Hendrickson's witnesses in his criminal trial

[Quixote]

Where are the exceptions listed?

I believe Pete's position is that he is not included in the definition rather than an exception to it.

The wages of employees defined in 3401 are subject to income tax collection at the source
( subtitle C , chapter 24 ) . As far as the general income tax, the type of employee does not matter.

See 26USC3121(b)

26USC3121(b) is in chapter 21 and not applicable to chapter 24. 3401 definitions are exclusive to chapter 24.

You're right that the exceptions in Chapter 21 are not applicable to terms used in Chapter 24. Of course, "employer" is not defined in IRC §3401, although the common law definition of "employer" is expanded by IRC §3401(d).

[Noah]

You're right that the exceptions in Chapter 21 are not applicable to terms used in Chapter 24. Of course, "employer" is not defined in IRC §3401, although the common law definition of "employer" is expanded by IRC §3401(d).

What ???? Employer IS defined in IRC3401 (d). It is my understanding when a word is statutorily defined the common law definition goes out the window. It is what the statute says it is, no more , no less.

[Gregg]

Why ask question when you know what the answer is going to be, you know you're not going to like it and you are only bringing it up so you can argue (and look stupid in the process)

Pete's ONLY possible defense is that he is too dumb to understand the common language of the tax code. Of course, a lot of the tax code is not exactly common language, but in Pete's case, those parts are not relevant, and in fact to most Americans, most of the applicable tax code is not terribly complicated. Those are the parts Pete is saying he didn't understand. And after he quite loudly and often describes himself as one of the "World's Most Expert" on tax law, and brags how many years he's devoted to study of the tax code, that defense is on shaky ground at least. But the fact remains, unless he gets someone like Patrick Mooney or Weston White on the jury, he's pretty much toast.
See, Pete does not get to tell the jury what he thinks the law is, what he thinks "includes" means or anything like that, the Judge decides what the law is and on that, Pete is dead wrong on every point I've ever seen attributed to him. Pete can try to convince the jury he's stupid, but that's his only hope.

[Cpt Banjo]

It is my understanding when a word is statutorily defined the common law definition goes out the window. It is what the statute says it is, no more , no less.

You understand wrongly. Have you even read Section 7701(c) of the Code?

[Noah]

It is my understanding when a word is statutorily defined the common law definition goes out the window. It is what the statute says it is, no more , no less.

You understand wrongly. Have you even read Section 7701(c) of the Code?

Yes I read it. It permits limited expansion to include other employees and employers in the same class or type. I does not permit expansion to include other classes or types.

[Quixote]

You're right that the exceptions in Chapter 21 are not applicable to terms used in Chapter 24. Of course, "employer" is not defined in IRC §3401, although the common law definition of "employer" is expanded by IRC §3401(d).

What ???? Employer IS defined in IRC3401 (d).

No it is not. A definition explains the meaning of a word. The verbiage in 3401(d) does not explain what "employer" means. The word "include" can never be the sole verb in a definition, because it always allows for additional information.

I think you are confused because the title of IRC §3401 is "Definitions". But everyone knows that the section titles are not part of the statute and no inferences can be drawn from them.

[The Operative]

It is my understanding when a word is statutorily defined the common law definition goes out the window. It is what the statute says it is, no more , no less.

You understand wrongly. Have you even read Section 7701(c) of the Code?

Yes I read it. It permits limited expansion to include other employees and employers in the same class or type. I does not permit expansion to include other classes or types.

Nonsense, 7701(c) means exactly what it says, not your silly limitation on it.

[LPC]

It is my understanding when a word is statutorily defined the common law definition goes out the window. It is what the statute says it is, no more , no less.

And your understanding is wrong.

A statutory definition can replace the usual meaning of a word, or it can expand on the meaning of a word, or it can restrict the meaning of a word.

The word "includes" is used to expand the meaning of a word, and not replace the meaning or restrict the meaning.

[LPC]

Pete's ONLY possible defense is that he is too dumb to understand the common language of the tax code.

Actually, it's worse than that.

Hendrickson must convince the jury that he does not understand the common and usual meaning of words **AND** that he does not understand the words of the Internal Revenue Code.

Specifically, he must convince the jury that he does not understand the word "includes" as defined in any dictionary, and he must convince the jury that he does not understand the word "includes" as defined by IRC section 7701(c).

In order to do that, he must also convince the jury that he did not understand all of the rulings by all of the courts on the meaning of "includes" as defined by IRC section 7701(c).

In other words, he will have to convince the jury that they are stupid.

My guess is that juries don't like to be told that they are stupid.

[LPC]

Have you even read Section 7701(c) of the Code?

