LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet.
DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE.
Go look it up for yourself.

U.S. Federal Income Tax

Subjugation by taxation

Table of Contents

Includes and Including

        For the purposes of this web page, the term "fruit" includes bananas, apples, and oranges. A reader must choose and eat a fruit while reading this page.

        Question: Is a grape, peach, plum, or pear a type of fruit a reader can choose and must eat while reading this page? Be careful now. This is a trick question. Write your answer down on a piece of paper, to refer to later on as you read this web page.

        If the legal writers used disappearing ink, or black ink on black paper, they could not obfuscate any more than what they have done by using the words "includes" and "including". The legal writers are counting upon your lack of understanding the correct usage and meaning of the words "includes" and "including". And if you start to get close, they have drafted some damn fine gobbledegook for the purpose of legerdemain. (If you do not know what those two words mean, it is very unlikely that you understand what I just wrote.)

gob·ble·dy·gook also gob·ble·de·gook n. Unclear, wordy jargon. [Imitative of the gobbling of a turkey.]
leg·er·de·main n. 1. Sleight of hand. 2. A show of skill or deceitful cleverness.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

        I will be addressing all that and more as it relates to the words "includes" and "including". This page is quite lengthy. More so than you would think, just to cover two words.

        Before I address the actual words and their usage, I want to make sure that you, my readers, understand the context in which ALL of this operates. We are examining LAW. If the LAW doesn't say it applies, then it doesn't apply.

        Unlike the Egyptian hieroglyphics, the written language in the United States is the written word. And just like the Egyptian hieroglyphs, that which is written, is not forgotten. That which is written, can be referrenced, studied, and learned, without the errors of the spoken word introduced as in some big game of telephone.

        The laws of the United States are not promulgated by oral histories or traditions. The laws of the United States are not promulgated by innuendo or telepathy. The laws of the United States are promulgated by being written. The laws of the United States are promulgated by being published. The laws of the United States are words. The laws of the United States are written words. The laws of the United States are literally.... WORDS!

       If it seems that I have belabored the point that the LAW is the written word, it is for a reason. Words have meanings. To understand the law, one must understand the meanings of the words used. In law, the words have the dictionary (plain) meaning unless the law defines and gives a different meaning.

        We are examining LAW, therefore, let us look first at "Fundamental Law", which is the U.S. Constitution.

        Let us start with the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Can there be "due process of law" if the law is secret?
Can an upstanding citizen obey a law which has been kept hidden from the citizen?
If the citizens are kept ignorant of a secret law, how will the citizens be able to find out if the law enforcers are enforcing the law equally and without favoritism?
How would the citizens know if the law enforcers are actually enforcing a valid law?
How would the citizens know if the enforcers where not just making up the rules as they go?

I assume questions such as this were on the minds of those that originally voiced the Void For Vagueness Doctrine.

Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)

That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well- recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221 , 34 S. Ct. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638 , 34 S. Ct. 924
...

The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture. The citizen cannot be held to answer charges based upon penal statutes whose mandates are so uncertain that they will reasonably admit of different constructions. A criminal statute cannot rest upon an uncertain foundation. The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things, and providing a punishment for their violation, should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon the one conception of its requirements and the courts upon another.'

        Does it not stand to reason, that if different people come to different understandings of what is required after reading a specific law, then such a law is Void For Vagueness?

        Does this not mean that the law must say what it means and mean what it says? Does this not mean that the law can not act by implication but MUST BE SPECIFIC?

        This concept of law being specific in the case of tax law has been addressed in the case of Gould v. Gould:

Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55 , 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.

That passage clearly says to me that tax law must specifically state what it embraces. Conversely, if the tax law fails to state specifically what it embraces, then such tax law simply DOES NOT EMBRACE that which "they" say is embraced by implication. Remember, LAW in this country is the written word.

