MEANINGS

[The Observer]

I can hardly wait!

Well, I would advise that you don't hold your breath. The best that he will be able to do is come up with is a cut-n-paste quote from one of his "experts" that will be totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

[NYGman]

He is going to harp on "includes" again, he can't help himself. I too am awaiting his definitive post, that will once and for all prove his point. I just hope it doesn't include, includes.

[wserra]

I just hope it doesn't include, includes.

But if it does include "includes", then every other word in the post must include the meaning of "includes".

That'll show us.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Here you go !! Take off your dunce caps .
I'll be happy to debate ANYONE !
Here we go !! Put your thinking caps on & pay attention .
I will explain to you what the Tax Code means by their use of the term “Trade or Business” !
Using simple plain English Grammar . With an easy to follow Example which will make it as Clear as Day .
Meanings and Definitions !!
Words/Terms have their Meanings determined by an accepted Definition . Definitions may be Commonly understood English , or Technical / Scientific or Legal .
Thus , ALL the “things” stated by the Definition , are incorporated , combined in total Within the Meaning . That’s because a word or terms’ Meaning is decided by everything & anything a Definition says .
On to a simple example to make clear !
A simple Definition of the word “House” :
A structure with a foundation , a floor , enclosed with walls & a roof , having enclosed bedrooms,
A kitchen , a bathroom , living room , and includes windows and an entry door .
So , what are some of the things that are within that Meaning of the word “House” ??
Well , “floor” and “kitchen” and “windows” , are a few of the things that are within that Meaning of the word “House” . Notice that those things separately or combined do NOT mean “House” .
The WHOLE Definition must apply and is required to mean “House” .
Now let’s make another Definition of “House” :
A structure with a foundation , a floor , enclosed with walls & a roof , having enclosed bedrooms,
A kitchen , a bathroom , living room , and includes windows and an entry door .
And has a garage !
Notice this Definition is the same as the first except it adds a Garage as another Required “thing” to Mean “House” .
If we use the first Definition as the “Normal/Common” Definition of what “House” means ,
We could state the second Definition above in another way , and it would mean the exact same thing as the second definition above . Ready for it !!!?????
Definition of “House” :
The definition of “House” includes a garage .
And guess what ?? The use of “includes” in the definition doesn’t exclude the Other things that are otherwise within the meaning of “House” , as in the first “Normal/Common” Definition and those “Other things” that are within that first meaning !!
So , to mean “House” , all the other things are still required , but now “ a Garage” is another thing required along with the rest , in order for your particular structure to fit within the meaning AS DEFINED by “House” includes a garage !!
It surely DOESN’T mean that a “garage” by itself can mean a “House” !

It’s the DEFINITION of “House” that “includes” this other characteristic “thing” , that by DEFINITION DETERMINES what is Meant by “House” !
As you can see , the second Definition doesn’t even use the word “includes” when defining garage as something within the meaning .
It’s actually irrelevant to a Definition , and the Code only uses the word in a descriptive way to say what they intend to be a part of the Very Definition of a term !
What they INTEND to be inserted IN the DEFINITION , is what FOLLOWS “includes” !!!
And inserting something into a Definition , doesn’t Exclude any of the other things that were/are already in the Definition . It just ADDS something to the definition by using “includes” !
So to wrap it all up in a neat little package .
What does the Tax Code mean by “Trade or Business” ?
A “Trade or Business” is a Trade or Business (as normally defined) which includes “performance of functions of a public office” .
The term as the Tax Code DEFINES it is , a Trade or Business includes performance of functions of a public office !
That’s what THEY MEAN and that’s what THEY INTENDED by what they SAY is THEIR DEFINITION !

[wserra]

I just hope it doesn't include, includes.

But if it does include "includes", then every other word in the post must include the meaning of "includes".

I can't be sure - after all, gibberish is gibberish - but I think I nailed it.

Two identical Frankieposts (tm) deleted.

[NYGman]

So his whole issue is that he does not agree with the way includes works within code sections and regulations. thankfully we have caselaw and lawyers who actually understand the law because they went to law school, and studied such things. His position is not supportable in court, and he will lose if he tries this argument. While we all know he is completely wrong, he will never accept the fact that he is wrong. He has refused my requests to get a PLR from the IRS confirming his position, and likely has so little income, that he may not actually be taxable after credits and the like.

