diller72 CTC thread again

[Lambkin]

At the risk of being a bore, I am reposting the first few posts from this lost thread which I found cached. Hopefully diller72 will rejoin us.

Postby diller72 on Sun May 11, 2008 5:32 am
Hello, everyone. As this is my first post on this forum, I feel it appropriate to provide some introductory remarks. First let me thank those of you who explicitly invited me (or any other CtC'er) to register as a Quatloos! poster, and next let me apologize over my delay in doing so. Contrary to some of the insinuations of previous posters in this thread (to which I'll return briefly below), I do have an occupational life and I do have to devote a sizable chunk of my time toward keeping up with the expectations of clients. Choosing now to become a 'regular' on two different (VERY different, I might unnecessarily add) tax-oriented forums is only going to complicate matters for me, but so be it. Perhaps if I'd chosen one of the careers represented by some of you, I might now be making more money AND having more free time to hang-out at a favorite blog-in, but then there's a probable issue with that thing called conscience... On the other hand, maybe becoming involved with a forum like this would prove an effective salve for any misgivings I might harbor over that choice of profession, and this might in turn provide at least a partial explanation for the general feel-good camaraderie and often smuggish esprit de corps that I sense here.

As it is -- and the following remarks are directed primarily at Captain Kickback -- I make a decent but in no way spectacular living within a microprocessor-based industry, and reside in a modest four-bedroom house in a typical mid-America suburb equipped with no fewer than THREE fully plumbed pots to p*ss in. By the way, there's a word for some folks' unfortunate tendency to make sweeping and prejudiced generalizations about people they've never met based solely on some perceived group membership: we call it bigotry. If you think that playing the bigot online elevates either you or your cause, CK, then by all means please continue that practice. Also, it might surprise you that, unlike the majority of my neighbors, I do not consider myself a 'good Christian' (or any kind of Christian at all), having decades ago made the tortuous transition from a once-prominent SoCal brand of fundamentalism that espoused Biblical inerrancy to de facto atheism, with my current coefficient of religiosity falling somewhere in the narrow range between that of Spinoza and the estimable Richard Dawkins. It is in fact my former religious de-conversion which has provided me with the resolve and determination to follow the guiding light of EVIDENCE into whatever dark 'rabbit-hole' it may lead, and not to blindly accept the dogmas of credentialed authority or vested interest in ANY area of thought, no matter how deeply held or widely accepted an accretionary system of 'belief' may have become.

Captain Kickback also contends that as a CtC'er I must be piggishly greedy, wanting my no-tax cake while eating my government benefits, too. Denying that I enjoy keeping money in my own pocket (and not incidentally out of the hands of fiscally irresponsible politicians with questionable motives and agendas) would be a lie, but that is neither my principal motivation nor, for that matter, anything that likely differentiates me from CK: that is, unless he makes a habit of cheerfully donating more to the federal government than he's convinced the law requires of him. As for those government 'benefits' -- provided that the funding-to-results ratio involved compares favorably to equivalent private-sector services, I have no overweaning philosophical problem with excise taxes that take the form of user taxes. In other words, a federal highway system should ideally be paved and maintained with fairly-laid taxes on fuel and tires collected from those directly benefiting from use of the highways, air traffic control networks should be funded by taxes on air fares, etc. But show me the fairness in a system that allegedly extorts almost everyone (whether uniformly or "progressively") to pay for programs and 'benefits' that often don't accrue to even a simple majority of those extorted, and never proportionately to the individual contributions on those rare occasions in which they do. However -- and please note this well -- I am NOT the one asserting that the federal income tax system necessarily performs that kind of extortion at all; it is the rest of you here who are likely to knock yourselves out making that claim.

But ultimately, as Famspear so cogently remarked, it is not what I might find morally, ethically, philosophically, strategically or tactically justifiable that determines whether the current tax system is constitutionally and legally legitimate. It is what the Constitution and the relevant statutes actually say that matters. And shockingly enough, my own CtC-inspired research has led me to conclude that the IRC is indeed constitutional and thus legally legitimate, a conclusion no doubt shared by a majority of Quatloosians as well. What separates us is really our divergent perspectives on how this legitimacy is actually achieved.

