New Arguments...

[Investor]

Well, if the argument really does center on the definition of "includes", and whether it is all inclusive, I would have to say that it is a childish argument. I was just hoping that Mr. Bulten would explain this and it would have more meat than that.

Is the Hendricks (or Hendrickson, or whatever his name is) book a real book, or a cheap pamphlet like the thing Larken Rose was peddling back in the day? Is Larken still around?

[John J. Bulten]

but since you appear more interested in frivolous arguments

I am not sure where that came from.

Your thread title.

As I stated, I just want to hear your view on this. You don't seem to be very forthcoming with any sort of opinion or view.

Likewise: CtC is not generally best digested in a brief sitting.

I referred fully twice before to 26 CFR 403.5. This and its companion regulation, 27 CFR 72.11, appear to have general application to all chapters of the IRC:

As used in this part, and unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this section .... The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class ....

Regulations in this part relate to personal property seized by officers of the Internal Revenue Service as subject to forefeiture as being involved, used, or intended to be used, as the case may be in any violation of the internal revenue laws other than chapters 51 (distilled spirits), 52 (tobacco) and 53 (firearms), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (I.R.C.).

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section .... The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class ....

Regulations in this part shall relate to personal property and carriers seized by alcohol, tobacco and firearms officers as subject to forfeiture as being involved, used, or intended to be used, as the case may be, in any violation of Federal laws.

Seems pretty straightforward too. For purposes of 26 CFR Part 403 and 27 CFR Part 72, which cover the whole IRC, the term "includes" is expansive, adding to definitions those things in the same general class as the things enumerated.

(I will not be batting aside the latest rash of strawmen other than to observe that I said I have been admitted to the bar since age 21, and webhick and others rightly divined my meaning. If Investor would like any particulars, please advise.)

[Investor]

I will not be batting aside the latest rash of strawmen other than to observe that I said I have been admitted to the bar since age 21, and webhick and others rightly divined my meaning. If Investor would like any particulars, please advise.

Fair enough, but please do elaborate on "admitted to the bar".

[Investor]

I said I have been admitted to the bar since age 21

Was it said in jest? As in Bar = Pub?

[Red Cedar PM]

If you don't know about CTC's argument, here is the run-down. Sec. 3401 states that the term employee "includes" government employees and corporate officers. Thus, under CTC (cracking the code) flawed logic, "includes" means "only". Therefore, only gov't workers and corp. officers are defined by the IRC as employees. Even though you will point out that this is a withholding statute and doesn't not limit 61 or 1 at all, Bulten will blather and fluster about until he somehow renders a mangled explanation that since 3401 is about defining wages, only gov't workers can earn wages, thus 61 only taxes those things properly classified as wages. Private sector earnings are not wages and therefore are not taxable. Bulten has yet to explain "from whatever source derived" means to his argument.

Enjoy the obfuscation.

Don't forget John's wonderful contention that he received "pay for work" and not "wages" and that "pay for work" is totally different from "wages" or "compensation from services" and therefore is not includable in gross income. It's nice when you get to self-decide what words really mean, just like the word "state", eh, John?

[Quixote]

I will not be batting aside the latest rash of strawmen other than to observe that I said I have been admitted to the bar since age 21, and webhick and others rightly divined my meaning. If Investor would like any particulars, please advise.

Fair enough, but please do elaborate on "admitted to the bar".

His ID passed muster so they served him a beer.

[John J. Bulten]

21 = legal drinking age. bar = place that serves booze .... I don't think Bulten's talking about the same bar you guys are. The bar he's talking about has nothing to do with lawyering. He's been admitted to the bar (establishments that focus on serving booze) since he's been 21 (legal drinking age).

I am old enough to remember when the legal drinking age was 18........ and could take advantage of it.

John made a funny, folks....

Shhh. It's more fun to pretend he didn't....

Demo ironically affirms the true purpose of this forum, i.e., pretense being more fun than reality. Once I realized this purpose I could indulge freely in the fun and even occasionally in the pretense.