Before we examine some law that uses the word "includes", let us look at the word "includes" naked and standing by itself to gain an understanding of the word's plain meaning.

in·clude tr.v. in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing, in·cludes. 1. To take in as a part, an element, or a member. 2. To contain as a secondary or subordinate element. 3. To consider with or place into a group, class, or total: thanked the host for including us. [Middle English includen, from Latin inclūdere, to enclose : in-, in; see IN-² + claudere, to close.]
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

Please note the original Latin: To include is to enclose.

en·close also in·close -- tr.v. en·closed, en·clos·ing, en·clos·es. 1. To surround on all sides; close in. 2. To fence in so as to prevent common use: enclosed the pasture.
[Middle English enclosen, from Old French enclos, past participle of enclore, from Latin inclūdere, to enclose. See INCLUDE.]
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

To include is to enclose; to surround; to contain within. If something is enclosed, the enclosure has an inside and an outside. An item is either inside the enclosure or an item is outside the enclosure. One or the other. There is no third location.

Group I includes i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.

Please note the synonyms of the word includes as found in a thesaurus.

comprise consist of contain embody
embrace encompass incorporate take in

American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

Group I is comprised of i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I consists of i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I contains i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I embodies i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I embraces i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I encompasses i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I incorporates i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I takes in i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I encloses i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.
Group I surrounds i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5.

An item is either on the inside, or an item is on the outside. Group I encloses; group I surrounds; group I contains within; items i1 through i5.

In all these examples, item 6 is ignored because item 6 is NOT included. Item 6 is ignored because it is OUTSIDE the enclosure. Item 6 is ignored because it is OUTSIDE the inclusion. Item 6 is ignored because Group I does NOT "include" item 6.

There is a rule of statutory construction:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
The expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of another.

Items 1 through 5 are specifically expressed in the statement: Group I includes i1, i2, i3, i4, & i5. These five items are expressed. Item 6 is NOT expressed; Item 6 is NOT included.

Here is something the deceptive legal writers are betting you don't know: A "legal term" has a "custom defined meaning". The word means what the writers have defined the word to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.

        If a word is a legal term, it has a custom defined meaning. If a word is not a legal term, the plain meaning of a plain reading of the word supplies the meaning.

        Thus the plain meaning of the word "fruit" ALREADY includes bananas, apples, and oranges as well as grapes, peaches, plums, or pears; plus every other "fruit" that the common meaning encompasses.

        If the term "fruit" is to include grapes, peaches, plums, or pears, why would a writer design a custom defined meaning when the plain meaning of the word already reaches the fruit you are supposed to think the word embraces?

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
The expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of another.

         Grapes, peaches, plums, or pears are NOT expressed as being "included" in the term "fruit" - for purposes of this web page.

        Let us suppose that I only have legal authority to reach bananas, apples, and oranges. Let us also suppose I want you to believe I can reach any other fruit. I would make the rule just like you saw on the top of the page:

         For the purposes of this web page, the term (custom defined word) "fruit" includes bananas, apples, and oranges.

I am not the only person to discover this skullduggery in regard to the word "include(s)". Others have also, and others have posted on the internet, the definition found within Black's Legal Dictionary:

"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, 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."

         Black's doesn't help us very much. Black's gives two contradictory meanings for the word, one expansive, the other limiting. Black's does tell us that context has much to do with knowing which form of the word is used.

        The first concept in Black's is: "To confine within, hold as an inclosure." In that case, includes grabs what is listed, AND NO MORE. The root of the term include, is basically to surround. To surround is to have an "inside" and an "outside". Something is then either "inside" or it is "outside". One or the other. There is no third place. (But you already understood that from the common dictionary meaning examined above.)

        "The term include may, according to context, express enlargement..."   which means to surround more, to have another something or somethings on the "inside". "May" as in 'to indicate a possibility', that there could be enlargement. Again, according to context.

        The following made up term illustrates how a term, (a custom defined word) works. In the following example, you will also see how the context can, under certain situations, expand the meaning of the term.

Case 1:
The term “gazorminnumplaz” means sheep, goats, cats, or dogs.

Q.1. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any sheep?
Q.2. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any goat?
Q.3. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any cat?
Q.4. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any dog?
Q.5. Does the term gazorminnumplaz, as defined include any cow?
Q.6. Does the term gazorminnumplaz, as defined include any rabbit?
Q.7. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any Chevy Impala?

