Definitions

[NYGman]

Not "contorting or perverting an existing definition" at all !
As you say , the Regs may clarify or expand those things .
Guess you don't know what a "Definition" means . And 7th grade boys aren't very smart .

You really are an idiot. The regulations do not live in a vacuum language means what it means. To Wes's point, regulations covering the control of dogs does not define what a dog is because we know what a dog is, I believe you know what a business is and I believe you know what a trade is. If you don't you really are an idiot most of the world does. The law doesn't change these definitions it may add to them, but a dog will always be a dog. Maybe the regulations include wolf, but that wouldn't mean that a dog isn't a dog because it isn't a wolf.

This isn't a game there's no gotcha, there's no ambiguity, we all get it. What your proposing is contrary to the intent, so if it were true the drafters would change the regulations as needed to cover. But it isn't needed it's only idiots like you who contort the language and don't understand how laws and regulations and other things work, who think they found a way out. Nothing's really changed so if you have found a way out and have found something new and novel then explain yourself. However at the moment your argument seems to be based on positions that have been thoroughly debunked and ruled against in court. It would help your cause if you could cite some case law that support your position but all you can do is play around with definitions and contort them, and that's just wrong.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

No ! It's what the LAW has Defined it to mean .

From your posts, you wouldn't know what the law defined something to mean if it slapped you on the arse with a banjo.

How courts interpret precedent and statutes is the law.

Now either you have a serious problem with English comprehension and are a terrible indictment of the education system, or you are playing it for lolz.

[NYGman]

Owl, shhh, I think he has us dead to rights, he has found out that the magic word "includes" makes a law totally invalid unless it is an exhaustive list where every listed item has to apply to meet the definition. That word also has the amazing ability to redefine the ordinary meaning of words, and allows us to ignore common sense, it is magic. He has darn well, cracked it. We need to all give up, now tax on income has been made irrelevant due to this glaring omission and now none of us have to pay taxes. Let's rejoice in his brilliance, being able to convince some legal minds of the true irrelevance of the code. We can all retire now. No one has to pay tax anymore, yeah.

You know if any of that were true, and I give no credit to you as none of it is true and it's completely irrelevant, a mistake like that would swiftly be rectified by treasury or the government if need be. What your suggesting the regulations say seems to be completely contrary to the intent of the law, not to mention every single court opinion that has opined on this foolish argument. There are no magic words, there are no get out of tax-free cards, unless you're a tax exempt entity of course, but even some of them pay tax on something called UBTI which includes ECI what is income effectively connected to a US trade or business.

I think what he's failing to grasp is that this crazy theory has been litigated and has lost over and over again. And if it had won the regulation would be changed so that it complied with the intent. We know what a dog is, we know what a trade is and we know what a business is. This whole discussion is idiotic. Does he really think his simple mind has cracked the complex mysteries of the code? I wonder what makes this self-professed expert think he is an expert. What training and understanding does he have of the legal system and how laws and regulations work? He's trying to figure it out, but doesn't have the framework to do so. This is grasping at straws and frankly pathetic. I long for the day at the smarter tax objector, who created new arguments or positions to be debunked. Unfortunately Frankenstein isn't even smart enough to come up with something unique and new He has to rehash old positions, that are so easy to disprove because they've been proven in court. The quality of tax objectors today has really sunk, I long for the days where we had real thinkers, who came up with original ways to contort the code and regulations to sell detaxing products to the masses. Debunking something new is interesting, repeating old disproven theories over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

[wserra]

repeating old disproven theories over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Or at least the definition of insanity includes that . . . .

[wserra]

I am pretty close to knowing everything so far .

No ego problem there.

[noblepa]

The term "Fruit" includes apples.

Are you saying that, because peaches are not included in apples, peaches are not fruit? That seems to be the way you are reading the tax law section in question.

IANAL, but it is often the case, especially in tax law, that one section of the tax law will say that one activity is included, while another section says that a completely different activity is included. To anyone with a normal level of reading comprehension in the English language, that means that both activities are included, even though neither section makes reference to both.

This is one of the oldest (and most often debunked) arguments in the tax-deniers' repertoire. It has been tried in court many times, and has failed every time.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The term "Fruit" includes apples.

Don't get him started on tomatoes!

[Pottapaug1938]

Let me put it in a way you should understand .
If a "trade or business" doesn't include "performance of the functions of a public office" ,
then it's not a "trade or business" within the meaning of that term as it's defined
for its Statutory purposes to mean .

What's it to you? Why do you care? What is the motivation behind your wanting answers to your questions?

It sure looks to me like you are "baiting a hook" and hoping for a certain desired answer to buttress a crazy hypothesis.

I just like to know the Truth ! I am pretty close to knowing everything so far .
For instance , did you know that all colors are made in the brain ? Even white brightness .
Everything is actually total Blackness . Want undeniable Proof ???

Again, Frankie-boy: what is making you ask these questions? As for the rest of your delusional assertions, I won't dignify them with a response.

[Dr. Caligari]

I just like to know the Truth ! I am pretty close to knowing everything so far .

To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven.

[LaVidaRoja]

If you are "pretty close to knowing everything" PLEASE tell me how to communicate with broccoli!

[Pottapaug1938]

If Frankenstein is truly "pretty close to knowing everything," I'd like to know who put the bomp in the bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I just like to know the Truth ! I am pretty close to knowing everything so far .
For instance , did you know that all colors are made in the brain ? Even white brightness .
Everything is actually total Blackness . Want undeniable Proof ???

Again, Frankie-boy: what is making you ask these questions? As for the rest of your delusional assertions, I won't dignify them with a response.

I could. I was once a lab technician in a company that made photographic filters and in charge of quality control.

