing to put himself on the line by not assuming another
> > identity.
I second that ! but his stupid posts are same whether he's DaleE
or "Inquiringminds" or Dale Eastman
But he appears to now feel it necessary to try to make his
> > useless points. Or to hide his identity in the event that the Feds are
> > monitoring these newsgroups to pinpoint someone worthy of investigation.
>
> Dale's probably on welfare or unemployment of one sort or another. If he's
> still driving trucks, it's bread delivery in the wee hours of the morning to
> grocery stores. Follow not only their posting schedules, Dale and Inept
> either have the same work schedule or they finally come around about noon
> and post into the night. *both are on central time by the way* Dale and
> Inept also drag the same "friends" from the same crossposts in different
> groups. His buddy Dan Bloomquist ends up replying to "Dale E" and
> "Knews".......coincidence? I think not.
>
> There are other tell-tale signs if you know how things work, or have the
> access to the servers or switches.
Dale probably has some kind of job. He use to post up to 25 a day,
even including "knews" Inquiringminds, etc. much less (but still
amounts to same garbage)
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Dave Johnson" <nosp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Dale probably has some kind of job. He use to post up
> to 25 a day, even including "knews" Inquiringminds, etc.
> much less (but still amounts to same garbage)
I'm not sure Dale is posting as "knews".....that person is posting on west
coast time. Dale is too lazy to drive to the left coast to post. Hell,
Dale is too lazy to use the left side of his brain while posting.
My bet is on someone that used to post here as Don (an arrogant little
fucker) (sue me Don, sue me), and more recently as "Ford Perfect" (another
arrogant little fucker). "Knews" is a little more mellow, and now is just a
royal pain in the ass with his cross posts. Age could explain all that.
I'd have to dig back to see if they haunted the same groups......too many
coincidences......what's it called? Circumstantial evidence. There's many
a man behind bars because of it.
Richard Macdonald
wrote in message news:13elc49...@corp.supernews.com...
> 1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
> STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
> a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
> actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
> "T"?
Congress does not define terms in the IRC,
it only expands on the general usage definition.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote: The STATUTORY
> DEFINITION of a TERM is the STATUTORY MEANING of that TERM.
> In other words, when Congress defines TERM "T" Congress is
> assigning MEANING to TERM "T". Congress is telling us what
> the law is MEANT to act upon when the law acts upon TERM
> "T".
Poor mindless inquirer,
The subject of this thread is 7701(c)- What does Congress mean when they
use INCLUDES(ING)?
Hence, what we have here are two questions- get that, mindless inquirer?
1. What does Congress mean when they use INCLUDES(ING) in a definition,
and
2. What does Congress mean when they don't use INCLUDES(ING) in a
definition?
The answer of course is when Congress uses MEANS in a definition, they
are giving MEANING to a term. And, when Congress uses INCLUDES(ING) in
a definition, they are adding (IOW, expanding) to the meaning of term.
If Congress has not given a previous MEANING to a term by use of the
predicate "means", then the dictionary meaning is used by default.
nat
I disagree.
When Congress uses "means" in a definition they are limiting that term
to the specific meaning stated.
When Congress uses "includes(ing)" they are expanding on the meaning of
a term. If that meaning is not previously defined by Congress, then the
dictionary or common meaning of the term is considered by default.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
> Congress does not define terms in the IRC,
> it only expands on the general usage definition.
Please give us the general usage definition of a
{metropolitan statistical area}
(k) Other definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section -
(2) Statistical area
(A) In general
The term "statistical area" means -
(i) a metropolitan statistical area, and
(ii) any county (or the portion thereof) which
is not
within a metropolitan statistical area.
(B) Metropolitan statistical area
The term "metropolitan statistical area" includes
the area
defined as such by the Secretary of Commerce.
Oops. Includes seems to be quite limiting in this context.
cpt banjo
Hey, Knews, you can't deal with this, can you:
The other jury instructions proffered by the defendant are equally
inane. Thus we hold that the district court did not err in refusing
the other instruction offered by Latham implying that 26 U.S.C. § 7343
defining "person" does not include natural persons. n2 Similarly,
Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c)
the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage
earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that
within the context of both statutes the word "includes" is a term of
enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities
or categories is not intended to exclude all others.
n2. "The statute's provision was not intended to exclude [individuals]
or to limit the ordinary meaning of the term 'person' so as to exclude
individuals or 'natural persons' . . . from their responsibility to
comply with the tax laws." United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528
(5th Cir. 1981).
U. S. v. Latham, 754 F. 2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985)
Knews, how does it feel to know that your arguments are "inane" and
"preposterous"?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
It is time to see what today's catch is from tossing this
net into the sea:
Black's 7th edition contains these words:
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of
the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is
implied."
2. When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing
a statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to
prevail over what is not expressed (implied)?
As with the first question, the players in this group can
NOT answer NO. There are two reasons why the players can
NOT answer NO to the question. First, To answer NO the
players would have to directly contradict the plain reading
of Black's legal dictionary. Second, To answer NO is to
invert the logic. To invert the logic is to state: (What is
implied is to prevail over what is expressed.) "Thou shalt
not do X" becomes "Thou shalt do X". One is expressed, the
other is implied.
And of course, since it's a no-brainer that the answer is
yes, the players can NOT answer YES either, because that
would be 'giving in' to me and it places them one step
further down a logical path where they do not want to be.
That just leaves the third option. The players do NOT want
to go where the questions lead, therefore they will ignore
the questions and they will attempt to distract you with
noise, name-calling, semantic games, and sophistry so that
you will NOT follow where the questions lead either.
Dear Reader, as you read the various player's posted replies
in this thread, please take note of how many PERSONAL
ATTACKS upon me are done in lieu of substantive replies. As
for the portions of the replies that have a semblance (n. 1.
An outward or token appearance. 3. The barest trace; a
modicum) of being substantive, those I will take note of.
Two of the players have invoked section 7701(c).
Boys, you've put the cart before the horse. Before you can
lay the shingles, you need a roof surface, before that you
need rafters, before that you need walls, before that you
need a foundation, and before that you need a basement
excavated. You've attempted to shingle the roof and the
basement is still being dug to accommodate the foundation.
This entire aggravation I am causing you by doing my posting
is to get to the truth of what 7701(c) does or does not do.
One player stated: {Congress does not define terms in the
IRC, it only expands on the general usage definition.} This
is called a NAKED ASSERTION. A naked assertion is when
something has been asserted without proof.
Dear Reader, Please observe that the context in which this
player makes his assertion is in response to this question:
1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes
a law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
{Congress does not define terms in the IRC, it only expands
on the general usage definition.}
Dear Reader, please note the failure to answer the question.
The post that this player is replying to contained a dumbed
down version (ddv) of the same question which this player
decided to snip and ignore. I'm posting that question
again, and putting the player's reply after that ddv of the
question to emphasize the player's deliberate choice of
ignoring the actual question asked:
(Is the purpose of a STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM to inform the
masses as to the items/objects/things; actions; or persons
the law acts upon?)
{Congress does not define terms in the IRC, it only expands
on the general usage definition.}
Uh huh.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 7701. Definitions
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. 2. Definitions and special rules
-STATUTE-
(a) Definition of surviving spouse
(1) In general
For purposes of section 1, the term "surviving spouse" means
a ...
"Congress does not define terms in the Internal Revenue
Code..." Yeah Right, Beetle Bailey.
Tommy Flanagan nakedly asserts: {If Congress has not given a
previous MEANING to a term by use of the predicate "means",
then the dictionary meaning is used by default.}
Yes Tommy, I understand that is what you beLIEve. That
other august member on your side, Beetle Bailey,
essentially beLIEves the same thing as you. So does
Pinocchio Thomas. Obviously I disagree. I will continue to
lay the foundation of proof for my conclusion that
contradicts you and your side, whether you and the other
players like it or not.
P.s. Your inability to agree with Beetle Bailey on the
issue stems from one of you not having a very good sense of
vocabulary and logic, because from my viewpoint, you're both
attempting to say the same (incorrect) thing.
Dear Reader, I've saved the best reply for last. I love
dissecting lawyer's posts. Most lawyers couldn't tell the
truth to save their lives, much less their souls. Here are
the words that set the context for this final poster's post:
Black's 7th edition contains these words:
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of
the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is
implied."
2. When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing
a statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to
prevail over what is not expressed (implied)?
As with question 1, I am required to dumb down the
question. So here it is:
(STATUTORY DEFINITION: Expressed to prevail over NOT
expressed (implied) YES or NO?)
The first thing I request that the Reader notice is that the
question is not answered. In fact when this player replied
to my post, NOTHING of my post was left in the reply. My
commentary is interlaced to direct your attention to his
lawyerly skills of deceit.
{The "Designato unis" maxim is one of many rules of
construction that courts sometimes use to determine the
meaning of language in a contract or a statute where the
text is ambiguous or doesn't otherwise spell out how the
language is to be interpreted.}
Dear Reader, please note that this player was kind enough to
call our attention to the fact that there are other {rules
of [statutory] construction}. I will be getting to a few of
them as my foundation is built.
