The pitfalls of being unable to do proper research

[LPC]

Parousing the US Code again today and stumbled upon this -

Quote:
TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 4 > § 110
§ 110. Same; definitions
As used in sections 105–109 of this title—
(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

4 USC §110 is, of course, part of the "Buck Act," from which tax deniers draw so many conclusions, all of them incorrect.

[Pottapaug1938]

Parousing the US Code again today and stumbled upon this -

Quote:
TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 4 > § 110
§ 110. Same; definitions
As used in sections 105–109 of this title—
(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

4 USC §110 is, of course, part of the "Buck Act," from which tax deniers draw so many conclusions, all of them incorrect.

With inflation it is now the Dime Act.........

Don't forget -- thanks to the secret machinations of the Banksters, it will soon be known as the "1/10 Amero Act".

[Cathulhu]

I'd rather go parousing than spend my time perusing. "Cept last time I got in a bar fight.

[fortinbras]

This is the definition from § 3797 of the 1939 Tax Code:

(1) person.—The term "person" shall be construed to mean
and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, company,
or corporation.

This is virtually identical to the definition currently in § 7701(a)(1) of title 26 (the Tax Code of 2002), the only difference being that the current code added the word "association, " after partnership.

[notorial dissent]

And here all this time I thought it was the Income Tax Act of 1861 that was controlling, wasn't that what super duper researcher Pete claimed? How dare they contradict his unimpeachable research!!!!

CKB, you're right about the miasma, it is present even in the snippits.

[ReadsAlot]

This is the definition from § 3797 of the 1939 Tax Code:

(1) person.—The term "person" shall be construed to mean
and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, company,
or corporation.

This is virtually identical to the definition currently in § 7701(a)(1) of title 26 (the Tax Code of 2002), the only difference being that the current code added the word "association, " after partnership.

Can you give me your response to this quote from the IRS:

1. Introduction
Chapter 79 of the Internal Revenue Code is titled "Definitions." Section 7701(a) of this Chapter contains 46 definitions of miscellaneous words and phrases for general use throughout the Code.
2.
Person
IRC 7701(a)(1) does not refer to "person" in the usual sense of a living human being. Rather, Reg. 301.7701-1(a) instructs that the term "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, trust or estate, joint-stock company, association, syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group, guardian, committee, trustee, executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors, conservator, or any person acting in a fiduciary capacity.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici92.pdf

American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand;
but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ...
A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons

It appears to be saying that a "living human being" is not generally considered to be 'included' in the term, although surely a "living human being" has the capacity to be clothed in such a persona. Is this an erroneous conclusion?
Thanks

[ReadsAlot]

Currently, the brain trust has convinced themselves that somehow the words written in 1939 are valid today and somehow are superior to and supersede what is in the current tax code and that the true meaning of the words written in 1939 should be supreme.

I think that is what they are going on about, but the miasma of stupid emanating from them (even over the webs) makes me move along very quickly, so I could be a little off in my summation.

Could you explain for me what the following means in reference to the 1939 code?

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter B > § 7851
§ 7851. Applicability of revenue laws
(a) General rules
Except as otherwise provided in any section of this title—
(6) Subtitle F
(A) General rule
The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title. The provisions of subtitle F shall apply with respect to any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 only to the extent provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
(B) Assessment, collection, and refunds
(C) Taxes imposed under the 1939 Code

I think these enumerated "subparagraphs" pretty much cover the entire tax code don't they?

If I can believe http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html, Title 26 is not enacted and not positive law and thus the applicable code would, as stated by the Code, be the Code of 1939, with whatever portions had been amended?
Is this incorrect?
Peace

[Judge Roy Bean]

... If I can believe http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html, Title 26 is not enacted and not positive law and thus the applicable code would, as stated by the Code, be the Code of 1939, with whatever portions had been amended?
Is this incorrect?
Peace

No.

Ed: (I wondered how long it would take to get the real answer!)

[jkeeb]

I'm sure that parousing is not legal in Georgia. Unless that liberal Supreme Court overturned that law.

[Nikki]

Readaslut has resurrected yet another of the typical tax evader arguments:

1 - Quote (in this case accurately ) something from the IRC.

