Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S

It is very critical to the tax professionals and financial experts that
they keep you from learning, knowing, and THINKING about the points I am
posting.

It is critical because IF my logic is correct, THEN they're out of jobs.
IF my logic is correct, THEN they are wrong. IF my logic is correct,
THEN allegations of 'government' and IRS misapplication of the law, and
supportive fraud of the same, are true.

IF my logic is actually indeed correct, THEN it becomes even MORE
critical to the tax professionals and financial experts that I be made
to APPEAR wrong in your eyes.


The expert who's post I am replying to is intent upon confusing you.
The post I am replying to will follow below, untouched, for you to
compare his words and logic against mine.

At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:

Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"

-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
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 perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.

The 7343 statutory definition of the term "PERSON" is written in the
form of:

Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4. Thus, Statutory "P" (encloses,
comprises, consists of, contains, embodies, embraces, encompasses,
incorporates, or takes in) I1, I2, I3 or I4. (See the original post
regarding the etymology and synonyms for the word includes.)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada


Please NOTE the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.

For clarity and examination, the 7343 definition of "PERSON" will be
shown as "P"; the dictionary definition will be shown as "D", and a
third definition to appear below will be shown as "L".

Statutory "P" does not equal "D". The two items are NOT the same until
made so by a law (statute).


At issue, is that:

IF items I1, I2, I3 and I4 are already within the dictionary definition
of "person" ("D") and one starts with the dictionary definition of
"person" (by assuming Statutory "P" = "D") THEN there is no purpose for
the statute.

When items I1, I2, I3 and I4 are already within the dictionary
definition "D", and when then attempting to find the meaning of
Statutory "P":

Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") and there is
no purpose for the statute.

Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") and
the statute does another function.

In order for the experts to not be wrong, and in order for starting with
the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") to be a correct starting
point, THEN the experts MUST PROVE that items I1, I2, I3 and I4 are NOT
already within the dictionary definition of "person" ("D"). Here is the
best shot posted in that attempt:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/6d6d353d7b678633


Several of the experts have posted their belief that: One starts with
the dictionary definition of "person" ("D") and then adds other
non-dictionary persons. In algebraic formula, Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 +
I2 + I3 + I4.

One expert stated this belief very succinctly:

7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.

In the instant case, referring to statute 7343 shown above, the issue is
whether an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of "person".

As succinctly stated by our other expert:

So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.

My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."

Clearly, an officer, member, or employee qualify under that dictionary
definition. In other words, 'They are one.'

The result is that section 7343 has no purpose. The experts are wrong.





The post I am replying to is an attempt to undo the simple logic shown
above.

I have extracted the following from the post I am replying to, shown in
its entirety below:

Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.

Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute
does another function.


False choice, numbnut.
The correct choice is to start with the statute and consult a
dictionary if necessary.

It is imperative for this expert to NOT state that one starts with
the dictionary definition. Since no one can prove that an officer,
member, or employee is not within the dictionary definition of "person",
no one can realistically refute the logic that starting with the
dictionary definition makes statute 7343 have no purpose.

IF there is no purpose for statute 7343, THEN the experts are wrong.

The sole purpose of the expert's statement cited above is to attempt
(via gobbledegook) to undo the damage caused by the logic that follows
when one starts with the dictionary definition of "person".


On the same issue, I have also extracted the following from the post
shown below:

According to your words:

"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."

If you "consult a dictionary for the term's meaning", then you are
"STARTING WITH" the dictionary definition and then adding that which
is not within the dictionary definition.


No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute, and consult a dictionary if
necessary.


Please notice that by stating:

"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."

Our expert has set up an EITHER / OR situation:

EITHER:
You use the meaning alleged to be stated elsewhere in law.

OR:
You consult a dictionary when there is no meaning stated elsewhere in law.

I addressed the OR situation, I addressed when the meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law.

His response:

No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute,
and consult a dictionary if necessary.

