Hendrickson's witnesses in his criminal trial

[Imalawman]

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.

uh...and that would be a definition. What is then, if its not defining the term employee? "sets out what the term means?" - i.e. definition. Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see the point here. I mean, when you say, "employee includes..." - its a definition. It might be incomplete, it might be limited, but its still a definition! Think....

[Quixote]

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.

I already explained what it is. It's an expansion of the meaning of the concept "employee" developed through several centuries of case law. Together with that case law, it gives you the definition of "employee" for Chapter 24, but by itself it's almost useless in making a determination as to whether a person is or is not an employee. That does not meet my definition of "definition".

[SteveSy]

"Includes" is commonly used to include only the things that are listed. Such as "This trip includes the following". when I previously discussed this here I even found it used that way on many government sites. So to pretend its obvious is just blowing smoke up someone's arse. It's obvious to you because you have already, prior to even discussing it, concluded everything you make is taxable income. Of course the judge will see it the same way and will prevent Pete from offering a valid "willfulness" defense. It's impossible to show you weren't willful when you can't even show what read to form your opinion. Pretty pathetic that the law we're all supposed to use to determine what we're supposed to do can't even be read to 12 jury members. If the frigging law would confuse the jury then it certainly is possible it could have confused the defendant, but we won't apply common sense that would grant the possibility that people might escape a boot on their neck. The system is totally f-ed beyond belief IMO. I don't buy in to Pete's argument but I know what happens to people like Pete an it isn't fair or just whatsoever.

Pete: I read the law and I determined I didn't owe. What I read was....

Judge: You are not allowed to tell the jury the law.

Pete: I'm not telling them the law I just telling them what I read to form my opinion.

Judge: I'm not going to let you confuse the jury on what the law means.

Pete: I'm not trying to confuse the jury, I'm just reading what the law says verbatim and what I personally concluded from that.

Judge: It's up to me to tell the jury what the law says.

Judge: Jury, the law says that if you're employee and you get paid you have earned wages which you must report.

Pete: Umm, that's not fair that's not what it says, here look!

Judge: I'm going to hold you in contempt, if you keep blurting out like that. Jury, I'm going to tell you to disregard what the defendant just stated. What I just stated is exactly what the law says.

Pete: How can I possibly defend myself without offering evidence that I wasn't willful?

[Quixote]

"Includes" is commonly used to include only the things that are listed. Such as "This trip includes the following". when I previously discussed this here I even found it used that way on many government sites.

Many words are commonly misused, even on government websites.

So to pretend its obvious is just blowing smoke up someone's arse.

Pete: I read the law and I determined I didn't owe. What I read was....

Judge: You are not allowed to tell the jury the law.

Pete: I'm not telling them the law I just telling them what I read to form my opinion.

Judge: I'm not going to let you confuse the jury on what the law means.

Pete: I'm not trying to confuse the jury, I'm just reading what the law says verbatim and what I personally concluded from that.

Judge: It's up to me to tell the jury what the law says.

Judge: Jury, the law says that if you're employee and you get paid you have earned wages which you must report.

Pete: Umm, that's not fair that's not what it says, here look!

Judge: I'm going to hold you in contempt, if you keep blurting out like that. Jury, I'm going to tell you to disregard what the defendant just stated. What I just stated is exactly what the law says.

Pete: How can I possibly defend myself without offering evidence that I wasn't willful?

Pete stated in Cracking the Code that he had made up his mind about the income tax before he ever read the IRC. Maybe the judge will let Pete read the part in Wealth of Nations in which Adam Smith wrote that all taxes on rights are capitations.

[Imalawman]

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.

I already explained what it is. It's an expansion of the meaning of the concept "employee" developed through several centuries of case law. Together with that case law, it gives you the definition of "employee" for Chapter 24, but by itself it's almost useless in making a determination as to whether a person is or is not an employee. That does not meet my definition of "definition".

I think that's nuts. Of course its a definition, and of course 7701(c) applies. However, that's just my opinion, but it just so happens to be the correct one.

