what does "includes" mean?

[Friendsplacect]

As seen in Statutes the word "includes" , is it a broadening of a general definition or is it narrowing a definition of the word pertaining to the code?

we have;

"expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

But the court also looks at legislative intent?


U.S. Supreme Court
SIMS v. UNITED STATES, 359 U.S. 108 (1959)
359 U.S. 108

Though the definition of "person" in 6332 does not mention States or any sovereign or political entity or their officers among those it "includes" (Note 3), it is equally clear that it does not exclude them. This is made certain by the provisions of 7701 (b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that "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.C. (Supp. V) 7701 (b). Whether the term "person" when used in a federal statute includes a State cannot be abstractly declared, but depends upon its legislative environment, Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 370 ; Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 161 . It is clear that 6332 is stated in all-inclusive terms of general application. "In interpreting federal revenue measures expressed in terms of general application, this Court has ordinarily found them operative in the case of state activities even though States were not expressly indicated as subjects of tax." Wilmette Park Dist. v. Campbell, 338 U.S. 411, 416 , and cases cited. We think that the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation, i. e., the legislative environment, of 6332 make it plain that Congress intended to and did include States within the term "person" as used in 6332.

[ThomPaine]

I have looked at this a thousand times and am beginning to think that we are all arguing semantics at this point. At least from a 'taxpayer' standpoint, the simple solution is to get out of the system (credit/FRNs, etc), dont earn taxable income, dont participate in priviledged activity, trade, business, etc.

I have done this with success for over 12 years and despite some nasty IRS letters and threats, I have been able to refute all of their presumptions as having no lawful standing against me.

Thom

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I have looked at this a thousand times and am beginning to think that we are all arguing semantics at this point. At least from a 'taxpayer' standpoint, the simple solution is to get out of the system (credit/FRNs, etc), dont earn taxable income, dont participate in priviledged activity, trade, business, etc.

I have done this with success for over 12 years and despite some nasty IRS letters and threats, I have been able to refute all of their presumptions as having no lawful standing against me.

Thom

What do those privileged activities, trades, businesses, et cetera include exactly? Is it anything that deals with/in FRN's??? If so, that's just about everything right?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

It's very inexact. In fact it relies entirely on characterization, which is prohibited as admissible evidence- stating conclusions or speculations. Object immediately.

A trade or business is whatever you agree it to be, so if there is a signed form saying it is so thats a point against you.

Many deals with FRN's or any currency are clearly excluded from 'taxable income'.

Loan proceeds
secured transactions
debt settlement
limited gifts
capital even exchange
capital loss
cover for damages
I bought the money and paid in full
just did it for kicks, no character
???

Curiously, proceeds from theft and robbery are considered income, just to give an idea about what sort of activities are being taxed.

[ss_stealth]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

It's very inexact. In fact it relies entirely on characterization, which is prohibited as admissible evidence- stating conclusions or speculations. Object immediately.

A trade or business is whatever you agree it to be, so if there is a signed form saying it is so thats a point against you.

Many deals with FRN's or any currency are clearly excluded from 'taxable income'.

Loan proceeds
secured transactions
debt settlement
limited gifts
capital even exchange
capital loss
cover for damages
I bought the money and paid in full
just did it for kicks, no character
???

Curiously, proceeds from theft and robbery are considered income, just to give an idea about what sort of activities are being taxed.

So basically, if you had a private contract (in common law?) to labor at, for example, McDonald's flipping burgers in exchange for $5(FRNs) an hour could you accept a pay check from them at the end of the week as a "debt settlement" since they owed you them as your contract outlined? And that would not be "taxable income"? Awesome.

And if you were an artist and you accepted only gold or silver as "payment" (not sure if that's the right word to be using but I'll go with it anyways) for your works that might be considered "capital even exchange"? Precious metals are capital right? I'd consider them an asset. This scenario might result in non-"taxable income" also?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

I recommend that one read the Wiki on statutory construction and then take on this topic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Looks like a private for-profit monopoly trade guild Tory Loyalist BAR bastard attorney BS propaganda piece to me.

Try this from the National Archives/Federal Register:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...finitions.html

Also a private for-profit monopoly trade guild Tory Loyalist BAR bastard attorney BS propaganda piece, but a slight bit more authoritative than that Wiki-garbage.

What is ironic, is that so called "legislators" seem to use this as blueprint for doing precisely the opposite.

Where, precisely, and with specific particularity, in "...this Constitution for the United States of America" is "[t]he judicial Power given express or implied delegation to "interpret" anything?

Why would "interpreters" be needed?

Interpreters are used as a go-between for people who speak languages foreign to one another, and wish and/or need to verbally communicate.

What foreign language is being spoken, and by whom, and to whom, and where, when, and why, is such being spoken, that would necessitate "statutory" "interpretation" by the "judiciary?"

Does the Wiki author, and others, perhaps mean "translate?"

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Yes, this is very much 'hocus-pocus'. When we speculate on the value of money ('judge') we get held to it. It is entirely conjectural to say I earned 5 per hour, instead of settled at 5 per hour, or bought 5 bux per hour, or lent and was returned 5 per hour, or borrowed 5 per hour, or was damaged at 5 per hour, or I already had that money at 5 per hour, or was transferred 5 an hour without any character at all.

But the point is that any pleading ("claim") has to state all the required elements. I just use logic to pick apart assumptions, I don't know the first thing about laws or interpretations.

"Where'dya get that money?"

"Do you have a claim against me, based on 1st hand knowledge and a specific provable cause?"

A fact of common knowledge is that there must be at least 100's of millions of transactions for various amounts every day under U.S. jurisdiction, and only a smaller part them are ever imagined to be 'gross income'. Every time anyone just takes their own money out of a bank account, that's a transaction. Why is withdrawing my money from a bank 'revenue-neutral', but withdrawing my money from my current account with Mcdonalds taxable? The two are factually the same- without the condtioning of voodoo, they are indistinguishable.

I have never found anyone, layperson or legal squire, who could ever answer this situation.

"Where'dya get that money?"

"I bought it."

[palani]

The definition of the word 'include' is

Helu, ho'okomo pu

according to my Hawaiin dictionary.

Helu translates to 'list'; ho'okomo translates to 'import'; pu translates to 'alike'. Put it together for 'import alikes to list'.

It certainly makes as much sense as any other definition. Note the similarity to the concept of 'hokum' and its' subset 'poo' to the English concepts.