The Definition of "Includes" cover art

The Definition of "Includes"

The Definition of "Includes"

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 It is March 11.Welcome to yestohellwith.com.In federal statutes, words are not used casually. They are chosen deliberately, and the meaning of those words determines how the law operates.One of the most important words in statutory law is the word “includes.”Most people assume the word simply means for example. They read a statute, see the word includes, and assume it is simply providing a loose illustration of something broader.But statutory language does not operate that way.Congress itself explained how this word is supposed to function. In 26 U.S.C. §7701(c) Congress states:“The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”This tells us something very important.The word includes introduces items that fall within the meaning of the defined term. But those listed items are not random examples. They are deliberate indicators of how Congress chose to frame the scope of the statute.And when Congress uses that word in the definitional section of the Internal Revenue Code, particularly in the provisions that establish the statutory framework of jurisdiction, the language must be read carefully.Courts have long recognized that statutory language must be interpreted according to established rules of construction. One of the oldest of those rules is expressed in the Latin maxim:inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.This means the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of others not expressed.In other words, when lawmakers deliberately identify certain items within a definition, the choice of those items is legally significant.This principle becomes especially important when interpreting tax statutes, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that taxation laws must be interpreted strictly according to the language enacted by Congress.In Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) the Court stated:“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.”The Court repeated the same rule in United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923):“Tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used.”These decisions establish a fundamental rule of law.Tax laws must be applied as written, not expanded by implication, presumption, or administrative interpretation.This is why the word includes becomes so important in the definitional structure of the Internal Revenue Code.When Congress uses the word includes in the statutory framework that describes the jurisdictional terms of the Code, the language must be interpreted according to the words Congress actually chose.Congress has demonstrated throughout Title 26 that when it intends to explicitly enumerate geographic jurisdictions, it knows how to do so clearly and unmistakably.In some provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress expressly lists “the 50 States.”When Congress uses that language, there is no ambiguity.But in other provisions within the definitional framework of the Code, Congress chose different wording and relied upon the term includes instead.Under the rules of statutory construction recognized by the Supreme Court, the language of a tax statute cannot be expanded beyond what Congress actually wrote.Which means that the meaning of statutory definitions must be determined by the language of the statute itself, not by assumptions about what Congress might have intended.This is why careful attention to statutory language matters.Because the enforcement of federal tax law ultimately depends upon the definitions enacted by Congress itself.Understanding how Congress used the word includes is therefore essential to understanding how the statutory framework of the Internal Revenue Code operates.And it is precisely this kind of statutory interpretation that raises legitimate questions concerning congressional intent.Which is why, at the conclusion of this series, a letter will be sent to members of Congress requesting clarification regarding the statutory definitions contained in 26 U.S.C. §7701 and how those definitions relate to the income tax imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1.Be strong.Be wise.And as always,May truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.