[Famspear]

John Bulten wrote:

CtC is not generally best digested in a brief sitting.

Boy, I agree with you there, John (uh-oh, this is scary; I'm agreeing with John). CtC is best when not digested at all.

CtC is undigestible nonsense, and some of the people who have tried to digest it have gone further and have acted on it, and (I suspect) have engaged in criminal conduct based on its nonsense. Those people are on the way to ruining their lives - and at least one of them has posted a story on the losthorizons.com web site.

Another Freudian slip, John. You need to watch that. ---Famspear

[Investor]

OK, on that note, I score one for Mr. Bulten. You truly need to get a sense of humor if you are holding his "bar admission" statement over his head.

[Famspear]

Bulten wrote:

Demo ironically affirms the true purpose of this forum, i.e., pretense being more fun than reality. Once I realized this purpose I could indulge freely in the fun and even occasionally in the pretense.

Oh, I get it. So, when you lied about being a member of the bar since age 21, that was just your effort to "indulge freely in the fun and even occasionally in the pretense," just like your lies about the tax law and your lies about your Bulten Beliefs are just efforts to "indulge freely in the fun and even occasionally in the pretense."

As I have said before, you may end up facing a jury in a criminal tax trial -- a jury that will decide whether you really "believe" your Bulten Beliefs, and whether those beliefs qualify as Cheek Doctrine actual good faith beliefs based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. --Famspear

[wserra]

Pardon my bluntness Mr. Bulten, I certainly do not intend to be rude, but you seem to be typing a lot without saying much. Could you please explain your position without all of the philisophical rhetoric?

JJBlather: OK, fair enough. My position, without any philosophical rhetoric, bells, whistles, frills or extra verbiage:











Want to hear it again?

[Quixote]

Well, if the argument really does center on the definition of "includes", and whether it is all inclusive, I would have to say that it is a childish argument. I was just hoping that Mr. Bulten would explain this and it would have more meat than that.

Is the Hendricks (or Hendrickson, or whatever his name is) book a real book, or a cheap pamphlet like the thing Larken Rose was peddling back in the day? Is Larken still around?

Cracking the Code is a hardbound book available on Amazon, if you want to support that kind of thing, or in several libraries around the country. It's funnier than Larken's pamphlet. Hendrickson's work is more like that Chris Hansen, citizen of heaven. He's seldom content to merely lie to his readers. He layers the lies, putting implied falsehoods in conditional or introductory clauses to spice up the direct lies in the main clause.

[Investor]

if you want to support that kind of thing

Based on what I've heard so far, not even out of curiosity. Sorry Mr. Bulten, but I was once a regular in these parts and I do put quite a bit of weight into what Demo and Quixote have to say.

[Investor]

By the way Mr. Bulten, what is your background? I'm not asking so that I can dismiss you if you have not tax credentials, I just like to know who it is I'm talking to.

[webhick]

Investor, the CtCers hang out on the LostHorizons forum, if you want to check it out.

As a matter of fact, someone has taken what you've said about the 16th amendment and has some questions about it (the post). They say that they tried to register on this site, but could not log in. (Since the last user registered is Evil Squirrel Overlord, I'm not sure they managed to successfully register).

[Paul]

adding to definitions those things in the same general class as the things enumerated.

Why is it that tax protesting morons always have to add language to the statute/court case that are not there? 7701(c) says "otherwise within the meaning of the term being defined," not "otherwise within the meaning of the terms listed after the word 'includes'." So, when the term being defined is "state," a definition that "includes" D.C. does not exclude Florida or Oklahoma or any other entity "otherwise within the meaning of" state, not "otherwise within the meaning of D.C.

BTW, the question was rhetorical.

[John J. Bulten]

Well, if the argument really does center on the definition of "includes", and whether it is all inclusive, I would have to say that it is a childish argument. I was just hoping that Mr. Bulten would explain this and it would have more meat than that. Is the Hendricks (or Hendrickson, or whatever his name is) book a real book, or a cheap pamphlet like the thing Larken Rose was peddling back in the day? Is Larken still around?

