Utterly irrelevant. The opinion of a member of Congress is not the law. The courts interpret the law. The courts have concluded that section 7701 of the IRC clearly means that "includes" and "including" are terms of expansion, not limitation, every place they appear in the code.
Quote:
(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.
|
26 U.S. Code, section 7701
"This title" means title 26, the entire Internal Revenue Code. Arguments that "I'm not subject to tax because the definition in such and such section does not include people like me" have a zero success rate.
“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.”
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).
"To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no ‘wages’ in 1983 because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c), which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of ‘employee’ includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers.
The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”
Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986)
Steiner also argued that the word ‘includes,’ which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court’s jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that
the word ‘includes’ is one of expansion, not limitation.”
United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992
Next silly argument?