Is 26 USC 3401(c) "includes" restrictive?

[Cpt Banjo]

Sims ruled on the applicability of federal income tax on State employees' wages, in harmony with section 3401(c) "the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof".
If anything, raising Sims here rather helps my case vs. negating it

No, it doesn't. You've either completely misread the case or you're being disingenuous (that's a polite term for liar). The issue in Sims was whether West Virginia had the duty to honor an IRS levy by withholding from a state employee's salary. The statute, Section 6332 of the Code, imposed such a duty upon any "person" in possession of the property of a taxpayer against whom a levy had been made, and further defined "person" as follows:

The term 'person,' as used in subsection (a), 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 surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.

West Virginia argued that it wasn't a "person" under this definition, but the Supreme Court disagreed and held that it was:

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). (emphasis added)

In other words, kiddo, the Court recognized that the word "includes" isn't restrictive when used in a Code definition.

[Nikki]

It is SO time to stop reading the drivel when citations to PAM's legal library pop up.

[silversopp]

If you see a box at the store with a picture of a flashlight and the words "includes two AA batteries" on the box, what do you expect to find when you open it?

A. A flashlight with no batteries
B. A flashligh with batteries
C. Two batteries, nothing else
D. REO Speedwagon's Greatest Hits

[wserra]

If you see a box at the store with a picture of a flashlight and the words "includes two AA batteries" on the box, what do you expect to find when you open it?

A. A flashlight with no batteries
B. A flashligh with batteries
C. Two batteries, nothing else
D. REO Speedwagon's Greatest Hits

E. Unsure, but whatever you find, it's not taxable.

[Pottapaug1938]

If you see a box at the store with a picture of a flashlight and the words "includes two AA batteries" on the box, what do you expect to find when you open it?

A. A flashlight with no batteries
B. A flashligh with batteries
C. Two batteries, nothing else
D. REO Speedwagon's Greatest Hits

E. Unsure, but whatever you find, it's not taxable.

F. A copy of Cracking the Code. That magnum opus provides all the illumination anyone would ever need.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Why should Congress need to clarify? The courts have settled the matter. If Congress is
unhappy with the result, they had (and still have) the opportunity to pass new legislation. If anything, "congressional silence" means that Congress is satisfied with the current
interpretation.

I have no doubt that Congress is "satisfied with the current interpretation".

That begs the question of why there should be (after 69 years) any reason for any
room for "interpretation" on this vital point.

There isn't. The point has only ever been interpreted one way. Just because people are either too stupid to check the actual law or think they have an alternative interpretation doesn't stop the question being asked. The problem for the askers and their supporters and followers is that they don't want to hear the answer that they will always get. One definition of insanity is keeping asking the same question but expecting a different result. Just because several hundred people ask the same question does not mean there is room for interpretation, it means several hundred people are equally uneducated.

[LPC]

Words can have meanings even if they have not been defined within the IRC using the
word "means." Indeed, undefined words must have meanings because not every word in
the IRC is defined.

Certainly. Who could disagree with that?

You could, you have, and you are.

But since section 3401(c) uses the section 7701(c) term of "includes", then section 3401(c) "employee" is ipso facto also an IRC term.

To the extent that the above sentence has any meaning at all, it is simply a restatement of your position.

You're saying that, once the IRC states a definition using the word "includes," the word being defined no longer has any meaning beyond the definition. But that is NOT what section 7701(c) says. Your entire "argument" (really just a string of unsupported assertions) is based on either pretending 7701(c) doesn't exist or pretending that it has no meaning.

The common law definition of employee (which most of you assert as ruling within the IRC) would naturally embrace public employees as well as private ones.

Perhaps. But section 3401(c) refers to more than just federal and state employees. It refers to "an officer, employee, or elected official" of the federal and state governments. An "officer" of the United States, such as the Secretary of the Treasury, is clearly not a common law employee, and neither is an elected official such as a member of Congress or the President.

At best, you're claiming that one word in 7701(c) is superfluous. At worst, you're being ignorant and disingenuous.

Or, put another way, why wasn't the language of IRC section 3121(d) sufficient for section 3401(c) if both are allegedly synonymous?

I addressed the "I would have written the statute differently so therefore it doesn't mean what it says" argument in my first message in this thread, and I cross-referenced my first message in my second message.

The fact that you choose to ignore what I write, like you choose to ignore section 7701(c), doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

By the way, LPC/Dan Evans, your tag line "Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ" is incorrect on several points.

