Posted on 07/07/2012 7:39:49 AM PDT by Talisker
For instance, it seems to be established that the word "includes" is not necessarily exclusive but in fact can be used to add new members to a set that had been established elsewhere. That's what's happening in the section of the law that states that a "person" includes corporations and agents of corporations. They were adding agents of corporations to the definition of "person" which already included individuals, i.e. people.
The reason they did this was to keep the people responsible for paying a corporation's taxes from claiming that the responsibility to pay them was solely that of the corporation itself, which obviously can't pay its taxes since it's a legal fiction and not a person. By adding corporate officers to the definition of person, they made them responsible for paying the corporation's taxes. After all, somebody has to be. The government can't hold the piece of the paper with the corporate charter printed on it responsible. It's got to be a person. So to me this seems pretty sensible.
For instance, it seems to be established that the word "includes" is not necessarily exclusive but in fact can be used to add new members to a set that had been established elsewhere. That's what's happening in the section of the law that states that a "person" includes corporations and agents of corporations. They were adding agents of corporations to the definition of "person" which already included individuals, i.e. people.
The reason they did this was to keep the people responsible for paying a corporation's taxes from claiming that the responsibility to pay them was solely that of the corporation itself, which obviously can't pay its taxes since it's a legal fiction and not a person. By adding corporate officers to the definition of person, they made them responsible for paying the corporation's taxes. After all, somebody has to be. The government can't hold the piece of the paper with the corporate charter printed on it responsible. It's got to be a person. So to me this seems pretty sensible.
None of your cited cases or referenced case law (or website) includes or invokes any of the three limiting statutes of my essay, specifically §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26. Nor do they compare them.
As a result, the government is allowed in those cases to theorize and argue the meaning of "corporation" or any other included incorporated term, such as "person" or "individual." And, without the above specific statutory limitations of these terms being cited by the defense, the government's definitions are allowed to prevail by the court.
In addition, the defense lawyers in these cases were either incompetent or (more likely) sold out. And yeah, I know that means a LOT of sold out lawyers. But remember, this is a business, and lawyers are in it (in the vast majority of cases) for the money - not justice. And now I'll prove that to you in chilling detail.
When you go to law school, you mainly learn about legal theory, construction and contracts. They form the basis for what passes as "law" these days. And so learning how to interpret a law or contract is, bottom line, what "makes" a lawyer. So legal construction is a VERY big deal, and ALL lawyers learn it until they have it dripping out of their ears.
One of the fundamental rules of legal construction is based on the idea that you cannot have duplication in law. Two different things cannot address the same issue under the same conditions, otherwise there is no possibility of resolution, of decision. So when two things seem different - then they aren't. Somewhere, somehow, they MUST be exactly the same. And this is such an important concept that it is actually an official rule of legal construction - because when lawyers and judges are deconstructing a law, they have to have a set of rules they can follow to figure out what it really means. They don't necessarily have to tell YOU what it means, but THEY have to know, so they know how to treat it properly.
The particular legal construction rule I'm referring to here is formally called "ejusdem generis" (of the same kind, class, or nature). Wikipedia gives a pretty decent explanation of this concept. It says: when general words follow specific words in a statute in which several items have been enumerated, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to the objects enumerated by the preceding specific words of the statute. Ejusdem generis saves the legislature from having to spell out in advance every contingency to which the statute could apply. For example, in a statute granting a department of conservation the authority to sell "gravel, sand, earth or other material," a court held that "other material" could only be interpreted to include materials of the same general type and did not include commercial timber (Sierra Club v. Kenney, 88 Ill. 2d 110, 57 Ill. Dec. 851, 429 N.E.2d 1214 [1981]). In the opposite situation, where specific words follow general ones, ejusdem generis is also applied; again, the general term embraces only things that are similar to those specifically enumerated.
Therefore under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, a list which includes "person, individual, corporation, partnership" MUST all have "similiar natures." Well, the fundamental difference between a free, non-corporate human being, and a corporation, is that the latter has Constitutionally-acknowledged God-given rights, and the latter ONLY has State granted privileges and NO God-given rights at ANY time. Therefore, under ejusdem generis, the terms "person" and "individual" MUST be equivalent to "corporation" under the law.
People who lost this argument to the court - never made it. Their lawyers never brought it up - and their lawyers were trained in it. That's sabotage.
