@Undisciplined here are a few more examples:
Legal definitions matter.
26 USC § 7701 - Definitions (a)(1) PERSON The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
With this definition, we must apply ejusdem generis. "Individual" in this definition refers to a single entity within the same class of commercial entities in the definition - NOT a human being.
26 USC § 7701 - Definitions (a)(14) TAXPAYER The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
See (a)(1) above.
26 CFR 1.441-1(b)(8) Taxpayer. Taxpayer has the same meaning as the term person as defined in section 7701(a)(1) (e.g., an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, or corporation) rather than the meaning of the term taxpayer as defined in section 7701(a)(14) (any person subject to tax).
26 USC § 7343 - Definition of term “person” The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
I hope things are becoming clear.
this territory is moderated
When these decisions end up being sealed, is there a public explanation for why it was sealed?
reply
283 sats \ 4 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan
The public typically isn't aware that it's sealed AFAIK. The only reason we know about the case with Steve Emerson is because Alphonse Faggiolo is a friend of his and has taught him. He's using what he's been taught from Steve in his own property tax suit, as well as teaching others the same.
reply
Is there also a gag order or is Alphonse free to discuss it?
reply
283 sats \ 2 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan
I'm not sure if he has the specific details of Steve's motions/complaint (I think Steve had to sign an NDA) if that's what you mean. I'm not sure he needs it. Alphonse is very good at this stuff too.
reply
An NDA would usually be something that was agreed to, so it's different than a gag order, which is just the court telling you that you can't discuss something.
I was just thinking about what a racket it is that courts can seal a case that's inconvenient for the state and there's not much recourse that the public has.
If there really have been cases that determined that normal people have no obligation to pay various types of taxes, then being able to prevent that knowledge from getting out is a big advantage for the regime.
reply
283 sats \ 0 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan
I was just thinking about what a racket it is that courts can seal a case that's inconvenient for the state and there's not much recourse that the public has.
Absolutely. Happens all the time.
If there really have been cases that determined that normal people have no obligation to pay various types of taxes, then being able to prevent that knowledge from getting out is a big advantage for the regime.
Although there aren't many, if any cases, that say that specifically, the constitutions, case law and statute dance around the truth and are often in line with the constitutions. For example, if I have a right to acquire, possess, and protect property, no matter what form that property is in, whether it's LAND or my LABOR or something else, and it is well-settled that a right is not taxable, then... you can find ways to make the proper arguments.
reply