2 - Juxtapose it with quotation from an outdated, non-precedential legal commentary.

3 - Misinterpret the quotation to mean what he wants it to mean.

This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand;

I wonder what part of "natural beings" he fails to comprehend.

[Famspear]

If I can believe http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html, Title 26 is not enacted and not positive law and thus the applicable code would, as stated by the Code, be the Code of 1939, with whatever portions had been amended?
Is this incorrect?
Peace

This is incorrect. The "current code" is the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended, formerly known as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which is positive law, and which was (in its original form) enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 16, 1954. The 1954 Code was officially published by the U.S. Government Printing Office as Volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large.

Since 1954, it has been amended hundreds of times. Each amendment was done by an Act of Congress (positive law). In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress officially changed the name of the 1954 Code to "1986."

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with all its amendments, as published in the United States Statutes at Large, is positive law, and is the "current" code.

Here's the source of your confusion:

There is a separate official government publication called "title 26" of the United States Code. Title 26 is ALSO CALLED THE "INTERNAL REVENUE CODE". Yes, the "title 26" version of the "Internal Revenue Code" is "non-positive law".

In a sense, the version of the Code you see at the Cornell University internet web site is also "non-positive law", as are the copies published by law book publishers such as West and CCH. The online versions on Westlaw and Lexis are also NOT the "positive law" versions.

The point is that THEY ARE ALL IDENTICAL, except for typographical errors.

In the case of a typographical error, the text in the United States Statutes at Large is conclusive, as a matter of law (i.e., for the offical text of a given Act of Congress, the courts do not have to refer to the actual, physical paper document signed by the President, etc., that is kept in a safe place by the National Archives and Records Administration).

The only known typographical error in "title 26" is in section 6104 -- and only in SOME versions of title 26.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've had to explain this.

Whether a given physical piece of paper with a statute written on it is "positive law" or not is immaterial. The only questions that are important are: Is this an actual, verbatim reprint of the actual statute and, if not, what is the actual verbiage of the "positive law" version of the statute.

I have been studying tax law for over thirty years. I have studied literally thousands upon thousands of court cases and perhaps hundreds of tax protester web sites. I have yet to find a single court case or tax protester web site where any tax protester-tax denier individual has ever identified even a single substantive problem with the "non-positiveness" of "title 26" that would affect that person's argument about federal tax law.

EDIT: Corrected my own typo: The typographical error is found in section 6104 (not 6103) of some versions of the "title 26" version of the "Internal Revenue Code."

[The Operative]

If I can believe http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html, Title 26 is not enacted and not positive law and thus the applicable code would, as stated by the Code, be the Code of 1939, with whatever portions had been amended?

From the Tax Protester FAQ...

Many of the statutes of the United States have been “codified,” or reorganized into more orderly collections of statutes known as the “United States Code,” which is divided by subject matter into “titles.” As part of this codification, many statutes that were enacted separately have been reenacted together as part of the United States Code, so that the Code itself became “positive law.” For example, the statutes relating to federal courts have been organized and reenacted as Title 28 of the United States Code. So, when referring to a provision of Title 28, it is usually not necessary to worry about when or how it was enacted; all you need to do is refer to the right section of Title 28. For convenient reference, the Internal Revenue Code has been published as Title 26 of the United States Code but, technically speaking, has never been enacted as part of the United States Code. This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but that Title 26 itself is not “positive law,” even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are “positive law.”

The distinction between Title 26 of the United States Code and “positive law” is purely technical and would never be important to anyone unless the U.S. Government Printing Office made a typographical error in printing Title 26 of the United States Code, so that the United States Code did not accurately reflect the revenue laws enacted by Congress. If a typographical error did occur, then the courts would look to the U.S. Statutes at Large to determine the text of the relevant statute, instead of Title 26 of the United States Code.

So, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have been enacted by Congress as positive law, and the fact that the Internal Revenue Code [h]as not been reenacted or codified as part of the United States Code is irrelevant.

[Thule]

Is this incorrect?

Yes. Yes it is. Now crawl back into your cave.

