|
|
In the tax code, the IRS formally redefines the word
"includes" to effectively mean "includes everything". This
deliberate misuse of the word "includes" leads the masses to
falsely believe the IRS has jurisdiction over things, places and
People that it does not.
This deliberately induced confusion and ambiguity is an act of
tyranny against the People and a usurpation of power not authorized
the IRS under the Constitution. Without well defined words, the
laws are meaningless.
- Admit that the word "includes" is defined in 26 U.S.C.
§7701(c) as follows:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. Sec. 7701.
- Definitions (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.
See CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701
Exhibit 418
- Admit that the word "includes" is defined by the Treasury
in the Federal Register as follows: Treasury Definition
3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65
defines the words includes and including as:
"(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within;
contain; confine…But granting that the word 'including' is a term of
enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing
the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus
only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The
word 'including' is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising;
comprehending; embracing."
- Admit that the definition of the word "includes"
found in
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 is
as follows:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To
confine within, hold as an inclosure. Take in, attain,
shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace,
involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement
and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely
specify a particular thing already included within general
words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is
interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative
application as well as a word of limitation. Premier
Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
Exhibit 420
Include defined
- Admit that if the meaning of the word "includes" as used
in the Internal Revenue Code is "and" or "in addition
to" as described above, then the code cannot define or
confine the precise meaning of the following words that
use "include" in their definition:
"State" found in
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110
"United States"
found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9)
"employee" found in
26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) and 26 CFR §31.3401(c )-1
"person" found in 26 CFR 301.6671-1 (which governs who is
liable for penalties under Internal Revenue Code)
Exhibit 421
Person defined
- Admit that if the meaning of "includes" as used in the
definitions above is "and" or "in addition to", then the
code cannot define any of the words described, based on the
definition of the word "definition" found in Black's
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423:
definition:
"A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of
the meaning of a word or term. The process of stating the exact
meaning of a word by means of other words. Such a description of the
thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all
nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and
classes."
Exhibit 422
Definition defined
- Admit that absent concrete definitions of the above critical
words identified in question 417, the meaning of the
words becomes ambiguous, unclear, and subjective.
- Admit that when the interpretation of a statute or regulation
is unclear or ambiguous, then the by the rules of statutory
construction, the doubt should be resolved in favor of
the taxpayer as indicated in the cite from the Supreme
Court below:
"In view of other settled rules of statutory
construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in
the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate
prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction
of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in
favor of the taxpayer..."
See Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938)
(emphasis added) Exhibit 424
- b. Admit that in the majority of cases, doubts about the
interpretation of the tax code are resolved in favor
of the taxpayer by federal courts as required by the
Supreme Court above.
- Admit that an ambiguous meaning for a word violates the
requirement for due process of law by preventing a person
of average intelligence from being able to clearly understand
what the law requires and does not require of him, thus
making it impossible at worst or very difficult at best
to know if he is following the law.
- Admit that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
page 500, under the definition of "due process of
law" states the following:
The concept of "due process of law" as it is
embodied in Fifth Amendment demands that a law shall
not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that
the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial
relation to the object being sought.
Exhibit 426
"due process of law" defined
427. (No Question)
- Admit that if the definition of the word "includes" means
that it is used synonymously with the word "and" or "in
addition to", then it violates the requirement for due
process of law found in the Fifth Amendment.
- Admit that the violation of due process of law created
by the abuse of the word "includes" found in the preceding
question creates uncertainty, mistrust, and fear of citizens
towards their government because of their inability to
comprehend what the law requires them to do.
- Admit that the violation of due process caused by the
abuse of the word "includes" (in this case, making it
mean "and" or "in addition to) identified above could
have the affect of extending the perceived jurisdiction
and authority of the federal government to tax beyond
its clear limits prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.
- Admit that an abuse of the word includes to mean "and"
or "in addition to" indicated above could have the affect
of increasing and possibly even maximizing income tax
revenues to the U.S. government through the violation
of due process, confusion, and fear that it creates in
the citizenry.
- Admit that fear and confusion on the part of the citizenry
towards their government and violation of due process
by the government are characterized by most rational
individuals as evidence of tyranny and treason against
citizens.
- Admit that the U.S. Constitution provides the following
definition for "treason": U.S. Constitution, Article
III, Section 3, Clause 1: "Treason against the
United States shall consist only of levying war against
them, or adhering to their enemies…"
See U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause
1
Exhibit 433
- Admit that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
page 1583, provides the following definition
for "war": "Hostile contention by means of armed forces,
carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between
citizens in the same nation or state."
Exhibit 434 War
defined
- Admit that agents of the IRS involved in seizures of
property use guns and arms and against citizens, making
the confrontation an armed confrontation.
- Admit that IRS seizures can and do occur without court
orders, warrants, or due process required by the Fourth
Amendment and at the point of a gun.
See U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Search
and Seizure
Exhibit 436
- Admit that property seizures as described above amount
to an act of war of the government against the citizens.
- Admit that acts of war against citizens, when not based
on law, are treasonable offenses punishable by execution.
- Admit that violation of due process produces injustice
in society, which is why the founding fathers required
us to have a Fifth Amendment.
- Admit that the purpose of the government is to write
laws to prevent, rather than promote, injustice in society,
and thereby protect the right to life, liberty, property,
and pursuit of happiness of all citizens equally.
|