Questions 1 through 4 are simple enough to figure out by the wording. Question 7 is also easy to answer based upon the ruling sentence. And as worded, questions 5 & 6 are also presently easy to answer. I figure that most of you will answer the questions in this order:
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No.

Case one is used to show clarity. Something MEANS something. Case two shows how the choice of using the word "includes" when the word "means" should be used obfuscates (confuses) understanding.

Case 2:
The term “gazorminnumplaz” includes sheep, goats, cats, or dogs.

Q.1. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any sheep?
Q.2. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any goat?
Q.3. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any cat?
Q.4. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any dog?
Q.5. Does the term gazorminnumplaz, as defined include any cow?
Q.6. Does the term gazorminnumplaz, as defined include any rabbit?
Q.7. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any Chevy Impala?

        With the limited information provided, I presume that the uninitiated readers would answer these questions in the same order as previously. If you answered the questions in this order,
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No you would be wrong.

        Although the term gazorminnumplaz includes sheep, goats, cats, or dogs, it does not say what else it includes.

        The reason you would be wrong is that the rule writer's intent is such that the correct answers would be in this order: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No.

        You would also be wrong because of the context and "rules of statutory of construction".

        First, to address the context. All gazorminnumplaz must be registered. Any gazorminnumplaz that is not registered will not be allowed to be displayed in the county fair....   So to ask "Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include..." in the questions of case 1, and case 2, is to ask, "Does your gazorminnumplaz need to be registered?"

        Ah ha! My readers say, as the intent of the rule writer dawns upon them. Gazorminnumplaz refers to a "class" of items. In this case, a class of animals that will be shown in the county fair and thus need to be registered.

        Now, to address the rules of statutory construction. There are several ‘rules of thumb’ that are used to write and comprehend the meaning of a law. These rules are referred to as rules of statutory construction. Their purpose is so that the proper intent of the law is communicated to those that must follow the law, and those that must enforce the law.

        In answering the questions of case 1, you intuitively used the concept in the following rule of statutory construction. I have three different quotes of the meaning of the Latin phrase that expresses this one rule of statutory construction. I have ordered them from the simple expression of this rule of statutory construction to the more complex expression of this rule.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
The expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of another.

In case 1, a sheep, goat, cat, and dog were specifically expressed by the words, "...means sheep, goats, cats, or dogs.". A cow, rabbit, and Chevy Impala were not.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
A principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

In case 1, the use of the word "means" is very specific as to what is a gazorminnumplaz, as compared to the use of the word "includes", as you shall see very shortly.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
One of the linguistic canons applicable to the construction of legislation. By expressing one thing is [by implication] to exclude another. There is no room for the application of this principle where some reason other than the intention to exclude certain items exists for the express mention in question. Thus what is said may be intended merely as an example or be included for abundance of caution or for some other reason; or the thing supposed to have been impliedly excluded may not have existed at the passing of the enactment.

        Unknown, to you the reader at first, is that the purpose of defining gazorminnumplaz is to define the "class" that requires registration for being shown at the fair. In case 1 there is no room for the expansion that was just addressed.

        Let us presume in case 1, and case 2, that when the rule defining gazorminnumplaz was written, cows and rabbits were not allowed to be shown at the fair. Later the rules were changed to allow cows and rabbits to be shown at the fair. The rules regarding registration applied to sheep, goats, cats, and dogs, when those were the only animals being shown. When other rules were changed to allow cows and rabbits, those cows and rabbits that were going to be shown at the fair then came under the requirement to be registered. In case 1 there is no room for the expansion of the "class" to include the cows and rabbits. In the second case there is room for expansion to include cows and rabbits, as well as room for deceptive implications and crafty legalese trickery. But I get ahead of myself.

        The rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not always exclude items that are not specifically listed as being in the class. So as the third expression of exclusio points out, "what is said may be intended merely as an example", and in the case of sheep, goats, cats, and dogs, it is an example of the class (animals that need to be registered). And, "the thing supposed to have been impliedly excluded may not have existed at the passing of the enactment", which would be true because cows and rabbits did not exist as an animal allowed to be shown at the fair at the time the gazorminnumplaz rules were written. This brings us to a second rule of statutory construction.