[SteveSy]

Pete stated in Cracking the Code that he had made up his mind about the income tax before he ever read the IRC. Maybe the judge will let Pete read the part in Wealth of Nations in which Adam Smith wrote that all taxes on rights are capitations.

Fine then fry him on that but it's extremely annoying the courts are allowed to prevent someone from reading the very law upon which they formed their opinion in a willfulness case. It present an almost impossible defense for the defendant. Of course I realize that's intentional. If the law is not for public consumption so they know what the law is then prevent it from being publicly disseminated.

[Quixote]

Fine then fry him on that but it's extremely annoying the courts are allowed to prevent someone from reading the very law upon which they formed their opinion in a willfulness case.

In reality of course, no court has ever prevented someone from reading the statute upon which they formed their opinion in a willful failure to file or tax evasion case. No one ever accused of either crime formed their opinion by reading the statute. Pete is more up front about it than most, but no TP ever read the statute in order to determine what the law is. They all searched for portions of the statute to deliberately misread in order to rationalize a conclusion they had already reached.

[The Operative]

"Includes" is commonly used to include only the things that are listed. Such as "This trip includes the following". when I previously discussed this here I even found it used that way on many government sites. So to pretend its obvious is just blowing smoke up someone's arse. It's obvious to you because you have already, prior to even discussing it, concluded everything you make is taxable income.

No, the use and meaning of the word "includes" is obvious to those who have at least a tenuous grasp on the the English language. "Includes" is used to ensure certain items are contained within the grouping described by the term being defined. It does not, and never has, excluded anything from a term.

New England includes the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Does the use of the word "includes" in the previous sentence mean that New York is not a part of the area of New England? No. What excludes New York is the commonly understood meaning of the term, "New England". Consider the following sentence. New England includes the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. Is Rhode Island and Connecticut magically not a part of New England? No. Both sentences are correct in the usage of the term "includes", though the first sentence does list all six states within New England. The only thing that the term "includes" accomplishes is to ensure the terms following it are a part of a set. Those terms may or may not constitute the entire set. The entire set can only be determined utilizing the common meaning of the term (i.e. New England) that describes the set and adding in the other terms that are inserted into the set by the term "includes".

[Nikki]

WARNING: This product includes peanuts.

What are you looking at, peanut butter?

No, it's a Snickers bar.

But that simple reliance on the basics of English doesn't matter when you're out to have a tax law interpretation come out the way you want it.

When you decide, ahead of time, that you don't ahve to pay taxes because of some magic loophole, you do whatever it takes to fing the loophole.

Just look back at all the §861 adherants. They found the loophole. Now, they're looking at the wrong side of the keyhole.

Consider the absolutely simplest approach to the issue.

1 - The government wants to collect income taxes.

2 - The government bureaucrats are not brain dead.

3 - If any such loophole existed, they'd correct it in less than a single term of Congress.

4 - No such thing has happened.

Thus, no such loophole exists.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Consider the absolutely simplest approach to the issue.

1 - The government wants to collect income taxes.

2 - The government bureaucrats are not brain dead. ...

No, but the writers of the code are borderline incompetent when it comes to readability.

... 3 - If any such loophole existed, they'd correct it in less than a single term of Congress. ...

Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. Loopholes last for years depending on who they were designed for.

... 4 - No such thing has happened.

Thus, no such loophole exists.

In a fortunate linguistic turn, courts have held that it doesn't. But if anyone with half a brain and a sense of reason in writing the code had done so, this whole long, sad and incredibly costly experience would never have taken place and hundreds, even thousands of people would not have been lured into scams like Hendrickson's.

[Nikki]

If the tax code, or most other laws, were written in simple, easy to understand English, the lawyers would have a field day coming up with a multitude of contradictory interpretations of the laws.

Instead, the laws must be written in specific, albeit convoluted, language leaving no room for manipulation or misinterpretation.

It borders on the impossible to write a law which is simple and straightforward while at the same time being bulletproof regarding interpretation as to its specific intent.