{In most cases, however, the contract or statute will
contain something along the lines of "A includes, but is not
limited to, B, C, and D."}
I don't know about {in most cases}, and this player cancels
that phrase with the trailing {however} anyway.
That a STATUTE (I'm not interested in contracts) {will
contain something along the lines of "A includes, but is not
limited to, B, C, and D."} is 100% true. This is setting
the scene for the switch that happens in the next sentence.
{Only a total idiot would claim that in such a case a court
should use the "designato unis" rule to hold that B, C, and
D are the only things denoted by the use of the word "A".}
Dear Reader, did you see me claim that the "Designatio unius
est exclusio alterius" rule should be used to invalidate
{includes, but is not limited to}, or did you see me ask a
question? So this dishonest lawyer has posted a "STRAWMAN".
straw man n. 2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be
easily refuted or defeated.
Remember the question:
(STATUTORY DEFINITION: Expressed to prevail over NOT
expressed (implied) YES or NO?)
Does the statute containing {something along the lines of "A
includes, but is not limited to, B, C, and D."} SPECIFICALLY
EXPRESS that A is NOT limited to B, C, and D?
Remember, dear Reader, you are supposed to beLIEve this
player has refuted a QUESTION. That sounds so queer.
Nevertheless, that is exactly what this player is doing. He
is attempting to refute a question. You are now supposed to
forget that the question was asked. You are now supposed to
forget the question was not answered. You are now supposed
to ignore my post because this liar, er lawyer has refuted
HIS strawman.
Remember, this player has already stated: {In most cases,
however, the contract or statute will contain something
along the lines of "A includes, but is not limited to, B, C,
and D."} And: {Only a total idiot would claim that in such a
case a court should use the "designato unis" rule to hold
that B, C, and D are the only things denoted by the use of
the word "A".}
Now pay attention to the IMPLICATION the player is
attempting to insert into the law. Pay attention to the
square peg he is attempting to jam into a round hole.
{Section 7701(c) is the Code's equivalent of "includes, but
is not limited to".}
Dear Reader, what we have here is a naked assertion. That
would be an assertion not supported by fact or logic. What
this player has basically (nakedly) asserted is that
whenever you see the word includes (and including) in title
26, you are to read it as if it is followed by "not limited
to".
A search of Title 26 for;
'includes but is not limited to' returns 7 hits;
'including but not limited to' returns 19 hits;
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
I guess the code writers didn't get his memo.
Or, Perhaps "not limited to" is required for a reason.
{Accordingly, it would be improper to use the "designato
unis" rule because it would contradict the plain meaning of
Section 7701(c).}
Again, a naked assertion, since {the plain meaning of
Section 7701(c)} has not yet been put in evidence.
And posting the text of 7701(c) is NOT the posting of the
PLAIN meaning, since that meaning is at the heart of this
controversy. Posting the text of 7701(c) would be an
attempt to put the cart before the horse. The {plain
meaning of Section 7701(c)} will be examined in due course,
methodically, just as I have done so far. And when I
examine the {plain meaning of Section 7701(c)} I will be
invoking the "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius" rule
to get to the TRUE meaning of 7701(c).
{Accordingly, it would be improper to use the "designato
unis" rule because it would contradict the plain meaning of
Section 7701(c).}
Dear Reader, remember that this is the question in its
dumbed down version that this player is addressing:
(STATUTORY DEFINITION: Expressed to prevail over NOT
expressed (implied) YES or NO?)
As I pointed out, the players can NOT directly answer NO. A
direct answer of NO is easily refuted for its lack of
substance. A direct answer of NO is to state: (What is
implied is to prevail over what is expressed.) This player
has a problem. For all his fancy dancing, An INdirect
answer of NO has the same flaw. Any answer of NO, direct or
indirect, states: (What is implied is to prevail over what
is expressed.)
{In other words, Section 7701(c) already tells us how to
interpret the word "includes", so that no resort to any
other rule of construction is needed.}
This player is indisputably correct all the way up to the
comma. {In other words, Section 7701(c) already tells us how
to interpret the word "includes"}... Period.
{so that no resort to any other rule of construction is
needed.}
Dear Reader, what we have here is another naked assertion.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof.
Here's my counter assertion (which I WILL prove later in
this thread):
Section 7701(c) is the STATUTORY incorporation of a certain,
specific rule of statutory construction.
Keep your eyes on the tactics used in an attempt to keep you
from understanding this point. The entire controversy
hinges upon what "includes" and "including" does to a
statute that uses such terms.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"cpt banjo" <cptb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189874502.2...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com..
.
>> > Congress does not define terms in the IRC,
>> > it only expands on the general usage definition.
>>
>> Please give us the general usage definition of a
>> {metropolitan statistical area}
Failure to provide the general usage definition noted.
>> (k) Other definitions and special rules
>> For purposes of this section -
>> (2) Statistical area
>> (A) In general
>> The term "statistical area" means -
>> (i) a metropolitan statistical area, and
>> (ii) any county (or the portion thereof)
which
>> is not
>> within a metropolitan statistical area.
>> (B) Metropolitan statistical area
>> The term "metropolitan statistical area"
includes
>> the area
>> defined as such by the Secretary of Commerce.
>>
>> Oops. Includes seems to be quite limiting in this
context.
>Hey, Knews, you can't deal with this, can you:
Hey, Cpt. Bandit, you can't deal with this can you:
The Supreme Court trumps your lower court imbecile judge.
MONTELLO SALT CO. v. UTAH, 221 U.S. 452 (1911) states:
{In Neher v. McCook County, ...
We have seen that the state urges that the word 'and' is
always employed to express the relation of addition, and it
is said, with words of emphasis, that Congress cannot be
supposed to have been ignorant of its meaning. The supreme
court of the state also gave special significance to the use
of 'and,' as adding something to that which preceded. The
court also considered that the word 'including' was used as
a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion
that such was its ordinary sense. With this we cannot
concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the dictionaries and
cases indicate.}
Like I said in my other post, you've put the cart before the
horse. Includes, by itself is LIMITING. 7701(c) does
modify includes, but to what extent will be examined in my
main thread.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes a
law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/fad7c4aedfafb04f
Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
expressed prevails over what is implied."
2. When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to prevail
over what is not expressed (implied)?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a98017abf11be3ec
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
traits in common; a kind or category.
set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
together and are so used: a chess set.
col損ec暗ion n. Abbr. 2. A group of objects or works to be
seen, studied, or kept together.
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. c. A
stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
formations deposited during a single geologic era.
3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
specific class of things?
cpt banjo
<InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org> wrote:
> "cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The case you cited did not involve the definition of "includes" as
used in the Code and is therefore hopelessly irrelevant. The statute
at issue did not have anything comparable to 7701(c) to explain the
meaning of "includes", so your pitiful attempt at using the case as
authority for your absurd position is laughable. If that's the best
you can do, you're just wasting bandwidth by continuing to post
preposterous and inane arguments.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> 1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
> STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes a
> law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
> actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
> "T"?
>
> The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
> why in this post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/fad7c4aedfafb04f
>
If "we" are reasonable and of average intelligence, then the answer is yes.
>
> Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
> exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
> designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
> expressed prevails over what is implied."
>
>
> 2. When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
> statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to prevail
> over what is not expressed (implied)?
>
> The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
> why in this post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a98017abf11be3ec
>
What this principle has to do with 7701(c) is totally unsupported. The
mindless inquirer seems to be stating a principle because he can.
>
> class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
> containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
> traits in common; a kind or category.
>
> set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
> together and are so used: a chess set.
>
> col損ec暗ion n. Abbr. 2. A group of objects or works to be
> seen, studied, or kept together.
>
> 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. c. A
> stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
> formations deposited during a single geologic era.
>
>
> 3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
> STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
> purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
> Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
> specific class of things?
>
Since "includes" is used, then 7701(c) applies; therefore, the answer is
NO. A "specific class of things" has not been listed. Three things
have been INCLUDED, but whether or not they are a "class" has no bearing.
The mindless inquirer has made one of those "unsupported assertions".
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> P.s. Your inability to agree with Beetle Bailey on the
> issue stems from one of you not having a very good sense of
> vocabulary and logic, because from my viewpoint, you're both
> attempting to say the same (incorrect) thing.
>
What we are saying is that INCLUDES(ING) does not equate to MEANS.
If you continue with you semantical charade, I will show why your
viewpoint that INCLUDES(ING) = MEANS is preposterous and clearly in
error (as well as such plain stupid).
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>> >> > Congress does not define terms in the IRC,
>> >> > it only expands on the general usage definition.
>> >>
>> >> Please give us the general usage definition of a
>> >> {metropolitan statistical area}
> >>
> >> Failure to provide the general usage definition noted.
> >>
Failure to provide the general usage definition noted a second
time.
> The case you cited did not involve the definition of
"includes" as
> used in the Code
You are certainly observant.