Which brings me to the only real bone I wish to pick in this first post. Despite Imalawman's claims of familiarity with CtC and of litigating several CtC cases, his remarks reminded me of how a Bible camp director from my youth "disproved" Darwinian evolution by citing experiments allegedly conducted by the U.S. Army during the 1930's in which generations of rats with tails surgically-removed at birth continued without fail to propagate litters of
splendidly rat-tailed baby rodents. (But because the central unifying theory of post-Victorian biology wasn't given so much as lip-servce in my public school 9th-grade textbooks, I was
unfortunately ill-equipped at the time to appreciate how appallingly ignorant on so many levels this self-proclaimed expert really was regarding the subject of his lecture, as well as how totally fatuous and irrelevant such an experiment would actually be in testing any post-Mendelian model of the mechanisms underlying the operation of either natural or artificial selection in biological evolution.) And beyond the specific relevance of this story to Imalawman's comments, I have in fact seen NO positive evidence from ANYONE previously posting to this thread that he or she actually understands the most basic tenets and claims deriving from a CtC perspective on the tax code. Without doubt, such an understanding would require no real intellectual stretch for the average Quatloosian, so the explanation may well be that you're all so certain it MUST be bunk that you haven't even bothered to apprehend exactly what it is you're 'debunking'. If you think I'm wrong about this, then MAKE ME EAT CROW by posting a reasonably complete and accurate overview of Hendrickson's analysis of the essential relationships between the Constitution, the IRC, and the relevant SCOTUS case law mediating the two. Feel free to include in your scrupulous summary what you see as the fatal flaws, and then we might actually be able to rendezvous on the same page and engage in some kind of fruitful, lively and non-vituperative debate here. Should no one else be willing or able to venture such a synopsis, I'll be happy to begin putting one together for your consideration sometime over the course of this coming week.

diller72
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia

Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 10:48 pm

[Lambkin]

Post by wserra on Sun May 11, 2008 9:59 am

Welcome to the board. Despite what I may write later - as you say, we all are busy, and beating around the bush takes more time than getting to the point - anyone who wishes to contribute is welcome to post here. I've split the thread to give the discussion more space.

[Snip "I'm busy". Me too.]

Perhaps if I'd chosen one of the careers represented by some of you, I might now be making more money AND having more free time to hang-out at a favorite blog-in, but then there's a probable issue with that thing called conscience...

My conscience is perfectly fine pursuing a career as a trial lawyer whose practice has nothing to do with taxes. My conscience would also be perfectly fine pursuing a career as a tax lawyer. Please review what you wrote about the perils of generalizing.

[Snip remarks about the perils of generalizing.]

Captain Kickback also contends that as a CtC'er I must be piggishly greedy, wanting my no-tax cake while eating my government benefits, too.

Snip apologia re: using government benefits while not paying income taxes, accompanied by an attempt at expiation in the form of expressed willingness to pay user fees. That's very nice, but it's not the way the world is. The simple fact is that you use government services which are financed by the taxes you refuse to pay. Justify that how you will, it still makes you a hypocrite.

It is what the Constitution and the relevant statutes actually say that matters.

Indeed. Let's see what you say about that. Preview: nothing.

[Snip defense of evolution, with which I surely agree. But then note what comes next.]

I have in fact seen NO positive evidence from ANYONE previously posting to this thread that he or she actually understands the most basic tenets and claims deriving from a CtC perspective on the tax code.

Which is one of the approaches the creationist/ID types use when cornered too. No, no, no, you don't understand our theory. When previous layers fall flat on their faces, one can always keep adding layers and then claim that people misunderstood. I understand perfectly well that Hendrickson's bottom line is that most working people don't owe income taxes. I don't see the necessity of parsing out whether Hendrickson derives that dumb conclusion from the lack of a "federal nexus" or a "privileged occupation" or "taxable wages", just as I don't see the necessity of working through Ptolemy's calculations to reject his conclusion that the Earth is the center of the universe.

If you have something to prove, prove it. I don't have the time or the inclination to guess at the basis of unproven gibberish.

"Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice."
- Robespierre

[Lambkin]

Postby ASITStands on Sun May 11, 2008 11:04 am

I might also observe that once upon a time Quatloosians very thoroughly parsed 'Cracking the Code' under the tutelage of John J. Bulten. Those threads appear not to be available.

Whatever Mr. 'diller72' has to offer will be considered as well.

Several here came dangerously close to convincing Mr. Bulten of his weakness in regard to a good faith Cheek misunderstanding, and he disappeared. Several speculated at the time he was feeling the pressure of his own problems with the ebil government.

No one here drove him off, and no one will drive off 'diller72.' Some of us welcome the opportunity to discuss 'Cracking the Code,' and we just might convince 'diller72' of its error.

[Lambkin]

Postby RyanMcC on Sun May 11, 2008 11:49 am

I have in fact seen NO positive evidence from ANYONE previously posting to this thread that he or she actually understands the most basic tenets and claims deriving from a CtC perspective on the tax code. Without doubt, such an understanding would require no real intellectual stretch for the average Quatloosian, so the explanation may well be that you're all so certain it MUST be bunk that you haven't even bothered to apprehend exactly what it is you're 'debunking'.