[SteveSy]

Fine then fry him on that but it's extremely annoying the courts are allowed to prevent someone from reading the very law upon which they formed their opinion in a willfulness case.

In reality of course, no court has ever prevented someone from reading the statute upon which they formed their opinion in a willful failure to file or tax evasion case. No one ever accused of either crime formed their opinion by reading the statute. Pete is more up front about it than most, but no TP ever read the statute in order to determine what the law is. They all searched for portions of the statute to deliberately misread in order to rationalize a conclusion they had already reached.

That's pretty slick there. The judge knows the defendant didn't form his opinion based on what he read so therefore he didn't form his opinion based on law which allows a judge to prevent the law being read. Whacked out delusional minds work in mysterious ways. Of course now you're assuming a judge is going to make a decision not based on law but upon his own personal belief. In either case it's ethically wrong and so are you.

Surely someone will now use the old tired appeal to emotion argument and say "Should we also allow murders to try and convince a jury murder doesn't mean shooting someone in the head at point blank range?". They do it all the time already its called manslaughter, self defense or temporary insanity. btw, the correct analysis is whether the defendant knew they were committing murder, or required to file, or whatever. The defendant isn't telling the jury what the law is. The law doesn't change because a defendant interpreted it a certain way. To even argue the law shouldn't be read to the jury because this might happen is absurd.

As far as "includes" regardless if its proper English to use it in a way that includes parts of something else many very educated people still use it as an all inclusive manner. Even the dictionary admits that it's used that way even if incorrect. Such as "The bibliography should include all the journal articles you have used"

[Quixote]

Fine then fry him on that but it's extremely annoying the courts are allowed to prevent someone from reading the very law upon which they formed their opinion in a willfulness case.

In reality of course, no court has ever prevented someone from reading the statute upon which they formed their opinion in a willful failure to file or tax evasion case. No one ever accused of either crime formed their opinion by reading the statute. Pete is more up front about it than most, but no TP ever read the statute in order to determine what the law is. They all searched for portions of the statute to deliberately misread in order to rationalize a conclusion they had already reached.

That's pretty slick there. The judge knows the defendant didn't form his opinion based on what he read so therefore he didn't form his opinion based on law which allows a judge to prevent the law being read. Whacked out delusional minds work in mysterious ways. Of course now you're assuming a judge is going to make a decision not based on law but upon his own personal belief. In either case it's ethically wrong and so are you.

I'm assuming nothing. You're the one trying to put thoughts in a judge's head. I said nothing about how any judge arrived at his decisions concerning evidence. My statement concerned the results of those decisions. You're living proof that it doesn't matter how clearly the law is written. Someone will always manage to misread it.

[SteveSy]

In reality of course, no court has ever prevented someone from reading the statute upon which they formed their opinion in a willful failure to file or tax evasion case. No one ever accused of either crime formed their opinion by reading the statute. Pete is more up front about it than most, but no TP ever read the statute in order to determine what the law is. They all searched for portions of the statute to deliberately misread in order to rationalize a conclusion they had already reached.

That's pretty slick there. The judge knows the defendant didn't form his opinion based on what he read so therefore he didn't form his opinion based on law which allows a judge to prevent the law being read. Whacked out delusional minds work in mysterious ways. Of course now you're assuming a judge is going to make a decision not based on law but upon his own personal belief. In either case it's ethically wrong and so are you.

I'm assuming nothing. You're the one trying to put thoughts in a judge's head. I said nothing about how any judge arrived at his decisions concerning evidence. My statement concerned the results of those decisions. You're living proof that it doesn't matter how clearly the law is written. Someone will always manage to misread it.

Your statement does assume...that's the only way a judge could arrive at that decision. At best he would have to be evaluating evidence and determining the defendant did not form his opinion in any form from reading the law therefore it's irrelevant. More importantly the judge does not say the reason he is preventing the jury from hearing the law is due to this reason. So regardless your post is nothing but garbage...you like to make up these fantastic, totally illogical, absurd counter arguments in defense of something. Your reasoning and analysis is equally as silly as that in the sovereign citizen arena. You're just doing it on the other side of the fence is all which you think gives it credibility simply because its made from that side.

