|
|
| Author |
Message |
TaxDefier
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
 |
|
All the "experts", and specifically the one whose post I am replying to,
will not acknowledge that:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT
a "Dictionary Definition".
The expert I am replying to has succinctly stated his contrary belief:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
It is clear from this citation, that the present expert believes a
"Statutory Definition" IS a "Dictionary Definition".
Logic proves that IF a "Statutory Definition" IS a "Dictionary
Definition", THEN there is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are human beings with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
Quote:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition, you are one.
The officer, employee, and member "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Our expert has a dilemma:
EITHER:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT a "Dictionary Definition";
OR:
There is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
Our expert's statements, shown in context below, do not qualify for the
dignity of a specific answer.
Richard Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: |
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:sLadnUQh7tAuxqDVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@earthlink.com...
At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Please note the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.
A PERSON defined by statute (Statutory "PERSON") is NOT the same as a
"person" defined by a dictionary (Dictionary "person").
The expert I am replying to does not agree. The expert I am replying to
has previously, succinctly, stated what he does believe:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
As succinctly stated by our expert:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are persons with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
They "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" as asserted by our
expert, and there is no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" as
asserted by our expert, and the statute performs another function.
What does our expert say in regard to the above logic?
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State?, Yes or No?
Why does our expert ask this question?
The above logic is understandable to anyone who reads it. Our expert
wants to post a citation of a judge decreeing that the above logic is
wrong.
Of course, if the reader realizes that Nebraska really is a state,
they will also realize the total futility and worthlessness of the above
assertions.
I think you, the silent reader, are smart enough to see that the above
logic is correct and that you are smart enough to see that any judge who
rules otherwise is as full of s**t as any judge who rules 2+2=5.
As I replied to our expert earlier:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post:
Which means that taxdefier believes that Nebraska is not a State.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
TaxDefier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Richard Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: |
And you notice that Dale studiously avoids admitting that Nebraska is
actually a State per 26 USC 7701, so if you think that Nebraska actually
is a State, then you will realize that Dale's entire argument is bogus.
|
And you notice that our expert studiously avoids admitting his dilemma that:
EITHER:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT a "Dictionary Definition";
OR:
There is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
Logic proves that IF a "Statutory Definition" IS a "Dictionary
Definition", THEN there is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are human beings with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
Quote:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
The officer, employee, and member "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
TaxDefier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Archmedes wrote:
| Quote: |
"Paul Thomas, CPA" wrote:
Dale, go back to your former employer and get your old job back
driving trucks.
As evidenced here, his "issues" with authority seem much, much too
severe for him to exist in an employer/employee relationship. In fact,
he probably couldn't exist in any industry that "regulated" him, like
the ICC. Yes, all the evidence he has supplied here over the years lead
to the obvious conclusion that his days of "real work" are over.
|
As evidenced here, this new poster has nothing of value to say regarding
the issue of definition in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
TaxDefier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
All the "experts", and specifically the one whose post I am replying to,
will not acknowledge that:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT
a "Dictionary Definition".
The expert I am replying to has just succinctly stated his contrary belief:
If Congress does not specifically
give a meaning to A, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning
of everyday languange which can be
found in any dictionary.
The meaning of "A" in the above citation would be the meaning of
"PERSON" when applied to section 7343.
If Congress does not specifically
give a meaning to PERSON, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning
of everyday languange which can be
found in any dictionary.
Logic proves that IF a "Statutory Definition" IS a "Dictionary
Definition", THEN there is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are human beings with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Our expert has a dilemma:
EITHER:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT a "Dictionary Definition";
OR:
There is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
nat wrote:
| Quote: |
TaxDefier wrote:
nat wrote:
JackneySneeb@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 5:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that
even a moron like you might understand) that the term "includes"
does not exclude anything which falls within its normal
definition. IN OTHER WORDS when used in the law "includes"
EXPANDS the normal definition and does not limit the definition
to the listed items.
There is an old principle of law, expressed in Latin as “inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius,” which dictates that where the law
specifically lists matters to which it applies, an “irrefutable
inference” must be drawn that what was not listed was intended to
be omitted. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to
express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or
of the alternative." ~Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed. 1999)
--Jackney Sneeb
You are correct (though you probably don't know it).
If Term A includes B, you can't add things like C, D, or F.
7701 says, if Term A includes B, then you don't exclude things
otherwise within the meaning of A. In other words, Term A = A + B.
This statement contains errors of omission:
"In other words, Term A = A + B."
The "A" to the left of the equal sign is *_THE_* STATUTORY DEFINITION
of "A". I will address that "A" as "Statutory A".
The "A" to the right of the equal sign is the "meaning of A". This
"meaning of A" IS the determining factor as to which things are not to
be excluded because they are "otherwise within the meaning of A". I
will call this "Meaning of A" just that.
Correcting our expert's errors of omission:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A" + B.
Notice:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A"
Huh? What happened to "+ B"?
Without knowledge of the "Meaning of A", you can NOT know what is
"otherwise within the meaning" of A.
Ah, the gist of the entire problem.
7701 says A = A.
If Congress does not specifically give a meaning to A, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning of everyday languange which can be
found in any dictionary.