I almost posted a summary of the key areas CtC adherents seem to be most confused over, I didn't feel confident at that point that anyone from the CtC thread would read it so I didn't bother as it has been covered multiple times already.

You claim you do not earn "wages" because you are not an "employee" or engaged in a "trade or business". You seem to have a different definiton of "wages", "employee", and "trade or business" than the rest of the world, because you are confused about the definition of "includes".

I will include the definitions of these terms below from title 26:

26USC7701(c) wrote:(c) Includes and including

The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' when used in a definition
contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things
otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.


26USC7701(a)(26) wrote: (26) Trade or business

The term ``trade or business'' includes the performance of the
functions of a public office.


26USC3401(a) wrote:(a) Wages

For purposes of this chapter, the term ``wages'' means all
remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services
performed by an employee for his employer,


26USC3401(c) wrote:(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employee'' includes an
officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or
any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any
agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term
``employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
-----

You should note, two diffrent words are used which I bolded: "includes" and "means". "Means" would limit the definition to only those things listed, "includes" would mean those things listed, plus anything else otherwise within the meaning of the term (as per the definition of "includes" in 7701).

Your "friends" at CtC will say different, but take note the courts disagree with their contention:

“Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).

“To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no ‘wages’ in 1983 because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c), which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of ‘employee’ includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986).

“Petitioner’s assertion that he is not a person required to pay tax as he is not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or of a corporation, is wholly meritless.”

United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981).



“Plaintiff’s allegation is without legal merit as he attempts to limit ‘employees’ to employees of the federal government. However, the term employee refers to every individual who performs services at the direction or control of another. See 26 CFR section 31.3306(I)-1(b). Thus, even individuals that are not employees of the federal government are still construed as employees within the regulation if they fit within the definition pursuant to 26 CFR section 31.3401(c).”

Bernier v. IRS, KTC 1999-540, No. CV 98-0331-N-EJL (U.S.D.C. Idaho 1999)

“Plaintiff’s next argument is that he is not an ‘employee’ under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer. Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that this definition of ‘employee’ excludes all other wage earners.”

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280 (complaints dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing frivolous actions “brought in bad faith”).

“Plaintiff apparently bases his position on a strict interpretation of the statutory language of section 3401(c) which does not on its face include all persons who earn wages from an employer. ... The definition should not be read as exclusive, but rather as indicative of Congress' intent that those persons so designated in section 3401(c) would be subject to the income tax withholding provision in the same manner as all other employees. The definition of "employee", contrary to the interpretation urged by plaintiff, is more properly read to include all those persons with the ‘status of employee under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.’”

Chamberlain v. Krysztof, 617 F.Supp. 491, KTC 1985-137 (N.D.N.Y. 1985) (footnotes omitted).

Special thanks to LPC who aparantly just updated his Tax Protester FAQ with more relevant case law reguarding this very issue.

So lets start from there, do you acknowledge at this point that CtC is incorrect (atleast according to every court that has heard the arguement) reguarding the definition of "employee" in section 3401? If not, please present a single court case in which the judge said that a person was not an "employee" because the term is limited to only those things listed in section 3401(c). If you cannot find such a case you must cede this point before we continue any further.

PS - Even if the above arguement by CtC were correct (which it definately is not) you would still owe an income tax because you likely have gross income as defined in 26USC61:

Sec. 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)
the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

PPS - I am not a CPA, Accoutant, Attorney, IRS Agent. In the real world being any of those things would enhance my credibility reguarding issues of Taxation. Alas, I am but a simple Self-Employed Libertarian who voted for Ron Paul, which in the real world lowers my credibility, but in this instance, it should show you I am not interested in maintaining the "status quo" and am simply presenting facts as they are.

[Lambkin]

Post by LPC [date, time unclear]

I have in fact seen NO positive evidence from ANYONE previously posting to this thread that he or she actually understands the most basic tenets and claims deriving from a CtC perspective on the tax code.

Which is one of the approaches the creationist/ID types use when cornered too. No, no, no, you don't understand our theory. When previous layers fall flat on their faces, one can always keep adding layers and then claim that people misunderstood. I understand perfectly well that Hendrickson's bottom line is that most working people don't owe income taxes. I don't see the necessity of parsing out whether Hendrickson derives that dumb conclusion from the lack of a "federal nexus" or a "privileged occupation" or "taxable wages", just as I don't see the necessity of working through Ptolemy's calculations to reject his conclusion that the Earth is the center of the universe.