Since you noticed that the case I cited {did not involve the
definition of "includes" as used in the [Internal Revenue]
Code}, perhaps you noticed that the SUPREME COURT stated that
using the word "including" as a word of enlargement {is its
EXCEPTIONAL SENSE, as the dictionaries and cases indicate.}
And perhaps when you read the entire case, you also noticed
that the SUPREME COURT examined and cited this common
dictionary:
{In support of the first ground, the following definitions are
given from Webster: '1. To confine within; to hold; to contain;
to shut up, as, the shell of a nut includes the kernel; a pearl
is included in a shell. 2. To comprehend, as a genus the
species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference;
to contain; to embrace; to relate to; to pertain to; as Great
Britain includes England, Scotland, and Wales.'}
And perhaps when you read the entire case, you also noticed
that the SUPREME COURT examined and cited this second common
dictionary:
{The determining word is, of course the word 'including.' It
may have the sense of addition, as we have seen, and of 'also;'
but, we have also seen, 'may merely specify particularly that
which belongs to the genus.' ... It is the participle of the
word 'include,' which means, according to the definition of the
Century Dictionary, (1) 'to confine within something; hold as
in an inclosure; inclose; contain.' (2) 'To comprise as a part,
or as something incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as
the greater includes the less; . . . the Roman Empire included
many nations.' }
And perhaps when you read the entire case, you also noticed
that the SUPREME COURT examined and cited this case:
{In the case of Brainard v. Darling ... it was held that a
legacy of $100, 'including money trusteed in a certain bank,'
could not be construed as meaning that the sum of $100 was in
addition to the sum in bank.}
And perhaps when you read the entire case, you also noticed
that the SUPREME COURT examined and cited this case:
{In Henry v. Henry ... a bequest of $14,000, 'including certain
notes,' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14, 000, and were not in addition thereto.}
> The case you cited did not involve the definition of
"includes" as
> used in the Code and is therefore hopelessly irrelevant.
It is merely your opinion that the case cited is {hopelessly
irrelevant}.
> The statute
> at issue did not have anything comparable to 7701(c) to
explain the
> meaning of "includes",
You are right on top of things again. I'm so proud of you.
What the statute had {to explain the meaning of "includes"}was
the SUPREME COURT and its determination that expansion was the
word's {EXCEPTIONAL SENSE, as the dictionaries and cases
indicate.} Like I told you, you've put the cart before the
horse. I will be examining 7701(c) in meticulous detail. You
can attempt to distract the Readers again at that time.
<mockery snipped to save bandwidth>
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46ECA891...@tx.rr.com...
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >
> > P.s. Your inability to agree with Beetle Bailey on the
> > issue stems from one of you not having a very good sense of
> > vocabulary and logic, because from my viewpoint, you're
both
> > attempting to say the same (incorrect) thing.
> >
>
> What we are saying is that INCLUDES(ING) does not equate to
MEANS.
Yes Tommy Flanagan, I understand that is what you beLIEve. I
said that in the post you replied to.
I will be addressing that beLIEf of yours in due course as I
expose the Reader to the truth one no-brainer question at a
time.
> If you continue with you semantical charade,
Translation: If you keep posting no-brainer questions with
self-evident answers,
> I will show why your
> viewpoint that INCLUDES(ING) = MEANS is preposterous and
clearly in
> error (as well as such plain stupid).
I'm sure you will show me YOUR viewpoint using YOUR semantic
charades, YOUR semantic games, YOUR sophistry, YOUR
contradictions of yourself, and YOUR just plain bad logic just
like you did in the other thread on this subject.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> I'm sure you will show me YOUR viewpoint using YOUR semantic
> charades, YOUR semantic games, YOUR sophistry, YOUR
> contradictions of yourself, and YOUR just plain bad logic just
> like you did in the other thread on this subject.
>
>
Why do you tuck tail and run when you are exposed to the truth, mindless
inquirer? Cowards run and hide when confronted with the light of truth.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
It is time to see what today's catch is from tossing this net
into the sea:
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
traits in common; a kind or category.
set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
together and are so used: a chess set.
col·lec·tion n. Abbr. 2. A group of objects or works to be
seen, studied, or kept together.
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. c. A
stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
formations deposited during a single geologic era.
3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
specific class of things?
Tommy Flanagan has replied and stated the following:
{Since "includes" is used, then 7701(c) applies; therefore, the
answer is NO. A "specific class of things" has not been
listed. Three things have been INCLUDED, but whether or not
they are a "class" has no bearing.}
I will attend to these three sentences in the inverse order.
{Three things have been INCLUDED, but whether or not they are a
"class" has no bearing.}
The first half of Tommy's sentence, right up to the comma is
correct, {Three things have been INCLUDED}.
The second half of Tommy's sentence, {whether or not they are a
"class" has no bearing} is Tommy's excuse to ignore whether of
not the three things included actually make up a class of
items.
Let us ask some questions to determine whether of not the three
things included actually make up a class of items.
list v. list·ed, list·ing, lists. --tr. 1. To make a list of;
itemize: listed his previous jobs. 2. To enter in a list;
register: listed each item received.
If someone places a series of names, words, or other items on a
page of a note pad, have they LISTED a set, collection, or
group of items? The self-evident answer is YES.
If someone places the words: "Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes" on a
page of a note pad have the LISTED a set, collection, or group
of Ford automobiles? The self-evident answer is YES.
list n. 1. A series of names, words, or other items written,
printed, or imagined one after the other: a shopping list; a
guest list; a list of things to do.
On a page of a note pad are these three words: "Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes". Is this a LIST? The self-evident answer
is YES.
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
traits in common; a kind or category.
Are Mustangs Ford automobiles? Are Pintos Ford automobiles?
Are Fairlanes Ford automobiles? Do the listed automobiles have
the trait, attribute, or property in common of being Ford
automobiles? The self-evident answers are YES.
If the common trait of the listed automobiles is that they are
all Ford automobiles, and If a CLASS is a set, collection, or
group containing members that have traits in common, then is a
list of "Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes" a CLASS of items? The
self-evident answer is yes.
Has a class of items, whose members are Ford automobiles been
listed on that page of the note pad? The self-evident answer
is yes.
Has a "specific class of things" been listed on that page of
the note pad? The self-evident answer is yes.
Are Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes "included" in the specific
class of Ford automobiles listed on that page of the note pad?
The self-evident answer is yes.
Which brings us to Tommy Flanagan's second sentence: {A
"specific class of things" has not been listed.}
The mock statute states: {For the purposes of this section, the
TERM "T" includes Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes}
Does the mock statute LIST Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes as being
included in the term "T"? The self-evident answer is yes.
Do the Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes LISTED as being included in
the term "T" have the common trait of being Ford automobiles?
Are Mustangs, Pintos, Fairlanes members of the Ford automobile
Class of objects? The self-evident answer is yes.
3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
specific class of things?
{Since "includes" is used, then 7701(c) applies; therefore, the
answer is NO.}
Again, Tommy is correct in the first half of his sentence right
up to the semicolon. {Since "includes" is used, then 7701(c)
applies}. The second half of Tommy's first sentence is a non
sequitur.
non se·qui·tur n. 1. An inference or conclusion that does not
follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does
not follow logically from what preceded it. [Latin non
sequitur, it does not follow]
7701(c) does NOT change the fact that there is a list of Ford
automobiles included in term "T". 7701(c) does NOT change the
fact that the list of Ford automobiles included in term "T" is
a CLASS of objects with the common trait of being (duh) Ford
automobiles. 7701(c) does NOT change the fact that there are NO
non-Ford automobiles on the list of items included in term "T".
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes a
law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/fad7c4aedfafb04f
Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
expressed prevails over what is implied."
2. When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to prevail
over what is not expressed (implied)?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a98017abf11be3ec
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
traits in common; a kind or category.
set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
together and are so used: a chess set.
col·lec·tion n. 2. A group of objects or works to be seen,
studied, or kept together.
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. c. A
stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
formations deposited during a single geologic era.
3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
specific class of things?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/10e7b182ce0b047e
Black's law dictionary says:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up,
contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term
may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the
meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a
particular thing already included within general words
theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as
a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or.
123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
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. [Middle English includen, from Latin includere, to enclose.
en·close also in·close -- tr.v. en·closed, en·clos·ing,
en·clos·es. 1. To surround on all sides; close in. 2. To fence
in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture. [Middle
English enclosen, from Old French enclos, past participle of
enclore, from Latin includere, to enclose. See INCLUDE.]
Synonyms of include: comprise; consist of; contain; embody
embrace encompass incorporate take in
4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
placing certain items into some categorical set?
RICHARD MACDONALD
wrote in message news:13es9le...@corp.supernews.com...
You can't handle the Truth.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> 3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
> STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
> purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
> Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
> specific class of things?
>
> {Since "includes" is used, then 7701(c) applies; therefore, the
> answer is NO.}
>
> Again, Tommy is correct in the first half of his sentence right
> up to the semicolon. {Since "includes" is used, then 7701(c)
> applies}. The second half of Tommy's first sentence is a non
> sequitur.