Ejusdem generis
(eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.

I am going to return to case 2 and its seven questions. With the above in mind, will your answers be the same as what you answered in case 1, or are your answers going to now match mine since you now know what I know? Here's case 2 again.

        Without context, one might assume that the "class" that is defined above, is animals with four legs.... Until one learns that the fair is considering allowing ducks and geese to be shown.   So context IS important. And if the context is not clearly shown, and thus known, one could make a mistake by assuming they understand what the class is that is being defined. The deceptive legal writers for the government use this to great advantage when writing laws where they are not allowed to reach.

        The next thing to cover is the concept of a "term" as opposed to the concept of a "word".   A "term" is something that has a specific meaning created and defined by the writer(s) of the rule that defines a "term".   If a "term" is defined in a law written by Congress, then a "term" is something that has a specific meaning created and defined by Congress.

        On the other hand, a "word" is something that has several meanings created by people, history, and drifting meanings through time. Our buddy Noah Webster publishes snapshots of the current meanings of "words" during the era that the words were published. Thus Noah defines what a word means in any given era. Noah does not define the legal "terms" that Congress has defined.

        That is a key point. When congress defines a term, that term means what Congress says that term means. It means NOTHING ELSE.   Noah's definitions have NO bearing when Congress defines a term, unless Congress specifically includes Noah's definition of a word. Congress could define the term "gazorminnumplaz", and "gazorminnumplaz" would mean ONLY what Congress has defined it to mean. Noah does not have a definition for the word "gazorminnumplaz". Thus in the example above, you can not confuse the custom defined meaning of the term "gazorminnumplaz" with the dictionary definition since there is no dictionary definition.

At this point I'm going to change perspective and pretend that I'm the Congress that wrote the gazorminnumplaz law shown above. There is no dictionary meaning for the term "gazorminnumplaz", and gazorminnumplaz means exactly and only what I, as the Congress, have defined it to mean.

Now for illustration, let us assume that I, as Congress, have the authority to tax all the animals that I define as gazorminnumplaz. Let us also assume that I, as Congress, ONLY have the authority to tax LIVING animals. And also, let us assume that I, as Congress, are more honest than the real Congress is. Here's how I would write the new rules.

Case 3:
The owners of all gazorminnumplaz shall pay to the U.S. Treasury Department, $25 per gazorminnumplaz.
The term gazorminnumplaz includes sheep, goats, cats, or dogs.

Q.1. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any sheep?
Q.2. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any goat?
Q.3. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any cat?
Q.4. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any dog?
Q.5. Does the term gazorminnumplaz, as defined include any cow?
Q.6. Does the term gazorminnumplaz, as defined include any rabbit?
Q.7. Does the term gazorminnumplaz as defined include any Chevy Impala?

Depending upon how you interpret the term gazorminnumplaz, you could justifiably answer either way, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, or Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No.

However the intent is the first series of answers.

Now for case number 4, let us assume that I, as Congress, have the authority to tax all the animals that I define as cars. Let us also assume that I, as Congress, ONLY have the authority to tax LIVING animals. And also, let us assume that I, as Congress, am just as honest as the real Congress is (not). Here's how I would write the new rules.

Case 4:
The owners of all cars shall pay to the U.S. Treasury Department, $25 per car.
The term car includes sheep, goats, cats, or dogs.

Q.1. Does the term car as defined include any sheep?
Q.2. Does the term car as defined include any goat?
Q.3. Does the term car as defined include any cat?
Q.4. Does the term car as defined include any dog?
Q.5. Does the term car, as defined include any cow?
Q.6. Does the term car, as defined include any rabbit?
Q.7. Does the term car as defined include any Chevy Impala?

        If you answered Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, YES. You would be wrong.

        Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, Is the correct legal answer. Those of you who own Chevy Impalas that paid this $25, just donated $25 that you were not required to pay.   Nothing changed because the term uses the letters; C-A-R, instead of the letters; G-A-Z-O-R-M-I-N-N-U-M-P-L-A-Z.