If you have something to prove, prove it. I don't have the time or the inclination to guess at the basis of unproven gibberish.

Wes speaks my mind.

Why are tax deniers always so garrulous? Stop playing games and state a proposition you're willing to defend.

I'll give you some choices, from Hendrickson's own "A Brief Introduction To The Fascination Trust About The American Income Tax":

1. As part of his argument that a tax on earned income must be apportioned, Hendrickson states that "Clearly, a general, indiscriminate tax on income read as 'all that comes in', or on 'every species of revenue,' qualifies as either a 'capitation' or a 'poll tax' (or both as each term is properly understood." (Page 2) That's wrong, because no judge in the history of the United States has ever held that a tax on wages, salaries, or other earned incomes is a "direct tax" that must be apportioned. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wages for details.

2. Hendrickson also states that the federal income tax "amounts, in its actual application, to a tax on only a speacialized subste of the larger call of income, consisting exclusively of revenues attributable to the voluntary, profitable use of a federal privilege, property or powers...." (Page 4) That's wrong also, as explained in http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges

3. Hendrickson's interpretation of section 3401(c) (page 7) is wrong, because "wages" are not limited to payments received by government employees, as explained in http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#government

4. And he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "includes." (Page 7). See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes

5. The 16th Amendment "no new power" argument, claiming that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says, is found at page 10, and is refuted at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#nonewpower

So, there are five different ridiculous positions for you to take, or you can choose a different one.

[wserra]

Many thanks, Lambkin. You are truly a prince(ss) among Ovis aries.

I have edited the formatting somewhat on Lambkin's reposts to better resemble the usual Q posts. We'll see if anyone from CtC shows up.

[Red Cedar PM]

I have edited the formatting somewhat on Lambkin's reposts to better resemble the usual Q posts. We'll see if anyone from CtC shows up.

I had some hope that diller was actually going to contribute here, and I hope he still does, but it has been over a week I believe and not a peep. It also appears that no other CtC "warriors" have the stones to come over and actually defend this utter nonsense. Being a self-proclaimed "warrior" while simultaneously banning all who question their validity in the slightest and then choosing not to participate in an actual debate on the subject - the sheer hypocrisy and irony is astounding.

Too early for Dr. C to call in the crickets?

[wserra]

Being a self-proclaimed "warrior" while simultaneously banning all who question their validity in the slightest and then choosing not to participate in an actual debate on the subject

[ASITStands]

As I recall, 'diller72' stated he would return over the very weekend the forum disappeared, and then when it reappeared, not only all the 'diller72' posts had disappeared but his profile.

That's why it's been suggested there was some CtC-Quatloos conspiracy NOT to debate. Like maybe someone from one camp or another trashed the debate site. (Just kiddin'.)

It's just that "that's" the disheartening part of this restore missing so much good stuff. Kind of takes the wind out of the sails in terms of wanting to discuss issues with 'diller72.'

I guess that's the part I cared about. 'diller72' had been brave enough to establish a contact with Quatloos, and he had come here to discuss his views. Now, he's not even profiled.

[grammarian44]

I have in fact seen NO positive evidence from ANYONE previously posting to this thread that he or she actually understands the most basic tenets and claims deriving from a CtC perspective on the tax code. Without doubt, such an understanding would require no real intellectual stretch for the average Quatloosian, so the explanation may well be that you're all so certain it MUST be bunk that you haven't even bothered to apprehend exactly what it is you're 'debunking'. If you think I'm wrong about this, then MAKE ME EAT CROW by posting a reasonably complete and accurate overview of Hendrickson's analysis of the essential relationships between the Constitution, the IRC, and the relevant SCOTUS case law mediating the two. Feel free to include in your scrupulous summary what you see as the fatal flaws, and then we might actually be able to rendezvous on the same page and engage in some kind of fruitful, lively and non-vituperative debate here. Should no one else be willing or able to venture such a synopsis, I'll be happy to begin putting one together for your consideration sometime over the course of this coming week.

I thought the dispute with diller72 began when diller72 posed the question of how it was possible all the refund checks were posted on CtC, apparently "proving" the validity of Pete's approach, whatever that approach is. So I and many others posted responses noting that the IRS has a right to pursue excess refunds either through deficiency procedures or through litigation. No one summarized Pete's theory because that's not what was requested.

Now it seems that diller 72 has moved the target. Now those who disagree with Pete are apparently responsible for summarizing his theory in a way that diller72 would approve of, and now we're responsible not only for assuring that the summary is accurate, but for refuting it.

So what is diller72's response to our initial point about the refunds?