Cracking the Code is a hardbound book available on Amazon, if you want to support that kind of thing, or in several libraries around the country. It's funnier than Larken's pamphlet. Hendrickson's work is more like that Chris Hansen, citizen of heaven. He's seldom content to merely lie to his readers. He layers the lies, putting implied falsehoods in conditional or introductory clauses to spice up the direct lies in the main clause.

Well, if you want to cut to the chase, you could skim the chapter on "includes", which is fully posted at http://losthorizons.com/comment/TheLawM ... ItSays.pdf (with appendix material at http://losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#Includes), rather than reading the full 256-page 2003 book by Peter Eric "Pete" Hendrickson, going now into its eighth printing. (I suppose a sturdily spined paperback may be called hardbound.) But to say the argument centers on this chapter would sadly discount the remainder of the accompanying research, and the tax honesty community fostered by the extended contents of losthorizons.com.

I never bought anything from Larken (who I understand has just left jail), even though I felt he had a hint of the real issue during my nonfiling days, back when I didn't understand the law. But Pete's liberating style is not like that of Chris either, who, while being a dogged researcher, to my mind seems to try to see all sides of everything and thus to permit inconsistency. I took a year to research CtC skeptically for myself, and have been defending it as solid exposition of the law for over two years since, now as forum moderator and weekly columnist at losthorizons.com/newsletter.htm. Whenever I've forwarded any doubtful research to Pete, he's always answered sagaciously, immediately, and directly, usually in a single well-packed sentence; over the three years I've never caught him in any error beyond a section misnumbering.

Anyway, Investor, to return, you can see that Paul completely overlooks that, since I was talking about the regulations, it's perfectly legitimate to use the regulatory word "enumerated", which I had just quoted.

Since you seem familiar with the basics, I'll simply note that 26 USC 7701(c) and 26 CFR 403.5 both clearly specify a form of inclusion which matches neither of the two ordinary meanings of "includes" (conveniently called "includes only" and "includes also"). This tertium-quid inclusion adds "other things otherwise within the meaning", things "in the same general class". Brigham, a Circuit case dealing specifically with 7701(c), found that an "elector" was "included" in the IRC definition of "beneficiary" even though not specifically listed, with its dictum being that electors were "of like kind and class" as the persons listed, in accord with the statute and regulations. This case clarified more general USSC language such as Neal v Clark and Sims (among several others). A whirlwind of cases uphold the fact that 7701(c) inclusion is expansive, but only a smaller group of cases, such as Brigham, restate the group to which the inclusion expands, already named in the law and regulation.

There you have it in a brief paragraph. While I see nothing wrong with this analysis, my research is daily assaulted by surprising levels of vituperation (to which you've been privy), and by such facile counterpoint by the likes of Dan Evans that DC is of the same class of MD today because it used to be part of MD yesterday. (When Dan started posting at the LH forum two years ago, for months I refused to believe it was him because his arguments were simultaneously so shoddy and so quickly abandoned.)

I hesitate to lay heavier documents on you than Pete's chapter and appendix above until I hear your response. If you are aware of any laws I am failing to uphold, the forum and I are both interested, for differing reasons.

[Joey Smith]

back when I didn't understand the law

Which is now, again.

Cutting to the chase, the problem with your current argument is that the courts do not, and will not, agree. Since in our constitutional system it is the courts that decide controversies, and not each individual acting in his own selfish self-interests and who will inevitably adopt an interpretation that favors himself no matter how wrong it might be, this does not bode well for you.

[Investor]

If you are aware of any laws I am failing to uphold, the forum and I are both interested, for differing reasons.

It's hard to tell. I still haven't heard you express a view or opinion.

[LPC]

If you are aware of any laws I am failing to uphold, the forum and I are both interested, for differing reasons.

It's hard to tell. I still haven't heard you express a view or opinion.

Careful, that's the kind of talk that got me banned from Lost Horizons, where a request for simple, declarative statement about CtC is considered a form of harassment.