But I will respond using essentially the same logic he used. includes is not an exhaustive list, by its definition, it is examples of items that would be covered, but not exhaustive. This is correct, from dictionary.com:

include
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1. To contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element:
The so-called “complete breakfast” in this ad included juice, milk, cereal, toast, eggs, and bacon.
The anniversary edition of the game will include the expansion packs and DLC.

2 To place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like:
Please include me in any future discussions.
Hawks and eagles are included in the family “Accipitridae.”

3 To contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor:
Our comprehensive approach to health includes such aspects as resilience, resources, and quality of life.
Schooling should include friendship, fun, and laughter, in addition to rigorous study.

Note these definitions indicates that includes indicates an element, but these are not exclusive. See the examples below. You can have a complete breakfast without Bacon and with sausage. Includes, by definition is not meant to be all inclusive, it is meant to provide examples of items that may be included, but it is in no way limited to the items after includes, or rules out the common sense meaning of the words it is providing examples for.

He doesn't get this, and thinks the rules of grammar (his rules) trump the law, or the legal use of a word.

[eric]

Frank is attempting to solve the problem of defining the word "includes" by using what in classical mathematics is known as proof by analogy. Solve the problem of "includes" when defining a house and you have solved the problem of "includes" when defining an occupation or business. Using proof by analogy however, requires first proving that both objects (problems) belong to the same class. In layman's terms, the definition of a house must somehow correspond to the definition of an occupation or business. Here's a really easy argument against what we shall call Frank's theorem using my avatar, a flying pig, as my proof.

Pigs are animals.
Some animals can fly.
Therefore, pigs can fly

This is a false analogy because it fails to account for the relevant differences between a pig and animals that fly. In the same way, Frank's theorem has not proved the relationship between a house and an occupation or business. Background - "The Walrus and the Carpenter" is the classic tactic in formal debate forums whenever somebody like Frank tries a proof by analogy.

[NYGman]

At the end of the day I was right about includes being what he hangs his hat on, and his lack of understanding, or even willingness to see the fallacy of his point make this argument pointless. I therefore have no choice but to agree with eric, that pigs can fly. as aptly demonstrated by his avatar.

Pigs are animals.
Some animals can fly.
Therefore, pigs can fly

[eric]

Frank's last post can be easily summarized as:
Frank's theorem:
The definition of a house has the word "includes" in it;
The definition of an occupation or business has the word "includes" in it;
Therefore, the definition of an occupation or business is anything following the word includes.

Eric's theorem:
My house includes, at the moment, an annoying cat, a hungry dog, and a sleeping wife;
The definition of an occupation has the word includes in it;
Therefore, the definition of an occupation or business is an annoying cat, a hungry dog, and a slumbering wife.
Prove me wrong.

[The Observer]

And none of his verbal gymnastics does anything to deal with actual intent and wording of the statute(s). If we are to accept Frank's theory, it would mean the authors, Congresspersons, legislative analysts, reviewers, and anyone else involved with the enacting and enforcement of the statute would have had to either (1) be totally unaware of the implications arising from the wording of the statute, or (2) be involved in constructing that wording to render this result in such manner to obfuscate its true meaning and confuse every citizen in the US about their liability for taxes.

That would mean that thousands of CPAs, tax attorneys, judges, business executives, and others who deal with the statute on a daily regular basis would have to be totally clueless about Frank's "loophole" or are aware of it but choose not to act on this knowledge at the expense of their employers, businesses, and those who appear in court to contest their liability. But Frank, in order to defend his position is going to have maintain the impossibilities of mass ignorance and/or massive conspiracy to keep this "knowledge" out of everyone's reach. So for the last 35+ years everyone other than Frank is ignorant or corrupt.

It is obvious that Occam's Razor isn't a tool in Frank's belt.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm not sure abut US law... but in England and Wales the definition of "Trade" and "Business" is what a court hearing a case believes it to be, with respect to that case, and is not what some idiot in the interwebs thinks.