[wserra]

As I recall, 'diller72' stated he would return over the very weekend the forum disappeared, and then when it reappeared, not only all the 'diller72' posts had disappeared but his profile.

True. I assume that anyone who registered during the period of disappeared posts went into the same bit bucket as the posts.

It's just that "that's" the disheartening part of this restore missing so much good stuff.

I don't think the restored thread is missing that much. As I recall, village idiot "Rachel" had just appeared to hijack the thread with her usual gibberish (which Dan split off) when things went kablooey. Actually, it was probably just the server's reaction to Rachel.

I guess that's the part I cared about. 'diller72' had been brave enough to establish a contact with Quatloos, and he had come here to discuss his views.

I am not sure what "bravery" has to do with it. If someone is sincere, it seems to me that s/he would want to discuss views on important matters with others of different opinions. Several regulars from Q have gone to LoserHeads and been banned for their efforts. I didn't feel "brave" for doing so.

[ASITStands]

As I recall, village idiot "Rachel" had just appeared to hijack the thread with her usual gibberish (which Dan split off) when things went kablooey. Actually, it was probably just the server's reaction to Rachel.

Good point! It was the server's reaction to 'Rachel.'

Shh! Maybe that will draw her to the thread again.

[Famspear]

Concerning diller's unhappiness that no one here supposedly has adequately addressed the points in Cracking the Code, grammarian44 wrote:

No one summarized Pete's theory because that's not what was requested.

I have seen this many times with tax protesters; they want to insist that the rest of the world answer their questions in just the way they want those questions answered, and show them the law, and they are frustrated when the rest of the world does not play along with them. It's "show ME the law." Egocentric, narcissistic, delusional mindsets. I remember that when John J. Bulten was posting here; that was part of his problem. He sometimes argued, if I recall correctly, that such and such a court decision that blew a particular CtC theory away somehow wasn't really on point because the court just didn't use just quite the right words that Bulten liked. At one point I think he even argued (when he was living in Oklahoma) that there was no authority for the proposition that Oklahoma was a "state" for purposes of 26 USC 7701 because he couldn't find a specific court decision involving an Oklahoma taxpayer where the court ruled that Oklahoma was a "state." These people are never happy; they want the answere served to them in just a particular way in which they believe it should be served.

Of course, this is also a mental evasion of sorts by tax protesters. The fact that they have never won a single case on a tax protester argument doesn't seem to bother most of them anyway. And the fact that legal scholars can throw one court decision after another at them that rejects their own theories doesn't seem to bother them either. In their eyes, the rulings against them somehow lack "legitimacy," or that the courts are corrupt, or that the courts aren't following the "real" law.

Now, although they consider the courts to be corrupt, the protesters also quote or use the language from court opinions out of context, and then argue that the courts are somehow deciding the opposite of what the courts actually decide. No matter how many times I have seen it, for example, I get a kick out of watching tax protesters argue that the Merchants' Loan case somehow stands for the hilarious proposition that ONLY "corporate profit" can be "income," despite the points (1) that the the taxpayer in that case was not a corporation, (2) that the income was not corporate income, (3) that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the non-corporate income of the non-corporate taxpayer was indeed taxable, and (4) that the words "corporate profit" do not even appear in the Merchants' Loan opinion.

It's intellectual dishonesty: unwillingness to accept the result when they lose (as the U.S. Supreme Court noted with respect to tax protester John Cheek in the 1991 Cheek case).

That kind of attitude doesn't work in Quatloos, and it doesn't work in a court of law either. Nobody cares whether some crackhead at losthorizons feels that the court has adequately addressed, point by point, the frivolous nonsense that is Cracking the Code.

[Famspear]

I do hope that diller72 comes back here. I did get the impression that he/she was at least to some degree searching for truth and not merely trying to gather data to reinforce his/her own beliefs.

I was struck by the impression that many of the people at losthorizons really are misled by the systemic weaknesses at the IRS with respect to the processing of false tax refund claims and the payment of erroneous refunds. For those of us who have worked in the real world of tax compliance, either with the IRS or as tax practitioners, it seems absurd that someone could honestly believe that merely because someone files a false refund claim and receives the funds, that person could honestly believe that the payment of the refund somehow means that the fraudulent claim isn't "really" fraudulent. But when you add the protester's ignorance about how the IRS processing system works to the tax protester's pre-existing tendency to want desperately to believe something preposterous, it makes a little more "sense."

