| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Anonymous" |
| Date: |
18 Feb 2004 06:01:05 PM |
| Object: |
Cup o' Tea in the US? |
Tyrants love to use what they consider to be a magical word - "includes".
They think that it gives them the ability to add words to the law that
are not specifically stated in law.
Well.. NOT!
It is clear that when Congress means something they will simply put it
into the law. Take the definition of "United States", for instance. In
"Subtitle D - Miscellaneous Excise Taxes", Congress specifically put
the words "The term ''United States'' means the 50 States". Yet, the
definition that has scope over the entire Title 26 only contains the
territories. If Congress means the "50 States" it will simply put that
in the law.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle D - Miscellaneous Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 38 - ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES
Subchapter A - Tax on Petroleum
Sec. 4612. Definitions and special rules
(a) Definitions
For purposes of this SUBCHAPTER -
(4) United States
(A) In general
The term ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of
the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this TITLE, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.
The truth is that the tyrants don't want citizens reading this
convoluted mess. They want brain-dead followers to support their
criminal activity.
And sure, they can cite some leagalese fear propaganda that looks real
convincing from their beloved Tax Court. But, that's the way tyranny
works!
.
|
|
| User: "Geoffrey F. Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
18 Feb 2004 07:22:00 PM |
|
|
In article <4307d373ce51f7f83349dfe8faeae954@nox.lemuria.org>,
Anonymous <nobody@nox.lemuria.org> wrote:
Tyrants love to use what they consider to be a magical word - "includes".
They think that it gives them the ability to add words to the law that
are not specifically stated in law.
Well.. NOT!
In "Subtitle D - Miscellaneous Excise Taxes", Congress specifically put
the words "The term ''United States'' means the 50 States".
Right... as you show below. I follow you here.
Yet, the
definition that has scope over the entire Title 26 only contains the
territories. If Congress means the "50 States" it will simply put that
in the law.
Did you read what you posted? When you read the phrase "includes only
the States," what do you think that means? That it doesn't include
the States? Or are you claiming that the term "United States" when
used in a nongeographical sense necessarily excludes the States and
DC? The former interpretation is irrational. The latter is illogical.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this TITLE, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.
- geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
19 Feb 2004 09:01:20 AM |
|
|
An IRS thug tries real hard to hide the truth:
Did you read what you posted? When you read the phrase "includes only
the States," what do you think that means? That it doesn't include
the States? Or are you claiming that the term "United States" when
used in a nongeographical sense necessarily excludes the States and
DC? The former interpretation is irrational. The latter is illogical.
NOT!
Look at the definition of "State". These terms are specifically stated
in the law. And for Sec. 7701 (which has scope over the entire Title
26) the terms do not include the phrase "50 States".
If it is as you imply (that the "50 States" are implcitly included),
there is no reason to have it (the phrase "50 States") in the
definition in Sec. 4612.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS
Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this TITLE, where not otherwise distinctly
expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.
[convienient snip by the IRS thugs restored]
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle D - Miscellaneous Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 38 - ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES
Subchapter A - Tax on Petroleum
Sec. 4612. Definitions and special rules
(a) Definitions
For purposes of this SUBCHAPTER -
(4) United States
(A) In general
The term ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of
the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Macdonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
19 Feb 2004 07:32:52 PM |
|
|
"Anannymous" <cripto@ecn.org> wrote in message
news:a982afb76a3114aafae8e892637180d9@ecn.org...
An IRS thug tries real hard to hide the truth:
Did you read what you posted? When you read the phrase "includes only
the States," what do you think that means? That it doesn't include
the States? Or are you claiming that the term "United States" when
used in a nongeographical sense necessarily excludes the States and
DC? The former interpretation is irrational. The latter is illogical.
NOT!
Look at the definition of "State". These terms are specifically stated
in the law. And for Sec. 7701 (which has scope over the entire Title
26) the terms do not include the phrase "50 States".
If it is as you imply (that the "50 States" are implcitly included),
there is no reason to have it (the phrase "50 States") in the
definition in Sec. 4612.
The Schroeders also argue that Nebraska is not a State as that term is
defined by 26 U.S.C. sections 3121(e)(1) and (2), 4612(a)(4)(A), and
7701(a)(9) and (10) (Supp. V 1993). The Schroeders in citing these statutes
in support of their position, fail to note that these sections define the
stated term (for example, "State" and "United States" in section 3121(e)(1)
& (2), "United States" in section 4612(a)(4)(A), and "United States" and
"State" in section 7701(a)(9) & (10)) to be more inclusive than might
otherwise be commonly understood. This result is easily reached by reading
each of these sections in conjunction with the definition of "includes" and
"including" contained in 26 U.S.C. section 7701(c) (Supp. V 1993), which
states that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a
definition contained in this title [i.e. Title 26] shall not be deemed to
exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."
Thus, the definition of "State" clearly includes what would be its commonly
understood meaning -- one of the fifty states forming a part of the entire
United States. So, too, with "United States." the Union and sovereign entity
produced through the association of all of the states. The Schroeders
attempt, unsuccessfully, to remove from the language of the statutes its
commonly understood meaning and usage.
-- Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1996-40 (D.Neb. 1996)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
20 Feb 2004 09:12:03 AM |
|
|
An IRS thug tries terrorism when the facts aren't working:
Look at the definition of "State". These terms are specifically stated
in the law. And for Sec. 7701 (which has scope over the entire Title
26) the terms do not include the phrase "50 States".
If it is as you imply (that the "50 States" are implcitly included),
there is no reason to have it (the phrase "50 States") in the
definition in Sec. 4612.
-- Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1996-40 (D.Neb. 1996)
All these thugs can do in response is to post legalese fear tactics
from a known kangaroo court (Tax Court). That pretty much says it all!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard A. Macdonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
20 Feb 2004 09:26:55 AM |
|
|
"Anonymous" <nobody@nox.lemuria.org> wrote in message
news:e1a8a76c176820a671cf01a57172c38f@nox.lemuria.org...
An IRS thug tries terrorism when the facts aren't working:
Look at the definition of "State". These terms are specifically stated
in the law. And for Sec. 7701 (which has scope over the entire Title
26) the terms do not include the phrase "50 States".
If it is as you imply (that the "50 States" are implcitly included),
there is no reason to have it (the phrase "50 States") in the
definition in Sec. 4612.
-- Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1996-40 (D.Neb. 1996)
All these thugs can do in response is to post legalese fear tactics
from a known kangaroo court (Tax Court). That pretty much says it all!
Too bad ANannyMoose can't tell the difference between
a Federal District Court citation and a Tax Court citation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TREGAN P. ALBERS, Plaintiff v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, KENNETH
SCHROEDER, ET AL., Defendants.
Docket: 4:CV95-3068 Filed February 15, 1996
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
.
|
|
|
| User: "edo" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
20 Feb 2004 03:20:28 PM |
|
|
The Little IRS Agent That Couldn't spewed:
-- Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1996-40 (D.Neb. 1996)
All these thugs can do in response is to post legalese fear tactics
from a known kangaroo court (Tax Court). That pretty much says it all!
Too bad ANannyMoose can't tell the difference between
a Federal District Court citation and a Tax Court citation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TREGAN P. ALBERS, Plaintiff v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, KENNETH
SCHROEDER, ET AL., Defendants.
Docket: 4:CV95-3068 Filed February 15, 1996
Which makes it non-binding legalese crap, non-the-less!
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
CPA:
Corruption & Perversion Abundant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arthur L. Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
24 Feb 2004 01:56:25 PM |
|
|
edo wrote:
The Little IRS Agent That Couldn't spewed:
-- Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1996-40 (D.Neb. 1996)
All these thugs can do in response is to post legalese fear tactics
from a known kangaroo court (Tax Court). That pretty much says it all!
Too bad ANannyMoose can't tell the difference between
a Federal District Court citation and a Tax Court citation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TREGAN P. ALBERS, Plaintiff v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, KENNETH
SCHROEDER, ET AL., Defendants.
Docket: 4:CV95-3068 Filed February 15, 1996
Which makes it non-binding legalese crap, non-the-less!
How so?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard A. Macdonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
19 Feb 2004 11:03:28 AM |
|
|
"Anonymous" <cripto@ecn.org> wrote in message
news:a982afb76a3114aafae8e892637180d9@ecn.org...
An IRS thug tries real hard to hide the truth:
Did you read what you posted? When you read the phrase "includes only
the States," what do you think that means? That it doesn't include
the States? Or are you claiming that the term "United States" when
used in a nongeographical sense necessarily excludes the States and
DC? The former interpretation is irrational. The latter is illogical.
NOT!
Look at the definition of "State". These terms are specifically stated
in the law. And for Sec. 7701 (which has scope over the entire Title
26) the terms do not include the phrase "50 States".
Of course you are completly ignoring the operation of 7701(c).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
19 Feb 2004 03:18:31 PM |
|
|
Of course you are completly ignoring the operation of 7701(c).
If by "operation" you mean that terms can be appended by the
words written in the law, then YES, the "operation" applies.
However, If by "operation" you mean that terms can be appended
by whatever your tiny brain can imagine, then NO, that type of
"operation" leads to "void for vagueness".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "edo" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
19 Feb 2004 01:55:23 PM |
|
|
An IRS thug begs for mercy:
Of course you are completly ignoring the operation of 7701(c).
Yes. We know.. it depends on your definition of "operation" [chuckle]
How pathetic!?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Cup o' Tea in the US? |
19 Feb 2004 12:18:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 9:01, special invitation wrote:
Look at the definition of "State". These terms are specifically stated
in the law. And for Sec. 7701 (which has scope over the entire Title
26) the terms do not include the phrase "50 States".
If it is as you imply (that the "50 States" are implcitly included),
there is no reason to have it (the phrase "50 States") in the
definition in Sec. 4612.
Wow! Have you considered a career
in writing congressional bills?
It's amazing how you can write three sentences
that seem as if they're never going to end.
Or have you written IRS regs? You're not
quite as clear as those IRS regs but - with
your "special gift" - you could muddy
the waters even more.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
As M. L'E might (or not) have written.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