Yes I read it. It permits limited expansion to include other employees and employers in the same class or type. I does not permit expansion to include other classes or types.

That's not what section 7701(c) says.

And it's not what section 3401(c) says.

And it's not relevant to what section 61(a)(1) says.

Otherwise, you're dead on.

[notorial dissent]

And, like the BSmeister, DEAD WRONG!!!!!!

I will disagree with LPC on one point here, it is not that Pete has to convince the jury that he is bone jarringly mind numbingly stupid, I am pretty sure they will figure that out after listening to him babble for more than 10 seconds. What he will have to do is convince them that they should care, or believe that someone who has claimed to be the world's foremost tax expert is so stupid that he can't comprehend two simple words that the rest of the universe understands with no problem at all, and I don't think he has a ghost of a chance of that.

[Noah]

What ???? Employer IS defined in IRC3401 (d).

No it is not. A definition explains the meaning of a word. The verbiage in 3401(d) does not explain what "employer" means. The word "include" can never be the sole verb in a definition, because it always allows for additional information.

I think you are confused because the title of IRC §3401 is "Definitions". But everyone knows that the section titles are not part of the statute and no inferences can be drawn from them.

Boy you had me going for a minute....I knew about titles not being part of the statute so I had to look again at IRC 3401(d) and I find that 3401(d) does explain the meaning of employer.

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

BUT...

IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee but rather states what it "includes".

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation

IRC 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

IRC 7701(c) would not apply to IRC 3401(c) since IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee.

Now boys and girls what is wrong with this post ? Thanks for the butt kicking on my previous ones. I join with all of you wishing Pete the best

LPC...61(a)(1) is a bite of a whole different candy bar....

[notorial dissent]

Amazing, he can quote the material and still can't comprehend it.

[Gregg]

Amazing, he can quote the material and still can't comprehend it.

Some people are born stupid, but some people have to really work at it.

[Imalawman]

So, Noah, if I say that for purposes of this cookbook, a Cake recipe will include eggs. Does that mean that there are only eggs in the cake? That only "egg-like" substances are included? So flour and sugar would not be included?

Sometimes tax law can be confusing, but you have to step back ask, "does that make any sense"? Most of the time if it doesn't make sense you need to go back to work and figure out what the statute is intended to accomplish.

For instance, Noah, there was a time where there was confusion over whether you could withhold out of government workers salaries and whether the salaries were even subject to tax. So, as the withholding statutes developed, they decided to make sure that everyone understood that government workers were to be included as employees for purposes of withholding. Now I don't think there's any need for the language, but it is not worth the time of congress to change it.

Further, if the term employee was meant only to apply to public sector workers, why are there exemptions in the statute for private sector employees? If all private sector workers are exempted by definition, why would there be a need to specifically exclude certain ones?

For you to be correct, you also have to believe in massive cover-up by every attorney, every payroll company, everyone in congress, and everyone in the IRS. Its not like this is some hidden tax provision, it is really the fundamental element of a tax on the majority of the working public. Prior to withholding, only a very select few paid taxes (note that all were subject to it, but exclusions and exemptions made it so that only the top 8-10% earners actually paid any taxes). The problem was that the common laborer would not have 20-30% of their wages saved up at the end of the year. During WWII, they initiated the withholding system because the Gov't needed to tax the majority of working Americans. Of course, the treasury really liked the withholding system so it stuck around. (like it or not) During this whole time, everyone was subject to withholding so it does not make any sense that they would later restrict it just to corporate officers and government workers. Rather, it makes more sense that they wanted to be clear that every type of employee was covered - even gov't workers and corp. officers.

[The Operative]

What ???? Employer IS defined in IRC3401 (d).

No it is not. A definition explains the meaning of a word. The verbiage in 3401(d) does not explain what "employer" means. The word "include" can never be the sole verb in a definition, because it always allows for additional information.

I think you are confused because the title of IRC §3401 is "Definitions". But everyone knows that the section titles are not part of the statute and no inferences can be drawn from them.

Boy you had me going for a minute....I knew about titles not being part of the statute so I had to look again at IRC 3401(d) and I find that 3401(d) does explain the meaning of employer.

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

BUT...

IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee but rather states what it "includes".

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation

IRC 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

IRC 7701(c) would not apply to IRC 3401(c) since IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee.

Now boys and girls what is wrong with this post ? Thanks for the butt kicking on my previous ones. I join with all of you wishing Pete the best

LPC...61(a)(1) is a bite of a whole different candy bar....

What is wrong with the post is that you are still putting limitations on the meaning of the text that simply are not there.