By his own words, consulting a dictionary is necessary when "that
meaning [of "PERSON" aka Statutory "P"] is not stated elsewhere in law".

Again, it should be clear to the reader that it is imperative for this
expert to NOT state that one starts with the dictionary definition
because what logically follows is to make the statute have no purpose.


Now if I "START WITH the statute" as this expert asserts, the following
happens:

I start by reading the statute and I find that Statutory "P" includes
I1, I2, I3 and I4.

The rule of statutory construction, "Expressio unius est exclusio
alterius", states:

"A principle in statutory construction:
when one or more things of a class are
expressly mentioned others of the same
class are excluded."

Or:

The expression of one (specific) thing
is the exclusion of another.

The list of items included by the statutory definition contained in
section 7343 does NOT expressly mention the dictionary definition of
"person" ("D").

The list of items included (enclosed, comprised, consisting of,
contained, embodied, embraced, encompassed, incorporated, or taken in)
does NOT expressly mention the dictionary definition of "person" ("D").


Therefore, Statutory "P" means ONLY I1, I2, I3 or I4. Therefore, the
section 7343 Statutory "PERSON" means ONLY:

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 perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.

At this point, the person who's post I am replying to will typically
invoke section 7701(c). As will be shown, he can't invoke 7701(c)
without invoking the dictionary definition as the starting point.


So moving on to section 7701(c), I have again extracted from the post
shown below:

No, numbnut, 7701 does not say anything about "starts with". 7701
says not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term.


7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING
of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.

'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default, you
can consult a dictionary for the term's meaning.

My dictionary says a "definition" is "A statement of the meaning of a
word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry."

Section 7343 provides a STATUTORY DEFINITION for the purposes of chapter
75. Section 7343 provides "A statutory statement of the meaning of a
term, as in a dictionary entry."

Our expert stated:

"When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined."

So according to our expert, when Congress provides the statutory
DEFINITION of Statutory "P", Congress really hasn't provided the
statutory meaning of Statutory "P". Ignoring this problem with the
logic of his assertion and moving on:



As our expert stated:

No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute,
and consult a dictionary if necessary.

So according to our expert's assertion, I will start with the statute
written in the form of: Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4.

Our expert stated:

'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere.

Since we do not yet know the meaning stated elsewhere, let us call that
UNKNOWN meaning "U". According to our expert, the meaning of Statutory
"P" is UNKNOWN ("U") until we look elsewhere and find this meaning. In
other words, our expert has just asserted without proof, that:
Statutory "P" = "U".

Also according to our expert, statute 7343, written in the form of
'Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4', "merely EXPANDS the meaning
of" Statutory "P" by adding I1, I2, I3 and I4 to some alleged
pre-existing meaning to be found elsewhere. In other words, our expert
has just asserted that:
Statutory "P" = "U" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.


Our expert stated:

If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default,
you can consult a dictionary for
the term's meaning.

Our expert has just implied, without directly stating, that there is a
meaning given in some law (the meaning stated elsewhere) and that is the
meaning that is being expanded by the use of 'includes'. Let us call
this meaning, alleged to exist elsewhere in law, "L". In other words,
our expert has just asserted without proof, that:
Statutory "P" = "L". (You are to ignore that Statutory "P" IS a
statutory meaning stated in the law, according to our expert.)

So according to our expert, the STATUTORY DEFINITION written in the form
of 'Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4', "merely EXPANDS the
meaning of" Statutory "P" by adding I1, I2, I3 and I4 to some
pre-existing, meaning to be found elsewhere in the law. In other words,
our expert has just asserted that:
Statutory "P" = "L" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.

Repeating what our expert stated:

If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default,
you can consult a dictionary for
the term's meaning.

Let us call this dictionary meaning "D".

So according to our expert, when meaning "L" is not stated elsewhere in
law, then meaning "D" is to be used instead. So our expert has asserted
without proof, that when Statutory "P" does not = "L":
Then Statutory "P" = "D".

