Is it safe to say, statutorily speaking, that the “an individual” mentioned within the enumerated items following the term “person” in section 7701 is directly referring to “an alien individual” defined further down in that same section as a “resident” or “nonresident”?
I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of that definition. It would have to explicitly say that or rely on a definition of another term contained in this definition.
Though it’s possible in practice, a law might not apply to an individual for other reasons (he hasn’t exercised a privilege, or the law has limited jurisdiction) it would not be correct to assume that definition is more limited than it appears.
I have seen many people lose the argument for trying to asset that they are not an individual or person as defined.
