I think you see in the code as you become more familiar with it, it tends to be a sort of a fill in the holes type of code. They like to modify where they should probably just re-write or add a different subsection. I think when there became some talk about whether "officers" were "employees" (and this was an issue, but nothing very substantial came of it) the treasury probably asked congress to simply add that employee included officers of corporations and federal "officers". I think that it was a simple fix - mind you, not necessary. The IRS could have litigated the issue and then had judge made law on the issue, but instead it was precluded by being redundant, but more clear.SteveSy wrote:Fair enough....I unfortunately don't have one for you though. Maybe someone who has studied this theory and subscribes to it has a plausible idea. I'm merely playing devils advocate.Imalawman wrote:Why do "domestic services" need to be excluded if the term "includes" only means federally connected wages? Why bother excluding private sector items if ALL private sector items are already excluded?
Why does an employee of the United States need to be included if ALL employees are already included by default in the general term employee? It make no sense, and is clearly meaningless. Why is there an "also" at the end, isn't that exceptionally redundant?
Answer my question, then I'll answer yours. Fair?
That's all fine and good but none the less a federal employee is still an "employee" and specifically listing them in the included section doesn't make them any more of an "employee" lol. If anything it places in question the fact that just because you might be included in the general term employee doesn't necessarily mean you are an "employee" in the code. If so then United States employees wouldn't need to be included now would they.LPC wrote:The need for a specific authority for withholding from federal employees may have been added at the same time as the perceived need for specific authority for levy on federal employees.
For instance, if I ran a restaurant and I had a cake on the menu and I was asked by a few people if it had eggs in the recipe, I might add on the menu or wherever that "the cake recipe includes eggs". Now, most people would assume that a cake recipe would include eggs, but I'm just being clear to avoid any controversy. What would not make sense is if someone then said, "eww, your cake only has eggs, its just baked eggs, gross". He would be laughed out of the restaurant pretty quick. Of all of the TP theories, this one might be the most ludicrous to me. How you ever twist a word like includes to mean "only", I will never know. Trying to convince a jury that you seriously believed that to be the case is going to be tough.
); "The major leagues have 32 teams...." is abysmally disinformative; are there 32 in each or just 32 among some undisclosed number of leagues?