        When I have pointed out parts of U.S. tax law that does just such a type of deception, those supporting this type of deception point to section 7701(c) in an attempt to buttress their weak and deceptive position, claiming to the effect, that the law does indeed tax Chevy Impalas.

I am going to digress for a moment and cover equates (intr. To be or seem to be equal; correspond), and transforms (n. The result, especially a mathematical quantity or linguistic construction, of a transformation.)

So long as something equals something else, then one item can be swapped with another item. The answers and meanings do not change, yet getting the answer becomes easier, understanding the meaning becomes easier, and the meaning itself becomes clearer. We can transform equations into something that will allow us to determine an answer or to determine an understanding. I have color coded the pairs of equates to graphically show the concept.

For example, if A = 10, and B = 3 x A, and C = 10 x B, we can find out what C equals just by swapping equal items.

C = 10 x B Transforms into C = 10 x 3 x A

B = 3 x A Transforms into B = 3 x 10

And thus, C = 10 x 3 x A Transforms into C = 10 x 3 x 10

And thus C = 10 x 3 x 10 allows us to very easily understand that C = 300.

This can be done with words and phrases also. Consider "The worm wiggled the boogie." At face value, these words actually project a kind of funny mental image. However, that mental image is NOT what those words mean.

The term worm means man.
The term wiggled means open and closed.
The term boogie means door.
So "The worm wiggled the boogie." Means "The man open and closed the door."

        Here is another example:

        I was arguing this particular point with a particularly obnoxious person named Ed Senter. I defined some terms for the express purpose of making the point. I "custom defined" the meanings of three words. Those three words are: "Cows graze grass". Do not be deceived by those three innocuous looking words. They contain great insult to Mr. Senter.   Here is the post that explains what the words, "Cows graze grass" means. (Opens in a new window.)

        Proper understanding of terms is crucial for understanding the correct meanings of the law.

Here then, is this deceptive little law, 7701(c):

7701(c) 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.

I snip in steps so that even the most daft of the collaborators can follow along, lest I be accused of changing meanings. We know that this is about the use of "includes" and "including" in this title, (this title, the Internal Revenue Code, or colloquially, Tax Law), So I will remove "when used in a definition contained in this title"

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including"... shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

That is still a little unwieldy, so I remove "be deemed to":

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including"... shall... not exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

And I remove "other ":

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including"... shall... not exclude... things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

And I remove "defined":

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including"... shall... not exclude... things otherwise within the meaning of the term...

Having distilled section 7701(c) to the exact essence of its meaning, I can now proceed.

Repeating what Black's Law dictionary has to say about the word "includes".

The first concept in Black's is: "To confine within, hold as an inclosure." In that case, includes grabs what is listed, AND NO MORE. The root of the term include, is basically to surround. To surround is to have an "inside" and an "outside". Something is then either "inside" or it is "outside". One or the other. There is no third place.

"The term include may, according to context, express enlargement..." which means to surround more, to have another something or somethings on the "inside". "May" as in 'to indicate a possibility', that there could be enlargement. Again, according to context.

Congress creates a class of things by defining the class.
Congress defines the class by giving an example of items in the class.
The items in the class then define the class.

Congress also names or labels the class.
The term is the name or label of the class.
Thus a term is the name or label of a class defined by the items in the class.

The term "gazorminnumplaz" includes sheep, goats, cats, and dogs.

Thus the term "gazorminnumplaz" is the name or label of a class defined by the items in the class.
Thus the class named or labeled "gazorminnumplaz" is defined by the items in that class.

Thus the term "gazorminnumplaz" is the name or label of the class defined by the items, sheep, goats, cats, and dogs, in that class.
Thus the class named or labeled "gazorminnumplaz" is defined by sheep, goats, cats, and dogs.

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including"... shall... not exclude... things otherwise within the meaning of the term...

Substituting for the words "the term".

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including" shall not exclude things otherwise within the meaning of [a class defined by the items in the class].

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including"... shall... not exclude... things otherwise within the meaning of the term...