The TaxDefying Idiot wants to make believe that A means something beyond
the limits of reason. He/she/it make believes that A does not = A. That
is just too stupid and needs no further explanation.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
nat
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
TaxDefier wrote:
| Quote: |
All the "experts", and specifically the one whose post I am replying to,
will not acknowledge that:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT
a "Dictionary Definition".
|
At issue is the use of the term 'includes/ing' in a "Statutory
Definition". 7701 says not to exclude the "Dictionary definition",
TaxDefying Idiot.
In this case, the "Statutory Definition" is not the "Dictionary
Definition". The "Statutory Definition" is the "Dictionary Definition"
AND the included items.
| Quote: |
The expert I am replying to has just succinctly stated his contrary belief:
If Congress does not specifically
give a meaning to A, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning
of everyday languange which can be
found in any dictionary.
The meaning of "A" in the above citation would be the meaning of
"PERSON" when applied to section 7343.
|
7701 says not to exclude the meaning of "PERSON" when applied to section
7343.
| Quote: |
If Congress does not specifically
give a meaning to PERSON, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning
of everyday languange which can be
found in any dictionary.
Logic proves that IF a "Statutory Definition" IS a "Dictionary
Definition", THEN there is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
|
But as I stated above, the "Statutory Definition" is NOT the "Dictionary
Definition". The "Statutory Definition" is the "Dictionary Definition"
AND the included items.
| Quote: |
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are human beings with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
|
What if a corporation owns the building. Who is liable for the
penalty?--the corporation or the officer of the corporation?
There is a purpose for the statute.
You just aren't smart enough to see it, TaxDefying Idiot.
| Quote: |
Our expert has a dilemma:
EITHER:
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT a "Dictionary Definition";
OR:
There is NO PURPOSE for definition section 7343.
|
OR the correct answer:
The "Statutory Definition" IS the "Dictionary Definition" AND the
included items.
| Quote: |
nat wrote:
TaxDefier wrote:
nat wrote:
JackneySneeb@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 5:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that
even a moron like you might understand) that the term "includes"
does not exclude anything which falls within its normal
definition. IN OTHER WORDS when used in the law "includes"
EXPANDS the normal definition and does not limit the definition
to the listed items.
There is an old principle of law, expressed in Latin as “inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius,” which dictates that where the law
specifically lists matters to which it applies, an “irrefutable
inference” must be drawn that what was not listed was intended to
be omitted. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to
express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or
of the alternative." ~Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed. 1999)
--Jackney Sneeb
You are correct (though you probably don't know it).
If Term A includes B, you can't add things like C, D, or F.
7701 says, if Term A includes B, then you don't exclude things
otherwise within the meaning of A. In other words, Term A = A + B.
This statement contains errors of omission:
"In other words, Term A = A + B."
The "A" to the left of the equal sign is *_THE_* STATUTORY DEFINITION
of "A". I will address that "A" as "Statutory A".
The "A" to the right of the equal sign is the "meaning of A". This
"meaning of A" IS the determining factor as to which things are not
to be excluded because they are "otherwise within the meaning of A".
I will call this "Meaning of A" just that.
Correcting our expert's errors of omission:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A" + B.
Notice:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A"
Huh? What happened to "+ B"?
Without knowledge of the "Meaning of A", you can NOT know what is
"otherwise within the meaning" of A.
Ah, the gist of the entire problem.
7701 says A = A.
If Congress does not specifically give a meaning to A, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning of everyday languange which can
be found in any dictionary.
The TaxDefying Idiot wants to make believe that A means something
beyond the limits of reason. He/she/it make believes that A does not
= A. That is just too stupid and needs no further explanation.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Richard Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:DoadnWJYsKv4pqLVnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Posted another long blathering screed that totally avoided the question
asked.
The thought of ACTUALLY answering the question must scare him shitless.
| Quote: |
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State?, Yes or No?
Of course, if the reader realizes that Nebraska really is a state,
they will also realize the total futility and worthlessness of the above
assertions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Richard Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:DoadnZ1bsKsepqLVnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Posted another long blathering screed that totally avoided the question
asked.
The thought of ACTUALLY answering the question must scare him shitless.
| Quote: |
Richard Macdonald wrote:
And you notice that Dale studiously avoids admitting that Nebraska is
actually a State per 26 USC 7701, so if you think that Nebraska actually
is a State, then you will realize that Dale's entire argument is bogus. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Dale "issueless" Eastman wrote
| Quote: |
this new poster has nothing of value to say regarding
the issue of definition in this thread.
|
What definition are you having trouble with Dale?
--
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.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Dale "issueless" Eastman wrote
| Quote: |
A "Statutory Definition" is NOT
a "Dictionary Definition".
|
Of course it's not. Who ever said it was?
But you'll notice that the dictionary definition is part-n-parcel of the
statutory definition.
| Quote: |
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
|
True. The statory definitions only purpose is to expand the commonly
understood dictionary definition.
Take §4221, where it says in part:
"(d) Definitions.
For purposes of this section
(4) State or local government.
The term "State or local government" means any State, any political
subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia. "
and in §4482 it says in part:
"(c) Other definitions and special rule.
For purposes of this subchapter-
(1) State.
The term "State" means a State and the District of Columbia. "
and in § 7701 it reads:
"Definitions.
(a) When used in this title,
(1) Person.
The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a
trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
(14) Taxpayer.
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
(9) United States.
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the
States and the District of Columbia.
(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.
(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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Dale "the loser" Eastman wrote
| Quote: |
And you notice that our expert
|
Hey. He's still the expert, and you Dale, are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages | 
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Log in
Register
