Is a statutory definition

[NYGman]

How would a man of common intelligence see that definition and come to the conclusion that state means florida?

a Man with common intelligence would know that there are 50 states in the United States, and that the code section is simply saying that for purposes of the code, DC is included with any mention of State. This is so they don't have to write States and DC every time, or list out the 50 states and DC every time. This also covers situations of any new states we may have in the future, however likely that may be. This code section makes it clear that any reference to States includes DC, which I would think is an easy concept to get for a man of common intelligence.

Is dc a state?

No it isn't, it is a district. But for purposes of the code, it should be included in any section referencing State, as these laws apply within the United States, which includes DC.

So you admit that no where in the code does the definition of state say florida, but we are to assume it does correct?

Why should it? Do you not know Florida is a State? If I say States, doesn't that include Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, etc. A Man with common intelligence would know this.

[JamesVincent]

Butterfly!

[Patriotdiscussions]

Unlike the plain speaking, honest and forthright patriots of old PD never comes out and says what he's driving at. It's clear he's angling at the ruse that the meaning of the word "state" in the IRS statute excludes the states of the United States and that the word “State” in the statute means only the District of Columbia.

This ruse fits with PD's previously debunked idea that the "United States” and specifically the federal government is only the District of Columbia.

If PD's spinelessly unspoken conclusion were true then references to “states” in the Internal Revenue Code would apply to nothing at all. . .just what he wants

If PD had bothered to do a little research he'd know that the courts have consistently rejected the claim that the United States does not include the states of the United States!

Most notably in United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

“Steiner also argued that the word ‘includes,’ which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court’s jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word ‘includes’ is one of expansion, not limitation.”


and;

Depew v. United States, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1009,1015 (D. Colo. 1999)

The claim that “the United States does not include all or a part of the physical territory of the 50 States and instead consists of only places such as the District of Columbia, Commonwealths and Territories (e.g., Puerto Rico), and Federal enclaves (e.g., Native American reservations and military installations),”

-----------------

PD will post on for a few pages and then the thread will be closed after the discussion is reduced to prattle.

Yes yes we know the federal government has jurisdiction over every person in the us.

The only thing that disputes that besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899


Why not tell us about that case in your light of federal jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

[Paths of the Sea]

I have a question. Exactly why are you still
playing this silly game with this person?

Because it's fun. For me, anyway.

I appreciate it as it adds to my understanding of some of the continuing antics of one Kent Hovind.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[NYGman]

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

And how exactly do you think Tully is relevant?

[arayder]

Unlike the plain speaking, honest and forthright patriots of old PD never comes out and says what he's driving at. It's clear he's angling at the ruse that the meaning of the word "state" in the IRS statute excludes the states of the United States and that the word “State” in the statute means only the District of Columbia.

This ruse fits with PD's previously debunked idea that the "United States” and specifically the federal government is only the District of Columbia.

If PD's spinelessly unspoken conclusion were true then references to “states” in the Internal Revenue Code would apply to nothing at all. . .just what he wants

If PD had bothered to do a little research he'd know that the courts have consistently rejected the claim that the United States does not include the states of the United States!

Most notably in United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

“Steiner also argued that the word ‘includes,’ which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court’s jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word ‘includes’ is one of expansion, not limitation.”


and;

Depew v. United States, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1009,1015 (D. Colo. 1999)

The claim that “the United States does not include all or a part of the physical territory of the 50 States and instead consists of only places such as the District of Columbia, Commonwealths and Territories (e.g., Puerto Rico), and Federal enclaves (e.g., Native American reservations and military installations),”

-----------------

PD will post on for a few pages and then the thread will be closed after the discussion is reduced to prattle.

Yes yes we know the federal government has jurisdiction over every person in the us.

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

Why not tell us about that case in your light of federal jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

So we are done. The IRS Code applies to those of us in the states.

It must be embarrassing for you to have your conclusion stated for you (like when yo' momma pulled up yo' pants for ya') and destroyed for you (like when yo' momma pulled your pants down and spanked yo' bottom).

I don't intend to play 20 questions with a disingenuous and manipulative individual such as yourself over Tully, which you found at some sov pseudo-scholarship site, purposefully notated inaccurately and has doubtful relevance to the tax matter at hand.