>
> non se·qui·tur n. 1. An inference or conclusion that does not
> follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does
> not follow logically from what preceded it. [Latin non
> sequitur, it does not follow]
>
> 7701(c) does NOT change the fact that there is a list of Ford
> automobiles included in term "T". 7701(c) does NOT change the
> fact that the list of Ford automobiles included in term "T" is
> a CLASS of objects with the common trait of being (duh) Ford
> automobiles. 7701(c) does NOT change the fact that there are NO
> non-Ford automobiles on the list of items included in term "T".
>
The non sequitur is on your end, mindless inquirer.
Whether or not the listed objects form a "specific class of things" is
totally irrelevant in regards to 7701(c).
7701(c) says that what is included does not deem other things within the
meaning of the term to be excluded. So what is included could be any
number of random objects that have little commonality other than they
are included within the definition of the term. Indeed, you might error
in finding some arbitrary commonality that does nothing but presuppose
your conclusions.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> 4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
> placing certain items into some categorical set?
>
>
No. Pursuant to 7701(c), the function of "includes(ing)" is to expand
the given meaning of a term by adding things which may or may not be
considered within the given meaning of the term.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote
True. And you have to remember that Congress is pretty stupid, so what may
seem obvious to you and me, isn't quite so obvious to a Congresscritter.
So sometimes they place things in their definitions that you know are in
there anyway. It'd be like defining salt as "includes salt", but then there
are some who may not have known. And then there will always be someone that
insists that the definition of salt does not include sodium chloride, as if
the definition excludes it by not including it.
All of Dale's word wrangling won't change the taxability of his
income......which hasn't climbed above the minimum filing threshold in
decades.
Go get a real job Dale.
cpt banjo
<InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org> wrote:
> > The case you cited did not involve the definition of
> "includes" as
> > used in the Code and is therefore hopelessly irrelevant.
>
> It is merely your opinion that the case cited is {hopelessly
> irrelevant}.
It is more than an opinion. Since none of the cases the Court relied
upon involved the use of the words "includes" or "including" in a
definition (as does, for example, Section 3401(c)), the case is
objectively and completely irrelevant to how such words are to be
construed in a definition, especially in light of 7701(c). As such,
the Latham case is solid authority that your absurd argument is
worthless.
Dave Johnson
<InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org> wrote:
> 1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
>
>
> 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. c. A
> stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
> formations deposited during a single geologic era.
>
> confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up,
> contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term
> may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the
> meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a
> particular thing already included within general words
> theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
> a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as
> a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or.
> 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
>
> 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. [Middle English includen, from Latin includere, to enclose.
Dale Eastman (n) east - man = idiot =
id·i·ot (d-t)
n.
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below
three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or
guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification
system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
www.fraudsandscams.com
www.quatlosers.com
Larken Rose
a funny (not too sucessful) internet scammer!
When a scam gets rolling, all sorts of human cockroaches come out of
the woodwork to try to cash in. This is the perfect description of
Larken Rose, a scammer come lately to the world of tax protesting who
runs various tax scam websites such as www.taxableincome.net and
www.larkenrose.com Not being smart enough to come up with any unique
theory of his own, Larken has simply latched on to the "861" or
"Income Can't Be Defined" arguments that end up with the conclusion
that only foreigners are required to pay income tax. Larken's argument
has been exploded more times than a pack of Blackcats at a 4th of July
festival (see below) but this hasn't stopped Larken from marketing his
video for $20 on his other website http://www.theft-by-deception.com
or www.larkenrose.com tyrantbook.com www.preferredservices.org
www.synapticsparks.info
Larken Rose of Hollywood, Pennsylvania was sentenced in federal
district court to 15 months imprisonment for failing to file tax
returns for the years 1998 -2002, the Justice Department and Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. In compliance with Judge
Michael M. Baylson's admonition following Rose's conviction in August,
Rose submitted delinquent tax returns for the years 1997-2004 and paid
a substantial deposit to the IRS toward his outstanding tax liability.
The court sentenced Rose to one year of supervised release following
his prison term and ordered Rose to pay a fine of $10,000 and all
taxes, interest, and penalties he owes to the IR
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
Your naked assertions have been duly noted.
And if I remember, I will address them after I post the actual
words of 7701(c).
Paul Thomas, CPA
"IneptMindless" wrote
> And if I remember, I will address them after
> I post the actual words of 7701(c).
Dale, why do you try to remember, when you have to have a brain to remember
with in the first place.
Here, let me post the words of 7701(c) for you so you don't have to
struggle.
§ 7701 Definitions.
(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.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Kirby M. Wilson
wrote:
> "IneptMindless" wrote
>
> > And if I remember, I will address them after
> > I post the actual words of 7701(c).
>
> Dale, why do you try to remember, when you have to have a brain to remember
> with in the first place.
>
Here, let me post the words of 7701(c) for you so you don't have to
> struggle.
>
> § 7701 Definitions.
> (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.
The terms in section 7701 seem clear to me. This "Dale" or
Inquiringmindswanttoknow must a really confused "person" (as defined)
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
7701(c) says : {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.}
Tommy Flanagan says: {Pursuant to 7701(c), the function of
"includes(ing)" is to expand the given meaning of a term by
adding things which may or may not be considered within the
given meaning of the term.}
Let us focus on this part of Tommy's statement: {... by adding
things which may or may not be considered within the given
meaning of the term.}
Let us remove this (correct) concept: {... by adding things
which may be considered within the given meaning of the term.}
Which leaves this (incorrect) concept: {... by adding things
which may not be considered within the given meaning of the
term.}
7701(c) says: (... shall not be deemed to exclude other things
otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.}
Tommy says: {... by adding things which may not be considered
within the given meaning of the term.}
7701(c) says: (... shall not ... exclude ... things ... within
the meaning of the term defined.}
Tommy says: {... by adding things ... not ... within the ...
meaning of the term.}
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
It is time to see what today's catch is from tossing this net
into the sea:
Black's law dictionary says:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up,
contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term
may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the
meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a
particular thing already included within general words
theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as
a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or.
123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
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. [Middle English includen, from Latin includere, to enclose.
Synonyms of include: comprise; consist of; contain; embody;
embrace; encompass; incorporate; take in.
en·close also in·close -- tr.v. en·closed, en·clos·ing,
en·clos·es. 1. To surround on all sides; close in. 2. To fence
in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture. [Middle
English enclosen, from Old French enclos, past participle of
enclore, from Latin includere, to enclose. See INCLUDE.]
4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
placing certain items into some categorical set?
Tommy Flanagan provided this reply:
{No. Pursuant to 7701(c), the function of "includes(ing)" is
to expand the given meaning of a term by adding things which
may or may not be considered within the given meaning of the
term.}
The Reader should note while reading Tommy's actual post, that
Tommy deleted ALL the definitions of the word "include" and its
derivatives provided above question 4. In doing so, Tommy
Flanagan deleted all information pertaining to the pure basic
function of the word "include" and its derivatives.
The obvious question to ask is, What is the pure basic function
of the word "include" and its derivatives?
("Pure basic function" means the sense of the word BEFORE that
sense is modified by 7701(c).)
Let us take a beach pail to the beach and remove all ambiguity
as to the function of the word "include" and its derivatives.
To "include" a pretty shell in that pail is to:
Confine that shell in the collection of shells in the pail;
Hold the shell in the inclosure of the pail;
Have the pail take in the shell;
Have the pail attain the shell;
Shut up the shell in the pail;
Contain the shell the pail;
Inclose the shell in the pail;
Have the pail embrace the shell;
Have the pail involve the shell;
Have the pail take in the shell as a part of the collection in
the pail;
Have the pail take in the shell as a element of the collection
in the pail;
Have the pail take in the shell as a member of the collection
in the pail;
To place the shell into a group of shells in the pail;
To place the shell into a class of shells in the pail;
To place the shell into a total of shells in the pail;
In the definitions shown above, something (the shell) is placed
within something else (the pail).
The basic meaning in the definitions shown is this; Something
is placed within something else.
4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
placing certain items into some categorical set?
Tommy Flanagan provided this reply:
{No. Pursuant to 7701(c), the function of "includes(ing)" is
to expand the given meaning of a term by adding things which
may or may not be considered within the given meaning of the
term.}
Let us focus on this part of Tommy's statement: {Pursuant to
7701(c), the function of "includes(ing)" is to expand the given
meaning of a term by adding things...}
When you are {adding things} are you not placing those things
in the {given meaning of [that] term}?
4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
placing certain items into some categorical set?
Dear Reader, I remind you that the entire controversy over
7701(c) is about WHICH somethings are placed within the
categorical set; about WHICH things are placed within the TERM
being DEFINED by STATUTE when "includes" or "including" are
used in a STATUTORY DEFINITION.
cpt banjo
<InquiringMindsWantToK...@MySecretAddress.org> wrote:
> "nat" <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
Sigh...there is a difference between the FUNCTION of "includes" when
it is used in sections other than 7701(c) and its DEFINITION in
Section 7701(c). The function is indeed to add things that may or may
not otherwise be within the normal meaning of the term being defined.