It's not my "tag line," and I didn't write it.

You have some signficant errors in your FAQ, especially regarding what on some court cases ruled upon. I can, for forum tidiness, begin a separate thread about this.

I'll start one for you.

(You are correct, however, that the certiorari of Lucas is often misquoted as the Court's ruling.)

I don't know what you think "certiorari" means, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Omne]

(You are correct, however, that the certiorari of Lucas is often misquoted as the Court's ruling.)

I don't know what you think "certiorari" means, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Imalawman]

Amazing, we're still having to debate the meaning of the word "includes" - even after the father of the 3401(c) argument is in jail.

Nobody here "has" to debate anything, much less read anything.
And, Hendrickson was not the father of the 3401(c) argument, which preceded him
by over 10 years.

Well, I suppose you're correct. 1. there's really no debate to be had since no court has EVER ruled contrary to our position, EVER. 2. Hendrickson was indeed just a opportunistic shyster, an ex con misleading his marks with tired old theories. However, he was the leader of the modern resurgence of the 3401 buffoonery.

I would challenge the assertion that you've read "every" case on the subject. That's a pretty bold statement in and of itself.

If it's true, then boldness doesn't enter it.
I've read every case that Evans cited.
Most I'd previously studied; a few I hadn't.

Ok, so you haven't read all the relevant cases, then.

I think one would have to include cases defining employees for classification purposes as well.

Not really, regarding the basic issue of income tax jurisdiction.

No. You may not arbitrarily discard the volume of case law on the definition of employee for tax purposes because you know damn well they all are decidedly devastating to your thesis.

The reason that this even seems plausible to you, besides the astounding hubris that is really the underlying issue, is that you obviously have a myopic view of the law of taxation. You have no circumspect view of how tax law intersects with the real world and how the tax law is utilized by professionals. When seen in this light, one readily sees how insipid the 3401(c) argument really is. What is worse, the extrapolation from 3401(c) to IRC 61 is even more illogical!! The entirety of this argument just astounds me that anyone could fall for it.

[Cathulhu]

(You are correct, however, that the certiorari of Lucas is often misquoted as the Court's ruling.)

I don't know what you think "certiorari" means, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Okay, that's funny! I bow before you, Omne.

[LPC]

I think one would have to include cases defining employees for classification purposes as well.

Not really, regarding the basic issue of income tax jurisdiction.

I think we can add "jurisdiction" to the list of words you don't understand the meaning of.

Even using the word "jurisdiction" in the sense of legislative power (and not judicial power, which is what the word really means), your sentence makes no sense.

Looking at power over the person, Congress has power over anyone within any of the states of the United States, because U.S. Marshals have power to seize persons within the states of the United States.

Looking at subject matter power, and the powers of Congress under section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, you're also clearly wrong, because the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax. As the Supreme Court stated in the License Tax Cases (and in other cases since):

“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866).

And then there's the pesky 16th Amendment, which declares that Congress has the power to tax incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment.

Unless you can point to something in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax incomes, or something in a decision of the Supreme Court that limits the power of Congress to tax incomes, your blathering about "the basic issue of income tax jurisdiction" is just meaningless piffle.

[Kestrel]

Unless you can point to something in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax incomes, or something in a decision of the Supreme Court that limits the power of Congress to tax incomes, your blathering about "the basic issue of income tax jurisdiction" is just meaningless piffle.

Except to sovrun citizuns, of course...

[notorial dissent]

I think one would have to include cases defining employees forUnless you can point to something in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax incomes, or something in a decision of the Supreme Court that limits the power of Congress to tax incomes, your blathering about "the basic issue of income tax jurisdiction" is just meaningless piffle.

Don't you know that is only available in the super double secret version of the Constitution that only Hendrickson and the rest of the TP crowd have access too? I mean really, and you call yourself a lawyer?? You can't have access to it because you are a subject of the Queen or some other nonsense along those lines. Next thing you'll be telling us that everyone has to pay taxes.

[Brandybuck]

Let me see if I got this straight:

1) A word not defined in the law retains its common meaning.
2) "Includes" is not defined in the law.
3) "Employee" is not defined in the law

Therefore "includes" and "employee" have UNCOMMON meanings.

WTF?

[Imalawman]

I got this one wrong. I expected Non Mens to hang around for a bit. Not that I'm disappointed, just a little surprised that I didn't read this TP correctly. He was obviously even more flaky than I thought. In fact, I thought it might even be PH from a jailhouse computer.