Substituting for the words "the term" again.

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including" shall not exclude things otherwise within the meaning of [gazorminnumplaz].

Substituting for the word "gazorminnumplaz":

7701(c) The terms "includes" and "including" shall not exclude things otherwise within the meaning of [sheep, goats, cats, and dogs].

Is a Chevy Impala "otherwise within the meaning" of sheep, goats, cats, and dogs?

A VolksWagen Rabbit?

How about a real, live, furry rabbit?

How about Bugs Bunny?

"Eh, what's up IRS collaborator?"

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.

The following highlights what the above quote does not say:

Once a sequence of alphanumeric characters has been defined as a "term", the dictionary meaning DOES NOT APPLY.

        "Where the law lists specific classes...." Thus in defining a term the word "includes" encloses a class, "includes" encloses a list, the items of the list DEFINE THE CLASS.

        This is exactly what section 7701(c) does.   "Shall not exclude things within the meaning of the TERM DEFINED".

        The TERM DEFINED being the name or label for the CLASS DEFINED.

        "Within the meaning of the TERM DEFINED".
        NOT
        "Within the dictionary meaning of the WORD DEFINED".

Returning to case 3 and case 4 from above:

The "CLASS" defined is "animals", regardless of the name or label [gazorminnumplaz] attached to the CLASS.

        The "CLASS" defined is "animals", regardless of the name or label [car] attached to the CLASS.

        Ejusdem generis:   Where a law lists specific classes of things (animals) and then refers to them in general (car, gazorminnumplaz), the general statements only apply to the same kind of things specifically listed (animals).

        Once a sequence of alphanumeric characters has been defined as a "term", the dictionary meaning DOES NOT APPLY. And in the case of "gazorminnumplaz”, What dictionary meaning?

The best argument for the limited and limiting nature of the words "includes" and "including" is what the deceptive legal writers were forced to admit when they specifically wanted to "include" more items than what is on a list. I present IRC section 61(a):

SEC. 61(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items... [Emphasis added]

Oops, a little truth leaked out. Including is NOT an expansive term.

Here is the single most deceptive use of the word term "includes". There are other deceptive uses of the term "includes".

Sec. 3401. Definitions

-STATUTE-
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.

The overriding question in my mind is, What is "otherwise within the meaning of the term" (the custom defined word) "employee"? A second question is, if they meant the dictionary definition of an "employee", why didn't they just use the word and leave the meaning as the common and plain reading of the word?

em·ploy·ee n. A person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

Kiss the dictionary "definition" of the word "employer" good bye. It no longer applies when the word "employer" becomes a "term". Once the "word" becomes a "term", all the items must be "within the meaning of the term defined".

A "private sector employee" is not within the meaning of the "term" "employee", as the meaning of the term employee is defined as "an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof," and "private sector employer" is not "within the meaning of the term defined". A "public employee" is within the meaning of the "term" "employer", as the meaning of the term employer is defined as "an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof," and "public employee" is "within the meaning of the term defined".

15 USC 2651
(b) Labor Department review
Any public or private employee or representative of employees who believes he or she has been fired or otherwise discriminated against in violation of subsection (a) of this section may within 90 days after the alleged violation occurs apply to the Secretary of Labor for a review of the firing or alleged discrimination.

38 USC 4323
(a) Action for Relief. - (1) A person who receives from the Secretary a notification pursuant to section 4322(e) of this title of an unsuccessful effort to resolve a complaint relating to a State (as an employer) or a private employer may request that the Secretary refer the complaint to the Attorney General.

29 USC 2006
(e) Exemption for security services
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (2) and sections 2007 and 2009 of this title, this chapter shall not prohibit the use of polygraph tests on prospective employees by any private employer whose primary business purpose consists of providing armored car personnel,

20 USC 6103.
(8) Employer
The term ''employer'' includes both public and private employers.

Please note that Congress very clearly knows how to include both "public" and "private" entities within the same term.

Keep the above in mind, whenever you see the words “includes” or “including” in ANY definition within the Internal Revenue Code.

Table of Contents