MEANINGS

[JamesVincent]

Yea well I remodel houses too . You should stick to what you know .
So , YOUR Definition of a house is , " A STRUCTURE" . Wow !
So by your definition , a structure is a house .
Structure has it's own definition but nice try.
I guess a cell phone tower is a house ! Cool man .
Cell phone tower has it's own definition but nice try.
Have you ever remodeled a cell tower ??? I believe it's a "structure" . Which by your definition is what a house is .
I'm not "changing a definition" to suit my purposes per se . I'm using EXAMPLES of how Definitions
affect what a certain word is supposed to actually mean !
No, you're actually doing what every idiot who comes on here does: cherry picking a word, looking for a way to twist it to suit their means.
I don't think I'd want to buy a "house" from you . I might end up with a bridge . Or a "structure" .
You couldn't afford anything I worked on.

You're right , a "house" doesn't NEED a bathroom or kitchen or bedroom , or even windows I guess .
But then again , that's YOUR definition .
No, that is the actual definition. Only thing added by Merriam-Webster is that it is designed for human habitation which I disagree with. A bird house does not have humans in it. Neither does a pig house. Don't think a carriage house is meant for humans either. And a house will still be a house whether humans ever live inside it or not.
People DO get to change a definition to suit their purposes , such as in Contracts , or for scientific or technical manuals .
And especially in all the various LAWS , they need to be specific as to what the Law actually pertains to and Means .
Thus the Laws have their own DEFINITIONS of certain words or terms they use .
No, they don't. When you see a word defined in law it is not changing the definition, it is stating which definition is applied there since many words have multiple meanings and the law needs to be exact.
But hey ! Thanks for using YOUR Definition of "house" that suited your purposes !
Ya'll !! Keep trying to refute my arguments ! I'm lovin it . It only reveals your low IQ's and PROVES my points !

Funny thing is that you missed the entire point and chose to try to play your games. You tried to use the word house in explaining away includes.The word house includes nothing but the basic structure. Anything else that may be inside has it's own definition. All I did was point out how bad an example it was. You keep talking about others IQs but you seemed to have failed at basic reading comprehension. I'll leave you to your regularly scheduled idiocy now.

[Pottapaug1938]

Frankie thinks that he is quite the wit. He is half right.

[eric]

OK, Frankie, here's what I think you've been blathering on about all this time. You earnestly believe that you've discovered an "out" for the requirement to pay taxes by using what you consider the definition of "includes". There's a problem with your semi-brilliant idea however. You haven't cited any case law to support your argument and you haven't done enough research to support your proposition. If you had, you would quickly discover that your idea is not new and people much more learned in the law have written whole texts about what you think is a novel approach.

I realize that you're to the south of me, but in Canada it's called statutory interpretation. Here are two cites that shoot down your argument, the second one from the Supreme Court is the go to whenever someone like you tries to get into arguing definitions.

[11] The modern approach to statutory interpretation calls on the court to interpret a legislative provision in its total context. The court should consider and take into account all relevant and admissible indicators of legislative meaning. The court's interpretation should comply with the legislative text, promote the legislative purpose, reflect the legislature's intent, and produce a reasonable and just meaning. [See Note 2 at end of document] The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this approach to statutory interpretation, most recently in R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 at p. 704, 171 D.L.R. (4th) 385, where Cory and Iacobucci JJ. wrote:

As this Court has frequently stated, the proper construction of a statutory provision flows from reading the words of the provision in their grammatical and ordinary sense and in their entire context, harmoniously with the scheme of the statute as a whole, the purpose of the statute, and the intention of Parliament. The purpose of the statute and the intention of Parliament, in particular, are to be determined on the basis of intrinsic and admissible extrinsic sources regarding the Act's legislative history and the context of its enactment . . .

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... i5647.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/19 ... ii679.html
So, Frankie, I've given you two cites to support my position, your task is to give me some case law to support yours.

[The Observer]

It's a nice attempt to convince Frank of the error of his ways, but it is a waste of time since Frank doesn't want to be convinced. He won't pay attention to case law since he believes that the judges making rulings are either too stupid to understand the law or are part of the supposed corruption of the tax system. And doing research on his own isn't going to convince him since he has already demonstrated that he is going to interpret the law in his own way.

And this is pretty much the path of most tax deniers. In order to explain away the laws regarding taxation, they have to come up with ways to explain why the laws are "wrong." So they rely on misinterpretation of the law to come up with their determination that they don't have to pay tax. Then they embrace wild-eyed conspiracy theories about the justice system in order to explain why they lost in court when their misinterpretation of the law went down in flames. It's the same pattern in the sovereign citizen movement when they contest the law over traffic and driving regulations, utility meters, or whatever happens to get them riled up.

grixit has the best description of this syndrome:

WAAAHHH! You're not the boss of me!