I will leave it to you to make your own case. Which I suspect has something to do with your notions of states ceding jurisdiction. Frankly I am tired of making your arguments for you.

Try to be honest and forthright, for once PD.

[Patriotdiscussions]

How would a man of common intelligence see that definition and come to the conclusion that state means florida?

a Man with common intelligence would know that there are 50 states in the United States, and that the code section is simply saying that for purposes of the code, DC is included with any mention of State. This is so they don't have to write States and DC every time, or list out the 50 states and DC every time. This also covers situations of any new states we may have in the future, however likely that may be. This code section makes it clear that any reference to States includes DC, which I would think is an easy concept to get for a man of common intelligence.
great, so let me ask you man of common intelligence, in the irc does United States mean dc? Does not the 7701 definition of United States include dc? A federal territory is loads different then a state, for one, in a federal territory citizens have no constitutional protected rights. So not sure in what way dc could be remotely consider a state. Perhaps the section of code that needed dc to be included in the definition will help. I'm waiting for famspear to quote it, I know I will be waiting a while

Is dc a state?

No it isn't, it is a district. But for purposes of the code, it should be included in any section referencing State, as these laws apply within the United States, which includes DC.

isn't dc included in the definition of United States right above the definition of state?
So you admit that no where in the code does the definition of state say florida, but we are to assume it does correct?

Why should it? Do you not know Florida is a State? If I say States, doesn't that include Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, etc. A Man with common intelligence would know this.

Sure let us say that I buy that in federal code states mean all states, can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? Feel free to quote your states statute.

[arayder]

Sure let us say that I buy that in federal code states mean all states, can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? Feel free to quote your states statute.

Here again we see PD unable to honestly and openly state his notion that the federal government has only the authority ceded it by each state and not the authority granted it by the Constitution and the 16th amendment.

[Pottapaug1938]

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

And how exactly do you think Tully is relevant?

Since PD will never give you a coherent or on-point answer, I will. The Tully case said "(t)o give a federal court jurisdiction to try a person for a criminal offense, on the ground that it was committed within a fort or military reservation, such fort or reservation must have been established by law...."

In other words, the Tully case is completely irrelevant to his premise -- such as it is. It has nothing to do with Federal jurisdiction as a general principle. PD has once again gone quote-mining, and is now energetically waving a yellow rock in the air and proclaiming that he has struck gold, when in truth he has only fools' gold in his hand.

[Famspear]

Sure let us say that I buy that in federal code states mean all states, can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? Feel free to quote your states statute.

Good grief.

Your English is not specifically too good this morning, but I'll try to answer what I believe is your question -- or, rather, your apparent assertion.

You are wrong.

In state statutes, the definition of "state" is not generally limited to the "District of Columbia."

If you believe I'm wrong, then support your argument with a coherent explanation.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sure let us say that I buy that in federal code states mean all states, can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? Feel free to quote your states statute.

Good grief.

Your English is not specifically too good this morning, but I'll try to answer what I believe is your question -- or, rather, your apparent assertion.

You are wrong.

In state statutes, the definition of "state" is not generally limited to the "District of Columbia."

If you believe I'm wrong, then support your argument with a coherent explanation.

Don't hold your breath while you wait.

[JamesVincent]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? ...

The question is incompetent; it presumes you have read all of the statutes of all of the states.

[NYGman]

A federal territory is loads different then a state, for one, in a federal territory citizens have no constitutional protected rights. So not sure in what way dc could be remotely consider a state.

I was using United States as a simple term I thought even you would understand. My bad. There are separate tax laws for US territories, and Puerto Rico has independent tax-levying authority under 48 U.S.C. § 734.

Sure let us say that I buy that in federal code states mean all states, can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? Feel free to quote your states statute.

I have no clue what you are talking about here, this makes no sense, and besides, If you are posturing something with respect to state laws, this isn't relevant to a Federal income tax question.

[Famspear]

Wrong question? Really? Lol

Yes. Wrong question. Really.

And, no not "Lol." You're not "laughing out loud." You're in way over your head.

The subject at hand -- the definition of "state" in section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code -- does not require that we provide you with some sort of heavy duty explanation of "statutory presumptions in regard to due notice" or "what the court says about it." This is not complicated.

Any psychologically normal person of normal intelligence can understand that statute. The fact that you are trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill simply indicates that you have been reading the usual tax protester gibberish, and that you are a TROLL.