[LPC]

Can you give me your response to this quote from the IRS:

[snip]

IRC 7701(a)(1) does not refer to "person" in the usual sense of a living human being. Rather, Reg. 301.7701-1(a) instructs that the term "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, [...]
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici92.pdf

Congratulations! The IRS publishes millions of words each year, in thousands of sentences, and you have found one that was poorly written.

The IRS does not have the power to change the statutes enacted by Congress, and IRC section 7701(a)(1) states clearly that the word "person" includes "an individual," so individuals (i.e., human beings) are still within meaning of the word "person."

Could you explain for me what the following means in reference to the 1939 code?

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter B > § 7851
§ 7851. Applicability of revenue laws
(a) General rules
Except as otherwise provided in any section of this title—
(6) Subtitle F
(A) General rule
The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title. The provisions of subtitle F shall apply with respect to any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 only to the extent provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
(B) Assessment, collection, and refunds
(C) Taxes imposed under the 1939 Code

I think these enumerated "subparagraphs" pretty much cover the entire tax code don't they?

Why did you leave out the content of subparagraphs B and C? Is it because you're a delusional moron? Or is it because you're a lying moron?

If I can believe http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html, Title 26 is not enacted and not positive law and thus the applicable code would, as stated by the Code, be the Code of 1939, with whatever portions had been amended?
Is this incorrect?

Title 26 of the United States Code has not been enacted as positive law, but the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted as positive law. (If you don't understand the difference between Title 26 of the United States Code and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, I suggest you ask your mother. Or perhaps your school teacher.)

May I also point out that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was also never enacted as part of the United States Code, which by your "logic" would mean that 1939 Code was also not positive law.

[fortinbras]

If I can believe http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html, Title 26 is not enacted and not positive law and thus the applicable code would, as stated by the Code, be the Code of 1939, with whatever portions had been amended?
Is this incorrect?

Yes, it's incorrect. The Internal Revenue Code was first enacted as one huge Act of Congress and thereafter the Code was adopted as Title 26, this is the reverse of the usual sequence for the enactment of titles as Positive Law, wherein they are first compiled into a US Code title and then the title is re-enacted as one huge Positive Law. There is a historial note to this effect in 1 USC § 204. Therefore some courts have actually said that Title 26 is Positive Law.

But even if it were not Positive Law, it would still be "prima facie evidence of the law" and presumably a correct updated text compiled from the Acts of Congress (it is the Acts that are positive law). The only way to overcome that presumption is to show that the text in the USC section does not correctly repeat the text of the Acts. As far as I know, this has not been successfully done with Title 26 in more than a quarter century.

A leading case on this issue is Ryan v. Bilby (9th Cir 1985) 764 F2d 1325. Another is Young v. IRS (ND Indiana 1984) 596 F.Supp 141 at 149. There are lots more that say the same thing. This "positive law" argument has been trotted out in hundreds of tax cases without success. By now it is regarded as so thoroughly discredited that raising it in court is considered "sanction bait."

[ReadsAlot]

Re: The pitfalls of being unable to do proper research

Postby Nikki » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:55 pm
Readaslut has resurrected yet another of the typical tax evader arguments:

1 - Quote (in this case accurately ) something from the IRC.

2 - Juxtapose it with quotation from an outdated, non-precedential legal commentary.

3 - Misinterpret the quotation to mean what he wants it to mean.

This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand;



I wonder what part of "natural beings" he fails to comprehend.

Does it make you feel better about your self to be derogatory to people who ask questions? Are you a SLUT who is intimidated by others? As a result of your childish response it seems clear that you have nothing of importance to add on this issue.

1. Apparently you lack the ability to discern that a "natural being" MAY be a "person", but is NOT necessarily so, dependent on his status as a result of contractual obligations. I hope you are not a lawyer.

2. Asking a question as to the meaning of a "quote" is NOT "misinterpreting the quote". I can only hope this is not what you consider "logic". It is a result of utter benighted ignorance on your part to state that I "interpret" it to mean what I want. I gave no such "interpretation". Work on your reading comprehension.

3. Your failure to address that the IRS legal counsel itself stating that "natural beings" are not included in the term "person" makes clear that you operate on a agenda to bolster your own self esteem.
Thank you for your two cents worth however.