[noblepa]

Even if it were true that there is a vast conspiracy among all the judges in the country to impose taxes on us, despite the fact that the law says we don't have to pay them (because reasons), the fact is that the judges are the ones who, in the US, determine how the law is actually applied.

So, if a judge says you have to pay income taxes, you have to pay income taxes. They have the investigative and enforcement agencies on their side. If you don't pay your taxes, those agencies will come after you, take your bank account, your house, your car, and garnish your future wages.

If Frankie or anyone else can find one, just one case, in which a court has ruled that taxes are voluntary, or that the word "includes" is a term of exclusion, and that that ruling has not been overturned by a higher court, I will believe him.

One might agree with him in his arguments, but our agreement matters little. It is the courts whose opinion matters, and they have been pretty much unanimous in ruling that taxes must be paid.

[Cpt Banjo]

If Frankie or anyone else can find one, just one case, in which a court has ruled that taxes are voluntary, or that the word "includes" is a term of exclusion, and that that ruling has not been overturned by a higher court, I will believe him.

Be careful. If you just ask for a case where "includes" was held to be restrictive, Frankie will trot out the irrelevant Montello Salt case, which dealt with a non-tax statute that, unlike the IRC, didn't have its own definition of "includes". He needs to produce a case involving how the term is used in the IRC.

In any event, why all the focus on the definition of "trade or business"? What does that have to do with what's included in gross income? Section 61 doesn't refer to "trade or business"; it says that except as otherwise provided all income is included in gross income including "gross income derived from business". "Business" is not the same as "trade or business".

Now if Frankie wishes to argue that he's not engaged in a "trade or business" he'll be hoist on his own petard because while his gross receipts will be included in gross income he won't be entitled to any deductions under Section 162, because that section does use the term "trade or business". Brilliant, Frankie, just brilliant.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

My "gross income" isn't ALL "gross income derived from business" .
I'm an employee . The business gross income isn't MY gross income .
I don't include the business gross income as MY gross income !

What don't you understand about what DEFINITION means ???
When a Definition includes some descriptive characteristic , that characteristic is REQUIRED
for something to FIT the DEFINITION . And it has to FIT all other characteristics a DEFINITION
supplies .

[AnOwlCalledSage]

My "gross income" isn't ALL "gross income derived from business" .
I'm an employee . The business gross income isn't MY gross income .
I don't include the business gross income as MY gross income !

What don't you understand about what DEFINITION means ???
When a Definition includes some descriptive characteristic , that characteristic is REQUIRED
for something to FIT the DEFINITION . And it has to FIT all other characteristics a DEFINITION
supplies .

Words can mean different things in different contexts. Are you really that stupid, or is this performative art?

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Yea well I remodel houses too . You should stick to what you know .
So , YOUR Definition of a house is , " A STRUCTURE" . Wow !
So by your definition , a structure is a house .
Structure has it's own definition but nice try.
I guess a cell phone tower is a house ! Cool man .
Cell phone tower has it's own definition but nice try.
Have you ever remodeled a cell tower ??? I believe it's a "structure" . Which by your definition is what a house is .
I'm not "changing a definition" to suit my purposes per se . I'm using EXAMPLES of how Definitions
affect what a certain word is supposed to actually mean !
No, you're actually doing what every idiot who comes on here does: cherry picking a word, looking for a way to twist it to suit their means.
I don't think I'd want to buy a "house" from you . I might end up with a bridge . Or a "structure" .
You couldn't afford anything I worked on.

You're right , a "house" doesn't NEED a bathroom or kitchen or bedroom , or even windows I guess .
But then again , that's YOUR definition .
No, that is the actual definition. Only thing added by Merriam-Webster is that it is designed for human habitation which I disagree with. A bird house does not have humans in it. Neither does a pig house. Don't think a carriage house is meant for humans either. And a house will still be a house whether humans ever live inside it or not.
People DO get to change a definition to suit their purposes , such as in Contracts , or for scientific or technical manuals .
And especially in all the various LAWS , they need to be specific as to what the Law actually pertains to and Means .
Thus the Laws have their own DEFINITIONS of certain words or terms they use .
No, they don't. When you see a word defined in law it is not changing the definition, it is stating which definition is applied there since many words have multiple meanings and the law needs to be exact.
But hey ! Thanks for using YOUR Definition of "house" that suited your purposes !
Ya'll !! Keep trying to refute my arguments ! I'm lovin it . It only reveals your low IQ's and PROVES my points !