THIS IS THE EASY PART OF TAX LAW, GRASSHOPPER. The fact that you are pretending to agonize over the definition of "state" as used in section 7701 is illustrative of your lack of intelligence and your lack of intellectual honesty.

You think the definition of "state" is complicated?

Here, read this sentence:

For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a corporation shall not be considered to be a collapsible corporation with respect to any sale or exchange of stock of the corporation by a shareholder, if, at the time of such sale or exchange, the sum of – [ . . . ] the net unrealized appreciation in subsection (e) assets of the corporation (as defined in paragraph (5)(A)), plus [ . . . ] if the shareholder owns more than 5 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of such stock, plus [ . . . ] if the shareholder owns more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and owns, or at any time during the preceding 3-year period owned, more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of any other corporation more than 70 percent in value of the assets of which are, or were at any time during which such shareholder owned during such 3-year period more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock, assets similar or related in service or use to assets comprising more than 70 percent in value of the assets of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the determination whether the property, in the hands of such shareholder, would be property gain from the sale or exchange of which would under any provision of this chapter be considered in whole or in part as ordinary income, were made – [ . . . ] by treating any sale or exchange by such shareholder of stock in such other corporation within the preceding 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and [ . . .] by treating any liquidating sale or exchange of property by such other corporation within such 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation), as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the property sold or exchanged, does not exceed an amount equal to 15 percent of the net worth of the corporation.

[NYGman]

For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a corporation shall not be considered to be a collapsible corporation with respect to any sale or exchange of stock of the corporation by a shareholder, if, at the time of such sale or exchange, the sum of – [ . . . ] the net unrealized appreciation in subsection (e) assets of the corporation (as defined in paragraph (5)(A)), plus [ . . . ] if the shareholder owns more than 5 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of such stock, plus [ . . . ] if the shareholder owns more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and owns, or at any time during the preceding 3-year period owned, more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock of any other corporation more than 70 percent in value of the assets of which are, or were at any time during which such shareholder owned during such 3-year period more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock, assets similar or related in service or use to assets comprising more than 70 percent in value of the assets of the corporation, the net unrealized appreciation in assets of the corporation (other than assets described in subparagraph (A)) which would be subsection (e) assets under clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph (5)(A) if the determination whether the property, in the hands of such shareholder, would be property gain from the sale or exchange of which would under any provision of this chapter be considered in whole or in part as ordinary income, were made – [ . . . ] by treating any sale or exchange by such shareholder of stock in such other corporation within the preceding 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation) as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and [ . . .] by treating any liquidating sale or exchange of property by such other corporation within such 3-year period (but only if at the time of such sale or exchange the shareholder owned more than 20 percent in value of the outstanding stock in such other corporation), as a sale or exchange by such shareholder of his proportionate share of the property sold or exchanged, does not exceed an amount equal to 15 percent of the net worth of the corporation.

Good old treasury regulation 1.341, fun times

[Famspear]

Actually, it's from subsection (e) of section 341 (from the statute itself). Since it was repealed many years ago and is irrelevant to the definition of "state", anyway, I thought it appropriate to throw it at "Patriotdiscussions" as an example of what complexity actually looks like.

Nothing like giving him a dose of his own medicine.

[Pottapaug1938]

A federal territory is loads different then a state, for one, in a federal territory citizens have no constitutional protected rights. So not sure in what way dc could be remotely consider a state.

Is PD up to the old troll trick of deleting embarrassing posts? If so, then the language appearing above in red is certainly embarrassing enough to merit that particular form of intellectual cowardice. Add to that his mistaken belief that we have previously considered DC to be a state, and you've got someone who is willing to publicly humiliate himself in order to get attention.

[NYGman]

Actually, it's from subsection (e) of section 341 (from the statute itself). Since it was repealed many years ago and is irrelevant to the definition of "state", anyway, I thought it appropriate to throw it at "Patriotdiscussions" as an example of what complexity actually looks like.

Nothing like giving him a dose of his own medicine.

At least I remembered the 341 part, just thought it a reg not a code section, memories... (I think I looked in the Late 90's if I recall correctly)

[Famspear]

At least I remembered the 341 part, just thought it a reg not a code section, memories...

I'm glad it was you that had to deal with that particular provision, and not me.