Once again, he takes a small nugget of information, misunderstands it, ignores how language works and spouts his interpretation of his misunderstanding as the only truth. At this stage, I suspect is willful misunderstanding rather than ignorant. It would be otherwise hard to get through life not understanding how words work, so I suspect this is just performance art.

There are actual real colours corresponding to wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum. It's the perception of colour that is "made in the brain" not colour itself, which is an actual physical phenomenon. Black and white aren't even colours. In fact, asserting that everything is actually total blackness is the biggest fallacy in that statement. There are no zero energy fields (unless we get into quantum mechanics when it is a probabilistic quantity, but the act of measuring causes it to collapse and therefore have a value), so in the everyday universe there is no such thing as total blackness.

Then there is the normal use of language where black and white are colours. As is magenta. Even the total blackness of the night sky is beige.

Both uses of "color/colour" are correct. To assert that there is only one meaning of it is disingenuous. To actually believe there is only one meaning is just being dumb.

[wserra]

Not that it's necessary - the conclusion is obvious to anyone who has not stuck his fingers in his ears while yelling "I can't hear you!" - but I came across another case on 26 USC § 7701(a)(26), the IRC definition of "trade or business".

Ms. Charboneau relies on the definition of "trade or business" set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26) which "includes the performance of the functions of a public office." Again, Ms. Charboneau misses the boat -- clearly this definition of "trade or business" is intended to expand its reach to include public office, it does not exclude private business operations.

United States v. Charboneau, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49679, *16 (FLMD 2006).

A final observation: Little Frankie, like others of his ilk, believe that they are "pretty close to knowing everything so far". It is therefore not surprising that they hold their knowledge of the law superior to the lawyers responding to them here, and to the judges who have actually ruled on their beliefs. However, what do they believe will happen if they try to act on those beliefs in the real world? Do they actually believe that a federal judge will say, "You know, Little Frankie here makes good points. I'm going to ignore the fact that this is settled law, that other judges have gone so far as to impose penalties for making arguments such as how "includes" is a word of limitation, that no court ever has held this stuff correct - forget all that. Judgment for Little Frankie!"

That's a delusion above and beyond the call of just stupidity.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

I just like to know the Truth ! I am pretty close to knowing everything so far .
For instance , did you know that all colors are made in the brain ? Even white brightness .
Everything is actually total Blackness . Want undeniable Proof ???

Again, Frankie-boy: what is making you ask these questions? As for the rest of your delusional assertions, I won't dignify them with a response.

I could. I was once a lab technician in a company that made photographic filters and in charge of quality control.

Once again, he takes a small nugget of information, misunderstands it, ignores how language works and spouts his interpretation of his misunderstanding as the only truth. At this stage, I suspect is willful misunderstanding rather than ignorant. It would be otherwise hard to get through life not understanding how words work, so I suspect this is just performance art.

There are actual real colours corresponding to wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum. It's the perception of colour that is "made in the brain" not colour itself, which is an actual physical phenomenon. Black and white aren't even colours. In fact, asserting that everything is actually total blackness is the biggest fallacy in that statement. There are no zero energy fields (unless we get into quantum mechanics when it is a probabilistic quantity, but the act of measuring causes it to collapse and therefore have a value), so in the everyday universe there is no such thing as total blackness.

Then there is the normal use of language where black and white are colours. As is magenta. Even the total blackness of the night sky is beige.

Both uses of "color/colour" are correct. To assert that there is only one meaning of it is disingenuous. To actually believe there is only one meaning is just being dumb.

HaHAhahaaaaaaa . As you're careful to say , "colours 'correspond' to electromagnetic wavelengths" . That's Not saying wavelengths have color ! And as you say , "perception / 'seeing' color is 'made in the brain' " ! So you do agree with Me .
To believe there is more than one meaning of color is just being dumb .
You didn't ask for the undeniable proof !

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So you do agree with Me

No. I think you are an idiot.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

So you do agree with Me

No. I think you are an idiot.

I know that's what you think !! But I proved you agree with an "idiot" !
So who's the real idiot ???

[FRANKENSTEIN]

If you are "pretty close to knowing everything" PLEASE tell me how to communicate with broccoli!

You can't !!

[FRANKENSTEIN]

The term "Fruit" includes apples.

Are you saying that, because peaches are not included in apples, peaches are not fruit? That seems to be the way you are reading the tax law section in question.

IANAL, but it is often the case, especially in tax law, that one section of the tax law will say that one activity is included, while another section says that a completely different activity is included. To anyone with a normal level of reading comprehension in the English language, that means that both activities are included, even though neither section makes reference to both.

This is one of the oldest (and most often debunked) arguments in the tax-deniers' repertoire. It has been tried in court many times, and has failed every time.

Depends on which section of tax law a definition applies to . In this case the definition applies to the whole Title .
You people really need to understand what's being said , and what the LAW says .
Are you making a statement about a "normal" definition of Fruit , which would include apples and peaches ?
Or are you making a Definition of the term "Fruit" , wherein you are defining for your purposes what Fruit is supposed to mean ?
Does anybody here have an above average level of reading comprehension ???

[eric]

HaHAhahaaaaaaa . As you're careful to say , "colours 'correspond' to electromagnetic wavelengths" . That's Not saying wavelengths have color ! And as you say , "perception / 'seeing' color is 'made in the brain' " ! So you do agree with Me .
To believe there is more than one meaning of color is just being dumb .
You didn't ask for the undeniable proof !

OK, I'm on absolute tenterhooks now. Please oh great one, give us your undeniable proof. BTW, make sure you use easy words that a simple engineer with forty odd years working in colour science can understand.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So who's the real idiot ???

You don't know how words work do you!