Funny thing is that you missed the entire point and chose to try to play your games. You tried to use the word house in explaining away includes.The word house includes nothing but the basic structure. Anything else that may be inside has it's own definition. All I did was point out how bad an example it was. You keep talking about others IQs but you seemed to have failed at basic reading comprehension. I'll leave you to your regularly scheduled idiocy now.

You missed the entire point ! Again , it was A SIMPLE EXAMPLE . It didn't "explain away includes" .
It explained "includes" when used in a DEFINITION ! You're all riled up over a "bad" EXAMPLE of a DEFINITION ,
and you miss the whole point !
Start with ANY Common definition of ANY word , and then say the DEFINITION "includes" these following XXX characteristics !
Now , put on your thinking cap & THINK about that !
You guys are dumber than a box of rocks .

[AndyK]

Please remind me: What's the Quatloos fine for beating a dead horse?

[Pottapaug1938]

Please remind me: What's the Quatloos fine for beating a dead horse?

Ignoring his posts, or at least refusing to engage his idiotic premises.

[JamesVincent]

Please remind me: What's the Quatloos fine for beating a dead horse?

Pointing and laughing? Oh, wait, I already do that. Never mind

[FRANKENSTEIN]

My "gross income" isn't ALL "gross income derived from business" .
I'm an employee . The business gross income isn't MY gross income .
I don't include the business gross income as MY gross income !

What don't you understand about what DEFINITION means ???
When a Definition includes some descriptive characteristic , that characteristic is REQUIRED
for something to FIT the DEFINITION . And it has to FIT all other characteristics a DEFINITION
supplies .

Words can mean different things in different contexts. Are you really that stupid, or is this performative art?

Most words mean the same thing , no matter what so-called "context" .
Secondly , when a DEFINITION of a word is specifically stated , and said to apply to the whole "context" , the whole
Tax code , then it can ONLY MEAN what the Definition states , in the context of the Tax law !!
There ! Fixed "stupid" for you !

[FRANKENSTEIN]

OK, Frankie, here's what I think you've been blathering on about all this time. You earnestly believe that you've discovered an "out" for the requirement to pay taxes by using what you consider the definition of "includes". There's a problem with your semi-brilliant idea however. You haven't cited any case law to support your argument and you haven't done enough research to support your proposition. If you had, you would quickly discover that your idea is not new and people much more learned in the law have written whole texts about what you think is a novel approach.

I realize that you're to the south of me, but in Canada it's called statutory interpretation. Here are two cites that shoot down your argument, the second one from the Supreme Court is the go to whenever someone like you tries to get into arguing definitions.

[11] The modern approach to statutory interpretation calls on the court to interpret a legislative provision in its total context. The court should consider and take into account all relevant and admissible indicators of legislative meaning. The court's interpretation should comply with the legislative text, promote the legislative purpose, reflect the legislature's intent, and produce a reasonable and just meaning. [See Note 2 at end of document] The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this approach to statutory interpretation, most recently in R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 at p. 704, 171 D.L.R. (4th) 385, where Cory and Iacobucci JJ. wrote:

As this Court has frequently stated, the proper construction of a statutory provision flows from reading the words of the provision in their grammatical and ordinary sense and in their entire context, harmoniously with the scheme of the statute as a whole, the purpose of the statute, and the intention of Parliament. The purpose of the statute and the intention of Parliament, in particular, are to be determined on the basis of intrinsic and admissible extrinsic sources regarding the Act's legislative history and the context of its enactment . . .

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... i5647.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/19 ... ii679.html
So, Frankie, I've given you two cites to support my position, your task is to give me some case law to support yours.

Here you go my good man !! From the U.S.A.
First off though . My "argument" isn't so much about what " I consider the definition of 'includes' is " .
That definition is pretty straight forward though , it means what it says , that things mentioned after "includes"
are things that belong to and are associated with what is mentioned before the word "includes" .
My "argument" is that the LAW STATES what it MEANS by the term "trade or business" , by stating ITS DEFINITION of
"trade or business" . No judge can honestly declare that it means something other than what the Legislated
Definition states .
But here you go for your reading pleasure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In State ex rel. Murane v. Jack, 52 Wyo. 173, 70 P.2d 888, 71 P.2d 917, 112 A.L.R. 161, we gave effect to the rule that where the legislature has constitutional power to enact a given law and properly frames an Act it is the duty of the court to construe it for proper effectuation without adding to or eliding from the words recited.
The comparatively recent case of Hassett v. Welch above cited, again reaffirming Gould v. Gould — the basis of this court's ruling in Frear v. Wilder — puts it beyond question that, as said above, one of the "settled rules of statutory construction" is that, "if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer . . ."