[diller72]

Thank you, Lambkin, for recovering and restoring much of this thread. Having some continuity to work from definitely makes it easier for me to pick up and proceed. Thanks also to everyone who expressed a desire to resume blogging with me. I do appreciate your attitude and your support for courteous debate on this site. Now I'd prefer that these postings be more about income taxes and Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" and much less about me, so I'm reluctant to squander too much time responding to pre-crash entries. However, before the server went down I'd already made note of a few comments that have now been grating on me a bit too long to simply ignore. But I promise this will only be a short rant and may also serve double-duty as a kind of segue into the next and more substantive effort, which, having been mostly prepared last night, should follow a little later today.

Wserra has referred to me as a 'hypocrite', but I must beg to differ. 'Hypocrite' would fit someone who advocates that OTHER people risk filing in a way that the IRS would discourage, but then doesn't do so himself. The word would also describe someone who has successively enjoyed the financial fruits of filing CtC-cognizant 1040's but doesn't publicly advocate that practice for fear that if enough others did likewise he might lose out on all those federal 'benefits'. A hypocrite might also be someone who's secretly happy that the U.S. ragman at the intersection smeared road grime and June bug entrails all over his windscreen but then drove away when the light changed without leaving a voluntary donation. I am none of those people. And even though I'm hard-pressed to think of a single, unmitigated benefit that I receive from the Federal government at all -- and would maintain that the vast majority of any citable mitigated benefits would be more efficiently, responsibly and responsively provided by the private-sector (preferably) or by state and local governments (as a last resort) -- I'm going to be charitable toward Wserra's presumed intent and suggest the epithet 'freeloader' in place of 'hypocrite'. Although 'freeloader' really doesn't match-up well either because the GAO tells us that less than half of federal spending is offset by the collection of income taxes. So perhaps 'demiloader' would be more appropriate, if we can be allowed to coin a word here.

RyanMcC's discussion of "means" and "includes" does an excellent job of proving my point that Quatloosians either do not really know or, more sinisterly, wish only to misrepresent what Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" actually says. FOR THE RECORD (again), neither Hendrickson nor myself nor any other serious student of CtC would ever proclaim that the Section 7701 definition of "includes" should be interpreted to limit what is embraced by the subject of a dependent definition to only the item or items listed in the latter's definitional predicate. What we DO say is that in order to differentiate which other items CAN be embraced by the dependent definition from the REST OF THE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN COSMOS, some boundary MUST exist and that boundary MUST be inferable from the nature of the explicit example item or items in that definition. Otherwise, anything and everything would fall into the ambit of that definition, all legal terms themselves dependent upon "includes" would lose all semblance of precision or actionable specificity, and no one (whether lay or black-robed) could have any confidence that their own interpretation of what lies within vs what lies without the implied set of embraced items would even approximate that of the intent of the lobbyists who agitated for the legislation, the committees who drafted the bills to be introduced to the legislatures, the legislators who debated, voted upon and passed them, or the executive who signed them into statutory law(s). I'm at a complete loss to understand how such a simple syllogism can apparently avoid being self-evident for so many in this forum. Hence, the suspicion of deliberate mis-characterization.

And while we're at it, on another thread in this forum Quixote leaps to the astonishingly unwarranted and thoroughly erroneous conclusion that long-time LostHorizons poster Richardf614 is somehow the same person as a Richard Fuselier who is apparently connected with a case involving [no doubt bogus] TP arguments completely unrelated to CtC. Question: do the rest of you regard Quixote's tendency to erect such assertions upon an utter lack of any attempt at verification to be at all exemplary of this forum's usual research and posting standards and practices? Admittedly, we live in J.B.S. Haldane's world ("The universe may not only be queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose..."), so I guess it was theoretically possible that these two people were one and the same. But just ten seconds' worth of investigation would have revealed that Richardf614's posting profile shows his residence to be in Ohio, not Louisiana, and that datum should have at least served as a cautionary clue that a misidentification was in progress. Perhaps using this forum to falsely vilify people is more important to some of you than is adhering to facts or even manifesting an intent to be truthful. If so, then posting a defense of Ctc on Quatloos! may amount to little more than spitting over the rail into the teeth of a nor'easter. For better or worse though, there's just enough of Sisyphus about me to give it a go.

- an 18-percenter

[Quixote]

That's right people, it's all diller, no filler!

I disagree. That post was all filler. Diller72 has now posted two lengthy posts without saying anything relevant to the issue at hand, the rationale behind CTC. He even took time to discuss the irrelevant parts of my post pointing out Richardf614's error in analyzing a statute without, apparently, reading the statute. I'm beginning to suspect that Diller72 doesn't understand CTC well enough to explain it.