However, I'd be surprised if the US is any different.

[Burnaby49]

We have issues with idiots and their own definitions of 'includes' here in Canada. It was big in the anti-tax circuit for a while because of the way they chose to interpret 'includes' for tax purposes. The Income Tax Act says;

2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

For greater certainty regarding taxable 'persons' the Act says something to the effect that, for purposes of this Act, persons includes corporations. So these clowns started arguing that only corporations were persons because the word 'includes' is exclusive rather than inclusive and, when used in a tax context, excludes anything except the specific entity defined as being included. I've heard this moronic argument brought up in court numerous times with the expected results.

[NYGman]

I had already pointed out to Frank that case law disagrees with his interpretation of includes, and that trumps some guy on the internet with 4th grade grammar. I also pointed out that regulations go through a process, and any loophole that large would have been plugged early in the process, and that legislative intent is known for most of these things. Fact is many things have been pointed out to Frank, but as none includes the answer he wants, it can't be right.

He may want to check out this

[FRANKENSTEIN]

So his whole issue is that he does not agree with the way includes works within code sections and regulations. thankfully we have caselaw and lawyers who actually understand the law because they went to law school, and studied such things. His position is not supportable in court, and he will lose if he tries this argument. While we all know he is completely wrong, he will never accept the fact that he is wrong. He has refused my requests to get a PLR from the IRS confirming his position, and likely has so little income, that he may not actually be taxable after credits and the like.

But I will respond using essentially the same logic he used. includes is not an exhaustive list, by its definition, it is examples of items that would be covered, but not exhaustive. This is correct, from dictionary.com:

include
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1. To contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element:
The so-called “complete breakfast” in this ad included juice, milk, cereal, toast, eggs, and bacon.
The anniversary edition of the game will include the expansion packs and DLC.

2 To place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like:
Please include me in any future discussions.
Hawks and eagles are included in the family “Accipitridae.”

3 To contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor:
Our comprehensive approach to health includes such aspects as resilience, resources, and quality of life.
Schooling should include friendship, fun, and laughter, in addition to rigorous study.

Note these definitions indicates that includes indicates an element, but these are not exclusive. See the examples below. You can have a complete breakfast without Bacon and with sausage. Includes, by definition is not meant to be all inclusive, it is meant to provide examples of items that may be included, but it is in no way limited to the items after includes, or rules out the common sense meaning of the words it is providing examples for.

He doesn't get this, and thinks the rules of grammar (his rules) trump the law, or the legal use of a word.

Oh , I do agree with the way "includes" works within code sections & regulations !
And if you read my post "example" , you would know that I did NOT limit it to the items AFTER "includes" .
You're using "includes" as a General statement about things . Such as , the definition of "Birds" includes Eagles .
I and everyone else knows that doesn't mean that only Eagles are "Birds" .
The Code isn't making a "General statement" about "Trade or Business" . It's stating ITS DEFINITION of "Trade or Business" !
They DEFINE that "Trade or Business" INCLUDES "performance of functions of public office" .
That means that whatever comes after "includes" , becomes and IS a Part of the Very Definition .
Note I said "part" of the definition . As the Code says , "includes , when used in a DEFINITION , does not Exclude
other things within the meaning " .
Definitions spell out and list the REQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS for the Word or Term being Defined .
Each and every element included in a DEFINITION is REQUIRED for something to "Fit" the meaning of
the word or term being Defined !

[FRANKENSTEIN]

And none of his verbal gymnastics does anything to deal with actual intent and wording of the statute(s). If we are to accept Frank's theory, it would mean the authors, Congresspersons, legislative analysts, reviewers, and anyone else involved with the enacting and enforcement of the statute would have had to either (1) be totally unaware of the implications arising from the wording of the statute, or (2) be involved in constructing that wording to render this result in such manner to obfuscate its true meaning and confuse every citizen in the US about their liability for taxes.