And that's also why §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26 EXIST - because human beings MUST be made into corporate "capacities," and those statutes describe how that is done - and it's done in a very limited way, specifically: 1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
Now you might point out that Courts regularly refer to corporations as having "rights." This is something that should be banned by specific statute. Because of course they cannot have reall rights, God-given rights. It's impossible by definition. But the world of corporate law has it's own rules, and one of those rules is that those "accreditted in the field" are presumed to recognize "terms of art" when they see them, by virtue of their accredited knowledge. In other words, a lawyer is presumed to know that corporations cannot have God-given rights. So when judges refer to "corporate rights," they are making a "term of art" that means "corporate privileges" that those "accredited in the field" are "presumed to understand."
But why go through such a tortuous process? Easy - to confuse the word "rights" to the UNaccredited, NONlawyer. As a result the public thinks corporations can have rights. And as a result of THAT, when they see a list that says "person, individual, corporation, partnership" it never occurse to them that there is an apparent contradiction in the list. In fact, they come to the EXACTLY WRONG CONCLUSION that all of those entities HAVE rights - instead of realizing that NONE of them do.
Twisted? Arcane? Diabilocal? Paranoid? Yep.
BUT - it IS the real world. It's what lawyers actually, in fact, DO. And sorting through all of this is what you PAY them to do for you. Hopefully, their doing it on your behalf. But obviously they don't always - especially in tax cases.
Now given all of that, let's address your interpretation of "includes." When you read that the term "is not necessarily exclusive but in fact can be used to add new members to a set that had been established elsewhere" - do you see that it is not a matter of "exclusive" in the number of items, but in KIND? It CANNOT be changed in KIND. You can, for example, add many more kinds of corporations, because they all are subject to positive corporate law, and none of them have any "negative" or "natural" rights outside of the law. But you CANNOT add a non-corporate human being, because that would violate ejusdem generis. On the other hand, if you are arguing against a defendant who knows nothing of this, and associates the terms "person" and "individual" with their normal, non-legal corporate definitions, then you can APPEAR to be adding UNALIKE things to the list - and get no complaints or bjections, because your victim doesn't know enough to complain.
And under positive corporate law, if a complaint is not made, then the actual facts that aren't mentioned - don't have to be considered.
And that's how it's done.
For instance, there's the claim that the word "includes" can only serve to exclude unlisted items. Granted there is some ambiguity and some art when it comes to that word, and that its legal meaning has shifted over the last century or so. But apparently the writers of Title 26 realized this, because in section 7701, the definitions section, they explicitly state that "includes" and "including" are not used in their exclusionary sense but in their so-called enlarging sense. Given this, the three statutes you've focused on do not exclude individuals from the definition of "person". Instead they merely add corporate officers to the definition of "person" -- for the sensible reason that some human being has to be responsible for paying a corporation's taxes.
When it comes to ejusdem generis, you don't have to go beyond the Wiki page to see that it doesn't force the word "person" to mean "corporation" just because they appear in the same list. According to Wiki, ejusdem generis is a rule for interpreting enumerations of the form "specific, specific, specific, general", where the general term is used to catch items not listed but that possess the same nature as the specific items. The catch is that none of the lists you focus on, like the one after the "includes" in the definition of "person" in 7701, have this form. If they don't have this form then the rule doesn't apply. It's just a parsing convention anyway, not some means of establishing cosmic equivalence.
Speaking of 7701 and the definition of "person", something I notice is that they used the verb "means" in addition to "includes". "Means" is a precise word with none of the ambiguity that plagues "includes". I have to guess that the writers used it for a reason, namely to establish direct interchangability between "person" and "individual". What this means is that whenever the word "person" appears in Title 26, it cannot not include individual in its meaning (unless "otherwise distinctly expressed").
I’ll say it again: NO ONE on the internet is citing ANY of the three limiting statutes of my essay, specifically §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26 - nor do they COMPARE them with each other. That LACK of knowledge anywhere else is not "credibility," and it's not "debunking," it's proof that they are in no way "making my same argument." No one is making my argument because no one is drawing attention to these three statutes AT ALL. Oh I'm sorry, ONE person is (as I pointed out) - the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. But he's not "on the internet," so he doesn't count.
