Comment: Sorry, MichaelmcC

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You were fine through the point ... (see in situ)

Sorry, MichaelmcC

You are dead wrong about "includes" There are so many citations about this, it is practically self evident. Sorry to be blunt. Custom definitions are meant to be narrowly defined:
"for the purposes of this section "fruit" means apples and oranges." So, is a pineapple a fruit?? not for the purposes of this statute. Only apples and oranges are "fruit"
How can you tell you are wrong? Because a Chinaman pulling a rickshaw for a rickshaw company in Shanghai, is an employee, no? Is he an employee for the purposes of the I.R.C.? No, then how is he excluded? He is excluded because he is not INCLUDED by statute and the custom definitions. Read:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. (or all others) 11 Co. 58.

WSHIELDS@COMCAST.NET

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man