Proof of vagueness in the Internal Revenue Code (deliberate?) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. mailto: supremelawfirm@yahoo.com Let's take a short journey thru the Code, shall we? Let's say you are charged with failing to file, in violation of IRC section 7203: "Any person required under this title ...." 26 U.S.C. 7203 Are you any such a "person"? Well, section 7203 is in Chapter 75: crimes, other offenses, and forfeitures. Chapter 75 has a distinct definition of "person" at section 7343: 26 U.S.C. 7343 "The term 'person' as used in this chapter [75] 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." Be careful, this definition uses "includes". There is a special definition of "includes" at section 7701(c): 26 U.S.C. 7701 "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." Well, "not/exclude" is a double negative. It can be reduced to two negatives(--1), or one positive (+1): "not - ex - clude" means "+include". Thus, the term "includes" shall be deemed to INclude other things otherwise within the meaning of "person" (the term defined). Ah, but now we have a tautology: "include" is found in a definition of "includes". This is a B-I-G NO-NO in English. Are you getting confused yet? (Come on; don't get discouraged; it gets better!) Keep going: what "other things" are "otherwise" within the meaning of "person" in Chapter 75? Are persons things? Well, no, that is not correct. English has persons, places, and things. So, no "other things" are within the meaning of "person", because "things" and "persons" identify totally distinct groups. But, there is a general definition of "person" at IRC 7701(a)(1): 26 U.S.C. 7701 "The term 'person' shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation." But, this definition is qualified by IRC 7701(a): "When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof --" Problem #1: what is "this title"? Is it Title 26? Yes or no? Is it something OTHER THAN Title 26? Yes or no? Problem #2: is a definition of "person" otherwise distinctly expressed, or not? Well, YES!! Section 7343 says it is a definition of term "person", right in the section heading. So, the answer to Problem #2 is, YES, a definition of "person" is otherwise distinctly expressed. So, the general definition at 7701(a)(1) does NOT appear to apply to Chapter 75. Problem #3: where not manifestly incompatible with the intent of "this title", 7701(a)(1) applies. What is the intent of "this title"? Answer: "intent" is NOT defined ANYWHERE!! Neither is "income" (but that's another story). Let's not go off on tangents, okay? (on - off tangents? :) So, it is simply impossible to determine if any section is incompatible with the intent of "this title", because neither "intent" nor "this title" are defined, either!! Do they want us to expand the general definition at 7701(a)(1) with the addition of those persons defined at 7343? Well, you can't do that, because 7343 distinctly expresses a definition, despite what might be said about the meaning of "includes" at 7701(c). So, we have come full circle: the "person" defined at 7343 must include ONLY those classes of people mentioned, no more, and no less. Last but not least, Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the legislature for the federal zone. Therefore, the corporations to which 7343 must be referring, simply can NOT embrace corporations chartered by the 50 States; they can ONLY embrace federal (municipal) corporations. The same argument can be made about the partnerships discussed in 7343. Where does this leave us? In all honesty, it appears that the ONLY "persons" who can be charged with failing to file are officers or employees of federal corporations, or members or employees of federal zone partnerships, but only when they are under some duty to perform the act of filing. When is THAT? Answer: we honestly do not know. The Code is simply no help in this regard, because we have just gone thru every pertinent section, and come up empty-handed. Conclusion: the penalty for failing to file is too vague to determine who might be required to file, and who might not be required to file. The Sixth Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of accusations. It is the root of the "void for vagueness" doctrine. †IRC section 7203 fails the "void for vagueness" test, as demonstrated above.† /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Supreme Law Firm |