The IRS shows Ed the law

[grammarian44]

Do you really believe every intentional difference in specification, where the 50 states are either included or omitted, is insignificant?

Please cite a case concluding that the differences in wording that you have so faithfully catalogued necessarily reflect Congressional intent to distinguish among the phrasings, and holding on that basis that Congress intended that the statutes in question apply to different residents.

Until you do, your point is worthless.

Just because these phrases are distinguishable, it does not follow that they have actually been distinguished.

[LPC]

Are you asking us to find a case where the court stated, in these exact words, "Oklahoma, a union state, is a section 7701(a)(10) state."???

Of course not. I am looking for a case where any union state was held to be a State for purposes of 7701(a)(10), or for that matter, purposes of 3121(e)(1).

And you just saw them.

Each of these cases is distinguishable from such holding, as just demonstrated,

You're delusional. You "demonstrated" no such thing.

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote:

I warned you. Here are the definitions for just one chapter of one title of the USC. Do you really believe every intentional difference in specification, where the 50 states are either included or omitted, is insignificant?

Uh, yes, John. Your citations are insignificant. Save 'em and use 'em in court, though.

What you're supposed to be trying to understand are the definitions in IRC 7701. Look at THOSE definitions, and the case law interpreting 7701. It's section 7701 and the case law interpreting it that would be considered "significant."

Oh, and sorry about Brigham v. United States, the case you cited. Here's an excerpt from the case:

-----"Plaintiff, accordingly, claims that Mrs. Ham, as the receiver of a one-third portion of Mr. Ham's estate, was not a "beneficiary" within the meaning of §662. This contention, however, fails. For definition, 26 U.S.C. §643(c) provides that "the term 'beneficiary' includes heir, legatee, devisee." The word "elector" (of a spouse's share) does not appear, but "includes" is not limiting. Rather, "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' . . . shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." 26 U.S.C. §7701(c)."

--Brigham v. United States, 160 F.3d 759, 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,871 (1st Cir. 1998).

Under your argument about the meaning of "includes" in 7701, the term "beneficiary" in Brigham would have to mean ONLY the terms "heir, legatee, devisee." In other words, for example, a person holding an equitable interest in property under the terms of an express trust could not be a "beneficiary" under your theory, even though a person holding an equitable interest in property under the terms of an express trust is ordinarily called a "beneficiary," just as "Oklahoma" is ordinarily called a "state."

However, as you seem not to have realized, that's not at all what the Brigham case was about anyway.

The court, in the very next sentence, stated: "In light of this we apply the principle that a list of terms should be construed to include by implication those additional terms of like kind and class as the expressly included terms." Nothing in the Brigham case supports your arguments. Indeed, Mrs. Kendal Ham in the Brigham case, as an "elector," came within the definition of "beneficiary." Again, if your theory (about the meaning of the word "includes" in 7701(c) and the meaning of "state" in 7701(a)(10)) were correct, only an "heir," "legatee," or "devisee" could be a "beneficiary."

Stated another way, if your theory were correct, then not only would Mrs. Ham, the "elector" in Brigham, have been ruled NOT to be a "beneficiary," but even an ordinary beneficiary under an express trust would not be a "beneficiary."

Are you even reading the material you post? --Famspear

[LPC]

More importantly, do you understand what will happen if you ever DO get to make your argument in open court in exactly the way you want to do it, couched in just the "right" words that you "believe" will somehow avoid all the holdings in all the cases?

These are the same question. First, what has already happened is much more likely to recur: that the judge will wilfully misrepresent the tax position in order to declare it frivolous,

The judge doesn't have to "misrepresent the tax position" to say that it's frivolous, because claiming that Oklahoma is not part of the United States is frivolous no matter how you phrase it or "represent" it.

This is all part and parcel of the tax protester delusions that judges don't understand the arguments, or the arguments are made badly, or the judges are corrupt, etc., etc., etc. These arguments lose because they're WRONG!! You can argue "Oklahoma is not a state of the United States" any way you want, but you'll still be wrong.

[John J. Bulten]

This is a group of people, many of whom assert that the fifty states are not "states." This is a group of people, many of whom assert that the words "includes" and "including" do not mean what IRC section 7701 clearly state [sic] they mean ....

The reason that Oklahoma and certain other states are not listed as states in 33 USC 2901 thru 2909 JUST MIGHT BE that in the absence of wording to the contrary, the legal meaning of "state" in Acts of Congress (when referring to the political entities making up the United States of America) is the same as the ordinary sense of the term "state" -- as in "one of the fifty states." Congress was using the term "state" in 33 USC 2901 et seq. in an unusual way, as the average tenth grader of normal intelligence and normal psychological condition can discern ....