For instance, there's the claim that the word "includes" can only serve to exclude unlisted items. Granted there is some ambiguity and some art when it comes to that word, and that its legal meaning has shifted over the last century or so. But apparently the writers of Title 26 realized this, because in section 7701, the definitions section, they explicitly state that "includes" and "including" are not used in their exclusionary sense but in their so-called enlarging sense. Given this, the three statutes you've focused on do not exclude individuals from the definition of "person". Instead they merely add corporate officers to the definition of "person" -- for the sensible reason that some human being has to be responsible for paying a corporation's taxes.
And it are those human beings who are responsible for paying a corporation's taxes that are specifically identified in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), along with the corporations themselves, as the ONLY ones liable to enforcement by Title 26. Per those statutes themselves, NO ONE ELSE can have Title 26 ENFORCED against them. And Title 26 itself starts out by stating that taxes are IMPOSED. Imposition MEANS enforcement. So without enforcement, there can be no imposition, and without imposition, there can be no tax, because tax, by Title 26 definition, is imposed. There is nowhere else to go with this - Title 26 declares its meaning and limits right there.
And from a construction point of view, the “enlarging” sense is EXACTLY what I described in my post #142 above, specifically when I wrote “do you see that it is not a matter of "exclusive" in the number of items, but in KIND? It CANNOT be changed in KIND. You can, for example, add many more kinds of corporations, because they all are subject to positive corporate law, and none of them have any "negative" or "natural" rights outside of the law. But you CANNOT add a non-corporate human being, because that would violate ejusdem generis.” There is nothing unclear about that statement, nothing left out, and nothing that violates the structure of § 7701. And finally, “person” IS corporate. That’s WHY “they” can “merely” add corporate terms to the the meaning of the word “person,” because PERSON IS CORPORATE.
When it comes to ejusdem generis, you don't have to go beyond the Wiki page to see that it doesn't force the word "person" to mean "corporation" just because they appear in the same list. According to Wiki, ejusdem generis is a rule for interpreting enumerations of the form "specific, specific, specific, general", where the general term is used to catch items not listed but that possess the same nature as the specific items. The catch is that none of the lists you focus on, like the one after the "includes" in the definition of "person" in 7701, have this form. If they don't have this form then the rule doesn't apply. It's just a parsing convention anyway, not some means of establishing cosmic equivalence.
They are substantively listed as specific terms of applicability, therefore the rule applies. In addition you “forgot” to include that your precious Wiki (wouldn’t want to actually look up a law book, would you?) ALSO specified that DIRECTION IS IRRELEVENT, specifically “In the opposite situation, where specific words follow general ones, ejusdem generis is also applied; again, the general term embraces only things that are similar to those specifically enumerated.” And oh yeah, I quoted THAT, too. Not to mention that § 7701 references the general definition of the terms while §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) are specific definitions within those general terms, as they state themselves. Whoops, I guess you forgot that.
And as for you claiming that these rules of construction are “just a parsing convention,” screw you for the rank insult to everyone’s intelligence - me, lawyers, readers of this page, and everyone else. Legal construction is the foundation of legal interpretation. It is binding and cannot be minimized in importance. Which of course you are well aware, because that’s why you said it’s “not some means of establishing cosmic equivalence” instead of denying it’s LEGAL equivalence and effect - because you know it does. After all, without having spent countless hours studying legal construction you never would have graduated from law school, let alone passed the bar and become a lawyer.
Oh please, of course you are. You wear it like a little kid wears a mask on Halloween, convinced no one knows it's him. And they wouldn't send anyone less to try to crap on this thread hard enough to scare everyone away from it.
Speaking of 7701 and the definition of "person", something I notice is that they used the verb "means" in addition to "includes". "Means" is a precise word with none of the ambiguity that plagues "includes". I have to guess that the writers used it for a reason, namely to establish direct interchangability between "person" and "individual". What this means is that whenever the word "person" appears in Title 26, it cannot not include individual in its meaning (unless "otherwise distinctly expressed”).
Too bad that after looking up the precise wording of § 7701, you couldn’t quote the exact passage and instead we have to rely on your interpretation of it. Which is not exactly helpful, since you so enjoy NLP tactics like reversing yourself in plain sight. How did you put it? "Means" is a precise word with none of the ambiguity that plagues "includes" ...to establish direct interchangability between "person" and "individual". ...the word "person"...cannot not include individual in its meaning... WTF? What exactly is “direct interchangability of meaning” BUT that the meanings of the two are the SAME? LOL!