For example, the District of Columbia is by no stretch of the
imagination a State, yet Section 7701(a)(10) says that the term
"State" includes D.C. where such an interpretation is necessary to
carry out provisions of the Code. Similarly, one would not normally
think that the performance of the functions of a public office would
be a "trade or business", yet Section 7701(a)(26) says that this term
does indeed include the performance of such functions.
Of course Knews, who thinks that the withholding requirements of
Section 3401 apply only to public employees, corporate officers, and
elected officials (that's where all his bloviated verbiage is
leading), must also think (if he is to be consistent) that the term
"State" means only D.C. and that "trade or business" includes only
performing the functions of a public office.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
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. c. A
stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
formations deposited during a single geologic era.
3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
specific class of things?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/10e7b182ce0b047e
Black's law dictionary says:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up,
contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term
may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the
meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a
particular thing already included within general words
theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as
a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or.
123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
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. [Middle English includen, from Latin includere, to enclose.
en·close also in·close -- tr.v. en·closed, en·clos·ing,
en·clos·es. 1. To surround on all sides; close in. 2. To fence
in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture. [Middle
English enclosen, from Old French enclos, past participle of
enclore, from Latin includere, to enclose. See INCLUDE.]
Synonyms of include: comprise; consist of; contain; embody
embrace encompass incorporate take in
4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
placing certain items into some categorical set?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/ef80a6a3f0e64e72
I remind the Reader, that the entire controversy over 7701(c)
is in regard to WHICH items are "included" or "placed" into
some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or "placed" into some
STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
In order to understand what 7701(c) changes, we need to examine
a mock statute without the effect of 7701(c) in order to
compare the result with the effect of 7701(c). Therefore,
7701(c) shall be ignored for the time being.
Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
expressed prevails over what is implied."
Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> I remind the Reader, that the entire controversy over 7701(c)
> is in regard to WHICH items are "included" or "placed" into
> some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or "placed" into some
> STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
No, mindless inquirer, the entire controversy over 7701(c) is what is
the GIVEN MEANING of the term defined. Because 7701(c) says NOT TO
EXCLUDE OTHER THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS MEANING.
That means the term is expanded by the inclusion of certain things
without excluding something that is otherwise within its meaning. The
only variable is THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED. If no meaning is
stated, then the default meaning is its dictionary or ordinary and
commonly understood meaning.
The mindless inquirer in error beLIEves the MEANING of the term is
somehow limited to the inclusion of certain things then (this is the
weird part) somehow "expanded" by things that are classed or grouped
according to the things included. Thus, the mindless inquirer falls for
the preposterous conclusion that the term defined is superfluous and a
nullity. That the term defined does not mean what it means but what the
included things mean(which are often totally unrelated to the term defined).
>
> In order to understand what 7701(c) changes, we need to examine
> a mock statute without the effect of 7701(c) in order to
> compare the result with the effect of 7701(c). Therefore,
> 7701(c) shall be ignored for the time being.
Your "mock statute" is as brainless as you, mindless inquirer. You are
hoping that by ignoring 7701(c) you can somehow play the game of
semantical "where's the pea hiding".
nat
The mindless inquirer refuses to understand that there is a difference
between THE THINGS INCLUDED and THE THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE TERM DEFINED.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"ImpotentMindWantsCandy" wrote
> It is time to see what today's catch is from
> tossing this net into the sea:
A case of the crabs?
Take it to court Dale. We'll look for it on the dockets.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A statement of the MEANING of a word,
phrase, or TERM, as in a dictionary entry.
[STATUTORY] def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A [STATUTORY] statement of
the [STATUTORY] MEANING of a [STATUTORY] TERM, as in a
[STATUTORY DEFINITION]
A STATUTORY DEFINITION of a TERM is a STATUTORY [statement of
the MEANING of a ... TERM.]
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>>>>>> it only expands on the general usage definition.
>>>>> Please give us the general usage definition of a
>>>>> {metropolitan statistical area}
>>>> Failure to provide the general usage definition noted.
>> Failure to provide the general usage definition noted a
second time.
Failure to provide the general usage definition noted a third
time.
> > > The case you cited did not involve the definition of
> > > "includes" as used in the Code and is
> > > therefore hopelessly irrelevant.
> >
> > It is merely your opinion that the case cited is
> > {hopelessly irrelevant}.
>
> It is more than an opinion.
It is merely your opinion posted on the internet.
> Since none of the cases the Court relied
> upon involved the use of the words "includes" or "including"
> in a definition (as does, for example, Section 3401(c)),
> the case is objectively and completely irrelevant to how
> such words are to be construed in a definition,
> especially in light of 7701(c).
Before you start 'casting the light' of 7701(c), you'd better
come to terms with the actual meaning of includes and including
in "normal" light. Here's those meanings again:
Webster:
'1. To confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut up, as, the
shell of a nut includes the kernel; a pearl is included in a
shell. 2. To comprehend, as a genus the species, the whole a
part, an argument or reason the inference; to contain; to
embrace; to relate to; to pertain to; as Great Britain includes
England, Scotland, and Wales.'
Century:
(1) 'to confine within something; hold as in an inclosure;
inclose; contain.' (2) 'To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater
includes the less; . . . the Roman Empire included many
nations.'
American Heritage:
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:
Blacks:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up,
contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term
may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the
meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a
particular thing already included within general words
theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as
a word of limitation.
To include an item is to place it within a group, class, or
set.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >
> > I remind the Reader, that the entire controversy over
> > 7701(c) is in regard to WHICH items are "included" or
> > "placed" into some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or
> > "placed" into some STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
>
> No, mindless inquirer, the entire controversy over 7701(c) is
> what is the GIVEN MEANING of the term defined.
Dear Reader, and Dear Tommy Flanagan,
The entire controversy is over what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
TERM "T".
What items does the law act upon when the law acts upon TERM
"T"?
THAT is the question to be answered to determine the MEANING of
TERM "T" which determines what the law is required to act upon.
Let me refresh your memory with question number 1:
1. Is a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"),
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes a
law that acts upon "T" we know what items/objects/things;
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
"T"?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/fad7c4aedfafb04f
That means the entire controversy is over what
items/objects/things; actions; or persons are "included" or
"placed" into some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or
"placed" into some STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM (which the law then
acts upon).
> Because 7701(c) says NOT TO EXCLUDE OTHER THINGS
> OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS [ the defined term's ] MEANING.
Dear Reader, Please understand that Tommy Flanagan has asserted
that a term's MEANING is not the same as that term's
DEFINITION.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b4dfb099f5049fc8
> 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.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b4dfb099f5049fc8
He states the reason why he beLIEves this to be the case below.
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. [Or as in a STATUTORY
DEFINITION / STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.]
I guess the dictionary people didn't get Tommy's memo that a
term's meaning is NOT the same as its definition.
> That means the term is expanded by the inclusion of certain
> things without excluding something that is otherwise within
> its meaning.
The above is classical Tommy Flanagan doublespeak. As such,
the compound sentence will be disassembled and examined for the
individual concepts embedded within said sentence.
Since the issue is what items/objects/things; actions; or
persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon the DEFINED
TERM, I will translate and restate Tommy's assertions and
concepts in reference to STATUTORILY DEFINING what the law is
supposed to act upon.
Tommy is saying the set, group, or class of things the law is
meant to act upon {is expanded by the inclusion of certain
things}. With this concept, in light of 7701(c), I agree.
However, I do NOT agree with Tommy as to WHICH certain things
are included in the set, group, or class of things the law is
meant to act upon.
Tommy's second embedded concept is that the set, group, or
class of things the law is meant to act upon does not exclude
{something that is otherwise within its [ the defined term's ]
meaning.} With this concept, in light of 7701(c) also agree in
.
However, I do NOT agree as to the STATUTORILY DEFINED term's
MEANING.
Tommy beLIEves that a term's MEANING is not the same as that
term's DEFINITION. He states the reason why he beLIEves this
to be below.
> That means the term is expanded by the inclusion of certain
> things without excluding something that is otherwise within
> its meaning.
{That means the term [metropolitan statistical area] is
expanded by the inclusion of certain things without excluding
something that is otherwise within its [metropolitan
statistical area's] meaning.}
Please state what {certain things} expand the "metropolitan
statistical area" by their {inclusion}?
Please state which {something} is NOT excluded from the
"metropolitan statistical area" when {certain things} expand
the "metropolitan statistical area" by their {inclusion}?
(k) Other definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section -
(2) Statistical area
(A) In general
The term "statistical area" means -
(i) a metropolitan statistical area, and
(ii) any county (or the portion thereof) which is not within a
metropolitan statistical area.
(B) Metropolitan statistical area
The term "metropolitan statistical area" includes the area
defined as such by the Secretary of Commerce.
> The only variable is THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED.
