Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

[Quixote]

Res ipsa loquitur

Second, note that the word "common" (or its equivalent) is left out of the definition of "includes" and "including"; creating a sophomoric circular argument. The only "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are those that are the same as those used to provide the definition. In other words, the "things" used in the definition are what establish the class to which the "other things" must belong in order to be included under the doctrine of 7701(c), and, as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.

Cracking the Code, page 57

[Imalawman]

Res ipsa loquitur

Second, note that the word "common" (or its equivalent) is left out of the definition of "includes" and "including"; creating a sophomoric circular argument. The only "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are those that are the same as those used to provide the definition. In other words, the "things" used in the definition are what establish the class to which the "other things" must belong in order to be included under the doctrine of 7701(c), and, as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.

Cracking the Code, page 57

And somehow gets from that to "you don't have to pay taxes on your wages". Wow, what an idiot.

[Duke2Earl]

Was that in English? It seems like word salad to me.

[Red Cedar PM]

Res ipsa loquitur

Second, note that the word "common" (or its equivalent) is left out of the definition of "includes" and "including"; creating a sophomoric circular argument. The only "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are those that are the same as those used to provide the definition. In other words, the "things" used in the definition are what establish the class to which the "other things" must belong in order to be included under the doctrine of 7701(c), and, as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.

Cracking the Code, page 57

I think (please correct me if you disagree) what he is trying to say is that because the definition of includes in IRC 7701(c) does not include the term "common" that means that you can throw the common meaning of the term includes out the window... Which is a mind-numbingly stupid argument.

[Duke2Earl]

You may very well be right as to what he means but I can't tell for sure after wasting entirely too much of my time reading and rereading the paragraph. I though the gems that Congress foists off on us were hard to understand but this goes to another level entirely.

[ASITStands]

You may very well be right as to what he means but I can't tell for sure after wasting entirely too much of my time reading and rereading the paragraph. I though the gems that Congress foists off on us were hard to understand but this goes to another level entirely.

Maybe the "final solution" to the 'Cracking the Code' phenomenon is to employ Pete Hendrickson as a member of the House Committee that 'codifies' the Statutes at Large?

He certainly has the ambiguity down pat. Maybe better than the current code-writers.

[Thule]

Maybe the "final solution" to the 'Cracking the Code' phenomenon is to employ Pete Hendrickson as a member of the House Committee that 'codifies' the Statutes at Large?

How about a three-man comitee; Blowhard, Joe Haas and David-Wynn:Miller. That would be amusing.

[Paul]

This misinterpretation of "includes" is fairly common. They twist "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" to mean "otherwise within the meaning of the expressly included items." So when "state" is said to "include D.C.," it means that state can also mean anything else that is "within the meaning of D.C.," but nothing else. Same with saying "employee" includes government employees or corporate officers for purposes of withholding. The fact that this makes "includes" a term of exclusion, and it would be much easier to say that outright if that's what Congress wanted, doesn't bother most tps. It's actually rather intelligent of PH to try to justify that interpretation by saying that, if Congress meant 7701(c) to mean what most people think it means, they would have said "ordinarily within the meaning".

[The Operative]

I guess that Hendrickson doesn't realize that his interpretation of "includes" makes the definition within the IRC more obtuse than it already is. In other words, if the terms within the definition are supposed to establish a "class" of items that are subject to the definition, what defines the "class"? For example, it is obvious that an EPA employee is a government employee. However, what about those people that work at EPA offices but are contracted by Lockheed Martin? I am sure that there are several other examples that would also confuse Hendrickson's "class".

[ASITStands]

I guess that Hendrickson doesn't realize that his interpretation of "includes" makes the definition within the IRC more obtuse than it already is. In other words, if the terms within the definition are supposed to establish a "class" of items that are subject to the definition, what defines the "class"? For example, it is obvious that an EPA employee is a government employee. However, what about those people that work at EPA offices but are contracted by Lockheed Martin? I am sure that there are several other examples that would also confuse Hendrickson's "class".

Interesting observation! In the effort to distinguish the word, "includes," and thus, "clarify" the tax code, Hendrickson makes it more ambiguous by creating a new definition of "class."

[Quixote]

I guess that Hendrickson doesn't realize that his interpretation of "includes" makes the definition within the IRC more obtuse than it already is. In other words, if the terms within the definition are supposed to establish a "class" of items that are subject to the definition, what defines the "class"? For example, it is obvious that an EPA employee is a government employee. However, what about those people that work at EPA offices but are contracted by Lockheed Martin? I am sure that there are several other examples that would also confuse Hendrickson's "class".

Interesting observation! In the effort to distinguish the word, "includes," and thus, "clarify" the tax code, Hendrickson makes it more ambiguous by creating a new definition of "class."

Which is exactly what Hendrickson wants. Hendrickson needs ambiguity. That's why he avoids any discussion of IRC §61, which is crystal clear and blows his theory out of the water.