Good Faith Beliefs Confront Statutes
Failed to add items
Add to basket failed.
Add to Wish List failed.
Remove from Wish List failed.
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
-
Narrated by:
-
By:
About this listen
It is March 19. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.
Now we are able to connect the two halves of this discussion.
On one side, the Supreme Court says criminal tax liability depends on willfulness — the intentional violation of a known legal duty. On the other side, we have spent days examining definitions in 26 U.S.C. §7701, the function of includes, the meaning of trade or business, and the role of classes of persons and jurisdiction in the Internal Revenue Code.
These are not separate conversations.
They are the same conversation.
Because how can a duty be honestly known if the operative terms of the statute have never been seriously examined?
How can someone truly know a legal duty without asking:
What did Congress mean by United States?What did Congress mean by State?What does includes do under §7701(c)?Why does trade or business expressly include the performance of the functions of a public office?What significance do the classes of persons in the Code carry?Why does the nonresident alien provision reveal a structure of class, activity, jurisdiction, and consequence?
Those questions are not evasive. They are necessary.
And the Supreme Court has long held that tax statutes may not be enlarged by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In Gould v. Gould, the Court said tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In United States v. Merriam, the Court repeated that if the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer.
That means careful attention to definitions is not frivolous. It is part of honest tax analysis.
In the Liberty Dialogues context, the point is this:
A good-faith belief is not formed by ignoring the statute.A good-faith belief is formed by confronting the statute.Reading it.Comparing its terms.Tracing its structure.Asking what Congress actually said.And refusing to let presumption replace proof.
That is what definitions are for.And that is why definitions and jurisdiction are part of the legal substance of good faith.
And as always…
May truth reign supreme.
Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe