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

[mrg]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Congrats! This is by far the stupidest thing I have read today.

If you went to school maybe you would know better.

Congrats! This is by far the stupidest thing I have read today.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Ordinary usage are assigned to words used in statutes as general rule.

If you went to school maybe you would know better.

What, precisely, constitutes "ordinary usage?"

If it is "ordinary" why, then, must it be "assigned?"

How, precisely is "ordinary usage" "assigned?"


Do you somehow fail to comprehend the difference between singular and plural and the grammatically accepted "ordinary usage" of verbs to distinguish between singular and plural?

"If you went to school maybe you would know better."



Thank you Sir, have another, and anthoer, and anhteor...

[trooper2ls]

This thread has been pretty one sided since I exercised my right to ignore. To all here who are tired of the personal attacks and senseless responses.. exercise your right too.

If you ignore a child that is throwing a fit.. he/she will stop and go away. If you acknowledge it, be it good or bad.. it will persist.

Don't stoop to their level and play their games.

Nuf said. Good day to all.

..J

[yebliker]

The Congressional Research Service says that the term "includes" is a term of limitation. Hope this link below works.



Yebliker

[Lawdog]

Double post deleted

[Lawdog]

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.

(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?

[Jerry Pitts]

If some of you folk have access availability to retrieve this document in its' entirety, you might find it revealing.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3306527

Jerry Carlos

Edited Information: For further study on the 'language' of lawyers and attorneys, check out this list... scroll toward the bottom of the page.
http://www.questia.com/library/book/...d-phillips.jsp

We have several times held that difficulty in determining whether certain marginal offenses are within the meaning of the language under attack as vague does not automatically render a statute unconstitutional for indefiniteness. United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399 (1930). Impossible standards of specificity are not required. 15 United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1 (1947). The test is whether the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured [341 U.S. 223, 232] by common understanding and practices. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926).

Originally Posted by Lawdog

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.

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?

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

If some of you folk have access availability to retrieve this document in its' entirety, you might find it revealing.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3306527

Jerry Carlos

If I'm not mistaken this link is a google book on the same subject for those without jstor.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...hRgC7E#PPR1,M1

Peace

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

If I'm not mistaken this link is a google book on the same subject for those without jstor.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...hRgC7E#PPR1,M1

Peace

That be the one. Thanks for the link, now I can read the entirety of it myself.

Jerry Carlos

USC 27 § 214 (1)
The term “alcoholic beverage” includes any beverage in liquid form which contains not less than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume and is intended for human consumption.


Now this is not title 26 but it still uses "includes" to define something. In this case "includes" is a limiting word. Now lets pretend that some statute says in
relation to title 27:

(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.


Does that automatically mean that an alcoholic beverage becomes ALL beverages, because "includes" all of a sudden is a term of expansion? Of course not. The whole problem is have no idea what ELSE is included.

Lets take this further. Suppose the law says:

USC 27 § 214 (1)
The term “alcoholic beverage” ONLY includes any beverage in liquid form which contains not less than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume and is intended for human consumption.


That would then make "includes" limiting. Of course it would and there is no arguing that there would be exceptions, as stated.

On the other hand lets say the law now says:

USC 27 § 214 (1)
The term “alcoholic beverage” includes, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, any beverage in liquid form which contains not less than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume and is intended for human consumption.


Whats the point of having "but not limited to"? By stating that little phrase, that leads the reader to assume there is another option, such as "includes, and is limited to".

Why bring the extra definition in to play? Especially if it is previously defined. But then why bring that extra definition in only SOMETIMES? Why not every time? It would seem that the extra definition is there when it HAS to be, but not there at times when it REALLY should be. It makes the definitions that involve "includes" without the phrase "but not limited to" ambiguous and quite vague.

Now last I checked we are a nation of laws, not men, so laws need to be stated clearly so someone of average intelligence can comprehend them.

Mesquite vs Aladdin’s Castle Incorporated [455 US 283]

“We remain a government of laws, and not of men only so long as our laws remain clear”


Please tell me what exactly is clear about the usage of the word "includes".

Hassett vs Welch [303 US 303]
“In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer…”

Spreckels Sugar Refining Company vs McClain, [192 US 397]
“Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid”

Gould vs Gould [245 US 151]

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not so specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.”

Federal Trade Commission vs Simplicity Pattern [360 US 55]
“The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute.”