And then you had to top yourself by stating (unless "otherwise distinctly expressed”). Well let’s see, the entire POINT I’ve been making is that §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) ARE OTHER DISTINCT EXPRESSIONS. And they do NOT contradict the identification of the meanings of “person” and “individual” stated by § 7701 - they CLARIFY and SPECIFY and NARROW the meanings of those IDENTICAL CORPORATE TERMS.
In case you haven’t guessed, sport, I’m not guessing about any of this. Nor am I confused about how it all goes together. But you have gone too far with your word games and deliberate obfuscations. Your knowledge of the actual law slips out without you recognizing it. No one, for example, would say For instance, there's the claim that the word "includes" can only serve to exclude unlisted items., and then go on to say ”Granted there is some ambiguity and some art when it comes to that word, and that its legal meaning has shifted over the last century or so.” Why? Because the latter is a statement that can only come from someone well versed in legal history, and the shift away from common law to a PRESUMPTION of administrative law “over the last century or so.”
Yet someone that knowledgeable would never deny that “includes” serves to exclude unlisted items. Oh but you DIDN’T really, did you? You ACTUALLY said, “ONLY serve to exclude.” How administratively lawyerly of you, because of course, “includes” can be manipulated by ANY modifying phrase that doesn’t outright contradict it. But then, only a lawyer or one trained in law would be so OCD careful - but those same types of people also know that the substantive PURPOSE of the term “includes” IS, generally and unless specifically modified, TO “exclude unlisted items.”
I’m done with your stupid lawyer tricks. For anyone else reading this, go do research on legal construction yourself if you still have doubts, because this is a very important and fundamental lesson you MUST learn. For under positive administrative law, it doesn’t exist unless it says it exists. From that you can carefully work your way through legal construction by simply asking yourself, “is it saying it, or am I presuming it says it”? Because if you have to presume it - it’s NOT saying it. And if it’s not saying it, it DOESN’T exist. And that’s the BIG SECRET that lawyers will talk rings around to get you so tired you give up trying to understand - when actually all you’re tired of is their bullshit.
Just wow. I must say I’m flattered by your mistaken surmise that I’m sort sort of legal mastermind sent here to debunk your postings. The reality is that I’m an electrical engineer with a legal background consisting precisely of watching Matlock reruns, googling around for an hour or so yesterday after reading your latest post, and reading the Wiki page on ejusdem generis that you posted. Also I looked at some of the pages like the one I posted earlier that argue against the “tax protester” position which you espouse.
The first thing I will say here is that I am fully convinced by what I would call second order evidence that your position is unfounded. It’s sort of like global warming. I knew global warming was a crock as soon as I started looking at the policy ramifications and realizing that it was a leftist’s wet dream. I don’t even have to drill into the science to know it’s totally contrived BS.
Same way with this tax denier stuff. I don’t have to get knee deep into the legal technicalities to know it doesn’t hold water. It requires too much collusion, too much denial of the obvious, too much silence from good people to be real.
Your position founders on too much basic stuff. Especially the the definition of “includes” and the ejusdem generis thing. I can see with my own eyes that you and a hundred bloggers on the internet are misinterpreting these. I despise Obamacare but this angle of attack will yield precisely nothing.
>> I’m an electrical engineer
A Double-E is a noble accomplishment. But the generalizations that follow in your post are non-complementary.
What do you mean by that exactly? I certainly don’t claim to be an expert in this area. Nevertheless my gut, aided by a couple hours of internet googling, tells me that this tax denier stuff is a crock.
>> I certainly don’t claim to be an expert in this area.
That’s understandable — we can’t expect to be experts in every field of study.
So how is the EE relevant to your inexperience on this topic?
Like I said, the EE has virtually no relevance on this topic. Nevertheless I do think I’m a reasonably clear thinker and can look at stuff and judge it on its merits. And when I look at this tax denier stuff, it comes up short. After a few hours of googling the various tax denier websites yesterday evening, I can say that I am quite convinced that they’re dealing in basic conspiracy theory nonsense. I am open to arguments in the other direction but from what I’m seeing this line of attack is a total nonstarter.