Tommy and I do not agree as to the meaning of the TERM DEFINED.
Therefore, for example, I have posted the ONLY DEFINITION given
in the IRC for a "metropolitan statistical area".
What is the MEANING of the TERM DEFINED?
What is the MEANING of the term "metropolitan statistical
area"?
What is the law supposed to act upon when the law acts upon a
"metropolitan statistical area"?
> If no meaning is stated, then the default meaning
> [of the term] is its dictionary or ordinary and
> commonly understood meaning.
The above is the starting point for Tommy's chain of logic.
In order for that statement to be true, this statement must be
false:
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A statement of the MEANING of a word,
phrase, or TERM, as in a dictionary entry.
Which means that this statement must also be false as well:
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A STATUTORY statement of the MEANING of
a ... TERM... .
There are other logical flaws as well.
> If no meaning is stated, then the default meaning
> [of the term] is its dictionary or ordinary and
> commonly understood meaning.
There are other logical flaws as well.
> If no meaning is stated, then the default meaning
> [of the term metropolitan statistical area ] is its
> dictionary or ordinary and commonly understood
> meaning.
Tommy, please indicate the {dictionary or ordinary and commonly
understood meaning} of the TERM {metropolitan statistical area}
and put a citation link to an online dictionary that has the
commonly understood meaning of the TERM {metropolitan
statistical area}.
(k) Other definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section -
(2) Statistical area
(A) In general
The term "statistical area" means -
(i) a metropolitan statistical area, and
(ii) any county (or the portion thereof) which is not within a
metropolitan statistical area.
(B) Metropolitan statistical area
The term "metropolitan statistical area" includes the area
defined as such by the Secretary of Commerce.
> The mindless inquirer in error beLIEves the MEANING of the
> term is somehow limited to the inclusion of certain things
> then (this is the weird part) somehow "expanded" by things
> that are classed or grouped according to the things
> included.
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.
Just in case you missed it:
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A statement of the MEANING of a word,
phrase, or TERM, as in a dictionary entry. [Or as in a
STATUTORY DEFINITION / STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.]
A STATUTORY DEFINITION of a TERM is a STATUTORY [statement of
the MEANING of a ... TERM.]
> Thus, the mindless inquirer falls for the preposterous
> conclusion that the term defined is superfluous and a
> nullity.
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A statement of the MEANING of a word,
phrase, or TERM, as in a dictionary entry.
[STATUTORY] def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A [STATUTORY] statement of
the [STATUTORY] MEANING of a [STATUTORY] TERM, as in a
[STATUTORY DEFINITION]
> That the term defined does not mean what it means
def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A statement of the MEANING of a word,
phrase, or TERM, as in a dictionary entry.
[STATUTORY] def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A [STATUTORY] statement of
the [STATUTORY] MEANING of a [STATUTORY] TERM, as in a
[STATUTORY DEFINITION]
> but what the included things mean (which are often totally
> unrelated to the term defined).
How about citing some examples where the included things are
unrelated to the term DEFINED?
> >
> > In order to understand what 7701(c) changes,
> > we need to examine a mock statute without the
> > effect of 7701(c) in order to compare the result
> > with the effect of 7701(c). Therefore, 7701(c)
> > shall be ignored for the time being.
>
> Your "mock statute" is as brainless as you, mindless
> inquirer. You are hoping that by ignoring 7701(c)
> you can somehow play the game of
> semantical "where's the pea hiding".
>
Just in case you missed it:
"in order to compare the result with the effect of 7701(c)."
> >
> > Black's 7th edition contains these words:
> > "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius,
> > et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The designation
> > of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
> > expressed prevails over what is implied."
> >
> > Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this
> > chapter, the TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
> >
> > 5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
> >
Since Tommy is being recalcitrant, I will use his previous
answer to this question.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
> 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.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
RICHARD MACDONALD
wrote in message news:13fimip...@corp.supernews.com...
So by the definitions in 26 USC 7701 is Nebraska a "State"?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"MindlessDaleEastman" wrote
> However, I do NOT agree with Tommy
> However, I do NOT agree
Dale, no one gives a shit what you think.
The courts will, if necessary, tell you what the law means.
Till then, look at all the cases where people trying your argument have
failed as proof that your rantings are just that.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
nat
7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition, Congress is not giving
MEANING to the term defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.
'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning of a term whose meaning
(definition) is stated elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default, you can consult a dictionary for the
term's meaning.
nat
In the light of 7701(c), the "group, class, or set" is the term defined.
Look at your Blacks definition, mindless inquirer.
Richard Macdonald
>>
>> Blacks:
>> "Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
>> theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
Right here Black's uses exactly what we are telling you about
7701(c), the use of including expands the normal use definition.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
>
> How about citing some examples where the included things are
> unrelated to the term DEFINED?
Section 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(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.
The "District of Columbia" is unrelated and not within the meaning of
"state"; however, this statute includes it within the definition of the
term defined-"State". And, since "includes" (technically a derivative)
is used, things otherwise within the meaning of state is not excluded.
Therefore, wherever "state" is used in Title 26, none of the 50 states
is excluded and only D.C. is included.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46F064A8...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>
>>>I remind the Reader, that the entire controversy over
>>>7701(c) is in regard to WHICH items are "included" or
>>>"placed" into some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or
>>>"placed" into some STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
>>
>>No, mindless inquirer, the entire controversy over 7701(c) is
>>what is the GIVEN MEANING of the term defined.
>
>
>
> Dear Reader, and Dear Tommy Flanagan,
> The entire controversy is over what items/objects/things;
> actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
> TERM "T".
>
> What items does the law act upon when the law acts upon TERM
> "T"?
>
>
> THAT is the question to be answered to determine the MEANING of
> TERM "T" which determines what the law is required to act upon.
>
That's a nice ellipsis you got there, mindless inquirer.
The "items" (that the law acts upon) determine the "MEANING" which
determines what "items" (the law acts upon).
Why bother with the MEANING if you already have the items? What could
possibly be expanded? Why even bother with 'includes(ing)'?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
It is time to see what the catch is from tossing this net
into the sea:
I remind the Reader, that the entire controversy over 7701(c)
is in regard to WHICH items are "included" or "placed" into
some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or "placed" into some
STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
In order to understand what 7701(c) changes, we need to examine
a mock statute without the effect of 7701(c) in order to
compare the result with the effect of 7701(c). Therefore,
7701(c) shall be ignored for the time being.
Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
expressed prevails over what is implied."
Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
Dear Reader,
If you search the subthreads that follow below the post above
this one, you will NOT find a single answer to question #5.
Therefore, I will use Tommy Flanagan's answer from another
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
> 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.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
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. [Middle English includen, from Latin includere, to enclose
: in-, in; see IN-2 + claudere, to close.]
Please note the original Latin: To include is to enclose.
en·close also in·close -- tr.v. en·closed, en·clos·ing,
en·clos·es. 1. To surround on all sides; close in. 2. To fence
in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture. [Middle
English enclosen, from Old French enclos, past participle of
enclore, from Latin includere, to enclose. See INCLUDE.]
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
Only those things following "includes" is included.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
Only those things following "includes" is included.
Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as a part].
Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as an
element].
Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as a
member].
Only those things following "includes" is [contained as a
secondary element].
Only those things following "includes" is [contained as a
subordinate element].
Only those things following "includes" is [considered with or
placed into a group].
Only those things following "includes" is [considered with or
placed into a class].
Only those things following "includes" is [considered with or
placed into a total].
Only those things following "includes" is [enclosed].
Only those things following "includes" is [surrounded on all
sides].
Only those things following "includes" is [closed in].
Tommy Flanagan will do all that he can to change the meaning of
what he ACTUALLY said, because he did NOT state what he means.
What Tommy Flanagan actually stated above is this following
rule of statutory construction:
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
Black's 7th edition.
Richard Macdonald
Answer the question or end the discussion.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13fsto9...@corp.supernews.com...
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
> TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
>
> 5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
>
Jane decided to throw a party. She sent out invitations. The
invitations included Bob and Dan.
Question: Was Fred and Mary invited to the party?
A "part" of what?
> Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as an
> element].
As and "element" of what?
> Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as a
> member].
As a member of what?
> Only those things following "includes" is [contained as a
> secondary element].
Well, what is the PRIMARY ELEMENT?
> Only those things following "includes" is [contained as a
> subordinate element].
Well, what is the DOMINATE ELEMENT?
> Only those things following "includes" is [considered with or
> placed into a group].
Were there items in the group before other items were included?
> Only those things following "includes" is [considered with or
> placed into a class].
Were there items in the class before other items were included?
> Only those things following "includes" is [considered with or
> placed into a total].
Were there things contained in the total before other things were included?
> Only those things following "includes" is [enclosed].
That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
> Only those things following "includes" is [surrounded on all
> sides].
That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
> Only those things following "includes" is [closed in].
That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
>
>
> Tommy Flanagan will do all that he can to change the meaning of
> what he ACTUALLY said, because he did NOT state what he means.