Let's look at 7701(a)(9) and (10) again for what must be the umpteenth time:

-----"(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."

Wouldn't it be nice for you if (a)(10) said:"The term "State" shall mean the District of Columbia"? It does not ....

On the meaing of the terms "state" and "including" as used in 26 USC 7701, the only statute that matters is 26 USC 7701, and the only significant case law is the case law interpreting the tax law ....

John, if you end up in a Federal court in Oklahoma and you argue that Oklahoma is not a "state" under section 7701, you WILL LOSE THAT ARGUMENT ....

As a tax protester, you would want to make the argument that the term "includes" in 7701(a) is a "limiting" term. Unfortunately, "includes" is not a limiting term. It's a term of expansion.

You are CORRECT that the court in Ward REJECTED the argument that the defined term was "limiting." The courts in all those cases essentially rejected the argument that the term was a "limiting" term ....

Seriously, you are quite wrong. The terms "includes" and "including" in 7701 mean what I say they mean. The terms "state" and "United States" in 7701 mean what I say they mean.

Seriously, when did you tell me the meanings of 7701 "includes", "including", "State", and "United States"? All you did is parrot cases which refuse to define these words, and you, like the judges, refused to draw the conclusion as well. I agreed with all your cases, then told you what the terms mean, and cited authorities, particularly Neal v Clark, Brigham, and 26 CFR 403. But all I find from you is that includes is not limiting. Why do you think you've stated something which upends my authorities?

Maybe it would help if I agreed with you that all the terms mean what all the statutes, regulations, and case laws say they mean. But then we have two differing opinions of what those authorities say they mean. To whom shall we appeal from these authorities to determine what they mean? You have no answer.

The gross amount of pay for personal services that you, John J. Bulten, perform in Oklahoma is compensation, and is taxable to you under IRC section 61.

And you prove your defeat by retreating to another platitude. Of course, what you mean is, "The gross amount of pay for work that John performs in Oklahoma is gross income under IRC section 61", which you cannot prove; but that might be better suited to another thread, unless you refuse to answer my question. That question again:

What text makes you think there is some way that union states are "otherwise within the meaning" and "in the same general class" of DC and possessions for 7701(a)(10) purposes?

Do you really think your citations said this, and in such a way as to defeat my citations?

As to your reading of Brigham, you have me mistaken for someone who thinks "includes" is limiting. You might want to edit your analysis appropriately, because otherwise it makes exactly my point. Are you even reading the material I post? Do you really think Oklahoma is "of like kind and class" as DC and PR?

[LPC]

Here are the definitions for just one chapter of one title of the USC.

And there is nothing in any of them to suggest that Oklahoma is not a state of the United States.

[Cpt Banjo]

It is also frivolous to hold that "includes" is expansive to everything in the ordinary meaning of the word ("includes also"), which would yield other contradictions.

In the context of the Code, this not only isn't frivolous, it's precisely what 7701(c) says.

You seem to believe, uncritically, that an IRC definition such as "'employee' includes ...", in the absence of the word "means" or some other reference to base definition, automatically includes the ordinary meaning of the word being redefined (e.g. "employee").

We believe this because it's precisely what 7701(c) says.

This position is easily proven false. I have previously commented about other examples (like Railroad Retirement "employees")

Which has previously been shown to be wrong.

Apparently manufactured homes just under 400 square feet, apartments, and Dumpsters were not "single family residences" for purposes of section 25, even when they were single family residences in the ordinary meaning.

An apartment house is a multi-family residence, and dumpsters are not ordinarily thought of as residences. The fact that some people may use them for such purposes doesn't mean that a dumpster is "otherwise within the meaning" of the word "single-family residence", any more than a cardboard box or a blanket (folded over a rope to make a tent-like structure) would be. And since the average size of manufactured housing in the U.S. was 1,600 square feet in 2006, it may be that homes of less than 400 square feet aren't either.

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote:

Seriously, when did you tell me the meanings of 7701 "includes", "including", "State", and "United States"? All you did is parrot cases which refuse to define these words, and you, like the judges, refused to draw the conclusion as well. I agreed with all your cases, then told you what the terms mean, and cited authorities, particularly Neal v Clark, Brigham, and 26 CFR 403. But all I find from you is that includes is not limiting. [ . . . ]

Well, John, just mention that to any IRS agents with whom you have to deal. Mention that to the judge at your trial. Mention that to the warden. Mention it to your cell mate. "Famspear didn't tell me the meanings of 7701 ...." "All Famspear did was parrot cases which refuse to define these words." "Famspear and the judges refused to draw the conclusions as well." Keep your copies of Neal and Brigham handy during recreation time, in case you get into a fight with a fellow inmate. Who knows??? Maybe it'll work for you there. What do you think?