[Pottapaug1938]

As far as "includes" regardless if its proper English to use it in a way that includes parts of something else many very educated people still use it as an all inclusive manner. Even the dictionary admits that it's used that way even if incorrect. Such as "The bibliography should include all the journal articles you have used"

I can't quite follow your sentence structure; but it seems as if you are trying to argue that "includes" can be a term of limitation. If that's the case, then your own example disproves your argument. If the sentence were, "the bibliography should include only the journal articles you have used, then it is turned into a term of limitation by the word "only". As your sentence is, though, it clearly means that, while the bibliography should include the specific items mentioned, there are other items necessary to the bibliography which are not mentioned because there is no need to do so -- there is no need to constantly restate the obvious. I would never have wanted to submit any paper to any professor, in college or law school, if the professor gave me your advice and I interpreted his advice your way, unless I craved a failing grade.

[Quixote]

Your statement does assume...that's the only way a judge could arrive at that decision. At best he would have to be evaluating evidence and determining the defendant did not form his opinion in any form from reading the law therefore it's irrelevant. More importantly the judge does not say the reason he is preventing the jury from hearing the law is due to this reason. So regardless your post is nothing but garbage...you like to make up these fantastic, totally illogical, absurd counter arguments in defense of something. Your reasoning and analysis is equally as silly as that in the sovereign citizen arena. You're just doing it on the other side of the fence is all which you think gives it credibility simply because its made from that side.

I rest my case. Or as Famspear would say "reading is fundamental".

[Noah]

In a fortunate linguistic turn, courts have held that it doesn't. But if anyone with half a brain and a sense of reason in writing the code had done so, this whole long, sad and incredibly costly experience would never have taken place and hundreds, even thousands of people would not have been lured into scams like Hendrickson's.

The ones who wrote and write the tax laws are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If one thinks incompentence is the reason it is written the way it is , then, one is a fool. It is difficult to hide the truth, so that one is misled to a desired conclusion, without mistating the facts.

[Pottapaug1938]

The ones who wrote and write the tax laws are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If one thinks incompentence is the reason it is written the way it is , then, one is a fool. It is difficult to hide the truth, so that one is misled to a desired conclusion, without mistating the facts.

I had my first exposure to this kind of writing in law school, and when I first began practicing law. I received training in many different areas while in law school, but practice in writing pleadings and legislation in plain English was not high on the list, so I bought some books and trained myself to do so. After I started my first job, more than one client mistrusted something that I wrote for them because I took great plans to write the thing in as plain English as possible. The clients complained that the things I wrote "didn't sound legal". I'd reply that they were paying me to produce something that WAS legal, rather than something which SOUNDED legal but was subject to misinterpretation.

[The Operative]

As far as "includes" regardless if its proper English to use it in a way that includes parts of something else many very educated people still use it as an all inclusive manner. Even the dictionary admits that it's used that way even if incorrect. Such as "The bibliography should include all the journal articles you have used"

I specifically explained the usage of the word "includes". "Include" can only mean that the items to which it references are a part of the set. Let's look at your example...

"The bibliography should include all the journal articles you have used."

The section of the sentence, "all journal articles you have used" is what determines the items that the term, "include" is ensuring as part of the set of bibliography. What happens if the student uses a book as a reference? Does your sentence eliminate that book from being a part of the bibliography? No, it does not. Your sentence does not LIMIT the set to the items being included. However, if the sentence was changed to "The bibliography should include ONLY the journal articles you have used." That sentence does limit the set being discussed to the journal articles. However, it is not the word "includes" that creates that limit, instead the word, "only" is what creates the limitation. "Includes" can only expand a set that is being described, it can never limit it except when used in conjunction with other limiting words, such as "only".

[wserra]

I have been teaching litigation techniques - "trial practice" - at the law school level and beyond for many years. One of the concepts I try hardest to get across is that the more one "sounds like a lawyer", the less persuasive one is.

Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't.