So according to our expert, the STATUTORY DEFINITION written in the form
of 'Statutory "P" includes I1, I2, I3 or I4', "merely EXPANDS the
meaning of" Statutory "P" by adding I1, I2, I3 and I4 to some
pre-existing, meaning to be found in the dictionary when it can not be
found elsewhere in law. In other words, our expert has just asserted that:
Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.

Our expert has set an EITHER / OR situation:

EITHER:
Statutory "P" = "L" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.

OR:
Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.

Our expert MUST make the OR situation go away, because as proven, when
you start with Statutory "P" = "D" and then add I1, I2, I3 or I4 which
have been proven to already be within the dictionary definition "D",
then the statute has no purpose.


Our expert has made a mistake in asserting you "can" consult a
dictionary for the meaning Statutory of "P'" when it's not stated
elsewhere in law. The use of "can" makes the stated assertion one that
"allows" you to look at a dictionary. The implication is that you are
not "required" to look at a dictionary so he can get away from the
logical results of starting with a dictionary.

IF there is no meaning "L" found elsewhere in law, and IF consulting the
dictionary is not required, THEN the only meaning that remains is where
we started, The statutory DEFINITION (meaning) of Statutory "P" given in
7343:
Statutory "P" = + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4

Statutory "P" = + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 because the ONLY meaning presently
known to be given in law is the meaning given in statute 7343:
Statutory "P" includes I1 + I2 + I3 + I4.


As the previous citations of our expert show, he is trying to stay away
from Statutory "P" = "D" + I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 because such a position
makes statute 7343 have no purpose.

This following extraction from the post below is the one where our
expert contradicts everything he says in the previous citations.


At issue is whether the following statutory definition encloses ONLY
the four entities listed per the rule of statutory construction "
expressio unius est exclusio alterius", per the rule of statutory
construction "ejusdem generis", and per the logic being presented in
the instant post.

IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = B and A is not A.
-ILLOGICAL


OR,

Whether the following statutory definition encloses the four entities
listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary
definition.

IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = A + B. -LOGICAL


Please notice the sleight of hand with the terms used. The "A" to the
left of the equal sign is the Statutory "P" that I have used above. The
"A" to the right of the equal sign is the Dictionary "D" that I have
used above.

With my paragraph stated just above, our expert will claim the A to the
right of the equal sign is the meaning stated elsewhere in law, or the
"L" that I have used above.


It just so happens that there is another meaning of "PERSON" in the law:

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS

-HEAD-
Sec. 7701. Definitions

-STATUTE-
(a) When used in this title, where not
otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof -
(1) Person
The term "person" shall be construed to mean
and include an individual, a trust, estate,
partnership, association, company or corporation.
(2) Partnership and partner
The term "partnership" includes a syndicate,
group, pool, joint venture, or other
unincorporated organization, through or by means
of which any business, financial operation, or
venture is carried on, and which is not, within
the meaning of this title, a trust or estate or
a corporation; and the term "partner" includes
a member in such a syndicate, group, pool,
joint venture, or organization.
(3) Corporation
The term "corporation" includes associations,
joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.

According to our expert, the above is what section 7343 adds to. Here
is section 7343 again:

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture
Provisions

-HEAD-
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"

-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter 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 perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.

Is an officer of a corporation a person?
Is an employee of a corporation a person?
Is a member of a partnership a person?
Is an employee of a partnership a person?

If our expert is right, then section 7343 HAS NO PURPOSE because the
four entities listed in section 7343 ARE ALREADY WITHIN the meaning
stated elsewhere in the law.

Either:
One starts with the meaning of "person" stated elsewhere in law and
there is no purpose for the statute.

Or:
One does not start with the the meaning of "person" stated elsewhere in
law and the statute does another function.

Clearly, whether starting with the dictionary meaning, or the meaning
stated elsewhere in law, section 7343 HAS NO PURPOSE because the
entities listed: "an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member
or employee of a partnership" ARE ALREADY WITHIN BOTH MEANINGS.