That would mean that thousands of CPAs, tax attorneys, judges, business executives, and others who deal with the statute on a daily regular basis would have to be totally clueless about Frank's "loophole" or are aware of it but choose not to act on this knowledge at the expense of their employers, businesses, and those who appear in court to contest their liability. But Frank, in order to defend his position is going to have maintain the impossibilities of mass ignorance and/or massive conspiracy to keep this "knowledge" out of everyone's reach. So for the last 35+ years everyone other than Frank is ignorant or corrupt.

It is obvious that Occam's Razor isn't a tool in Frank's belt.

They were unaware of the ignorance or stupidity of the masses . They were very Specific in the wording so as to avoid
any "false meaning" . Most so-called "experts" , just rely on what they've been told or led to believe.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

We have issues with idiots and their own definitions of 'includes' here in Canada. It was big in the anti-tax circuit for a while because of the way they chose to interpret 'includes' for tax purposes. The Income Tax Act says;

2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

For greater certainty regarding taxable 'persons' the Act says something to the effect that, for purposes of this Act, persons includes corporations. So these clowns started arguing that only corporations were persons because the word 'includes' is exclusive rather than inclusive and, when used in a tax context, excludes anything except the specific entity defined as being included. I've heard this moronic argument brought up in court numerous times with the expected results.

Stated that way , that's NOT making a DEFINITION of "persons" .
If I make a DEFINITION of a word , such as "person" , and state THE DEFINITION of "person" includes "this characteristic" ,
and if I don't have that characteristic which THE DEFINITION states , then I'm Not a "person" .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

I had already pointed out to Frank that case law disagrees with his interpretation of includes, and that trumps some guy on the internet with 4th grade grammar. I also pointed out that regulations go through a process, and any loophole that large would have been plugged early in the process, and that legislative intent is known for most of these things. Fact is many things have been pointed out to Frank, but as none includes the answer he wants, it can't be right.

He may want to check out this

It's not a "loophole" . And case law doesn't disagree .
My battle ship is unsinkable . Your battleships are full of faulty joints & weakly fitted parts .
Thus I can easily shoot your battleships & watch them slowly sink & disappear into the bottom of the ocean .
My battleship is joined with parts fitting perfectly & complimenting each other .
THE DEFINITION of "Battleship" includes Nuclear missiles .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

I'm not sure abut US law... but in England and Wales the definition of "Trade" and "Business" is what a court hearing a case believes it to be, with respect to that case, and is not what some idiot in the interwebs thinks.

However, I'd be surprised if the US is any different.

It's different here in the U.S.
The definition here is what the Code says is THE DEFINITION !
Here , the definition includes a certain specific Characteristic .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Frank's last post can be easily summarized as:
Frank's theorem:
The definition of a house has the word "includes" in it;
The definition of an occupation or business has the word "includes" in it;
Therefore, the definition of an occupation or business is anything following the word includes.

Eric's theorem:
My house includes, at the moment, an annoying cat, a hungry dog, and a sleeping wife;
The definition of an occupation has the word includes in it;
Therefore, the definition of an occupation or business is an annoying cat, a hungry dog, and a slumbering wife.
Prove me wrong.

You didn't read my post very carefully now did you !!????
Otherwise you would know that the Definition is NOT just "anything following the word includes" .
Just proved you wrong ! Hahahahahaaaaaaaaa .
You QuatLosers are too easy & lazy .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Frank is attempting to solve the problem of defining the word "includes" by using what in classical mathematics is known as proof by analogy. Solve the problem of "includes" when defining a house and you have solved the problem of "includes" when defining an occupation or business. Using proof by analogy however, requires first proving that both objects (problems) belong to the same class. In layman's terms, the definition of a house must somehow correspond to the definition of an occupation or business. Here's a really easy argument against what we shall call Frank's theorem using my avatar, a flying pig, as my proof.

Pigs are animals.
Some animals can fly.
Therefore, pigs can fly

This is a false analogy because it fails to account for the relevant differences between a pig and animals that fly. In the same way, Frank's theorem has not proved the relationship between a house and an occupation or business. Background - "The Walrus and the Carpenter" is the classic tactic in formal debate forums whenever somebody like Frank tries a proof by analogy.

The "problem" is "includes used in a Definition" !!
Both "problems" are in the same class . Definitions using includes !
Yours is a false analogy because Pigs aren't in the same class as animals that can fly .