[Famspear]

....Apparently you lack the ability to discern that a "natural being" MAY be a "person", but is NOT necessarily so, dependent on his status as a result of contractual obligations.

Wrong. All natural beings are persons. But not all persons (under the law) are natural beings. You got it backwards; you are falsely implying that some natural beings are not "persons" under the general section 7701 definition in the Internal Revenue Code.

.....Your failure to address that the IRS legal counsel itself stating that "natural beings" are not included in the term "person"...

Wrong again. That's not what the IRS legal counsel stated. You are completely wrong. Go back and read the material again.

[nikki2]

Re: The pitfalls of being unable to do proper research

1. Apparently you lack the ability to discern that a "natural being" MAY be a "person", but is NOT necessarily so, dependent on his status as a result of contractual obligations. I hope you are not a lawyer. Incorrect. A natural being IS a person, irrespective of contractual obligations. If you have any evidence (legal citations) to the contrary, please post them for our edification.

2. Asking a question as to the meaning of a "quote" is NOT "misinterpreting the quote". I can only hope this is not what you consider "logic". It is a result of utter benighted ignorance on your part to state that I "interpret" it to mean what I want. I gave no such "interpretation". Work on your reading comprehension.

3. Your failure to address that the IRS legal counsel itself stating that "natural beings" are not included in the term "person" makes clear that you operate on a agenda to bolster your own self esteem. Incorrect, again. 7701(a)(1) specifically states that the term "person" includes a long list of things (not an exhaustive list, since it does not say "means"). The first item in the list is "an individual." Although it does not specifically state "a living human being," if you were to do any research as to the interpretation of "person" by the courts, you would find that it has been uniformly held that "person" includes a flesh-and-blood being -- in fact, not necessarily a living one.
Thank you for your two cents worth however.

If you are having a problem understanding "includes", I suggest that you read the definition in 26USC. If you are still basing your misunderstanding on American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910, perhaps you should consider that (1) your citation predates the establishment of the Internal Revenue Code (and is thereby moot with respect to any subsequent law) and (2) American Law and Procedure has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a reference book -- in this case outdated -- which carries no legal weight.

Care to trol<<<< try again?

[LPC]

1. Apparently you lack the ability to discern that a "natural being" MAY be a "person", but is NOT necessarily so, dependent on his status as a result of contractual obligations. I hope you are not a lawyer.

Can you provide *ONE* example of any statute, rule, regulation, or court decision that refers to "persons" and specifically excludes human beings from the meaning of "person"? Specifically. Not *your* assumption or conclusion that human beings are excluded. The exclusion has to be explicit in the statute, rule, regulation, or court decision.

3. Your failure to address that the IRS legal counsel itself stating that "natural beings" are not included in the term "person" makes clear that you operate on a agenda to bolster your own self esteem.

The IRS legal counsel never said any such thing.

You seem to be referring to this sentence:

IRC 7701(a)(1) does not refer to "person" in the usual sense of a living human being.

Which is correct, because the word "person" includes both human beings and things that are not human beings. This is explained by the very next sentence:

Rather, Reg. 301.7701-1(a) instructs that the term "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, trust or estate, joint-stock company, association, syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group, guardian, committee, trustee, executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors, conservator, or any person acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The word "individual" is used throughout the Internal Revenue Code to mean "human being." This is a common dictionary meaning for the word, and is implicit in references to things like "married person" (unless you believe that corporations can marry).

This is confirmed by court rulings such as this:

“[P]etitioners’ notion that common speech restricts the term ‘person’ to artificial persons is just wrong. ‘Person’ is the generic term; it usually refers to human beings; when it is extended to include other entities, such as corporations, they are included in the definition of person and, to provide clarity and contrast, the term ‘individual’ is applied to human beings. Petitioners are ‘individuals’ within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. The fact that the term ‘individual’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code is also of no moment. As previously stated, words in the Internal Revenue Code have their commonly accepted meanings as used in common speech.”

Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1998-259.

[Imalawman]

Is it just me or do TPs just seem even dumber lately? It's like they're not even trying anymore. Sigh... I'd say I wish another TP Guru would come along, but that's just selfish, I don't wish that on the gullible marks.