Therefore, the OR situation is the only one that is logical.



IF there is no purpose for the statute, THEN the experts are wrong. IF
the experts are wrong, THEN allegations of 'government' and IRS
misapplication of the law, and supportive fraud of the same, are true.
IF the IRS is misapplying the law, THEN some people are being tricked
into paying a tax they do not owe. As I said, it is even MORE important
that I be made to look wrong if I am indeed right.

(As Galileo found out, it's heresy to challenge authority. And the
"experts" of the church refused to look at the proof Galileo provided...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=galileo+church+telescope&btnG=Google+Search
http://littlurl.com/juxsn
Does this action seem familiar?)


nat wrote:


TaxDefier wrote:
It seems a review is in order. It seems the poster who's post I am
replying to has forgotten the issue he is trying to refute.

At issue is whether a Statutorily defined "PERSON" encloses a Dictionary
defined "person". Please note the upper and lower case I use to denote
the difference.

At issue is whether the following statutory definition encloses ONLY the
four entities listed per the rule of statutory construction "expressio
unius est exclusio alterius", per the rule of statutory construction
"ejusdem generis", and per the logic being presented in the instant post.


IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = B and A is not A. -ILLOGICAL


OR,

Whether the following statutory definition encloses the four entities
listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary definition.


IOW, if A = A and Term A includes B, then Term A = A + B. -LOGICAL



Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"

-STATUTE-
The term "person" as used in this chapter
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 perform the act in respect of which
the violation occurs.

My dictionary says a "person" is "A human being or an organization
with legal rights and duties."

Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary
definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts
with the dictionary definition.

The poster whose post I am answering actually agrees with me.

A statutory definition would not need
to specifically "include" objects that
are already within the dictionary
definition (ie., MEANING) of the term.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b52b0b65d48a3bb3


Correct. Things within the meaning of the term defined would not NEED to be included; however, the superfluous inclusion of certain things still does not deem to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined per 7701. IOW, A still = A.



It is very simple.

Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.

Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.


False choice, numbnut.
The correct choice is to start with the statute and consult a dictionary if necessary.



The logic that applies to section 7343 also applies to subsection 3401(c).


nat wrote:



TaxDefier wrote:

nat wrote:






Chapter 75, of which this definition applies,
imposes penalties.



Well, does the penalty apply to the corporation-a
person-, or does it apply to the officers of the corporation as well?




You appear to be attempting to say that officers of a corporation are not already within the dictionary definition of the word.



You assert that "one starts with the dictionary definition" [of person] then adds entities [officers of the corporation] not already within the dictionary definition. Here's that dictionary definition again:


No, numbnut, 7701 does not say anything about "starts with". 7701 says not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term.


7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING
of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.

'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default, you
can consult a dictionary for the term's meaning.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/7fc50d9daf1719fa

According to your words:

"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."

If you "consult a dictionary for the term's meaning", then you are
"STARTING WITH" the dictionary definition and then adding that which is
not within the dictionary definition.


No, numbnut, you START WITH the statute, and consult a dictionary if necessary.



So much for making an issue out of "starts with".

"Person" is "A human being or an organization with legal rights and duties."

If you start with the dictionary definition, then the officers of the corporation are already included.


No, numbnut, "officers of the corporation" are certainly within the meaning of "person", but a good lawyer might argue that the corporation is solely liable for the penalty since a corporation is a "person", so congress nixed this loophole with the definition.


Your words:

A statutory definition would not need
to specifically "include" objects that
are already within the dictionary
definition (ie., MEANING) of the term.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/b52b0b65d48a3bb3



If the officers of the corporation are already included, then the statute does NOT add them to the dictionary definition that you and others claim is the starting point.


So you would exclude the corporation? That totally ignores 7701.


The issue is: If you start with the dictionary definition, then there is
no purpose for section 7343.


