Comment: A maniac believes the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Code (see in situ)

A maniac believes the

A maniac believes the government would make something purposefully vague in order to exploit it? OR accidentally because it is incompetent? Don't take offense at being called a "d!ckhead"? Here psycho:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/A/1/B/I/61

Re: Wages, Employee, Employer

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-...

Someone is lying to you.

The confusion that whoever your "handler" is made is thinking that "employee" is actually defined in the code. It is not. Notice terms that are defined are followed by "means" and not "includes".

Under Internal Revenue Code § 7701(c), "[t]he 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." Under the 1959 U.S. Supreme Court case of Sims v. United States, the terms "includes" and "including" in section 7701 are terms of expansion, not terms of exclusivity.[2]

Ventura 2012