MEANINGS

[The Observer]

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 !!

Fine. Please file suit in federal district court and make these arguments with the judge. Get a ruling in your favor and come back here and we can discuss it. Otherwise you are just making it all up as you go.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

So, Frank, are you alleging that ONLY politicians are to be taxed?

It's really hard to follow what you are writing, so make a clear statement.

Either ONLY politicians are to be taxed or everyone (which encompasses politicians) is to be taxed.

Clear statement >>>>>>>>>>>
Only people who are engaged in a "Trade or Business" , as that term is defined in common usage ,
which I guess could include "politicians" . Maybe some maybe all .
But the Tax Code states that the Definition of it , INCLUDES the following description ... "the
performance of the functions of a public office" . So , the common DEFINITION includes those words along with
whatever the common definition says .
The Definition thus is , common defined trade or business which includes performance of the functions of a public office .
So , you have to be a trade or business as commonly defined , and performing the functions of a public office .
In other words , you have to fit the WHOLE Definition in order for what you do to MEAN "trade or business" as DEFINED .
Only a "trade or business" that performs a function of a public office , is what trade or business MEANS by Tax Code DEFINITION .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

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 !!

Fine. Please file suit in federal district court and make these arguments with the judge. Get a ruling in your favor and come back here and we can discuss it. Otherwise you are just making it all up as you go.

Not "making anything up " . The Tax Code is written in black and white .

[The Observer]

Not "making anything up " . The Tax Code is written in black and white .

That is your assertion. Here on Quatloos we have a rule that assertions such as yours must be proven. You have failed to back it up by showing proof from federal court cases regarding income taxes that would support your assertion. Your only other option is to file suit in federal court and win.

If you keep making assertions that cannot be backed with legitimate proof (sophistry does not qualify) we will start removing future posts from you that fail to provide proof. You had the opportunity to explain your position and now its time to prove it. You will not be allowed to just repeat baseless assertions over and over anymore.

[Moderator: The Observer] Edited to include a missing "you".

[wserra]

I would like to have a more civil discussion

The "civil" part is possible, the "discussion" part is not. You are the kook who insists that he has invented a perpetual-motion machine. When asked for proof, instead of demonstrating that the damn thing works, he points to page after page of calculations or diagrams and insists that everyone who can't see it - basically everyone, period - is obviously wrong.

The proof that a legal theory is correct is similar to that of an invention - it works in the real world. Law isn't philosophy. If you fervently believe in a legal theory that fails to get actual results, all you're doing is confusing what you'd like the law to be with what the law is. As Observer says, if you wish to prove your theory, go make it work somewhere where it counts. Failing that, this is all sophistry.

[JamesVincent]

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 !

How very ironic is it then that you're the one going on rants. And you do know that you don't have to fully quote an entire post just to be able to reply to it, right? Makes a much cleaner thread without extra pages of quoted text.

[Cpt Banjo]

The Definition thus is , common defined trade or business which includes performance of the functions of a public office .
So , you have to be a trade or business as commonly defined , and performing the functions of a public office .
In other words , you have to fit the WHOLE Definition in order for what you do to MEAN "trade or business" as DEFINED .
Only a "trade or business" that performs a function of a public office , is what trade or business MEANS by Tax Code DEFINITION .

So by your twisted reasoning, when Section 7701(a)(3) states that the term "corporation" includes "associations, joint stock companies, and insurance companies" an entity isn't a corporation (as so defined) unless it is a corporation AND ALSO an association, a joint stock company, and an insurance company. Wow, who knew all of the corporate reorganization provisions (Section 351 et seq.) apply only to insurance companies? Or that if I get a dividend (defined in Section 316 as a distribution from a corporation) from Exxon, I don't have to pay taxes on it because Exxon isn't an insurance company? Sweet!

And when Section 3401(c) states that the term "employee" includes "an officer of a corporation", then only corporate officers are subject to wage withholding, right?

Suffice it to say, you haven't a clue.

[Burnaby49]

That one was a perennial for years in Canada. The Income Tax Act says that 'persons' resident in Canada are subject to income tax. For greater certainty it also says that 'persons' includes corporations. So for years morons would bubble to the surface insisting that this meant that only corporations were subject to income tax and, (drumroll), since they weren't corporations the Income Tax Act didn't apply to them. I attended a couple of court hearings where they tried to convince the judge of this and they'd get quite agitated when he was too stupid to agree with them.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

And when Section 3401(c) states that the term "employee" includes "an officer of a corporation", then only corporate officers are subject to wage withholding, right?

Suffice it to say, you haven't a clue.

My reply >>>>>>>>>
Oh , here's the clue for you .
Those sections you refer to aren't statements saying that's THE DEFINITION of those terms .
Those are just general informational statements about the term , followed by some
of the things it can mean .
That's not how "includes" works when used in a DEFINITION .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

That one was a perennial for years in Canada. The Income Tax Act says that 'persons' resident in Canada are subject to income tax. For greater certainty it also says that 'persons' includes corporations. So for years morons would bubble to the surface insisting that this meant that only corporations were subject to income tax and, (drumroll), since they weren't corporations the Income Tax Act didn't apply to them. I attended a couple of court hearings where they tried to convince the judge of this and they'd get quite agitated when he was too stupid to agree with them.

My reply >>>>>>>>>
Those people are morons , because the Act didn't say that was THE DEFINITION of "persons" .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

As Observer says, if you wish to prove your theory, go make it work somewhere where it counts. Failing that, this is all sophistry.

[Moderator: The Observer] Removed answer that was simply another assertion based on sophistry and without any proof.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

That is your assertion. Here on Quatloos we have a rule that assertions such as yours must be proven. You have failed to back it up by showing proof from federal court cases regarding income taxes that would support your assertion. Your only other option is to file suit in federal court and win.

If you keep making assertions that cannot be backed with legitimate proof (sophistry does not qualify) we will start removing future posts from you that fail to provide proof. You had the opportunity to explain your position and now its time to prove it. You will not be allowed to just repeat baseless assertions over and over anymore.

My reply >>>>>>>>>>>

[Moderator: The Observer] Removed reply that was unbacked assertions based on sophistry and had no proof.

[Cpt Banjo]

Those sections you refer to aren't statements saying that's THE DEFINITION of those terms .
Those are just general informational statements about the term , followed by some
of the things it can mean .
That's not how "includes" works when used in a DEFINITION .

Well, aside from the fact that both Sections 3401 and 7701 are entitled "Definitions", your objection would also apply to your pathetic misinterpretation of "trade or business" which, like "corporation" is part of Section 7701. So if a trade or business must include the performance of the functions of a public office, then a corporation (as defined) must be an insurance company (as well as an association and a joint stock company).

[Pottapaug1938]

I will consider it as your surrender , if you remove future posts , without having
proven me wrong , or proven that the Definition does NOT apply to the term .

In other words, you will claim victory if we remove any of your ridiculous posts. You dare us to "prove [you] wrong;" but if we try, you just "move the goalposts" and demand more proof. Sorry; but that's not how we work. We do not permit endless repetitions of the same idiotic word games and "gotcha" traps. To quote The Observer:

"That is your assertion. Here on Quatloos we have a rule that assertions such as yours must be proven. You have failed to back it up by showing proof from federal court cases regarding income taxes that would support your assertion. Your only other option is to file suit in federal court and win."

"If you keep making assertions that cannot be backed with legitimate proof (sophistry does not qualify) we will start removing future posts from you that fail to provide proof. You had the opportunity to explain your position and now its time to prove it. You will not be allowed to just repeat baseless assertions over and over anymore."

You say:

"My proof is what the Law itself states."

No. In law, proof consists of appellate court decisions which support a particular interpretation of the law. People disagree over how the law defines a term all the time; but it's the courts, and especially the appellate courts, which settle the disagreements. Many of us have long expertise in the law and other relevant fields; so we can give you an idea of how the law should be interpreted, but we have neither the time nor the desire to write a full legal treatise on the subject. So, either file a federal lawsuit which seeks to vindicate your assertions, or shut up.

[JamesVincent]

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Well, aside from the fact that both Sections 3401 and 7701 are entitled "Definitions", your objection would also apply to your pathetic misinterpretation of "trade or business" which, like "corporation" is part of Section 7701. So if a trade or business must include the performance of the functions of a public office, then a corporation (as defined) must be an insurance company (as well as an association and a joint stock company).

My reply >>>>>>>>>
I guess you don't know what comma's are used for .
(3)Corporation
The term “corporation” includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.

Definitions themselves have to be read and understood as they are grammatically structured .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

No. In law, proof consists of appellate court decisions which support a particular interpretation of the law. People disagree over how the law defines a term all the time; but it's the courts, and especially the appellate courts, which settle the disagreements. Many of us have long expertise in the law and other relevant fields; so we can give you an idea of how the law should be interpreted, but we have neither the time nor the desire to write a full legal treatise on the subject. So, either file a federal lawsuit which seeks to vindicate your assertions, or shut up.

My reply ..........
In this case , the Law HAS defined the term .
Are you claiming the Definition doesn't apply to the term being defined !!!?????
That would be absurd and ludicrous .

[wserra]

Frankie - no one here cares even a little about what you believe to be “absurd and ludicrous”. No one here cares even that much about what you “consider a surrender”. Go write your nonsense to the IRS; when they tell you to go pound sand - or, more likely, ignore you for the insignificant ankle-biter you are - feel free to consider that the entire damn U.S. government has surrendered to your Almighty Self. No one here will bat an eyelash.

But keep posting the same nonsense, with the same total absence of proof, and people here will take notice. You will be moderated. That means that no post you make will see the light of day without the approval of a moderator. If you think that is somehow unfair, you have an obvious solution: start your own board. You can then post whatever your heart desires.

Only warning.

[eric]

I just thought I should throw something in regarding definitions and how they apply in real life. Using Frank's wording, I "performed the function of " an electoral officer this week and as a supervisor I had the pleasure of being a judge of borderline cases for would be electors. One of the things I determined was place of residence. Frank went to great efforts to explain what he thought the word "includes" meant with regards to a house. Under provincial and federal election law your house is the answer to the question "where do you typically lie your head down at the end of the day?". It doesn't have to "include" anything else but the answer. I had one well prepared chap who proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his house was a camp cot under the wing of his airplane - a picture of said house, a lease agreement for said spot where he parked his plane, and bank statements showing he was paying the rent. Also had a very unpleasant conversation with someone who thought their house was whatever village she normally championed assorted crank causes. That conversation required the assistance of burley gentlemen with yellow stripes down their trousers and wearing tactical vests. Conversation with my wife - "You mean you got the RCMP to manhandle a senior citizen? ....Yup".

[tracer]

<tries to go back and figure out what this thread is about>

Ah, the ol' "Includes" argument. There's one Treasury Decision and/or court case (I can't even remember which one anymore) in which, for some particular piece of legislation being discussed, they said the term "includes" or "including" when followed by a list should be interpreted to mean ONLY the things in the list. Folks like the OP took that one decision and ran with it.

Pity there are other cases, concerning other laws, which state that "includes" and "including" should NOT be interpreted as meaning only the things in the list.