[RyanMcC]

neither Hendrickson nor myself nor any other serious student of CtC would ever proclaim that the Section 7701 definition of "includes" should be interpreted to limit what is embraced by the subject of a dependent definition to only the item or items listed in the latter's definitional predicate. What we DO say is that in order to differentiate which other items CAN be embraced by the dependent definition from the REST OF THE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN COSMOS, some boundary MUST exist and that boundary MUST be inferable from the nature of the explicit example item or items in that definition.

Really you are just blowing smoke and not stating your case, so let me ask you these questions:

Are you an "employee"?
Do you earn "wages"?
Are you engaged in a "trade or business"?

If not, why not, explain.

And last but not least, do you have "gross income"?

[jg]

What we DO say is that in order to differentiate which other items CAN be embraced by the dependent definition from the REST OF THE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN COSMOS, some boundary MUST exist and that boundary MUST be inferable from the nature of the explicit example item or items in that definition

Indeed, there is a boundary and that is expressed in the definition of includes which plainly says not to exclude other things within the meaning of the term being defined. This is not unbounded (and no one claims that it is, except strawman builders):

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

The issue is then, what things are "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined".

A term is a word that is defined particularly for use in the statutes. The word being more definitively defined for statutory use does not lose all former meaning when it is defined as a term; but begins with and retains the original meaning that is modified, expanded or limited by the statutory language that defines the term.

Were it the intent of the statutes to invent a term not associated with (and modifying) the meaning of a word, that is easily done and does not require, and can not be accomplished by, the use of "includes" or "including". There are many examples of this type of construction in section 7701 (and elsewhere) such as “foreign government-related individual” or “qualified solid waste disposal facility” and those definitions tell us what that term means.

The terms “includes” and “including” are used for expansion and clarification that the specific items listed are indeed part of what the defined term means; but the definition of the terms “includes” and “including” does tell us that the word being specified for statutory use (aka the term) has NONE of the things otherwise within the meaning of that word being specified for statutory use (aka the term) excluded.

It is not the list of specific items that depended upon for the boundary of the things that are "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined". It is the meaning of the word being specified for statutory use (aka the term) that is the bounds, else there would be no point in using that word to which specific modification are made for statutory use.

One way to test interpretation is to see if application of the interpretation gives meaning that is consistent with the balance of the document and to see if the interpretation gives a meaningful or gives a nonsense result.

Applying the interpretation that “includes” and “including” must be bound by the listed items, or those in the same general class, has been used to show that the term “United States” is limited to only the District of Columbia but that is neither consistent with the other uses in the title nor gives a meaningful result and must be rejected.

(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Concluding that the term "employee" does not embrace most workers in the private sector is an inconsistent and nonsensical result of the CtC interpretation of “includes” and “including” .
At http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#Includes Hendrickson tries to use a quote from the Supreme Court as support for a "limited expansion" for includes:

The rather tangled language of this statute has been helpfully rendered in related regulations as:
"Meaning of Terms: The terms “includes and including” do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class." Title 27, at 27 CFR 72.11;
and partakes of the doctrines expressed by the United States Supreme Court as:

“[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words” Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)

“Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term follows a specific one, the general term should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific enumeration.” Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 US 117 (1991)

"…a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitura sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving “unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.” Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 US 303, 307 (1961)” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. (93-404), 513 US 561 (1995)

"t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general..." Morales v. TWA, 504 US 374 (1992)

Applying these principles of statutory construction, we see that the language of 26 USC 7701(c) providing for the inclusion of "things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" (which, under the doctrine of noscitura sociis-- and simple logic-- is to be read as "the inclusion of things otherwise within the meaning of the term AS defined") constitutes "general words", or "a general term" following the specifically enumerated things listed in the given definition, such as are referred to by the Supreme Court in the Circuit City and Norfolk & Western rulings.

But, does a definition of a term have preceding specific terms? Does a definition of a term even have a general term that follows a specific one? No, it does not so these rules are not even applicable to the definitions of terms.
Hendrickson then misapplies the incorrect rule of statutory construction to imagine that "the enumerated list of "employees" in this special definition (which exists in order to define, in turn, the term "wages" found in the same chapter) is being paid for services rendered by the federal government or an entity created and controlled by the federal government." See http://www.losthorizons.com/appendix.htm#Includes

Quite the opposite results from the correct interpretation of “includes and including” to the definition of "employee" at 26 USC 3401(c):

26 USC 3401(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation. [That is to say, a “United States Corporation”, which is defined in Sec. 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act as, “a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States…”. However, we are instructed by the IRS in Pub. 15A that even officers of U.S. corporations are only to be considered “employees” if they are paid as a consequence of their positions.]