In your dreams, mindless inquirer.
>
> What Tommy Flanagan actually stated above is this following
> rule of statutory construction:
>
> "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
> other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
> Black's 7th edition.
>
Now given your mock statute, why would you try to include "D, E, and F"
since the only things expressly INCLUDED were "A, B, and C"?
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> > "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:46F066CF...@tx.rr.com...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>difference between THE THINGS INCLUDED and THE
> >>THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
> >>THE TERM DEFINED.
> >
> >
> >
> > def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A statement of the MEANING of a
> > word, phrase, or TERM, as in a dictionary entry.
> >
> >
> > [STATUTORY] def·i·ni·tion n. 1.b. A [STATUTORY] statement
> > of the [STATUTORY] MEANING of a [STATUTORY] TERM,
> > as in a [STATUTORY DEFINITION]
> >
> >
> > A STATUTORY DEFINITION of a TERM is a STATUTORY
> > [statement of the MEANING of a ... TERM.]
> >
>
>
> 7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING of terms
> other than INCLUDES(ING). When 'includes(ing)' is
> used in a definition, Congress is not giving MEANING
> to the term defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does
> NOT = 'means'.
Please indicate the {dictionary or ordinary and commonly
understood meaning} of the TERM {metropolitan statistical area}
and put a citation link to an online dictionary that has the
commonly understood meaning of the TERM {metropolitan
statistical area}.
(k) Other definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section -
(2) Statistical area
(A) In general
The term "statistical area" means -
(i) a metropolitan statistical area, and
(ii) any county (or the portion thereof) which is not within a
metropolitan statistical area.
(B) Metropolitan statistical area
The term "metropolitan statistical area" includes the area
defined as such by the Secretary of Commerce.
> 'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning of a
> term whose meaning (definition) is stated elsewhere.
> If that meaning is not stated elsewhere in law,
> then, by default, you can consult a dictionary
> for the term's meaning.
{'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning of [the] term
["metropolitan statistical area"] whose meaning (definition) is
stated elsewhere.}
Please cite the {elsewhere} where {the meaning of [the] term
["metropolitan statistical area"]} can be found in Title 26.
(You can't because there is only one occurrence in title 26.)
{If that meaning [of the term "metropolitan statistical area"]
is not stated elsewhere in law, then, by default, you can
consult a dictionary for the term's ["metropolitan statistical
area's"] meaning.}
Please cite and show links to an online dictionary that you
consulted for the meaning of the term "metropolitan statistical
area".
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >
> > Before you start 'casting the light' of 7701(c),
> > you'd better come to terms with the actual meaning
> > of includes and including in "normal" light. Here's
> > those meanings again:
> >
> > Webster:
> > '1. To confine within; to hold; to contain; to
> > shut up, as, the shell of a nut includes the kernel;
> > a pearl is included in a shell. 2. To comprehend,
Without 7701(c), the "group, class, or set" is still the term
defined.
I'm glad you understand and finally admit that the "group,
class, or set" is the term defined.
Congress defines terms by statute in the format shown in the
following mock statute:
{For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes a, b,
and c.}
I'm glad you understand and finally admit that the "group,
class, or set" is term "T".
I'm glad you understand and finally admit that term "T" IS the
"group, class, or set" defined.
{For purposes of this chapter, the "group, class, or set" "T"
includes a, b, and c.}
In other words, "T" = {a, b, c}
> Look at your Blacks definition, mindless inquirer.
Thank you. That's a good idea.
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
Black's 7th.
Here's some other versions of the same canon I found on the
net:
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
The expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of
another.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
A principle in statutory construction: when one or more things
of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are
excluded.
In other words, setting aside the effect of 7701(c):
"T" = {a, b, c} and no other element or item is in the set.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UQdKi.6494$Nn4.6226@trnddc02...
Please cite the {normal use definition} of a "metropolitan
statistical area".
Provide links to the online dictionary supplying the normal use
definition.
(k) Other definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section -
(2) Statistical area
(A) In general
The term "statistical area" means -
(i) a metropolitan statistical area, and
(ii) any county (or the portion thereof) which is not within a
metropolitan statistical area.
(B) Metropolitan statistical area
The term "metropolitan statistical area" includes the area
defined as such by the Secretary of Commerce.
A STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM is a word or phrase with a CUSTOM
DEFINED MEANING.
A TERM DEFINED BY STATUTE is a word of phrase with a CUSTOM
DEFINED STATUTORY MEANING.
The statutorily defined term "metropolitan statistical area" is
a phrase with a CUSTOM DEFINED STATUTORY MEANING.
The CUSTOM DEFINED STATUTORY MEANING of the term "metropolitan
statistical area" MEANS the area designated as such
by the Secretary of Commerce.
(Didja catch that Tommy Flanagan?)
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
{Why even bother with 'includes(ing)'?}
To make people think the law says one thing when it says
exactly the opposite.
{What could possibly be expanded?}
That would be the same kind of items/objects/things; actions;
or persons specifically listed.
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.
{Why bother with the MEANING if you already have the items?}
Because the items are an example of a CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or
GROUP which is the focus of what the law is MEANT to act upon.
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
traits in common; a kind or category.
set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
together and are so used: a chess set.
col·lec·tion n. 2. A group of objects or works to be seen,
studied, or kept together.
group n. 3. A number of individuals or things considered
together because of similarities. 6. A class or collection of
related objects or entities.
{The "items" (that the law acts upon) determine the "MEANING"
which determines what "items" (the law acts upon).}
Actually, the law lists some items in a CLASS. The CLASS thus
listed by example IS the MEANING of the TERM DEFINED BY
STATUTE.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about citing some examples where the included things
> > are unrelated to the term DEFINED?
Good. You've proven that you can answer questions when it suits
your agenda.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
>
>
> InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> > Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter,
> > the TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
> >
> > 5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
> >
>
> Jane decided to throw a party. She sent out invitations.
> The invitations included Bob and Dan.
> Question: Was Fred and Mary invited to the party?
No.
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
Bob and Dan are expressed. Fred and Mary are not.
Okay... I'll pretend you are as stupid as you are pretending to
be.
A part of the CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term
"T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as an
> > element].
>
> As and "element" of what?
The CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [taken in as a
> > member].
>
> As a member of what?
The CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [contained as a
> > secondary element].
>
> Well, what is the PRIMARY ELEMENT?
The CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [contained as a
> > subordinate element].
>
> Well, what is the DOMINATE ELEMENT?
The CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [considered with
> > or placed into a group].
>
> Were there items in the group before other items were
> included?
No.
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
> > Only those things following "includes" is [considered with
> > or placed into a class].
>
> Were there items in the class before other items were
> included?
No.
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
> > Only those things following "includes" is [considered with
> > or placed into a total].
>
> Were there things contained in the total before other things
> were included?
No.
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
The entire thrust of your previous three questions is based
upon your assumption that the CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP
which is term "T" was previously created and filled with some
item(s).
> > Only those things following "includes" is [enclosed].
>
> That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
That is correct.
Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the whole.
Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the CLASS,
SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [surrounded on
> > all sides].
>
> That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
That is correct.
Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the whole.
Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the CLASS,
SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
> > Only those things following "includes" is [closed in].
>
> That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
That is correct.
Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the whole.
Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the CLASS,
SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
The entire thrust of your previous three questions is because
you think you are going to expose a contradiction on my part.
You are not. Absent 7701(c), NOTHING ELSE is part of the
CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
In other words, absent 7701(c), the CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or
GROUP which is term "T" = {a, b, c} and contains NO OTHER
ELEMENT.
"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
> > What Tommy Flanagan actually stated above is this following
> > rule of statutory construction:
> >
> > "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> > cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of
> > the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is
> > implied." Black's 7th edition.
> >
>
> Now given your mock statute, why would you try to include "D,
> E, and F" since the only things expressly INCLUDED were "A,
> B, and C"?
I'm not. You are...
Via 7701(c).
Please note my correction of using lower case when labeling
the elements of the set.
Sans 7701(c), when "T" is DEFINED BY STATUTE in the following
format:
{For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes a, b,
and c.}
You agreed that nothing else is included.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
Only those things following "includes" is included.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
If {Only those things following "includes" is included}
and {a, b, c} are the only things following includes,
then "T" = {a, b, c}.
To be covered in another post
is your beLIEf that "T" = {a, b, c, t}.
cpt banjo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Godot will arrive before Inquiring, the intellectual coward that he
is, will answer whether Nebraska is a State per Section 7701.
If he read a news article that said, "The crowd at the baseball game
included the Mayor and his wife", he would conclude that only two
people attended.
InquiringMindsWantToKnow
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress so that when Congress writes a
actions; or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/fad7c4aedfafb04f
Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
expressed prevails over what is implied."
2. When Congress expresses a DEFINITION of a TERM by writing a
statute (STATUTORY DEFINITION) is what is expressed to prevail
over what is not expressed (implied)?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a98017abf11be3ec
class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
traits in common; a kind or category.
set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
together and are so used: a chess set.
col·lec·tion n. 2. A group of objects or works to be seen,
studied, or kept together.