Whether or not 26 USC §7701(c) applies to 26 USC §3401(c) is irrelevant. The simple fact is that the word, "includes" is not a limiting term. If I state that the set of keys on my key ring includes my house keys, does that mean that my car keys are not on that key ring? No, it does not. However, the statement does mean that your keys are not on my key ring, because that would be outside the normal accepted meaning of "my key ring".

For another example, if I say that New England includes Rhode Island and Maine, does that mean that New Hampshire is not a part of New England? No, it does not. The generally accepted meaning of New England is that the area of New England consists of the states of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. However, my original statement does exclude New York from New England, because New York is not one of the states normally considered to be within the area of New England.

What this all means is that within the Title 26 of the U.S. Code, the term "employee" means the normally accepted meaning of the term and certain other positions are listed to make it abundantly clear that those other positions are also considered to be employees. Exceptions are used to identify positions where a person or some other entity is not considered to be an employee under the code, even if they fit the normal meaning of the term.

Pete was an employee. There is no getting around that fact. Even if he somehow was not an employee, he would then be considered an independent contractor and he would still be liable for income taxes.

[Quixote]

What ???? Employer IS defined in IRC3401 (d).

No it is not. A definition explains the meaning of a word. The verbiage in 3401(d) does not explain what "employer" means. The word "include" can never be the sole verb in a definition, because it always allows for additional information.

I think you are confused because the title of IRC §3401 is "Definitions". But everyone knows that the section titles are not part of the statute and no inferences can be drawn from them.

Boy you had me going for a minute....I knew about titles not being part of the statute so I had to look again at IRC 3401(d) and I find that 3401(d) does explain the meaning of employer.


(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

BUT...

IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee but rather states what it "includes".

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation

IRC 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

IRC 7701(c) would not apply to IRC 3401(c) since IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee.

Now boys and girls what is wrong with this post ? Thanks for the butt kicking on my previous ones. I join with all of you wishing Pete the best

LPC...61(a)(1) is a bite of a whole different candy bar....

My apologies. I knew an expansion, rather than a definition, was in there somewhere.

I see nothing wrong with that post, with one possible exception. I hope Pete is convicted and learns the errors of his ways. That would be the best result for his followers. Some may even come to their senses and realize Pete is completely delusional. If that is what is best for Pete, I wish him all the best.

[Imalawman]

....

I think you are confused because the title of IRC §3401 is "Definitions". But everyone knows that the section titles are not part of the statute and no inferences can be drawn from them.

Boy you had me going for a minute....I knew about titles not being part of the statute so I had to look again at IRC 3401(d) and I find that 3401(d) does explain the meaning of employer.

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

BUT...

IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee but rather states what it "includes".

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation

IRC 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

IRC 7701(c) would not apply to IRC 3401(c) since IRC 3401(c) is not a definition of employee.

Now boys and girls what is wrong with this post ? Thanks for the butt kicking on my previous ones. I join with all of you wishing Pete the best

LPC...61(a)(1) is a bite of a whole different candy bar....

My apologies. I knew an expansion, rather than a definition, was in there somewhere.

I see nothing wrong with that post, with one possible exception. I hope Pete is convicted and learns the errors of his ways. That would be the best result for his followers. Some may even come to their senses and realize Pete is completely delusional. If that is what is best for Pete, I wish him all the best.

Well, I disagree with both of you. Are you nuts? Of course 3401 provides a definition of employee. Its just not the only definition or even a complete definition - but of course its a definition. What the hell else is it? Wowsers people, come on, use the ol' gray matter.

[Noah]

Well, I disagree with both of you. Are you nuts? Of course 3401 provides a definition of employee. Its just not the only definition or even a complete definition - but of course its a definition. What the hell else is it? Wowsers people, come on, use the ol' gray matter.

And just what is the definition of "employee" you find in 3401(c)? There is no definition in 3401(c) it just sets out exactly..."For the purposes of this chapter,.." who is included within the term employee.

For your review,
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

[The Operative]

Well, I disagree with both of you. Are you nuts? Of course 3401 provides a definition of employee. Its just not the only definition or even a complete definition - but of course its a definition. What the hell else is it? Wowsers people, come on, use the ol' gray matter.

And just what is the definition of "employee" you find in 3401(c)? There is no definition in 3401(c) it just sets out exactly..."For the purposes of this chapter,.." who is included within the term employee.

For your review,
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

That does not mean that it is limited to the positions that are listed. What it does mean is that the ordinary meaning of the term employee is expanded to also contain the listed positions.

A person, like Pete Hendrickson, who mainly works under the direction of another at a company or business, is an employee and his or her pay is typically subject to the withholding requirements of the law.