The tax code is entirely about semantic deceit. Almost all law is, that's how you've voluntarily let them trample your rights for your entire life.

I'm not going to explain myself again. See here: https://stacker.news/items/373769/r/kytt

Keep in mind, most lawyers and many judges don't even know about *ejusdem generis* in statutory construction.

IANAL.  Sounds like you get my point.

So... for this...

> Meaning: this regulation is meaningless

Did they just draft something incompetent, and this is some kind of "who's gonna point out their mistake?"-moment?  Or, what comes next?  Surely coin center also would have caught the incoherent definition.


jeff

Title 26 is the law. I just gave it to you. You can't cite a website in a tax matter, even if the website is that of the IRS.

It also depends on the section of the law you're looking at. For example, the website you're referencing has to do with non-profits.

kytt

bitcoin

New Bitcoin tax reporting obligations took effect on new year’s day

Rsync25

Right.  But, whatever you cited, seems incomplete.  Thats all.

For instance, is the definition at the link below, created in a law somewhere?

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/trade-or-business-defined: