"trade Or Business" *** Key ***

[weishaupt1776]

Yup, making your position hinge on the term "includes"; which by the very def in 7701 is specifically intended to be broad and far reaching; is a sure loser

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

...tax protesters...

...Tory Loyalist Esquires...

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Why is it that you tax protesters always ignore section 7701 of title 26, aka the Internal Revenue Code?

It states, in relevant part:



In other words, "includes" and "including" when used in title 26 are terms of expansion, not terms of limitation. The purpose of the part you quoted is to make it clear that people who work for the government are also liable for taxes, not just people who work for private enterprise.

Next silly assertion?

Thank you LAWDOG for giving us your interpretation of the term includes. You are wrong with regards to me. The definition that you claim us 'tax protesters' ignore, is simply 'sharp practice' on your part.

You state "in other words,..........terms of expansion, not terms of limitations." I cannot mix words with terms. There are no 'other words' when using terms, just other terms. This is why the term 'code' is used from the Internal Revenue Code. 'Internal' means internal, not external, or did the term change, or is the term even defined in IRC?

Back to the section 7701, the definition LAWDOG used is; 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.

'Other things otherwise within the meaning of the term', and who is the one that determines other things otherwise within the meaning of the term? That would be me!!!!!!!

This is why consent, belief and confidence are the only way one can get hooked into creating a liability for oneself by getting caught up in this ambiguous anamoly.

By the way, I am not a tax protestor, I believe all federal employees should pay their fair share. The code is clear on federal employees being required to pay federal income taxes(federal taxes again). I also don't protest paying taxes every time I pay my phone, electric, gas, clothing, tobacco, alchohol, property, sales, and just about every other tax that is incorporated to the spending of the private FRN.

[mertensv16]

Here's what happened to one guy who used the argument that "includes" as used in the Code is limiting and that private employees aren't liable for employment taxes:

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.

U. S. v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added)

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by moishanb

'Other things otherwise within the meaning of the term', and who is the one that determines other things otherwise within the meaning of the term? That would be me!!!!!!!

No, it's not you. It's not me, either. The interpretation of the law is left to the courts, the judicial branch of government. As Chief Justice Marshall famously wrote in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

And the argument that "federal income taxes only apply to government employees" is another loser argument with a 100% failure rate. Here are some examples.

“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).

“Petitioner’s assertion that he is not a person required to pay tax as he is not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or of a corporation, is wholly meritless.”
United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981).

“[P]laintiff’s claim that only public officials can be taxed is completely frivolous and without merit.”
McAffee v. United States, 84 AFTR2d ¶99-5536(N.D.Ga. 1999) (sanctions imposed in the amount of $500 for filing a frivolous claim).

Taxes suck, but they are a fact of life. I underpaid last year, and am not looking forward to having to send a check for the balance owed by April 15, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that, just because I don't like paying, it must be illegal/voluntary/unconstitutional.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

No, it's not you. It's not me, either. The interpretation of the law is left to the courts, the judicial branch of government. As Chief Justice Marshall famously wrote in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

And the argument that "federal income taxes only apply to government employees" is another loser argument with a 100% failure rate. Here are some examples.


Taxes suck, but they are a fact of life. I underpaid last year, and am not looking forward to having to send a check for the balance owed by April 15, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that, just because I don't like paying, it must be illegal/voluntary/unconstitutional.

LAWDOG, I'm glad you brought up the judicial powers, and please, please please show me how to invoke the judicial powers of the court. I can't seem to get past the administrative court, with administrative powers. There may be in theory 3 branches of government, but not in practice when it comes to taxes. There can't be, because these taxes are extra-constitutional(anything other than clearly defined in the Constitution for the united States of America), and therefore, require consent, ageement, and contract.

I like the way you are testing us to see if we understand the differences from courts of old(with their caselaw), and private administrative tribunals of new. And yes, I do know the difference. Why don't you supply us with the address of an Article III court with a judge with Article III powers in America today?

Lastly, It's not that I don't like paying taxes, cuz I do on a daily basis, I just won't pay taxes on something that is not required. But, I do appreciate your determination in having us think the way you do. Good luck!

[Lawdog]

Well, son, obviously the Supreme Court is an article III court. Here you go:

U.S. Supreme Court
1 First St. N.E.
Washington DC 20543
Phone: 202-479-3000

If you tell me what county and state you live in, I'll be glad to provide you contact info for the U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that hear cases for folks in your area.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Well, son, obviously the Supreme Court is an article III court. Here you go:

U.S. Supreme Court
1 First St. N.E.
Washington DC 20543
Phone: 202-479-3000

If you tell me what county and state you live in, I'll be glad to provide you contact info for the U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that hear cases for folks in your area.

That would be your belief, not mine.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

No, it's not you. It's not me, either. The interpretation of the law is left to the courts, the judicial branch of government. As Chief Justice Marshall famously wrote in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385

"When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction - that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there - is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 117, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992]

It seems that US Supreme Court decisions rendered after the Marbury decision would hold more validity than does the former Marbury decision. They had a change of positional standing on the subject matter; the subject matter being, 'who is it that makes the interpretation of written law'.

Jerry Carlos

[Lawdog]

LOL! You crack me up, kid.

Constitution of the United States of America

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The Supreme Court is mentioned BY NAME in article III of the Constitution.

Wake up, kid. Reality is calling.