Hendrickson says he's "sorry" to see Mutter go

[ASITStands]

Of course My ID on LH no longer works

Yet another symptom of the cult mentaily on LH.

And, this should give everyone who posts on Lost Horizons pause to consider.

Whatever happened to dissent? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Whatever happened to honest answers to honest questions without censoring those who disagree?

Weston White, Patrick Mooney, MN Stix, Richard614, Submarine Veteran, and all the others should wake up and take notice that Pete Hendrickson does not allow disagreement.

Can you imagine banning someone because they posted something to which you disagreed? There's just something so totally wrong about that, and I hope the others see it.

[LPC]

I was banned from LH three times, and the third time I wasn't even arguing with anyone, or contradicting anyone, just offering what I thought might be useful information on some evidentiary or procedural issues.

It seemed at the time that what the censors found threatening was not so much what I was saying but that I seemed to know what I was talking about and seemed to be interjecting some tangential reality. But Hendrickson likes to cultivate his marks like mushrooms (i.e., kept in the dark with horse manure piled on top). Sunlight is to be shut out at all costs.

[notorial dissent]

But of course, if you were right on one thing, you might be right about something else, and there can be no source of knowledge, but the GREAT ONE, one what is a good question, but it definitely appears that not only does not play well with others, he doesn’t share the limelight either.

I resisted using the appropriate biblical reference for propriety's sake.

[Doktor Avalanche]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701. that has not happened, to my knowledge.

If he beleives that then why doesnt he follow his own advice, use some of those donations, and file a Writ Of Mandamus to force Congress to do their jobs and change 7701?

Or am I being to logical?

Yes, Congress would be forced to change 7701 if SCOTUS had indeed overruled it.

And yes, you're being way too logical - which forces me to ask the question:

What was an intelligent person like yourself doing mixed up with Uncle Petey in the first place?

[Imalawman]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701. that has not happened, to my knowledge.

If he beleives that then why doesnt he follow his own advice, use some of those donations, and file a Writ Of Mandamus to force Congress to do their jobs and change 7701?

Or am I being to logical?

Yes, Congress would be forced to change 7701 if SCOTUS had indeed overruled it.

And yes, you're being way too logical - which forces me to ask the question:

What was an intelligent person like yourself doing mixed up with Uncle Petey in the first place?

I don't know if they would have to amend 7701 or not if they accepted Pete's theory. Under his theory, 7701 still works - albeit very confused. The thing that Pete can't get over is that even if his theory were correct, it would only mean that employers no longer had to withhold taxes at the source. Those wages would still be taxable. Pete know this and its why he's cheating on his taxes instead of doing something more constructive.

The whole theory is just absurd - read sec. 3401! It starts off by listing private sector exceptions to the withholding requirement. Why in the hell would their private sector exceptions if all private sector positions fell outside of 3401 to begin with? Ok...must not go into rant....

[LPC]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701.

What case is that?

For the record, the only Supreme Court case I have seen that specifically addressed the definition of "includes" section 7701 reached a conclusion that is inconsistent with what PH would have you believe.

The issue in that case was whether a state is a “person” that could be served with a notice of levy in order to garnish the wages of a state employee. The statute in question, section 6332, stated that “person” for purposes of a notice of levy “includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.” The Supreme Court held that a state was a “person,” stating:

“Though the definition of ‘person’ in 6332 does not mention States or any sovereign or political entity or their officers among those it ‘includes’ [footnote omitted], it is equally clear that it does not exclude them. This is made certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that ‘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.’ 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7701(b).”

Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112 (1959).

The court went on to hold that “the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation, i. e., the legislative environment, of 6332 make it plain that Congress intended to and did include States within the term 'person' as used in 6332.” 359 U.S. at 112.

But the result would be the same even without section 7701(c), because the Supreme Court has stated that:

“In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, ‘include’ is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.”
American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).

There are some cases that pre-date section 7701(c) in which the Supreme Court, addressing very different, non-tax statutes, might have found a different usage of "includes," and Hendrickson is undoubtedly taking quotations out of context from those cases. (Probably Montello Salt, which I explain at in my FAQ.)

[wserra]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701.

It's not easy to see a constitutional issue in the definition of "includes".

[mutter]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701. that has not happened, to my knowledge.

If he beleives that then why doesnt he follow his own advice, use some of those donations, and file a Writ Of Mandamus to force Congress to do their jobs and change 7701?

Or am I being to logical?

Yes, Congress would be forced to change 7701 if SCOTUS had indeed overruled it.

And yes, you're being way too logical - which forces me to ask the question:

What was an intelligent person like yourself doing mixed up with Uncle Petey in the first place?

At that point I was lacking the proper legal education to determine his interpretation was wrong.

[mutter]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701.

What case is that?

For the record, the only Supreme Court case I have seen that specifically addressed the definition of "includes" section 7701 reached a conclusion that is inconsistent with what PH would have you believe.

The issue in that case was whether a state is a “person” that could be served with a notice of levy in order to garnish the wages of a state employee. The statute in question, section 6332, stated that “person” for purposes of a notice of levy “includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.” The Supreme Court held that a state was a “person,” stating:

“Though the definition of ‘person’ in 6332 does not mention States or any sovereign or political entity or their officers among those it ‘includes’ [footnote omitted], it is equally clear that it does not exclude them. This is made certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that ‘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.’ 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7701(b).”

Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112 (1959).

The court went on to hold that “the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation, i. e., the legislative environment, of 6332 make it plain that Congress intended to and did include States within the term 'person' as used in 6332.” 359 U.S. at 112.

But the result would be the same even without section 7701(c), because the Supreme Court has stated that:

“In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, ‘include’ is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.”
American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).

There are some cases that pre-date section 7701(c) in which the Supreme Court, addressing very different, non-tax statutes, might have found a different usage of "includes," and Hendrickson is undoubtedly taking quotations out of context from those cases. (Probably Montello Salt, which I explain at in my FAQ.)

so thats the last 'piece of evidence' that PH could present to prove his theory. ergo his theory is dead wrong! he has no point of law to satnad on.

[Gregg]

If the SCOTUS case PH cites did over rule 7701 congress would be forced(?) to change 7701.

What case is that?

For the record, the only Supreme Court case I have seen that specifically addressed the definition of "includes" section 7701 reached a conclusion that is inconsistent with what PH would have you believe.

The issue in that case was whether a state is a “person” that could be served with a notice of levy in order to garnish the wages of a state employee. The statute in question, section 6332, stated that “person” for purposes of a notice of levy “includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.” The Supreme Court held that a state was a “person,” stating:

“Though the definition of ‘person’ in 6332 does not mention States or any sovereign or political entity or their officers among those it ‘includes’ [footnote omitted], it is equally clear that it does not exclude them. This is made certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that ‘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.’ 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7701(b).”

Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112 (1959).

The court went on to hold that “the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation, i. e., the legislative environment, of 6332 make it plain that Congress intended to and did include States within the term 'person' as used in 6332.” 359 U.S. at 112.

But the result would be the same even without section 7701(c), because the Supreme Court has stated that:

“In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, ‘include’ is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.”
American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).

There are some cases that pre-date section 7701(c) in which the Supreme Court, addressing very different, non-tax statutes, might have found a different usage of "includes," and Hendrickson is undoubtedly taking quotations out of context from those cases. (Probably Montello Salt, which I explain at in my FAQ.)

so thats the last 'piece of evidence' that PH could present to prove his theory. ergo his theory is dead wrong! he has no point of law to satnad on.

BINGO!!! We have a winner!