Do I Have To?
In the wake of the federal government’s actions in regards to Covid-19, please allow me to presume that the typical American reader knows that the U.S. government is not particularly concerned with ruling according to the law. It is my desire that this exposure of the State has opened the average citizen to the possibility that they may be following procedures that are not actually law.
The federal income tax fits squarely into this category.
Controlling the Dictionary
Let’s start with Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) of the United States Code, in Section 7701, Chapter 79 (Definitions):
(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
The term “State” is defined as including D.C., but it doesn’t name any other states.
The People’s Court
In order to establish the legal precedent for our interpretation, let’s look at a few court cases.
Nor do we agree with the District Court’s assertion that Congress’ use of the term “political propaganda” was “a wholly gratuitous step designed to express the suspicion with which Congress regarded the materials.” … It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. … As judges, it is our duty to construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.
This means that we cannot use other definitions besides that in the IRC, so “state” only means Washington D.C.
When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S., at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, ‘a definition which declares what a term “means” … excludes any meaning that is not stated’ “)
This repeats and bolsters the decision in Meese v. Keene.
Helvering v. Morgan’s, Inc. (1934)
While the term “includes” may sometimes be taken as synonymous with “means,” it may be used also as the equivalent of “comprehends” or “embraces.” Therefore, under § 200(a), the phrase “taxable year” may, where the context requires it, be taken to embrace all fractional parts of the taxable year;
Thus the definition can be that “state” means D.C.
They Know What They’re Doing
Notice Title 8’s definition of “United States” in 8 USC 1101, which treats Aliens and Nationality:
(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
In the context of immigration, the law defines United States differently than in the setting of income tax.
26 USC 4612, which relates to the taxation of petroleum and crude oil defines “United States”:
The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
It is evident that the writers of these laws were capable of defining “United States” in the tax code to include the continental 50 states, but they did not. Instead, they chose a specific definition that excludes most American citizens.