cdsea10
Forum Replies Created
thank you
from Public Notice by Dan Meador :
© 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.
Two principles of law clarify definition intent:
(1) The example represents the class, and
(2) that which is not named is intended to be omitted.
In the definition of “United States” and “State” set out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the transition of Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving the point. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts in the several States (26 USC ? 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC ? 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Department of the Treasury personnel (26 USC ? 7802 & 7803).
Brian Rookard asks :?If I say “the recipe for brownies includes eggs” … is it safe to assume that the only ingredient to make the brownies is eggs? ____ Yes. ____ No.
This is common English … understood by the average person who speaks English … it isn't rocket science … and tax protestors will evade simple questions when plainly asked and which do damage to their theories.
Please answer the question.?
Never answer their question! Do you see the trap? ?Please answer the question.? Whenever we hear those dangerous words , know they have set a trap to get us to HANG OURSELVES BY OUR OWN TONGUE!
Stop, the red dot of the laser is on our forehead.
Remember: ?Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly, …The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, ….?Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again.?”
JRW gave us the answer when he gave the link to TD 3980 at this website. It took me a while to get to read the decision but the answer is there.
FIRST ? ALWAYS ANSWER THIER QUESTIONS WITH THEIR OWN WORDS!!!
SECOND ? i learned this about ?including? and ?includes? from TD 3980.
First ? they quote the Montello Salt case ? excellent. Second ? the sentence in question is: ?(7) A reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in the trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence.? Third, they also state: congress could have very easily used the word ?and? instead of ?including? to clarify but congress did not. Fourth ? the court says basically, the ?including? part of the sentence ?is but a part of and enlargement of the pervious phrase of the said subsection… it does not add a new kind of deduction but inclusion of an addition element? Fifth ? in their closing, ?it would seem quite apparent, therefore, that congress was not intending to add a new and independent deduction. This legislative history sustains, we think, the conclusion to which we are forced, that the phrase, ?including…? is one of specification and enlargement; THAT IT IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH AND RELATES TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE OTHER PHRASE of subsection (7), and APPLIES ONLY TO SUCH PROPERTY THEREIN DESIGNATED used in the business….? To me, it appears they are confirming Montello Salt. Second it is a TWO part sentence of which the last part goes to the first and ?congress was not intending to add a new and independent deduction.?
In the 7701 definitions, they use the word they are trying to define in the very sentence. by their own words in TD3980 and Montello Salt, everything after including is it.
that's how i read their words.
Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words include 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.?
?Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ?including? the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement. Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ?limitations?.?
i thought this TD 3980 kind of said it all… since it is from the Treasury Dept … end of discussion… use it in any affidivit of truth.
I PUT THE WRONG WEB PAGE>>>>
this is the page and info i wanted feedback on… saoory – charlie
-i want to share some thoughts as my wife is a 2nd grade teacher and we discuss this subject every school year. in her class of 20 to 22 there will be on average 2 children that are 'out of control'. 'out of control' is my term. mostly, the child is disruptive, doesn't focus, and doesn't know the word 'no' or 'stop', and the child is behind grade level in reading. My wife begins immediately to open communication with the parents to get them involved in structuring the child?s patterns. 2nd grade is critical in reading and math development skills because by 3rd grade clicks up to solving math problem that involve reading, and more.
You would be shocked at the parents saying ?that?s your problem?, or they never reply until the child gets to the level of discipline action. The parents roar in and want to know what?s wrong with the teacher, ?they never have problems at home or church or in past years?. The records at the school will show the same pattern was there in the past. My wife has 18 to 20 other students that have to get it down this years and work on getting these 2 or 3 moving forward.
-In 10 years, she has had maybe 3 parents get involved with her and their child. she has found parents don?t accept responsibility for their child.
-It is sad to see the ?color of the posts? run like this, ?What to do if the school board says:”you have to put your ADD child on drugs.” The teacher, theschool, or the school board doesn?t say this unless there is a situation with the child.
