Definition of Includes

[Fogy]

Regarding the following statement, what is the meaning of the word INCLUDES:

"The term includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, Territory, Puerto Rico, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."

1) "Includes" means limited to. Includes means the range of possibilities that the term can be defined as is limited to the explicit list following the word "includes" in this statement, with no other meanings attributed directly or indirectly. Please explain.

2) "Includes" means not limited to. Includes means items listed in this statement do not encompass the entirety of the possible scope of meanings attributed to the term; that exterior defining statements may be compiled elsewhere and combined with the statement above to complete the scope of the term's meanings. Please explain.

3) Some other definition. Please explain.

Where would I find this information on my own?

Thank you.

 

[justalayman]

Where would I find this information on my own?
.

a dictionary

 

[BOR]

Fogy, no doubt you want the definition of "Employee" as to it's inclusiveness, so post the statute you reference.

 

[swalsh411]

You're going to have to provide context as to the specific legal issue you are facing, if one even exists. This is not a homework help forum.

 

[Fogy]

I appreciate the time spent on the replies, with the exception of justalayman's. I'm researching an article and was hoping for clarification. I'm certain this is available in first year law school textbooks, though clearly I don't have any at my disposal as I'm not a student. I appreciate the question was structured as to raise that possibility.

I am indeed trying to identify the definition of Employee for purposes of the W-4 and the aforementioned quote has me confused. Does the word "includes" limit the legal relationship of employee and employer to the scope of what appears to be a rather limited subset, or is the definition expanded elsewhere, or is this statute one of several definitions of Employee?

The statute:
26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(c)-1

26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1Employee.

Again, in the interest of not imposing, I'm most interested in learning where I can go to be self sufficient in researching legal terms as we all know the dictionary does not suffice.

Thanks again.

 

[Zigner]

I appreciate the time spent on the replies, with the exception of justalayman's. I'm researching an article and was hoping for clarification. I'm certain this is available in first year law school textbooks, though clearly I don't have any at my disposal as I'm not a student. I appreciate the question was structured as to raise that possibility.

I am indeed trying to identify the definition of Employee for purposes of the W-4 and the aforementioned quote has me confused. Does the word "includes" limit the legal relationship of employee and employer to the scope of what appears to be a rather limited subset, or is the definition expanded elsewhere, or is this statute one of several definitions of Employee?

The statute:
26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(c)-1

Justia :: 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1Employee.

Again, in the interest of not imposing, I'm most interested in learning where I can go to be self sufficient in researching legal terms as we all know the dictionary does not suffice.

Thanks again.

Are you kidding? The term is self-defined. You just didn't bother posting the entire item. A dictionary IS the most appropriate place to look - kudos to justalayman

 

[BOR]

I appreciate the time spent on the replies, with the exception of justalayman's.

I posted a response over on expert law before I read this. He was correct insofar your post at first wanted the definition of "includes". Such "common" words do not have statutory/common law definitions. Neither have they aquired such a meaning in a legal context there is judicial notice of them.

As I posted over there, you were looking for the definition of employee, NOT includes.

If a statute wishes to be not all inclusive it may be as such "...includes... but not limited to".

The case law under the citation in the USCA will/may shed some light.

 

[pattytx]

I still don't know what the core question is, however.

 

[cbg]

The core question is, how can I twist the definition to give me the answer I want?

He has not, however, indicated which is the answer he wants.