Persons and Kinds of Persons | Jurisprudence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- In this session i have discussed the Meaning & Definitions of Person, Kinds of Persons, Nature of Legal Person, The concept of Double Capacity & Double Personality and Legal Status of few Human / Things, which we are going to learn in my future classes. Hope this helps.
I have jurisprudence exam 2mmrw and i was literally pulling off my hair not understanding anything.
These videos of your are very easy and helpful and i swear if i pass with flying colours the credit is for you and only you🤗
I wish you all the very best and keep me posted on how it went ☺️😊
Good lecture and very useful. Very thank yoy ,sir
Thanks. Appreciate your efforts you are putting in preparing these videos. Just FYI everyone in my class do follow your videos. Focused perfectly for examination.
My hearty wishes to you and your classmates. Thank you ☺️
Nice explanation very helpful to exam
Pujary sir I appreciate you......
Awesome explanation
NYC lecture ...
Thank you for ur video, it helps for my exam preparation
These videos are very helpful
my paper of jurisprudence and i am watching your videos instead of reading notes
Was it any helpful. I pray for good results for you. That will be a good result for me too ☺️😊👍
Thank you Sir...your videos are very good...
Thanks a lot sir
Excellent
thank u sir well explained
Hi sir please make a playlist for jurisprudence 2 not able to access all...By the way awesome way of teaching...Thnks🥰
interesting classes
Excellent sir
Sir please do video on obligation topic
Great work
Very well explained
Thank you Sir ❤️
List the videos subject wise on your channel.
Can you arrange the videos subject wise, e.g. Contract, Jurisprudence 1&2, Constitution etc.
This is how the cops real arrest a persons and the real the term “person” that apply in the criminal penalties chapter of the internal revenue code (Title 26, Chapter F, Chapter 75). A predicate issue is a determining factual element of the law that determines whether the rest of the law applies. If these people are not the “person” pursuant to § 7343, then nothing else after that can be applied to them. But what we’ve seen and learned first-hand, is that the government likes to “back into” these arguments. They argue that since all the subsequent elements of the law were met, that means the individual must have been the “person” to whom the law applies.
Did all these people meet all the key factual elements necessary to be the “person” in § 7343 who could be charged with a crime? I propose to you that they did not meet the key criteria. In my research of over 125 cases involving clear disputes with 26 U.S.C. § 7343, not a single person challenged all the factual elements of that law. So, in order to understand the factual elements, we’ll have to do some research into it’s civil counterpart § 6671(b) “person” and see if we can make any parallels to the criminal “person” in § 7343.
Definitions
After reviewing over 389 cases dealing with the term “person” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b) that applies to the penalties in Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 68, Subchapter B, I found some very interesting case law that may potentially exonerate Mr. Hendrickson. Here’s how § 6671(b) is defined:
Factual Elements
Must be an individual;
Must be under a duty; and
The duty must be connected with a corporation or attached to his position within a corporation.
Note the similarity to that definition with 26 U.S.C. § 7343 in Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75, Subchapter D:
§ 7343. Definition of term “person”
The term “person” as used in this chapter 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.
Factual Elements - what are the factual elements of § 7343? They have never been defined in case law.
Since we have good case law about § 6671(b) “person,” we’ll look at what the law and the case law show first.
The 1st Factual Element - One Must Be an Individual
Nearly universally in the civil and criminal cases I studied, everyone claimed they weren’t the “person” because they (1) weren’t an employee; (2) weren’t an officer; (3) weren’t a member of a partnership; (4) weren’t tied to the corporation in any other position of authority (board of directors, stock holder, human resources/payroll officer, etc.). In Mr. Hendrickson’s case, he went to great lengths discussing the constitutional and legal reasons why he wasn’t a person based on “includes and including.” No matter what any of the defendants argued about not being the person, the courts found that, at a minimum, they were an individual and thus could be charged.
Here’s how the 9th Circuit explains “includes and including.”
The definition of “persons” in section 6671(b) indicates that the liability imposed by section 6672 upon those other than the employer is not restricted to the classes of persons specifically listed - officers or employees of corporations and members or employees of partnerships. “[B]y use of the word `include[s]’ the definition suggests a calculated indefiniteness with respect to the outer limits of the term” defined. First National Bank In Plant City, Plant City, Florida v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969).
Pacific National Insurance v. United States, 422 F. 2d 26 (9th Cir., 1970) at 29, 30
Based on this, it seems pretty clear that “includes” really means anybody. So where is the limit “within the meaning of the term defined” (26 U.S.C. 7701(c)”? That’s easy! Two paragraphs later, the court clarifies where the limit of “includes” ends:
Indeed, the language itself does not require that they be officers or employees of the corporation at all, so long as they are in fact responsible for controlling 31 corporate disbursements.[11] As we held in Graham, supra, 309 F.2d at 212, “the section must be construed to include all those so connected with a corporation as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred”
Pacific National Insurance v. United States, 422 F. 2d 26 (9th Cir., 1970) at 30, 31
And just so there’s no confusion, here’s the fuller quote from Graham:
In support of the district court Graham here contends that he was not a “person,” as defined in § 6671(b), since he was simply a member of the corporation’s board of directors, was not employed by the corporation and did not serve as an executive officer.[2]’
This is too narrow a reading of the section. The term “person” does include officer and employee, but certainly does not exclude all others. Its scope is illustrated rather than qualified by the specified examples. In our judgment the section must be construed to include all those so connected with a corporation as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred.
United States v. Graham, 309 F. 2d 210 (9th Cir., 1962)
So, as you should be able to conclude, it’s not a good idea to argue “includes and including” because they are expansive but limited “within the meaning of the term defined.” The limit of includes is overwhelmingly clear in this (and other cases), “of a corporation” and “under a duty.” This is so clear that “duty” and “connected with a corporation” are the two fact elements that must be proved in order that one be the “person” within the meaning of § 6671(b).
The interesting thing that the Graham case shows is that 6671(b) applies to anyone! But it also reveals the correct factual issues that need to be proved in order to be the § 6671(b) “person:”
He (1) has a duty; and
The duty is connected with a corporation as to be responsible for the performance of the act in respect of which the violation occurred.
NicE EXPLANtion sir by glory 1 YEAR llb
President of india will be legal person or not , please give the reason
Sir ap aur kon sa subject lectures bnata ho
Visit my play list for many subjects
Okay sir .....
look up dean clifford +_+_+