What if the corporation has a policy to interfer with IRS investigations? Does the penalty apply to the corporation or the individuals?
No, numbnut, 7343 has a very real purpose to those who do not assume their conclusions as you have.




If the statute does NOT add the officers of the corporation to the dictionary definition, Then you have not disproved my statement previously posted:

The inevitable and absurd conclusion of the proposition (assertion) is that if the dictionary definition is the starting point of section 7343, then there is no need for the section 7343 statute.

7343 clarifies the possible confusion.



Your post attempts to increase confusion and hide the logic.


Are you going to penalize the corporation, its officers, or both?


It depends on whether you start with the dictionary definition or not.


Well then, follow the law so you start with the statute and consult a dictionary if necessary.



IF the starting point is the dictionary definition of "person" and IF the four entities included (enclosed) are already within the dictionary definition of "person", THEN there is NO purpose for 7343.



Context means everything, numbnut.
Whom do the penalties in Ch. 75 apply?- the corporation or the officers of the corporation? They are both persons.



The term "person" as used in this chapter 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 perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

Looks like it applies to an officer of a corporation.
Looks like it applies to an employee of a corporation.
Looks like it applies to a member of a partnership.
Looks like it applies to an employee of a partnership.

Looks like it applies to the four entities listed that are already within the dictionary definition of "person".


Does it apply to the corporation since it ain't listed? A corporation is a person and is not to be excluded according to 7701.


It depends on whether you start with the dictionary definition or not.


Start with the statute and quit making up law.




Since the four entities listed are already within the dictionary definition of "person", there is no need for this statute if one starts with the dictionary definition and then "includes" (encloses) entities not within the dictionary definition.

It is very simple.

Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for the statute.

Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does another function.


How about NOT EXCLUDING THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM which is the whole point of using 'includes/ing'?


And what is the meaning of the term?

Your words:

7701(c) states nothing about the MEANING
of terms other than INCLUDES(ING).
When 'includes(ing)' is used in a definition,
Congress is not giving MEANING to the term
defined. IOW, 'includes(ing)' does NOT = 'means'.

'Includes(ing)' merely EXPANDS the meaning
of a term whose meaning (definition) is stated
elsewhere. If that meaning is not stated
elsewhere in law, then, by default, you
can consult a dictionary for the term's meaning.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/7fc50d9daf1719fa

According to your words:

"If that meaning is not stated elsewhere
in law, then, by default, you can consult
a dictionary for the term's meaning."

If you "consult a dictionary for the term's meaning", then you are
"STARTING WITH" the dictionary definition and then adding that which is
not within the dictionary definition.


It is very simple.


Yeah' it is very simple. You start with the statute which says not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined, then consult a dictionary IF NECESSARY.


Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition and there is no purpose for
the statute.

Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition and the statute does
another function.

The logic that applies to section 7343 also applies to subsection 3401(c).



If only you could understand logic, numbnut.















.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S
    ... listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary definition. ... there is no need for this statute if one starts ... You appear to be attempting to say that officers of a corporation are not already within the dictionary definition of the word. ... not to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Hey pickle! try again
    ... having no meaning *outside* of that specific statute. ... I didn't say anything about the court accepting or recognizing a ... "non-statute specific definition of assault weapon". ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S
    ... listed AND also encloses the persons found in the dictionary definition. ... there is no need for this statute if one starts ... Things within the meaning of the term defined would not NEED to be included; however, the superfluous inclusion of certain things still does not deem to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined per 7701. ... You appear to be attempting to say that officers of a corporation are not already within the dictionary definition of the word. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Still looking for honest answers about 7701(c) from the players in this group
    ... please note that NONE of the players in this ... or persons the law acts upon when the law acts upon ... TERM DEFINED BY STATUTE. ... meaning: had to explain the term gridlock. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Hey pickle! try again
    ... justified ad hom)...if you're done trying to bullshit your way through ... and have no plans for spending the day snipping ... having no meaning *outside* of that specific statute. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading