Definitions

[The Observer]

Well, after three days of throwing the gauntlet down to Frankie to put up or shut up, I can only hear crickets in the background of this thread.

Please don't tell me that Frankie pulled a Sir Robin on us.

[eric]

These drive by attempts to baffle us are just a dime a dozen. They are on here for a few days and then disappear whereupon they exit back to their own little group of friends on some form of social media where they crow that they "owned" the legal eagles on quatloos because we couldn't answer their stupid question. Just take a look at the posts in word salad and they're all depressingly similar.
viewforum.php?f=53

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Care to continue and actually state your position, I think this was asked is one of the first few questions when you initially posted.

We already have determined his position and Frankie has confirmed it, one way or another, in his gibberish. Frankie is claiming that the definition of a trade/business is provided for in the IRC and that the statute, due to it using the word "includes", is saying that only businesses/trades that performs the functions of a public office can be taxed. He maintains that this definition supersedes any other definition of the word "includes" that we commonly use.

In order to maintain this illogical position Frankie has to ignore IRC 7701(c) which states that the word "includes" does not mean what Frankie wants it to mean - namely that it is not a definition of exclusion but inclusion.

When a person has to work very hard to ignore a definition that is provided for within the statute itself, you know you are dealing with a mindset of being intellectually dishonest on purpose.

So the real question to put to Frankie is for him to explain why IRC 7701(c) does not apply to IRC 7701(a), and why would legislators have bothered to include IRC 7701(c) as part of the statute if it doesn't apply? Frankie's answer should show us how far down the rabbit hole that he has gone.

IRC 7701(c) DOES apply to IRC 7701(a) .
Other things within the meaning of "trade or business" AREN'T Excluded from the DEFINITION of "trade or business" which INCLUDES " performance of functions of public office" .

Includes , when used in a DEFINITION , doesn't EXCLUDE other things within the meaning.
Seems you want it to EXCLUDE other things within the meaning .

[wserra]

Which is all but verbatim what Frankie wrote above. As I wrote then, it's either trivial or gibberish; Frankie's "logic" is too muddled to determine which.

I was therefore going to lock this thread, but thought I would give it one more try, and allow others who wish to do the same.

Frankie: in this thread, you've been shown actual law that says you're wrong - namely, that the definition of "trade or business" in § 7701(a)(26) does not exclude private business operations having nothing to do with the functions of public office. In response, all you can say is "Well, that's not what I think". No one who matters gives a shit what you think. If your next post doesn't include a specific proposition and legal support for it, we're done here.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

That's what I thought . You chickenshits can't support your "positions" on this matter .
And all you can do is threaten to "run & hide" by "locking this thread" , based on
your LIE that " I,ve been shown ACTUAL LAW that says I'm wrong " and your LIE about
what a judge said .
Namely , what a judge says is his opinion or interpretation of the Law in regards to the facts or arguments before him .
Claiming that's the "Actual Law" is stretching it beyond the case at hand .
The Actual Law is the ACTUAL LAW . And judges have been known to be overruled or overturned .
Secondly , the judge did NOT add " having nothing to do with the functions of public office" to the Non exclusion
of "private business operations" as YOU have added to your argument !
Your gibberish can only fool some of the people some of the time .
If the "normal" definition of "trade or business" was so all encompassing , why did they need to
insert a special definition of it ??
Is there something that someone might be doing in "performing the functions of a public office" that
would NOT be within the "normal" meaning of a "trade or business" ??
If I make a special DEFINITION of the term "dog" , and say the DEFINITION of "dog" includes weighing over 30 pounds ,
that Definition doesn't Exclude other things within the meaning of "dog" such as having 2 ears , a snout , legs , a tail ,
or anything that would otherwise match the meaning of "dog" , BUT for THIS Definition a "dog" MUST weigh over 30 pounds.
To be a "Dog" within the MEANING of My Law !
My "proposition" is simple . The LAW says what it means & means what it says .
The "legal support" for that is obvious and in every case of jurisprudence .
expressio unius est exclusio alterius

[morrand]

We accept the fact that to be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with continuity and regularity and that the taxpayer's primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit. A sporadic activity, a hobby, or an amusement diversion does not qualify.

Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35.

By implication, the Court thus held that an activity in which one engages with continuity and regularity for the primary purpose of income or profit is a trade or business. However, in Groetzinger,, the Court specifically declined to define the term more precisely, preferring examination of the facts of each case individually, as the term "trade or business" is so widely used within the IRC, in so many contexts, that "an attempt judicially to formulate and impose a test for all situations would be counterproductive, unhelpful, and even somewhat precarious for the overall integrity of the Code." Groetzinger at 36.

This appears to be as much definition as the law presently allows, though I have neither the skills, the tools, nor the inclination to Shepardize Groetzinger beyond quickly checking Google. Nevertheless, I hope this is helpful to the discussion.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Well, after three days of throwing the gauntlet down to Frankie to put up or shut up, I can only hear crickets in the background of this thread.

Please don't tell me that Frankie pulled a Sir Robin on us.

You chickenshits will soon be sounding like CRICKETS !
We'll all see won't we !!?

[wserra]

Locked. Mods, please note.