I am the teacher, John. You are the tax protester. You have choices. You're going to have to deal with the consequences of your choices. --Famspear

[natty]

That question again:

What text makes you think there is some way that union states are "otherwise within the meaning" and "in the same general class" of DC and possessions for 7701(a)(10) purposes?

Do you really think your citations said this, and in such a way as to defeat my citations?

Your citations are totally off point, and to the extent they apply, you have misinterpreted them. 26 CFR 403 only applies to "this section" so the "in the same general class" is your delusion.

The only text necessary to correctly interpret 7701(a)(10) is 7701(c). 7701(c) applies to ALL of Title 26.

The "term defined" is 'State' so you don't EXCLUDE other things otherwise within the meaning of that term.
Any state of the union is ordinarily within the meaning of the term 'State', therefore, no state of the union is excluded.

[Quixote]

I ask simple questions and get nothing in return. I feel so slighted.

Famspear, it's okay that you're new to understanding these laws.

How long have you studied the law AND had your law degree John? And how long have you been admitted to the bar and been practicing law John?

And how long have you studied the law AND had your law degree Famspear? And how long have you been admitted to the bar and been practicing law Famspear?

Captain, Bulten always ignores direct relevant questions.

[Quixote]

John Bulten wrote:

Seriously, when did you tell me the meanings of 7701 "includes", "including", "State", and "United States"? All you did is parrot cases which refuse to define these words, and you, like the judges, refused to draw the conclusion as well. I agreed with all your cases, then told you what the terms mean, and cited authorities, particularly Neal v Clark, Brigham, and 26 CFR 403. But all I find from you is that includes is not limiting. [ . . . ]

Well, John, just mention that to any IRS agents with whom you have to deal. Mention that to the judge at your trial. Mention that to the warden. Mention it to your cell mate. "Famspear didn't tell me the meanings of 7701 ...." "All Famspear did was parrot cases which refuse to define these words." "Famspear and the judges refused to draw the conclusions as well." Keep your copies of Neal and Brigham handy during recreation time, in case you get into a fight with a fellow inmate. Who knows??? Maybe it'll work for you there. What do you think?

I am the teacher, John. You are the tax protester. You have choices. You're going to have to deal with the consequences of your choices. --Famspear

And be sure to tell the judge you are only in court for entertainment.

[grixit]

Does anyone here remember the group "Firesign Theater"?

That's a strange question to ask about a group that's still producing material, still doing live shows, and still offering commentary.


http://www.firesigntheatre.com/

[Famspear]

That's a strange question to ask about a group that's still producing material, still doing live shows, and still offering commentary

Wow, I gotta get out more.

Actually, maybe it's not such a strange question, when I consider my memory (or what's left of it) lately. I can remember a footnote I read in a case 20 years ago, but where I put my glasses or car keys 2 minutes ago....

Is anyone else having these problems yet?

[Famspear]

John J. Bulten wrote:

Maybe it would help if I agreed with you that all the terms mean what all the statutes, regulations, and case laws say they mean. But then we have two differing opinions of what those authorities say they mean. To whom shall we appeal from these authorities to determine what they mean? You have no answer

Wow, John, what a Freudian slip! Yes, it certainly would help your mental health if you actually agreed with me "that all the terms mean what all the statutes, regulations, and case laws say they mean." We have a couple of "realities" here: the legal reality and (for lack of a better term) the "Bulten reality".

Uh, if you need to find someone to whom to appeal to determine what the "authorities mean" -- OK, I nominate ... ME! Yes, John, and in rendering my decision on appeal, I hereby decide that the holdings of COURTS OF LAW constitute the correct statements of what the law is, and not what John Bulten says. Wow, that was easy. --Famspear

[Famspear]

Sorry, John. I know that was a cheap shot. Nobody's perfect. ---Famspear

[Famspear]

Uh, you go first, John. --Famspear

[Doktor Avalanche]

Does anyone here remember the group "Firesign Theater"?

That's a strange question to ask about a group that's still producing material, still doing live shows, and still offering commentary.


http://www.firesigntheatre.com/

And we're still all bozos on this bus.

[LPC]

I can remember a footnote I read in a case 20 years ago, but where I put my glasses or car keys 2 minutes ago....

Is anyone else having these problems yet?

I found the salt shaker in the refrigerator this morning. Does that count?

[webhick]

I can remember a footnote I read in a case 20 years ago, but where I put my glasses or car keys 2 minutes ago....

Is anyone else having these problems yet?

I found the salt shaker in the refrigerator this morning. Does that count?

No, sorry, that was me. Proof that you can start to lose it before 30, I guess.

[Famspear]

I found the salt shaker in the refrigerator this morning. Does that count?

Yes, if you have absolutely no idea how it got there. --Famspear