The fundamental assertion backing this entire piece is the same assertion made by tax protesters - that income tax is voluntary and that if you don’t own a corporation then the income tax doesn’t apply to you.
lol if it weren’t so dumb.
This is not a tax protestor argument. This is a legal analysis. You will note that I tell people NOT to use this against the IRS.
But since YOU brought up the concept of "tax protestors," do you even know what they ARE? Tax protestors are people who enter federal court and in some way, by simply being there, or responding, or whatever else, displays to the court an agreement or acceptance of tax jurisdiction over them.
Not by what they say, but simply by showing up and fighting back. And, of course, the court doesn't tell them this.
So what happens is that when people use defenses that show that tax laws don't apply to them - but do so within a court hearing their tax issue - they are deemed as being "frivolous." Because the court is basically saying, "look, this is a tax court. You don't come to a tax court to tell us that you don't have to come to a tax court, because that's contradictory. But since you're doing that, you're wasting the court's time with frivolity. And so we're going to label you a tax protestor, and deny your defense simply because you made it here."
And this is, of course not explained to the victims, and they have no idea why they lose. Because it's corporate administrative procedure, and they don't know what that is, and corporate administrative lawyers aren't going to tell them, and the government doesn't want thm to know.
And no, I don't know either except for a few details. Like the fact that you have to fight outside of the court, and that you can only enter the court under what is called a "special appearance" where you don't accept the jurisdiction of the court over you. But besides those generalities, courts excel in creating and demanding procedural details so vast, they make the Tower of Babel look simple. So that's why I tell people not to use this in court.
Also, no one has ever used this argument in court (that I know if), because until Justic Roberts made his decision, there was nowhere I know of where all of this information came together in one place - especially the three mutually reinforcing statutes I cite in this analysis that severely restricts the assessment and collection powers of the taxing agencies to §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26.
So you see, whatever you mean by "tax protestor argument" does not, and cannot, apply to anything in this analysis. But you have, through your bumper-sticker level of mocking, given me an opportunity to explain these important distinctions, and for that I thank you.
They lose treasure and/or freedom.
It is folly to make the claim that 95% of individuals do not have to file or pay income tax. Folly is a nice way to say it.
Yes, I do know a lot about tax protesters. It was the article that brought up the same argument used by people [most of whom are in jail] to try to invent a reason that they don't have to pay. I only pointed it out.
But yes, the article DOES rely on the bumper sticker tax protestor argument. It's the very first argument made.
So it's a load of crap.
Your belligerence is a load of crap. You complete avoid substantive argument, you claim baseless knowledge for yourself, you spread bumper-sticker FUD, and you come here solely to crap on this thread with zero ability or even attmpts to refute any of it.
Not to mention that the actual subject of this analysis is not the crap you brought up, but rather a historical ruling by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who himself invoked "two powers" and said that confusing them would be massively dangerous because it would invoke wrongful police powers. Sounds like a fairly realistic issue to me, that apparently - and astonishingly - seems to grant the government the power to force people to purchase a product under the income tax laws. YET, which the Chief Justice says has to be carefully read so that a serious mistake in interpretation is not made. Somehow I, and a few hundred million other people don't see this subject as "folly." That YOU find it amusing, however, is obvious.
Oh yeah, and when you say "95% of individuals," you of course knew that the term "individual" is stated in Title 26 as one of the types of corporate persons who is potentially subject to the income tax. So whether 95% of those kinds of individuals also fulfill the requirements of §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), I don't know. That's a statistical issue for which you haven't presented any reference data. But then again that's not what the analysis is about, now is it? But then, you knew that, too.
Your position is what is a load of crap - a deliberate, knowledgeable and malicious load of crap, designd to confuse, obfuscate, misdirect and clutter the issue with irrelevencies.
Gee, what a frickin' surprise that someone like you showed up. I'm shocked, I tellya - just shocked.
If you want to be heard with less ridicule, drop the bs about 95% of individuals aren't subject to the income tax. It's foolish. It tarnishes anything else it touches.
I came to this thread after reading dozens of related threads. What a disappointment.
I am not here to make you feel special so i won't tell you this argument - as long as it includes the tp crap - is anything but stupid. It is. I won't be back.
Dozens of discussions on §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f)?
LOL.
Begone, shill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