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. c. A
stratigraphic unit, especially a unit consisting of two or more
formations deposited during a single geologic era.
3. When a TERM, (which we will generically refer to as "T"), is
STATUTORILY DEFINED by Congress in this format {For the
purposes of this section, the TERM "T" includes Mustangs,
Pintos, Fairlanes} has this STATUTORY DEFINITION listed a
specific class of things?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/10e7b182ce0b047e
Black's law dictionary says:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up,
contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term
may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the
meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a
particular thing already included within general words
theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as
a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as
a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or.
123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
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. [Middle English includen, from Latin includere, to enclose.
en·close also in·close -- tr.v. en·closed, en·clos·ing,
en·clos·es. 1. To surround on all sides; close in. 2. To fence
in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture. [Middle
English enclosen, from Old French enclos, past participle of
enclore, from Latin includere, to enclose. See INCLUDE.]
Synonyms of include: comprise; consist of; contain; embody;
embrace; encompass; incorporate; take in.
4. Is the basic function of "including" items the function of
placing certain items into some categorical set?
The answer can only be yes. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/ef80a6a3f0e64e72
I remind the Reader, that the entire controversy over 7701(c)
is in regard to WHICH items are "included" or "placed" into
some categorical set, i.e. are "included" or "placed" into some
STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
In order to understand what 7701(c) changes, we need to examine
a mock statute without the effect of 7701(c) in order to
compare the result with the effect of 7701(c). Therefore,
7701(c) shall be ignored for the time being.
Black's 7th edition contains these words: "Designatio unius est
exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum: The
designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is
expressed prevails over what is implied."
Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
For readability I typed the question above with A through F in
uppercase. Since TERM "T" is a set, A through F should have
been lower case. Thus I should have typed:
Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
TERM "T" includes a, b, and c.}
5. Does TERM "T" include d, e, or f?
The answer can only be no. The reader is invited to examine
why in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/2c22d421b289cb27
And in this post which is in response to the response to the
above link:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/53322e80e6353e77
Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
TERM "T" includes a, b, and c.}
6. Does TERM "T" include t?
Richard Macdonald
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
"InquiringMindsWantToKnow" <InquiringMin...@MySecretAddress.org>
wrote in message news:13fvlro...@corp.supernews.com...
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46FF09BB...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter,
>>>the TERM "T" includes A, B, and C.}
>>>
>>>5. Does TERM "T" include D, E, or F?
>>>
>>
>>Jane decided to throw a party. She sent out invitations.
>>The invitations included Bob and Dan.
>>Question: Was Fred and Mary invited to the party?
>
>
> No.
>
> "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
> other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
>
> Bob and Dan are expressed. Fred and Mary are not.
>
Why would you apply that axiom to this problem?
The context clearly allows one to infer that more than two invitations
were sent.
If the problem stated:
Jane decided to throw a party. She invited Bob and Dan.
Were Fred and Mary invited to the party?
Now you would apply that axiom and the answer would be NO.
Do you want to change your answer?
Why would you throw out the meaning of "T"?
>
>
>>>Only those things following "includes" is [considered with
>>>or placed into a class].
>>
>>Were there items in the class before other items were
>>included?
>
>
> No.
>
> "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
> other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
>
Why would you throw out the meaning of "T"?
>
>
>>>Only those things following "includes" is [considered with
>>>or placed into a total].
>>
>>Were there things contained in the total before other things
>>were included?
>
>
> No.
>
> "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
> other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
>
Why would you throw out the meaning of "T"?
>
> The entire thrust of your previous three questions is based
> upon your assumption that the CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP
> which is term "T" was previously created and filled with some
> item(s).
>
It's not an assumption. "T" had a meaning prior to the inclusion of any
other things.
>
>>>Only those things following "includes" is [enclosed].
>>
>>That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
>
>
>
> That is correct.
> Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the whole.
> Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the CLASS,
> SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
>
>
>
>
>>>Only those things following "includes" is [surrounded on
>>>all sides].
>>
>>That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
>
>
> That is correct.
> Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the whole.
> Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the CLASS,
> SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
>
>
>
>>>Only those things following "includes" is [closed in].
>>
>>That is, nothing else is included as part of the whole.
>
>
> That is correct.
> Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the whole.
> Only the items {a, b, c} are included as part of the CLASS,
> SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
>
>
> The entire thrust of your previous three questions is because
> you think you are going to expose a contradiction on my part.
> You are not. Absent 7701(c), NOTHING ELSE is part of the
> CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or GROUP which is term "T".
So you are saying 7701(c) changes your theory?
Sorry, but even the commonly understood meaning of 'includes(ing)' is to
expand something that was already there.
>
> In other words, absent 7701(c), the CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or
> GROUP which is term "T" = {a, b, c} and contains NO OTHER
> ELEMENT.
>
> "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
> other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
>
And you are flat out wrong. INCLUDES(ING) does not equal MEANS even in
its commonly understood meaning.
>
>
>>>What Tommy Flanagan actually stated above is this following
>>>rule of statutory construction:
>>>
>>>"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
>>>cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of
>>>the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is
>>>implied." Black's 7th edition.
>>>
>>
>>Now given your mock statute, why would you try to include "D,
>>E, and F" since the only things expressly INCLUDED were "A,
>>B, and C"?
>
>
> I'm not. You are...
>
> Via 7701(c).
>
> Please note my correction of using lower case when labeling
> the elements of the set.
>
> Sans 7701(c), when "T" is DEFINED BY STATUTE in the following
> format:
> {For the purposes of this chapter, the term "T" includes a, b,
> and c.}
>
> You agreed that nothing else is included.
I also said you don't throw out the term being expanded.
If Jane sent out invitations to a party, you don't know if Fred and Mary
were invited until you examine all of the invitations.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
> Only those things following "includes" is included.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4851b6c5264e7679
>
> If {Only those things following "includes" is included}
> and {a, b, c} are the only things following includes,
> then "T" = {a, b, c}.
And, you are just flat out wrong, mindless inquirer.
nat
So in other words, you throw out the meaning of "T"?
I don't think so, mindless inquirer.
If term "T" is the "group, class, or set" like you said above, why can't
you just add items to that set? You can. That is where 'includes' is used.
If "T" includes {a}, and "T" = {a}, then why not just say "a" instead of
the rigamarole with 'includes'?
You are assuming your conclusions in error, mindless inquirer.
>
>
>>Look at your Blacks definition, mindless inquirer.
>
>
>
> Thank you. That's a good idea.
>
> "Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit
> cessare tacitum: The designation of one is the exclusion of the
> other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied."
> Black's 7th.
>
No, this part, mindless inquirer:
nat
nat
Then that law would not pass the constitutional test of due process,
mindless inquirer.
>
>
> {What could possibly be expanded?}
>
> That would be the same kind of items/objects/things; actions;
> or persons specifically listed.
>
> 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.
>
>
So if the term "state" includes the District of Columbia, you could
expand the meaning of "state" to include London and Paris since those
cities are also their nation's capital?
>
> {Why bother with the MEANING if you already have the items?}
>
> Because the items are an example of a CLASS, SET, COLLECTION or
> GROUP which is the focus of what the law is MEANT to act upon.
>
> class n. 1. A set, collection, group, or configuration
> containing members regarded as having certain attributes or
> traits in common; a kind or category.
>
> set n. 1. A group of things of the same kind that belong
> together and are so used: a chess set.
>
> col損ec暗ion n. 2. A group of objects or works to be seen,
> studied, or kept together.
>
> group n. 3. A number of individuals or things considered
> together because of similarities. 6. A class or collection of
> related objects or entities.
>
>
>
> {The "items" (that the law acts upon) determine the "MEANING"
> which determines what "items" (the law acts upon).}
>
> Actually, the law lists some items in a CLASS. The CLASS thus
> listed by example IS the MEANING of the TERM DEFINED BY
> STATUTE.
>
In other words, INCLUDES = MEANS and nothing is expanded at all?
You have just contradicted yourself into a corner, mindless inquirer.
nat
Why didn't Congress just says MEANS? You can't expand something if it
is limited in its meaning.
Sorry, but Congress said INCLUDES.
nat
InquiringMindsWantToKnow wrote:
>
> Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
> TERM "T" includes a, b, and c.}
>
> 5. Does TERM "T" include d, e, or f?
>
> The answer can only be no. The reader is invited to examine
> why in this post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/2c22d421b289cb27
>
That's the right answer but the wrong question.
The correct question is:
Are d, e, or f OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF TERM "T"?
The answer can only be "we don't know" without more information.
> And in this post which is in response to the response to the
> above link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/53322e80e6353e77
>
>
> Our mock statute says: {For the purposes of this chapter, the
> TERM "T" includes a, b, and c.}
>
> 6. Does TERM "T" include t?
>
NO.
Does TERM "T" mean t?
If "T" = t, and TERM "T" includes a, b, and c, then TERM "T" = a, b, c,
and t.