BTW, I found a definition for "State" in the tax code that I believe supports my position.
26 USC 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(a) General Rule -- Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title—
(b) Definitions -- For purposes of this section—
Note: As I said earlier, the general definition in Subtitle F can be modified elsewhere to mean something different in another part the code, which is what they do here:
(b)(5) State -- The term “State” means— (i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
So ... why couldn't they be THAT specific for the other section?
They COULD be, but they DON'T, because they WANT people to be deceived.
In this section, they go on to list cities and municipalities under the definition of "State," because some cities, like NYC, also collect an income tax and they WANT information sharing between these other tax collectors.
My point is: They have the capacity to be VERY SPECIFIC, but when they are not, they might be hiding something.
In this case, the definition that only includes DC as a "State" is really stating that the federal government is what that term applies to, generally in the code, unless another definition is given for a specific chapter or section, like here.
Notice: They use the term "means" here rather than "includes." They don't use "includes" because it would require a list that is of the SAME CLASS, and these are not the same class, so they have to list them all, individually.
In Subtitle F, they don't do that because the ONLY class they have authority to do anything with (for the entirety of the internal revenue code) is federal jurisdiction. They only list DC and go on to say "wherever such construction is necessary" ... which is necessary EVERYWHERE in the code.
They COULD define "State any way they want, such as "State means/includes all 50 States that have a population of 5,000,000 residents or more." IOW, they can make up terms to mean something that is FAR DIFFERENT from the common understanding of what the term usually means in everyday language.
That is now legalese works.
I think I have beaten this horse to death, though, so ... carry on.
BTW, I found a definition for "State" in the tax code that I believe supports my position.
26 USC 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(a) General Rule -- Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title—
(b) Definitions -- For purposes of this section—
Note: As I said earlier, the general definition in Subtitle F can be modified elsewhere to mean something different in another part the code, which is what they do here:
(b)(5) State -- The term “State” means— (i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
So ... why couldn't they be THAT specific for the other section?
They COULD be, but they DON'T, because they WANT people to be deceived.
In this section, they go on to list cities and municipalities under the definition of "State," because some cities, like NYC, also collect an income tax and they WANT information sharing between these other tax collectors.
My point is: They have the capacity to be VERY SPECIFIC, but when they are not, they might be hiding something.
In this case, the definition that only includes DC as a "State" is really stating that the federal government is what that term applies to, generally in the code, unless another definition is given for a specific chapter or section, like here.