CFR is not the most important data, the Statutes at Large are, and they are reflected in the US Code, of which Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26
What is specifically at issue is 26 USC 7701(a)(26), which says:
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
Note that nothing else is included. There's a specific rule in that same section that states, very ambiguously, how inclusion operates, 26 USC 7701(c):
The 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.
So the law does not include, and does not exclude, which is what the Supreme Court said when interpreting this rule. Legal construction would indicate then that the only things included are those of the same kind as the examples given (the things "otherwise within the meaning"). You can't include something if there is no indication by a related example that the thing is included. However, you can certainly get millions of people to think something is included in "trade or business" besides the example given.
This is illustrated by several other definitions that work exactly the same way in USC and CFR. Everyone, do your own research.
CFR is not the most important data, the Statutes at Large are, and they are reflected in the US Code, of which Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26
What is specifically at issue is 26 USC 7701(a)(26), which says:
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
Note that nothing else is included. There's a specific rule in that same section that states, very ambiguously, how inclusion operates, 26 USC 7701(c):
The 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.
So the law does not include, and does not exclude, which is what the Supreme Court said when interpreting this rule. Legal construction would indicate then that the only things included are those of the same kind as the examples given (the things "otherwise within the meaning"). You can't include something if there is no indication by a related example that the thing is included. However, you can certainly get millions of people to think something is included in "trade or business" besides the example given.
This is illustrated by several other definitions that work exactly the same way in USC and CFR. Everyone, do your own research.