In Frear v. Wilder, 25 Haw. 603, 606, it was said: "It is a cardinal rule of construction that a statute imposing taxes is to be construed strictly against the government and in favor of the taxpayers and that no person and no property is to be included within its scope unless placed there by clear language of the statute . . . `In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.'" Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151.

Supreme Court of the United States. In Old Colony Railroad Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 284 U.S. 552, 561, that court held: "If there were any doubt as to the connotation of the term, and another meaning might be adopted, the fact of its use in a tax statute would incline the scale to the construction most favorable to the taxpayer."
In White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16, 20, it was said: "Where there is a reasonable doubt as to the meaning of a taxing Act it should be construed most favorably to the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151. `Tax laws, like all other laws, are made to be obeyed. They should therefore be intelligible to those who are expected to obey them.' Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Lederer, 21 F.2d 320, 321, 322."

In Assessor v. C. Brewer Co., 15 Haw. 29, 38, it was held: "Revenue laws are to be construed strictly. Castle Cooke v. Luce, 5 Haw. 321. `A strict construction in such cases is reasonable, because presumptively the legislature has given in plain terms all the power it has intended should be exercised.' Cooley, Taxation, 200. `It is a well settled rule of law that every charge upon the subject must be imposed by clear and unambiguous language. Acts of Parliament which impose a duty upon the public will be critically construed with reference to the particular language in which they are expressed. When there is any ambiguity found the construction must be in favor of the public; because it is a general rule that when the public are to be charged with a burden the intention of the Legislature to impose the burden must be explicitly and distinctly shown.' — Potter's Dwarris, Statutes, 255 . . . `In construing a statute, the same rule of construction which is applicable in construing all documents or instruments between private parties has force. A person who makes an instrument and profers it to another makes it what he chooses and must cause it to express distinctly all that he means it to do.' — The Minister of Finance v. Bishop Co., 3 Haw. 793, 794, 795."

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Even if it were true that there is a vast conspiracy among all the judges in the country to impose taxes on us, despite the fact that the law says we don't have to pay them (because reasons), the fact is that the judges are the ones who, in the US, determine how the law is actually applied.

So, if a judge says you have to pay income taxes, you have to pay income taxes. They have the investigative and enforcement agencies on their side. If you don't pay your taxes, those agencies will come after you, take your bank account, your house, your car, and garnish your future wages.

If Frankie or anyone else can find one, just one case, in which a court has ruled that taxes are voluntary, or that the word "includes" is a term of exclusion, and that that ruling has not been overturned by a higher court, I will believe him.

One might agree with him in his arguments, but our agreement matters little. It is the courts whose opinion matters, and they have been pretty much unanimous in ruling that taxes must be paid.

I have the written LAW on my side ! That trumps any judge .
Also , the word "includes" is NOT a term of "exclusion" , as you seem to think I claim .
That would be self-evident . Includes OBVIOUSLY doesn't Exclude !
Judges don't make the Laws . They can't just say "you have to pay income taxes" , without authority of Law .
Yea, though , some people DO have to pay income taxes !
Because they've engaged in a "Trade or Business" AS DEFINED by the LAW !
Taxes must be paid , IF & when you have received payments in the course of the DEFINED "Trade or Business" .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

It's a nice attempt to convince Frank of the error of his ways, but it is a waste of time since Frank doesn't want to be convinced. He won't pay attention to case law since he believes that the judges making rulings are either too stupid to understand the law or are part of the supposed corruption of the tax system. And doing research on his own isn't going to convince him since he has already demonstrated that he is going to interpret the law in his own way.

And this is pretty much the path of most tax deniers. In order to explain away the laws regarding taxation, they have to come up with ways to explain why the laws are "wrong." So they rely on misinterpretation of the law to come up with their determination that they don't have to pay tax. Then they embrace wild-eyed conspiracy theories about the justice system in order to explain why they lost in court when their misinterpretation of the law went down in flames. It's the same pattern in the sovereign citizen movement when they contest the law over traffic and driving regulations, utility meters, or whatever happens to get them riled up.

grixit has the best description of this syndrome:

WAAAHHH! You're not the boss of me!

HaHAHAHAHAhaaaaaaaaaaa !

No "misinterpretation" of the Law here buddy .
It says what it says plain as day .
It even provides THE DEFINITION , so no one can "misinterpret" what it MEANS !!
Too simple I guess for all the high intellect here with quatlosers .
Maybe you're all just high , without the intellect .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Please remind me: What's the Quatloos fine for beating a dead horse?