The term ''employee'' does not lose the ordinary meaning of the word but is expanded to specifically have within its meaning an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, <etc., for brevity> and also an officer of a corporation. There is not a definition of a term unique to the statute; but, rather a modification, so, the term will be known for certain to have within the meaning the listed items, as specified in the statute.

This application of the term "includes" is consistent with uses of the term ''employee'' and makes sense without any attempt to explain how is that an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, <etc., for brevity> would be applicable when the definition of wages in § 3401(a) list items that the term "wages" shall not include remuneration paid for (such as for domestic service in a private home, local college club, or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority or for such services, performed by a nonresident alien individual, as may be designated by regulations prescribed by the Secretary or for for services performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry).

The misuse and misinterpretation of “includes and including” and the later misapplication of that to the term "employee" are central to the web that Hendrickson weaves.

Also, see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#government for what the courts think on this issue.

[Dr. Caligari]

RyanMcC's discussion of "means" and "includes" does an excellent job of proving my point that Quatloosians either do not really know or, more sinisterly, wish only to misrepresent what Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" actually says. FOR THE RECORD (again), neither Hendrickson nor myself nor any other serious student of CtC would ever proclaim that the Section 7701 definition of "includes" should be interpreted to limit what is embraced by the subject of a dependent definition to only the item or items listed in the latter's definitional predicate. What we DO say is that in order to differentiate which other items CAN be embraced by the dependent definition from the REST OF THE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN COSMOS, some boundary MUST exist and that boundary MUST be inferable from the nature of the explicit example item or items in that definition. Otherwise, anything and everything would fall into the ambit of that definition, all legal terms themselves dependent upon "includes" would lose all semblance of precision or actionable specificity, and no one (whether lay or black-robed) could have any confidence that their own interpretation of what lies within vs what lies without the implied set of embraced items would even approximate that of the intent of the lobbyists who agitated for the legislation, the committees who drafted the bills to be introduced to the legislatures, the legislators who debated, voted upon and passed them, or the executive who signed them into statutory law(s).

The word "includes," as defined by the Internal Revenue Code itself (7701[c]), does not exclude anything that would otherwise be included in the meaning of the word being defined. The Supreme Court has said many times that words in tax laws have their ordinary, everyday, dictionary meaning. (Case citations are here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ordinarymeaning )
So the word "wages" does not exclude the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word wages (i.e., pay for working in the private sector); the word "state" does not exclude its everyday meaning (any of the 50 states); and the word "trade or business" does not exclude the everyday meaning of that term (anything you do to make money).

Case citations for all of this are here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes

[Gregg]

And even though I'm hard-pressed to think of a single, unmitigated benefit that I receive from the Federal government at all

Though I consider most of your post self serving dribble, I'll cherry pick just this one little bit to point out the utter selfishness of your nature.

you live in a country where the rule of law prevails and differences are settled in courts of law. Something you seem to think is a fiction but go try to recover your farm in Rwanda or perfect a title to land in Palestine before you come here bitching.
You live in a country free from fear of invasion, no serious attempt to land foriegn troops has been made in almost 200 years and they didn't stay very long (plus we got a national anthem out of it), something that leads to people feeling safe to build institutions that create wealth for all the population, so before you bitch about that, go live for a while in Somalia (where taxes are very low!)
You live in a country that has a stable financial system where people are crying about an inflation rate of 4%, tell it to people in countries where it often runs 3 or 4 digits.

Listen up sparky, and though I know you won't if you did it would save you untold amounts of money and possibly keep you from going to prison for tax evasion,

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

What about that is so hard to understand? There is no code, ne secret, no deeper knowledge, this isn't a Nic Cage Movie, congress can tax your income if you live here or claim citezenship here while overseas, period. No need to calculate how many tax protesters can dance on the head of a pin or try to define income in a certain way. The text makes it pretty clear, "from whatever source derived" doesn'ty leave a lot of wiggle room.

Grow up, be part of the adult world and quit playing "I have a secret", you don't, you're just not very bright.

I don't like paying such high taxes, I'm not a big fan of what the government spends them on either. There are ways to work towards changing those things I don't like but standing on the corner and saying only your definition of a word counts when dozens of courts have said different is an invitation to anarchy and if that's what I wanted I'd go to some third world shithole where some despot gets to rule by whim and doesn't care much when nutjobs like you don't pay your taxes, he's stealing it on the top end anyhow.
If you don't think the federal government gives you any benefit then get off your ass and leave, refute your citizenship and move to Somalia, and don't whine about there not being anything for you there or any way to make a living that doesn't involve putting your life in danger, or not being able to own property etc...those are all the benenfits you're NOT getting from the USA, remember?