I rebutted one portion of your analysis in post #51. Would you like to respond?
No? What a surprise.
You wrote:
The statute you are quoting says that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" includes an officer of a corporation. "Includes" doesn't mean "is limited to." In fact, section 7701(c) of the Internal Revenue Code says that "[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" [emphasis added]. So saying that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" "includes" an officer of a corporation means that the term "person" also still includes anything else within the usual meaning of "person."
This will be quick, because your "rebuttal" is based on such a fundamental level of ignorance. First of all, you are very deceitful by underlining the very negation of your argument. In the analysis. I quoted the specific exclusionary statutes of the IRC that apply to the assessment and collection powers. They are, if you would care to notice, more specific than the general definition you quoted.
In law, when something is made different, that counts. It means that the general definition is not applicable, and a specific definition replaces it. Because you can't have two different definitions (including listed descriptions). So what I pointed out is that the IRC itself invokes a more limited applicatory list for those specific powers - that holds over the general list. In fact, that's the reason it exists, to hold over the general list.
Also, despite what you think the IRC "says," it is subject to the rules of construction that address all statutory law. In those rules, there is a concept called "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" - when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.
Many, many statutes in federal and all state laws, as well as numerous court decisions, invoke this principle. It is a mandatory principles because otherwise there is no way to determine between alternate definitions.
Which means that IF it is EVER to be used in an illustrative way, rather than an exclusionary way, that too must be directly indicated. And even if it is indicated, it would not be uswd in an authorization statute for two very good reasons - first, it would not be an authorizational use of the term per se; and second, because it would serve to contradict its purported authority by comparison with another definition.
So your argument has no intrinsic merit, even before it is applied to the subject matter, because you don't even grasp the fundamental principles involved. In fact, your lack of knowledge has generated the very misunderstanding the government tries to evoke in how they write laws so people will presume meanings that aren't there. You are a perfect example of why lawyers get away with fooling people - you don't know the law, you don't understand construction, and you spread false understanding instead of actually learning something.
And your attitude doesn't help you, either.
But hey, I suggest you trust your own knowledge and expertise, and sign up for Obamacare immediately. In fact, I can't think of a more perfect payment you should receive for your legal efforts.