Ignoring his posts, or at least refusing to engage his idiotic premises.

What ???? The premise that the LAW States exactly what it MEANS , by stating THE DEFINITION
of the term "trade or business" as that terminology is used throughout the Tax Law !!!????

[Pottapaug1938]

Please remind me: What's the Quatloos fine for beating a dead horse?
[/quote]

Ignoring his posts, or at least refusing to engage his idiotic premises.
[/quote]

What ???? The premise that the LAW States exactly what it MEANS , by stating THE DEFINITION
of the term "trade or business" as that terminology is used throughout the Tax Law !!!????
[/quote]

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Yea well I remodel houses too . You should stick to what you know .
So , YOUR Definition of a house is , " A STRUCTURE" . Wow !
So by your definition , a structure is a house .
Structure has it's own definition but nice try.
I guess a cell phone tower is a house ! Cool man .
Cell phone tower has it's own definition but nice try.
Have you ever remodeled a cell tower ??? I believe it's a "structure" . Which by your definition is what a house is .
I'm not "changing a definition" to suit my purposes per se . I'm using EXAMPLES of how Definitions
affect what a certain word is supposed to actually mean !
No, you're actually doing what every idiot who comes on here does: cherry picking a word, looking for a way to twist it to suit their means.
I don't think I'd want to buy a "house" from you . I might end up with a bridge . Or a "structure" .
You couldn't afford anything I worked on.

You're right , a "house" doesn't NEED a bathroom or kitchen or bedroom , or even windows I guess .
But then again , that's YOUR definition .
No, that is the actual definition. Only thing added by Merriam-Webster is that it is designed for human habitation which I disagree with. A bird house does not have humans in it. Neither does a pig house. Don't think a carriage house is meant for humans either. And a house will still be a house whether humans ever live inside it or not.
People DO get to change a definition to suit their purposes , such as in Contracts , or for scientific or technical manuals .
And especially in all the various LAWS , they need to be specific as to what the Law actually pertains to and Means .
Thus the Laws have their own DEFINITIONS of certain words or terms they use .
No, they don't. When you see a word defined in law it is not changing the definition, it is stating which definition is applied there since many words have multiple meanings and the law needs to be exact.
But hey ! Thanks for using YOUR Definition of "house" that suited your purposes !
Ya'll !! Keep trying to refute my arguments ! I'm lovin it . It only reveals your low IQ's and PROVES my points !

Funny thing is that you missed the entire point and chose to try to play your games. You tried to use the word house in explaining away includes.The word house includes nothing but the basic structure. Anything else that may be inside has it's own definition. All I did was point out how bad an example it was. You keep talking about others IQs but you seemed to have failed at basic reading comprehension. I'll leave you to your regularly scheduled idiocy now.

I said , "Thus the Laws have their own DEFINITIONS of certain words or terms they use ."

You replied with , No, they don't. When you see a word defined in law it is not changing the definition, it is stating which definition is applied there since many words have multiple meanings and the law needs to be exact.

Yes , the Law needs to be exact ! So to specify what it is to apply to and in turn not apply to .
I agree with you that a word defined in law may not change some existing definition , and just state a particular
definition that already exists . But , the Law CAN change some already existing definition , by adding to or subtracting
some parts of an existing definition , in order to suit the purpose of what and how the law is to be applied.
I would submit that the Legislators could make up a New and different definition of a word or term ,
which would specify exactly what they want that word or term to mean for the purpose of the particular Law .
They can define the word "house" , or the word "vehicle" or the word "gun" , or "weapon" , in as specific details or more broad general descriptions as they want the Law to be targeted applied to . And or to avoid being applied to those
things which they don't intend the law to apply .

Agree ? Disagree ??
I would like to have a more civil discussion , than just rants and raves about how retarded each other
is to all here posting their little quibbles about what's being said !
My main point in all this "name-calling" antics by people here , myself included , is that
the Tax LAW has stated a DEFINITION of the certain Term used in the Tax Law .

[Pottapaug1938]

I would like to have a more civil discussion , than just rants and raves about how retarded each other
is to all here posting their little quibbles about what's being said !
My main point in all this "name-calling" antics by people here , myself included , is that
the Tax LAW has stated a DEFINITION of the certain Term used in the Tax Law .

That ship sailed long ago, Pal. You could have had a more civil discussion, simply by being open and precise as to your reasons for asking questions, and by not asking questions which, if answered correctly, could be twisted into meaning something else entirely.